Should Welfare be a Disqualification for Voting?

[Truthmatters]

why do you refuse every bit of the best sources?

Wikipedia is not the best, it's actually the worst. IMO

what the **** was that site you provided fool?


wiki is one million times better than some idiots blog like you provided.

its all linked to the sources.

Just saying wiki is no good for no reason is ******* stupid asshole.

BTW I provided websters dictionary and other links too.

you provided some ******* blog

 

[Kosh]

It is funny that during the Nixon years the (R)'s came up with a way to make insurance more affordable and the (D)'s were the party of NO. Back in those days it would allow the individual to shop for the best insurance and allow insurance companies to cross state lines. The states would be responsible for determining the best way to handle insurance.

The far left has always want the Fed government to control every aspect of this. Even Carter shot down the far left and se saw what happened when you cross the far left, nothing has changed in that manner. Obamacare was 40+ years in the making.

So to the far left:

Would you object to anyone being on welfare not to be allowed to have children?

 

[Truthmatters]

Direct democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


direct or pure democracy and democracy are not the same thing

From your link and the very first sentence.

Direct democracy (also known as pure democracy) is a form of democracy in which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on, etc.) policy initiatives directly, as opposed to a representative democracy in which people vote for representatives who then decide policy initiatives.

what did Jefferson call us?

The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; Thomas Jefferson

yeah a blog is better than these sources huh

 

[Kosh]

I don't know about that, but they can certainly inspire Congressmen to draft bills based on their ideas. The individual mandate is a prime example. The Heritage Foundation came up with that idea back in the 80's. In the 90's, some Republicans adopted the concept as a counter-proposal to HillaryCare; though they never did draft a bill after HillaryCare faded away.

Even more far left propaganda!

Your delusional denials do nothing to alter history.

And the far left revision of history is not how history played out.

I assume you can back up your comments as you demand other to. Although I doubt that you can do it with out using a far left propaganda blog site or without posting lies and half truths.

 

[Truthmatters]

Wikipedia is not the best, it's actually the worst. IMO

the meriam Webster dictionary ?

YOU rely on sources that change with ebb and flow of SOCIETAL CHANGE...but refuse to see truth...YOU should change your name...you belie it.

You trust glen Beck


I trust the dictionary and the founders

 

[DiamondDave]

the meriam Webster dictionary ?

YOU rely on sources that change with ebb and flow of SOCIETAL CHANGE...but refuse to see truth...YOU should change your name...you belie it.

You trust glen Beck


I trust the dictionary and the founders

Evidently.. you do not trust the founders, nor the constitution.. for you advocate something we were never set up to be

Why the **** this site ever let your troll ass back is beyond me

 

[Truthmatters]

Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.
Ronald Reagan
Read more at Democracy Quotes - BrainyQuote

You HATE Ronny Regan too?

 

[rightwinger]

It is funny that during the Nixon years the (R)'s came up with a way to make insurance more affordable and the (D)'s were the party of NO. Back in those days it would allow the individual to shop for the best insurance and allow insurance companies to cross state lines. The states would be responsible for determining the best way to handle insurance.

The far left has always want the Fed government to control every aspect of this. Even Carter shot down the far left and se saw what happened when you cross the far left, nothing has changed in that manner. Obamacare was 40+ years in the making.

So to the far left:

Would you object to anyone being on welfare not to be allowed to have children?

Still trying to sell that interstate insurance as a solution to all our insurance woes

Guess what Republicans?

Tort Reform and interstate sales are just bandaids and will have minimal impact on health insurance rates.

 

[Kosh]

It is funny that during the Nixon years the (R)'s came up with a way to make insurance more affordable and the (D)'s were the party of NO. Back in those days it would allow the individual to shop for the best insurance and allow insurance companies to cross state lines. The states would be responsible for determining the best way to handle insurance.

The far left has always want the Fed government to control every aspect of this. Even Carter shot down the far left and se saw what happened when you cross the far left, nothing has changed in that manner. Obamacare was 40+ years in the making.

So to the far left:

Would you object to anyone being on welfare not to be allowed to have children?

Still trying to sell that interstate insurance as a solution to all our insurance woes

Guess what Republicans?

Tort Reform and interstate sales are just bandaids and will have minimal impact on health insurance rates.

And the far left shows why they should not be in charge of anything.

still posting in talking points and propaganda.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

When I pointed out that Republicans failed to pass oversight while they controlled Congress whereas Democrats did pass oversight when they took over, you claimed I was wrong....

