Every Democrat voted against the Investing in Opportunity Act
- Thread starter MAGA MAN
- Start date
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Like the Affordable Care Act lol?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
its enough that the stupidity of lib'ruls is confirmed......the amusing hint that demmycrats are fiscally conservative falls about $10T short of the truth......
You mean the way it was before Social Security was administered?
You infer the absurd by presuming an absolute scale.
In vivid contrast, I applied the relative scale, merely comparing the Dems. to Republicans. You know, Republicans are the ones voting for this bill (reportedly soon to be "law"). It's the Democrats that reportedly unanimously did not vote support for this $Trillion $dollar $budget $buster.
Know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not; voting for this Republican BJ to corporate donors is flagrantly fiscally irresponsible. Reportedly there were some in congress that wanted spending reduction offsets dollar for dollar for any revenue decreases.
But they were mangled in the stampede of the "BORROW & SPEND" Republican mainstream.
Thus, I repeat. It is the Democrat party that is the more fiscally responsible.
And the sanity check on that is, the most recent U.S. president to preside over consecutive ostensibly balanced budgets was President Clinton (D-AK).
Why wouldn't their family members take care of them? Why wouldn't you bleeding hearts take care of them? Why do you think it's the taxpayer's responsibility to do something for someone when their own blood won't do it?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
you can repeat it all you want......it was a stupid claim the first time and remains stupid.......even if there were really a $1.5T price tag on the corporate tax cuts, it pales in comparison to the revenues that will be generated by the increased business that will result from the cuts.......unlike Obama's "stimmylus" this will actually benefit the US economy......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
He doesn't. I can't figure out why anyone goes without anything as long as the bleeding heart Liberals claim to care so much for the "less fortunate".
You have inferred what I did not imply.
President sear would privatize Social Security, a de facto shutting it down.
I'm vehemently opposed in principle to government competing with the private sector on insurance / investment / retirement schemes.
In addition, I've long lamented the modern movement of warehousing our seniors, rendering them useless, idle, & unloved.
I continue to remain committed to the 3 gen. family model that built this nation.
NOTE:
I'm vehemently opposed to such lunacies as Social Security and Drug War.
BUT !!
As they have replaced self-control and self-reliance with government coercion, pulling the rug out from under, is a bad idea.
These government insanities should not be phased out more quickly than the People can regain their own controls.
Those in the transition should not fare worse than the rest of us.
Too many don't want to regain their own controls. I have no problem is they go without. Anyone unwilling to do for him/herself should have the rug pulled out from under. What's a bad idea is to continue for a second longer enabling freeloaders and leeches to be freeloaders and leeches.
Too mother %$#@*&' bad !!
C #33 added:
While I admire your unbridled humanitarianism and boundless human compassion, it makes sense to acknowledge:
half the people you know are below average.
Which is why the benefit drawn from such programs should not exceed a participant's contribution.
Please don't misinterpret that simplemindedly.
A driver with a legally required "10 - 20 - 5" liability insurance policy on their car might only have paid in $1,000.oo
BUT !!
They might have a $10,000.oo claim.
That's fine.
That's precisely the nature of the insurance bidness. As long as the actuarial realities are covered, that's the way it's supposed to work.