Democrats vs republicans

[ariscus99 1]

CM you always assume this all or nothing mentality on government, I've called you out on it several times in the past and you never address it. There is no problem with SOME oversight, in CERTAIN aspects of our lives, what the democrats and liberals and left wing lunatics all over this great nation have succeeded in doing lately is getting oversight on EVERYTHING they can. On things of our lives that don't need oversight, how about the new bill that is aiming to shut down farmers markets, making all the people who bring their goods in buy licenses and submit to all kinds of testing that has never happened before because it wasn't and still ISN'T needed. I work for the government, as does my wife, so to say that I want NO government is just plain silly and shortsighted. There is a happy medium when it comes to regulation, and that, is hopefully what the newly appointed politicians representing the WILL OF THE PEOPLE will begin working on.

An example of a company looking out for safety without the government regulations forcing it on them? Have you seen the Nissan commercial about the controlled braking that is supposedly being mandated soon by the government? That Nissan has been incorporating into their vehicles for over 6 years? Consumer safety and well being ALONG with profits can go hand in hand, it's part of capitalism, people want safe, so we provide safe so people will buy our product.

It's funny you mention that when BP spilled oil the first reaction from the majority of the people was to ask what the government would do. It is just a perfect example of the US slowly turning into a nanny state. Of course people ask that because the left wing wants everyone to rely on the government for everything, so now that they are getting their wish, they get angry when people do what has been expected of them? Ask the government for help? Oh my, shocking.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

CM you always assume this all or nothing mentality on government, I've called you out on it several times in the past and you never address it. There is no problem with SOME oversight, in CERTAIN aspects of our lives, what the democrats and liberals and left wing lunatics all over this great nation have succeeded in doing lately is getting oversight on EVERYTHING they can. On things of our lives that don't need oversight, how about the new bill that is aiming to shut down farmers markets, making all the people who bring their goods in buy licenses and submit to all kinds of testing that has never happened before because it wasn't and still ISN'T needed. I work for the government, as does my wife, so to say that I want NO government is just plain silly and shortsighted. There is a happy medium when it comes to regulation, and that, is hopefully what the newly appointed politicians representing the WILL OF THE PEOPLE will begin working on.

An example of a company looking out for safety without the government regulations forcing it on them? Have you seen the Nissan commercial about the controlled braking that is supposedly being mandated soon by the government? That Nissan has been incorporating into their vehicles for over 6 years? Consumer safety and well being ALONG with profits can go hand in hand, it's part of capitalism, people want safe, so we provide safe so people will buy our product.

It's funny you mention that when BP spilled oil the first reaction from the majority of the people was to ask what the government would do. It is just a perfect example of the US slowly turning into a nanny state. Of course people ask that because the left wing wants everyone to rely on the government for everything, so now that they are getting their wish, they get angry when people do what has been expected of them? Ask the government for help? Oh my, shocking.

The republican and conservative idea of "some oversight" was in full force under the bush administration. And the results were disatrous. We saw what happened with "some oversight" on Wall Street. If this "some oversight" had been in place when thalidomide was being given to pregnant women in other countries, we would have had deformed babies born here. But the government oversight stopped it. If this "some oversight" had been applied to cars over the years we wouldn't have seat belts or air bags. Car manufacturers are not going to voluntarily add what they think are unnecessary safety features that would increase the price. "Some oversight" might give parents the option of using car seats for infants or not. After all, we don't want the big, bad government to tell parents what to do.

Republican rep. Issa sent a letter to 125 corporations asking them which regulations they didn't like. That's like the umpire asking the pitcher where the strike zone should be as the batter (middle class) comes up to bat. Issa represents the "some (read: none) oversight" policy the new republicans are promoting.

We require licenses for people to sell things in this country. I can't just decide to sell my home baked Cookies (this is a far fetched example - I don't bake) from my home. I can't do hair styling or do make overs in my home without a license (and zoning). These laws are in place for a reason. It's regulation of commerce.

So, the republicans like to cherry pick which "oversight" is okay. They mostly want oversight of unions (no card check), trial lawyers (tort reform), welfare (get those single moms) and the minimum wage (is it constitutional?) but lets give wall street and corporate america free reign. They are not offering one concrete thing that is different from their disastrous policies that got us in this mess to begin with.

