[POL] Reason #1,456 I Can Never Be a Republican
 

Fuck These Fucking Fucks.

Source.

The highlights...


So cut social programs to help w/ the deficit, only to give out a tax cut which will offset those cuts. Huh?


Again, can anything explain how this is a good thing? Anyone? I'll even take the food stamp cuts if a single one of you can back up the free lunch cuts.


Hey deadbeat dads....you're off the hook!



Help save your niece if her parents are abusive fucks...we don't care!

Sen. Frank Lautenberg has filed an amendment to change the official name of the “Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act 2005″ to the “Moral Disaster of Monumental Proportion Reconciliation Act.”

A little over the top, but at least the Dem's are starting to throw the Orwellian name games back in the face of the GOP.

Liberals make me laugh.

I'd like to play Adlibs with you some time.

Anyone who labels themself with a party name is being lazy. The issues of the world aren't black and white. Towing the party line is like getting a lobotomy.

Dola.

I realize that politicians don't necessarily have a choice if they want to get elected, but the rest of us have no excuse.

Jesse is actually one of the reasons I'm embarrased to be a Democrat. Then again, I have my own list of reasons of why I'm reluctant to join the Republican party.

w0rd.

Of course, so do Republicans, so I'm equal-opportunity there.

Me too sometimes ... but usually that doesn't come until after I've finished throwing up.

extremists of both sides make me shake my head.

This is a better way of wording the way I feel.

I flip between Ed (crap can't think of his last name, starts with an S....) and Sean H. on my way home for amusement...

I used to like Hannity when he first got on the air. But at some point, he became an absolute ass. He started bringing people on the show just to call them libs, and would all of a sudden lose his cool and stuff of that nature. Its crap like that, that gives conservatives a bad name.

"Crap" is pretty appropriate, but the name you're trying to think of is "Schultz"

Oh come on, the renaming of the bill is out and out funny - no throwing up required.

Just to completely hijack this thread...

I consider myself a social liberal and economic conservative...

The right-wingers make me laugh with some of their ideas on their talk shows, provide some amusement, etc...

Ed (as he is the only real left-winger available in this area) can do the same thing.. but he's also able to completely piss me off with how completely inaccurate some of his claims and statements are... usually with the right-wingers I can at least see there is some basis to their arguments, even if I disagree... but Ed just seems to completely make stuff up... the scary part is, all of the listeners buy into it too...

I can't help noticing that in the rush to brush Jesse off as an extreme liberal that nobody was actually able to refute any of his points......such as that maybe cutting free lunches to poor students in favor of more tax cuts is maybe.......oh, let's say wrong.

But then, I'm one of those folks who believe that an advanced society has a moral obligation to take care of those less fortunate. Yeah, crazy, I know.

What good would it do to try to refute anything he posted? It's not like he's likely to have any sudden epiphany on the subject, that's pretty clear from the tone of the commentary.

What's that saying? "For those who understand, no explanation in needed.
For those who don't, no explanation will do."

I'm not embarrassed to be a Democrat at all(though I will qualify that statement by saying that I'm moderate and becoming more Libertarian every day), but I agree with the sentiment. There are people on my side that I don't want on my side, and I hate the fact that they are on my side.

Lets paste some more information from that article into the thread.

Reason #1 I am a Republican

They pay me.

While there's certainly a lot of pork projects that can and should be cut as well, I don't have a real problem defending the cuts in the free lunch program.

When my wife and I were first married, our kids actually qualified for the free lunch program. My wife and I wouldn't take part. I felt like we were doing fine financially and could afford to pay for lunch for our kids. It's been my opinion that the ceiling on the free and reduced lunch program has been too high.

John's right, this argument won't sway Jesse. I just like arguing with people who can't make their point without sounding like a monosyllabic cretin. :)

[quote=Radii]There are people on my side that I don't want on my side, and I hate the fact that they are on my side.
QUOTE]

Dola: Pat Robertson comes immediately to mind on my side.

Yup...

I actually have little to no problem with this. But, I'm very libertarian (I think it would be libertarian?) in my "let them fend for themselves" mindsight...

I'm the opposite of path12... I don't think we have an obligation to support those unwilling to support themselves..

unable.. ok... unwilling, screw that...

Ummm...doesn't it say that some Republicans are sharing your concern?



Not much to offer up here. However, is this something that should be handled by the states, rather than the Federal government?



Federal aid to state programs. As above, is this a Federal issue or a state issue?

Also, would the $5 billion be better spent simply paying the child support, rather than trying to force the deadbeats to pay? Would this see more than a $5 billion reduction in child support payments? I doubt it.



Not enough information here but it seems like foster care payments should be based on need. However, this is one provision that to me seems like it would be justified to leave alone.

Well, I can understand that sentiment. I guess I fall more on a scale where if I can help 100 people, and only 95 of those people really deserve it, I've got no problem with the 5% wastage if I was able to truly assist the 95%.....which I guess is where Cam and I differ on the free lunch program.

I'm thinking the "Fuck these fucking fucks" intro is probably an accurate reflection of the futility of attempting to provide an intelligent response. But that's just me.

My perception is that the %'s are quite a bit reversed...

I think that's due to media coverage, and is not unlike some conservatives complaint about Iraq -- failures are shown, successes are not.

