• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Mexico to end food stamp supplement

In this society you are free to do so.

But what you really mean is that government should take what I have to give it to your or your friends. And that is morally repugnant, evil, and wrong.


Where is the outrage in the government (ala Republicanism) take what you have and give it to the rich? That is morally repugnant, evil and wrong. Why do Republicans hate the poor? I could understand that of non-Christians, but so many Repugs claim to be Christians, but they are so greedy when it comes to helping those less fortunate.
 
Why don't you do that then, or haven't you got the time?

It seems to me that people who make these 'we as a society' claims often expect others to do all the work.

Hey, that's the same way Dems feel about all the tax cuts for the wealthy.

Why don't the Reps do that then - give your checks to them and leave the rest of us alone to help the poor. More goes to the wealthy and corporations, but I guess Reps don't mind working to supply them with more.
 
Where is the outrage in the government (ala Republicanism) take what you have and give it to the rich?
Can you explain to me how that happens? When I help to make someone else rich it is usually a voluntary exchange of my money for their goods. Win. Win.
When the government wrests two days of labor from me every week I get little in return except for more government. Ugh. They steal from me so they have sufficient money to hound me to death.
Why do Republicans hate the poor?
LOL. If I can make it so can they. But first they need to be unplugged from the democrat machine. They may need to have some therapy so they can realize they don't need some lying politician who promises they won't need to pay their mortgages or their car payments...

I could understand that of non-Christians, but so many Repugs claim to be Christians, but they are so greedy when it comes to helping those less fortunate.
It seems to me the ones with the demonstrated record of giving are the conservatives. The greedy ones are the liberals who give little of their own wealth while patting themselves on the back for taking wealth I created from me in order to buy themselves an additional vote or two.
 
Can you explain to me how that happens? When I help to make someone else rich it is usually a voluntary exchange of my money for their goods. Win. Win.
Not when they are given more tax breaks, loops and shelters - that cuts into the taxes I pay, because they are not paying a fair share. They are already receiving your money through their service, why do you feel they need to have more?
When the government wrests two days of labor from me every week I get little in return except for more government. Ugh. They steal from me so they have sufficient money to hound me to death.
You get to eat food that has been considered "safe" by the government, you get to go to work on roads built by the government, you get protected by the police who are paid by the government, and your boss can't cheat you out of your wages because the government won't allow it - seems to me that you are benefitting.

LOL. If I can make it so can they. But first they need to be unplugged from the democrat machine.
Well, by the same token, the rich have already made it, they need to be unplugged from the Republican machine, that want to keep giving them more on the backs of the middle-class.



They may need to have some therapy so they can realize they don't need some lying politician who promises they won't need to pay their mortgages or their car payments...
The Republicans are the ones that need therapy, so they can realize that the rich don't need more tax breaks, they were doing fine when they were paying more, and their surplus isn't trickling down like Reps hope.

It seems to me the ones with the demonstrated record of giving are the conservatives.
That's a Republican myth.

The greedy ones are the liberals who give little of their own wealth while patting themselves on the back for taking wealth I created from me in order to buy themselves an additional vote or two.

No, we are the sensible ones, that know that if left to their own, most Republicans won't give as much as is required by taxing them. Charitable organizations and churches don't have the means or the power to do what is necessary. If left to Republicans, this country will become like Mexico - with the "Haves" and the "Have Nots" - and most Republicans that consent to the Republican's policies will find themselves in the "Have Nots" because I doubt that every Republican is wealthy.
 
The other three of course. I give them money and they give me the things I want. Win. Win.

I'm not talking about the money you spend on their services and goods - unless most conservatives are ignorant to the fact that corporations also get more money through shelters, loopholes and tax cuts. Lose, lose.

What you are saying is, I don't mind paying for the services and goods, but I want to give the corporations more of my money because they provide me with those goods, for which I paid good money for.
 
Last edited:
Not when they are given more tax breaks, loops and shelters - that cuts into the taxes I pay, because they are not paying a fair share. They are already receiving your money through their service, why do you feel they need to have more?
So if someone, anyone out there is allowed by this tyrannical government, to keep more of the wealth they create, that is an affront to you? That somehow diminishes you?

You get to eat food that has been considered "safe" by the government, you get to go to work on roads built by the government, you get protected by the police who are paid by the government, and your boss can't cheat you out of your wages because the government won't allow it - seems to me that you are benefiting.
I don't want a busybody government that is doing things that are extra-constitutional. I want a constitutionally-based, limited government that does well its very few tasks.

