I Miss This Guy!

[tyska]

Nobody has been able to find any dirt on Romney he's exactly what the world needs right now.

Thats because he hasn't released his tax returns.

 

Funny though, how there is a branch of Government that does oversight on tax returns, IRS. But not one that does oversight on college records. Neither of which are required to be released to public IIRC.

 

 

 

Better a blowjob in the Oval Office than coming out of the closet after cheating on your wife during trysts with your gay lover.  Everytime I hear of a politician who voted against same sex marriage, but then got caught cheating with his gay lover, it's always been a Republican!  Not saying that Romney is going to get caught.  ;D

 

It's funny how sex in the oval office is deemed to be more offensive than 100,000+ people getting blown up over a war that never should have happened...I'm glad you've got your priorities straight Moore!  Cheers!

 

Would be interesting to see what scale you use to rank different levels of immorality, that one is better than another. But both your examples lied to the public in the end, "I did not have sexual relations", so I guess they would be equally bereft of morals and not to be trusted. Still think you run a great investment site though.

 

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

 

I was criticizing his policies way back on the Motley Fool board and also on the old MSN board.  Some people saw the blowup coming a mile away, most saw it coming much closer, yet his administration just kept on pouring gasoline on the whole damn thing.  We all saw Angelo Mozillo on CNBC talking about 110% financed mortgages...did Bush or his administration do anything?  No!  The  Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission stated that this crisis was avoidable...so who the heck was responsible for avoiding it for the seven years before it happened...Bush!

 

 

It does appear that the expansion of home ownership was one of his priorities:

 

We're creating... an ownership society in this country, where more Americans than ever will be able to open up their door where they live and say, welcome to my house, welcome to my piece of property.

 

- President George W. Bush, October 2004.

 

[Tim Eriksen]

Gee Tim, tell me what you really think!  It's about what I expected. 

 

It's funny how it's always about Obama and the Democrats not working with the Republicans.  Who got almost everything they wanted in the last budget session?  The Republicans pretty much bullied their way through.  What exactly on the Democrat's agenda was appeased? 

 

Obama has a hard time with his own party, because he's pretty much towed the line from previous administrations (both Democrat and Republican) on budget issues, tax cuts, foreign policy (except Dubya) and state issues.  Most of you Republicans characterize him as some left-wing, Marxist activist who is going to destroy the country, yet he's actually been more centre-right than anything else in the last four years. 

 

You talk about Reagan and Clinton, yet it was Bush who started the country on this road down deficits and doubling debt.  If the finances were in better shape under Bush, do you think the country would have been in better or worse shape to handle the recesson?  Oh that little budget buster war in Iraq...one that should not have been fought in the first place.  What about all of the money and lives lost on a war that never should have been.  What about all of the fraudulent and inflated bills paid to companies associated with Bush & Cheney? 

 

Back in February 2003, Bush changed the watchdog over Fannie and Freddie because of fears there, yet he went on to pour more gasoline on the fire with lax regulation on banks, lenders, easy monetary policy and loose credit for consumers for another four years.  This was a guy who bankrupted several companies, and now he was in charge of the United States of America...what the heck did you think was going to happen!  In September 2003, there was further inquiry into FNM and FRE, yet no changes in legislation or regulation.  And what was stopping Bush from enacting tougher lending standards on banks and other financial institutions, or especially mortgage backed securities?  How about hedge funds?  I was writing about hedge funds back in 2006 and early 2007, yet nothing happened.  No tighter regulation or transparency. 

 

I was criticizing his policies way back on the Motley Fool board and also on the old MSN board.  Some people saw the blowup coming a mile away, most saw it coming much closer, yet his administration just kept on pouring gasoline on the whole damn thing.  We all saw Angelo Mozillo on CNBC talking about 110% financed mortgages...did Bush or his administration do anything?  No!  The  Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission stated that this crisis was avoidable...so who the heck was responsible for avoiding it for the seven years before it happened...Bush!

 

Honestly, I don't think Bush was solely responsible for the problems.  I do that to wind you guys up.  There were alot of people responsible and it goes back to Reagan, then Clinton, but Bush was a significant part of the problem and his cronies were even more of a problem. 

 

You guys complain that Obama hasn't done much to fix the problems...it was one hell of a problem to deal with...yet he's dealing with the problem the same way Republicans would have dealt with it...since many of them are still in charge of fiscal and monetary policy.  You want change because you're impatient...but the change you are going to get is worse for the entire system. 