As for the "Fuck those fucking fucks" comment -- well, maybe not the terms I would have used, but I'd be a liar if I said I didn't understand the anger behind it. But that's another topic for another time.....and I've promised myself to never post in the political threads. Oops. :D

If lobotomy = getting elected, I agree with you 100%

I have a hard time with cutting programs that directly affect children in need - I don't think there is a problem with erring on the side of caution in most of those cases, because the long term benefits usually outweight the short term savings.

Could these programs be administered more efficiently? Absolutely. I don't know what kind of energy is being spent to figure that out, however.

Would it make sense to completely bring an end to public welfare programs at the federal level and shift responsibility completely to the states? Probably not, but sometimes I wonder if this country wouldn't benefit from a do-over.

Hannity is a tool of the highest order.

"What is it about these dictators that they can't just share?" :rolleyes:

It's welfare mothers with cadillacs all over again :rolleyes:

Nope, think you misinterpret (because I did not give detail)...

I am in support of helping someone "get back on their feet"... However, I am not in support of long-term support for anyone that can make it on their own.

Now, can is probably one of the tricky part of the argument.

For me, "can't support yourself" is reserved for those who have a physical or mental problem that prevents them from supporting themselves. That is IT. Beyond that, I am a strong supporter of survival of the fittest.

It does get tricky when children are involved, and I don't claim to have the answer there, but I am not in support of full support to parents that choose to not support their family.

I agree, Fuck the fucking fucker fuckerings!

:rolleyes:

What makes me laugh is when someone posts a topic that over generalizes something, and then instead of pointing that out, other people respond with even bigger over generalizations.

Why isn't there more civil dialogue in politics these days? Because we have some people calling others Fucking Fucks, laughable, and people they barf at just because they belong to a certain political party.

That's just the thing though, is that the school lunch program is for kids. Now, maybe some people like Cam are getting the benefit, but a lot of kids whose parents don't give a shit about them are getting the benefits too. I don't think we should just say, 'screw you'. Certainly though, the point at which it becomes less a helpful hand and more a giveaway can be arbitrary. But when you are using the money to cut taxes for the rich and give away handouts to corporations who are in the midst of record profits, I think the decision is obvious. There are thousands of better ways to save money than to stop giving lunch to poor kids.

A key point I think is all too often overlooked.

I'm not in favor of punishing someone because they are successful.

And, fwiw, I do agree with that..

I don't necessarily think this is the BEST solution, but I do not on the surface have a problem with cutting some welfare, even (again, not sure where to draw the line) to children..

Not really. It helps the parents, since they no longer have to pay for school lunches.

If the choice is pay for school lunch for your kids or buy a pack of smokes, most will choose to feed the kids. Paying for a kid's school lunch allows the parent to use that money elsewhere, like for maintenance on a car, bus fare, clothes, or...a pack of smokes.

So, saying that it is for the kids is a bit misleading, IMO. That is another reason that I'm not necessarily opposed to cutting back the program. Not in favor of it either, but somewhat ambivalent.

I agree with you....My personal view, is that parents should NOT being having children if they cannot financially and emotionally support them. If someone does fall on hard times (such as a job loss, ect.), that's differenet. I would be willing to help them rebound (providing they are working to get back on thier feet). However, when we draw the line with people in that first category? You have innocent children that shouldn't be allowed to starved, but yet you have parents who decided to bring them into this world without financial support.

I am all for spending time and money in an effort to make welfare programs more efficient and make sure we're getting the proper benefit out of those programs.

Let's start with corporate welfare, shall we?

My point was he wasn't always that way. He is appealing to those that don't want to use their minds themselves.

I agree that Hannity has changed, at least IMO. He used to at least recognize that the left had their points on certain things and was critical of Bush and/or the Repbulicans in certain areas. Now he comes across as a blind Republican mouthpiece. I can't listen to him anymore, and I'm a conservative.

That's just an intellectually lazy cop-out. Nobody is being punished for being successful. People are being rewarded for giving campaign contributions, that's where the tax cuts and the corporate welfare comes from. And I hope you are not going to tell me how much the rich pay in taxes. They end up paying the same percentage as the middle class because of the way that the tax code is set up. My Dad is a CPA, and I legally pay next to nothing in income tax because of deductions, real estate holdings, gifts, low capital gains rate, appreciation, etc.

Buzzbee, I take it you have never been poor. It's not always a choice between a pack of smokes and school lunch. It could be a choice between school lunch and a shitty cheap lunch of snack cakes and soda. It could even be a choice between drugs and school lunch, and for a lot of parents in poor neighborhoods the drugs win out. For the parents that care about their kids, it could be a choice between school lunch and paying the rent, or school lunch and buying shoes for their kids that don't have holes in them. Are there some people that take advantage? Sure there are. But the program also does a lot of good.

Ah, the liberal talking points...

I want everyone's taxes to be low, not just the wealthy... I think the government is involved in way too much and we should put a lot more personal responsibility on individuals and less on the public as a whole to support individuals that make bad choices.

Again, I have a tough time deciding where to draw the line with children, but overall I feel we should give little to no long-term individual support.

I agree. At some point you are now enabling people to make bad decisions. Life is not fair, and the government should not be some weird combination of the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Robin Hood, handing out treats to the less fortunate.

The biggest problem with the extreme left and extreme right is that both start out with the assumption that the other side doesn't share their values. Americans are a diverse bunch, but we are pretty homogenous in our values, afaict.

Yup... and before the accusations start flinging around... as I stated, by no means am I a die-hard right-winger/republican.. this is one of the few key points where I really agree with the right-wingers/republicans to be honest...

I agree, I just don't see it happening right now.