I don't think so I'm not saying end welfare, I'm saying force individual States to pay for it. Some would fail but then they would either see an exodus of citizens to states that do manage their income to welfare ratio properly or they would reform their welfare distribution. I'm all for competition, make the states compete with each other.

It would be an interesting social experiment since you just know some states will eliminate it all together and will swiftly see their economies going down the drain.

---

It would be an interesting social experiment since you just know some states will eliminate it all together and will swiftly see their economies going down the drain.

 

I don't think any states would eliminate it all together, I know very few people that don't want ANY safety nets in society and believe me I know some radicals. Heck most people call me a radical.

 

It would force states to be reasonable and realistic in what help they offer the poor. it would also create an atmosphere where states absolutely would seek to harp down on fraud which is a huge problem with welfare.

---

I don't think any states would eliminate it all together, I know very few people that don't want ANY safety nets in society and believe me I know some radicals. Heck most people call me a radical.

 

It would force states to be reasonable and realistic in what help they offer the poor. it would also create an atmosphere where states absolutely would seek to harp down on fraud which is a huge problem with welfare.

We both know what people want and what politicians sign into law are two completely unrelated things. 

---

....odds are thats why he promoting California's way...

 

 

I wonder if he'd have the same outlook if the system was producing a heavily conservative state?... :whistling:

 

I think you need to look at the logic of the idea and not condemn it just because you don't like California.  

 

Again, I repeat, the non-partisan primary system just started  in 2012, and I cited an example of a liberal democrat who was defeated by a more moderate democrat who appealed to republican voters.  The moderate democrat came in second in the primary, but moved on to the final because everyone runs in the same primary and by rule the top two vote getters move forward.  In the final, the moderate democrat appealed to the very small minority of republican voters, who didn't have the slightest chance to elect a republican, and the moderate defeated the liberal because the republicans voted for him.  

 

In that district, most democrats are liberal.  But most voters are not.   So why should they have to be represented by a liberal?  The system worked. 

 

Don't take a knee jerk reaction that just because I like it, you don't like it, or just because the idea originated in California, you don't like it.   Look at the logic of it.  

---

....odds are thats why he promoting California's way...

 

 

 

Makes sense to me.

---

When do we step in and help Isreal defeat Hamas.

Some time after 2016.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Israel can handle it themselves, no need for us to get involved. Just stay out of it all together.

 

They may be able to handle themselves, but they still need support from the US. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

 

 

2.) Eliminate the Income tax and all Federal taxes and replace them with a consumption tax. It doesn't have to be the modern form of the Fairtax which I do like, but it simply MUST end the unconstitutional wage deduction from people working legally and shift the tax collection to the purchase of goods. This does two things as well it eliminates the tax benefit of working "under the table" and "hiring under the table" and it forces the shadow economy to pay the same taxes as everyone else.

 

You do those two things and I don't care if illegals come, they can't be a burden on society and they're now forced to contribute when they purchase goods, but my guess is you'd have Mexico with a sudden flood of "illegal" immigration.

 

Thats a pretty damn good idea! :thumbsup:

 

...so, obviously don't expect it to ever be implemented by our government... 

---

How about we do something about our own borders, then and only then would I consider doing something about Israel's borders.

Good luck holding out hope for anything to be done about the borders any time soon. 

 

In the current climate, we should start a hash tag campaign.  That will really force change.  #securetheborderfirst

 

I think I've fixed the problem now. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

They may be able to handle themselves, but they still need support from the US. 

 

I just can't support spending money we simply don't have. 17 trillion dollars we're not exactly in the position to fund Anyone's foreign interest regardless of how much we agree or disagree with them.

 

At 17 trillion and counting the time has come for America to understand this debt is not a credit card we can just keep transferring balances on. Everyone talks about change but no one really wants change. It's going to REQUIRE a drastic change in American Foreign AND Domestic policy to BEGIN to dig out of this mess.

