The nation is no doubt left of center but its currently swinging back to the middle. The recent circus and failed Democratic/Socialist model is quickly bringing things back to the middle.

I think romneys comment was ststing that people get more money from government than what they pay in. You cut benefits it angers those affected, they vote agsinst those people. Everybody doesnt want to get less but the money is not there (see 18 trillion debt)

(03-06-2015 04:13 PM)klake87 Wrote:  I think romneys comment was ststing that people get more money from government than what they pay in. You cut benefits it angers those affected, they vote agsinst those people. Everybody doesnt want to get less but the money is not there (see 18 trillion debt)

Except the states that take in more than they pay out are overwhelmingly republican. The states that have the most to gain from subsidized healthcare vote against it. If Obamacare is lost red states will lose out more than bluestates. So, the data doesn't support this idea.

(03-06-2015 04:19 PM)niuguy Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 04:13 PM)klake87 Wrote:  I think romneys comment was ststing that people get more money from government than what they pay in. You cut benefits it angers those affected, they vote agsinst those people. Everybody doesnt want to get less but the money is not there (see 18 trillion debt)

Except the states that take in more than they pay out are overwhelmingly republican. The states that have the most to gain from subsidized healthcare vote against it. If Obamacare is lost red states will lose out more than bluestates. So, the data doesn't support this idea.

Typically, those studies that show how much a state gets "back" don't exclude military installations from the calcs. At least the ones I've seen.

(03-06-2015 05:19 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 04:19 PM)niuguy Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 04:13 PM)klake87 Wrote:  I think romneys comment was ststing that people get more money from government than what they pay in. You cut benefits it angers those affected, they vote agsinst those people. Everybody doesnt want to get less but the money is not there (see 18 trillion debt)

Except the states that take in more than they pay out are overwhelmingly republican. The states that have the most to gain from subsidized healthcare vote against it. If Obamacare is lost red states will lose out more than bluestates. So, the data doesn't support this idea.

Typically, those studies that show how much a state gets "back" don't exclude military installations from the calcs. At least the ones I've seen.

This is probably true, but I'm not sure its relevant. There are a lot of poor people living in Arkansas who rely on government aid to get by.

(03-07-2015 12:35 AM)niuguy Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 05:19 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Typically, those studies that show how much a state gets "back" don't exclude military installations from the calcs. At least the ones I've seen.

This is probably true, but I'm not sure its relevant. There are a lot of poor people living in Arkansas who rely on government aid to get by.

It is relevant, I believe, because it skews the data. Having a military base or bases in your state is not the same as receiving miscellaneous aid.

There are too many people in every state that rely on government aid to get by, just too many.

(03-07-2015 10:57 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-07-2015 12:35 AM)niuguy Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 05:19 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Typically, those studies that show how much a state gets "back" don't exclude military installations from the calcs. At least the ones I've seen.

This is probably true, but I'm not sure its relevant. There are a lot of poor people living in Arkansas who rely on government aid to get by.

It is relevant, I believe, because it skews the data. Having a military base or bases in your state is not the same as receiving miscellaneous aid.

There are too many people in every state that rely on government aid to get by, just too many.

Agree, though direct assistance is lower than you might think...this does not include food stamps:
http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census...r13-13.pdf

(03-07-2015 03:17 PM)BobL Wrote:  

(03-07-2015 10:57 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-07-2015 12:35 AM)niuguy Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 05:19 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Typically, those studies that show how much a state gets "back" don't exclude military installations from the calcs. At least the ones I've seen.

This is probably true, but I'm not sure its relevant. There are a lot of poor people living in Arkansas who rely on government aid to get by.

It is relevant, I believe, because it skews the data. Having a military base or bases in your state is not the same as receiving miscellaneous aid.

There are too many people in every state that rely on government aid to get by, just too many.

Agree, though direct assistance is lower than you might think...this does not include food stamps:
http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census...r13-13.pdf

That's what I can't stand about the Democratic party, they favor getting people hooked on that need for a handout instead of trying to improve yourself as a person. They tie their political success to the failure of others which is wrong on so many levels. I think this country is on the verge of getting back to what it once was, we just have to get Dufus out of office.

(03-07-2015 03:17 PM)BobL Wrote:  

(03-07-2015 10:57 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-07-2015 12:35 AM)niuguy Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 05:19 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Typically, those studies that show how much a state gets "back" don't exclude military installations from the calcs. At least the ones I've seen.

This is probably true, but I'm not sure its relevant. There are a lot of poor people living in Arkansas who rely on government aid to get by.

It is relevant, I believe, because it skews the data. Having a military base or bases in your state is not the same as receiving miscellaneous aid.

There are too many people in every state that rely on government aid to get by, just too many.

Agree, though direct assistance is lower than you might think...this does not include food stamps:
http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census...r13-13.pdf

I think you have to include things like food stamps, and SSI-Disability in this too.

We need to look at why there are people on assistance as more than a stop gap measure, and, why multiple generations of families are on it. Long term, multi-generational assistance is destructive to society and people, sadly.

Welfare is a safety net not supposed to be a way of life

Add the 47 Con Senators who signed and forwarded that letter to the Iran Gov't; clearly in violation of the Logan Act. Seeking to undermine a President's treaty negotiations with a foreign nation is treasonous.

The Clown Car is definitely now a Bus

(03-11-2015 03:46 PM)Policiious Wrote:  Add the 47 Con Senators who signed and forwarded that letter to the Iran Gov't; clearly in violation of the Logan Act. Seeking to undermine a President's treaty negotiations with a foreign nation is treasonous.

The Clown Car is definitely now a Bus

Stating US law is negotiating? I guess.... if you're trying to commit a crime.

Does anyone have a date in mind when Hillary's a$$ is thrown off the campaign trail for 2016? Im guessing she just won't stop until the Dem voters can her in Iowa / New Hampshire.