Well, by the same token, the rich have already made it, they need to be unplugged from the Republican machine, that want to keep giving them more on the backs of the middle-class.
Most of the rich got there by providing goods and services that make our lives wonderful. They started as I started. Naked.

The Republicans are the ones that need therapy, so they can realize that the rich don't need more tax breaks, they were doing fine when they were paying more, and their surplus isn't trickling down like Reps hope.
Your hate completes you.
 
I'm not talking about the money you spend on their services and goods - unless most conservatives are ignorant to the fact that corporations also get more money through shelters, loopholes and tax cuts. Lose, lose.

What you are saying is, I don't mind paying for the services and goods, but I want to give the corporations more of my money because they provide me with those goods, for which I paid good money for.
Perhaps it is time for you to join me in calling for the fair tax.
Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation
 
It seems to me the ones with the demonstrated record of giving are the conservatives.


That's a Republican myth.
Google it :

I’d also point out that it isn’t really charity when it is somebody else’s money. Prof. Brooks goes on to point out that the data in terms of private charitable giving indicate that people who he defines as conservatives give far more than those he defines as liberal.

Here is a starter for you. Charitable Giving: Liberals vs. Conservatives
I am sure there are more.
 
Hey, that's the same way Dems feel about all the tax cuts for the wealthy.

Why don't the Reps do that then - give your checks to them and leave the rest of us alone to help the poor. More goes to the wealthy and corporations, but I guess Reps don't mind working to supply them with more.

Seems to me it was BHO who was bailing out corporations and businesses. A big donor, Don Gips, got an Ambassadorship to South Africa and his company, Level 3 Communications, got almost $14 million in stimulus money even through they claim they ddn't ask for it and Gips says he knew nothing about it. Amazing. And his second bestest buddy (after terrorist Bill Ayers), Head of GE Jeffrey Immelt, is heading up his Economic Advisory Panel, despite GE laying off hundreds of workers!

People who support this craziness must be seriously thick, or deliberately deaf and blind.

Obama donors net government jobs ( I guess thats the change we should have expected ) | GoodPorkBadPork.com
 
So if someone, anyone out there is allowed by this tyrannical government, to keep more of the wealth they create, that is an affront to you? That somehow diminishes you?
If someone out there is paying less than you are paying while they are earning more than you, that is not an affront to you? Why should the wealthy be given special treatment? Why is "everyone should pay their fair share" so distasteful to conservatives? Why do conservatives feel that the wealthy should be sheltered and allowed to pay less than their fair share? Are they rewarding you for your generosity so that you feel you need to continue doing it?


I don't want a busybody government that is doing things that are extra-constitutional. I want a constitutionally-based, limited government that does well its very few tasks.
Which is "cut out everything that benefits the middle-class and lowers the tax rates for the uber wealthy"?

Most of the rich got there by providing goods and services that make our lives wonderful. They started as I started. Naked.
Who gives a rat's behind how they started? We pay for the goods and services that they provide that make our lives wonderful. Those that are uber wealthy are making a neat profit, or they wouldn't be uber wealthy. The fact is they make more than enough to pay their fair share, they don't need "extra" tax cuts - they are already benefitting from loopholes and tax shelters that allow them to itemize things to reduce their taxes, why do they need more?

Your hate completes you.
Quit trying to act so sanctimonious. It's not hate, it's plain sensible, but your hate for the less fortunate is obvious.
 
Seems to me it was BHO who was bailing out corporations and businesses.
Got selective memory? Bush was the one that bailed out the banks. Republicans are the ones that want to make tax cuts for the wealthy/corporations permanent and some idiot (Bachmann) want to reduce them to "0".

A big donor, Don Gips, got an Ambassadorship to South Africa and his company, Level 3 Communications, got almost $14 million in stimulus money even through they claim they ddn't ask for it and Gips says he knew nothing about it.
Aw pleeeeeez! Like Republicans don't do similar?
Bush Gives Swift-Boat Donor Fox Recess Ambassador Appointment
By James Rowley - April 4, 2007 18:27 EDT

April 4 (Bloomberg) -- A Missouri businessman who donated to a group that questioned the combat heroism of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in the 2004 election was appointed ambassador to Belgium.

Sam Fox, who contributed $50,000 to Swift Boat Veterans For Truth in 2004, was questioned by Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, during a confirmation hearing about his donation to the group that attacked Kerry's Vietnam War record.

