Ryan's intentions on Medicare are clear. He wants to privatize it. Ryan was also the architect behind Bush's push to privatize Social Security. The guy simply doesn't believe government should help provide a social safety net. He is an Objectivist (see Ayn Rand) at heart.

We conservatives believe in personal responsibility. Democrats run ads promoting welfare, free cell phones and other dependency programs that hard working tax payers have to pay for. Spread the wealth.

Obama did not call America lazy. He said American leaders had been lazy at pursuing foreign investment. Big difference. I've also never heard Obama apologize for America although I know that's a favorite conservative meme.

Unemployment was in free fall when Obama took over. It's evident that Obama's policies have stabilized the employment picture (see 29 straight months of private sector job growth). It's also evident that the Republicans in congress have obstructed every effort at job creation, intentionally stalling the recovery in order to defeat Obama. In fact Republicans have gone out of their way to cut as many government jobs as possible, worsening our overall economic outlook.

"Democrats run ads promoting welfare, free cell phones and other dependency programs that hard working tax payers have to pay for. Spread the wealth." Really? I've never a Democratic ad promoting dependency.

Government Jobs:
We don't need China paying for those Government Job$.

Brain, you have never seen a dem ad promoting dependancy? Do you own a television?

I would say that accusing Ryan of wanting to "kill Medicare" is making up facts. Libs know that it isn't true.

Brian,
$16,000,000,000,000 in federal debt? How much is acceptable to you by end of Obama's second term? 25 tril? 40?

A common liar? Like Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Eric Holder and Jay Carney just to name a few?

Bostonsam brings up a great point. How does Ryan square his Medicare D vote (which was the deciding vote btw) with his desire to privatize Medicare. Has his thinking changed or was he merely willing to throw over his ideology to enable what amounted to a huge giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry? Voting for one of the largest unfunded mandates in history wasn't very fiscally conservative was it? That is a great question for the debates.

Brian- Aren't all votes that lead to a majority deciding votes? Why would you call Ryan's vote the deciding vote?

Hi Jo! Thanks for stopping by.

The only way to save Medicare is by bending the cost curve and increasing revenue into the system. That was one of the main purposes of Obamacre. It's not a final fix but it does buy some time to get at a more permanent solution. Frankly that is why progs see a single payer system as the ultimate answer for everyone, not just seniors.

What about crossing state lines to buy insurance? Doesn't competition lower costs?

Competition can lower costs in certain situations, however the cost of insurance isn't the main problem, it's the cost of medical care. The mechanisms built into Obamacare to control the cost of insurance are already working. The law does not allow health insurers to claim more than 20% of premium dollars as profit, any excess is rebated back to health consumers. That's referred to as the 80/20 rule. Eighty percent of all premiums collected must go towards patient care. The first rebate checks went out last month.

In the case of medical care, competition is much less reliable. People don't shop for health care. They rely on their doctors to make choices for them. If you have a broken leg are you going to call around to get the best deal on a CT scan?

"Bending the cost curve". Now if thats not a talking point I dont know what is...Just fyi, Obamacare takes between $500 Billion and $700 Billion OUT of Medicare over the next 10 yrs depending on who's estimate you believe...How does that increase revenue into the system?
If anything, it will kill Medicare quicker so you progs can get your single payer system. Thats why you dont like Ryans plan. You're afraid its going to work.

"...we owe old people free health care." Um, I don't know, maybe it was when we required people to start paying into a common pool called Social Security so they we would be watching out for the greater good of all older people in this great country spewing wealth?

"..these programs to encourage people not to plan for thier own retirement..." Oh, you mean save, while the cost of living goes up and job security and salaries for the middle class go down? Not to even mention how I might suggest saving to anyone making minimum wage. My friend lives in Finland, also one of the wealthies countries in the world. Every parent gets a check monthly, just for raising children, no matter their income brackets. I'm not surprised to see all those perfectly happy with seeing old folks and children starving - as we did in the Great Depression - here in Georgia. I see it all the time, even in magnificent Athens. You people are actually much more comfortable having someone to talk about who is "below you." Someone whose problems are so "ugly" that they make your empty, superficial lives somehow seem important. There is a long history of misery in the South. I toured the Taylor Grady House on Prince the other day and was told that the children of the old South were always confined to the nursery and that the wives and husbands slept in separate beds. Sorry to down my own culture - but misery and sadism are embedded in it.