.... so why am I still waiting for you to prove it???

Believe me it's not all that hard when public testimony speaks for itself.

September 2008

Rep. Arthur Davis, whose testimony is found above in October 2004, now admits Democrats were in error: "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."

Archived-Articles: Why the Mortgage Crisis Happened

You didn't answer the first time, but who knows, maybe you'll answer this time ... ?

Remind me again ... which party was in control of Congress in 2004?

Do you believe rep Arthur Davis had misspoken in his views towards his Democrat colleagues? After all he did witness the bickering by the Democrats and the events of the Fannie and Freddie oversight unfolded well after 2006.

Are you suggesting the "controlling party" which stood idle and allowed the economy to crash and unemployment to soar paints a much better picture?

 

[Faun]

Even more far left propaganda!

Your delusional denials do nothing to alter history.

And the far left revision of history is not how history played out.

I assume you can back up your comments as you demand other to. Although I doubt that you can do it with out using a far left propaganda blog site or without posting lies and half truths.

You ignore my links, so why should I give you any? You asked for a link to prove my assertion that the Democrat-led Congress passed oversight of the GSE's. I proved that with a link for you and you apparently ignored it.

What part of the post above do you contest now? That Heritage Foundation came up with the individual mandate in the 80's? Or that some Republicans in Congress adopted the idea in the 90's I response to HillaryCare?

And how about some proof from you ... ? Prove you're not bat shit crazy .....

 

[Faun]

Believe me it's not all that hard when public testimony speaks for itself.

September 2008

Rep. Arthur Davis, whose testimony is found above in October 2004, now admits Democrats were in error: "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."

Archived-Articles: Why the Mortgage Crisis Happened

You didn't answer the first time, but who knows, maybe you'll answer this time ... ?

Remind me again ... which party was in control of Congress in 2004?

Do you believe rep Arthur Davis had misspoken in his views towards his Democrat colleagues? After all he did witness the bickering by the Democrats and the events of the Fannie and Freddie oversight unfolded well after 2006.

Are you suggesting the "controlling party" which stood idle and allowed the economy to crash and unemployment to soar paints a much better picture?

He said Democrats were on the wrong side of the issue when Republicans controlled the Congress. I agree with him. However, Democrats were the minority party with limited power. It's beyond ludicrous to blame a handful of members of the minority party for the failure of the majority party to pass legislation which could have prevented the financial meltdown.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

It isn't hateful to suggest that it is scary to see people on welfare voting for people who promise more welfare. Even if you do blatantly rob the rich to pay for it you can't keep growing the gravy train forever. There have to be limits.

What people on here are suggesting is in their opinion one method for limiting that cycle. They see a problem and are suggesting a solution. Is it the right solution? Maybe not. It definitely isn't a popular solution though which means it will never get off the ground in anything but hypothetical discussions. At least not anytime soon.

Or scary to suggest that the rich will vote for those who promise lower taxes
Or the farmers will vote for those who promise more subsidies
Or the elderly will vote for those who promise to increase social security
Or the young will vote for those who promise scholarships

Who will be left to vote?

Everybody if we make it unconstitutional for Congress, the President, or the bureaucrats to pass out any freebies to anybody. . , .

or

Everybody but the welfare recipients if we require everybody else to pay a flat tax on their earnings so that everybody feels the consequences of all those freebies.

How about every time the President feels a need simply have an increase in the debt ceiling passed, without working with Congress on a proposal addresing spending limits and a short term debt reduction plan, all members of the Legislative branch must face a pay cut as part of the approval process.

 

[DiamondDave]

Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.
Ronald Reagan
Read more at Democracy Quotes - BrainyQuote

You HATE Ronny Regan too?

Even a president can misuse a word or term... or state something that is not really fact

See the reference to 57 states

 

[Foxfyre]

Or scary to suggest that the rich will vote for those who promise lower taxes
Or the farmers will vote for those who promise more subsidies
Or the elderly will vote for those who promise to increase social security
Or the young will vote for those who promise scholarships

Who will be left to vote?

Everybody if we make it unconstitutional for Congress, the President, or the bureaucrats to pass out any freebies to anybody. . , .

or

Everybody but the welfare recipients if we require everybody else to pay a flat tax on their earnings so that everybody feels the consequences of all those freebies.