 

That means allies are going to have to fend for themselves for a while, it means the poor are going to feel more poor, it means business's are going to fail, the days of America as the world police are coming to end one way or another. If we at least chose to throttle back we may be able to at least influence the world in the near future, if we continue full throttle building and defending nations we will become the next Soviet Union.

---

While Hispanics vote largely Dem, don't expect any real border control solutions within the next 3 years. 

---

It would be an interesting social experiment since you just know some states will eliminate it all together and will swiftly see their economies going down the drain.

Welfare and entitlements drive economy. Well, that's a new one.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

I just can't support spending money we simply don't have. 17 trillion dollars we're not exactly in the position to fund Anyone's foreign interest regardless of how much we agree or disagree with them.

 

At 17 trillion and counting the time has come for America to understand this debt is not a credit card we can just keep transferring balances on. Everyone talks about change but no one really wants change. It's going to REQUIRE a drastic change in American Foreign AND Domestic policy to BEGIN to dig out of this mess.

 

That means allies are going to have to fend for themselves for a while, it means the poor are going to feel more poor, it means business's are going to fail, the days of America as the world police are coming to end one way or another. If we at least chose to throttle back we may be able to at least influence the world in the near future, if we continue full throttle building and defending nations we will become the next Soviet Union.

 

That's nice in theory but then the arms industry will dump a few more million into a bunch of campaign funds and suddenly the rhetoric becomes about protecting American allies & interests overseas. And then those allies are encouraged to buy a few more Abrams tanks and a few more Apaches helicopters and can't forget a couple dozen F-35's as well.

---

Welfare and entitlements drive economy. Well, that's a new one.

People spending money drives economy. People with welfare have money to spend, however limited. Take that money out of the economy and the economy suffers. 

---

That's nice in theory but then the arms industry will dump a few more million into a bunch of campaign funds and suddenly the rhetoric becomes about protecting American allies & interests overseas. And then those allies are encouraged to buy a few more Abrams tanks and a few more Apaches helicopters and can't forget a couple dozen F-35's as well.

 

Special interest will always be an issues, but by limiting the power of legislators, especially at the federal level you remove the desire for special interest to invest so heavily in politicians.

---

That's nice in theory but then the arms industry will dump a few more million into a bunch of campaign funds and suddenly the rhetoric becomes about protecting American allies & interests overseas. And then those allies are encouraged to buy a few more Abrams tanks and a few more Apaches helicopters and can't forget a couple dozen F-35's as well.

 

Your jaundiced and over-simplified ideas on how American politics and world leadership works is starting to play out.

---

Special interest will always be an issues, but by limiting the power of legislators, especially at the federal level you remove the desire for special interest to invest so heavily in politicians.

Two things that will never happen:

 

1: Legislators will never limit their own power.

2: Legislators will never limit their own salary. 

---

People spending money drives economy. People with welfare have money to spend, however limited. Take that money out of the economy and the economy suffers. 

 

That money is still being spent just by different people. Government can not generate income, they make nothing, they sell nothing, they produce nothing, they can only take from one and give to another.

 

If I have $5 and you have $1 then mother takes $1 from me and I now have $4 and you have $2 no extra money has been generated, only redistributed.

 

An argument can be made for welfare as a safety net but not as an economic driving engine.

---

People spending money drives economy. People with welfare have money to spend, however limited. Take that money out of the economy and the economy suffers. 

The money won't be gone, it will remain in the economy, it will simply still be in the hands of those who worked for it.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

Two things that will never happen:

 

1: Legislators will never limit their own power.

2: Legislators will never limit their own salary. 

 

Not by choice, which is why it starts with changing the tax code. A consumption tax removes the legislators ability to restrict individuals ability to influence tax revenue. Simply put if you tax what I spend and not what I make, I have power not you. I can say, no I won't fund that war or no I won't fund that project and simply hold onto my money. It's not an easy process, but nothing good is easy.

---