Liberals and the left wing don't want people to rely on the government for everything. We want people to be able to have a level playing field and to help the least among us. And many of those who ask "what is the government going to do" (this also applies when they use the generic -"somebody should do something" - which means government) are the same ones who yap about smaller government and the nanny state (a right wing buzz word) and I call it for what it is - hypocrisy (and not a small dose of stupidity).

You're one to talk about not addressing things. You said that if I could prove that the republicans wanted Obama to fail before he was sworn in, you would vote for him, or some other such thing. Well, I found the article from the NYT that on Jan. 11, 2009, the republicans met and did just that. I posted it, I think, on election issues.

I noticed that you didn't address any of the republican hypocrisy that I posted. Add to that that two of the freshmen republicans were at fundraisers and missed their swearing in, but none the less proceeded to be involved in committee hearings. Where's the justification for that in the constitution?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

The unemployment dropped from 9.8% to 9.4%. The silence from those on the right is deafening. Had it gone up .4 points, Boehner would have needed a full box of kleenex.

[loserbob 11]

Your taking a stance of personal responsibility and accountability, which is something that dems and liberals vehemently disagree with, they believe the government should always be over our shoulder controlling what we do, how we do it, who we do it with, and where our money should go. None of them will come out and say it, but deep down they all want us to be more a socialistic nation, where EVERYTHING is provided for EVERYONE. Accountability and responsibility in their minds should only be provided by the governments because "they know what's best for us."

Dems dont disagree with what he's saying. Im sure everyone agrees dem or rep that everyone needs to do their part. Unfortunately not everyone is dealt the same hand, not everyones situation is the same. Why should a country as rich as ours not have social programs to help people "in need"? Yah, there will always be people who "play the system" . Actually there are alot of people who used to be well off who lost their good paying jobs and now require social programs to get by, its not just the lowlife trash looking for handouts who use these programs! This isnt a land of robots where everyone thinks and does the same. Your priorities arent the same as mine or anyone elses, who says yours are right and mine are wrong because you still have a job(by the way I still never heard of a $200,000.00 a year fireman, not saying they or you arent worth it, just sayin! We in the plumbing industry, I mean you in the fire industry call it "junk"!) and I lost mine because Bush had no clue how to run this country! Airiscuss, you are a fireman studying to be a dr. I believe, Its nice you'll never have to worry about most of these problems but there are actually people who dont have interest in these fields. There are people who actually do like being garbage men or women, electricians, plumbers, Firemen who make 40-60,000 dollars a year(those are the ones I know), secretaries, nurses aides, etc, everyones circumstances are the different!

Also, I know it sucks that my or someone elses 5 year old cant be denied health coverage because cancer is a pre-existing condition, or I wont be told after an operation that my insurance is being terminated therefore Ill have to be solely responsable for aftercare. What the f%$k was Obama thinking when he revamped healthcare?

To your last point, I guess dems should take this as a compliment. They're willing to give up their hard earned money to help others where reps evidently arent. Im so tired of the bs, Ill decide where my money goes. First of all Bush decided that you would help pay $1,000,000,000.00 a day for the wars he wanted!

Its as simple as this. We can vote rep and send our kids off to die in some foreign land for their causes(reps). Or we can vote dem and take on the god forbiden task of helping the environment by researching new, alternative green energy resources.

I actually agree with everything he said. I will admit, I bust my ass every day like most people and its comforting to know there will be some help if needed. ( Im ind) but lean left in most instances. Im still not sold on green energy, at least not as the only resource, we should drill as much as possible also. More nuc plants.

Just for the record, my 5 year old is now 6 and doesnt have cancer and I still have my job, thank god!

[ariscus99 1]

I read over my challenge to you, post #6 here, your claim was that the republican leaders said they did not care if America failed. I then read you "proof" you did not show proof that anyone said this. You showed that they said they wanted to block Obama, just because you may think he's best for America and we'll fail without him, doesn't make it true.

