Sarah Palin, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate

[Beckwin]

rhinox, you're forgetting.... swampy knew all the welfare queens with big screens and rollin on dubs because he bagged their groceries.

[Kuya]

Elderly could live with their children, or whatever they did in previous generations.

Impractical; the cost of living is too high, and people live far longer. You can't expect a family that is struggling with two kids to carry the burden of another. We don't live in a third nor second world country where these structures are viable.

Fox announced that 24 is now carbon neutral or something. McDonalds is building "green" restaurants. All without the govt.

I don't know where the environmentalist movement started; obviously these companies wouldn't be doing this if they weren't under pressure and if there wasn't any awareness, which does not necessarily need to be handled by the fed, a state, even though it is still government, can handle this too. However, if states don't do this, then by necessity you will need something to force them to, as damage to the environment is not an isolated incident.

I think poverty stats are misleading because most people don't stay there.

They don't, but depending on the economic cycle, these incidents can be prolonged and very sharp. Last thing we need is epidemics and higher crime rates because we allow hard working people to fall into misery; hence we need social safety nets in times of need, especially when the job market is simply not responding to the higher costs of life.

[Beckwin]

the environmentalist movement started with the work of scientists being spread by themselves and activists, chiefly through political avenues leading to regulation. along the way it started getting really ingrained in cultural elements... musicians/artists/entertainers etc began incorporating the messages.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I'm not sure where you're going with this now, I don't think we'll end up agreeing on anything.

I do think charities could easily take the place of welfare if people were taxed less. And maybe I wouldn't be so adverse to socialism if liberals weren't such hypocrites. Obama wants to fight global poverty with tax payer money but won't send his half-brother three twenties and increase his yearly income by five fold. I mean honestly, wtf.

[Beckwin]

you're horribly mistaken on how Obama wants to "fight global poverty"... he's consistently mentioned efforts to bring people dignity in life, even before democracy. His brother has food, water, and shelter; sadly even his brother has it better than many on that continent, not to mention the world in general. I'm also pretty sure he'd send his brother a few 20s if asked.

[_chuchu]

Anyone catch Rush Limbaugh call Powell "Genital Powell"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nR68lqbxs8

[Rhinox]

I'm sure he is being taken out of context by the drive by media. I mean it can't be worst then general betrayus

[archibaldcrane]

Elderly could live with their children, or whatever they did in previous generations.

Damnit Swampy, don't make me make your arguments for you. You're supposed to say:

"Elderly could live on all the money that they've saved up over 47 years because it's not being taken out of their checks for social security payments all the time" or something to that effect.

Add in a "If people weren't so dependent on the government for everything, they would take the initiative to plan for retirement on their own, instead of being glad-handed it out of taxpayer pockets."

Or something like that.

[aurik]

I do think charities could easily take the place of welfare if people were taxed less.

Except...the main reason a lot of people give to charities in non-trivial amounts is because it's a tax-deductible, and therefore a good way of making sure the money you have to pay in taxes anyway goes to a "worthy" cause.

[Kuya]

I'm not sure where you're going with this now, I don't think we'll end up agreeing on anything.

Well, you haven't actually tried to refute what i said. You can't just leave things as is because you don't like the way they sound; if you think you're right you should argue it.

I do think charities could easily take the place of welfare if people were taxed less.

You think charities are more apt to provide these services? Care to prove that? Seems like quite a claim which needs a base.

And maybe I wouldn't be so adverse to socialism if liberals weren't such hypocrites.

I was under the impression that we were talking about the US, not Venezuela. Did i mention socialism? Why do you always bring it up when i don't mention it? You should stick to arguing with me instead of switching to something i don't say. You even went on a tangent about Obama and some enigmatic liberals!

"Elderly could live on all the money that they've saved up over 47 years because it's not being taken out of their checks for social security payments all the time" or something to that effect.

Add in a "If people weren't so dependent on the government for everything, they would take the initiative to plan for retirement on their own, instead of being glad-handed it out of taxpayer pockets."

I wonder, considering all the expenses families have to go through, saving for college for their kids and health insurance is it plausible for anyone of any income level to save for all of this, AND sufficient income for their retirement? Furthermore, don't some workers already have their own personal retirement plans, and these people are usually those who are better off?

