US Politics Mega-thread - Page 772

On January 10 2014 16:12 Danglars wrote:
The reminds me of the great Madison quote from the Federalist Papers (which sits on my bookshelf). If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

If we could get angels, those entirely pure sinless extra-terrestrials, to go preserve freedom and justice and assist us in assisting the poor, the sick, the elderly, I wouldn't wish to stay in the current semi-constitutional governance the USA has today, not for a second.

On January 11 2014 04:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:


The distinction is absolutely meaningless and it's a false choice being presented and name me a single Christian theology where free will is "forced" upon humanity anyway so what was your point again? That you don't like religion? Okay, we get it.

Unemployment rate falls to 6.7% because 525,000 more people gave up getting a job. That's the Obama era: People Giving Up.

Income inequality is the biggest load in a long time. The question is, is the pie not growing? It is. Are the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor? No, the statistics don't show that. The question is why don't those income inequality statistics include welfare in the income of the poor? I guess in eat the rich land food stamps, straight-up money payments, the Earned Income Tax Credit, government healthcare, and private employer-provided healthcare don't count as income, but in the real world they actually do lessen the financial burden on people, getting goods and services or even money itself for free or minimal cost. The rich are not getting richer at the expense of the poor, and so income inequality is just more eat the rich because we don't like them because [populist nonsense here]. Didn't you guys learn the lesson already with your occupy buddies? Five years of you guys running the country and we're supposed to believe that you suddenly give a rat's ass about the poor. If it wasn't looking like another bitchslap of epic proportions this November for progressives, the priority of "income inequality" would be at the same level as Chris Christie's priority of keeping the GWB open. But hey, five years of the poor getting the shitty end of the stick under your watch should just be forgotten now that you've remembered that poor people exist and it's cheap and easy to look morally superior by crying about their plight. And I am one of those poor. Your BS about it has never helped me pay the gas bill or my health insurance premium. A whole lot of hot air that has done precisely zero to lift anyone out of poverty, but you act like income inequality and poverty are such crimes that somebody must be punished for so we can cross the river and rest in the shady glen. Okay, this poor person suggests we start with those who do nothing but rage against others for poverty and in doing so accomplish nothing in ameliorating it.