Medicare is not free. Neither is Social Security. Workers pay into both systems through payroll taxes. When a person becomes eligible for Medicare, a monthly premium is paid, a deductible must be met and there are co-pays - except for some diagnostics such as mammograms (sorry, that's for women only, so some folks don't think they're important), and colonoscopies and other tests to catch illnesses early - saving lives and money (isn't that conservative?). But for Social Security, the elderly would be shamelessly tossed to the streets. Not everyone has a family structure to take care of them, or one willing to do so. Who's going to guarantee everyone has a job until they're 67 and beyond to afford their healthcare and living costs?

Nobody encourages anyone to rely on government assistance. Lean on it in troubled times? Yes. Our welfare system is now designed to get people back to work. Nobody is living fat and happy off of welfare.

Are you kidding? Some welfare recipients live better than some who WORK full time. When one can take their EBT card to an ATM, then buy Alcohol and steaks, I'd say that's a pretty good life. All while not working and not having to pass drug tests.

There are 2 issues there. The EBT cards issued under the SNAP program (food stamps), can't be used at ATMs or to buy alcohol, cigarettes, fast food, or other non-essentials. While you could theoretically buy steaks, SNAP payments come out to less than $5 a day per person so you're going to go hungry if you don't spend your money wisely. You can't eat much steak on $5 a day.

Welfare payments on the other hand (TANF) are paltry (a few hundred dollars a month for a family of 3) and can't sustain the kind of lifestyle you describe. That being said there are no doubt a few who will try and game the system.

Fair enough. I just hate that it can be abused at all by those who choose not to contribute anything to society.

Brian that is nonsense. There are PLENTY of people that live off of public assistance. Where do you live?

Brian- You said, "Nobody encourages anyone to rely on government assistance. Lean on it in troubled times? Yes. Our welfare system is now designed to get people back to work. Nobody is living fat and happy off of welfare."
Exactly what planet do you live on? I would love to visit this wonderful world of yours. I live in a world where people complain that their Obama phone doesn't have unlimited minutes, which means they can't talk on the phone all day while watching their big screen TV or driving to the liquor store.

Bending the cost curve means lowering the rate at which medical costs are expanding. You think that's a bad thing?

Jim, you're the one that sounds confused. Dangerous too maybe. : )
Are you referring to that war that your buddies voted for before they slandered Bush for going through with it? One thing for sure, Bush wouldn't have gone to war without the approval of congress. Your daddy ignores the law and does what he wants. How do you feel about all those drones killing people?

JIm,
To answer your first question, a great deal of dollars and blood. To answer the second question you were referring to the balanced budget that a Republican congress presided over? Where did it go? You are living in a dream world. Do you think the politicians PURPOSELY ran a lower deficit for like...two years? They're politicians. It was an accident. Do you see me idolizing politicians of either party? But apparently you will if you think Clinton should get the credit. If the choice is to sprint to your death or walk fast, I am going to walk fast. I will vote for Romney. Hope you do likewise. Good day.

Clinton had a one yr budget surplus of approx $320 Billion dollars in his next to last year in office (an amount approx equal to what Obama spends in one month)...when Clinton came into office in 1993 the debt was nearly $5 Trillion. The debt in 2000 was $5.6 Trillion when he left office...
'Surplus' indeed...

Echo Jim Stephenson.

Which part did you like the most? I especially like the LIE about Paul Ryan's plan kills Medicare. Very Nice. Typical!

Thanks rhelm, tough crowd.

What's funny about this train of thought is the complete misunderstanding. We just don't want government doling out our money. When left to our own devices, those that consider themselves 'right' or conservative are more generous than those on the left. We pay our taxes, and then give more to charities than those on the left. And yet we're seen as greedy. Good thinking....