[archibaldcrane]

I wonder, considering all the expenses families have to go through, saving for college for their kids and health insurance is it plausible for anyone of any income level to save for all of this, AND sufficient income for their retirement? Furthermore, don't some workers already have their own personal retirement plans, and these people are usually those who are better off?

You realize of course that I wasn't making those arguments, I just recognize that they are the arguments that Swampy should be using.

The idea is that social security is basically taking our money while we work, and giving it back to us when we retire. The argument to abolish it is "don't take it in the first place, I can use it to plan for my own retirement goddamnit".

Plenty of people working jobs with decent benefits and company 401k plans can, with good planning, save for their own retirement and won't -need- social security, even with family expenses and such.

That all being said, I have jack fucking shit for "retirement savings" at 28 years old, and I won't be at a job with a retirement plan any time soon. I don't make enough/have steady enough work in my field for savings I won't touch until I'm 59+ years old.

[Kuya]

I can read, thanks. I know that you're saying that those are the things he should be saying, but since he doesn't seem to want to make them, i mind as well assume that you're arguing them for sport.

I don't make enough/have steady enough work in my field for savings I won't touch until I'm 59+ years old.

Exactly, so one has to wonder whether the issue is what you would like to happen or what needs to happen. Can people really afford to save for their own retirements with so much debt and other savings they have to care for? The American people are packed with enough burdens, why would you force them to pay for their retirements too, completely anyway.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Alright if you insist.

You'll have to give until later in the day to find the charity statistics, but when taxes were at their lowest in the early 1900's is when American's gave the most to charity. I don't think it was tax deductible back then.

Social security is just a generational pyramid scheme that failed. And you're right, my argument is based off the fact that I believe people would be better off doing their own thing with their own money.

And it was a bit of tangent, but I just felt like saying, I might believe in the redistribution of wealth if liberals were actually willing to give away their own money.

[Rhinox]

You'll have to excuse me if i'm just a tad bit cynical about us Americans really giving a flying fuck. Seems like we only get off our asses when we are guilt tripped into doing something. (hi2u sally struthers infomericals).

[Senoska]

Swamp, implied powers were reaffirmed by the supreme court.
If we only follow the constitution to the exact word, we would lose many things such as interstate roads and the air force.

Think before you talk.

[Vandalhart]

If we only follow the constitution to the exact word...

You mean everyone doesn't have the right to have a set of bear arms mounted on their wall?

[eunhye]

http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/15...y_KEY=21129&t=

I love this woman.
http://patdollard.com/wp-content/upl...i-on-botox.jpg

Lib on lib figthing is awesome!

[eunhye]

God I love Barney Frank too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k

[Olo401]

Apparently ACORN workers and offices are being attacked; thanks Republicans.

Muslim McCain Fans Confront Intolerance At Rally (VIDEO)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/20/muslim-mccain-fans-confro_n_136203.html

I wrote this today about this whole violence topic. It's a bit snarky, and a bit serious. Take a look.

In a sentence, doing anything that isn't enumerated in the constitution.

I think it's easier to just say everything that isn't explicitly stated in the constitution.

Not explicity stated in the Constitution, you say? You do realize that would mean every single law on the books, don't you? Including laws such as:

Social security. Incoming carbon emissions stuff. Welfare programs.

Would it be incorrect to say that your interpretation of this country's framework is flawed?

Social security is just a generational pyramid scheme that failed. And you're right, my argument is based off the fact that I believe people would be better off doing their own thing with their own money.

First off, Social Security has not failed. In fact, it's quite possibly the greatest success that this country's legislative body has ever created.

You do know that Social Security is your own money, right? It's basically a stripped down IRA - you even get interest on the money you pay into it because it's held in escrow. And the only reason the government implemented it and operates it is specifically to allow citizens of this country to have at least some minor fallback in their retirement, should their own investments and savings dry up completely. Yeah, helping people save & earn money, and prevent financial ruin in their golden years, is some giant fuckin' pyramid scheme. Real fuckin' shady. Of course, it makes so much more sense to trust those nice honest bastards over at the stock exchange with your retirement account. Yeah.

[Beckwin]

the thing is, Social Security isn't gonna be in serious trouble until what, 2047? And by then we should be getting over the baby boomer generation, so theoretically if we can solve that problem (say, raise the payroll cap for a few decades) we'd be in for pretty clear sailing after that (since we'd be likely to see a replacement level population. if we undergo population shrinkage- unlikely- it probably wouldn't be too dramatic).