Paul Ryan!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chrish1975
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
10gr8kids said:
I understand the need to help the poor, and from what I see there is really no reason for anyone in this country to go hungry. Our country has been blessed with an abundance of food, and there are many places for someone to get help getting food, so I don’t believe the poor in our country are going to starve to death. There may be some children that don’t get the food they need, but I believe this would not be because their parents couldn’t get it if they wanted, but because they are being negligent. I also understand their is a lot of other needs that people have but this is a basic need to live. Just as a child in the womb needs protection for a basic need.

I also believe that the poor need to be helped and protected, but may disagree with someone about how best to do this.
In all honesty I am just trying to understand how you feel about this, we may never agree but if we understand how we come to our perspective conclusions we may be able to have better dialogue. 🤷
Click to expand...
I oppose abortion and any politician who promotes it, thus I can’t vote for the President. But, the points you make above are proper ones, and to me, are what the Democrats are supposed to be about. I’m with that aspect of my Party in spirit even if it is not in that vein as much as it used to be and ought to be.
 
RobbyS said:
Why do they keep thinking that Obama wanted to work with the Republicans? Obama was never a legislator; he doesn’t know how to do it. Lyndon Johnson knew HOW to work with Congress. Obama doesn’t and doesn’t care to learn. It will be played a gillion times but the confrontation between Ryan and Obama is really telling. Less because of what Ryan said than Obama’s reaction. Obama is at first stupified, then angry. Obama is one of those guys who think they are smart, and hate it when they meet someone who is actually smart. Ryan peeled off Obama’s clothes and there he stood intellectually naked. Embarrasing as heck.
Click to expand...
LBJ didn’t exactly “work” with Congress, but he knew how to twist the arms of Congressmen. Even more so, FDR. Obama’s problem is that he didn’t have the guts to fight Congress enough but instead settled for a watered-down version of health care that doesn’t satisfy either liberals or conservatives.
 
meltzerboy said:
LBJ didn’t exactly “work” with Congress, but he knew how to twist the arms of Congressmen. Even more so, FDR. Obama’s problem is that he didn’t have the guts to fight Congress enough but instead settled for a watered-down version of health care that doesn’t satisfy either liberals or conservatives.
Click to expand...
That passed without a single Republican vote. Just to be clear.🙂
 
DeSanto said:
So take from the poor and give to the rich is a better solution.
Click to expand...
:confused:

How can you possibly characterize our tax system as “taking from the poor and giving to the rich?” The poor receive tax “credits” (i.e. they don’t just pay 0 income tax - they receive money). No one is taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
Odd response. I never said or suggested they were “charities.” ? However, you are making my case for me. It was dishonest of them to argue urgency in negotiating tax breaks for themselves (the context of the timing was the immediate national need for job creation and how businesses proposed to respond to that national need), if

That was the point I already made in replying to ishii. The corporations lied. They had no intention of adding jobs in the short term, regardless of how they protested (which they did; I remember this clearly) that tax breaks now (then) would result in job creation within the year.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I am opposed to corporate welfare. Corporations are amoral, and if they can find chumps or corroborators with power to feed them cash, they’ll take it.
The whole thing was a scam. Forgive me for not reading the entire thread! 🙂
 
Elizabeth502 said:
Denise, FWIW,
I did not read ComputerGeek’s Reply to you as “nasty.” I read it as merely direct and succinct, without particular passion.
🙂
Just my own perception…
Click to expand...
I second Elizabeth’s perception, Denise. There was no nasty intention on ComputerGeek’s part, just the fact that neither Obamacare nor private insurance is the solution to our health care dilemma, and I happen to agree.
 
rlg94086 said:
:confused:

How can you possibly characterize our tax system as “taking from the poor and giving to the rich?” The poor receive tax “credits” (i.e. they don’t just pay 0 income tax - they receive money). No one is taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich.
Click to expand...
No, not current, future. Currently the corporate welfare program is unfunded. oh I believe it goes something like this…“we gotta cut all these entitlements so we can pay for these tax cuts”
 