@ Karsten - that's not accurate either. There are plenty of Democrats who work hard and give to charities. However, charities are often religion based, and you have to say the password (Jesus) to get consistent access to goods and services. I prefer a system that makes sure all the kids are fed and does not involve religion.

My brother was GM at a major hotel in Atlanta and hosted both Democratic and Republican conventions back in the 80's. The overwhelming consensus among hotel employees (wait staff, housekeeping, etc.) was that while Republicans respected them better and tipped far better (showing appreciation for their hard work), the Democrats were terrible tippers, disrespectful of hotel staff and nearly impossible to please. This was a subject of a staff meeting and the hotel decided to turn away any future Democratic convention business.
Go in to any restaurant and ask a server who the worst customers are. It is very enlightening.

That's interesting Mike, my son was a server for several years in Atlanta while going to GA State. He gives the opposite impression. In fact he claimed the best tippers were gay men and lesbians. I happen to be generous to a fault when I dine out, so there. I think everyone should tip a minimum of 20%, I've even tipped bus boys and hostesses when I'm in a particularly good mood.

@Brian That's interesting Mike, my son was a server for several years in Atlanta while going to GA State. He gives the opposite impression. In fact he claimed the best tippers were gay men and lesbians. I happen to be generous to a fault when I dine out, so there. I think everyone should tip a minimum of 20%, I've even tipped bus boys and hostesses when I'm in a particularly good mood.
--------------------------------------
Therefore Brian is gay... ;-)

The English hate their national health care system so much they made it a centerpiece of their Olympic Ceremony...hahaha. It is absurd that we don't have universal health care in a country as prosperous as ours. Obamacare comes close but it's still sorely lacking. There was a story over the weekend about how those poor kids that got shot up in Colorado, most of which are uninsured, are having to go begging on the internet to get their medical bills paid. That is pathetic.

First I've heard of it but it sounds like something that should probably be left to the State Department. I'll look into it though.

INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY!!! Why are you people so dependent on Government? Government steals money from people who have sacrificed time with their families and worked hard to be successful. You think you are entitled to part of their results. That is pathetic. Quit blogging and go work for your own money. Quit demanding that others pay your way.

Liberal talk. I did this, I did that. You speak as if you are the only one who has worked all your life. Get over yourself, you aren't alone.
You say:
“when you can drive down to your favorite restaurant in your shiny SUV in your new Ann Taylor Loft clothes, get out, and give a dollar to dirty poor children begging in the streets. Then you can feel good about how charitable you are.”

That is extreme, blatant wealth envy. Get over it. Successful people are willing to work so they won’t have to live on the street. It’s part of the American Dream that you liberals hate so much.

Why are you so angry with people who work hard to have a nice lifestyle while not trusting the government to throw taxpayer dollars out the window?

Why do crackheads need FREE cell phones? I think that money should stay with the persons willing to work for it. That includes you.

As for me working, have you ever heard of retirement or vacation?

I wouldn't bring up the fact that I have worked all my life if you weren't suggesting the I am part of the entitlement nation and "demanding that others pay my way." I drive a $25,000 car, wear name brand clothing and Italian shoes, and you might see me at the Athens Country Club from time to time. However, my point is that those who keep harping on the "entitlement nation" idea won't be happy until America looks like a third world country. To me, if I can vacation at the beach in the summers, live in a respectable home, wear nice clothes, drive a nice car, have pets, and can afford to do nice things for my children - then I am glad I made it there with a food foundation and hard work. However, after going through a time when I was left with 2 dependent children, even with a college degree, I had very little with which to work. I can assure you that my views do not stem from wealth envy - I am very content with what I have and am still working to enjoy in life. However, I will not forsake those living in poverty just because I want to put more of the money I earn in my own pocket. I'm content knowing that food stamps take care of America's kids. Yes, some people blantantly abuse social programs for free services and keep having kids to create a lifestyle. Still, these abusers will not mean that I'm willing to turn America into a third world country to prove my point.

