Paul Ryan!!!

[PseudoSABR]

No - the problem is we've made personal responsibility obsolete. Hell - if nothing else - lets fix the system so the people who do NEED help, get it. Right now it makes more sense to live off the government than to work for many people.

How do we enforce personal responsibility? How far are you willing to go? People in the streets? Starvation at some halfway house? Duct tape and spit as a safety net? How grizzly should we allow our human ethics grow to teach people this lesson? (Poor people, just try harder! Learn some personal responsibility! Or else!)

 

We all agree that people need to take personal responsibility. But it's lazy and glib to insist on them to just magically acquire it. Pig is spot on that we need welfare programs to actually WORK and succeed at job placement, but that costs money and takes planning and talented people, we can't expect further and further scaled down programs to manage that. Again, people are being cheap. There might be a short term loss in bolstering welfare-to-job programs (say paired with public works projects), but you'd effectively change worthless citizens into contributors.

 

(For the record Ryan voted for TARP and both Wars.)

 

Paul Ryan has a NON-PLAN. His plan is to get rid of the social welfare plans, not fix them. Ryan seems to have no interest making better social welfare programs. And let's be clear, the market is not going to swoop in and provide jobs for loads of unskilled workers--Now, that's naive.

[PseudoSABR]

Paul Ryan has some good ideas and he has some crazy, fringe ideas that go too far IMO. The thing is that with Mitt running the show, I don't see his influence making a lick of difference. Real change needs to happen in this country but it has to come from both sides. Defense spending is ridiculous. Our fingers are in too many foreign pies, supporting corrupt regimes. Our welfare system needs a real, smart overhaul that consists of more than "cut funding". Pay people to go back to work. Encourage productivity by giving productive people more money and then wean them off the system as they make more in future years. Tear apart the education system and teach REAL SCIENCE to kids. Subsidize certain areas of schooling and encourage more students to study math, science, and technology.

 

On the other hand, extending tax cuts for the wealthy needs to stop and the term "job creators" needs to be called out for what it is (trickle down economics). The fact that Mitt is paying ~15% is unacceptable. Close the loopholes and simplify the code with a focus on strengthening the middle class.

 

Both sides have their heads up their asses, as usual. We're embroiled in arguments about gay marriage and voter ID fraud that doesn't exist instead of talking about real problems with the country. But right now, most of that "real issue" deflection is coming from the right and the blatant poll-rigging they're trying to pull with Voter ID laws is so nauseating that I'm going to have to think long and hard before checking any boxes with an ® next to them this November. I used to slant pretty hard to the right and now I can't even stomach what most of them are saying... The problem isn't me shifting left, the problem is that the core of the GOP continues to slant right way beyond what should be considered normal or rational.

 

You sound like an impartial independent voter with all the forgoing. <<<Sarcasm>>> I hope no on carelessly drops an ember on this field of straw men. Don't bother asking me to point all them out either in order to begin an argument. Just read it over carefully and reflectively. Be proud to call yourself progressive/liberal and move on.org.

Are you being serious? Because I can show you some liberal/progressive ideas, so you can better spot them in the future.

 

My new liberal ideas: an army of pick pocketers on Wall Street, and squatting training sessions at community theaters and how to live off student loans into your fifties!

[Fatt Crapps]

The "we" I refer to is any thinking American.

 

Hahaha.

[PseudoSABR]

Not that I care as a non-voter, but I guess I wanna know.

 

Does Mitt have any chance at beating the African-American?

Nate Silver sees Obama's chances at over 70 percent. I just don't see how the math works in Romney's favor. Obama will need to have a serious gaffe in order for Romney to win.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Paul Ryan has some good ideas and he has some crazy, fringe ideas that go too far IMO. The thing is that with Mitt running the show, I don't see his influence making a lick of difference. Real change needs to happen in this country but it has to come from both sides. Defense spending is ridiculous. Our fingers are in too many foreign pies, supporting corrupt regimes. Our welfare system needs a real, smart overhaul that consists of more than "cut funding". Pay people to go back to work. Encourage productivity by giving productive people more money and then wean them off the system as they make more in future years. Tear apart the education system and teach REAL SCIENCE to kids. Subsidize certain areas of schooling and encourage more students to study math, science, and technology.

