Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Conservatuives are more fear driven due to that enlarged portion of their brain. they cannot help it.
The are also more like the Siths in that they tend to deal in absolutes.
Care to give an example?
Government help is Bad.
Churches are Good.
Gays are Bad.
Marriage is only good if it's between a man and a woman.
Iraq want's liberty and that means democracy.
I guess I could go on for another hour. Republicans and conservatives, nearly to a man, deal in absolutes. They rarely see "shades of gray".
Why are you such a dick? I've never seen anything posted by you that wasn't an insult.
They don't like it when its done to them you see. Cognitive dissonance I believe is the term for it.
On that note, the current crop of Conservatives seem to believe in privatizing the gains and socializing the losses.
See TARP
The current crop?
once again you delude yourself with the claim that conservatives believe more in freedom.
that's just nonsense.
conservatives believe in laws against pot
conservatives believe in denying gays the freedom to marry'
conservatives believe in regulations to limit or eliminate divorce
conservaatives oppose (the freedom to have) sex until married
cons oppose a womans right to choose
cons oppose the rights of gays to join the military, adopt babies
cons believe in imposing/indoctrinating ALL children with their religious beliefs
and SOME cons would ban evolution and atheism
enforce the christian 10 commandments
deny rights to non christians
criminalize homosexuality and...socialist beliefs?
atheism?
both sides would limit our freedoms
just different freedoms
I am a Conservative and I don't really care if your sexual preferances involve dead chickens and cottage cheese or if you prefer to have male, female, multiple or inter species spouses as long as you don't harm others in your pursuits or demand that i pay for for your predlictions.
You are confusing Conservatives with the Republican coalition of whack jobs.
Interesting that both you and SOLO took the lists so personally, when the two postings represented two sets of generalities. I'm not a "lib" or a "lefty" either, but I get it that those terms are intended to lump together anyone who isn't a "con" or a "rightie." Republican "whack job" is another story. I suppose that term applies to any Republican who expresses interest in cooperating with Democrats, which is ignorant.
I am a Conservative and I don't really care if your sexual preferances involve dead chickens and cottage cheese or if you prefer to have male, female, multiple or inter species spouses as long as you don't harm others in your pursuits or demand that i pay for for your predlictions.
You are confusing Conservatives with the Republican coalition of whack jobs.
Interesting that both you and SOLO took the lists so personally, when the two postings represented two sets of generalities. I'm not a "lib" or a "lefty" either, but I get it that those terms are intended to lump together anyone who isn't a "con" or a "rightie." Republican "whack job" is another story. I suppose that term applies to any Republican who expresses interest in cooperating with Democrats, which is ignorant.
I've been on this board for a while and many people say that ALL CONSERVATIVES fill in the blank.
I've started calling folks out on this. I am a Conservative and if they want to debate an actual real live Conservative with nuanced opinions based on life experience, they are welcome. If their only goal is display their bias and tilt against straw men, they are free to do so.
I'm not at all sure what your last sentence means.
The nice thing about being a liberal is that you get to be defined by your goal and not your actual plan. If you are for government indoctrination and control of education you are "pro-education" no matter how poor the actual results are. If you are for appeasement you are "pro-peace" even though appeasement hasn't ever worked in combating evil governments. And if you are close minded sheep who all believe the same thing on every issue you are "liberal."Watch lot's of TV do ya?
Liberalism, it beats thinking...
At least we have plans. Conservatives are all talk and no action. They KNOW what needs to be done, making EDUCATION a top priority for example, yet they talk about abolishing the Department of Education. They KNOW that the biggest cost added to Medicare was the unfunded prescription drug mandate they put in place, but continue to blame liberals for the Medicare program in general. I could go on, but I'm sure others will select other examples which I hope you will ponder.
It's truly amusing to see such a hypocritical statement such as accusing liberals of being closed-minded sheep. Did you miss the last decade somehow? Or how about just the last six months when the true "liberals" in Washington refused to support extension of the tax cuts. Or their fury when health care became a proposal to control insurance costs rather than universal care. That was nearly two years ago.
You've got some homework waiting, if you're truly interested in becoming a player here.
This is why FDR, when he started Social Security, it only affected widows and orphans. You did not qualify. And yet now it is something that really helps a lot of people. When Medicare was started, it was a small program. It grew.
Interesting that both you and SOLO took the lists so personally, when the two postings represented two sets of generalities. I'm not a "lib" or a "lefty" either, but I get it that those terms are intended to lump together anyone who isn't a "con" or a "rightie." Republican "whack job" is another story. I suppose that term applies to any Republican who expresses interest in cooperating with Democrats, which is ignorant.