How many "I" do you have that book? Me Me Me I I I Me Me ME

Get over YOU

Paul, you make specific personal accusations against me - first that I am on an "entitlement program," that I have "wealth envy", and then that I write too much of my work history. I am willing to divulge those parts of my life that endorse that I do have a solid understanding of those things which you accuse that I do not. The conservatives who are against government program are always talking about working for a living and "wealth envy" as if the liberals who believe in national community safety nets for the poor do not understand work, innovation, or have nice things of their own. ???

Athens Mama- You said you paid off your car 10 years ago. Let's just say you had a 48 month loan. That would make your car 14 years old. Now you say it's still worth $25,000.? What kind of 14 year old car is worth $25,000.? Just curious.

That's right. They did. Good call.

Dave, you have a good point here. Brian apparently does believe what he writes. He may be wrong, maybe deranged but not a liar.
My apologies to you Brian for calling you a liar. I will not do it again. I do however feel that you are wrong about some issues in your article as I have expressed.

There may be a bit of hyperbole in calling Ryan "the man who wants to kill Medicare" but it rolls off the tongue so much easier than "the man who wants to replace existing Medicare not-for-profit government guaranteed health insurance with a voucher program of indeterminate value that subsidizes the purchase of for-profit health insurance from private health insurers for everyone under the age of 55 which effectively ends Medicare as we know it." They have the same meaning. I'll be happy to dig up the CBO analysis of Ryan's original budget that every House Republican voted for last year but I assume you're smart enough to do that yourself. And yes, after being pilloried by his constituents Ryan has recently amended his plan to include a "choice" for those who wish to keep traditional Medicare, but his intentions are crystal clear.

In all fairness, Romney used to say "Obama may be a nice guy". Politics...

It's called "collegiality". Something the Republican party ended when they started shouting "you lie".

That's actually "congeniality".

col·le·gi·al·i·ty    [kuh-lee-jee-al-i-tee]
noun
cooperative interaction among colleagues.

It's a good word. Basically the ability of opposing sides of an issue to get along and show respect for one another. It's the way Washington used to work to a large degree and something I try and promote here.

That is some of the more twisted logic I've encountered. You think Mitt Romney and his friends care about "the common man"?

Brian, I have no evidence to think that Romney, Obama, or yourself does not care about the common man. That you would ask such a question would imply to me that you think you are superior. Otherwise, how is the question material? The question is which vote buying schemes will actually work best...isn't it? To assume that transfer payments for the purchase of private insurance would be an abject failure and should be rejected out of hand (remember the kill comment?) rather than continue on the same road would only presuppose that politicians and buraucrats MUST be intelligiently superior to the buyers and sellers (common man). You clearly distrust your fellow man to act in their best interests.

No, I distrust Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. Here's a Kaiser Health News article that summarizes the CBO findings on Ryan's original budget regarding changes to Medicare. It's a good read. I'll keep looking for the CBO report:

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2011/april/06/cbo-seniors-pay-more-medicare-ryan-plan.aspx

Brian,
You trust Obama and Biden? The article doesn't back up your thesis that Ryan will "kill" anything! $5 trillion in ten years? What a joke. You don't care at all about debt do you? You need to read it a bit closer. Also, you have twice referred to CBO reports. Do you really believe they are accurate? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-cbo-knows-its-basic-forecasts-are-wrong/2011/08/25/gIQAjZiSfQ_blog.html
Ezra Klein?? Do you think he and I would agree on just about anything?

Hear hear. Standing ovation!

Karsten for President!

I'll answer your questions first - no, no, and no. Last question would be cool, and would make me some serious money, as I'm a dude, not a chick. But point taken. I do have a dad with Alzheimers and Crone's, so do understand what you're talking about, but again, that's why God created insurance - for major expenses. Not for the "Oh no, Timmy's got the sniffles. Let's go see the doctor and make our insurance company pay for the whole visit," or "Time again for my birth control this month - I think it should be paid for completely."

To the rest of your post, I find it interesting that you don't like a church that just keeps pushing for more and more collections and just keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger yet at the same time that seems to be what you are condoning in government.