 

On the other hand, extending tax cuts for the wealthy needs to stop and the term "job creators" needs to be called out for what it is (trickle down economics). The fact that Mitt is paying ~15% is unacceptable. Close the loopholes and simplify the code with a focus on strengthening the middle class.

 

Both sides have their heads up their asses, as usual. We're embroiled in arguments about gay marriage and voter ID fraud that doesn't exist instead of talking about real problems with the country. But right now, most of that "real issue" deflection is coming from the right and the blatant poll-rigging they're trying to pull with Voter ID laws is so nauseating that I'm going to have to think long and hard before checking any boxes with an ® next to them this November. I used to slant pretty hard to the right and now I can't even stomach what most of them are saying... The problem isn't me shifting left, the problem is that the core of the GOP continues to slant right way beyond what should be considered normal or rational.

 

You sound like an impartial independent voter with all the forgoing. >> I hope no on carelessly drops an ember on this field of straw men. Don't bother asking me to point all them out either in order to begin an argument. Just read it over carefully and reflectively. Be proud to call yourself progressive/liberal and move on.org.

 

Funny. You know me so well. I've voted for about twice as many Republicans as I have Democrats over the past 15 years. I've never voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate (would have voted for Obama but my absentee ballot was screwed up and I never received it).

 

The problem, as I said earlier, is that the Republican Party stopped representing the bulk of my viewpoints (I've been a registered Libertarian for 13 years). Where I used to hold my nose over social issues and stamp that GOP candidate on my ballot because of economic issues, I can no longer do so in good conscience. The GOP has taken the last ten years and completely disenfranchised me as a voter. They started a completely unnecessary war. They continue to launch ridiculous campaigns against women's rights. They have let the religious nutjobs take over the party and destroy any goodwill I had for the party as a whole. They stopped even pretending to be fiscally responsible. I take it you missed the part where I advocated "tearing apart the education system"... Yeah, that's a really "liberal" idea, what with the teacher's union being a staunch Democratic support network for the past 30 years and all.

 

Once upon a time, I was able to laugh at Democrats as being naive, doey-eyed hippies whose feet were floating in the clouds while the GOP was full of grounded pragmatists. Slowly, the Democrats have become the pragmatists (somewhat, anyway) while the GOP has launched into the stratosphere promoting non-sensical arguments that cannot be settled with one another. On the one hand, you have a GOP that wants "personal responsibility" and for people to get off the government dole. On the other hand, you have a GOP that is trying to prevent women from getting free/cheap birth control and/or have abortions to prevent unwanted children. Hell, I think the government should give away birth control. Why? Because it's the cheap thing to do. You could feed an entire county of women birth control for five years for the cost of raising one kid on the government dole. You can't force poor people to stop having children but you can gain some of the effect by giving them a bounty of options on how not to breed. Problem marginalized with a few truckloads of pills... That's pragmatism at its finest. But that will never happen because the influx of religious zealotry has completely destroyed the pragmatic GOP that I once supported.

 

So, go ahead and call me a Liberal. I don't really care because I know it's not true (not that it's an insult anyway). I've remained mostly the same. It's the GOP that moved away from me, not the other way around. I'm still looking for rational, well-balanced solutions to problems. I'd love to vote for a GOP candidate (Huntsman, anyone?) but the GOP stopped nominating people I could stomach quite some time ago and when they do nominate someone I can stand (I don't actually think Romney is that bad), that candidate has to backtrack on any "liberal" ideas they have so heavily and strongly support ridiculous religious rhetoric in its place that you have no idea who you're voting for anymore.

[fatbeer]

This reminds of the dumbest advice in the world: poor people should just try harder.

