# The Easiest and the Hardest Places to Live in the USA



## QuickSilver (Nov 15, 2015)

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2014...-seeing-this-Map-defies-logic?detail=facebook

Why any ostensibly rational person living in Kentucky, Tennessee, the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, or Louisiana who saw this map, and still would think their states' Republican leaders' policies were delivering the economic growth their region so sorely needs is beyond comprehension.


----------



## hangover (Nov 15, 2015)

The majority of people on welfare live in red states....go figure.


----------



## BobF (Nov 15, 2015)

Again, all those red states in the south east of the US were once all solid Democrat states and were very depressed areas to live in.   I don't know if they are all Republican these days, if so, then maybe they have a chance to improve.   Some of the northern states industries have move branches to those southern states.   Many importing countries put their plants in the south for various reasons.   Some of those states have modern and prosperous larger cities but much is still rural and that means less prosperous for many folks.


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 15, 2015)

Yes bob.... the are ALL Repubican..  and proof positive that Conservative Republican policies DO NOT WORK....


----------



## AZ Jim (Nov 15, 2015)

The irony or proof of mentality is that the south who use by far most of the social welfare go to the polls and vote for those who want to take that same welfare away.


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 15, 2015)

Yep.... that is the puzzling part.. for sure.


----------



## BobF (Nov 15, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Yes bob.... the are ALL Repubican..  and proof positive that Conservative Republican policies DO NOT WORK....



It will take some years to get rid of all the Democrat mistakes in those southern states.   You said all states are now Republican, are you just ignoring any Democrat states?    I guess I will have to look that up.   How about W Virginia or maybe Mississippi.   Just not sure so I will look at the party maps after a bit.


----------



## BobF (Nov 15, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> The irony or proof of mentality is that the south who use by far most of the social welfare go to the polls and vote for those who want to take that same welfare away.



Do you really expect them to give up a free given by the earlier days of Democrat controls.   Likely not and that is one of the problems of all this give away stuff being proposed.   Once given, nobody wants to go back to work or give it back.


----------



## BobF (Nov 15, 2015)

OK, you are correct according to this graphic.    Only since 1964 have Republicans been in charge down south.   Prior to that from the beginning of the US it was driven by the Democrats.

http://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_and_legislative_party_control_of_state_government
[h=2]Trifectas[/h] 


_See also: Ballotpedia:Who Runs the States, Partisanship Results, State Government Trifectas
_
 As of November 2015, there are *7* Democratic and *24* Republican trifectas. A trifecta is when one political party holds these three positions in a state's government: 




 The governorship
 A majority in the state senates
 A majority in the state houses.
 
The concept of the trifecta  is important in state lawmaking because in many states, the governor,  senate majority leader and house majority leader play decisive roles in  the legislative process.


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 15, 2015)

BobF said:


> It will take some years to get rid of all the Democrat mistakes in those southern states.   You said all states are now Republican, are you just ignoring any Democrat states?    I guess I will have to look that up.   How about W Virginia or maybe Mississippi.   Just not sure so I will look at the party maps after a bit.




You have just proven to me that you have ZERO understanding of politics...  and that you didn't bother to look at the video..

ONLY since 1964?  You mean like 51 years ago???   seriously.... Not enough time??   what a hoot...


----------



## Shalimar (Nov 15, 2015)

OMG. In  the twentieth century, before assistance was available, people starved. In the big city slums in America, Canada, Britain, the Continent and elsewhere, abject poverty, disease, child prostitution, infant mortality were epidemic. Eight year old 

kids begging on the street, freezing to death in doorways, or raped, beaten, and killed by predators. In hard hit rural areas things were not much better. Working for pennies while the rich lined their pocketbooks created a huge underclass. Women 

died by the thousands from childbed fever due to unsanitary conditions, and unavailability of decent medical care. We must never allow such a class disparity to be viewed as acceptable again. All persons have the right to live in safety and dignity, with 

adequate nutrition, healthcare, and educational opportunities made available. All have the right to be heard, and participate in the political process. Diminishing. the poor reduces us all, basic standard of living is not a handout. Most people want more 

than that for themselves and their children, given the opportunity to work for a living wage, they will go for it. Now, even the middle class is under attack. If we are not vigilant, old patterns will emerge. If pushed far enough people will take to the streets.,  scary stuff.  The time is coming when the lies of the one percent will come back to haunt them.