I appreciate your hard work and sacrifice, and hate that anybody has to be in that position. I'm happy the safety net was in place for you, and you used it just like it should be used. I'm one of the few die-hard conservatives that believes in the social safety net. My only thing on it is that it should be very temporary.

And minimum wage shouldn't cover all expenses. That's not the purpose of minimum wage. It's designed to keep from taking advantage of kids, not up the standard of living of adults with families. If you can't make more than minimum wage, you shouldn't be having a family and trying to support them. Pretty simple. This is the point where my conservative bias comes strongly into play....

Karsten said, " . . . that's why God created insurance . . . " If that were true, it could explain atheism.

WOW! You totally missed the point. Again. Everything you say involves government help. Government welfare and government people. You may not need assistance and that's great but no one has to starve in this country. You are wrong about that. You may choose not to attend a church but those in need of assistance certainly can and will find help.

Slow down. Take a breath. "But, being poor, you get involved with a man who doesn't respect you and isn't good husband material". What the hell are you talking about?

While i agree with Paul that assistance needs to come from somewhere other than the government, I totally agree with Athens Mama that these people need to be taught how to best use assistance they do receive. Give a man a fish, he eats that day, teach him to fish , he eats all the time.
The big problem, for which I wish I had an answer, is that a huge portion of people who get assistance are too lazy to do the things Athens Mama suggests even if we taught them these things. What really sucks about this is that there are many people who would benefit from learning these things who get lumped in with the lazy ones.
Would it not be a step in the right direction to strictly limit what people can buy with their assistance money, forcing them to learn how to cook with the healthy options that are allowed? It really jerks my chain to see a 300 pound woman buying Twinkies, potato chips and Pop-tarts with her food stamps. I know that she knows that crap is bad for you but she is buying it anyway and, in reality, we have not helped her or her kids at all.

You speak often of a single parent home. Why would anyone have children without first being secure financially? That’s cruel and a “poor single mother who gets involved with a man who doesn’t respect her” obviously doesn’t deserve to have children and certainly doesn’t deserve money taken from me at the point of a gun.

I find it difficult to understand how a well off individual like yourself with $400+ per month car payments relates so well with staving kids of poor single mothers.

Oh well. I hope you get all the assistance you need.

And it's amazingly harder for them to get out of poverty when they have no real incentive to do so. Funny how that works.

Private charities are fine. Gives people a better chance to see where their money is going. I like to take part in a program known as Family Promise. There's a beginning, a program that works, and an official end - a 'graduation' if you will. I won't give to charities that give money in places I don't agree - or that pay their principals exhorbitant amounts of money. Salvation Army deserves our money. Many others just don't. Government definitely does not.

Athens Mama- I think part of the road block here is from when you said "But, being poor, you get involved with a man who doesn't respect you and isn't good husband material." Most people don't see being poor as a requirement for marrying the wrong guy. That can happen to anyone. It also works the other way around. You can be poor and, if you have decent parents, make good choices.
I have an ex-brother in law who stayed unemployed for most of his 18 year marriage to my sister. He was also absent from any household responsibilities including parenting. He is able bodied but lazy. He figured out that she would pay for everything and took advantage. The only thing he taught his sons was how to use the system. All he could show them was how to get food stamps. Luckily, the oldest joined the Army and has turned things around. The other is likely just going to follow in his father's footsteps of being a leach. The third is a special needs little girl who he uses to constantly badger my sister. The only way to help this type of male is to take away all assistance and force him to do SOMETHING.

I ASSUME that you lie a lot about yourself.

If you're going to keep repeating yourself, then this is going to be a really long conversation. I already told you no on the health front. Some small things, surgeries and such. I've known plenty of people that have had issues and very expensive medical bills. Again, that's what insurance is for. It's for just such episodes as you mention.

And you may be confused on Family Promise. Lots of families in there. Has nothing to do with domestic violence.

http://www.familypromise.org/

And as long as we're at it - "...so you can afford more for you and yours." You say this like it's a bad thing. I personally work my ass off every week. Have for years. I want my family to live well, I want to give my daughter things, I like nice stuff. I work for it. You make it sound greedy and dirty to keep what's mine. And it is mine. It's not the government's to decide how to spend it or what to keep. It's not up to liberals to decide how much is too much to earn. Nobody's pulling the rug out from under anybody by working hard and earning money. Most poor have pulled the rug out from under themselves. I've given lots of handouts and chances to change to many people trying to do better in their lives, but I have to believe they want to be better.