I've been on this board for a while and many people say that ALL CONSERVATIVES fill in the blank.
I've started calling folks out on this. I am a Conservative and if they want to debate an actual real live Conservative with nuanced opinions based on life experience, they are welcome. If their only goal is display their bias and tilt against straw men, they are free to do so.
I'm not at all sure what your last sentence means.
It means the several who post here who wouldn't agree with my (and other non-con) opinions if their mothers' lives depended on it. And yes, there are those on the left who are the same. Tunnel-visioned to the point of absurdity. I started a thread a few weeks ago when I discovered an endeavor by about 75 left and right political thinkers called "No Labels," and immediately got shot down by a bunch of loud-mouthed bloviators. I had full intentions of trying to stop my own snarkiness, but since I could see no one else wanted to join the challenge, I'm back to "If you can't beat 'em, might as well join 'em." Tit for tat. There's only one other message board where that doesn't go on, and I always make sure it's the last one I visit every day in order to maintain my blood pressure at a healthy level.
I've been on this board for a while and many people say that ALL CONSERVATIVES fill in the blank.
I've started calling folks out on this. I am a Conservative and if they want to debate an actual real live Conservative with nuanced opinions based on life experience, they are welcome. If their only goal is display their bias and tilt against straw men, they are free to do so.
I'm not at all sure what your last sentence means.
It means the several who post here who wouldn't agree with my (and other non-con) opinions if their mothers' lives depended on it. And yes, there are those on the left who are the same. Tunnel-visioned to the point of absurdity. I started a thread a few weeks ago when I discovered an endeavor by about 75 left and right political thinkers called "No Labels," and immediately got shot down by a bunch of loud-mouthed bloviators. I had full intentions of trying to stop my own snarkiness, but since I could see no one else wanted to join the challenge, I'm back to "If you can't beat 'em, might as well join 'em." Tit for tat. There's only one other message board where that doesn't go on, and I always make sure it's the last one I visit every day in order to maintain my blood pressure at a healthy level.
For me, Republican Whack job doesn't mean a Republican who agrees with Democrats. I doubt that it means that to most.
For me, a Republican Whack job is one who agrees with Republicans due to party affiliation and the same defines Democrat whack jobs who agree with Democrats due to party affiliation.
Case in point: Bush ran an over spending administration which ran up large deficits, centralized national power and presided over an education system that produced falling test scores and a foreign policy that was beligerant and intrusive. Democrats opposed him. Republicans supported him.
The Big is doing all of the same things except that he is running up bigger debts faster.
The Dems and the Repubs have switched cheerleader skirts and pom poms. Clinton proposed a Social Security Reform which the Reps opposed. Bush proposed virtually the same idea and the Dems opposed it.
Both sides have whack jobs and they simply don't think. All they do is hate and attack.
I'm trying to figure out how to fit 6% of anything self identifying into this statement and just can't.
I've been on this board for a while and many people say that ALL CONSERVATIVES fill in the blank.
I've started calling folks out on this. I am a Conservative and if they want to debate an actual real live Conservative with nuanced opinions based on life experience, they are welcome. If their only goal is display their bias and tilt against straw men, they are free to do so.
I'm not at all sure what your last sentence means.
It means the several who post here who wouldn't agree with my (and other non-con) opinions if their mothers' lives depended on it. And yes, there are those on the left who are the same. Tunnel-visioned to the point of absurdity. I started a thread a few weeks ago when I discovered an endeavor by about 75 left and right political thinkers called "No Labels," and immediately got shot down by a bunch of loud-mouthed bloviators. I had full intentions of trying to stop my own snarkiness, but since I could see no one else wanted to join the challenge, I'm back to "If you can't beat 'em, might as well join 'em." Tit for tat. There's only one other message board where that doesn't go on, and I always make sure it's the last one I visit every day in order to maintain my blood pressure at a healthy level.
For me, Republican Whack job doesn't mean a Republican who agrees with Democrats. I doubt that it means that to most.
For me, a Republican Whack job is one who agrees with Republicans due to party affiliation and the same defines Democrat whack jobs who agree with Democrats due to party affiliation.
Case in point: Bush ran an over spending administration which ran up large deficits, centralized national power and presided over an education system that produced falling test scores and a foreign policy that was beligerant and intrusive. Democrats opposed him. Republicans supported him.