----------



## BobF (Nov 15, 2015)

Prove to me I have zero understanding of politics.   What I posted about the Democrats in the south is true.   I did start to watching the film.   Did not take long till I gave up.   Certainly not interesting and pretty much out of control with speaker and others all talking.

Do you constantly need to put down those the don't just love what you think is better?    Pretty cheap shots you give to any detractor of your ideas.


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 15, 2015)

BobF said:


> Prove to me I have zero understanding of politics.   What I posted about the Democrats in the south is true.   I did start to watching the film.   Did not take long till I gave up.   Certainly not interesting and pretty much out of control with speaker and others all talking.
> 
> Do you constantly need to put down those the don't just love what you think is better?    Pretty cheap shots you give to any detractor of your ideas.



Yes bob  ZERO understanding, and just calling it like I see it..   What the South was prior to 1964 was DIXIEcrats.a bunch of bigoted  racist  and WHITE good ole boys.. Not Democrats..  when LBJ passed the civil rights legislation they pitched a fit and joined the Republican party... a much better fit for them anyway...  Since 1964 their Republican policies have kept the South poor.   The BLUE States are doing quite well by the way.. Proof that Democratic policies WORK..   You cannot seriously look at that map and think you can make a case... Republican policies and ideology are just plain bad for people... and don't work.....that is unless you belong to the top 1%.   


OK... I'll educate you .. not that you will pay the least bit of attention.. or even understand it..

The *States' Rights Democratic Party* (usually called the *Dixiecrats*) was a short-lived segregationistpolitical party in the United States in 1948. It originated as a breakaway faction of the Democratic Partyin 1948, determined to protect what they portrayed as the southern way of life beset by an oppressive federal government,[SUP][1][/SUP] and supporters assumed control of the state Democratic parties in part or in full in several Southern states. The States' Rights Democratic Party opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention. Members were called *Dixiecrats*. (The term _Dixiecrat_ is a portmanteau of _Dixie_, referring to the Southern United States, and _Democrat_.)

The party did not run local or state candidates, and after the 1948 election its leaders generally returned to the Democratic Party.[SUP][2][/SUP] The Dixiecrats had little short-run impact on politics. However, they did have a long-term impact. The Dixiecrats began the weakening of the "Solid South" (the Democratic Party's total control of presidential elections in the South).[SUP][3][/SUP]
The term "Dixiecrat" is sometimes used by Northern Democrats to refer to conservative Southern Democrats from the 1940s to the 1990s, regardless of where they stood in 1948.[SUP][4]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat[/SUP]


----------



## BobF (Nov 16, 2015)

You are projecting your bias and ignoring the history of the Democrat party in the south lands.   Dixiecrats are only a very short time of the Democrat control of the southern states.   What you are igoring is the history of the Democrats in the southern states.   You are only focused on the days of the Dixiecrat's who finally decided the needed to leave the Democrats and move to what was a better source for honesty and fairness to all.   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats

*Southern Democrats* are members of the U.S. Democratic Party who reside in the American South.
 In the 19th century, Southern Democrats comprised whites in the South who believed in Jeffersonian democracy. In the 1850s they defended slavery in the United States, and promoted its expansion into the West against northern Free Soil opposition. The United States presidential election, 1860 formalized the split, and brought war. After Reconstruction ended in the late 1870s they controlled all the Southern states and disenfranchised blacks (who were Republicans). The "Solid South"  gave nearly all its electoral votes to Democrats in presidential  elections. Republicans seldom were elected to office outside some Appalachian mountain districts.
.......................

And on and on about racial hatred and poor policies until in the 1900's when Republicans were starting to gain some interest.   Then you point out the Dixiecrat's were a problem that left the Democrat party and joined the Republican party.   Why not?   They were tired of the biased and power crazed politics of those days and wanted a better home.   Now the Republican party has slowly gained electoral power and run those southern states.   So for 200 years of crazy and biased leadership that kept that part of the US in poverty and racial distress, we should be happy that now there are industries arriving in the south.   Integration of races now allowed.   It will take more than 50 years to drag those states away from their historically poorly run status under the Democrats and bring the some real freedoms and support from those folks to the Republican party again.   Most of their voting age needs to be educated to the realities of what our Constitution means and how that is being altered by the current government.

