What Happened To Our Great Nation

[fcbayern]

SO let me begin with the disclaimer. I was born in this country and believe its the greatest place in the world to live.

I was just thinking (actually doing my bills) and noticed how many incredibly rediculous taxes we actually pay. I mean we pay taxes when we make money. We pay taxes when we spend money. we have special taxes on things like tobacco, gasoline, and Alcohol. Where I live I pay an extra .5% sales tax to support the public transportation system. WHat does our govt do with all of our money? I dont know about you guys but in these trying times, I would personally like to keep as much of the money I work hard for, as possible. Yet everyday it seems I pay more and more to the Govt.

Where are the guys who started the Boston Tea Party? I bunch of guys who protested against the Govt simply for taxing some tea! But yet our govt decides to up the taxes on tobacco products, and an entire nation just rolls over and says "ok".. With what purpose? "oh we tax tobacco because it cuases lung cancer, and therfore increases health care costs" Well I for one have my own health insurance, that costs me $1000. a month BTW. Yes I did say it costs me a cool grand just to go to the doctor.. SO does this mean I shouldnt have to pay the extra taxes? because my lung cancer costs are covered by my own insurance? Let me not even get started on the health care system, I mean I saw the bill for my last childs birth, $25K to have a baby!!...And it wasnt even complicated, we were in the hospital 1 day..

ANother example: Here in Fla we have a seabelt law (I always wear my seatbelt BTW). THe ridiculous fine for not wearing your seatbelt ? Almost $150. You tell me is this law to protect the public? No its to generate income. Who gets hurt by not wearing their seatbelt? only the person not wearing it, so why not let them make the decision (adults only of course)..Again if I get in an accident and I'm hurt, I paid my big stack to united healthcare this month so I'm covered.

I recently went on a road trip from Miami (home) to NC (Mush's Home) to do some sight seeing. I drove I-95 all the way up and back. The only place I had to pay a toll on I-95, was in Miami. So if everyother town along that road can do without the toll income, why does Miami have a toll on an interstate highway? Not to mention that it cost over 2 million dollars just to build the toll, and the traffic cuased by the people stopping to pay the toll. Imagine how much less traffic there would be nationwide if there werent any toll booths. In other countries tolls are paid by purchasing a sticker for your car that has an expiration date, if you drive on a toll road and dont have the sticker, there's a fine. But there's never any traffic cuz they have no toll booths, no big expensive buildings to build, or toll booth workers to pay.(its like this in Austria)

Sorry about the rant guys, but it just seems our Govt, on all levels even state and local, is out of control. Worst of all it seems like our nation as a whole is just rolling over and taking it. Look my bottom line is "I worked very hard for this money, I want to keep it. If your going to take it from me, at least give me something useful in return!!"

Who's up for protesting infront of OBAMA's house? Edited July 14, 2009 by fcbayern

[RogueSmoker]

I feel ya man. I just love busting my arse just to give back what I made (sarcasm).

[McLovin600]

come to Chicago and youl quickly realize you have nothing to complain about...a pack of smokes is almost 11$ downtown, highest taxes in the country and meter parking will be 4$ an hour soon then 6. red light enforcement cameras (highway too) $100 all over the freakin place. more than 1 unpaid parking ticked and you get a boot! talk about generating revenue! i feel ya tho

[Svaals]

The country really is a nanny state. I can handle temporary assistance for people that need employment, etc., but this girl my wife works with is everything the social welfare system isn't supposed to be. She is 20, has two kids, and is a single parent. She gets all kinds of stuff, WIC, food stamps etc. She won't use WIC because it's "embarassing", and I'm thinking... uh... if you're embarrassed to use WIC to get some freakin' milk, then maybe you should work. She even has some non-profit agency paying her rent. Yet, every dime she gets goes to buying gas to go somewhere she doesn't need to go, or to cigarettes, or to fast food. It's disgusting. It's not like she's unemployed, she just doesn't go, even before near-term, she called in most of the time, and didn't work more than 2 days a week. Even part time, if you need those hours, especially in fast food, you can get them from some lazy fucker that doesn't want to work.

That's kind of an extreme example, and probably the worst abuse of the system that I, personally, have seen. But, it goes across the board, the government does whatever they can to make things easy on us, including making tough decisions for us (even though most decisions in gov't are made by lobbyists handing out plane tickets).

