Christ, are we really gonna rip on every single false promise or off hand comment a politician makes during election season? We're gonna be here forever.

Christ, are we really gonna rip on every single false promise or off hand comment a politician makes during election season? We're gonna be here forever.

Yeah, seriously.

 

If we are going to talk about race or ethnicity, how come every Republican candidate except for John McCain refused to attend the Spanish language or other minority debates? I really would like to know, because it boggles my mind. They are really making a huge mistake by just ignoring potential voters who INVITED them to a debate. Even Newt Gingrich said that this was a huge mistake for the party, and I'm with him there.

Would Democrats have a debate held by the religious right?

 

Would Democrats have a debate held by the NRA?

Would Democrats have a debate held by the religious right?

 

Would Democrats have a debate held by the NRA?

No, because I seriously doubt either group would invite them.

 

However, the Republicans WERE invited to these debates, and turned them down.

Christ, are we really gonna rip on every single false promise or off hand comment a politician makes during election season? We're gonna be here forever.

 

 

Thanks for stopping by bobbob!

 

This isn't just a single 'off hand' comment, it was a national news story. It was in my local paper, its the most e-mailed story on many news sites. This is election season, people are going to discuss, breakdown and debate comments candidates make. If you don't care or think it is dumb, GTFO out of the thread. Not too hard really.

 

Shocking GM has said nothing of substance in here yet, just posted emoticons and circle jerked with people who are actualy intelligent. The difference between a prinmento/Flying_Mollusk compared to GM is even though I rarely agree with them, they always bring something intelligent and with substance to the table. Not just empty posts.

Would Democrats have a debate held by the religious right?

 

Would Democrats have a debate held by the NRA?

No, because I seriously doubt either group would invite them.

 

However, the Republicans WERE invited to these debates, and turned them down.

There is ZERO to gain in going to those during one of the busiest times of the campaign.

 

The Democrats were asked to be in a Fox News debate and turned it down.

 

What the hell this has to do with this thread I have no idea.

Whatever, you're not listening to me, so forget it.

 

I love how you talk about 'empty posts' and then proceed to make this whole argument that Hillary Clinton is a closet communist, and everyone is trying to steal welfare from the US government. Yes, I know that there are always deadbeats in programs, but there are actually people who NEED these programs to survive, primarily because of injuries or disabilities that limit or stop their ability to work. I know you don't LIKE welfare, but sometimes there are things that are necessary to keep heads above the water financially.

Christ, are we really gonna rip on every single false promise or off hand comment a politician makes during election season? We're gonna be here forever.

 

 

Thanks for stopping by bobbob!

 

This isn't just a single 'off hand' comment, it was a national news story. It was in my local paper, its the most e-mailed story on many news sites. This is election season, people are going to discuss, breakdown and debate comments candidates make. If you don't care or think it is dumb, GTFO out of the thread. Not too hard really.

 

Shocking GM has said nothing of substance in here yet, just posted emoticons and circle jerked with people who are actualy intelligent. The difference between a prinmento/Flying_Mollusk compared to GM is even though I rarely agree with them, they always bring something intelligent and with substance to the table. Not just empty posts.

 

Read my lips, no new taxes.

 

It's irrelevant. It was an offhand comment, regardless of whether the news sites are treating it like that. I'd guarantee even if she gets elected she won't so much as consider pursuing this. It's a false, empty promise to pander to voters, just like every other statement made by a politician during the election season.

 

It's fine to analyze the comment but to say "i'm going to puke" "god help us" "blah blah f***ity" is not really breaking down or discussing. It's a one sided debate, and you have no intention of discussing it. The thread was created to bash one candidate.

I want my 5,000

Christ, are we really gonna rip on every single false promise or off hand comment a politician makes during election season? We're gonna be here forever.

 

 

Thanks for stopping by bobbob!

 

This isn't just a single 'off hand' comment, it was a national news story. It was in my local paper, its the most e-mailed story on many news sites. This is election season, people are going to discuss, breakdown and debate comments candidates make. If you don't care or think it is dumb, GTFO out of the thread. Not too hard really.

 

Shocking GM has said nothing of substance in here yet, just posted emoticons and circle jerked with people who are actualy intelligent. The difference between a prinmento/Flying_Mollusk compared to GM is even though I rarely agree with them, they always bring something intelligent and with substance to the table. Not just empty posts.

 

Read my lips, no new taxes.

 

It's irrelevant. It was an offhand comment, regardless of whether the news sites are treating it like that. I'd guarantee even if she gets elected she won't so much as consider pursuing this. It's a false, empty promise to pander to voters, just like every other statement made by a politician during the election season.