Not sure who is the most confused about this government as going full out liberal is dangerous to the country and does not do well for the people either.   Think left is better?    Just look to Europe and see how those people are forced to live.   Housing is more expensive than in the US and the sizes are about half of the US, or Canada, or Australia.   Only the very wealthy can afford anything close to what we have in the US for the average person.


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 16, 2015)

The point is.....  For the last 50+ years, the American South has been predominantly under Republican control... a direct result of the civil rights movement and the passage of civil rights legislation..  Dixiecrats all moved over to the Republican party as it's ideology was far more suited to the continuation of segregation and Jim Crow laws..  The American South had to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting equality..  It does so now... grudgingly.    The  State Houses and governorships of the South are predominantly sewed up by Republicans who are free to legislate according to their doctrines.   The  South lags behind all other parts of the country.. economically... particularly the Blue Democratic States..  draw your own conclusions Bob..  but republican doctrine is VERY bad for the poor and middle class.. if you use the South as a petri dish.  We are not talking about Europe bob.. we only have to look at our own map to see where the better policies reside.


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 16, 2015)




----------



## BobF (Nov 16, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> The point is.....  For the last 50+ years, the American South has been predominantly under Republican control... a direct result of the civil rights movement and the passage of civil rights legislation..  Dixiecrats all moved over to the Republican party as it's ideology was far more suited to the continuation of segregation and Jim Crow laws..  The American South had to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting equality..  It does so now... grudgingly.    The  State Houses and governorships of the South are predominantly sewed up by Republicans who are free to legislate according to their doctrines.   The  South lags behind all other parts of the country.. economically... particularly the Blue Democratic States..  draw your own conclusions Bob..  but republican doctrine is VERY bad for the poor and middle class.. If you use the South as a petri dish.



How totally distorted is your thinking.   You obviously did not take time to read the post as your response has been too quick.   It was the Democrats that were creating segregation, not the Republicans.   You have a lot to learn.


----------



## BobF (Nov 16, 2015)

Again, after 200 years of enforce poverty under the Democrats you expect the Republicans to have all the laws and built in biases corrected in 50 years.   How wrong you are.

Isn't it nice that industries are moving south now?    Isn't it nice that foreign countries are building businesses in the south now?   I think so and so should everyone else.


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 16, 2015)

More deaths in the south per capita.....  Could that be related to lack of healthcare and the refusal to expand Medicaid under the ACA?   just sayin'


----------



## BobF (Nov 16, 2015)

Again, more of your confusion. 

I guess I will have to leave this thread for now.   Much more important things to do than rebut all these confused posts.


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 16, 2015)

BobF said:


> Again, after 200 years of enforce poverty under the Democrats you expect the Republicans to have all the laws and built in biases corrected in 50 years.   How wrong you are.
> 
> Isn't it nice that industries are moving south now?    Isn't it nice that foreign countries are building businesses in the south now?   I think so and so should everyone else.




REALLY bob?   50+ years of Republican control is too long to reverse the scorge of the Democrats??    YET... it seems to me that you are so quick to point out all the imagined failures of the Obama Administration  after only 7 years of trying to undo the damage caused by George Bush..   Your credibility is below ZERO bob as you spout your hypocritical nonsense.


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 16, 2015)

> Isn't it nice that industries are moving south now?    Isn't it nice that foreign countries are building businesses in the south now?   I think so and so should everyone else.




Nice?   Nice for who??  Certainly not the people living in the south..  Nice for the corporations who take advantage of the tax breaks and pay minimum wages to the people working in their factories..  Nice for the corporations to not have to deal with unions.. so they make even more profit  off the backs of the Southern workers.  Profits that are not taxed.. and sent over seas to tax shelters..   True to form.. the Republicans of the south are bending over backwards to help corporations make a profit while sticking it to their people.   As the article states... the South is the hardest place for the average person to live.. and it all boils down to Republican governance.


----------



## BobF (Nov 16, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> REALLY bob?   50+ years of Republican control is too long to reverse the scorge of the Democrats??    YET... it seems to me that you are so quick to point out all the imagined failures of the Obama Administration  after only 7 years of trying to undo the damage caused by George Bush..   Your credibility is below ZERO bob as you spout your hypocritical nonsense.



There goes another of your emotional distortions about the truth.   Bush did not create a mess for Obama to fix.   Obama has created enough for more than one life time to correct.   I speak as a true American and not one wanting to change the US into a European model of government.   They do not work well for the benefit of the people.