You bring up auto makers and say that they wont put safety equipment in cars without the government making them? Well you've been around for awhile, I imagine you may vaguely remember when cars did not have seat belts in them, did you know that most auto manufactures began adding them BEFORE the government made it mandatory, also with the Nissan comparison I made in my previous post. So yes, they will do what is best for us and safest for us, because they know that is what we want. Capitalism and safety working together hand in hand. Many car manufacturers are including blind spot recognition in their vehicles, I've driven some with that in it, it helps a lot, and makes you safer, and guess what? It's not government mandated. Mercedes Benz and Volvo are making care that will apply the brakes for you if you come up on a car in front of you too quickly to avoid an accident, also not mandated. Subaru makes their frames and bodies from an alloy that is many times stronger than the steel that is used in most cars, so strong in fact, that many of the tools firefighters use to extricate people have become useless on these cars, however the flip side is, the passenger compartment is MUCH safer with less passenger space intrusion than most any other vehicle when tested, these improvements to safety, done by the auto manufacture by choice, not mandate.

I'd be willing to bet that what Issa and the corporations were referring to things that have been put in place, that the corporations were already doing, that's like the US government telling the MLB the strike zone will be this, when the MLB had already had the strike zone there for the last 107 years. But they're doing it to "protect" the batter(middle class) even tho the MLB(greedy corporate America) was already doing it, because they knew if they didn't people would go elsewhere. Did you ride in a car seat until you were 6 years old or 60 pounds? No? And yet you made it? Wow, you must be one of the lucky few that scathed by. Who do you think came up with the idea of car seats for infants and children? The government? Did they go tell a bunch of manufacturers, "hey we have this idea for a seat that kids sit in to stay safe, build it now"? No, free enterprise came up with the idea, and the government piggybacked on it. Airbags are another innovation of free market capitalism, the government didn't invent airbags and then make auto makers use them. They were voluntarily in use by auto makers for over 25 years before the government mandated it.

Have you ever been to a farmers market? Maybe they aren't popular where you live, we have one here in old town every saturday from 7am till 3pm, it's a really neat thing, it's a great way to get home grown produce cheap. But many of the vendors will be leaving when and if this happens, because they can't afford the licenses and fee's that are now going to be implemented, they do what they do as a small supplement to income, if at all, many of the growers are just people with too large of a garden so they bring what they wont use to the farmers market to help out other people. I will be very sad to see this shut down. When I lived in Chico while I attended college they had Tuesday night market, they shut down all of downtown Chico for a huge farmers market and peddlers fair, this too will be going by the wayside soon, and it's been a Chico tradition for generations. My wife's great uncle went to the same school in the 60's and remembered going to the same Tuesday night market that we went too. It's a shame if our children go to Chico State they won't get to participate in this, because of the over reach of government regulation.

Of course we should cherry pick what regulation is okay. If not what do you propose we do? Regulate EVERYTHING? I guess that is part of the left wing dream, government ran everything. Let's do some real quick cherry pick of the topic's we've discussed here; farmers market, no regulation, auto industry safety standards, minimal regulation(as has been shown they make all the safety breakthroughs on their own). Wall street, moderate regulation(They have shown they can't be completely trusted, but if the government steps in too far it will shut them down, like it has of late, they wont spend their money).

If liberals and the left wing don't want people to rely on the government why do they keep expanding all the social handouts? Why do the FORCE people to be more reliant on the government? They make unemployment benefits so enticing why would anyone want to find a job. I have a friend who is a seasonal firemen, only works during the summer months here So. Cal, when he gets laid off each year he goes on unemployment, at which time he brings home $1900 a month. Why would he go find a job, he would have to find a job that averages about $18 an hour, and he'd have to work 40 hours a week. And thats just to break even. You can't just go out and find a job like that, so he has no motivation to get off unemployment the 4 months a year he's laid off. He also loses his medical coverage when he's laid off, so he goes and signs up for medical and gets it every year, he's got a great life while he's laid off, plays video games and works out while making $1900 a month to do nothing. If that isn't enticing people to become reliant on the government I don't know what is.

