Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Maybe We Really Can’t All Just Get Along

FA Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 6:17 PM
Just how are "Faith-Based Initiatives" a wealth redistribution scheme? Do you even know what that means? The Bush bank bailout was not anything that most conservatives supported, and McCain's slavish devotion to it is probably the reason he lost the election. It was typical McCain, stupid, ill-advised, and not at all a conservative policy.
In response to:

Maybe We Really Can’t All Just Get Along

FA Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 6:12 PM
Nancy, what's your point? Republicans who went along with that went along with the Democrats. And it's one reason why by 2006, they lost control of the Senate and the House. Unlike Democrat voters, Republican voters expect their elected representatives to fulfill their promises. Democrats vote for Democrats no matter WHAT they do, and that's a fact. They don't care about lying, cheating, breaking the law, distorting facts, silencing opposing viewpoints, intimidating voters, or suing people who expose the truth, such as the young man who videotaped the corrupt ACORN shenanigans. Only people with no morals whatsoever would go after the person who exposed the scandal instead of those committing the offenses.
In response to:

Maybe We Really Can’t All Just Get Along

FA Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 6:07 PM
The people making contraception a wedge issue are Democrats, who constantly asked Santorum questions during the debate about contraception, when no one was interested, and it was not even an issue of Santorum's campaign. They also are the ones turning it into a campaign issue by demanding that everyone pay for birth control pills for others. As someone who used them for over 20 years, and personally paid for her own, I find this incredibly annoying. As a woman, I am deeply insulted by a party which tells me that my main issues in life are access to free BC pills and abortion. What am I after all to Dems? Apparently still just a sex object...... pathetic!
In response to:

Maybe We Really Can’t All Just Get Along

FA Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 6:04 PM
Is there a brain upstairs, or are you a mechanical Huffpo wind-bag? WHO is proposing a tax increase on the working poor? And by the way, NOT ONE government program has ever been cut, not even under Reagan. This sort of claim is always either an out-and-out lie, or a reflection of the fact that govt programs are written with automatic increases year by year, and so if someone cuts the rate of increase, it gets reported as an actual "cut", when in fact it is not.
In response to:

Maybe We Really Can’t All Just Get Along

FA Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 5:58 PM
And my third point - just because we pay 3x more than other countries---assuming your figure is true, doesn't mean that it covers exactly the same things. This is because you are focusing on health insurance rather than actual treatment. Just saying one has "health insurance" is a meaningless concept. What if it covers 40% of a $20,000 procedure which you need? What if it does not cover heart transplants? We are a nation of spoiled brats--my evidence being the folks who believe they are "owed" free birth control pills! Your comparison is as useful as comparing oranges and apples. And by the way, Germany does NOT have a "single-payer" system, which I constantly hear stupid US leftists claim.
In response to:

Maybe We Really Can’t All Just Get Along

FA Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 5:54 PM
And by the way, don't think that Obamacare will cut out the insurance companies. It will simply mean adding another layer on top of the health care sandwich. You, the customer, will be dealing with the government, but the government will be utilizing insurance companies, and directing them. Since they do such a bang-up job with things like the post office and social security, we can of course depend on them to do a super-efficient job with health care too!
In response to:

Maybe We Really Can’t All Just Get Along

FA Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 5:52 PM
Yes, and the private insurance companies have been placed in this position of power precisely through government regulation at the federal and the state level. We do NOT have a free market or a capitalist system directing health care. By focusing on health insurance instead of on actual health care or treatment, we have handed over power to insurors so that they dictate treatment and costs. The only way we can realistically keep costs down is to focus on individuals and the choices they make. Current costs now do not reflect actual medical costs but instead reflect suppliers costs, plus many layers billing companies, coders, insurers, and hosts of govt regulators plus the hordes of nonpaying people who by law MUST be treated in ER.
Kenneth, you can't get rid of the housing interest deduction, because it would force a whole lot of people out of their homes, which would cause all housing to decline further in value. Too many people have put together their family budgets and directed their lives based on this calculation. It isn't fair to change it at this point, and it would be counterproductive. Although, in general I agree that a Fair tax is better. But for conservatives to argue on the finer points of our ideal goals is silly when we can't even win a basic election when the economy sucks.
and that money will go to fund more Democrat campaigns.
Capital gains income should not be taxed at all. It is what is left over after your income has already been taxed. By taxing capital gains, you basically are telling people that you will punish them for saving money, instead of spending it all immediately. It is the opposite message that should be spent. When people save money, they are denying themselves current pleasures in order to accomplish a greater good. Why would you want to penalize them? You need to think about the consequences of your foolish attitudes. Calling the Bush years a "reign of terror" tells readers you are an idiot. Exactly what dire consequences did you personally suffer as a result of anything Bush actually did?
A bit of education for PhillupSpace2: The Republican party does NOT pander to millionaires and billionaires any more than the Democrat party does. Do you think John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, etc. are little paupers? Furthermore, the Republican party is the party of upward mobility, and most typically represents the dwindling middle class. The Democrat party is the party of those who are so rich they are shielded from the effects of their destructive policies, and those who receive the most handouts. Perhaps you should ask yourself this question: If Democrats really help poor people, they why is this number increasing? And also, don't you think they have a vested interest in poor people remaining poor? Of course they do!
Previous 11 - 20 Next