----------



## Ameriscot (Nov 16, 2015)

BobF said:


> There goes another of your emotional distortions about the truth.   Bush did not create a mess for Obama to fix.   Obama has created enough for more than one life time to correct.   I speak as a true American and not one wanting to change the US into a European model of government.   They do not work well for the benefit of the people.



The European model of government doesn't work??! For a start, in Europe healthcare is a right, not a privilege as it is in the US.


----------



## Shalimar (Nov 16, 2015)

My country has a European form of government which works very well for the people. We have healthcare for all, and per capita, less violence, racism, homelessness, crime, abject poverty than a certain republic. When judging a system of government, it is beneficial to study and understand it first.


----------



## Ameriscot (Nov 16, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> My country has a European form of government which works very well for the people. We have healthcare for all, and per capita, less violence, racism, homelessness, crime, abject poverty than a certain republic. When judging a system of government, it is beneficial to study and understand it first.



True.  But a certain person here insists that Europe/Canada are too 'socialist' like that's a bad thing.


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 16, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> My country has a European form of government which works very well for the people. We have healthcare for all, and per capita, less violence, racism, homelessness, crime, abject poverty than a certain republic. When judging a system of government, it is beneficial to study and understand it first.




Yes.. and quite the antithesis of the American South.   Lack of affordable healthcare alone make the death rate higher in the South.   Lack of well paying jobs for the benefit of Corporate profit make the poverty rate in the south higher than anywhere.   Not to mention the remnants of Jim Crow.   Republicans in the South have Gerry-rigged the system.. and have worked diligently to deny people the vote.. thus insuring the continuation of this travesty.


----------



## BobF (Nov 16, 2015)

Again, your opinions and not one telling how minimum housing costing more for the people is better than in the US.   We had health care before Obama care and for me, it cost less as now I have to buy insurance to get back the things Obama care will not cover.

There are other things not evident in the European governments, not including Canada which has a good economy and housing and cost similar to the US, but speaking of the countries like French, Germany, and many other smaller ones where the people and the way they live is rigidly controlled by the governments.   Germany for instance, at least in one city where my son was living, they had a small bowl of oil of some sort.   Placed on a mantel or shelf in your residence and periodically checked to see if you were keeping your heat down to where this oil would not evaporate.   The words were to stay cool in the winter or get in trouble.   Absolute control over the people and not one of real freedom as we now have in the US.   But with trying to go to the European style of government we could then be no better anymore.

Why so many Europeans come to the US, and have been coming for so many years?    Maybe to get away from the very same type of governments some seem glad to create.    So far our constitution will stop too much from happening and that is the way our government can and will work to keep from going so far to the left.


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 16, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> True.  But a certain person here insists that Europe/Canada are too 'socialist' like that's a bad thing.



The thing we wish we had here was your National Health care.   It's a travesty that the richest country on earth refuses to recognize that healthcare is a RIGHT and not a privilege...   It's an embarrassment.


----------



## AZ Jim (Nov 16, 2015)

I have another headache.


----------



## hangover (Nov 16, 2015)

BobF said:


> Again, your opinions and not one telling how minimum housing costing more for the people is better than in the US.   We had health care before Obama care and for me, it cost less as now I have to buy insurance to get back the things Obama care will not cover.
> 
> There are other things not evident in the European governments, not including Canada which has a good economy and housing and cost similar to the US, but speaking of the countries like French, Germany, and many other smaller ones where the people and the way they live is rigidly controlled by the governments.   Germany for instance, at least in one city where my son was living, they had a small bowl of oil of some sort.   Placed on a mantel or shelf in your residence and periodically checked to see if you were keeping your heat down to where this oil would not evaporate.   The words were to stay cool in the winter or get in trouble.   Absolute control over the people and not one of real freedom as we now have in the US.   But with trying to go to the European style of government we could then be no better anymore.
> 
> Why so many Europeans come to the US, and have been coming for so many years?    Maybe to get away from the very same type of governments some seem glad to create.    So far our constitution will stop too much from happening and that is the way our government can and will work to keep from going so far to the left.



Would you rather pay $15k a year to keep a single mother with two children on welfare, or pay $120k per year to keep them in prison? Desperate mothers do desperate things that get them thrown in prison. Unsupervised children become criminals too.

