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.
quit being a dumb ass you know the next president is going to have to tackle the high the high deductables and family glitch, Hillary is already talking about it.In your case...I am glad to hear itObamacare worksGreat program that left the working poor out to dryWhich is why, 50 fucking years ago, we created Medicaid with bipartisan support in Congress.
Thankfully Obamacare took care of those who had been left out
.
Right, and in the process it fucked up insurance of the other 95% of the population.
Great liberal solution.
It is bringing down healthcare costs for the first time in decades
ROFL! What total bullshit. I'm paying far more for a policy that is virtually worthless. It has a $13,500 deductible and it doesn't pay a cent towards doctor visits.
Payback is a bitch
I liked my policy and I kept it
NonsenseOnce againKeeping unneeded troops is not creating jobsWait a minute Rightwinger, your argument was that government is responsible in "CREATING" jobs. Here I provided some facts that the Obama administration was cutting troop size, and in another post cutting production of F-22 Raptors as well as downsizing Naval ship building. So what happened to all those big job numbers that government is responsible for "creating" in the military? So now you are saying government job cuts and downsizing is good for our economy. I guess we have to look at the private sector and small business to be the anchor for real job growth as opposed to government. I mean reducing the military budget and cutting back on troops doesn't sound positive if your needs depend upon you being "employed" in this economy.
The government can use the same money they used to spend on the military and use it on infrastructure, schools, energy research, healthcare
Better jobs that actually help Americans.....not counties that hate us anyway
We recycled that speech on "infrastructure" since Obama took office and pushed that stimulus bill, which contained wasted spending we didn't need to be spending on.
If you looked at the building of our interstate highways and bridges, you would also know that to build them was allocated by the federal government, but to MAINTAIN them was the responsibility of the individual states. This is why the states created tolls and some include state gas taxes, meant to be used to pay for our "infrastructure", as it's not the responsibility of our Federal Government (and our tax dollars) to step in when our states fail to properly manage their own individual budgets. So let's stop recycling THAT excuse to waste taxpayer dollars.
I don't give a fuck if it done at the federal, state or local level
Taxes are still taxes and it is still Government doing it
As long as my federal tax dollars aren't being wasted funding another state's infrastructure budget. Once again, and it's very clear, it's NOT the responsibility of the Federal Government to maintain our states' infrastructure.
However, it very much IS the responsibility of our nation's government to provide funding for our military, which includes maintaining and replacing it's aging aircraft as well as equipment. You see this is why Democrats complain about our troops not being adequately supplied with important necessities like armoured vehicles and vests, but then forget that it's a direct result of their OWN party cutting that funding while still expecting our military to be adequately equipped during a time of combat. This is the problem with giving the role of our Federal Government things it was never meant to do, while neglecting those responsibilities for which they are.
The job should be done at the level that is most efficient and makes the most sense
Some infrastructure projects are too important and require too much funding to be handled at the state level. Providing some federal funding makes sense
NonsenseOnce againKeeping unneeded troops is not creating jobs
The government can use the same money they used to spend on the military and use it on infrastructure, schools, energy research, healthcare
Better jobs that actually help Americans.....not counties that hate us anyway
We recycled that speech on "infrastructure" since Obama took office and pushed that stimulus bill, which contained wasted spending we didn't need to be spending on.
If you looked at the building of our interstate highways and bridges, you would also know that to build them was allocated by the federal government, but to MAINTAIN them was the responsibility of the individual states. This is why the states created tolls and some include state gas taxes, meant to be used to pay for our "infrastructure", as it's not the responsibility of our Federal Government (and our tax dollars) to step in when our states fail to properly manage their own individual budgets. So let's stop recycling THAT excuse to waste taxpayer dollars.
I don't give a fuck if it done at the federal, state or local level
Taxes are still taxes and it is still Government doing it
As long as my federal tax dollars aren't being wasted funding another state's infrastructure budget. Once again, and it's very clear, it's NOT the responsibility of the Federal Government to maintain our states' infrastructure.
However, it very much IS the responsibility of our nation's government to provide funding for our military, which includes maintaining and replacing it's aging aircraft as well as equipment. You see this is why Democrats complain about our troops not being adequately supplied with important necessities like armoured vehicles and vests, but then forget that it's a direct result of their OWN party cutting that funding while still expecting our military to be adequately equipped during a time of combat. This is the problem with giving the role of our Federal Government things it was never meant to do, while neglecting those responsibilities for which they are.