Athens Mama- I agree, some people can't see their way out of the tunnel. The problem is that most people are perfectly comfortable in the tunnel. There are those that really need a hand and, by golly, we, as decent people, should help them out. With the government in charge of this type of help, precious dollars are going to the wrong people instead of genuine cases of need. This only screws the good poor people and rewards the lazy poor people, who, in turn, breed more lazy poor people, like my ex- BIL who I mentioned above. His son's only out was the military, where he has learned responsibility and discipline. He is getting married in May and will now make, I think, a fine father and a good husband who has broken out of the cycle. The other son, if he continues to get hand-outs, I fear, is lost to the same fate as his still unemployed father, or worse.
I really believe this is an issue for the community, family and church, not the government.
Disclaimer- Being just an average guy, I am often wrong. This is just how I see it and realize I may not be correct in my views.

Karsten- You are not incorrect. I believe the biggest difference between most poor people and most middle class is the middle class' will to work their butts off. There are the poor that want out of the hole and are willing to work for it and we should help them any way we can. But, at the end of the day, most poor people I run into are just lazy and make poor choices because we enable them to do so.
It seems to me that most poor people who are willing to work for a better life are the ones who were not poor to begin with and through sets of circumstances ended up in a tough spot. Conversely, it seems to me that many people who started out on the dole, tend to stay on the dole. Why, because the dole is a lot easier than busting their butts for a better life. That's why there are so many 5th and 6th generation public housing residents. We allow it. I personally know a dozen able bodied men and women who only work for cash on the side so they can continue getting government assistance. It has become an indelible way of life for a certain class of people, it is wrong, they are breeding and.....they vote.
We can continue to educate, and this helps, but parents need to be held far more accountable than they currently are.

Hi Mike, it would be great indeed.

Coupla things about unemployment. It's not a handout, it's an insurance program that we all pay into. The current maximum weekly benefit in GA is $330, the average $260. The average benefit comes out to $13,520 on an annualized basis. However the current maximum benefit period in GA is 20 weeks. I'm sure there are some that see this as living the life o' Riley but surely not anyone with a mortgage or a family. The benefit received is equivalent to a more than 60% pay cut so there is little incentive for most folks to "milk" the system. I once had to rely on UI benefits for a brief time as a young father. It wasn't any fun. http://www.dol.state.ga.us/

Governor Romney is running by claiming that he wants to put Americans back to work (primarily by cutting taxes for the rich, raising taxes on the poor and middle class, and decimating the social safety net). On the other hand, Karsten Torch implies that those who are unemployed (i.e., those who don't "bounce") are apathetic or acting under the false impression that "The Man" is "holding them down" (a racist reference, to be sure).

Are Republican voters voting for Romney and Republicans because they'll help put Americans back to work? Or are they voting for Romney and Republicans because the Republican base believes that people are unemployed exclusively for personal reasons, irregardless of the economic crash, and that they can count on Romney and Republicans to leave the unemployed to fend for themselves?

Karsten's comment reinforces the fact that the Republican establishment feigns concern for the unemployed to attract swing voters while, in fact, they couldn't care less about the millions who are out of work. You know, "it's their own damn fault."

Karsten - I will agree with you on this point.

Some people are smart, some are not, some have mental or emotional illness, some are stable and well-adjusted, some pretty, some homely, tall-short, thin-stocky, athletic, coordinated-clumsy, some proficient in math, some in language, some uneducable. In other words, not all people are made the same. Bad circumstances, bad luck, unforeseeable disaster, tragedy. You're painting humanity with a broad brush when you say everyone should be able to achieve the same results or standards.

Lady Dem, (I like that better...)