Bush Gives Swift-Boat Donor Fox Recess Ambassador Appointment - Bloomberg
Embassy Row
President Bush continues the tradition of awarding ambassadorships as political favors

By Center for Responsive Politics
August 15, 2005 | U.S. presidents have long rewarded big campaign donors, fundraisers and other loyalists with ambassadorships to desirable countries around the world, and President Bush is no exception.

At least 40 well-connected individuals who have contributed or raised generous amounts of money to help elect Republican candidates since Bush's first campaign for president are currently serving or have been nominated by him to serve as ambassadors.
http://www.opensecrets.org/capital_eye/inside.php?ID=180

Amazing. And his second bestest buddy (after terrorist Bill Ayers), Head of GE Jeffrey Immelt, is heading up his Economic Advisory Panel, despite GE laying off hundreds of workers!

Aw geez, now that you mention bestest buddies, don't forget that the Bin Laden family and the Bushes were bed buddies.

As for Immelt, you should check his background, he was a big Republican donor - he donates to whoever can benefit him, used to be in the Republican's pockets, so why is he even a factor when it is the Democrats that are wanting him out?

Liberals want Immelt out of Obama's Administration

Immelt, a Republican, donated to both Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain during the last presidential cycle, but not President Obama, according to Bloomberg.
NationalJournal.com - GE's Immelt to Head Obama's New 'Jobs and Competitiveness' Board - Friday, January 21, 2011



But yes, of course, Jeff Immelt is a businessman through and through. He is a trustee of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation board, while GE is a big sponsor of the Reagan Centennial Celebration. (Recall that the Gipper worked for GE as a spokesman and television host from 1954 through 1962.) He’s also a registered Republican who contributed to both Hillary Clinton and John McCain during the 2008 campaign. And last year, he harshly criticized Obama at a dinner in Italy, where he basically said: Obama doesn’t like business, and business doesn’t like Obama.
GE's Immelt on the Hot Seat

People who support this craziness must be seriously thick, or deliberately deaf and blind.
People who support double standards must be seriously thick or deliberately deaf and blind.

Bush Donors Reap Big Dividends from Taxpayers
 
Got selective memory? Bush was the one that bailed out the banks. Republicans are the ones that want to make tax cuts for the wealthy/corporations permanent and some idiot (Bachmann) want to reduce them to "0".


Aw pleeeeeez! Like Republicans don't do similar?
Bush Gives Swift-Boat Donor Fox Recess Ambassador Appointment
By James Rowley - April 4, 2007 18:27 EDT

April 4 (Bloomberg) -- A Missouri businessman who donated to a group that questioned the combat heroism of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in the 2004 election was appointed ambassador to Belgium.

Sam Fox, who contributed $50,000 to Swift Boat Veterans For Truth in 2004, was questioned by Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, during a confirmation hearing about his donation to the group that attacked Kerry's Vietnam War record.

Bush Gives Swift-Boat Donor Fox Recess Ambassador Appointment - Bloomberg
Embassy Row
President Bush continues the tradition of awarding ambassadorships as political favors

By Center for Responsive Politics
August 15, 2005 | U.S. presidents have long rewarded big campaign donors, fundraisers and other loyalists with ambassadorships to desirable countries around the world, and President Bush is no exception.

At least 40 well-connected individuals who have contributed or raised generous amounts of money to help elect Republican candidates since Bush's first campaign for president are currently serving or have been nominated by him to serve as ambassadors.
http://www.opensecrets.org/capital_eye/inside.php?ID=180



Aw geez, now that you mention bestest buddies, don't forget that the Bin Laden family and the Bushes were bed buddies.

As for Immelt, you should check his background, he was a big Republican donor - he donates to whoever can benefit him, used to be in the Republican's pockets, so why is he even a factor when it is the Democrats that are wanting him out?

Liberals want Immelt out of Obama's Administration

Immelt, a Republican, donated to both Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain during the last presidential cycle, but not President Obama, according to Bloomberg.
NationalJournal.com - GE's Immelt to Head Obama's New 'Jobs and Competitiveness' Board - Friday, January 21, 2011



But yes, of course, Jeff Immelt is a businessman through and through. He is a trustee of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation board, while GE is a big sponsor of the Reagan Centennial Celebration. (Recall that the Gipper worked for GE as a spokesman and television host from 1954 through 1962.) He’s also a registered Republican who contributed to both Hillary Clinton and John McCain during the 2008 campaign. And last year, he harshly criticized Obama at a dinner in Italy, where he basically said: Obama doesn’t like business, and business doesn’t like Obama.
GE's Immelt on the Hot Seat


People who support double standards must be seriously thick or deliberately deaf and blind.