 

I don't want to see the dark days of the Bush administration repeated.  I don't think any administration could have done a worse job with foreign policy than Dubya & Chaingang Cheney, so Romney & Ryan are a step up from that.  But it's your country, and you will have to decide where you go from here.  I think Clinton said it best...is it on your own or are you in this together?  Cheers!

 

First of all, it wasn't a budget session.  The Democrat controlled Senate does not do budgets.  Obama's was rejected 97-0.  It was regarding the debt limit.  The Republicans wanted no new taxes and spending cuts (actually reduction in growth) to begin to return us to spending levels of the prior twenty five years (including Clinton).  Obama and the Democrats wanted additional taxes on the rich, and little to no cuts (reduction in growth).  Both sides played hard ball and bullied their way.  The Republicans got no new taxes and Democrats got no real cuts except to defense (which doesn't bother most of them anyway).  It was a compromise.  A lousy one, but don't blame Republicans.  They can't help it if Obama is a lousy negotiator.  The reality is that Obama lacks the political skills to win these types of debates.

 

You also don't understand why Obama has a hard time with his own party.  It is because they don't get clear direction from him.  If you think he is center-right then you do not understand where the center of US politics is.  Where are Obama's right positions, let alone center???    Clinton governed in the center-right (center socially and right fiscally).  Bush was conservative on social issues but spent like a drunken sailor, as Reagan used to say.  That is why the Tea Party rose up - they saw the Republicans as the same as Democrats.  Obama is certainly not in the center on social issues (now that he is being honest).  His tax policies are also certainly on the left.  Highly Progressive and little concern over deficits.  His foreign policy is in the idealist camp (versus realist), which is more consistent with the far left (although W exhibited a naive far right idealist approach).  Yet Obama thinks he can use the same negotiating skills he used on Boehner to get Iran to forgo nukes.  What a joke. 

 

If you think W started us on the road to deficits, then you once again fail in an understanding of history.  Clinton was an aberration due to the convergence of favorable factors - full economy, peace dividend, internet/telecom bubble, conservative Republican Congress.  Clinton lucked out on timing since the internet/telecom bubble burst just as he was leaving.  With a huge tailwind, Clinton had a few surpluses.  Once the tailwind left the return to deficits came.  They didn't start with W, they started getting significant with Carter. 

 

I'm not going to discredit everything you wrote line by line.  I easily could.  It just isn't worth the time.  I'll end with this.  If you think I want change because I am impatient you are dead wrong.  I want change because the trajectory we are on is unsustainable.  Four more years of Obama and $4 + trillion of additional debt may make it too late.   

 

   

[moore_capital54]

Parsad I think it was you who once said better to not discuss politics on this board and I think I now can say I agree. I have great respect for you and all members of this forum and do not want to develop any animosity that could in the future impede on us collaborating to discover fantastic investment ideas as we have in the past so I will end this nonsense with this post.

 

I just want everyone on this board who is American and planning to vote for Obama again to fully be aware that mathematically the fiscal situation cannot be reconciled unless significant spending cuts occur (in which case after several tough quarters prosperity shall return along the same historical trajectry the US has always experienced) or and this is the path we are being led by the democrats we continue to sacrifice the savers by monetizing the debt. Now at some point the experiment of monetizing the debt will reach the point where we experience hyperinflation not seen since the days of Weimar and when it hits we will see a complete reset of priorities (think 200 dollar oil and food shortages) this will be followed by two obvious but guaranteed developments. The world will lose faithin the us dollar as a reserve currency and more importantly there will be civil unrest as the saving class will continue to afford the basic necessities of life while the lower classes will truly feel the wrath of socialism.

 

Only a free market deregulated society allows for upward mobility. When Michelle Obama says every American deserves a house,healthcare and food... I cringe as the house food and healthcare she thinks they deserve are a product of capitalism, yet if you subsidize everything the result is bolshivik housing, communist food, and healthcare.

 

I don't care what any of you say , only the republicans will be serious about going down the first route I proposed. The demo da tics areso oblivious to history they will continue to push the envelope of big government until it is too late.

 

I have never been pessimistic about the future of humanity until this election. I truly hope I am misreading the situation but it is coming across to me as though the democrats have no freking clue about history, monetary debasement, and the founding principles that made the usa the engine of the world. Don't buy the hype , read the recommendations of the Simpson Bowles commission and see how Obama did nothing to implement them.

