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.
I would gladly vote for a candidate the promised help for the indigent instead of bailouts for the hyper wealthy gamblers that nearly destroyed the economy by speculating with home mortgages. IIRC they were all REPUBLICANS.
I would gladly vote for a candidate the promised help for the indigent instead of bailouts for the hyper wealthy gamblers that nearly destroyed the economy by speculating with home mortgages. IIRC they were all REPUBLICANS.
I suggest you go back and look at the makeup of Congress when TARP was passed. The House and Senate were not 100% Republicans.
The answer to that must be yes for millions of Americans because that's the Democrat election plan for 2012 and it worked great in 2008.
Liberals like to call it "voting for your own interests" which means getting **** for free.
Really?
Well since all of you on the right now say that Bush wasn't a "true conservative" and was a big spender (that big ass Medicare bill...whew), why did he win two terms? You voted for him twice...surely you know the answer.
Or is getting "free money" ok as long as you're a doctor or defense contractor.
the posts would imply that if we just switch parties the problem is fixed.
when the ship goes down the sharks dont notice if its dem or GOP, the meat all tastes the same.
I would gladly vote for a candidate the promised help for the indigent instead of bailouts for the hyper wealthy gamblers that nearly destroyed the economy by speculating with home mortgages. IIRC they were all REPUBLICANS.
That sounds like intentional ignorance... who ran Freddie/Fannie? Democrats... who want lower income Americans access to home loans? Democrats.... which lobbyist for corporations who stand to make billions by facilitating home loans to lower income Americans? Democrats... who are the super wealthy gamblers that had to gain from liberal policies? The entire political spectrum.... of course, when I say Democrats, that translates in the liberal mind as Republicans...
Well since all of you on the right now say that Bush wasn't a "true conservative" and was a big spender (that big ass Medicare bill...whew), why did he win two terms? You voted for him twice...surely you know the answer.
Or is getting "free money" ok as long as you're a doctor or defense contractor.
I didn't vote for Bush for either of his terms but people picked the better of 2 bad options just like they'll do in 2012 when they kick Obama back to Chicago where he belongs.
Do you think that a large percentage of voters are well informed and have done their homework on a candidate's positions and record before voting?
Will some people vote for a Presidential candidate solely to try to get more handouts?
Will some people vote against a candidate because, in their opinion, he or she sucks?
Welfare/foodstamp recipients are a very small voting block, so what does it matter. Ederly are a larger block and tend to vote more conservative, but take away their "entitlements" and see them start to vote more for democrats. There are also just as many if not more entitlement users that are republicans, if you are implying that all obama voters are on welfare...
Do you think that a large percentage of voters are well informed and have done their homework on a candidate's positions and record before voting?
Will some people vote for a Presidential candidate solely to try to get more handouts?
Will some people vote against a candidate because, in their opinion, he or she sucks?
Okay, I think YOU are uninformed. ENTITLEMENT SPENDING is NOT THE SAME AS SOCIAL WELFARE!
Entitlements are things like Social Security, medicare and unemployment, i.e., things the government takes money out of everyone's paycheck to finance. If you work for years and have X amount of dollars removed from your check for SS, medicare and unemployment than guess what? You have been paying for it so when the time comes, you are ENTITLED TO GET BACK WHAT YOU ALREADY PAID FOR. Hence the term "ENTITLEMENT"
Now, social welfare is different. That is when the government seeks to help people out via programs like Food Stamps, WIC, Medicaid, student financial Aid etc...but social welfare, which tends to help people, is just a drop in the bucket compared to CORPORATE WELFARE that goes to giant corporations in the form of zero-interest loans, tax loopholes, grants, "investments" etc.
However, few conservatives ever through a fit about corporate welfare...wonder why?
Now, would I vote for someone who wanted to expand welfare SPENDING? No. However, if someone said they wanted to increase the OUTPUT of welfare programs while cutting the bureaucratic costs, I would vote for such a person. How can that be done? Simple, by merging programs and decreasing the bureaucratic mess that accounts for almost 30% of those programs budgets. So, if WIC, Food Stamps, and the other DOZEN PROGRAMS we have to feed poor Americans were merged into one, it would be more efficient and could help more people while at the same time resulting in a net decrease in the size of government.
So why don't they do that?
Well, the GOP is beholden to hillbilly voters who can't wrap their minds around these concepts. Meanwhile, the Democratic party is beholden to the government bureaucrats who make six figures a year and may loose their jobs if government was made more efficient...and us centrists? We're stuck watching this mess with no common sense unfold, as usual.
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.
Only 1 candidate will not promise money for votes
