12-20-2011, 07:13 PM | #76 |
beebooboobopbooboobop
|
__________________
|
12-22-2011, 04:53 PM | #77 | |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
01-16-2012, 03:17 PM | #78 |
Not sure if gone...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
|
Old news, but it passed...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...scal_Year_2012 |
01-16-2012, 05:34 PM | #79 | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
The Payroll tax, as far as I'm aware, is the ONLY thing that funds Social Security. Cutting that tax is going to reduce the money available for old people whose sole livelihood is dependent on it. The Republicans are against cutting it. Does that mean it's really the Democrats that "want old people to die" due to the reduced funding? Extending Unemployment benefits. Instead of spending money on supporting people who are NOT WORKING, how about they use that money to PUT PEOPLE BACK TO WORK, in private sector jobs of course, not public sector ones. If I got paid for sitting around (and was able to live, however meagerly on only those payments), why in the world would I look for a job? Extending benefits may SOUND Charitable, but that's all it is, is looks. Democrat "Welfare Programs" are power schemes, entirely designed for getting and keeping votes. If you're happy with being paid for not working, why would you vote for someone that's going to cut that payment (and put you back to work)? By keeping the payments rolling in to their dependents (the poor and needy), Democrats ensure they have a set portion of the voters. And they ensure the payments never bring the poor and needy out of their poverty. Why would they want that? If they were no longer dependent on government handouts, they'd be free to inform themselves better and vote the opposing party. The Democrats don't "care" about the poor, unemployed, or needy. Republicans want to put the poor to work and give them opportunities to improve their own lives instead of being stuck relying on whatever the government feels like giving them. Obviously charity is important, but it should be done personally, and voluntarily, not by forced taxes. |
||
01-17-2012, 11:39 AM | #80 |
Banned
|
While not BS brought to us by the Legislative, is it BS brought to us by the executive, so I thought I'd share, lacking a better place to put it:
Unconstituational Appointments, brought to you by Obama Why am I not surprised? Oh, found some other BS the legislative branch is doing: Overcriminalization of Fraud: The Maple Act Bill Last edited by unownmew; 01-17-2012 at 11:49 AM. |
01-17-2012, 11:44 AM | #81 | |
beebooboobopbooboobop
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
01-17-2012, 12:00 PM | #82 | |
Banned
|
But how many were recess appointments WHILE CONGRESS WAS NOT IN RECESS?
You can't make a recess appointment if Congress is not on recess. To do so, would be a regular appointment, and subject to Congressional "Advice and Consent", as explicitly required by the Constitution, which Obama is not seeking with these appointments. And even if Bush did the same, it's equally heinous and both out be called out for it, instead of both being ignored. It's trampling the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, under their feet, and ought to be stopped, if we desire to keep any of our liberties in the years to come. And I quote: Quote:
Last edited by unownmew; 01-17-2012 at 12:18 PM. |
|
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|