 

This is where I really, really think Ryan will isolate the majority of his own political base. Even the most conservative Christian right-wingers see taking care of those who truly cannot take care of themselves as vital.

 

Meanwhile the suggestions Romney paid no taxes keep on coming, while ignoring his charitable givings. It's my moral obligation to help others, not my legal obligation. The left doesn't understand the difference.

 

Charitable givings are nice but after you deduct how little he paid in taxes that normal Americans have to pay (and the many tax shelters he has available to him), it's likely that his taxes + charitable giving is still a lower % than what most Americans give over.

 

But the point of his tax returns isn't that he's some wealthy prick (well, not completely the point). In an era of tough economic times, wouldn't we all be better off with a discussion on the economic disparity that different classes of Americans face? Everyone knows that the rich get treated better by our system but I don't think many people understand just how much better. The former Dodgers owners never paid income tax because of all the tax loopholes in the system. We have a presidential candidate that hides a lot of his money in foreign accounts and, under the Ryan budget, would have paid less than 1% in taxes. Money has made it nearly impossible for normal Americans to run for Congress. Money from a handful of very rich people may have a determinative effect on all elections going forward, heck one person kept Newt Gingrinch's presidential run alive long after republican voters had left him. Money may lead to many Americans being disenfranchised by voter id laws and gerrymandering. Discussing the role of money and the differences among the classes of Americans is a good thing. Shining a light on Romeny's actions can help with that conversation.

 

At this point what helps Rommney more? Releasing 10 more years of tax returns that are similar to his first returns released so we can have discussions of Warren Buffet's underpaid secretary's tax rate, or letting Harry Reid and the Democrats in general make complete jerks (can I say the word I want to say on this site) of themselves? We saw the charitable givings on the original tax return, it was huge, and the left ignored it.

 

As for the discussion about the rich being treated better by our tax system system I'm pretty sure there are a lot of rich Democrats including those running for office. If the Democrats want to have that discussion then it starts with Reid Palosi and Obama releasing 20 years of tax returns. See how that game works?

[PseudoSABR]

Charitable donations to the Mormon Church don't seem intended for the poor and the weak, and not very charitable after all. The charity provisions in our tax cut are abused by the wealthy to further their private interest and get a tax cut for it; quit acting like that charity money Romney gave was actual used to better benefit us all than him paying taxes.

[fatbeer]

No - the problem is we've made personal responsibility obsolete. Hell - if nothing else - lets fix the system so the people who do NEED help, get it. Right now it makes more sense to live off the government than to work for many people.

How do we enforce personal responsibility? How far are you willing to go? People in the streets? Starvation at some halfway house? Duct tape and spit as a safety net? How grizzly should we allow our human ethics grow to teach people this lesson? (Poor people, just try harder! Learn some personal responsibility! Or else!)

 

Assuming you are able bodied and mentally competent I'm willing to go real far. Capable People live in the streets by choice. Go to your nearest church and start sweeping the floors, go to an AA meeting work on your problem and start sweeping the floors, go to a hard working mom and watch her kids, or apply for a job in your area of expertise, taco bell is always hiring. Poor people in this country are rich by all global standards.

[fatbeer]

Not that I care as a non-voter, but I guess I wanna know.

 

Does Mitt have any chance at beating the African-American?

Nate Silver sees Obama's chances at over 70 percent. I just don't see how the math works in Romney's favor. Obama will need to have a serious gaffe in order for Romney to win.

 

If you go by current polling the 70% figure is reasonable. Of course a pollster has a tough time figuring out turnout so a 3 or 4% swing from polls is not all that uncommon. I'd say Obama is in the lead but the wind is at Romneys back.

[PseudoSABR]

No - the problem is we've made personal responsibility obsolete. Hell - if nothing else - lets fix the system so the people who do NEED help, get it. Right now it makes more sense to live off the government than to work for many people.

How do we enforce personal responsibility? How far are you willing to go? People in the streets? Starvation at some halfway house? Duct tape and spit as a safety net? How grizzly should we allow our human ethics grow to teach people this lesson? (Poor people, just try harder! Learn some personal responsibility! Or else!)