The job should be done at the level that is most efficient and makes the most sense
Some infrastructure projects are too important and require too much funding to be handled at the state level. Providing some federal funding makes sense
No. This is why the state has something called a BUDGET, it's not my fault another state has mismanaged their revenue and neglected their responsibility to upkeep their roads and bridges. If the state misappropriates their funds, that's the states fault, my federal tax dollars should not pay for what is clearly the responsibility of the state to do - period! This is NOT a role that's allocated to our Federal Government, let them manage their OWN funds and be responsibe for their own decisions
(wow! A state that actually has some accountability and responsibility to its taxpayers, now there's a novel concept)
No"payback" for what, paying taxes so a bunch of ticks on the ass of society don't have to work?In your case...I am glad to hear itObamacare worksRight, and in the process it fucked up insurance of the other 95% of the population.
Great liberal solution.
It is bringing down healthcare costs for the first time in decades
ROFL! What total bullshit. I'm paying far more for a policy that is virtually worthless. It has a $13,500 deductible and it doesn't pay a cent towards doctor visits.
Payback is a bitch
I liked my policy and I kept it
You just made it obvious that you despise the hard working taxpayers of American who pay their bills.
You think Americans are all suckers, don't you?
I just celebrate those who fought so hard to keep others from getting health coverage having to pay more
A bridge over the river is an interstate matter.NonsenseOnce againWe recycled that speech on "infrastructure" since Obama took office and pushed that stimulus bill, which contained wasted spending we didn't need to be spending on.
If you looked at the building of our interstate highways and bridges, you would also know that to build them was allocated by the federal government, but to MAINTAIN them was the responsibility of the individual states. This is why the states created tolls and some include state gas taxes, meant to be used to pay for our "infrastructure", as it's not the responsibility of our Federal Government (and our tax dollars) to step in when our states fail to properly manage their own individual budgets. So let's stop recycling THAT excuse to waste taxpayer dollars.
I don't give a fuck if it done at the federal, state or local level
Taxes are still taxes and it is still Government doing it
As long as my federal tax dollars aren't being wasted funding another state's infrastructure budget. Once again, and it's very clear, it's NOT the responsibility of the Federal Government to maintain our states' infrastructure.
However, it very much IS the responsibility of our nation's government to provide funding for our military, which includes maintaining and replacing it's aging aircraft as well as equipment. You see this is why Democrats complain about our troops not being adequately supplied with important necessities like armoured vehicles and vests, but then forget that it's a direct result of their OWN party cutting that funding while still expecting our military to be adequately equipped during a time of combat. This is the problem with giving the role of our Federal Government things it was never meant to do, while neglecting those responsibilities for which they are.
The job should be done at the level that is most efficient and makes the most sense
Some infrastructure projects are too important and require too much funding to be handled at the state level. Providing some federal funding makes sense
No. This is why the state has something called a BUDGET, it's not my fault another state has mismanaged their revenue and neglected their responsibility to upkeep their roads and bridges. If the state misappropriates their funds, that's the states fault, my federal tax dollars should not pay for what is clearly the responsibility of the state to do - period! This is NOT a role that's allocated to our Federal Government, let them manage their OWN funds and be responsibe for their own decisions
(wow! A state that actually has some accountability and responsibility to its taxpayers, now there's a novel concept)
Some states are wealthier than other states
States without a strong source of revenue (lets call them "red states") cannot afford major infrastructure improvements. Lets say one of those red states is on the Mississippi River. A bridge over the river is critical to interstate commerce. Should we allow east west traffic to end because a state is too cheap to build a bridge?
America has aspects of fascism, socialism and corporatism mixed in with it's free market capitalism. It is not a pure run by the book free market economy or run like one.Some of our biggest industries are regulated by government to control competition. Cable TV is one of them. Broadcast radio and TV are two more. Production and distribution of electricity and other utilities like water also face competition control. The list goes on.
Your state is dwarfed by the timber production numbers in the top three producing states of California, Oregon and Washington. Those states rely on National Forest. Other big timber states like Idaho, Montana and most all of the western states rely on National Forest. The federal government owns over 190 million acres of timber producing National Forest.
Don't say I am saying things I haven't said. I have not been promoting the government be allowed to control every facet of our lives. You just made that up to embellish your bullshit.
Nope... a government that "controls competition" is called a Fascist government. That is a Fascist system.
In a free market capitalist system, the market, supply and demand control competition.
My state has nothing to do with my connection to the timber industry. I currently lease over 10k acres of land in 5 different states, none of which are my home state. I understand the Fed has a lot of national forest land and they do lease the land for timber removal because this decreases risk of wildfires. It does not, by any means, account for the majority of timber harvested in this country and if you think so you're an idiot.
A bridge over the river is an interstate matter.NonsenseOnce again
I don't give a fuck if it done at the federal, state or local level
Taxes are still taxes and it is still Government doing it
As long as my federal tax dollars aren't being wasted funding another state's infrastructure budget. Once again, and it's very clear, it's NOT the responsibility of the Federal Government to maintain our states' infrastructure.