 

It's fine to analyze the comment but to say "i'm going to puke" "god help us" "blah blah f***ity" is not really breaking down or discussing. It's a one sided debate, and you have no intention of discussing it. The thread was created to bash one candidate.

I absolutely discussed it with Flying_Mollusk.

Whatever, you're not listening to me, so forget it.

 

I love how you talk about 'empty posts' and then proceed to make this whole argument that Hillary Clinton is a closet communist, and everyone is trying to steal welfare from the US government. Yes, I know that there are always deadbeats in programs, but there are actually people who NEED these programs to survive, primarily because of injuries or disabilities that limit or stop their ability to work. I know you don't LIKE welfare, but sometimes there are things that are necessary to keep heads above the water financially.

I didn't say anything about closet communist (100% you).

 

I didn't say anything about stealing from the US government (100% you).

 

I already asked, if you have this 'program' what are you going to do to keep the deadbeats out of it? I already asked, why do I need to pay for someone else's education other then my own children. I already stated how I don't feel going to college in 2007 it is hard to attend college, no matter the financial situation. I've made my stance clear and posed questions to the other side. What have YOU done in here?

 

F_M is about the only poster around who actually reads what someone posts and can respond to it with some sort of substance to it, which is why he has my respect regardless of his political leanings.

Reminds me of the statistic from the Katrina FEMA money that something like 80% of the money given out was used for Nike's and alcohol. So they only get the money if they graduate high school? Why should anybody get anything? We already have a system in place. Your reward for good grades and graduating is more opportunity and a better job later on in life.

 

Here's an idea: If you can't afford kids or saving for their education, don't procreate. Same thing with many other issues that crop up with children. If you can't afford it without Government help, don't do it.

 

So Hillary only wants the money to be used for a college education? I can just see college administrators across the country licking their lips and increasing tuition by $5,000.

 

I think we know how hard it is to put $5K in our own accounts. Gee, taxes are stretching us. Let the folks care for their own families, please. Lead by Example.

 

Let's put the socialism down and step away slowly.

I think we really need to give parents who don't have the economic resources nor responsibility to support children incentive to have even larger families. It's not like the urban sprawl is being over-populated or anything.

 

 

Yes, because it costs less than $5000 to raise 1 child over 18 years, thereby giving them a cool profit.

 

Man, I know a lot of people who have 18 year plans to bilk the government out of $5000.

 

I'll tell you what. I'll give you $5000 18 years from now to raise a kid. Youre gonna jump all over that carrot on a stick, right?

 

Did you even think that one through?

This is not a good idea, and I am 100% blue collar, and have busted my ass to get where I am right now. There are grants available for low income families to finance their kid's college, if they choose to go. And there are always loans and scholarships. This is just a bad idea, thanks for trying to buy my vote Hillary but it's not going to happen.

I think we really need to give parents who don't have the economic resources nor responsibility to support children incentive to have even larger families. It's not like the urban sprawl is being over-populated or anything.

 

 

Yes, because it costs less than $5000 to raise 1 child over 18 years, thereby giving them a cool profit.

 

Man, I know a lot of people who have 18 year plans to bilk the government out of $5000.

 

I'll tell you what. I'll give you $5000 18 years from now to raise a kid. Youre gonna jump all over that carrot on a stick, right?

 

Did you even think that one through?

Yes, and I don't observe your counter-argument. I've thought this through. Clinton has not.

 

At no point did I say that it would cover all living expenses for the child, yet there still exists an incentive especially since there is an urban sprawl problem already. That problem being overpopulation and lack of responsibility among the parents. Whatever happened to responsible economic planning in advance for college and a mortgage? A large portion of this population does not plan ahead when they have kids so we have the many social problems that exist today. Of course $5,000 dollars won't cover the living expenses but it certainly just adds another additional benefit in the eyes of certain parents. Government handouts already are having negative impacts on our social fabric (in my opinion), this is just another factor is contributing to a growing problem.

 

Why is private ownership allowed in this case but not in Social Security it's pure blasphemy? How does this promote financial responsibility that this country is sorely lacking?

 

This is purely a feel-good move for votes that Clinton herself has not offered a legitmate proposal on how to fund it or how much it will cost. And you still jump all over it. Sometimes you come off as a glorified version of Jimmy Jacko to me.

yet 40 million americans without health insurance is A-ok to you? yeah...please take plenty of offense when i say that i wouldnt trust your judgement with a 5 dollar bill, nevermind billions

It wouldn't be $5000 18 years later. At 8% interest compounded annually, 18 years later, $5000 would come out to $19,980. Like Fox mentioned earlier this would make future generations even more apathetic than current ones and expect government handouts.