 

Assuming you are able bodied and mentally competent I'm willing to go real far. Capable People live in the streets by choice. Go to your nearest church and start sweeping the floors, go to an AA meeting work on your problem and start sweeping the floors, go to a hard working mom and watch her kids, or apply for a job in your area of expertise, taco bell is always hiring. Poor people in this country are rich by all global standards.

This is so myopic. There aren't jobs for low-skilled people to work. Compare the number of job listings in the want-ads, to the actual unemployment numbers. I see nothing but middle aged adults working fast food jobs these days (here in Michigan, at least). It's a myth that there's jobs available, and even if there were why isn't there a social program bridging the gap?

 

The free market is not producing enough jobs for low-skilled people, that's the problem. This is what happens when a country loses it's industrious sector. I am open to ideas about how to fix that problem, but I don't buy for a second that lower taxes is part of the solution. It's our labor that's too expensive, not our taxes.

 

No one chooses to live in the streets. Don't be an idiot. No one chooses that life; people might make poor choices leading to such a life, but they didn't choose it. Let's help people make better choices; it's cowardly to just cut and run.

[fatbeer]

Charitable donations to the Mormon Church don't seem intended for the poor and the weak, and not very charitable after all. The charity provisions in our tax cut are abused by the wealthy to further their private interest and get a tax cut for it; quit acting like that charity money Romney gave was actual used to better benefit us all than him paying taxes.

 

Gotta love the classless left. You people don't know how to hide your true colors.

[fatbeer]

Pretty significant movement towards Romney on intrade today for whatever thats worth.

[PseudoSABR]

Charitable donations to the Mormon Church don't seem intended for the poor and the weak, and not very charitable after all. The charity provisions in our tax cut are abused by the wealthy to further their private interest and get a tax cut for it; quit acting like that charity money Romney gave was actual used to better benefit us all than him paying taxes.

 

Gotta love the classless left. You people don't know how to hide your true colors.

Shame on you. I'm not at all deriding the Mormon Church, I'm suggesting that they are not in a position of need. For instance the Catholic Sisters suggest how immoral the Ryan budget is. I have nothing against religious people, I have something against immoral people.

[fatbeer]

The man gives to charity huge amounts of money to causes outside of his church. Call him immoral again you classless partisan ass.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Charitable donations to the Mormon Church don't seem intended for the poor and the weak, and not very charitable after all. The charity provisions in our tax cut are abused by the wealthy to further their private interest and get a tax cut for it; quit acting like that charity money Romney gave was actual used to better benefit us all than him paying taxes.

 

Gotta love the classless left. You people don't know how to hide your true colors.

 

Pseudo stated it pretty plainly. The Mormon Church is a better run business than most actual businesses. Their net worth is outrageous.

 

If anything, that's a compliment, not an insult. But go ahead and feign outrage if it makes you feel better about it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The man gives to charity huge amounts of money to causes outside of his church. Call him immoral again you classless partisan ass.

 

Call someone a name again and you get the ban. I've posted all over these forums about where we draw the line and you just crossed it. If you can't discuss something civilly, find a different place to do it.

[fatbeer]

Calling someone immoral for giving money to charity of course isn't calling someone a name. It's kind of pathetic what is tolerated and what isn't, but sorry man. I figured saying the name of a certain political parties mascot was OK. And just for clarification "all over these forums" must mean something different to you then me because I would have seen it before at some point if it was all over these forums. What is this place rubechat?

[fatbeer]

I like the fact that the guy that wants to ban me joined in the political discussion. Thats pretty tacky.

[fatbeer]

Charitable donations to the Mormon Church don't seem intended for the poor and the weak, and not very charitable after all. The charity provisions in our tax cut are abused by the wealthy to further their private interest and get a tax cut for it; quit acting like that charity money Romney gave was actual used to better benefit us all than him paying taxes.

 

Gotta love the classless left. You people don't know how to hide your true colors.