The Big is doing all of the same things except that he is running up bigger debts faster.
The Dems and the Repubs have switched cheerleader skirts and pom poms. Clinton proposed a Social Security Reform which the Reps opposed. Bush proposed virtually the same idea and the Dems opposed it.
Both sides have whack jobs and they simply don't think. All they do is hate and attack.
I'm trying to figure out how to fit 6% of anything self identifying into this statement and just can't.
It means the several who post here who wouldn't agree with my (and other non-con) opinions if their mothers' lives depended on it. And yes, there are those on the left who are the same. Tunnel-visioned to the point of absurdity. I started a thread a few weeks ago when I discovered an endeavor by about 75 left and right political thinkers called "No Labels," and immediately got shot down by a bunch of loud-mouthed bloviators. I had full intentions of trying to stop my own snarkiness, but since I could see no one else wanted to join the challenge, I'm back to "If you can't beat 'em, might as well join 'em." Tit for tat. There's only one other message board where that doesn't go on, and I always make sure it's the last one I visit every day in order to maintain my blood pressure at a healthy level.
For me, Republican Whack job doesn't mean a Republican who agrees with Democrats. I doubt that it means that to most.
For me, a Republican Whack job is one who agrees with Republicans due to party affiliation and the same defines Democrat whack jobs who agree with Democrats due to party affiliation.
Case in point: Bush ran an over spending administration which ran up large deficits, centralized national power and presided over an education system that produced falling test scores and a foreign policy that was beligerant and intrusive. Democrats opposed him. Republicans supported him.
The Big is doing all of the same things except that he is running up bigger debts faster.
The Dems and the Repubs have switched cheerleader skirts and pom poms. Clinton proposed a Social Security Reform which the Reps opposed. Bush proposed virtually the same idea and the Dems opposed it.
Both sides have whack jobs and they simply don't think. All they do is hate and attack.
I'm trying to figure out how to fit 6% of anything self identifying into this statement and just can't.
I can't either. As soon as you say something middle-road, you get lambasted by the wackos. I recall that I was the ONLY one from the "left" who thought the deal made for keeping the tax cuts in place for two years for everyone was a good one. Those on the right (here, anyway) thought the deal stunk because the Republicans had to make some major concessions elsewhere. I'm really looking forward to the day, if I don't die first, that people who contribute to this board acknowledge that there is no way in hell this country will ever move forward without compromise deals all the time.
It means the several who post here who wouldn't agree with my (and other non-con) opinions if their mothers' lives depended on it. And yes, there are those on the left who are the same. Tunnel-visioned to the point of absurdity. I started a thread a few weeks ago when I discovered an endeavor by about 75 left and right political thinkers called "No Labels," and immediately got shot down by a bunch of loud-mouthed bloviators. I had full intentions of trying to stop my own snarkiness, but since I could see no one else wanted to join the challenge, I'm back to "If you can't beat 'em, might as well join 'em." Tit for tat. There's only one other message board where that doesn't go on, and I always make sure it's the last one I visit every day in order to maintain my blood pressure at a healthy level.
For me, Republican Whack job doesn't mean a Republican who agrees with Democrats. I doubt that it means that to most.
For me, a Republican Whack job is one who agrees with Republicans due to party affiliation and the same defines Democrat whack jobs who agree with Democrats due to party affiliation.
Case in point: Bush ran an over spending administration which ran up large deficits, centralized national power and presided over an education system that produced falling test scores and a foreign policy that was beligerant and intrusive. Democrats opposed him. Republicans supported him.
The Big is doing all of the same things except that he is running up bigger debts faster.
The Dems and the Repubs have switched cheerleader skirts and pom poms. Clinton proposed a Social Security Reform which the Reps opposed. Bush proposed virtually the same idea and the Dems opposed it.
Both sides have whack jobs and they simply don't think. All they do is hate and attack.
I'm trying to figure out how to fit 6% of anything self identifying into this statement and just can't.
Clinton proposed a Social Security Reform which the Reps opposed. Bush proposed virtually the same idea and the Dems opposed it.
What idea was that?
For me, Republican Whack job doesn't mean a Republican who agrees with Democrats. I doubt that it means that to most.
For me, a Republican Whack job is one who agrees with Republicans due to party affiliation and the same defines Democrat whack jobs who agree with Democrats due to party affiliation.
Case in point: Bush ran an over spending administration which ran up large deficits, centralized national power and presided over an education system that produced falling test scores and a foreign policy that was beligerant and intrusive. Democrats opposed him. Republicans supported him.