 

 

 

 

[tengen]

It's funny how it's always about Obama and the Democrats not working with the Republicans.  Who got almost everything they wanted in the last budget session?  The Republicans pretty much bullied their way through.  What exactly on the Democrat's agenda was appeased? 

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/05/speed-read-juiciest-bits-from-bob-woodward-s-book-price-of-politics.html

 

Those "juicy bits" are somewhat dry and chewy. I hope for Woodward's sake that the "speed read summary" is not doing the book justice.

[DukeCrow]

Wasn't it painfully obvious during the financial crisis who really controls the government?

 

Those arguing Repub vs. Dem are simply shuffling chairs on the deck of the.....

 

But, yeah, I agree with Sanjeev. Obama is a big step up from Bush but still a step down from Clinton. I wouldn't mind having George H.W. Bush back in office vs. who's running now....

[ERICOPOLY]

I don't care what any of you say , only the republicans will be serious about going down the first route I proposed.

 

...

 

Don't buy the hype , read the recommendations of the Simpson Bowles commission and see how Obama did nothing to implement them.

 

Moore,

The Republicans don't seem interested in taxing capital gains and dividends at the rate of ordinary income.

 

That was the recommendation under the first Bowles-Simpson plan.  The "Zero Plan".

 

I believe the Republican's call this "rasing taxes on the rich" or "class warfare" whenever Obama suggests something of the like.

 

What flavor do you see them supporting?

[Tim Eriksen]

I don't care what any of you say , only the republicans will be serious about going down the first route I proposed.

 

...

 

Don't buy the hype , read the recommendations of the Simpson Bowles commission and see how Obama did nothing to implement them.

 

Moore,

The Republicans don't seem interested in taxing capital gains and dividends at the rate of ordinary income.

 

That was the recommendation under the first Bowles-Simpson plan.  The "Zero Plan".

 

I believe the Republican's call this "rasing taxes on the rich" or "class warfare" whenever Obama suggests something of the like.

 

What flavor do you see them supporting?

I know you asked Moore, but I couldn't resist.

 

Republicans like Democrats desire to tax dividends and capital gains twice and thus at a higher rate than ordinary income.  :)  The Democrats just want to do it at a substantially higher rate.

 

The problem is that Obama calls for something different.  He just wants to raise the tax rates on the rich, although he has proposed lowering corporate tax rates, while eliminating certain deductions.  Simpson-Bowles plan was to lower income tax rates and eliminate deductions (Romney has broadly called for this too).  If I am not mistaken, Simpson - Bowles calls for a corporate tax rate of 26% versus the current 35% and just three individual tax rates - 9, 15 and 24, versus the current 10, 15, 25, 28, 33 and 35. 

 

I personally think Republicans could support that assuming there was some seriousness from the other side about slowing spending growth.     

[ERICOPOLY]

I don't care what any of you say , only the republicans will be serious about going down the first route I proposed.

 

...

 

Don't buy the hype , read the recommendations of the Simpson Bowles commission and see how Obama did nothing to implement them.

 

Moore,

The Republicans don't seem interested in taxing capital gains and dividends at the rate of ordinary income.

 

That was the recommendation under the first Bowles-Simpson plan.  The "Zero Plan".

 

I believe the Republican's call this "rasing taxes on the rich" or "class warfare" whenever Obama suggests something of the like.

 

What flavor do you see them supporting?

I know you asked Moore, but I couldn't resist.

 

Republicans like Democrats desire to tax dividends and capital gains twice and thus at a higher rate than ordinary income.  :)  The Democrats just want to do it at a substantially higher rate.

 

The problem is that Obama calls for something different.  He just wants to raise the tax rates on the rich, although he has proposed lowering corporate tax rates, while eliminating certain deductions.  Simpson-Bowles plan was to lower income tax rates and eliminate deductions (Romney has broadly called for this too).  If I am not mistaken, Simpson - Bowles calls for a corporate tax rate of 26% versus the current 35% and just three individual tax rates - 9, 15 and 24, versus the current 10, 15, 25, 28, 33 and 35. 

 

I personally think Republicans could support that assuming there was some seriousness from the other side about slowing spending growth.   

 

 

Okay, so which of the three Simpson-Bowles plans is the Republican candidate ready to sign?

 

Moore lays it out that Obama has stood in the way of getting any of the plans adopted.