News media is sensationalistic, and makes people fear leaving their own house. They tell us how hard life is, and that it would just be impossible to get by without that great government doing everything for us. We really are treating everyone in the country like a child, meanwhile scaring everyone to death so they won't do anything about it.

[joytron]

i have never known starvation.


i think life is pretty good.

[Tyler]

Obama wants change! And your

[fcbayern]

Obama wants change! And your

I think this way bigger than an obama thing,, Why doesnt this Govt try letting me keep some of my own fucking money,,FOR A CHANGE!!

Here's the kicker story,,, a $250 fine for vaccinating my dog 3 days late.. but there are at least 10 cats in my neighborhood that supposedly dont belong to anyone, therefor dont have shots, but the lady next door feeds them. I should tell animal control "I'm not paying that fine, those arent my dogs, i just feed them cuz i feel sorry for them"

I feel the govt instead of helping the people is making it worse by taxing them more, because they are also short on money... When will this end?

[Sonthert]

People are always saying they want criminals locked up so they make more, tougher laws and more people go to jail. Then they want to not pay more in taxes. Similar story. You walk into a burger place. You say How much is a hamburger? They say $3. You say, OK, I want a double cheeseburger, but I'm not willing to pay more than $3.

There are so many more laws, government regulations, laws, crimes, jail, prisons, criminals, judges, district attorneys, and public defenders than there were 100 years ago. They all cost money. You want to not pay more taxes? You have to decide. There are fundamentally two choices, either you want a big government to make all of these things happen or you want a small one that leaves things more undone. More injustice, more shady characters doing sketchy things. If you want all these "extras" don't complain about the price of them. One person says "I want more jails" another person says "I want murderers off the street." Another person says "I want less sexual harrassment." All these things cost money. If you want lower taxes, stop demanding that government take action.

Other than that, I agree. Less taxes, less government butting their nose in. The government works for us, not the other way around.

[tinyj316]

I can see both sides of the coin in the taxation matter... We're not paying taxes without representation, we're paying taxes with over representation...but we're also getting a hell of a lot more in services than people take into account.

First, most of our tax money goes into the pentagon's bloated budget... If 10% of the pentagon's budget was evenly distributed amongst health care, education, and providing for the truly destitute, we wouldn't have any funding issues with those three topics... That's saying something.

As far as the toll roads go, most of the money collected from toll roads go toward trunkline maintenance programs. The same thing is common in Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, California, and other states... If you don't like paying the tolls, don't take the expressway...

With regards to seatbelt laws, your right, for the most part, that it's a revenue builder... Yes, seatbelts save lives in accidents, and yes, most people wear their seat belt... The reason why the fine is in place is threefold. First, it helps pay for emergency services, and second it serves as a reminder to practice safe driving technique, and third, it can be used (in many states) as a "on the road plea bargain"... I've known a number of people who have been pulled over for speeding, and have the cop write them for a seatbelt ticket instead... It saves people points on their driving record, but the state/county/city still gets the revenue generated from the fine.

Also, Eric is right... the more stuff people want, the more its going to cost in the long run, especially when we have outgrown our current infrastructure and are playing catch-up...

As for getting fined $250 for not vaccinating your dogs on time, that sucks dude... I'm sure if you fight the fine, you can get it reduced or dropped...

[Bulldog_916]

Well, personally I think our infrastructure needs a total overhaul. Before thinking about universal healthcare and the like, they need to think about rebuilding the roads, bridges, utility lines, waterways, levees, electrical grid, and plumbing systems. We are falling apart here folks, some of you already know the feeling. We in Sacramento do, all too well, look up the floods in 1997 and 1986. Rolling blackouts during the cold winter months in the northern US, floods in the southeastern US, terrible roadways causing car tire damage, accidents and the occasional roadway collapse. Trains literally compacting themselves after hitting a bad stretch of track. 3 major water main breaks a week in New York and New Jersey. Some Delaware residents having to buy all bottled water in some cases because their water is so contaminated that they cant even use it to wash themselves. These are the kinds of situations that are going to cause us to pay a premium to fix, pay a premium in life and limb. As each little issue crops up, people will die from it. Whether it's from contaminated water, flooding, electrocution, bridge and roadway collapses, etc. Question becomes, how many people's lives are we willing to pay with before the problem is addressed?

