You and I have always agreed on that premise. Where we disagree is the proportion of federal involvement.
I adhere to the Constitution for that. Limited, enumerated powers.
You and I have always agreed on that premise. Where we disagree is the proportion of federal involvement.
I adhere to the Constitution for that. Limited, enumerated powers.
I adhere to the Constitution for that. Limited, enumerated powers.
This is what I said in July.
Not sure what your obsession is with me being an auditor. I think I mentioned it once in a relevant discussion? While I disagree with people here from time to time, I try to discuss things in good faith. Just comes off pretty childish honestly.
Your answers and opinions are all over the map no pun intended.This is what I said in July.
Not sure what your obsession is with me being an auditor. I think I mentioned it once in a relevant discussion? While I disagree with people here from time to time, I try to discuss things in good faith. Just comes off pretty childish honestly.
Your answers and opinions are all over the map no pun intended.
You mentioned it only once?
Sorry it gets under your skin.
Ok FrancisMy views have been fairly consistent over the last year.
My job doesn't get under my skin. I'm happy in my career.
Just pointing out that it seems a little childish, but you are allowed to be childish... so feel free.
I specifically went to CNN website for the statistics on Fulton county which you posted was 3% difference. I copied and pasted a chart showing a 30% difference from Hillary To Joe. Not worth bringing it up again, but have to wonder if you even looked at that CNN chart. Enjoy the game tonight, I moved on and accepted the new regime but will always feel the election was tainted by dirty politics. I feel the same way about the virus, we put politics before people. We just see the world differently. I’m happy you still believe people/politicians have no agenda. I cannot help question the motives of anyone seeking power, probably read too many Vince Flynn novels.Sure, if you don't try to look at the data and understand the fact pattern... then it can look suspicious.
When you dig in, you realize it's probably not that suspicious. Kind of like how you are still talking about Fulton county.
I specifically went to CNN website for the statistics on Fulton county which you posted was 3% difference. I copied and pasted a chart showing a 30% difference from Hillary To Joe. Not worth bringing it up again, but have to wonder if you even looked at that CNN chart.
We just see the world differently. I’m happy you still believe people/politicians have no agenda.
Of course I did, and responded in that thread. Joe outperformed Hillary by 3% of the total vote.
Hillary received 69.2%, Joe received 72.65%
It's a predominantly black area where the was a large campaign to turn out black voters. The runoff in January in Fulton county also ended up both about 72% dem.
Wouldn't you also apply that same logic to a county like Miami Dade in Florida?
Trump improved in that county by more than 12% compared to 2016. 33.8% and 46.1% in 2020.
That netted him a gain of 200,000 votes or 60% over his 2016 totals.
If it is unreasonable that Biden outperformed Hillary by 3% in one Georgia county, would it be reasonable that Trump outperformed himself from 4 years prior by 12%?
A lot gets lost over text. I'd bet we agree on more than we differ.
I don't trust any politician. They all have an agenda. I would never put a political bumper sticker on my car, or even a yard sign for a politician. Their desire to be in power means they probably don't deserve to be.
[/QUOTE
You don’t trust any pol but openly believe in centralized government and gov run programs. You’re as unifying as President Biden.
You don’t trust any pol but openly believe in centralized government and gov run programs. You’re as unifying as President Biden.
Very much so actually. Just read your above posts. I expected you to pivot and say you think states should oversee the perceived risks/injustices/threats/etc; but you didn’t.Not quite. I can see the need for oversight, or government involvement and not trust power hungry politicians at the same time.
I am all for capitalism and free market solutions.
I just also recognize that there is a role for the government to step in when a free market doesn't really work.
Like the military for example. I am sure you are ok with that government run program, right?
It would not be practical for a free market military? Or locally, the police? Should we abandon police for a model when people can buy in if they choose or will not be protected otherwise? Replace library's with Amazon? Let parks all become condo's? Let old people just die off and fend for themselves without social security and Medicare.
Let drug companies bypass FDA safety screens. Let industrial companies pollute all they want without any EPA regulation etc etc etc...
I'm against social security and medicare to begin with, but I accept it as something that's not going away. I just don't get why the super rich get it. I get that they paid into it, but let's make it a real safety net that provides safety to those who need it. The President's salary wasn't goint to impact Trump's life in any way, so he gave it to charities. If you have a retirement account of $10 million or $20 million saved in it how much is SS impacting your life? With max benefits that go to the wealthy, why can't we use that money for those that need the safety net or provide the programs to help people get a better education so they won't need social security.The point is that I think it is important to distinguish being "pro-government programs" vs being "pro-government programs for issues that the free market doesn't work"
Yes. Social security and Medicare are absolutely "socialist" programs, as is the military. I would love to live in a utopia where we didn't need to fund a military, provide social safety nets, rely on businesses to keep our food safe and air and water clean etc... but that' doesn't work without some type of "socialist" program involvement.