As far as the republican hypocrisy, I think it's great your trying to shine a light on it, I wish you would have the courage to do it the democrats too, but I understand that is asking a lot of someone. I however am not a republican, so I need not defend them. I do find it deplorable that they chose to leave out certain parts of the constitution when they read it, it was a neat idea, they should have done it 100% tho. The founding fathers wrote it in such a way that we must see the mistakes we've made in the past, you can't erase anything from it or the bill of rights, you must amend it, but leave in the parts that were bad, so we can learn from out past. They left out the 3/5's clause because they thought it would anger people, well that was amended when we realized it was wrong, it's sad it took so long, but we did, and we tried to fix, they also left out the prohibition, the 18th amendment I believe, as it was a violent time in our past however they left the 21st in, so when you hear them talk it sounds a little weird, all of sudden we're allowed to drink? When were we not allowed to drink? Well without the 18th amendment, no one would know we weren't allowed to for 13 years.

That was long winded but I think I covered everything you wrote.

[loserbob 11]

CM you always assume this all or nothing mentality on government, I've called you out on it several times in the past and you never address it. There is no problem with SOME oversight, in CERTAIN aspects of our lives, what the democrats and liberals and left wing lunatics all over this great nation have succeeded in doing lately is getting oversight on EVERYTHING they can. On things of our lives that don't need oversight, how about the new bill that is aiming to shut down farmers markets, making all the people who bring their goods in buy licenses and submit to all kinds of testing that has never happened before because it wasn't and still ISN'T needed. I work for the government, as does my wife, so to say that I want NO government is just plain silly and shortsighted. There is a happy medium when it comes to regulation, and that, is hopefully what the newly appointed politicians representing the WILL OF THE PEOPLE will begin working on.

An example of a company looking out for safety without the government regulations forcing it on them? Have you seen the Nissan commercial about the controlled braking that is supposedly being mandated soon by the government? That Nissan has been incorporating into their vehicles for over 6 years? Consumer safety and well being ALONG with profits can go hand in hand, it's part of capitalism, people want safe, so we provide safe so people will buy our product.

It's funny you mention that when BP spilled oil the first reaction from the majority of the people was to ask what the government would do. It is just a perfect example of the US slowly turning into a nanny state. Of course people ask that because the left wing wants everyone to rely on the government for everything, so now that they are getting their wish, they get angry when people do what has been expected of them? Ask the government for help? Oh my, shocking.

Ill bet your mad because there is talk of regulating offshore drilling because Im sure you believe BP Oil, you know, the big corp that doesnt pay taxes on the 40 plus billion dollar profits, you know, the company that looks out for employee safety, the one where the oil platform blew up killing several employees, fathers, mothers, children after being warned by said employees of a disaster soon to happen. Ask the family members how they would have felt about being inconvenience by a few extra safety regulations !

And as always you want the gov involved in things that would benefit you. There are two classes, wait, 3, oh no there used to be 3 classes of citizens in this country until you-know-who was in charge, your right Chenney but anyway, what the gov does for the lower class might not benefit you in the Im sure upper-class.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I read over my challenge to you, post #6 here, your claim was that the republican leaders said they did not care if America failed. I then read you "proof" you did not show proof that anyone said this. You showed that they said they wanted to block Obama, just because you may think he's best for America and we'll fail without him, doesn't make it true.

You bring up auto makers and say that they wont put safety equipment in cars without the government making them? Well you've been around for awhile, I imagine you may vaguely remember when cars did not have seat belts in them, did you know that most auto manufactures began adding them BEFORE the government made it mandatory, also with the Nissan comparison I made in my previous post. So yes, they will do what is best for us and safest for us, because they know that is what we want. Capitalism and safety working together hand in hand. Many car manufacturers are including blind spot recognition in their vehicles, I've driven some with that in it, it helps a lot, and makes you safer, and guess what? It's not government mandated. Mercedes Benz and Volvo are making care that will apply the brakes for you if you come up on a car in front of you too quickly to avoid an accident, also not mandated. Subaru makes their frames and bodies from an alloy that is many times stronger than the steel that is used in most cars, so strong in fact, that many of the tools firefighters use to extricate people have become useless on these cars, however the flip side is, the passenger compartment is MUCH safer with less passenger space intrusion than most any other vehicle when tested, these improvements to safety, done by the auto manufacture by choice, not mandate.