Would you rather cut off health care to the poor, and just have them go to the emergency room and have it put on your insurance tab? Would you rather have a pandemic in this country, because only the rich can get health care?

Would you rather destroy Social Security, and have millions of elderly living on the streets? Would you rather have the elderly commit crimes so they can get into prison to get free meds and a warm bed?

Your "final solution" sucks.


----------



## Lethe200 (Nov 16, 2015)

>>after 200 years of enforce poverty under the Democrats >>

Wow, that would be a really neat trick! There WAS NO Democratic party before 1828. It was formed from Jeffersonian Republicans, who were anti-aristocracy. The Democrats during the Civil War split between North-South lines, which helped Lincoln get elected as a Republican.


----------



## BobF (Nov 16, 2015)

Unfortunately you have just spoken of things not really part of our political system for either side of the political efforts.  

Why pay $15k to keep a single mother on welfare if we can find a way for her to earn some money and make a living.   I think one child would be OK, but a second or third means other measures need to be taken.   Who were the fathers?    Why not make that an important thing to control.    Find them and make them responsible for the mother and child.   That would help keep the mother from doing illegal things and maybe not needing welfare either.

Before Obama care many did have insurance of their own or employers/unions provided.   It was not necessary to pay for all ailments to get along.    You could buy insurance to pay for any hospital type situations and allow you to manage your own aspirin cures and local medicines.    Nothing wrong with the emergency room solution.    I see that a lot where I am living now.   On weekends that is one of the best ways to get medical care as doctors also like to close their offices and have some family time.    I have used that option myself, I am covered but don't want to wait for Monday for any service I may need.  And no we should not force everyone to get the same coverage as that is unnecessary for many of us.   And the rich surely can afford to pay their own way.    No problem with medical insurance for all.    But it needs to be done by states to fit the needs of different states rather than just something bashed together in DC and demanding all to follow it as demanded.

I don't know who is trying to destroy SS.   This is just more of the liberal left nonsense.   Last I heard there was a movement to change the way the SS is run to make sure it does not go broke.   Which is the way it may end up if not properly run and cared for.    Making sure it does not go broke is not destroying SS.

What is my final conclusion that sucks?    I did not know I had posted a final conclusion.


----------



## BobF (Nov 16, 2015)

Lethe200 said:


> >>after 200 years of enforce poverty under the Democrats >>
> 
> Wow, that would be a really neat trick! There WAS NO Democratic party before 1828. It was formed from Jeffersonian Republicans, who were anti-aristocracy. The Democrats during the Civil War split between North-South lines, which helped Lincoln get elected as a Republican.



Read from this link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats


----------



## applecruncher (Nov 16, 2015)

> Who were the fathers? Why not make that an important thing to control. Find them and make them responsible for the mother and child.




@BobF….
I hear what you’re saying,…kinda… and we have talked about this issue. Even when the name and location of the father is known, specifically how do you make them responsible?  If he has no job, no income, no values, no desire to improve his life, how does one get money from him? And while there are some who _do _try to do the right thing, there are so many more who just go on about their merry way making more children. Furthermore, it takes two to tango, and (imo) the female is just as responsible…she knew what she was doing and she knew that it could result in a child 9 months later. Yet, many go ahead and repeat the pattern/cycle.


----------



## hangover (Nov 16, 2015)

BobF said:


> Unfortunately you have just spoken of things not really part of our political system for either side of the political efforts.
> 
> Why pay $15k to keep a single mother on welfare if we can find a way for her to earn some money and make a living.   I think one child would be OK, but a second or third means other measures need to be taken.   Who were the fathers?    Why not make that an important thing to control.    Find them and make them responsible for the mother and child.   That would help keep the mother from doing illegal things and maybe not needing welfare either.
> 
> ...



Come on man, you gotta be honest if we're really going to talk about this. Do you really not know that the cons have been trying to destroy Social Security since it started? Do you really not know that the cons have been crying for "privatization" of Social Security for the last thirty years? Do you know what "privatization" is? It's risking the money you put in SS on the stock market. Do you have any idea how many elderly would have been thrown out in the street in the 2007 crash? Do you think it won't happen again? Do you really not know that they've raided the SS fund of over $3 trillion to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and the Iraq/Afghan wars?

Trying to pass things off as "liberal nonsense" is a con job. Everyone knows that the cons have always hated SS, aid to the poor, and affordable healthcare. You're not fooling anybody.