[Arcane]

Well I for one have my own health insurance, that costs me $1000. a month BTW. Yes I did say it costs me a cool grand just to go to the doctor.. SO does this mean I shouldnt have to pay the extra taxes? because my lung cancer costs are covered by my own insurance? Let me not even get started on the health care system, I mean I saw the bill for my last childs birth, $25K to have a baby!!...And it wasnt even complicated, we were in the hospital 1 day..

holy crap man!!! i'm kinda glad that i'm in the military now...it costs me next to nothing for medical...

[Sonthert]

I agree on the defense spending cuts. Modest cuts in Defense Spending would alleviate some of our financial troubles.

I disagree with toll roads. If states had more money, they wouldn't need toll roads. I think, in fact parking rates should be capped and low and toll roads outlawed. The solution? More taxes or cut spending, on stupid over-criminalization of the justice system or defense spending.

Toll roads are regressive taxes. We need to reestablish progressive taxes where the wealthy pay larger percentages in relation to poor people. Obama has made some good progress in this matter, but needs to get closer to his campaign plan on taxation. Reinstitute the estate tax (which was only on estates over $2,000,000) that George W. eliminated, but increase the level to $3 or $4 million dollars.

Ultimately, there are too many laws, too many people in prison. We can't continue to pay for it all. Institute the death penalty quickly for repeat felons, reduce prison sentences. In terms, people assume that criminals are dangerous and need to be locked up. This is not universally true. Felonies need to be higher criteria (the standard for felonies has continued to decline in the past 70 years, making it easier for a person to get convicted of a felony) People who aren't in for violent felonies need to be released after 6 months or so. After they rack up 10 points (2 for a non-violent felony, 3 for a violent felony), they are executed. Criminals, like any other minority group, shouldn't be generalized in that their attributes are inherent and unchangeable. Human will allows people to change if they want to.

I would also say abolish all private attorneys, but that might not work too well. Hard to tell. It would encourage people to support government legal programs more and encourage their funding, but I don't know I would trust the government to administrate their own ability to lock up citizens.

Also, the private school-public school disconnect should be addressed. The model for the public education system is a failure. The manner in which people who have children in private schools can work actively to block funding for public schools should be made more difficult. The funding obviously should come from more taxes.

There is one other item I think might make a difference. I am of the opinion, perhaps a rational person can point out my error, that If we have a certain number of janitors at our company, and we decide to put twice as many employees in the offices, we'd need more janitors...right? Not twice as many, but definitely not fewer.

[attachment=3845:Reductio...Congress.doc]

So what is the reason that the number of elected federal representatives has continued to decline? The actual answer is that the House of Representatives only holds 435 people. It was increased to 437 temporarily in 1959 when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union, but then reduced the next year, back to 435. In 80 years (1920-2000), the number of members of the House, who are supposed to be the more direct representatives of the people (because they are mostly based on population) , has remained constant, although the population has gone from 106,000,000 to over 300,000,000. What gives? 3 times as many people should need at least 3 times as many representatives. If there were more representatives in the House, it would be harder for big business and lobbyists to pocket them all, and it would be reasonable that each representative, responsible to fewer people would have their priorities more oriented to them, since it would be easier to address fewer people's needs.

Put it a different way. If there was a single elected official in the United States, we would be more at the mercy of that person. If they were a jerk, we would all suffer. So, two people would be better than one. Three would be better still. There must be some larger limit where it becomes impractical to add more people. If we believe that the founding fathers thought that 19-20 representatives per million people was the best (since thats what they used and they really could have done any number they wanted to), why are we tolerating a representation of only 1.4 House members (on average) per million Americans? Its not the ability to communicate thats important, its the ability to represent the interests of a group of people. Its a matter of practicality. Is it easier to look after the best interests of 50,000 people (like the founding fathers seem to have intended?) or 1,000,000 people? Obviously the smaller number. Why not try it? If it doesn't work, we can always go back to 435. We might also consider increasing senate representation to 4 or 5 per state, too. That average number has declined over the years, but the Senate was never meant to have population-proportional determination.

We expect that our representatives represent us. Its easier just to go for the money if you can't make everyone happy. If you reduce the number of people each representative is responsible for, maybe they can do a better job. A lot of people feel the government isn't responsive to their needs. I agree. What we need is more people in there to help get the job done.

As a side point, when did the United States start to go to shit? After 1910, definitely. The number of representatives has been declining (on a per capita basis) in a big way around 1930, when the number of House members locked up at 435. Could it be that simple? Certainly not. Will it help to get the voice of the average American heard by the government? Definitely.

