All that homosexual mafia sitting in the white house obviously doesn't want to see the Tea Party taking power so they always blame the others in hate crimes without thinking about consequences. One day everyone will get tired of that and it will be the end of liberalism.
Dear
IronFist
My guess would be that liberalism and conservatism would be recognized as complements,
and relegated to tasks and programs best suited to each approach, respectively.
I just finished describing it to two coworkers I met this week using the analogy someone told me:
as the Democrats being the "Mommy party" and the Republicans being the "Daddy party"
and we run to Mommy for some things while depending on Daddy for the others.
We need both, they don't need to be fighting over control of the household
when both roles are needed for their own respective purposes.
Let the Democrats handle the people in the lower socioeconomic classes
who AGREE to manage their labor, resources and social services through
a school system where participants can register and keep track of credits owed or worked off.
Democrats who want to manage everything through Govt can offer this to constituents who
AGREE to a socialistic democratically run system to equalize access to benefits. That's fine,
let people CHOOSE to fund and be under that system if that is where they are with their
political growth and progress.
Let the Republicans handle people in the business and upper management classes
who want to invest their taxes into sustainable growth, medical and education programs that work,
and self-government where members and leaders in society can be TRAINED and mentored to
manage their own programs, campuses, districts, cities and states before running for federal offices.
We could organize by party instead of fighting because of people in different stages
or class levels who want different levels of support through Govt. Why not accommodate the different
levels and work out the rules for tax contributions depending on what level you want to participate in.
Why can't we just accept the reality that people are in different stages of social and political growth,
and accommodate all levels fairly where everyone is contributing in a healthy balanced way
consistent with their political beliefs WITHOUT conflicting.
The problem here is the people in the lower socioeconomic class can't fund any system. They are takers. Most of them pay nothing into the system as it is now! Social programs depend on the earners paying their taxes. So, while those people may agree to participate in that system, how would it be funded without help from those who do not wish to participate?
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Dear
Hancock
Let's get real here
(A) If you look at who funds the Democrats, they have plenty of money to invest in
reforming prisons and schools to be sustainable programs. In Houston alone,
when two Democrats ran against each other for Mayor, for the Runoffs alone,
they spent 1.4 million and 1.6 million, and that was just the month before the runoff.
Obama spent a reported 6 billion on re-election, but that was exaggerated and closer to 2-4 billion.
So if the voters demanded that the parties and candidates start investing campaign funding
into actual programs (even 10% of money raised going into creating the programs they CLAIM to represent)
this could start a new trend.
And I would even suggest using funds to BUY OUT public schools and setting up local prison
and correction programs so these party members can create jobs and get paid contract money managing their own community prison programs under the reforms the party has promised (such as replacing the death penalty with mental health/rehab and meaningful restitution as part of life sentencing).
(B) Let's look at how much money is owed to taxpayers for partisan conflict causing govt waste:
The partisan divide over the budget and ACA terms cost taxpayers an estimated
24 billion.
The contested war spending has been estimated at 30 trillion.
The corporate conflict of interest over Solyndra blamed on Obama cost taxpayers 500 million.
The bailout of Maxxam by abusing junk bonds cost taxpayers 1.6 billion that was blamed on Reagan's
policies of deregulation that invited such corporate abuse of govt.
The Democrat destruction of Freedmen's Town national landmarks in Houston
have cost taxpayers anywhere between 10 million in one incident to over 700 million in damages by
a rough estimate of the political history of corruption to launder money and grants through that district.
Any NUMBER of these cases could be argued as "restitution owed" to taxpayers,
and pressure the Party and elected leaders responsible for paying back by investing
so much fundraising into programs that would SOLVE these problems.
* Such as investing 12 billion raised and managed per party
into "singlepayer" health care for the Democrats who believe in funding and mandating that
and into "free market" programs for Republicans who believe in investing taxes into that
* Reclaiming the district of Freedmen's Town, including the Federal Reserve bank
built over the former site of historic burials that were desecrated in order to construct the building,
and setting up a formal program for assessing "debts and damages" owed to the public
for govt abuses and corporate corruptions, so that the money ALREADY PAID by taxpayers
is reimbursed as credits that can then be invested in jobs and programs CORRECTING the abuses.
If the wrongdoers pay it back over time, the legal teams supervising the collections can add to the
restitution the costs for them to collect back for taxpayers so there is no charge to the public for
the wrongs committed by corporate and political abusers of govt and public resources.
If the taxpayers and citizens have to bail out these debts and damages because the govt FAILED
to hold wrongdoers accountable, then the citizens who pay the cost should be able to claim
the land and programs as collateral on the debts. And create land trusts where the value of the
programs and property can be used to issue federal notes, just like the federal reserve,
in order to create and manage local economies around govt corrections and reforms.
These are some ways I would recommend to create jobs and ownership
for even constituents who claim to have no money.
* RICO laws already allow for victims of organized crime and trafficking to RECLAIM
any property abused for such crimes as RESTITUTION. so given the high volume of
trafficking drugs and slaves through the poorest areas and districts, the RICO laws
can be used to claim property. This property can be renovated to create schools,
housing or other means of collecting resources to rebuild communities, create jobs and generate
business revenue so the poor don't have to stay poor. There are ways to claim restitution
to rebuild the economy even in distressed districts, and use that as leverage for sustainable development.