DeSanto said:
No, not current, future. Currently the corporate welfare program is unfunded. oh I believe it goes something like this…“we gotta cut all these entitlements so we can pay for these tax cuts”
Click to expand...
Tax cuts pay for themselves. The cuts aren’t the problem, spending is the problem.
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
Tax cuts pay for themselves. The cuts aren’t the problem, spending is the problem.
Click to expand...
How do tax cuts pay for themselves? Trickle-down theory, again? I agree spending must be curtailed but tax cuts work in the opposite direction. We need both spending cuts AND tax increases within reason, and that’s the hard truth that nobody wants to hear.
 
10gr8kids said:
Rich, I mean this in all sincerity, I have always wondered how a Catholic, or any Christian can reconcile their faith and voting for someone who has no respect for a babies life in the womb. I understand the need to help the poor, and from what I see there is really no reason for anyone in this country to go hungry. Our country has been blessed with an abundance of food, and there are many places for someone to get help getting food, so I don’t believe the poor in our country are going to starve to death. There may be some children that don’t get the food they need, but I believe this would not be because their parents couldn’t get it if they wanted, but because they are being negligent. I also understand their is a lot of other needs that people have but this is a basic need to live. Just as a child in the womb needs protection for a basic need.

I also believe that the poor need to be helped and protected, but may disagree with someone about how best to do this. What is another way to protect the unborn besides restricting or ending abortions?

In all honesty I am just trying to understand how you feel about this, we may never agree but if we understand how we come to our perspective conclusions we may be able to have better dialogue. 🤷
Click to expand...
I applaud you for sincerely seeking dialogue - it’s the first step to change. However, I must take issue with the assumption that if children go hungry their parents are being negligent.

You may have evidence to support that statement, but my experience has been that middle class or even non-marginalized poor people have little real concept of what it is to live beyond the margins of society. So while there may be food and many places to find it, I have no basis on which to assume that the needy in all geographic locations, all have access to food pantries.

It’s kind of like some people who can’t comprehend how almost a million Pennsylvanians do not have a state-recognized photo ID. Unless you have walked in someone’s shoes, don’t assume. There is poverty and then there is that other thing which makes you almost invisible to ‘normal’ society…

No argument about life being a basic right - you are absolutely correct. The problem is, not all people share the belief that life is always worth living whatever the circumstances. Sad, but also very, very true.
 
meltzerboy said:
How do tax cuts pay for themselves? Trickle-down theory, again? I agree spending must be curtailed but tax cuts work in the opposite direction. We need both spending cuts AND tax increases within reason, and that’s the hard truth that nobody wants to hear.
Click to expand...
Nope. Reagan cut the top rate from 70 to 28% and revenue to the Treasury went up.
You can look it up 😉
 
meltzerboy said:
How do tax cuts pay for themselves? Trickle-down theory, again? I agree spending must be curtailed but tax cuts work in the opposite direction. We need both spending cuts AND tax increases within reason, and that’s the hard truth that nobody wants to hear.
Click to expand...
After the tax cuts of the Reagan administration, the revenues to the government increased.
However, more spending than was promised also happened. But revenues were increased.
 
meltzerboy said:
How do tax cuts pay for themselves? Trickle-down theory, again? I agree spending must be curtailed but tax cuts work in the opposite direction. We need both spending cuts AND tax increases within reason, and that’s the hard truth that nobody wants to hear.
Click to expand...
DITTO!!! why is that so hard to admit?
 
RACJ said:
Agreed. I am opposed to corporate welfare. Corporations are amoral, and if they can find chumps or corroborators with power to feed them cash, they’ll take it.
The whole thing was a scam. Forgive me for not reading the entire thread! 🙂
Click to expand...
Relieved that I didn’t miscommunicate, and no apologies necessary! 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top