However, it very much IS the responsibility of our nation's government to provide funding for our military, which includes maintaining and replacing it's aging aircraft as well as equipment. You see this is why Democrats complain about our troops not being adequately supplied with important necessities like armoured vehicles and vests, but then forget that it's a direct result of their OWN party cutting that funding while still expecting our military to be adequately equipped during a time of combat. This is the problem with giving the role of our Federal Government things it was never meant to do, while neglecting those responsibilities for which they are.
The job should be done at the level that is most efficient and makes the most sense
Some infrastructure projects are too important and require too much funding to be handled at the state level. Providing some federal funding makes sense
No. This is why the state has something called a BUDGET, it's not my fault another state has mismanaged their revenue and neglected their responsibility to upkeep their roads and bridges. If the state misappropriates their funds, that's the states fault, my federal tax dollars should not pay for what is clearly the responsibility of the state to do - period! This is NOT a role that's allocated to our Federal Government, let them manage their OWN funds and be responsibe for their own decisions
(wow! A state that actually has some accountability and responsibility to its taxpayers, now there's a novel concept)
Some states are wealthier than other states
States without a strong source of revenue (lets call them "red states") cannot afford major infrastructure improvements. Lets say one of those red states is on the Mississippi River. A bridge over the river is critical to interstate commerce. Should we allow east west traffic to end because a state is too cheap to build a bridge?
you lose.
If you can't afford something, you dont buy it.A bridge over the river is an interstate matter.NonsenseAs long as my federal tax dollars aren't being wasted funding another state's infrastructure budget. Once again, and it's very clear, it's NOT the responsibility of the Federal Government to maintain our states' infrastructure.
However, it very much IS the responsibility of our nation's government to provide funding for our military, which includes maintaining and replacing it's aging aircraft as well as equipment. You see this is why Democrats complain about our troops not being adequately supplied with important necessities like armoured vehicles and vests, but then forget that it's a direct result of their OWN party cutting that funding while still expecting our military to be adequately equipped during a time of combat. This is the problem with giving the role of our Federal Government things it was never meant to do, while neglecting those responsibilities for which they are.
The job should be done at the level that is most efficient and makes the most sense
Some infrastructure projects are too important and require too much funding to be handled at the state level. Providing some federal funding makes sense
No. This is why the state has something called a BUDGET, it's not my fault another state has mismanaged their revenue and neglected their responsibility to upkeep their roads and bridges. If the state misappropriates their funds, that's the states fault, my federal tax dollars should not pay for what is clearly the responsibility of the state to do - period! This is NOT a role that's allocated to our Federal Government, let them manage their OWN funds and be responsibe for their own decisions
(wow! A state that actually has some accountability and responsibility to its taxpayers, now there's a novel concept)
Some states are wealthier than other states
States without a strong source of revenue (lets call them "red states") cannot afford major infrastructure improvements. Lets say one of those red states is on the Mississippi River. A bridge over the river is critical to interstate commerce. Should we allow east west traffic to end because a state is too cheap to build a bridge?
you lose.
Who pays?
If the state on either side (lets call them "red" states) cannot afford a bridge
Some states are wealthier than other states
States without a strong source of revenue (lets call them "red states") cannot afford major infrastructure improvements. Lets say one of those red states is on the Mississippi River. A bridge over the river is critical to interstate commerce. Should we allow east west traffic to end because a state is too cheap to build a bridge?
If you can't afford something, you dont buy it.
This is logic libs just can't grasp.
If you can't afford something, you dont buy it.A bridge over the river is an interstate matter.Nonsense
The job should be done at the level that is most efficient and makes the most sense
Some infrastructure projects are too important and require too much funding to be handled at the state level. Providing some federal funding makes sense
No. This is why the state has something called a BUDGET, it's not my fault another state has mismanaged their revenue and neglected their responsibility to upkeep their roads and bridges. If the state misappropriates their funds, that's the states fault, my federal tax dollars should not pay for what is clearly the responsibility of the state to do - period! This is NOT a role that's allocated to our Federal Government, let them manage their OWN funds and be responsibe for their own decisions
(wow! A state that actually has some accountability and responsibility to its taxpayers, now there's a novel concept)
Some states are wealthier than other states
States without a strong source of revenue (lets call them "red states") cannot afford major infrastructure improvements. Lets say one of those red states is on the Mississippi River. A bridge over the river is critical to interstate commerce. Should we allow east west traffic to end because a state is too cheap to build a bridge?
you lose.
Who pays?
If the state on either side (lets call them "red" states) cannot afford a bridge
This is logic libs just can't grasp.
