Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To take it a step further than politics, what we have done is effectively halt evolution. There is no survival of the fittest, or at least survival of all but the bottom 10%. No, it's survival of everyone because we have to sustain the useless garbage so that it can procreate and create generations of tax burdens. Imagine if all the stupid lazy people who can't take care of themselves died off without government assistance? How many of you can honestly say the world wouldn't be a better place?
Free markets yield the highest economic productivity. The more laws and taxes and government intervention, the less efficiently the markets operate. That is basic economics, and yet somehow the concept is ignored every day.
As wonderful as free markets are--and I am a free-trade believer to the core--markets exist to serve human beings, not the other way around. Ayn Rand argued that only producers count in a market, not "consumers" as such, but ignored that the same people count as net producers or net consumers at different times in their lifespan.
Infants, toddlers and the old and infirm are technically "useless eaters" as the Nazis might've put it. Should we get rid of them?
"To Mr/Ms/Mrs Minority - no more affirmative action, it's discriminatory - no more preferential treatment of any kind, you've gotten away with far too much already"
Yes, let's go back to the "good old boys" network. Your kid wants in Harvard? No prob! Just write us a check!
"Don't even think of coming to the US to drop a baby across the border - no more anchor babies"
Yeah, our families came here when there were no restrictions at all; too bad for you!
"Your children are no longer the taxpayer's problem - you will be required to support them, one way or another"
Even if you have to put them on an orphan train and send them away!
"Unions will be responsible for funding their own pensions. Taxpayers will not be held hostage."
???
We need candidates that have actually achieved some success in running a business, not spent their lives as politicians or lawyers (or community organizers).
Like Carter and Hoover? What about the Bush family 'dynasty'? Not OK?
We also need an electorate that:
- Cares more about the presidential race than who wins American Idol
- Knows the candidates for president as well or better than those on American Idol
- Doesn't turn out to simply vote against someone
- Knows the issues and the various candidates stance
- Isn't ignorant enough to vote for skin color, gender or "historic" hype
- Has cared enough to actually watch the debates - all of them
Yeah, let's make the above requirements for voting. Mandatory attendance at televised debates at every high school and rec center in the country.
Yes, there are. But is it only the rich? Are there more rich people who get entitlements than poor? Is it the rich that vote for the democrats in return for entitlements?
I don't know the answers to those questions. The rich certainly get their share of tax breaks, and they'll vote for whoever will give them to them.
As wonderful as free markets are--and I am a free-trade believer to the core--markets exist to serve human beings, not the other way around. Ayn Rand argued that only producers count in a market, not "consumers" as such, but ignored that the same people count as net producers or net consumers at different times in their lifespan.
Infants, toddlers and the old and infirm are technically "useless eaters" as the Nazis might've put it. Should we get rid of them?
I don't think we should "get rid of" anyone, rather let them get rid of themselves as opposed to providing support in the form of welfare, soc sec, and medicare/aid.
Infants and toddlers are not to be lumped into this category as they have not yet become producers.
Old people should have led a life that allowed them to support themselves in their old age, or know that they have family who will be supporting them. My tax dollars shouldn't be spent on them. That's cold, but it's how I feel about it.
A cold-hearted, callous President is what we need if we are to ever get this economy fixed and our national debt eliminated.
You've just described Dick Cheney
Quote:
One who will say:
- The taxpayers don't care about your pet project, Senator, and neither do I.
- I sympathize with your terminally sick father, but life is not fair. Taxpayers can't afford to keep him alive for the next 12 months just to make you happy.
- I understand that you want to flee your country for a better life in America. But taxpayers cannot afford your burden.
- I understand, Mr. Businiess, that your company is in trouble. But taxpayers are not to fault for your bad business decisions.
- I understand, Cabinet Secretary, that you'd like to give your staff across the board raises. Taxpayers are not concerned, and neither am I.
- I understand, Governor, that your state has degenerated into a Nanny State. I will not sign any legislation that provides you a bailout. Cut government and cut services. That's my advice to you.
Yes, its time to make this nation suffer a bit of hardship to get back to our roots and our principals.
9% Unemployment should not be enough to put a nation on its knees economically. Period. What that means is that our government has failed us by epic proportions.
Will we get out of this ditch? No, I don't think we will. We've devolved into a Welfare Nation, and its irreversible.
But you can be sure that i'll vote for the first cold-hearted, callous Presidential candidate that is willing to give it a try, that's for sure.
For 8 years, Cheney practically controlled executive branch policy. We all see how well that worked.
Hell, the really rich own 99% of the country so they should pay 99% of the cost of maintaining it. They need to take responsibility for protecting their property. Unfortunately responsibility is never a consideration for the terminally greedy. As a really cold hearted president I would enforce that responsibility.
For 8 years, Cheney practically controlled executive branch policy. We all see how well that worked.
Cheney is getting a new heart. Maybe he'll change.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pull-EEZ!
