Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ain't gonna happen until low-earning men can carry their financial weight in a relationship.
Wait a minute.. I thought men were all privileged oppressors who can walk into any Fortune 500 company and be handed a cushy job that automatically pays 23% more than every woman in the company?
If someone is poor enough to be on welfare, then how exactly are they going to be able to pay off a loan ??? Who thought this one up ?????
No, see... when we give loans to the poor, then they'll be able to buy houses and those houses will give them equity. When the price of those homes inevitably goes up, the poor can sell those houses and climb out of poverty.
It worked in 2007-- people were given massive loans that they would never be able to pay off so that they could buy houses that they couldn't afford. I seem to recall that when 2008 rolled on in, they flipped those homes and rose out of poverty.
There's absolutely no reason why this wouldn't work again.
"True welfare reform should include strong work requirements, should promote marriage, and should use loans—not grants—to help needy Americans."
Jesus Christ did 2008 teach you nothing??
yeah...stop giving high interest loans to the poor who cannot afford them.
Talk to your buddy in the white house who threaghtend Citibank if they did not do this.
Wait a minute.. I thought men were all privileged oppressors who can walk into any Fortune 500 company and be handed a cushy job that automatically pays 23% more than every woman in the company?
Which further demonstrates that low-earning men in this society are miserable failures.
The article begins with Pierre insisting he go to college. If he's college material than that's okay but there's far more college graduates than are needed. A piece of pig's hide claiming education doesn't qualify one as smart. To wit, a piece of paper with a University emblem.
A good place to start would be to impose the original intent of the Constitution on all of federal government.
yeah...stop giving high interest loans to the poor who cannot afford them.
Talk to your buddy in the white house who threaghtend Citibank if they did not do this.
Bush was entirely responsible and actively supported the practices, as well as undermining all attempts to curb them.
But regardless of who is to blame, why exactly do you think it's a good idea to give loans to people who have almost zero chance of ever paying them back? Do you seriously think that these people are going to go on to become millionaires? Or should we just legalize slavery or human trafficking?
The problem, as I see it, is that conservatives have good ideas on paper; however, they lack the political will and ability to execute them. In other words, they fail to play politics in a way that would lift their rhetorical prattling to words of action and resolve on core issues. One only has to look at the gay marriage debate as example of this. Why would conservatives choose to fight on that issue, instead of trying to appeal to gay couples with their "strong family values"; effectively promoting it?
And the Black vote? Conservatives oftentimes zero in on affirmative action and welfare benefits, which only confirms the former's choice to vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Similarly, Hispanics are driven away by the conservative stance of tough immigration policy, even though both groups very much share other values.
All-in-all, I'm of the opinion that conservatives need to pick their battles more strategically unless they're keen on staying the course akin to the Catholic Church's. With that said, I admire that conservatives are more apt to vote than their liberal counterparts, and this is coming from a progressive liberal.
Do conservatives have a real solution for the 10-15% who are uninsured?
I do, and it would be a "socialist" program. We would, for lack of a better description, have a military style branch of the government devoted to healthcare. Coming out of high school, or whatever, you can enlist into this branch just like the military. You get trained, maybe as a nurse, lab-tech, therapist or even a doctor. Depending upon your type of training, you are committed to X years of service, just like the military, to wherever they assign you. There will be hospitals, just like military bases, and neighborhood clinics, just like recruiting stations. You enroll to become a patient, and you pay based upon things including your income, and you actually have a form to go with your taxes. So it will be funded by taxes and by services billed. If you've ever been in a military vehicle, aircraft or base, you know that, for the most part, it's all about function. So many of the "rooms" in the hospitals will be barracks style, you don't receive a private or semi-private room unless your conditions demands it. It will be utilitarian to reduce costs. No fancy waterfalls out front, no tv's in waiting areas, etc. There won't be the overhead of insurance. Salaries are reduced because the staff received free training and have service terms, just like the military.
This will never happen though.
The idiot liberals have destroyed this place.
It's over.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