The Big is doing all of the same things except that he is running up bigger debts faster.
The Dems and the Repubs have switched cheerleader skirts and pom poms. Clinton proposed a Social Security Reform which the Reps opposed. Bush proposed virtually the same idea and the Dems opposed it.
Both sides have whack jobs and they simply don't think. All they do is hate and attack.
I'm trying to figure out how to fit 6% of anything self identifying into this statement and just can't.
I can't either. As soon as you say something middle-road, you get lambasted by the wackos. I recall that I was the ONLY one from the "left" who thought the deal made for keeping the tax cuts in place for two years for everyone was a good one. Those on the right (here, anyway) thought the deal stunk because the Republicans had to make some major concessions elsewhere. I'm really looking forward to the day, if I don't die first, that people who contribute to this board acknowledge that there is no way in hell this country will ever move forward without compromise deals all the time.
Problems crop up when one side offers up something like the Health Insurance Reform Act that will cost about a trillion in tax dollars, raise taxes on everything from tanning beds to health spending accounts and increase the debt geometrically.
The problem is the cost and the devious lies that hide those costs by stealing money from medicare separating out the "Doc Fix" and so on.
I honestly don't see a way to comprimise on something like that.
An arena a comprimise would be to have both sides agree that we will collect a given amount of taxes next year. The comprimise, then, is to decide how to spend that amount of money. Until now, the comprimises have always been like a disfunctional young married couple in which the husband takes out a loan to buy a pick up and the wife and does the same to buy a Mustang.
They can't afford either, let alone both.
We have a Congress that has operated for too long without adult supervision.
For me, Republican Whack job doesn't mean a Republican who agrees with Democrats. I doubt that it means that to most.
For me, a Republican Whack job is one who agrees with Republicans due to party affiliation and the same defines Democrat whack jobs who agree with Democrats due to party affiliation.
Case in point: Bush ran an over spending administration which ran up large deficits, centralized national power and presided over an education system that produced falling test scores and a foreign policy that was beligerant and intrusive. Democrats opposed him. Republicans supported him.
The Big is doing all of the same things except that he is running up bigger debts faster.
The Dems and the Repubs have switched cheerleader skirts and pom poms. Clinton proposed a Social Security Reform which the Reps opposed. Bush proposed virtually the same idea and the Dems opposed it.
Both sides have whack jobs and they simply don't think. All they do is hate and attack.
I'm trying to figure out how to fit 6% of anything self identifying into this statement and just can't.
Clinton proposed a Social Security Reform which the Reps opposed. Bush proposed virtually the same idea and the Dems opposed it.
What idea was that?
It depends on which side of the debate ones sits. Below is a cut and paste from a discussion on this from policy.org. If you're a Dem listening to Bush say this your response is that you "should get your greedy hands off of my social security".
If you're a Rep listening to Clinton say this, your response is that the blue dress was never dry cleaned.
Both were advocating private or personal accounts. Bush wanted to have the individual be able to set aside part of his withheld payroll tax to create a personal account and Clinton wanted to use the surplus to do the same thing. Since the surplus was a fleeting illusion, it amounts to the same thing.
The point is that both Bush and Clinton had essentially the same plan with minor tuning differences and it was opposed by the opposite party just because it was the opposite party.
Social Security Reform
Still another approach is reflected in bills that would require that future budget surpluses be used to finance personal accounts to supplement Social Security benefits for those who pay Social Security taxes. Former President Clinton's January 1999 reform plan would have allocated a portion of the surpluses to personal accounts supplemented by a worker's own contributions and a government match (scaled to income). Another part of his plan called for the diversion of a portion of budget surpluses or the interest savings resulting therefrom to the Social Security trust funds, some of which would be used to acquire stocks, similar to the approach suggested in the one of the Advisory Council's plans and in some recent bills. Most of these approaches require that a new independent board would invest some of these new funds in stock or corporate bonds and the rest in federal securities.
IMHO, the lefties cannot (or will not) define themselves. They will resort to insults if you ask them to explain where they stand, or if they stand for anything at all. They will tell you all day long about anything and everything they disagree with or can see a need for improvement. That can be helpful if everything is going well and you have resources for "investment". When you are concerned about food & shelter (that means individual property rights, including being able to defend said property), that kind of criticism/suggestion can get old, and it distracts from the goals of security.