 

Pseudo stated it pretty plainly. The Mormon Church is a better run business than most actual businesses. Their net worth is outrageous.

 

If anything, that's a compliment, not an insult. But go ahead and feign outrage if it makes you feel better about it.

 

Calling charitable giving immoral is impossible to let slide. Don't insult me by saying my feelings are fake.

[fatbeer]

Speaking of rubechat I got the ban for complaining about Dubay calling someone a drunk about three weeks before his first arrest. I guess when you know how right a person it's tough to deal with.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I like the fact that the guy that wants to ban me joined in the political discussion. Thats pretty tacky.

 

You were warned. Don't insult people. Keep the conversation above board or leave. It's that simple.

 

By the way, I "joined this conversation" two pages ago and I commented on Pseudo's statement while you were calling him an ass (look at the time stamps). And don't insult my intelligence by claiming you were referencing the party mascot. If I "wanted" to ban you, I would have done it SIX YEARS AGO.

[TheLeviathan]

How do we enforce personal responsibility? How far are you willing to go? People in the streets? Starvation at some halfway house? Duct tape and spit as a safety net? How grizzly should we allow our human ethics grow to teach people this lesson? (Poor people, just try harder! Learn some personal responsibility! Or else!)

 

So is your position that people are just utterly incompetent and unable to function? I mean holy crap is this a pessimistic view of humanity. There are many that need help, truly need it. I have worked with those people most of my life, I know who they are, and I don't want them to go without their needs. But I also know many people who will do precisely what you make them do for themselves. If you allow them to milk the system, not work, or work half-time - that's precisely what they'll do. I don't believe people will die in the streets if we ask them to provide for themselves. But I won't sit back and watch someone work 40-60 hours a week and be LESS well-off then someone living off the government. Screw your "don't shoot the defenseless bunny" bull**** on that's. It's hopelessly detrimental to a functional society.

 

The problem isn't the amount of money going into social programs - the problem is that we walk into it believing so many people NEED help. If we went in thinking, well, we'll give them a hand and then let them go on their own - we'd be in a much different boat. The reason our current programs don't work is because we don't expect them too - and the mindset you're espousing is precisely why. No one can even suggest that many you suppose "need" help truly don't without you pulling some "woe is everyone" schtick that is obnoxious and dense.

 

Paul Ryan has a NON-PLAN. His plan is to get rid of the social welfare plans, not fix them. Ryan seems to have no interest making better social welfare programs. And let's be clear, the market is not going to swoop in and provide jobs for loads of unskilled workers--Now, that's naive.

 

Not completely get rid of them - just put restrictions on them. I'm not on board with many of his ideas, but I appreciate that A) He's not giving us lollipops and He realizes that programs that hand out blank checks (financial aid, medicaid, etc) are not stable going forward. It allows for so much fraud and cost increases it's insane.

 

I'd prefer if he'd address military spending along with tax increases, but at least the man is addressing real issues. I won't punish him politically for that. I'll examine his policies, but I damn sure will at least appreciate political suicide in the name of discussing the real problems. We have far too many platitudes from both sides to not embrace at least that.

[fatbeer]

Don't worry I understand. Political cheap shots are OK, calling someone out on them is not OK. The discussion was about charitable giving not the mormon church. I understand people want to project a boogieman image on Mitt Romney, but you have to expect when people from your side use the word immoral a significantly less insulting word might be used in response.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Don't worry I understand. Political cheap shots are OK, calling someone out on them is not OK. The discussion was about charitable giving not the mormon church. I understand people want to project a boogieman image on Mitt Romney, but you have to expect when people from your side use the word immoral a significantly less insulting word might be used in response.

 

When Mitt Romney sits down in front of his computer and registers on Twins Daily, I'll worry about political cheap shots sent across his bow. Until that happens, someone disagreeing with a public figure and stating an opinion isnt your concern and it certainly does not give you license to insult said poster.

 

I've said all there is to say on this. Let it rest and go back to your conversation.

