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.
Mutt Romney is about the most obnoxious person in DC. Even more obnoxious than Pelosi, AOC, Biden, Harris, etc, because at least with these obnoxious leftists, we know where they stand. They make that clear--they want to destroy America as a free nation and transform it into a hell on earth. On the other hand, Mutt is sailing in his leaky little dinghy (watch that homonym "dingy"! The leftist grammar nazis will pounce) under false colors. He wants to destroy America, but he won't admit it.
I wish someone would sink Mutt's dinghy. Get the vermin out of office. He's a Bunyanesque malignant carbuncle on the already stage-four America.
Not surprised. Neo cons claim to hate welfare but don't mind targeting to their own pet causes.
They have a history of punishing the single, childless and elderly and redistribute to families. The "family values party", often tied in with their religious views.
In such cases I'd rather have a big progressive liberal hand out UBI to everyone equally, at least it's fair.
Is this limited to the Republican party though? I don't think either major party has policies that are especially favorable towards single and childless people. I don't really see this with the elderly, but I'm open to considering evidence that they receive unfavorable treatment in fiscal policy.
As a childless person, I don't have any problem with support of children being a priority. I think it's a smart investment that a civilized and advanced society should make. However, it does need to be target to actually benefit children.
If it's a simple payout for an upper-middle class family that's already getting preferential tax treatment to afford a more luxurious lifestyle, then no, I don't support that money being taken from a single person who is struggling to pay rent but can't because they're bumped up into a much higher tax bracket because they're single.
I do support helping children receive needed health care, food, preventing them from becoming homeless, and preventing them from going to public schools with a leaking roof that the school board can't afford to fix.
Love the liberal-Newspeak for your link: "Very large families would be somewhat penalized, but many families with three or four kids will get the full benefit."
Romney wants to give families up to $350 per kid per month, but since there is a $15,000 a year limit to free money per family - that is "penalizing" families with boat loads of kids, because they can only get $15,000 a year in free money that they didn't earn.
Every day they come up with a proposal to print out of thin air.
There is also about 9 years of baby boomers left to be Medicare age and 11 years left of baby boomers to be full retirement age and many of the new retirees are going to the maximum Social Security benefit.
Many of the next decade baby boomers has made very high salaries last two decades thanks to the economic bubbles and will be recieving the maximum amount of Social Security benefits which is about $3,100/mo, many of them also have ex-spouses who will be drawing half that also.
The country would be better off by a huge margin if they passed a law granting $10,000 to everyone under 25 who got a vasectomy or their tubes tied.
Crime would eventually be reduced by orders of magnitude, and we’d save boatloads of money in entitlement programs.
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.