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 have attempted to approach this thread with the seriousness the OP was seeking, but last night I watched a Saturday Night Live political retrospective featuring a lot of Bill Clinton. The man was and probably still is, a liar, a dirtbag and a putz.
It's fascinating that the Democrats hold up men like Clinton and Ted Kennedy as their icons.
Ok, yeah, fine...the economics of it are hard to justify at times...
But where I grew up, people starve to death...the whole concept of going to the government because you couldn't feed yourself...that was laughably absurd. Going to a place where they'll work with you if you're homeless....that's a luxury I didn't even know people would ever be willing to provide to you. I look around, and I'm like "What the hell is this? Why is everyone here so nice?" Even the poor are full, clothed and sheltered.
Have you ever seen a naked guy wandering around begging for food? I have...
Trust me when I say it's an amazing thing that you don't know that reality. I don't know if it can be sustained...but the fact that it ever existed, if only for the 80 years that it did (assuming it ends tomorrow), that's an amazing thing.
I do know that reality. I've been to three third-world countries in my life and I've seen the worst of humanity. I've been to Cambodia, Honduras, and the Ivory Coast in aid related work while in college. I'm completely aware of how advanced our system is in regards to how we treat our poor and I believe that we should continue this work. The only discrepancy that the GOP has from the Democrats is that we differ on how it should be funded. I believe that our vast array of private charities and state governments should handle the affairs of the less fortunate. The federal government's responsibility isn't to mitigate the risk of the poor to be unsheltered or unclothed or unfed as if it is some type of deductible-less social insurance. That was never the case for the existence of a centralized governing body and it should not serve that roll. If states want to use their tax revenue to assist the poor in any number of ways...most Republicans (myself included) support that infinitely.
I would argue that the GOP answer for helping the less fortunate is MORE compassionate in that we DON'T argue for financing more aide which in turn devalues or debases our dollar causing our basic foods and necessities to increase in cost. Afterall, inflation and weakened dollars affects the poor more which can expand the base of those seeking assistance from the government.
The Republicans pushed him to repeal Glass-Steagal and deregulate the financial service industry.
And the Democrats threatened to shut down the government unless Bush Sr raised taxes, then campaigned against him for breaking his no new taxes pledge. So, really, Democrats do not have a leg to stand on when trying to absolve a liberal of blame for giving in to pressure from conservatives.
Obama has done an amazing job compared to George W. Bush. Obama's first term started cleaning up the mess Bush left. Just imagine where we would be if Obama actually had a GOP looking to make deals.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_Muz
No, but I did vote for him the 1st time but not the 2nd..
Besides being a vulgar tramp, he created the EPA, and sold us out to red commie china.
To top that, his money for free bubble burst in OCT 2004 and bottomed out on 2008 making homes worthless compared the the note held on them. No one seems to get that idea, but his economic plan is responsible for this mess and Bush did nothing to correct it.
Clinton is a monster.
Clinton created the EPA?
Have you ever considered learning the facts before posting?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid
IMO, Eisenhower was the last good president we've had.
Certainly the last great Republican POTUS and when he warned of the undue influence of the MIC the author of probably the greatest piece of advice ever offered by a POTUS. What a shame it was ignored on both sides of the aisle.
I do know that reality. I've been to three third-world countries in my life and I've seen the worst of humanity. I've been to Cambodia, Honduras, and the Ivory Coast in aid related work while in college. I'm completely aware of how advanced our system is in regards to how we treat our poor and I believe that we should continue this work. The only discrepancy that the GOP has from the Democrats is that we differ on how it should be funded. I believe that our vast array of private charities and state governments should handle the affairs of the less fortunate. The federal government's responsibility isn't to mitigate the risk of the poor to be unsheltered or unclothed or unfed as if it is some type of deductible-less social insurance. That was never the case for the existence of a centralized governing body and it should not serve that roll. If states want to use their tax revenue to assist the poor in any number of ways...most Republicans (myself included) support that infinitely.
I would argue that the GOP answer for helping the less fortunate is MORE compassionate in that we DON'T argue for financing more aide which in turn devalues or debases our dollar causing our basic foods and necessities to increase in cost. Afterall, inflation and weakened dollars affects the poor more which can expand the base of those seeking assistance from the government.
My thing was that he was the guy who started a lot of the social net programs, which is probably the most impressive thing America's government has to offer its people. The fact that you'd agree to how impossible this is for the government to do I think lends to my point...
As for how that's funded, I don't know. I can say it doesn't seem sustainable and I doubt economically you'd ever be able to balance the books. If people don't work and still consume, then the economy is going to be lopsided regardless of the economic policies you implement. At best you can hope to shift the economic effects of that on to another group of people...but those effects will still be felt somewhere. You can take that to the state level, the basic logic won't be different for their economies.
As for private charities/ngos running the show...I've lived where that was the case and so many people fell through the cracks that it honestly didn't seem very effective.
President Nixon created the EPA. Considering the 9/11 attacks and how the USA had to confront this enemy afterward, President Bush provided the valiant leadership that was required during those times. President Reagan was a very good leader that I'm sure many in Eastern Europe appreciate. The last great leader was President Lincoln.
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.
?