 

I haven't heard Romney enunciate his favorite of the three plans.  Thus I doubt his sincerity.  He just takes what the Republicans want from those plans and runs on that.  Thus he is truly going to reach a deal with the Democrats on this, right?  No, I believe he will not.  Thus, how will the Republicans get anything done with this "me, me, me" attitude?

 

For example, Romney does propose new lower tax rates, but he does not propose counting income and dividends as regular income.  He still wants those taxed at 15%. 

[Tim Eriksen]

 

Okay, so which of the three Simpson-Bowles plans is the Republican candidate ready to sign?

 

Moore lays it out that Obama has stood in the way of getting any of the plans adopted.

 

I haven't heard Romney enunciate his favorite of the three plans.  Thus I doubt his sincerity.  He just takes what the Republicans want from those plans and runs on that.  Thus he is truly going to reach a deal with the Democrats on this, right?  No, I believe he will not.  Thus, how will the Republicans get anything done with this "me, me, me" attitude?

 

He doesn't have to choose one of the options, although he is not far from the first option.  If Romney wins, Republicans will almost assuredly win the Senate too, so he will not have to reach a deal with Democrats unless they try and filibuster.  If they do, Republicans may change the rules to eliminate it.  The bottom line is the parties have two different views and are unlikely to reach compromise.  It is the voters job to choose one approach or the other.  By the way this will be fight #2.  #1 will be repeal of Obamacare. 

 

IMO Romney gets you closer to Simpson - Bowles than Obama will. 

 

[Eric50]

Thanks guys, I've enjoyed reading this debate. A couple of comments though:

 

You've barely mentioned the Fed (and Greenspan) as responsible for the crisis. I've no doubt that it is the main culprit of the tech bubble in the late 90s and the real estate bubble of 2002-2007. Low rates fed the speculation. With that kind of monetary policy a crisis would have happened whoever was in power. Sadly, the Fed is still reckless...

 

I grew up in France and was a teenager there in the mid-80s. I saw firsthand the impact of socialism: Mitterrand was elected President there in 1981 and 25 years later we can still see the impact of his entitlement philosophy (I've been living in the states for 12 years and just spent 3 weeks there). When I hear Michelle Obama saying every American deserves a house and a job, that scares me a lot... You do not want the US to become Europe...

[ERICOPOLY]

IMO Romney gets you closer to Simpson - Bowles than Obama will.

 

I can't vote for Republicans because they advance the agenda of the religious conservatives.

 

Which leaves me with only Obama to vote for.

[AZ_Value]

I always promise myself to not jump into these political debates but they're too much fun  ;)

 

As I read all this I keep wondering who those fictional Republicans everybody talks about are.

Are they the same Republicans that pass deficit and debt busting Medicare Part D and tax cuts laws? Yeah, including the new fiscal hawk darling, Paul Ryan.

The same Republicans who start wars without ever planning on how to pay for them?

The same Republicans who when asked about a compromise of $1 in revenue raise vs $10 in spending cuts unanimously answer "Over my dead body". Yeah, that's the attitude that will get our fiscal house in order.

 

I don't even want to get into Mitt Romney himself, I know Moore said earlier that there is no dirt about him, clean guy. But to me it depends on how you define dirt.

Personally I think he is the phoniest character I've seen in a long while. How does a dude in his 50s or 60s suddenly "discover" what his true beliefs are on pretty much all social issues right around the time it's time for him to start courting voters in Alabama vs Massachusetts. I seriously question his character as a man. Get elected by all means possible is pretty much his motto. The guy just wants to be president so bad he'll take on any view that will get him votes, I'm not even sure he knows what he truly believes in anymore.

I can't remember who it was but one comedian a few months ago described it best when Romney pretty much wrapped up the GOP nomination he said "And there you have it, it looks like it's going to be Mitt Romney, a man who has pursued this nomination with the single minded viciousness of an autistic Rottweiler"

 

But at the end of the day I have to side with Ericopoly on this, the GOP will get my attention when they stop espousing agendas that openly discriminate against people. My conscience wouldn't allow it, basic civil and human rights like equality are not something I can compromise on.

[meiroy]

IMO Romney gets you closer to Simpson - Bowles than Obama will.

 

I can't vote for Republicans because they advance the agenda of the religious conservatives.

 

Which leaves me with only Obama to vote for.

 

Amen to that.