There are lots of federal programs that I would get rid of. Don't really care to provide a list. If you have a program that you disagree with, feel free to post about it and we can discuss the merits.
I'll start. Pell Grants. I believe they were designed poorly without being tied to schools ensuring they would keep their tuition low. They caused a drastic increase in the cost of education.
I'm against social security and medicare to begin with, but I accept it as something that's not going away. I just don't get why the super rich get it. I get that they paid into it, but let's make it a real safety net that provides safety to those who need it.
why can't we use that money for those that need the safety net or provide the programs to help people get a better education so they won't need social security.
Agreed on pell grants.The point is that I think it is important to distinguish being "pro-government programs" vs being "pro-government programs for issues that the free market doesn't work"
Yes. Social security and Medicare are absolutely "socialist" programs, as is the military. I would love to live in a utopia where we didn't need to fund a military, provide social safety nets, rely on businesses to keep our food safe and air and water clean etc... but that' doesn't work without some type of "socialist" program involvement.
There are lots of federal programs that I would get rid of. Don't really care to provide a list. If you have a program that you disagree with, feel free to post about it and we can discuss the merits.
I'll start. Pell Grants. I believe they were designed poorly without being tied to schools ensuring they would keep their tuition low. They caused a drastic increase in the cost of education.
Cash
You started with Pell grants.The federal program you disagree with is "Cash"?
After proving a concrete example to your question, with a reason why I believe that program is ineffective and wasteful... you come up with... cash? Really?
hmm... I am very on board with "Cash". I use it for all sorts of things. You should try it.
Honestly, I have given you the benefit of the doubt more than you have deserved here.
You have provided nothing of actual substance in any discussion. At least others I disagree with can engage in actual conversations outside of "government bad".
I could’ve went with medical, housing, SSI, food, a number of things.
I went with cash. It’s not that hard and not deserving of your wise ass response that you like cash.
I’m asking you questions that will help me understand why you have such distrust for pols but support huge/expensive government programs.
Correct, I recognize the possibility that you could have provided an actual program and brought up actual points about why you believe that program is ineffective... but here we are.
As a response in kind for "Cash", my answer is "Some good, some bad."
Because I believe there are many worthwhile causes to spend money when there is no free market solution.
I agree some good and some bad but any program that doesn’t prioritize (and I don’t just mean on paper) getting able bodied people to work is not good. Free market solutions could exist though. Why can’t private industry determine eligibility and pool resources (charitable donations and tax revenue) for distribution?Correct, I recognize the possibility that you could have provided an actual program and brought up actual points about why you believe that program is ineffective... but here we are.
As a response in kind for "Cash", my answer is "Some good, some bad."
Because I believe there are many worthwhile causes to spend money when there is no free market solution.
I agree some good and some bad but any program that doesn’t prioritize (and I don’t just mean on paper) getting able bodied people to work is not good.
Why can’t private industry determine eligibility and pool resources (charitable donations and tax revenue) for distribution?
I think it’s not enough of a focus, take drug testing (or lack thereof) recipients, for instance. Or liberals arguing that work requirements will result in loss of the god given “right” to health insurance and or health care. The current programs incentivize people to stay on not get off. How about incentivizing someone to work such as no taxes and health care stipend if you leave the system for x years. Doesn’t happen because the pols you don’t trust don’t want it to work.They do though. That is why when the economy is strong, employment goes up. While there are of course some people who will take advantage of the system, people in general do want to work.
Who says they can't? They absolutely can.
Go for it. Offer the government an alternative which administers welfare more efficiently and effectively and will save US taxpayers x% of our current expenditures on Welfare.
I think it’s not enough of a focus, take drug testing (or lack thereof) recipients, for instance.
The current programs incentivize people to stay on not get off. How about incentivizing someone to work such as no taxes and health care stipend if you leave the system for x years. Doesn’t happen because the pols you don’t trust don’t want it to work.
You’re right many people don’t leave the systemWhere that has been tried, it has not worked.
Though welfare recipients are not more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population. Why should we test them for a benefit but not the rest of the population who gets other benefits?
College students who receive Grants?
Parents who receive a child tax credit?
It doesn't happen because those are poorly thought out ideas.