[Ultima Ratio]

Pig, no one knows what's in you head or heart but you, that's not the point. If one wants to be taken seriously, one should characterize issues and ideas fairly and accurately. The only reason I wrote something on the thread at all (because I'm just here for baseball and find these squabbles ineffective and only yielding resentment towards a poster that I/you might otherwise very much enjoy reading post about baseball. It colors one's view of that poster) is because the distortions and mischaracterizations in your post and others' deserve to be challenged. You say the GOP has left you? Fine. But don't say: you like Huntsman as a GOP candidate, that the GOP campaigns against women's rights ("war on women" garbage) because you think you have a right to make someone else pay for your contraceptives, use the phrase "tax cuts for the wealthy" and "trickle down economics" (a term coined by democrats to deride Reagan's policies in the 80's, when you say were a big republican) -- and expect us to believe you were ever a staunch "moderate" republican. If you don't want the government in you bedroom (and I don't) then don't have government/taxpayers pay for things that go on in your bedroom, okay? But uttering this makes one in a campaign against women? Come on. I've got to believe you are better than this, and by better I don't mean that you should believe something other than you believe, but at least try be fair. You would be the first person I've ever met to have said such things and claim to have been a GOP member.

[gunnarthor]

 

At this point what helps Rommney more? Releasing 10 more years of tax returns that are similar to his first returns released so we can have discussions of Warren Buffet's underpaid secretary's tax rate, or letting Harry Reid and the Democrats in general make complete jerks (can I say the word I want to say on this site) of themselves? We saw the charitable givings on the original tax return, it was huge, and the left ignored it.

 

As for the discussion about the rich being treated better by our tax system system I'm pretty sure there are a lot of rich Democrats including those running for office. If the Democrats want to have that discussion then it starts with Reid Palosi and Obama releasing 20 years of tax returns. See how that game works?

 

The conventional wisdom is that Romney has hurt himself by not releasing more years. If you think insistence on the issue hurts Dems, fine, but the poll numbers don't seem to support that. And Reid and Pelosi aren't running for President so it doesn't matter in this presidential race if they put out more returns. Romney has been effectively hurt by the issue but continues to refuse to divulge more tax returns to the American public (while requiring his potential VPs to divulge more to him). That suggests that his undisclosed tax returns show even more tax shelters or other issues that wouldn't sit well with many voters.

[glunn]

And again, I'll keep saying it - we will not fix this problem by soaking the rich. It simply will not fix the problem. Europe is soaking the rich now and it's not bailing them out either. Get off this friggin nonsense about that please. I'm 100% for raising taxes on the rich and closing tax loopholes for corporations and individuals - BUT THIS WILL NOT FIX THE PROBLEM. It's only part of the solution. And until people like you stop playing the "you wouldn't shoot this poor, defenseless bunny?" routine about every social program we're not going to make any meaningful progress.

 

With all due respect, a 35% tax rate is not soaking the rich. If you look at historical income tax rates, you will see that the current rates on top earners are relatively low.

 

I agree with you that raising taxes will be only part of the solution. On the other hand, would you rather see some high earner pay a 50% marginal rate on income over $1 million than see a poor child die because of Medicaid cuts. I wonder what Jesus would say?

 

If only the two sides could compromise. The Republicans could agree to cut corporate welfare (especially weapons procurement and oil company subsidies), the Democrats could agree to cut social programs and both parties could agree to relatively modest tax increases. But this is impossible because some bonehead sleazeball named Grover Norquist has persuaded too many Republicans to sign his pledge never to increase taxes. And even if Jesus sent a meteor down to send Norquist to hell, the special interests who own both parties would never let Congress do the things that would truly bail us out.

[PseudoSABR]

And again, I'll keep saying it - we will not fix this problem by soaking the rich. It simply will not fix the problem. Europe is soaking the rich now and it's not bailing them out either. Get off this friggin nonsense about that please. I'm 100% for raising taxes on the rich and closing tax loopholes for corporations and individuals - BUT THIS WILL NOT FIX THE PROBLEM. It's only part of the solution. And until people like you stop playing the "you wouldn't shoot this poor, defenseless bunny?" routine about every social program we're not going to make any meaningful progress.