 

(there you go Kraven)

 

[Tim Eriksen]

IMO Romney gets you closer to Simpson - Bowles than Obama will.

 

I can't vote for Republicans because they advance the agenda of the religious conservatives.

 

Which leaves me with only Obama to vote for.

 

I knew we would get to religion.  :)

 

Seriously.  Clinton and Obama I were against gay marriage.  Not that anyone with a brain believed Obama when he said that (it was clearly a lick your finger and see which direction the wind is blowing flip flop like Romney on abortion).  Clinton had "don't ask don't tell" and even signed DOMA.  Hard to believe that is the deal breaker.

 

Does that mean abortion is the issue that prevents you from voting Republican?  Even if the Supreme Court changed its opinion, which is unlikely, it would become a state issue, and remain legal in the first trimester in most states. 

 

Or am I missing something? 

[Tim Eriksen]

Thanks guys, I've enjoyed reading this debate. A couple of comments though:

 

You've barely mentioned the Fed (and Greenspan) as responsible for the crisis. I've no doubt that it is the main culprit of the tech bubble in the late 90s and the real estate bubble of 2002-2007. Low rates fed the speculation. With that kind of monetary policy a crisis would have happened whoever was in power. Sadly, the Fed is still reckless...

 

I grew up in France and was a teenager there in the mid-80s. I saw firsthand the impact of socialism: Mitterrand was elected President there in 1981 and 25 years later we can still see the impact of his entitlement philosophy (I've been living in the states for 12 years and just spent 3 weeks there). When I hear Michelle Obama saying every American deserves a house and a job, that scares me a lot... You do not want the US to become Europe...

+1

 

I agree about the Fed 100%.  I think short term history will be tough on W, but over time Greenspan will likely be seen as the biggest contributor.  The real estate bubble was basically caused by the Fed's response to the tech bubble (along with Y2k and 9/11).  Without the low rates the banks miscalculating the risk of a nationwide real estate plunge wouldn't have mattered much. 

[ERICOPOLY]

IMO Romney gets you closer to Simpson - Bowles than Obama will.

 

I can't vote for Republicans because they advance the agenda of the religious conservatives.

 

Which leaves me with only Obama to vote for.

 

I knew we would get to religion.  :)

 

Seriously.  Clinton and Obama I were against gay marriage.  Not that anyone with a brain believed Obama when he said that (it was clearly a lick your finger and see which direction the wind is blowing flip flop like Romney on abortion).  Clinton had "don't ask don't tell" and even signed DOMA.  Hard to believe that is the deal breaker.

 

Does that mean abortion is the issue that prevents you from voting Republican?  Even if the Supreme Court changed its opinion, which is unlikely, it would become a state issue, and remain legal in the first trimester in most states. 

 

Or am I missing something?

 

The Bible thumping religious extremists support the Democrats because...  hmm, I can't quite finish that statement, can you help me out?

 

 

[Tim Eriksen]

IMO Romney gets you closer to Simpson - Bowles than Obama will.

 

I can't vote for Republicans because they advance the agenda of the religious conservatives.

 

Which leaves me with only Obama to vote for.

 

I knew we would get to religion.  :)

 

Seriously.  Clinton and Obama I were against gay marriage.  Not that anyone with a brain believed Obama when he said that (it was clearly a lick your finger and see which direction the wind is blowing flip flop like Romney on abortion).  Clinton had "don't ask don't tell" and even signed DOMA.  Hard to believe that is the deal breaker.

 

Does that mean abortion is the issue that prevents you from voting Republican?  Even if the Supreme Court changed its opinion, which is unlikely, it would become a state issue, and remain legal in the first trimester in most states. 

 

Or am I missing something?

 

The Bible thumping religious extremists support the Democrats because...  hmm, I can't quite finish that statement, can you help me out?

 

They don't.  Outside of the African American community they are steadily moving Republican.  No doubt that many conservative Christians vote based on their moral values, just as you apparently do.  You are just on opposite sides. 

[stahleyp]

Ohhh, I hope this turns into a religion thread!  ;)

 

As for my own quest, I've slowly have moved from agnosticism to theism.

 

How does one determine good from evil if there is not something higher to distinguish them for us? For instance, how was Nazi Germany any better or worse than Mother Teresa?

[enoch01]

Ohhh, I hope this turns into a religion thread!  ;)

 

As for my own quest, I've slowly have moved from agnosticism to theism.