Bush Donors Reap Big Dividends from Taxpayers

So the 'Bush did it first' argument is still the survival mechanism of the Obamaniacs.

Their own man is not only carrying on with the Bush policies, he's aggravating them and making conditions ever worse. His pitiful defenders can only try and seek out examples they feel might be just as bad..

The corruption in this administration is unparalleled within the last 100 years, and the leftists support it.
 
Last edited:
So the 'Bush did it first' argument is still the survival mechanism of the Obamaniacs.

So the "Bush did it first argument is still the survival mechanism of the Obamaniacs" still the survival mechanism of the Bushwack-ites? Is this how Reps/cons dismiss the ineptness of GW Bush?

Their own man is not only carrying on with the Bush policies, he's aggravating them and making conditions ever worse. His pitiful defenders can only try and seek out examples they feel might be just as bad..
You're getting your info from the republican propaganda sources, things are a lot better than when Bush left office.

"I think jobs is the most important stat -- as you would probably agree - and we’ve seen 12 straight months of job growth in the private sector," Phelan told us in an e-mail. "In 2010, the private sector gained 1.3 million jobs -- the strongest job growth since 2006."

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke recently told a congressional committee that the economy has shown "hopeful" signs of growth -- citing increases in consumer spending and private-sector investment in new equipment and software. But Bernanke also said he was troubled by issues such as long-term unemployment and mortgage foreclosures.

Another popular economic measure, the Dow Jones industrial average, is hovering around 12,000, about a 50 percent increase from 7,949 on Jan. 20, 2009. The Dow decreased by about 50 percent between the beginning of 2007 and the beginning of 2009. Some may argue the drop between 2007 and 2009 was the result of a few extraordinary days on Wall Street. The Dow dropped 504 points on Sept. 15, 2008, the worst one-day decline since the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The Dow dropped by about 1,400 points during a five-day stretch in October 2008.

Unemployment is another trouble point for the congressman’s argument. The nation’s unemployment rate was 7.2 percent in December 2008. A year later, it was 9.9 percent. In December 2010, the rate was 9.4 percent; lower than at the end of 2009, but still higher than at the same point in 2008. Monthly job losses, which were brutal between July 2008 and June 2009, have stopped, and the data shows there is growth in that area.
June 2011 Economy better than 2009 - Google Search



The corruption in this administration is unparalleled within the last 100 years, and the leftists support it.
Nothing can surpass the corruption during the Bush years. Keep repeating the conservative rhetoric and denying the facts - it makes for cons feeling a little better about what they have done to the country. It is amazing how most Reps/cons turn a blind eye to what Bush did, but are so vocal about Obama.
Double standards? I think so!
 
Last edited:
So the "Bush did it first argument is still the survival mechanism of the Obamaniacs" still the survival mechanism of the Bushwack-ites? Is this how Reps/cons dismiss the ineptness of GW Bush?

George Bush is no longer President! You should get into the present and consider the future. Barrack Obama is the President NOW and should e a concern to everyone.

You're getting your info from the republican propaganda sources, things are a lot better than when Bush left office.

Really? How so?

"I think jobs is the most important stat -- as you would probably agree - and we’ve seen 12 straight months of job growth in the private sector," Phelan told us in an e-mail. "In 2010, the private sector gained 1.3 million jobs -- the strongest job growth since 2006."

The percentage of unemployed now is higher then when BHO took office, despite the trillions spent.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke recently told a congressional committee that the economy has shown "hopeful" signs of growth -- citing increases in consumer spending and private-sector investment in new equipment and software. But Bernanke also said he was troubled by issues such as long-term unemployment and mortgage foreclosures.

Right! Change and hopeful!!

Another popular economic measure, the Dow Jones industrial average, is hovering around 12,000, about a 50 percent increase from 7,949 on Jan. 20, 2009. The Dow decreased by about 50 percent between the beginning of 2007 and the beginning of 2009. Some may argue the drop between 2007 and 2009 was the result of a few extraordinary days on Wall Street. The Dow dropped 504 points on Sept. 15, 2008, the worst one-day decline since the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The Dow dropped by about 1,400 points during a five-day stretch in October 2008.

I invest and understand the stock market. Business confidence in Obama is zilch.





Nothing can surpass the corruption during the Bush years.

