President of the US of A, the Poll

[John Scott]

Hil will be too busy destroying the economy with taxes to invade any country.

[StupidScript]

The only Democratic candidate that had their s**t together during the debate was John Edwards (Lord forgive me). I'd vote for him, if he were in this poll.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Hil will be too busy destroying the economy with taxes to invade any country.

Dunno where you get your information, but as far as I know he wants to reduce the costs of the military and their presence in other (all peaceful) countries drastically and actually save money for the tax payers.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Ferre

Dunno where you get your information, but as far as I know he wants to reduce the costs of the military and their presence in other (all peaceful) countries drastically and actually save money for the tax payers.

He?

And what does that have to do with what I said? Hillary is a Democrat. Democrats introduce more social welfare programs than you can shake a stick at. That's why they are called Tax And Spend Liberals.

[Julie]

Originally Posted by StupidScript

The only Democratic candidate that had their s**t together during the debate was John Edwards (Lord forgive me). I'd vote for him, if he were in this poll.

John Edwards is a scumbag. He oozes sleeze, and it disgusts me the way he uses his wife's cancer to try to gain more publicity. Nevertheless, his performance in the first debate didn't impress me. Obama didn't either - he said "ummm" far too many times for my liking, which drove me nuts. The whole first democratic debate was stupid. They'd let certain people run on and on, going well over their time...while cutting off others any chance they could.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by John Scott

He?

And what does that have to do with what I said? Hillary is a Democrat. Democrats introduce more social welfare programs than you can shake a stick at. That's why they are called Tax And Spend Liberals.

Oops. Sorry John, I misread 'Hil' for 'He' and thought you replied to my question on Kucinich.

And yeah, "Social welfare", that's really nasty, we can't allow that to happen now can we?

[John Scott]

Not when "social welfare" means stealing money from hard working folks to give it to lazy crack heads whose career consists of creating crack babies to milk the government.

Japan is a very socialist country. And you know what? I LOVE IT! Japan has pretty much universal health care. They have awesome worker's rights. But if you think you are going to be lazy and live off the money other people earn here in Japan, you're sorely mistaken.

Yeah, it's socialist, but it isn't stupid. And the American system is stupid. As one person recently said, "America is the only country where the people on welfare are obese." It's true. Unemployed people shouldn't be fat. It's just immoral. You work, you eat. You don't work, you don't eat. That's moral. In America, you there are generations of people who have never worked a damn day in their life.

[Ferre]

Japan is a very socialist country. And you know what? I LOVE IT! Japan has pretty much universal health care. They have awesome worker's rights. But if you think you are going to be lazy and live off the money other people earn here in Japan, you're sorely mistaken.

Same here in Holland, so I assume you agree that a more social system can work very well when there's a good check and balance system to prevent abuse.

When I understand correctly, welfare gets abused in the US because of the lack of a check and balance system to inspect how it's enforced, not because of the existance of the system itself.

[John Scott]

It's not the system, it's the mentality of the Democrats that says that people are victims and they cannot be expected to provide for themselves. It's not that the system design is flawed, because the system design is intentionally meant to encourage more people to become wards of the state.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by John Scott

It's not the system, it's the mentality of the Democrats that says that people are victims and they cannot be expected to provide for themselves. It's not that the system design is flawed, because the system design is intentionally meant to encourage more people to become wards of the state.

I am unaware of any legal documents (from dem. or con. administrations) stating that it is the intention to encourage more people to become wards of the state. Do you have links to any relevant documents?

As Ferre says, and what you in essence agree with, there is nothing wrong with social programs per se. The issue is with oversight, corruption and perhaps laziness if those who administer those programs. I'd say corruption is the biggest issue by far, and corruption is neither exclusive nor unique to Democrats - as we have been able to witness over the years, and as the various corporate welfare programs on Federal and State level suggest.

WHAT $75 BILLION IN ANNUAL CORPORATE WELFARE SAVINGS WOULD BUY

Corporate Welfare Alternatives Annual Cost
Eliminate Capital Gains Tax $70 billion
Eliminate the Death Tax $25 billion
Cut Corporate Tax from 35 percent to 25 percent $65 billion
Cut All Personal Income Tax Rates by 10 Percent $74 billion
Establish 20 Percent Flat Tax $65 billion 3 Percentage
Point Cut in Payroll Tax $70 billion

Source: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1999.

My source:
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-sm063099.html

A sample list of corporate welfare recipients can be found here.

Everybody, dem or con wants a piece of the pie. Too many of them are plainly crooks, and the system has few encorceable mechanisms to keep tabs on those who abuse the system.

I don;t think the situation will get much better either, now that the corporations (owned by both dems and cons) outsorced pretty much every major aspect of US economy, and now are considering legalizing 10 to 20 million of illegal immigrants in the US. That illegal immigration is a huge drain in the US econmy, and if the immigration amnesty goes through then this pretty much seals the fate of this once not such a bad country. (btw. I am an immigrant myself. Legal though)

[John Scott]

I am unaware of any legal documents (from dem. or con. administrations) stating that it is the intention to encourage more people to become wards of the state. Do you have links to any relevant documents?

Are you smoking crack again? Do you have any legal documents showing that you don't masturbate on an hourly basis?

By your logic, lack of those legal documents constitutes proof that you are masturbating on an hourly basis (I'm not judging).

I've been to welfare offices in Seattle, when I was a contractor, looking to hire people. Only on one occasion was I allowed to address the people and ask for workers, and the other times I was flatly rejected. They acted like I was trying to steal their welfare recipients.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Are you smoking crack again? Do you have any legal documents showing that you don't masturbate on an hourly basis?

You wrote :"the system design is intentionally meant to encourage more people to become wards of the state", and all I'm asking is for a proof that the system is actually designed that way. My view is that is wasn't but got corrupted, and the corruption has little to nothing to do with the system's design or the party affiliation.

Oh. while we're at it, were you aware that the largest expansion of the social programs took place between 2000 and 2005, while both the president and both houses were under conservative control.

Originally Posted by John Scott

I've been to welfare offices in Seattle, when I was a contractor, looking to hire people. Only on one occasion was I allowed to address the people and ask for workers, and the other times I was flatly rejected. They acted like I was trying to steal their welfare recipients.

Funny, actually

I had major issues getting workers for construction too at one time. That was in late 80's, economy was hot, everybody worked, so I had to outbid other contractors to get people to work for me.

The fact that you were not allowed to address the people in an office like that may have nothing to do with the welfare or no welfare system or who designed it. There may be some policies preventing you from that (use of govt. property to conduct private business), while getting employees is likely done through some formal application

[John Scott]

You wrote :"the system design is intentionally meant to encourage more people to become wards of the state", and all I'm asking is for a proof that the system is actually designed that way.

No, you asked for legal documents.

My view is that is wasn't but got corrupted, and the corruption has little to nothing to do with the system's design or the party affiliation.

LOL! Whoot! That's a goood one! You are either entirely ignorant of US politics or just being extremely obtuse.

Welfare and entitlement programs have one party affiliation - Democrat.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Welfare and entitlement programs have one party affiliation - Democrat.

I would disagree.

There are plenty of examples of welfare and entitlement programs which are sponsored and supported by Conservatives. Other than the war in Iraq these are some other examples of corporate welfare, initiated and supported by Conservatives:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101723_pf.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...tlements_x.htm
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-sm063099.html

[cldnails]

Frankly, I could care less if it were a female or black president. But seriously, if those are the best nominations we can come up with, as a nation, then we need to start thinning out the gene pool.