 

How does one determine good from evil if there is not something higher to distinguish them for us? For instance, how was Nazi Germany any better or worse than Mother Teresa?

 

The moral argument has a rich history.  I recommend Kant's "Critique of Practical Reason", J.L. Mackie's "The Miracle of Theism", and Swinburne's "The Existence of God".

 

Now get thee away from this thread as quickly as possible :)

[stahleyp]

enoch,

 

thanks for the recommendations! Do you like any of C.S. Lewis' writings? Mere Christianity was a really good book. I'm gonna tackle some Chesterton soon, too.

[turar]

Ohhh, I hope this turns into a religion thread!  ;)

 

As for my own quest, I've slowly have moved from agnosticism to theism.

 

How does one determine good from evil if there is not something higher to distinguish them for us? For instance, how was Nazi Germany any better or worse than Mother Teresa?

 

You might like this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?pagewanted=all

 

[ERICOPOLY]

IMO Romney gets you closer to Simpson - Bowles than Obama will.

 

I can't vote for Republicans because they advance the agenda of the religious conservatives.

 

Which leaves me with only Obama to vote for.

 

I knew we would get to religion.  :)

 

Seriously.  Clinton and Obama I were against gay marriage.  Not that anyone with a brain believed Obama when he said that (it was clearly a lick your finger and see which direction the wind is blowing flip flop like Romney on abortion).  Clinton had "don't ask don't tell" and even signed DOMA.  Hard to believe that is the deal breaker.

 

Does that mean abortion is the issue that prevents you from voting Republican?  Even if the Supreme Court changed its opinion, which is unlikely, it would become a state issue, and remain legal in the first trimester in most states. 

 

Or am I missing something?

 

The Bible thumping religious extremists support the Democrats because...  hmm, I can't quite finish that statement, can you help me out?

 

They don't.  Outside of the African American community they are steadily moving Republican.  No doubt that many conservative Christians vote based on their moral values, just as you apparently do.  You are just on opposite sides.

 

The side I am on wants, for example, to allow everyone the right to marry no matter what their morals are.

 

The other side wants to use their morality to keep from people the right to marry.

 

It's not simply a mere disagreement over morals as you portray it to be.  Those people are all about using the power of the state to enforce their own morals upon others!  That's tyranny.

 

The Democrats haven't gone far enough on this issue, but they're further along than the Republicans.  That's an example of why I would vote Democrat over Republican.

 

 

 

 

[tyska]

 

 

It's not simply a mere disagreement over morals as you portray it to be.  Those people are all about using the power of the state to enforce their own morals upon others!  That's tyranny.

 

 

So forcing someone who is against say abortion or birthcontrol to pay for it for someone else, is not using the state to enforce their morals upon others.

[MVP444300]

I just can't bring myself to vote for either major party

 

I'm for following the constitution exactly as its written under Article 1, Section 8  (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html) which if followed we would have a govt much, much, much, more smaller than today.  These people take an oath to uphold the constitution, but everyday they break it when they vote to add a new entitlement program or to spend money on things that are not specifically authorized. 

 

In my opinion, we shouldn't have troops station in over 100 countries protecting some of the wealthiest nations on Earth or the most corrupt authoritarian regimes in the world.  In total, the US spends over $1 trillion on foreign relations when you count military, foreign aid, intelligence agencies, Veteran Affairs, and etc.  One would think this could be reduced to cut spending enough to begin cutting into our deficit but neither party is talking about it.  Furthermore, we shouldn't go to war without a declaration of war issued by Congress--both parties are guilty of going to war without seeking a declaration over the past 6 decades.

 

Secondly, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Food Stamps, unemployment, and all other welfare or entitlements programs are not authorized under the constitution.  Neither party supports doing any dramatic cuts to the welfare or warfare aspect of our spending as I would like to see.

 

If the people wanted these programs they should  do it legally by going through the amendment process to the constitution to add a line to allow for whatever entitlement program they wanted implemented.  I don't like the idea that a simple majority at whatever time in history can ram down the throats of the minority a program they demand followed.  This to me is majority dictatorship.  Also, with the trashing of the constitution everyday our freedoms are being slowly taken away.  What freedom will be taken away next?  I fear someday it will be the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion that we all want to enjoy.  How anyone can say we live in a truly free nation anymore when 40% of our income is stolen every year, I mean taken by the govt, even if that money is used for good?  Charity should come from the heart, not from the govt holding a gun to my head demanding I give.