Everyone also knows that one of the biggest problems in society is lack of parental supervision. When a single mother, or both parents of a family are too busy with jobs, kids get into trouble.

My mother was one of those working single moms, and I got into plenty of trouble. But that was back when there were jobs. She worked at a beauty shop during the day, and a rootbeer stand at night...for $.75 cents an hour...minimum wage. But people could live on minimum wage back then. We ate a lot of beans and rice. Bread was 10 cents a loaf. Rent was $40.00 a month.

Now days, people can't live on minimum wage. Rent alone is $800 to $1.000 a month, and that's in the cheap places to live.

They say that unemployment is 5% but that's because so many have dropped out of the work force, because the jobs aren't real. True, you can get a job picking crops, but it won't pay the bills.

Cons love the idea of getting rid of the Mexicans that pick those crops for $2.00 an hour. And then making the American farmer pay $7.00 an hour to Americans, while his South American competition pays his workers 50 cents an hour, and sells his crops for less than half of what the American farmer can in Wal-Mart.

The cons have always been against fair wages, minimum wages, workers comp, and health benefits. It's always profits for corporations that matter. That's why the cons have been out to destroy unions. If it wasn't for unions, you'd be working seven days a week, ten hours a day, for $2.00 and hour....or less.

What the cons want is a banana republic, where 3% have everything and the rest of this country is peasants.

That's the cons "final solution" not conclusion. And if you were living in the real world, you'd know I'm telling the truth.

You may have to learn all this in your next life. You can believe there is no next life...but if there is...the first shall last and the last shall be first.


----------



## hangover (Nov 16, 2015)

Gee, I kinda got on a rant there, huh.


----------



## Shalimar (Nov 16, 2015)

Hangover, you spoke the truth.


----------



## Jackie22 (Nov 16, 2015)

hangover said:


> Come on man, you gotta be honest if we're really going to talk about this. Do you really not know that the cons have been trying to destroy Social Security since it started? Do you really not know that the cons have been crying for "privatization" of Social Security for the last thirty years? Do you know what "privatization" is? It's risking the money you put in SS on the stock market. Do you have any idea how many elderly would have been thrown out in the street in the 2007 crash? Do you think it won't happen again? Do you really not know that they've raided the SS fund of over $3 trillion to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and the Iraq/Afghan wars?
> 
> Trying to pass things off as "liberal nonsense" is a con job. Everyone knows that the cons have always hated SS, aid to the poor, and affordable healthcare. You're not fooling anybody.
> 
> ...




....big thumbs up!


----------



## BobF (Nov 16, 2015)

hangover said:


> Come on man, you gotta be honest if we're really going to talk about this. Do you really not know that the cons have been trying to destroy Social Security since it started? Do you really not know that the cons have been crying for "privatization" of Social Security for the last thirty years? Do you know what "privatization" is? It's risking the money you put in SS on the stock market. Do you have any idea how many elderly would have been thrown out in the street in the 2007 crash? Do you think it won't happen again? Do you really not know that they've raided the SS fund of over $3 trillion to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and the Iraq/Afghan wars?
> 
> Trying to pass things off as "liberal nonsense" is a con job. Everyone knows that the cons have always hated SS, aid to the poor, and affordable healthcare. You're not fooling anybody.
> 
> ...



I read your words but they are not worth my time as I consider much of what you have just posted to be nothing more than liberal twist of facts.   Yes there have been effort at times to offer privatized SS.   Last i heard it was to be an option, not mandatory.   And it never got beyond a presentation and was never part of a Congressional movement or voted on.    Beyond that there is the liberal control over our Congress until last year when they finally were out voted.   So talking about something does not make it true.

Clean up your distorted thinking about things and you might start making sense.   The conservatives are not against health care at all.   They were not even allowed to offer ideas to what has become the Obama care situation that even the Democrats say needs some changes and plan to do so.   The conservatives want to see the health care controlled by the states.   What is wrong with that?

Too many of today's kids never grew up in a family environment.    Why has that problem not been taken on by the liberals.   Instead they want to waste money with welfare and not control the wild living.

The conservatives want to see industries and merchant to be successful.   Otherwise they become failures and even the lower paying jobs go away.    Where is your winning number when as you just said the foreigners work for less and undercut our own efforts.