Then let's see it.So far you've given nothing but blather.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059530794 said:
How about personal responsibility? Now there's a novel thought. Why should the government pay for a child's welfare on a routine basis? I thought it was the parent's role.

How about personal responsibility. I thought running your own successful business is a personal responsibility. Why do we have to offer "tax breaks" or incentives to businesses and bail them out when they fail?
 
George Bush is no longer President! You should get into the present and consider the future. Barrack Obama is the President NOW and should e a concern to everyone.
Ha, that sounds like something that conservatives that want to push the 8 years of ineptness of Bush, under the rug would say. Obama is the President now, and he is doing a good job of fixing the crap that Bush left behind. It's the dumb Americans we need to be concerned with, the ones that think Palin, Bachmann, Perry and the likes of such clowns can be a good President. Just because cons were able to sneak GW in doesn't mean they'll be able to sneak another dummy in.



Really? How so?
If you made yourself available to other sources of information other than Faux News you would find out that things are a lot better than if we would have elected McBush and continued the Bush idiotic policies.



The percentage of unemployed now is higher then when BHO took office, despite the trillions spent.
Just imagine the number it would be if we would have done what Reps/cons wanted to do - "nothing". It's easy to complain about what is, but if we were in a depression and McCain was president, I'm sure all the Reps/cons would be saying "it's not so bad" - "what depression" - and "those people without jobs don't want to find jobs", but since it is Obama that is President, they want miraculous recovery after 8 years of corruption.

Right! Change and hopeful!!
Still better than the depression Republicans would have put us in.



I invest and understand the stock market. Business confidence in Obama is zilch.
Their confidence in Congress is lower, thanks to the upsurge of Republicans that got voted in on Nov 2010.



Then let's see it.So far you've given nothing but blather.
Considering your double standards and the drivel you've provided, I would say I'm doing great.
 
Cut More? Spoken like a true conservative. Yeah, GE already didn't pay any, perhaps all the corporations should be tax free - they certainly deserve it.

And, regulations, yeah, let's do away with them, we already know how well that worked with BP.

Regulations may very well keep us from dying - if regulations had been enforced perhaps those men working for BP wouldn't have been killed during that blowup in the Gulf, it's unregulated companies lthat could do us in, but oh, well, who gives a crap about regular folk, it's the wealthy and corporations that we are trying to keep from being over-taxed!
LOL.gif

How do you feel about regulations that have killed thousands and thousands og people?
CAFE Standards Kill: Congress' Regulatory Solution to Foreign Oil Dependence Comes at a Steep Price
Despite the new regulatory "reform," high gas prices have lawmakers in Washington debating, once again,8 whether to impose even steeper CAFE standards. For instance, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) proposed burdensome across-the-board legislation to increase CAFE standards to 35 mpg on both light trucks and cars by model year 2017.9 Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) have also recently called for CAFE increases.10
But such increases have unintended safety consequences for the safety of drivers and passengers. The reason is because carmakers build lighter and smaller cars that burn less fuel to comply with CAFE standards.11 The trade-off is these lighter, smaller cars fare much worse in violent crashes, resulting in greater rates of death and injury for occupants.
An extensive 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data found that since CAFE went into effect in 1978, 46,000 people died in crashes they otherwise would have survived, had they been in bigger, heavier vehicles. This, according to a 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data since 1975, roughly figures to be 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards.14
 
No, corporate welfare is picking winners and losers through tax breaks/subsides. You, as a conservative, should be against all of it because its bigGov trying to plan the economy.

That's why I support the fair tax. No more tax breaks.
 
If this affects the illegals... good. If it is solely based on the elderly and disabled.... this is disgusting. Now how in the freaking hell are they going to get money to eat? I wonder what is really going on here.

If they are managing to eat on $25 a month, I want to know their secret.
 
If they are managing to eat on $25 a month, I want to know their secret.

A 36 pack case of ramen costs 5.88 at Sams Club (buy 2 for under $12). 4 potatos will run you 2 bucks. 2 Onions for a dollar. A block of generic cream cheese 1.30. A tub of margarine about $2. A big bag of mixed frozen veggies, $3. You can buy a big box of oatmeal for about 3 bucks. Assuming you have basics like sugar, salt and pepper (and if really want to live frugally, pick up ketchup, sugar, salt, pepper, hot sauce, mayo, mustard, and cracker packets everywhere you can for free). Should run you about $24.30. You arent living like a king but you can do just fine.
 
Back
Top Bottom