How about every time the President feels a need simply have an increase in the debt ceiling passed, without working with Congress on a proposal addresing spending limits and a short term debt reduction plan, all members of the Legislative branch must face a pay cut as part of the approval process.

Their pay is not all that big deal to most of them. Far better to remove their ability use their power, position, and influence to get rich at our expense. Take away their ability to pass out freebies and there is no advantage to rounding up the 'poor' and trucking them to the polls and pointing to the name on the ballot they need to vote for to keep the freebies coming. There is no advantage to giving millions in campaign donations to a candidate, because that candidate won't be able to reciprocate with subsidies or targeted legislation to advantage somebody.

In fact, there would be no advantage to being a federal professional politician and self serving people would stop seeking those jobs. We would start electing citizen public servants again who are interested in providing good government instead of government that lines their own pockets. And with welfare and ALL government programs other than what the federal government is constitutionally required to do returned to the states where they belonged all the time, I think the welfare issues would begin resolving themselves quite nicely.

 

[bripat9643]

It is funny that during the Nixon years the (R)'s came up with a way to make insurance more affordable and the (D)'s were the party of NO. Back in those days it would allow the individual to shop for the best insurance and allow insurance companies to cross state lines. The states would be responsible for determining the best way to handle insurance.

The far left has always want the Fed government to control every aspect of this. Even Carter shot down the far left and se saw what happened when you cross the far left, nothing has changed in that manner. Obamacare was 40+ years in the making.

So to the far left:

Would you object to anyone being on welfare not to be allowed to have children?

Still trying to sell that interstate insurance as a solution to all our insurance woes

Guess what Republicans?

Tort Reform and interstate sales are just bandaids and will have minimal impact on health insurance rates.

Guess what, Wrongwinger, you're an imbecile, and no one believes a thing you have to say.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is funny that during the Nixon years the (R)'s came up with a way to make insurance more affordable and the (D)'s were the party of NO. Back in those days it would allow the individual to shop for the best insurance and allow insurance companies to cross state lines. The states would be responsible for determining the best way to handle insurance.

The far left has always want the Fed government to control every aspect of this. Even Carter shot down the far left and se saw what happened when you cross the far left, nothing has changed in that manner. Obamacare was 40+ years in the making.

So to the far left:

Would you object to anyone being on welfare not to be allowed to have children?

Still trying to sell that interstate insurance as a solution to all our insurance woes

Guess what Republicans?

Tort Reform and interstate sales are just bandaids and will have minimal impact on health insurance rates.

Correct.

Malpractice insurance costs and settlements represents a tiny percent of overall medical costs.

And if a low income family can't afford a $1600 per month premium, they're not going to be able to afford a $1400 per month premium after "shopping around."

 

[Jarhead]

It is funny that during the Nixon years the (R)'s came up with a way to make insurance more affordable and the (D)'s were the party of NO. Back in those days it would allow the individual to shop for the best insurance and allow insurance companies to cross state lines. The states would be responsible for determining the best way to handle insurance.

The far left has always want the Fed government to control every aspect of this. Even Carter shot down the far left and se saw what happened when you cross the far left, nothing has changed in that manner. Obamacare was 40+ years in the making.

So to the far left:

Would you object to anyone being on welfare not to be allowed to have children?

Still trying to sell that interstate insurance as a solution to all our insurance woes

Guess what Republicans?

Tort Reform and interstate sales are just bandaids and will have minimal impact on health insurance rates.

Correct.

Malpractice insurance costs and settlements represents a tiny percent of overall medical costs.

And if a low income family can't afford a $1600 per month premium, they're not going to be able to afford a $1400 per month premium after "shopping around."

Malpractice insurance premiums are the number one operating costs of most physicians.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here is why conservative advocacy for ‘tort reform’ concerning healthcare costs is indeed a myth:

Myth No. 2

Healthcare Costs Are High Because Of Lawsuits

The public believe that high healthcare costs can be blamed on attorneys. In fact, malpractice costs account for less than two percent (2%) of healthcare costs.

Top 5 Myths about Tort Reform

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Foundation like any US citizen can create/sponsor a bill to pass into law.

I don't know about that, but they can certainly inspire Congressmen to draft bills based on their ideas. The individual mandate is a prime example. The Heritage Foundation came up with that idea back in the 80's. In the 90's, some Republicans adopted the concept as a counter-proposal to HillaryCare; though they never did draft a bill after HillaryCare faded away.

Even more far left propaganda!

What's funniest about this poster is that he pays to make the same post over and over and over again.