Why is it that we've been reduced to two choices? Tolerate the shit or have a revolution? I say its our government, we need to make it work for us. Its only tough for one person. If the American people come together and work together, we can make it happen.

Thats my opinion. Naive, idealistic and out of touch with reality.

[Moefasaaa]

grommet.

[Svaals]

I agree with Eric about the size of the House. When populations surge like they have, redistricting should not just consist of drawing the lines in different places, it should consist of adding more lines and adding more seats. One representative just cannot represent districts with more people than they can keep track of.

If the choice is smaller government or more taxes, I would say smaller government. The Feds should maintain interstate infrastructure, maintain a functioning military for defending the country (not necessarily for occupying half of the world), provide ambassadors for international affairs and relations, and settle legal disputes when needed. Really that is all I want from my federal government.

Public education issues, commodity taxes, prisons, etc. should be decided by the states, and if there is a dispute as to whether those decisions over-reach, then the federal legislature can determine that.

Perhaps if states were left with a larger bill for criminal justice, they might get over the silly idea that more prosecutions means less crime. Less prosecutions means less crime... duh!

Edit: And in closing, gasket! Edited July 15, 2009 by Svaals

[tinyj316]

I agree with Eric about the size of the House. When populations surge like they have, redistricting gerrymandering should not just consist of drawing the lines in different places, it should consist of adding more lines and adding more seats. One representative just cannot represent districts with more people than they can keep track of.

If the choice is smaller government or more taxes, I would say smaller government. The Feds should maintain interstate infrastructure, maintain a functioning military for defending the country (not necessarily for occupying half of the world), provide ambassadors for international affairs and relations, and settle legal disputes when needed. Really that is all I want from my federal government.

Public education issues, commodity taxes, prisons, etc. should be decided by the states, and if there is a dispute as to whether those decisions over-reach, then the federal legislature can determine that.

Perhaps if states were left with a larger bill for criminal justice, they might get over the silly idea that more prosecutions means less crime. Less prosecutions means less crime... duh!

Edit: And in closing, gasket!

FTFY.... we haven't had true redistricting in years... its all gerrymandered...

[Svaals]

FTFY.... we haven't had true redistricting in years... its all gerrymandered...

Sad, but true.

[MN_Clouds]

Welcome to contradictory public opinion--We want lower taxes AND better government services/higher standard of living. I am actually amazed that the US tax rates aren't even higher than they are, with the government spending like a drunken sailor and having no concern for the what the deficit will mean to future generations.
High taxes are on the verge of becoming a necessity. I believe it will be good for the country to take more of our hard earned money in order to stay afloat. The problem with this is, constituents will not elect politicians who promise to raise taxes. The candle is being burned at both ends (I hate cliches), with overspending on one end and not enough income (taxes) on the other.

[Sonthert]

Gerrymandering is irrelevant. I think we should try more representatives. I would imagine a straight multiplication of the House of Representatives by 3 or 4 would be key. It could also in part alleviate the smaller and smaller Senate representation. They might even set up a second House of Representatives, connected by the internets in the Western part of the US. Politicians won't do this of their own accord...they have more power the way it is. Probably the same argument which is capping us at 50 states. More representatives means less power for each representative. If we had three times (or four times) the number of members of the House, Gerrymandering would become impossible...or a lot less relevant since the number of reps would be larger, corresponding to fewer people, so certain reps would preside over areas that are largely one race/ethnicity and they wouldn't have to draw wiggly lines to keep party balance in place...they would have a lot fewer choices since the lines would be closer together.

[thehelios]

I'm all about taxes but yes, some are a bit ridiculous. I can see logic as to why they charge a fine for not wearing a seat belt. You get into a car crash with a belt on and you have a normal car crash. You get into a crash with no belt and you've just caused major traffic for an area for hours while wasting citizens time driving on the road, police and medical responders to treat a scene, etc. The fine is a bit of money but it saves the local government tons of time and money if you do so. It's more of a threat than a money maker.

And where exactly on I-95 did you hit a toll?! I've gone from exit 1 to NYC and never hit a toll. The only tolls I know of are on the Turnpike but that's not an interstate but a state owned toll road.

