Well, we no longer have the Breck Girl to kick around...at least for a while. He bailed out this morning after the last in a long series of humiliating primary defeats dating back to '04 and his disasterous campaign as second fiddle to the loathsome, reprehensible traitor John Kerry. He hasn't pledged the loyalty of his 9 supporters and 3 cosmetologists to any other candidates yet. He's probably hoping for a VP deal....or heaven forbid the AG slot.
12 comments:
I saw his little bit on Fox today.
If a democrat gets elected I just might quit my job. I will probably be better off.
If the Democrats want everyone to be more equal - what incentive is there for anyone to work and support the system?
Socialized health care would level dr salaries. What do they (dems)
propose to do about their own wealth? I mean if they REALLY believe all people should be more equal why are they still so stinking rich?
Why don't they reduce their current health plan to the one they propose for the rest of us and give it a trail run?
Why don't they put their kids in public schools so they can recieve the same wonderful One American education?
Here is my new proposal. If you don't have a job, and pay taxes, then you can't vote. If you can't prove that you have paid taxes for the previous, lets say, 3 years, then you cannot vote. Because its not fair that people that dont pay taxes get a vote in deciding what to do with tax money. And if you dont like that idea, then start drug testing people receiving benefits from the government, because the people that gave that money to the government had to pass drug tests to work. If you still dont think that is fair, then please, tell what is fair, because it isn't increasing taxes for the rich, because rich people earned their money, and shouldnt have to give it to people who sit on their butts all day.
Kevin: Being there in the "college" think tank world now makes you a governmental and civics expert? While I don't find your ideas deplorable, I think they way off base. Voting and working could never be paired. The system would eliminate all of the domesticates and home makers. How would "bookies" vote, they don't pay taxes? What about people on disability income, again untaxable. Drug testing costs money, so if the government chooses to introduce this program, know that it will be accompanied with a guarranteed tax hike to support it. Rich people are always taxed for the poor. It has been that way since the begining of taxation. It will never change. No one in government cares about fairness either. All they want is their piece of the pie.
When you graduate from school and become a truly full time wage earner, you will reflect back fondly on your days of "semi-intellectual bliss" and will understand moreso the pains of taxation and the system it has created to protect itself, but also to support the poor.
I don't agree with the work/ vote thing either. I've been a stay at home mom and think that is what moms should do.
As far as the drug testing - I think that would pay for itself - no tax hike needed. If all of the people who tested positive for drugs were denied welfare benefits it would save money.
BP - In 10 years won't you be so much wiser that your wisdom of today will be, by your own standards, "semi - intelligent"
F2L: Yes I am always learning and becoming wiser. In 10 years I will probably be semi-senile. Drug testing paying for itself is absurd. No one can be taken off a government program without legislation. Here is a simple version of the proposed plan.
Person goes to get welfare. He is sent to "clinic" for drug test. Samples are drawn (new federal employee or govt. handout to a low-end hospital - either way more expenses. Sample is carried to test site ( it must probably be built to handle the volume and privacy requirements). Test is done( again look at the last check up you did a see the cost for your tests). Results mailed ($) to welfare agency and then mailed to applicant. All this adds to the federal buracracy, and costs money. How else will the testing facilities get their money back for their campaign donations. Skewed - maybe both mentally and figuratively, but basically accurate. If the government could have found a way to tax "Weed" it would have been legalized years ago. Mucho denero from a tax basis for a crop that will grow practically anywhere, unfortunately, that was the true problem. Gotta have money to make money and nothing ever gets done for free in our nations capital.
BP - What would you do to reform welfare, if anything?
Ok revision to paying taxes. Married couples obviously would pay taxes together and not individually, because you get a tax break if i'm not mistaken, meaning your family pays taxes, and stay-at-home moms would be able to vote. Secondly, black panther, what credentials do you have that would possible make me want to believe you? At least you know that i am in college. For all i know, you could be a high school dropout, which means that I would be wiser than you, because either you were too stupid to be able to finish high school, or you were dumb enough to think dropping out would be a good idea. And i am also interested in knowing how you would fix welfare, or if you actually think welfare works.
I could be a high school drop out, but that doesn't mean you are smarter then me. I could have 2 degrees and have been to graduate school, again you don't know and should not presume that you are smarter than anyone because of the level of educatuion completed. Case in poit: Gary Anderson. College graduate from the University of Arkansas. He cannot read!!!
My credentials are irrelevent to this discourse, as are yours. I do have a college degree, but since it is from a non football schoolit might be discredited (Columbia). I only used the point of you being in an academic environment for a "think tank"type forum. You are in college to learn to refine your thinking and to generate an idea forming basis.
Kevin I think that you ahve a large amount of insight for one so young, but you tend to develop an attitude quickly if challenged.
Can I solve welfre. No one can. Is it a flawed system, yes, but it would take a lot of give and take from politicians to create a new system.
How about this?
-Welfare is available for people with demonstrated need for a limited time.
-If you are healthy, you need to show you are seriously pursuing employment.
-You also need to submit to regular drug testing(as long as you are living off the labor of others, you cannot be using drugs).
-If unemployed, you must enrol in some sort of skills training or GED program.(as a taxpayer, I wouldn't mind funding these training programs)
-Married couples who stay off drugs, stay in school, don't keep having kids, and show they are trying deserve taxpayer support and should have priority over wreckless single people.
-If you're married, you get way more money than singles from welfare. if you stay in school, stay off drugs, and don't get pregnant, you get more money.
-I would support mandatory birth-control for unmarried women who're being supported by the State.(you can't keep having kids with the expectation of tax-payer support if you cannot afford them)
-Single, able-bodied men would have shorter allowances on welfare, say 1-2 months. There's no excuse for an unmarried, healthy man to be on the government dole for longer than that.
"But Ed, you whine, "what about the families who can't find work, who have 3 kids and no daycare? What happens to them?"
I'll tell you what. The mom stays home with the kids, the dad works 2-3 jobs and busts his butt to provide for his family. He stays off drugs and in his spare time, he looks for better jobs. The don't buy a television, cell phones, X-boxes, CD's, or nice clothes. They eat pork and beans 7 days a week until the pay checks start coming in. Sure welfare is appopriate for them because we as a society should support a struggling family but not indefinitely.
Look, in any large diverse society there will always be 3-5% of the population that cannot get their lives together for a myriad of reasons, and as civilized people we are obligated to care for them to some degree, but that care shuld come with strict restrictions and obligations and be limited in duration.
Agreed in principle. I know you understand the enormous nature of the topic, and the utter inanity of the current system. We all know it needs to reformed, the question is how much will it cost to fix it and who (us) bears the cost. This is similar to a mandated federal healthcare system. We as taxpayers experience the brunt of the burden. The higher up the food chain, the worse the program is in comparision to your current offerings, but it will still cost you more money.
@bp,
As a taxpayer, I have to weigh the importance between two disparate things. 1. will the cost of not instituting a new program be more than sticking with the old one? and 2. how do I feel agreeing to be taxed(as if I ever have a choice) in order to pay for the welfare of Americans who should be fending for themselves?
Those are two questions every taxpaying American should ask themselves for every issue....what's the cost of not doing something different vs the cost of the new program? and how do I feel about bearing that cost?
Post a Comment