 

With all due respect, a 35% tax rate is not soaking the rich. If you look at historical income tax rates, you will see that the current rates on top earners are relatively low.

 

I agree with you that raising taxes will be only part of the solution. On the other hand, would you rather see some high earner pay a 50% marginal rate on income over $1 million than see a poor child die because of Medicaid cuts. I wonder what Jesus would say?

 

If only the two sides could compromise. The Republicans could agree to cut corporate welfare (especially weapons procurement and oil company subsidies), the Democrats could agree to cut social programs and both parties could agree to relatively modest tax increases. But this is impossible because some bonehead sleazeball named Grover Norquist has persuaded too many Republicans to sign his pledge never to increase taxes. And even if Jesus sent a meteor down to send Norquist to hell, the special interests who own both parties would never let Congress do the things that would truly bail us out.

Liberals and Democrats, generally, are willing to comprise. We want policy over ideology. This is often framed as weakness, and I might agree. I'd personally love to take the moral fight to conservatives; I'd love for them to define decency and corral a sense of ethics. But that's personal. And really not about solutions.

 

Look, we all agree that entitlements and government spending leaves much to be desired; we all want to make such programs efficacious. But doing away altogether with such programs is cowardly and immoral. A bit of patriotism: I don't doubt American ingenuity can find a way to do right by the poor without screwing the working class. Government, as ugly as the word, is a path to doing right by people beyond our selves; yes, we need to hold elected clowns accountable, but we must also give such officials the capacity to do their jobs. There is policy that can be made to help weakest among us live better lives.

 

Personally, I live in near luxury (as is); I can give more, even with my poverty level income. I'm not about giving anyone free rides, but I am about using the excess of my income to help level the playing field for the less fortunate. I'd happily give up my cable (my xbox, my high speed internet, my whatever) if I knew that money was going to push welfare beneficiaries to rebuild our bridges and highways. Heck, we need merely give these tools jobs and the economy would ripen.

 

Honestly, I can't help but feel the conservative blue print is simply to let the less fortunate class die out. I don't see any other agenda. That's it. Old people too expensive. Working class too expensive. Some quick death might cheapen American labor and corporations might reinvest in our country. Oh boy.

[PseudoSABR]

How do we enforce personal responsibility? How far are you willing to go? People in the streets? Starvation at some halfway house? Duct tape and spit as a safety net? How grizzly should we allow our human ethics grow to teach people this lesson? (Poor people, just try harder! Learn some personal responsibility! Or else!)

 

So is your position that people are just utterly incompetent and unable to function? I mean holy crap is this a pessimistic view of humanity. There are many that need help, truly need it. I have worked with those people most of my life, I know who they are, and I don't want them to go without their needs. But I also know many people who will do precisely what you make them do for themselves. If you allow them to milk the system, not work, or work half-time - that's precisely what they'll do. I don't believe people will die in the streets if we ask them to provide for themselves. But I won't sit back and watch someone work 40-60 hours a week and be LESS well-off then someone living off the government. Screw your "don't shoot the defenseless bunny" bull**** on that's. It's hopelessly detrimental to a functional society.

 

The problem isn't the amount of money going into social programs - the problem is that we walk into it believing so many people NEED help. If we went in thinking, well, we'll give them a hand and then let them go on their own - we'd be in a much different boat. The reason our current programs don't work is because we don't expect them too - and the mindset you're espousing is precisely why. No one can even suggest that many you suppose "need" help truly don't without you pulling some "woe is everyone" schtick that is obnoxious and dense.