I applaud that letter, the President is about to sign a deal that will threaten not only Israel's existence but also will make our lives more dangerous. If Obama followed the 3 braches of government model and respected the constitution, this letter would not have been needed.

I'm not one bit afraid of Iran. I love conservatives that are shaking in their boots.

(03-11-2015 06:05 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  Does anyone have a date in mind when Hillary's a$$ is thrown off the campaign trail for 2016?

I will eat a Toledo hat if Hillary Clinton does not win the 2016 Presidential election. And win in a landslide.

(03-12-2015 08:28 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  I'm not one bit afraid of Iran. I love conservatives that are shaking in their boots.

We may not be in immediate danger here (although many think Iran could deliver a weapon to the US in time), but are you not concerned for protecting our greatest ally Israel. Do you not think Iran would use a nuclear weapon in a heartbeat against Israel when they finally get the weapon they are after. It just amazes me we sit back here all dumb and happy while our greatest friend stares down the nose of a nuclear missile. Truth is, I don't think this administration would care one bit if that happened to Israel, I honestly do not. To them it would be "a score to settle for past grievances". If you told me 10 years ago, Iran would be a friend and Israel an enemy, I would have said I hope I have everything in line for Armagadden. I mean seriously, wtf is going on in this world where we cannot see the moral difference between what should be an ally and the largest state sponsor of terror in the world. Moral blindness.

I don't think conservatives fear Iran as much as they do fear a radical President who would put the world in great danger. Those Republicans that signed that letter had a moral obligation to do so.

(03-12-2015 10:50 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 08:28 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  I'm not one bit afraid of Iran. I love conservatives that are shaking in their boots.

We may not be in immediate danger here (although many think Iran could deliver a weapon to the US in time), but are you not concerned for protecting our greatest ally Israel. Do you not think Iran would use a nuclear weapon in a heartbeat against Israel when they finally get the weapon they are after. It just amazes me we sit back here all dumb and happy while our greatest friend stares down the nose of a nuclear missile. Truth is, I don't think this administration would care one bit if that happened to Israel, I honestly do not. To them it would be "a score to settle for past grievances". If you told me 10 years ago, Iran would be a friend and Israel an enemy, I would have said I hope I have everything in line for Armagadden. I mean seriously, wtf is going on in this world where we cannot see the moral difference between what should be an ally and the largest state sponsor of terror in the world. Moral blindness.

I don't think conservatives fear Iran as much as they do fear a radical President who would put the world in great danger. Those Republicans that signed that letter had a moral obligation to do so.

First off, no I am really not conerned with Iran getting a bomb here. Good luck to them getting the missile tech to get an ICBM going.
Second, the UK is our greatest ally.
Third, no I do not think Iran would use one against Israel. (Iran would be wiped off the map, within 20 minutes of the nuke detonating over Tel Aviv, Israel has about 200 weapons, and would retaliate with them). Iran is not going to commit suicide to launch their only 100kt warhead (even that yield would be impressive for a first bomb)at a nation that has 200 (probably US designed) warheads.

(03-12-2015 10:57 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 10:50 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 08:28 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  I'm not one bit afraid of Iran. I love conservatives that are shaking in their boots.

We may not be in immediate danger here (although many think Iran could deliver a weapon to the US in time), but are you not concerned for protecting our greatest ally Israel. It was such a stark contrast to see Netanyahu speak a few weeks ago and reminded me of what a true leader sounds like. Do you not think Iran would use a nuclear weapon in a heartbeat against Israel when they finally get the weapon they are after. It just amazes me we sit back here all dumb and happy while our greatest friend stares down the nose of a nuclear missile. Truth is, I don't think this administration would care one bit if that happened to Israel, I honestly do not. To them it would be "a score to settle for past grievances". If you told me 10 years ago, Iran would be a friend and Israel an enemy, I would have said I hope I have everything in line for Armagadden. I mean seriously, wtf is going on in this world where we cannot see the moral difference between what should be an ally and the largest state sponsor of terror in the world. Moral blindness.

I don't think conservatives fear Iran as much as they do fear a radical President who would put the world in great danger. Those Republicans that signed that letter had a moral obligation to do so.

First off, no I am really not conerned with Iran getting a bomb here. Good luck to them getting the missile tech to get an ICBM going.
Second, the UK is our greatest ally.
Third, no I do not think Iran would use one against Israel. (Iran would be wiped off the map, within 20 minutes of the nuke detonating over Tel Aviv, Israel has about 200 weapons, and would retaliate with them). Iran is not going to commit suicide to launch their only 100kt warhead (even that yield would be impressive for a first bomb)at a nation that has 200 (probably US designed) warheads.

I didn't think 21 people would be be-headed just for what they believe either. Israel is our greatest ally in the region, although this administration has turned them into an enemy. The past year has shown how strongly entrenched Anti-Semitism is in this world, and has even trickled into the highest levels of the US government. Bleeds if you don't think Iran would send a nuke Israel's way, you are the most naïve person in this world. That is their stated charter literally, "the complete annihilation of Israel". Honestly if there are any good uses of nukes, it would be to wipe Iran off the map and just start over. That is a terrorist nation that could benefit from being wiped off the map.

Plus another flaw in your argument is your assuming these religious zealouts use rational thinking. They don't think like human beings, they are savages and fanatics that will do anything to achieve their end goal.

(03-12-2015 11:10 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  Plus another flaw in your argument is your assuming these religious zealouts use rational thinking. They don't think like human beings, they are savages and fanatics that will do anything to achieve their end goal.

Iran is a rational actor, they have shown it time and time again.

Quick exercise. How many nations has Iran put boots on the ground in, or dropped a bomb on recently?