If you can't afford something, you dont buy it.A bridge over the river is an interstate matter.No. This is why the state has something called a BUDGET, it's not my fault another state has mismanaged their revenue and neglected their responsibility to upkeep their roads and bridges. If the state misappropriates their funds, that's the states fault, my federal tax dollars should not pay for what is clearly the responsibility of the state to do - period! This is NOT a role that's allocated to our Federal Government, let them manage their OWN funds and be responsibe for their own decisions
(wow! A state that actually has some accountability and responsibility to its taxpayers, now there's a novel concept)
Some states are wealthier than other states
States without a strong source of revenue (lets call them "red states") cannot afford major infrastructure improvements. Lets say one of those red states is on the Mississippi River. A bridge over the river is critical to interstate commerce. Should we allow east west traffic to end because a state is too cheap to build a bridge?
you lose.
Who pays?
If the state on either side (lets call them "red" states) cannot afford a bridge
This is logic libs just can't grasp.
Libertarian paradise
your liberal paradise has put the country 18 trillion in debt. we are borrowing 40% of what the govt spends every year. How long will you libs support the fiscal destruction of our country?
...Until it is destroyed completely and they can usher in Socialism!
If you can't afford something, you dont buy it.A bridge over the river is an interstate matter.Some states are wealthier than other states
States without a strong source of revenue (lets call them "red states") cannot afford major infrastructure improvements. Lets say one of those red states is on the Mississippi River. A bridge over the river is critical to interstate commerce. Should we allow east west traffic to end because a state is too cheap to build a bridge?
you lose.
Who pays?
If the state on either side (lets call them "red" states) cannot afford a bridge
This is logic libs just can't grasp.
Libertarian paradise
your liberal paradise has put the country 18 trillion in debt. we are borrowing 40% of what the govt spends every year. How long will you libs support the fiscal destruction of our country?
There was no federal debt prior to Reagan? Wow, who knew?If you can't afford something, you dont buy it.A bridge over the river is an interstate matter.
you lose.
Who pays?
If the state on either side (lets call them "red" states) cannot afford a bridge
This is logic libs just can't grasp.
Libertarian paradise
your liberal paradise has put the country 18 trillion in debt. we are borrowing 40% of what the govt spends every year. How long will you libs support the fiscal destruction of our country?
Reaganomics put us on the path to debt
We haven't loked back since.......as Cheney says....deficits don't matter
There was no federal debt prior to Reagan? Wow, who knew?If you can't afford something, you dont buy it.Who pays?
If the state on either side (lets call them "red" states) cannot afford a bridge
This is logic libs just can't grasp.
Libertarian paradise
your liberal paradise has put the country 18 trillion in debt. we are borrowing 40% of what the govt spends every year. How long will you libs support the fiscal destruction of our country?
Reaganomics put us on the path to debt
We haven't loked back since.......as Cheney says....deficits don't matter
Obama adde\d more debt than every other president combined. WHy arent you complaining?There was no federal debt prior to Reagan? Wow, who knew?If you can't afford something, you dont buy it.
This is logic libs just can't grasp.
Libertarian paradise
your liberal paradise has put the country 18 trillion in debt. we are borrowing 40% of what the govt spends every year. How long will you libs support the fiscal destruction of our country?
Reaganomics put us on the path to debt
We haven't loked back since.......as Cheney says....deficits don't matter
Reagan tripled the debt.....what he called a good start
But debt never mattered to Republicans.....until a Democrat became President
There goes your Rabbi math againObama adde\d more debt than every other president combined. WHy arent you complaining?There was no federal debt prior to Reagan? Wow, who knew?Libertarian paradise
your liberal paradise has put the country 18 trillion in debt. we are borrowing 40% of what the govt spends every year. How long will you libs support the fiscal destruction of our country?
Reaganomics put us on the path to debt
We haven't loked back since.......as Cheney says....deficits don't matter
Reagan tripled the debt.....what he called a good start
But debt never mattered to Republicans.....until a Democrat became President
More distortion. The facts are there. Obama is the biggest spender in history.There goes your Rabbi math againObama adde\d more debt than every other president combined. WHy arent you complaining?There was no federal debt prior to Reagan? Wow, who knew?your liberal paradise has put the country 18 trillion in debt. we are borrowing 40% of what the govt spends every year. How long will you libs support the fiscal destruction of our country?
Reaganomics put us on the path to debt
We haven't loked back since.......as Cheney says....deficits don't matter
Reagan tripled the debt.....what he called a good start
But debt never mattered to Republicans.....until a Democrat became President
11+ 7 = 22
More distortion. The facts are there. Obama is the biggest spender in history.There goes your Rabbi math againObama adde\d more debt than every other president combined. WHy arent you complaining?There was no federal debt prior to Reagan? Wow, who knew?Reaganomics put us on the path to debt
We haven't loked back since.......as Cheney says....deficits don't matter
Reagan tripled the debt.....what he called a good start
But debt never mattered to Republicans.....until a Democrat became President
11+ 7 = 22