The lefties use social ills to gain power. They will tell you that giving up resources (for the good of _____); it is really them stealing power. Often they will divide the population into "groups" and "pit" them against each other to vote each others' rights away. Example: "the filthy rich" that make over $250,000 a year, are pitted against those that do not. The implication: they are taking money that should be yours. In reality, they might be running a small business that has costs that eat into that income, risks and worries that, those that do not make that much, simply don't want to deal with. It is a great responsibility, they may have several employees that they pay and try to give benefits (to keep the good employees).
Lefties will claim a "group" does not have equal rights when they are looking to give "additional" rights (take rights from all those that do not belong to that group). Lefties will claim their "intellect" is superior to those that are concerned about physical problems, without ever mentioning wisdom.
Lefties will use selective facts to try to discredit beliefs they disagree with, but will provide no evidence/facts that what they "propose" actually works (or has ever worked).
If you want to have a discussion about a leftie's beliefs, you will be called names, responded to in a condescending manner, and your questions will never be answered.
Conservatives believe that each individual should have rights, and those rights should be protected equally by the law. Conservatives believe that each person is responsible for their own action (their are exceptions for age and illness). Conservatives believe that their chose charity, not the govenment should decide who is helped. Conservatives believe in upholding the laws (traffic laws are some times stretched, a little), and that every person in the country should be held to the same standards (if some one broke the law to get here, they are choosing to select the laws they want to follow, and I would like that privelage too, I wouldn't pay taxes if I could choose with law I didn't want to follow). Our country is extremely special and our borders should be secure. If you want to come to this country for "freedom", do not come here and try to change it to "your group's" advantage. We have learned (most of us the hard way) that the tradditional ways: work hard, improve yourself, save and invest are the ONLY way to become content and successful. The lefties will tell us we are wrong, but to date, they have not given testimony/witness that anything else works.
You get to pick what you want to be. Have fun.
Incredibly, you seem to have formed a whole bunch of opinions about "lefties" in spite of the fact that "[they] cannot (or will not) define themselves." Imagine that.
Of course if you had actually absorbed some of the many posts right here in this thread by so-called "lefties," you would see many definitions. That's the biggest problem with "righties." Reading comprehension, if they bother to read at all.
I can't either. As soon as you say something middle-road, you get lambasted by the wackos. I recall that I was the ONLY one from the "left" who thought the deal made for keeping the tax cuts in place for two years for everyone was a good one. Those on the right (here, anyway) thought the deal stunk because the Republicans had to make some major concessions elsewhere. I'm really looking forward to the day, if I don't die first, that people who contribute to this board acknowledge that there is no way in hell this country will ever move forward without compromise deals all the time.
Problems crop up when one side offers up something like the Health Insurance Reform Act that will cost about a trillion in tax dollars, raise taxes on everything from tanning beds to health spending accounts and increase the debt geometrically.
The problem is the cost and the devious lies that hide those costs by stealing money from medicare separating out the "Doc Fix" and so on.
I honestly don't see a way to comprimise on something like that.
An arena a comprimise would be to have both sides agree that we will collect a given amount of taxes next year. The comprimise, then, is to decide how to spend that amount of money. Until now, the comprimises have always been like a disfunctional young married couple in which the husband takes out a loan to buy a pick up and the wife and does the same to buy a Mustang.
They can't afford either, let alone both.
We have a Congress that has operated for too long without adult supervision.
The gridlock didn't begin with health care reform. It began about 10 years ago with an our-way-or-the-highway mentality that had developed. There's a root problem there that needs to be resolved. You can't just pick and choose which issues doomed the system because it then becomes an argument over the fine points of single issues which further perpetuates the I'm-right-you're-wrong mindset.
For example, your comment "stealing from Medicare" to make your point is inaccurate. Medicare ADVANTAGE PLANS will be (and are) being greatly reduced because it doesn't make sense to "steal from" Medicare's general fund in order to pay for extra coverage provided by advantage plans and then turn around and subsidize the insurance companies who cover those extras. That's the only "theft" that has occurred within the Medicare funding.
I was talking about compromise in general. It isn't a novel idea, you know. But you chose to use Medicare as your example as to why compromise is impossible, and I have to argue the facts of that situation, so we get from that a debate over the issue and nothing else. See what I mean?
What are some of the Primary problems between Liberals and Conservatives today? What are Key differences and beliefs between the 2 groups and how are these issues addressed and taken?
What are negatives and positives of Liberals and Conservatives and how they deal with issues? Which group in your opinion seems to make better sense and more credible decisions when dealing with issues and Why?
Clinton proposed a Social Security Reform which the Reps opposed. Bush proposed virtually the same idea and the Dems opposed it.