Not if you tell them that's the last government check they'll ever see.

 

A lot of people think it would be more fair if you gave this money to everyone, as opposed to only poor people. This way you are in a way evening the life chances of everyone born in this country. You tell them: this is what you get so do yourself a favor and make something productive of yourself because we won't give you anything else.

 

This would apply to everyone. Not means based.

Hmm, as far as I can tell, the only candidate that refuses any government attempts at the forceful redistribution of wealth in Ron Paul.

Can't it be entirely possible to ENSURE the money is spent on tuition or towards a home down payment?

 

Then you wouldn't need to worry about Jimmy buying crack with it at all, only the people willing to make something of themselves will have it there.

Can't it be entirely possible to ENSURE the money is spent on tuition or towards a home down payment?

 

Then you wouldn't need to worry about Jimmy buying crack with it at all, only the people willing to make something of themselves will have it there.

aimed at me?

I think we really need to give parents who don't have the economic resources nor responsibility to support children incentive to have even larger families. It's not like the urban sprawl is being over-populated or anything.

 

 

Yes, because it costs less than $5000 to raise 1 child over 18 years, thereby giving them a cool profit.

 

Man, I know a lot of people who have 18 year plans to bilk the government out of $5000.

 

I'll tell you what. I'll give you $5000 18 years from now to raise a kid. Youre gonna jump all over that carrot on a stick, right?

 

Did you even think that one through?

Yes, and I don't observe your counter-argument. I've thought this through. Clinton has not.

 

At no point did I say that it would cover all living expenses for the child, yet there still exists an incentive especially since there is an urban sprawl problem already. That problem being overpopulation and lack of responsibility among the parents. Whatever happened to responsible economic planning in advance for college and a mortgage? A large portion of this population does not plan ahead when they have kids so we have the many social problems that exist today. Of course $5,000 dollars won't cover the living expenses but it certainly just adds another additional benefit in the eyes of certain parents. Government handouts already are having negative impacts on our social fabric (in my opinion), this is just another factor is contributing to a growing problem.

 

 

In a way this is forced responsibility on a subsection of American that you claim lacks that forsight and responsibility. The benefit in no way goes to the parent, it goes to the kid whose parents were irresponsible and did not save for college. Therefore it cuts off the cycle.

 

Your point was not well thought out because you are trying to link an abstract theory of your own political affiliation with any and all programs. Your basic assertion is that if I go and tell a 17 year old girl in a low income neighborhood in America that if she has a kid, and I tell her I will give her $5000 18 years from now for her kids college education, she will then realize that there are that many more handouts in life and keep popping out more and more kids, do you? That's pretty much what you said and now you are drawing back into the abstract.

 

Like I said, your point is extremely abstract and could be applied to any program that attempts to give assistance thereby giving incentive to be irresonsible. Why even let private charity exist because clearly it contributes to your abstract socialist nightmare.

 

And as I stated with Fox, your qualm with this is government benefits all together, not with the structure of the program. In reality, the program is no different than federal education grants, federal, subsidized loans, or federal tax credits. These are all policies acknowledged and accepted by Republicans. If you want to debate that, then fine. Just don't pretend you woke up yesterday to a socialist country that is falling apart at the seems.

Clinton herself has not offered a legitmate proposal on how to fund it or how much it will cost.And you still jump all over it. Sometimes you come off as a glorified version of Jimmy Jacko to me.

 

How did I jump all over it? It was labeled as a fringe lunatic policy which it clearly is not. Tht's what my qualm was with. I pretty much came out and said if the policy was not isolated to education or home purchase, I would be absolutely against it.

 

You don't even know the details of the policy and you are making your broad arguments against it. Clinton could end up doing ten different things with the policy. She basically said it in an offhand remark. Then we get posts about how we are going to become a South American dictatorship. Who jumped all over it?

 

I love how you try and lump a group of posters together. Glorified version of jimmyjack? :lol Of course, because we are all communist anti-American hippies who eat aborted fetuses.

I ate one just last night. Best meal I've had in ages.

Tax credits or tax cuts are totally different. With tax cuts the individual has earned the money and is only retaining what he has owned. This is a HANDOUT. You graduated high school...congratulations here is some money.

 

Instead of doing something as drastic as what Clinton has mentioned, how about trying to use this principle to save social security?

This is proposal is not lunacy. People can have genuine and legitimate disagreements with the policy. No problem. It's not lunacy, though.

Having to pay for a random kid for graduating high school = lunacy.

 

I'd like someone to state reasons why I should have to do that.