Have a good day sir.


----------



## Shalimar (Nov 16, 2015)

Snide remarks are the last resort of faulty arguments.


----------



## imp (Nov 16, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> I have another headache.



That may be getting contagious.   imp


----------



## BobF (Nov 16, 2015)

applecruncher said:


> @BobF….
> I hear what you’re saying,…kinda… and we have talked about this issue. Even when the name and location of the father is known, specifically how do you make them responsible?  If he has no job, no income, no values, no desire to improve his life, how does one get money from him? And while there are some who _do _try to do the right thing, there are so many more who just go on about their merry way making more children. Furthermore, it takes two to tango, and (imo) the female is just as responsible…she knew what she was doing and she knew that it could result in a child 9 months later. Yet, many go ahead and repeat the pattern/cycle.



Here is a suggestion.   Go back to the welfare reform bill that Bill Clinton had started.   It put penalties on welfare keepers.   Not sure just how it worked but losing welfare was a threat that was used to reduce the number on welfare.   The welfare numbers were coming down while that effort was being enforced.   I don't know it that reform is still available or has been removed.

Seems this could be something that could be done to the welfare do nothings.   So if they are losing the welfare if they don't end something or do something maybe that would be our last weapon to make welfare a bit of a reality check rather than just a big pillow to lean on while doing nothing productive at all.


----------



## BobF (Nov 16, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Snide remarks are the last resort of faulty arguments.



So why do so many of the liberals do that?


----------



## hangover (Nov 17, 2015)

BobF said:


> So why do so many of the liberals do that?


Hint: she was talking about you.


----------



## hangover (Nov 17, 2015)

BobF said:


> I read your words but they are not worth my time as I consider much of what you have just posted to be nothing more than liberal twist of facts.   Yes there have been effort at times to offer privatized SS.   Last i heard it was to be an option, not mandatory.   And it never got beyond a presentation and was never part of a Congressional movement or voted on.    Beyond that there is the liberal control over our Congress until last year when they finally were out voted.   So talking about something does not make it true.
> 
> Clean up your distorted thinking about things and you might start making sense.   The conservatives are not against health care at all.   They were not even allowed to offer ideas to what has become the Obama care situation that even the Democrats say needs some changes and plan to do so.   The conservatives want to see the health care controlled by the states.   What is wrong with that?
> 
> ...



Your holier than thou attitude makes it clear, that you would rather hold on to your "considerations" rather than face the truth. It's like the Catholic church holding on to their "belief" that the world was flat even after Galileo proved it was round. Two hundred years later the Vatican said, "Oh, sorry."
It's like the GOP claiming to be fiscally conservative, when Reagan tripled the national debt, Bush 41 doubled it again in only four years, and Bush 43 doubled it again adding more than all previous POTUS's added together.
Republican lack of honesty is undeniable.


----------



## BobF (Nov 17, 2015)

hangover said:


> Your holier than thou attitude makes it clear, that you would rather hold on to your "considerations" rather than face the truth. It's like the Catholic church holding on to their "belief" that the world was flat even after Galileo proved it was round. Two hundred years later the Vatican said, "Oh, sorry."
> It's like the GOP claiming to be fiscally conservative, when Reagan tripled the national debt, Bush 41 doubled it again in only four years, and Bush 43 doubled it again adding more than all previous POTUS's added together.
> Republican lack of honesty is undeniable.



Posted before. proof of you comments about the Bush raising the debt so high.   Last I read Bush left the Presidency to Obama at about the 11 trillion level.   Prior to his last two years it was at 7.5 trillion but in his last two years he had a Democrat Congress and his debt then went to about 11 trillion.   Now with Obama it is at 18.5 trillion.  

Look up National Debt and see the numbers your self.   Or better yet go to http://www.usdebtclock.org/ or to http://usadebtclock.com/ or to http://www.advisorperspectives.com/...-to-gdp.html?federal-debt-to-gdp-politics.gif  This is a chart showing party, president, congress, and debts all overlaid.    Some good comparisons on here if looking to see who was in charge when the debts were increasing or going down.