Everybody IS different. But I know some people that are dumber than a bag of hammers that have done very well for themselves. But you're right, not everybody can succeed. Some are a victim of their own upbringing, shitty public schools (not all are bad, but some definitely are- this is not a generalization bagging on government schools), bad associations, whatever. These are what I would like to remedy, be it through less government involvement, more government involvement, forcing people to take an interest in their children, whatever. Some are unable to cope through mental or physical limitations. These are the ones that are deserving of help. And the ones I don't mind helping. But, again, I should be free to choose where I spend my money, not forced by the government to give to programs that I don't agree with.

You're just a selfish republican Karsten.

Hey - thanks!

Georgia D- You are right. Everyone is different. You left out that some people are responsible and some are irresponsible. People like me can't help that we are not very bright, but we can be responsible. 99% of every bad thing that ever happened to me was my own fault, through bad choices, ignorance, etc. I believe the same to be true of everyone else. I have been lucky and have not had any serious health issues but then again, I take care of myself. There are many who develop health problems that are no fault of their own but, for the most part, we play a direct role in creating our own problems. Because of that, I think we should take the direct role in fixing our own problems as well and not be allowed to rely on outside help unless it is truly necessary.
My Dad told me when I was young that there's the County Fair, the State Fair and the World's Fair, everything else, is not fare. That's how life is. Those that learn that fact early, do the best in life.

Karsten, just as you don't like tax money you pay to be used to help the needy unless they qualify under your terms, I don't like the money I pay in taxes to go toward starting wars, invading/destroying/rebuilding other countries, hugely wasteful DOD contracts, oil subsidies, subsidizing taxes for the uber rich who don't pay a fair percentage while they enjoy the benefits of America's advanced society, etc. We don't get to direct what our personal tax dollars go toward. I think my complaint is more just than yours :)

Mike H, responsible and not responsible - yes, they're factors, too - and can fall under the category of smart and not smart. Laziness or just plain sorry is sometimes a factor with welfare recipients, but most commenting about this subject infer that those are the biggest reasons for people to be on welfare. Maybe 99% of the bad that has happened in your life is your fault, but it's not accurate or fair to say that's the case with most welfare cases. My point is that everyone is not equipped mentally and/or physically to fix what's wrong in their lives. Good Americans should help them. Many are children who have no choice but to live in poverty.

Echo Georgia Democrat. Why is it ok for the conservatives to dream up reasons to invade countries with oil, kill a hundred thousand civilians, and then pay contractors big bucks out of the taxpayer dollar fund? Why is that ok - when the conservative are supposedly from a base of Christian values? Just as you would like to have more of a voice about the money being doled out to the poor - I would like to have more of a voice about the money being spent on those we decide are unworthy of life. How ridiculous it is that the conservatives are known as "prolife?"

Georgia D.- "responsible and not responsible - yes, they're factors, too - and can fall under the category of smart and not smart."
I understand what you mean but I have experienced many smart people who are not responsible and people who are like me, not smart but responsible :-)

@Mike H: exactly what I meant about "smart and not smart", I was inclusive but not specific: smart can be irresponsible and not smart can be responsible, and vice versa. Anyway, can't always fix that - human nature is imperfect. Society has to deal with human nature, not the ideal of human nature.

LD - no, you're on the same page with me on a lot of that. I don't think we should be spending money on 95% of the crap we're spending money on - subsidies shouldn't exist. Period. But we started talking about entitlement programs, so that was the direction of my comments....

And AM - you're throwing Conservatives and republicans into the same category. Kind of like putting all Libs and democrats together - not really the case....

In your mind they don't prove a valid point.

"The government takes taxes at the point of a gun" refers to the fact that the government uses the threat of force to command obedience. Don't believe me? Don't pay your taxes. See what happens. Eventually, they will use force to either get you to pay or serve time. They're armed better than we are, that's why they're in charge....

This "point of a gun" argument from the right always amuses me. People making this argument are satisfied to make me pay taxes to spend on misbegotten wars, nuclear stockpiles that we don't need, military spending that the military doesn't need (http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/paul-ryan-accuses-generals-of-budget-dishonesty-20120329) oil subsidies, coal subsidies, nuclear subsidies, subsidies for wealthy farmers, and other spending designated for enriching the rich--all "at the point of a gun."

