why does alaska keep trying to send us their fuckwits?

[Charles_Main]

In recent weeks, Miller has had to respond to a series of disclosures about his past, including reports that he accepted federal farm subsidies in the 1990s, that his wife briefly obtained unemployment benefits, and that his family for a period received Medicaid — benefits he now rails against or believes would be better decided at the state level. He said his family struggled for a time, like a lot of other families have, but that he receives no benefits now and none of this has any relevance to the race

Just because he took subsidies and his wife took unemployment, and his family has been on Medicaid in the past. Does not make him a Hippocratic for wanting to move Medicaid control to the state level and reform other social programs. Just because you have taken such aid in the past. Does not mean you have to stick your head in the sand and IGNORE the fact that said programs are broken, and unsustainable, and reforms need to happen.

I think you are allowing partisanship to blind you of reality here.

Farm subsidies are often abused and inefficient

unemployment (regular state unemployment) is not welfare. Your employer pays 10% of what you make up to a point into a fund to Pay for regular unemployment. so in effect when you collect it you are simply collection your money as it is assumed if employers did not have to put that 10% in, your pay would be higher.

Medicaid is an extremely inefficient and abused program, partly because it is controlled by a massive federal bureaucracy. Wanting to move control of it to the states does not equate to wanting to abolish it. In fact it is a good idea to try to stream line it and reduce abuse and improve efficiency.

my position on the programs is more in line with his than not, but to refuse to answer questions about one's past is bullshit. no one held a gun to his head and forced him to run. how can you evaluate him as a potential office holder if he refuses to answer those questions?

it's not partisan to expect someone who voluntarily puts himself in the public arena to respond to legitimate questions regarding public policy or his past.

Well he is only refusing because his opponent is trying to make him out to be a hippocrate and twist what he actually wants to do with those programs.

He should of answered and explained it the way I did, but that's just me.

 

[del]

Just because he took subsidies and his wife took unemployment, and his family has been on Medicaid in the past. Does not make him a Hippocratic for wanting to move Medicaid control to the state level and reform other social programs. Just because you have taken such aid in the past. Does not mean you have to stick your head in the sand and IGNORE the fact that said programs are broken, and unsustainable, and reforms need to happen.

I think you are allowing partisanship to blind you of reality here.

Farm subsidies are often abused and inefficient

unemployment (regular state unemployment) is not welfare. Your employer pays 10% of what you make up to a point into a fund to Pay for regular unemployment. so in effect when you collect it you are simply collection your money as it is assumed if employers did not have to put that 10% in, your pay would be higher.

Medicaid is an extremely inefficient and abused program, partly because it is controlled by a massive federal bureaucracy. Wanting to move control of it to the states does not equate to wanting to abolish it. In fact it is a good idea to try to stream line it and reduce abuse and improve efficiency.

my position on the programs is more in line with his than not, but to refuse to answer questions about one's past is bullshit. no one held a gun to his head and forced him to run. how can you evaluate him as a potential office holder if he refuses to answer those questions?

it's not partisan to expect someone who voluntarily puts himself in the public arena to respond to legitimate questions regarding public policy or his past.

Well he is only refusing because his opponent is trying to make him out to be a hippocrate and twist what he actually wants to do with those programs.

He should of answered and explained it the way I did, but that's just me.

i think politicians have been twisting each other's words since the roman republic, and his refusal to participate disqualifies him as a candidate, imo.
if he can't express himself well enough to be heard above the noise, i don't think he can advocate for his constituents nor does he give his constituents a fair shot at evaluating him.

we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Charles_Main]

my position on the programs is more in line with his than not, but to refuse to answer questions about one's past is bullshit. no one held a gun to his head and forced him to run. how can you evaluate him as a potential office holder if he refuses to answer those questions?

it's not partisan to expect someone who voluntarily puts himself in the public arena to respond to legitimate questions regarding public policy or his past.

Well he is only refusing because his opponent is trying to make him out to be a hippocrate and twist what he actually wants to do with those programs.

He should of answered and explained it the way I did, but that's just me.

i think politicians have been twisting each other's words since the roman republic, and his refusal to participate disqualifies him as a candidate, imo.
if he can't express himself well enough to be heard above the noise, i don't think he can advocate for his constituents nor does he give his constituents a fair shot at evaluating him.

we'll just have to agree to disagree.

That is actually a valid argument, but as you said, They all do it. So by that logic they all would be disqualified at one point or another.

 

[namvet527]

What you LIBERALS are accusing Miller of is peanuts to the wrongs done by ODUMBO & his JACK ASS dumboKKKrats.

 

[del]

What you LIBERALS are accusing Miller of is peanuts to the wrongs done by ODUMBO & his JACK ASS dumboKKKrats.

thanks for sharing

 

[del]

Well he is only refusing because his opponent is trying to make him out to be a hippocrate and twist what he actually wants to do with those programs.

He should of answered and explained it the way I did, but that's just me.

i think politicians have been twisting each other's words since the roman republic, and his refusal to participate disqualifies him as a candidate, imo.
if he can't express himself well enough to be heard above the noise, i don't think he can advocate for his constituents nor does he give his constituents a fair shot at evaluating him.

we'll just have to agree to disagree.

That is actually a valid argument, but as you said, They all do it. So by that logic they all would be disqualified at one point or another.

i think you've misunderstood my point, but i'm too tired to clarify. or maybe i'm not smart enough. either way, i'm going to bed.

have a good one.

 

[Charles_Main]

i think politicians have been twisting each other's words since the roman republic, and his refusal to participate disqualifies him as a candidate, imo.
if he can't express himself well enough to be heard above the noise, i don't think he can advocate for his constituents nor does he give his constituents a fair shot at evaluating him.

we'll just have to agree to disagree.

That is actually a valid argument, but as you said, They all do it. So by that logic they all would be disqualified at one point or another.

i think you've misunderstood my point, but i'm too tired to clarify. or maybe i'm not smart enough. either way, i'm going to bed.

have a good one.

I know you were saying because he refused to answer he should be disqualified. But Every politician right and left has done that. They do it all the time. They deflect, they answer questions with questions. That is politics.

I am sure you are plenty smart man, Please do not think I am saying you are not. I just think you are letting your Partisan beliefs cloud your judgment a bit. If we disqualified every Politician who has refused to answer questions in the past. we would have none.

I just watched Harry Reid today, asked about his the war is lost comments, completely deflect and in fact claim credit for the surge, after saying in the past it was a failure and we had lost the war. Should he be disqualified for failing to address the question?