----------



## hangover (Nov 17, 2015)

BobF said:


> Posted before. proof of you comments about the Bush raising the debt so high.   Last I read Bush left the Presidency to Obama at about the 11 trillion level.   Prior to his last two years it was at 7.5 trillion but in his last two years he had a Democrat Congress and his debt then went to about 11 trillion.   Now with Obama it is at 18.5 trillion.
> 
> Look up National Debt and see the numbers your self.   Or better yet go to http://www.usdebtclock.org/ or to http://usadebtclock.com/ or to http://www.advisorperspectives.com/...-to-gdp.html?federal-debt-to-gdp-politics.gif  This is a chart showing party, president, congress, and debts all overlaid.    Some good comparisons on here if looking to see who was in charge when the debts were increasing or going down.



> Ronald Reagan’s First Term – $656 billion increase
 > Ronald Reagan’s Second Term – $1.036 trillion increase
 > George H.W. Bush’s Term – $1.587 trillion increase
 > Bill Clinton’s First Term – $1.122 trillion increase
 > Bill Clinton’s Second Term – $418 billion increase  

 > George W. Bush’s First Term – $1.885 trillion increase
 > George W. Bush’s Second Term – $3.014 trillion increase

That's $5 trillion for Bush 43 without counting the $1.2 trillion he left Obama with for FY 2009, which Bush signed before leaving office...which makes over $6 trillion....plus the debt Obama has added was fixing the economic mess Bush made. And Reagan still tripled the national debt, and Bush 41 still doubled it in only four years.

Adding it up to those numbers, the last three con POTUS's added $8.3 TRILLION DOLLARS. So Tell us how honest the GOP claim of being fiscally responsible is, instead of pointing your finger at Obama.
http://thenationaldebtcrisis.com/the-national-debt-by-president/


----------



## BobF (Nov 17, 2015)

Did you bother to read any of those I posted?   If you had you would see not posted in the link you keep using.    Go to the http://www.advisorperspectives.com/...-to-gdp.html?federal-debt-to-gdp-politics.gif  and then follow the bottom line to see who was in charge of the Congress for most of those years.    Also look a Clinton's years and see how the National Debt declined a bit and look to who was in charge of Congress those years.   More to see about our debt than just the total debt.   Look to George Bush and his last two years.   His debt went up on his first 6 years but in his last 2 years it jumped well up.   Look to who was in charge of his last two years.   Lots to learn if using the proper tools.

I have not compared directly what those numbers from your selection to the charts I suggested.   I have looked into the publication that you linked too.    Interesting comment about the SS going broke.   Just like I said in this forum before.    SS's problem is not  because of any political party at all.   It has become overworked and now has more collecting and fewer contributing.   It needs some adjusting or changes to keep it from going broke.    Time for the Congress to get off it's butt and take charge.   Who in our government has been responsible for its funds to be borrowed with no way to pay back?   SS is in trouble from misuse and overuse.   Let us fix it if we really want to keep it.


----------



## hangover (Nov 18, 2015)

BobF said:


> Did you bother to read any of those I posted?   If you had you would see not posted in the link you keep using.    Go to the http://www.advisorperspectives.com/...-to-gdp.html?federal-debt-to-gdp-politics.gif  and then follow the bottom line to see who was in charge of the Congress for most of those years.    Also look a Clinton's years and see how the National Debt declined a bit and look to who was in charge of Congress those years.   More to see about our debt than just the total debt.   Look to George Bush and his last two years.   His debt went up on his first 6 years but in his last 2 years it jumped well up.   Look to who was in charge of his last two years.   Lots to learn if using the proper tools.
> 
> I have not compared directly what those numbers from your selection to the charts I suggested.   I have looked into the publication that you linked too.    Interesting comment about the SS going broke.   Just like I said in this forum before.    SS's problem is not  because of any political party at all.   It has become overworked and now has more collecting and fewer contributing.   It needs some adjusting or changes to keep it from going broke.    Time for the Congress to get off it's butt and take charge.   Who in our government has been responsible for its funds to be borrowed with no way to pay back?   SS is in trouble from misuse and overuse.   Let us fix it if we really want to keep it.



Clinton balanced the budget with a Republican congress. Bush 43 destroyed that balanced budget with that same  REPUBLICAN congress in his first six months, by giving $3 trillion in welfare tax cuts to millionaires. Then added another $3 trillion with his stupid Iraq war started with lies...with A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS.

Reagan tripled the national debt after promising to balance the budget in his first four years. He never submitted one single balanced budget to the congress in his eight years as POTUS.

You fail in your attempts to defend con lies of being fiscally responsible.


----------