In fact, that's the way a democracy works ("It's not a democracy! It's a republic!"). The majority determines how taxes are collected and how taxes are spent...at the point of a gun, if you insist. We've had several Republican presidents and several Republican congresses, and to my knowledge, none have sought to eliminate taxes for everybody.

(Caveat: Romney is seeking to eliminate all taxes for those whose entire income is from inheritances and investments. People who work for a living will have to make up the difference...at the point of a gun).

You don't know what's in my mind, Karsten. It gets so old when people talk about somebody they know who knew somebody who knew somebody else, and so on, who did or saw whatever to validate their comments. If you break the law, LE can use their guns to arrest. No one has been shot for not paying taxes . . . that's just a stupid visual. If you don't pay what you owe in taxes, you will face consequences, but not at gunpoint. Republicans love the fear factor it seems.

Most conservatives (not republicans - whole different thing at this point) aren't happy about any of those things you mentioned. But I'm sure you knew that...

Your democracy argument is why this nation was designed as a republic - to avoid the 'mob rule' idea. But point taken.

The idea of eliminating inheritance income taxes (death taxes) just makes sense. These taxes are kind of dumb.....

Thanks for acknowledging the point, Karsten.

For the record, Republicans of all stripes, Tea Party included, fight against the elimination of subsidies I mentioned, including Paul Ryan and Jim DeMint. They oppose government intervention in free markets, except when they don't. Here's one example: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/house-gop-blocks-vote-on-oil-subsidies.php

With regard to inheritance taxes, they make perfect sense. As far as I'm concerned, inheritance income should be taxed at the same rates as taxes on income from setting our alarms and going to work every day.

As opposed to you Paulie boy. You want to impose your twisted liberal view on all. You and your sidekick Crawford are typical of liberalism.

Sandy,

As you know there's no such thing as a "democrat" politician, just like there's no such thing as a "plutocrat" politician. There are, however, Democratic and plutocratic politicians. To answer your question, I've written both Democratic and plutocratic (i.e., Republican) politicians asking them not to vote for the things I've listed.

To be clear, Democrats aren't the ones claiming to be against all government intervention in the market and for small government while maintaining government subsidies and big government.

I infer from your question that you acknowledge the fact that both parties tax at the point of a gun.

Little b bob, Karsten and Paul are not liberals. Have you just parachuted in? Your comments are beyond inappropriate whichever side you claim.

Just great, another uneducated centrist.

Arguing, name calling, insults all divide. Discussion is necessary for progress. Problem is many folks don't know the difference. I think we need some lawyers in Congress and leadership to wade through all the legal gobbledegook and who study the law. Laws are not exactly written in everyday speak. Most elected officials are not bad, we just hear more from those guys. Get the money out of the way - from lobbyists and special interest groups with powerful influence, and a lot of what's wrong with our government and this country would be corrected.

Nicely put Georgia D.

Yes, I agree. Bob's gotta go. He is what is known as a troll.

Or an idiot....not really sure which is more accurate....

Problem is, he seems to be jumping on the conservative side, which makes the rest of us look bad....

If I had a child in Clarke county schools, my biggest concerns would be rooted in the other students, not the teachers. I have known several very good teachers in that system that have had to throw up their hands and move to another county because most of their time was spent trying to just maintain order in the classroom. The parents of many of the children in Clarke county public schools often make very poor examples if they are even present. Most people in Clarke county that want their kids to get a decent education turn to private schools (if they can afford them) or move to Oconee County. Not because of the teachers, but because of the large number of really low quality students dragging down the students who have potential and driving away some pretty outstanding teachers. Being a teacher in Clarke County's public system is a very difficult task, especially for the ones who really care.

I don't agree. I don't care if my child is loved at school. Treated respecfully, by a teacher that loves what they do, but I don't really care if they have positive feelings or not for my child. I don't want a child that feels unconditional love from educators - I actually want her to earn her respect.

Thank you very much, Mike! Are we making a little progress, swapping thoughts and ideas? That would be nice, really nice. :D