I'm for taxes because it helps regulate society with medical support, law enforcement, and social work. Without the regulation there'd be plenty of chaos to go around. You could have a country where everyone is to their own and keeps what they make with no government but then you'll have this middle ages crap where everyone is trying to kill everyone else to just have more land/money/women/livestock/etc. Edited July 21, 2009 by thehelios

[ashes87]

At this point in my life, I believe the vast majority of our govt is a waste, but that is just my opinion.

The insurance comp - regulated by the govt - screwed me out of health insurance. I get screwed on college because I can not get federal aid due to being white - I am not being racist, just stating the facts that I see at the college I go to. That is just 2 examples I can think of right now.

Too bad I cant just sit back and watch all of it burn because that would put me in a better mood in all honesty.

[fcbayern]

At this point in my life, I believe the vast majority of our govt is a waste, but that is just my opinion.

The insurance comp - regulated by the govt - screwed me out of health insurance. I get screwed on college because I can not get federal aid due to being white - I am not being racist, just stating the facts that I see at the college I go to. That is just 2 examples I can think of right now.

Too bad I cant just sit back and watch all of it burn because that would put me in a better mood in all honesty.

I couldnt agree more!! We need les govt inour lives, less legal system, less prison system, less military. I mean come on the cold war is over, we are losing against the terrorists (or thats what we call them).

I have serioulsy considered jumping ship and moving to another country (YOU KNOW WHICH ONE SO DONT ASK BITCHES) But I cant seem to put my family through it. If I were single I would have been gone by now.

They have better seals in Germany

[Vampy6997]

I'd move if I didn't have custody crap to deal with. 12 yrs left.

[gaia.plateau]

Shouldn't this question have been asked about 60 years ago?

[TheScotsman]

I agree on the defense spending cuts. Modest cuts in Defense Spending would alleviate some of our financial troubles.

I disagree with toll roads. If states had more money, they wouldn't need toll roads. I think, in fact parking rates should be capped and low and toll roads outlawed. The solution? More taxes or cut spending, on stupid over-criminalization of the justice system or defense spending.

Toll roads are regressive taxes. We need to reestablish progressive taxes where the wealthy pay larger percentages in relation to poor people. Obama has made some good progress in this matter, but needs to get closer to his campaign plan on taxation. Reinstitute the estate tax (which was only on estates over $2,000,000) that George W. eliminated, but increase the level to $3 or $4 million dollars.

Ultimately, there are too many laws, too many people in prison. We can't continue to pay for it all. Institute the death penalty quickly for repeat felons, reduce prison sentences. In terms, people assume that criminals are dangerous and need to be locked up. This is not universally true. Felonies need to be higher criteria (the standard for felonies has continued to decline in the past 70 years, making it easier for a person to get convicted of a felony) People who aren't in for violent felonies need to be released after 6 months or so. After they rack up 10 points (2 for a non-violent felony, 3 for a violent felony), they are executed. Criminals, like any other minority group, shouldn't be generalized in that their attributes are inherent and unchangeable. Human will allows people to change if they want to.

I would also say abolish all private attorneys, but that might not work too well. Hard to tell. It would encourage people to support government legal programs more and encourage their funding, but I don't know I would trust the government to administrate their own ability to lock up citizens.

Also, the private school-public school disconnect should be addressed. The model for the public education system is a failure. The manner in which people who have children in private schools can work actively to block funding for public schools should be made more difficult. The funding obviously should come from more taxes.

There is one other item I think might make a difference. I am of the opinion, perhaps a rational person can point out my error, that If we have a certain number of janitors at our company, and we decide to put twice as many employees in the offices, we'd need more janitors...right? Not twice as many, but definitely not fewer.

[attachment=3845:Reductio...Congress.doc]

So what is the reason that the number of elected federal representatives has continued to decline? The actual answer is that the House of Representatives only holds 435 people. It was increased to 437 temporarily in 1959 when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union, but then reduced the next year, back to 435. In 80 years (1920-2000), the number of members of the House, who are supposed to be the more direct representatives of the people (because they are mostly based on population) , has remained constant, although the population has gone from 106,000,000 to over 300,000,000. What gives? 3 times as many people should need at least 3 times as many representatives. If there were more representatives in the House, it would be harder for big business and lobbyists to pocket them all, and it would be reasonable that each representative, responsible to fewer people would have their priorities more oriented to them, since it would be easier to address fewer people's needs.