Hey, Levi, I really don't disagree with you that people milk the system, that capable people become lazy, that some of us wilt before the hard-won life. I get that. But I'm not so sure tough-love (in fact, tough-negligence) is the solution. How do we get people to try harder? How do we get them to invest in themselves? Well, that's some real hard-won wisdom. I want a plan to take care of the lazy, not leave them out. We can lift the heavy weight of figuring out how to help those with ennui, because it's an honest conclusion to modern life.

 

To ask another way, how much sunk cost is too much for civilization to be civil? My belief is that we really haven't given the weakest among us much of chance. We've been damn cheap in regard to making efficacious social programs and educational institutions. We don't invest in our schools and our communities; instead we seem to hope that some private benefactor might swoop in and save us all. (Swoon!) Again, the free market/private enterprise will not take care of the weakest among us--so what will we do? Are we so callous to give them street and the waiting room ER (which bites us in the butt anyway)? I think we can do better. I agree it will cost us more in the short run, a lot more, but we will benefit by having a skilled lower class, rather than a bitter, job-hopeless class. Again, there simply aren't jobs for such unskilled, near-derelict people to work. That sense of too-good American pride has long since washed away; American middle aged adults are willing to do whatever we ask of them as long as they can pay their bills and retire in non-misery. Under the Ryan plan, we don't even offer them that. Awful.

 

Paul Ryan has a NON-PLAN. His plan is to get rid of the social welfare plans, not fix them. Ryan seems to have no interest making better social welfare programs. And let's be clear, the market is not going to swoop in and provide jobs for loads of unskilled workers--Now, that's naive.

 

Not completely get rid of them - just put restrictions on them. I'm not on board with many of his ideas, but I appreciate that A) He's not giving us lollipops and He realizes that programs that hand out blank checks (financial aid, medicaid, etc) are not stable going forward. It allows for so much fraud and cost increases it's insane.

 

I'd prefer if he'd address military spending along with tax increases, but at least the man is addressing real issues. I won't punish him politically for that. I'll examine his policies, but I damn sure will at least appreciate political suicide in the name of discussing the real problems. We have far too many platitudes from both sides to not embrace at least that.

Some of what you say here makes sense, and I'm on board with. I am down for sensible cuts, only if we don't leave people out. We should fight for the efficacy of Medicare and Social Security, not weaken the basis of their premise; in my view, as an intellectual, as try-hard, as an earner, we must care for people that cannot (or refuse to) care for themselves and pay for it with our hard won dollars; we must not cheapen care to save ourselves a buck we probably don't need.

 

A point of policy: The Vouchers in Ryan's plan and the general idea of Vouchers make me sick. The only way vouchers save the government money is if these vouchers cheapen under the cost of health care. So that 100 dollar Voucher today isn't worth a 100 dollars of health care tomorrow. That's the only way that the system saves money, by cheapening the health care Medicare provides.

 

If you want to make entitlements more inexpensive, let's talk about taking the profits out providing health and housing to the elderly. The problem is that entitlements benefit for-profit enterprise, and obviously, such for-profit enterprises will make it as expensive as they can for programs that MUST exist (the essentially hold a monopoly over gov't, squash the gov'ts bargaining power to zero). It's not these entitlement programs that are the problem, it's the businesses that make profit off them.

 

Is it really such an awful thing that Americans live longer than we intended, and that we must pay more to care for our elderly? We can do this. Even if we must take less of our earnings. We can do this. Let's not be so cheap; let us who have jobs foot the bill to engender a self-sustaining class of Americans. It won't be cheap, but I believe we can do it. That is, if we want to.

[fatbeer]

Don't worry I understand. Political cheap shots are OK, calling someone out on them is not OK. The discussion was about charitable giving not the mormon church. I understand people want to project a boogieman image on Mitt Romney, but you have to expect when people from your side use the word immoral a significantly less insulting word might be used in response.

 

When Mitt Romney sits down in front of his computer and registers on Twins Daily, I'll worry about political cheap shots sent across his bow.

 

When you call Mitt Romney immoral for giving to charity your calling me immoral, and I'm going to take that personally. You got that? Or is that to difficult to understand in the era of Andrea Mitchell and MSNBC?