What idea was that?
It depends on which side of the debate ones sits. Below is a cut and paste from a discussion on this from policy.org. If you're a Dem listening to Bush say this your response is that you "should get your greedy hands off of my social security".
If you're a Rep listening to Clinton say this, your response is that the blue dress was never dry cleaned.
Both were advocating private or personal accounts. Bush wanted to have the individual be able to set aside part of his withheld payroll tax to create a personal account and Clinton wanted to use the surplus to do the same thing. Since the surplus was a fleeting illusion, it amounts to the same thing.
The point is that both Bush and Clinton had essentially the same plan with minor tuning differences and it was opposed by the opposite party just because it was the opposite party.
Social Security Reform
Still another approach is reflected in bills that would require that future budget surpluses be used to finance personal accounts to supplement Social Security benefits for those who pay Social Security taxes. Former President Clinton's January 1999 reform plan would have allocated a portion of the surpluses to personal accounts supplemented by a worker's own contributions and a government match (scaled to income). Another part of his plan called for the diversion of a portion of budget surpluses or the interest savings resulting therefrom to the Social Security trust funds, some of which would be used to acquire stocks, similar to the approach suggested in the one of the Advisory Council's plans and in some recent bills. Most of these approaches require that a new independent board would invest some of these new funds in stock or corporate bonds and the rest in federal securities.
By Jove, I think you've got it after all!!
Problems crop up when one side offers up something like the Health Insurance Reform Act that will cost about a trillion in tax dollars, raise taxes on everything from tanning beds to health spending accounts and increase the debt geometrically.
The problem is the cost and the devious lies that hide those costs by stealing money from medicare separating out the "Doc Fix" and so on.
I honestly don't see a way to comprimise on something like that.
An arena a comprimise would be to have both sides agree that we will collect a given amount of taxes next year. The comprimise, then, is to decide how to spend that amount of money. Until now, the comprimises have always been like a disfunctional young married couple in which the husband takes out a loan to buy a pick up and the wife and does the same to buy a Mustang.
They can't afford either, let alone both.
We have a Congress that has operated for too long without adult supervision.
The gridlock didn't begin with health care reform. It began about 10 years ago with an our-way-or-the-highway mentality that had developed. There's a root problem there that needs to be resolved. You can't just pick and choose which issues doomed the system because it then becomes an argument over the fine points of single issues which further perpetuates the I'm-right-you're-wrong mindset.
For example, your comment "stealing from Medicare" to make your point is inaccurate. Medicare ADVANTAGE PLANS will be (and are) being greatly reduced because it doesn't make sense to "steal from" Medicare's general fund in order to pay for extra coverage provided by advantage plans and then turn around and subsidize the insurance companies who cover those extras. That's the only "theft" that has occurred within the Medicare funding.
I was talking about compromise in general. It isn't a novel idea, you know. But you chose to use Medicare as your example as to why compromise is impossible, and I have to argue the facts of that situation, so we get from that a debate over the issue and nothing else. See what I mean?
The "stealing from medicare" part was an example of the deceptive smoke and mirrors explanation of how a program that will raise insurance premiums, raise taxes by about a trillion dollars and transfer funds from other programs while hiding additional costs in additional bills, is presented as a cost saving program.
Our best chance of reaching comprimise in government is found where we are right now: Divided Government. When one party has oppressive majorities, we end up with Obamacare. There is no better exampe of a bad thing unless one considers the Failed Stimulus.
Let's just lump them together to find two huge and directionless money wasting boondoggles that demonstrate what happens while idealogues abandon reason to achieve agendas.
These two programs are virtually identical in effect. They allocate funds along party line ideals and goals. They are huge and unmanagable. The cash is spent and the intended benefit is not possible within their structures. The sales jobs were based on and comprised of half truths, inuendo and lies.
The majorities of both houses passed them with impunity using device instead of process and both have outraged the American public due to the outcomes and deceit.
With the Government divided as it is now, a discussion would have been required and we would have saved about 2 trillion in debt and probably not have the economy just now recovering 2 years later instead of when it would have naturally with no "help" from government last June.
We also would have had a budget to work from over the last two years.
Between Nancy, Harry and the Big 0, the "checks and balances" envisioned by the Framers were swept aside. It's too late to save the Failed Stimulus funds, but perhaps the Obamacare fiasco is still "checkable" in the courts.
Those Framers were pretty smart guys. They could produce the Declaration and understand that politicians are snakes.