Put it a different way. If there was a single elected official in the United States, we would be more at the mercy of that person. If they were a jerk, we would all suffer. So, two people would be better than one. Three would be better still. There must be some larger limit where it becomes impractical to add more people. If we believe that the founding fathers thought that 19-20 representatives per million people was the best (since thats what they used and they really could have done any number they wanted to), why are we tolerating a representation of only 1.4 House members (on average) per million Americans? Its not the ability to communicate thats important, its the ability to represent the interests of a group of people. Its a matter of practicality. Is it easier to look after the best interests of 50,000 people (like the founding fathers seem to have intended?) or 1,000,000 people? Obviously the smaller number. Why not try it? If it doesn't work, we can always go back to 435. We might also consider increasing senate representation to 4 or 5 per state, too. That average number has declined over the years, but the Senate was never meant to have population-proportional determination.

We expect that our representatives represent us. Its easier just to go for the money if you can't make everyone happy. If you reduce the number of people each representative is responsible for, maybe they can do a better job. A lot of people feel the government isn't responsive to their needs. I agree. What we need is more people in there to help get the job done.

As a side point, when did the United States start to go to shit? After 1910, definitely. The number of representatives has been declining (on a per capita basis) in a big way around 1930, when the number of House members locked up at 435. Could it be that simple? Certainly not. Will it help to get the voice of the average American heard by the government? Definitely.

Why is it that we've been reduced to two choices? Tolerate the shit or have a revolution? I say its our government, we need to make it work for us. Its only tough for one person. If the American people come together and work together, we can make it happen.

Thats my opinion. Naive, idealistic and out of touch with reality.

I don't know where to start.

I am in nearly complete agreement. Must be something in the water!

As for when it all went to hell, IMNHO it was under Woodrow Wilson, and Teddy Roosevelt. The original "progressives".

Who wants more gov't services? Hell, when have you ever seen ANY government "service" that wasn't a complete disaster? Just name one...

waiting...


still waiting.....


Er, ya, I can't come up with any either.

Example: that cash for clunkers fiasco, seems simple enough, dumb as hell, but simple. But wait... it isn't! One of my friends owns a local dealership, and had to get the certification done this am. 2-1/2 on those shrink-wrapped packages of copy paper to print it out. Yep, government in action. make a bad plan, and then screw it up so bad no one can make any sense of it. Good job.


Who cares how many reps there are, or what the ratio, as long as they are passing 1500 page bills without reading them, hell.... passing them by voting on it without even having a single copy on the house floor, and passing bills in minutes after adding 300+ pages of amendments. Ratio doesn't matter when the politicians are heavily invested in the same banks they are bailing out, or when they have held office for 30+ years.

I would MUCH rather see a single 6 year term limit than even more of the corrupt bastards sucking our blood.


You worry about seatbelts? I laugh at you! allot! Once the gubernm'nt is paying for your healthcare, the collective good matters more than your piss-ass desires or rights. You WILL wear your seatbelt, bicycle helmet, and cease any behaviour which may risk costing the collective resources. You think it's bad now... wait! Their money, their right to control your actions.

I can only assume this is the change the morons were "believing" in. Hate to say it... but told ya. It's only gonna get worse.

Ask yourself what it's going to look like with a reported unemployment of 15% by Dec? Not pretty, but seemingly inevitable. One has to ask, is obummer actually so dumb he thinks he is doing something right, or is he deliberately destroying the economy of the USA? But look at the good side, once fanny mae forcloses on your house, they will rent it back to you! Good grief!

[Dranas]

I disagree with defense spending cuts, for reason that im not going to get into because id have to start a new thread.

toll roads are ridiculous, our taxes built the damned roads and pay the people who fix them, why the hell should i have to pay to drive on a road my tax dollars built?

Get rid of welfare altogether, too many people living off this and not working. You wanna eat? get a job like everyone else. I should not have to pay for Mary J Rotten-crotch to have 4 kids and her husband James Limp Willy to sit around and beat his meat all damned day. sure helping a family who just happens to be getting shafted by life is ok, but don't let them live off it for the rest of their lives.

Insure Illegal immigrants, is he REALLY serious? you want me to pay for some douche's medical when said person doesn't even pay taxes, isn't a citizen, and isn't working? so this is the part where the government gives me a reach around right?

To relieve budget deficits, you cut programs, not jobs. If you cut jobs you have people jumping onto programs for "free" money.

All this stuff aggravates me, stupid liberals need to choke. ok im done with my little rant time to go puff my worries away