I'd be willing to bet that what Issa and the corporations were referring to things that have been put in place, that the corporations were already doing, that's like the US government telling the MLB the strike zone will be this, when the MLB had already had the strike zone there for the last 107 years. But they're doing it to "protect" the batter(middle class) even tho the MLB(greedy corporate America) was already doing it, because they knew if they didn't people would go elsewhere. Did you ride in a car seat until you were 6 years old or 60 pounds? No? And yet you made it? Wow, you must be one of the lucky few that scathed by. Who do you think came up with the idea of car seats for infants and children? The government? Did they go tell a bunch of manufacturers, "hey we have this idea for a seat that kids sit in to stay safe, build it now"? No, free enterprise came up with the idea, and the government piggybacked on it. Airbags are another innovation of free market capitalism, the government didn't invent airbags and then make auto makers use them. They were voluntarily in use by auto makers for over 25 years before the government mandated it.

Have you ever been to a farmers market? Maybe they aren't popular where you live, we have one here in old town every saturday from 7am till 3pm, it's a really neat thing, it's a great way to get home grown produce cheap. But many of the vendors will be leaving when and if this happens, because they can't afford the licenses and fee's that are now going to be implemented, they do what they do as a small supplement to income, if at all, many of the growers are just people with too large of a garden so they bring what they wont use to the farmers market to help out other people. I will be very sad to see this shut down. When I lived in Chico while I attended college they had Tuesday night market, they shut down all of downtown Chico for a huge farmers market and peddlers fair, this too will be going by the wayside soon, and it's been a Chico tradition for generations. My wife's great uncle went to the same school in the 60's and remembered going to the same Tuesday night market that we went too. It's a shame if our children go to Chico State they won't get to participate in this, because of the over reach of government regulation.

Of course we should cherry pick what regulation is okay. If not what do you propose we do? Regulate EVERYTHING? I guess that is part of the left wing dream, government ran everything. Let's do some real quick cherry pick of the topic's we've discussed here; farmers market, no regulation, auto industry safety standards, minimal regulation(as has been shown they make all the safety breakthroughs on their own). Wall street, moderate regulation(They have shown they can't be completely trusted, but if the government steps in too far it will shut them down, like it has of late, they wont spend their money).

If liberals and the left wing don't want people to rely on the government why do they keep expanding all the social handouts? Why do the FORCE people to be more reliant on the government? They make unemployment benefits so enticing why would anyone want to find a job. I have a friend who is a seasonal firemen, only works during the summer months here So. Cal, when he gets laid off each year he goes on unemployment, at which time he brings home $1900 a month. Why would he go find a job, he would have to find a job that averages about $18 an hour, and he'd have to work 40 hours a week. And thats just to break even. You can't just go out and find a job like that, so he has no motivation to get off unemployment the 4 months a year he's laid off. He also loses his medical coverage when he's laid off, so he goes and signs up for medical and gets it every year, he's got a great life while he's laid off, plays video games and works out while making $1900 a month to do nothing. If that isn't enticing people to become reliant on the government I don't know what is.

As far as the republican hypocrisy, I think it's great your trying to shine a light on it, I wish you would have the courage to do it the democrats too, but I understand that is asking a lot of someone. I however am not a republican, so I need not defend them. I do find it deplorable that they chose to leave out certain parts of the constitution when they read it, it was a neat idea, they should have done it 100% tho. The founding fathers wrote it in such a way that we must see the mistakes we've made in the past, you can't erase anything from it or the bill of rights, you must amend it, but leave in the parts that were bad, so we can learn from out past. They left out the 3/5's clause because they thought it would anger people, well that was amended when we realized it was wrong, it's sad it took so long, but we did, and we tried to fix, they also left out the prohibition, the 18th amendment I believe, as it was a violent time in our past however they left the 21st in, so when you hear them talk it sounds a little weird, all of sudden we're allowed to drink? When were we not allowed to drink? Well without the 18th amendment, no one would know we weren't allowed to for 13 years.

That was long winded but I think I covered everything you wrote.

Seat belts and child car seats are of no use unless they are used properly. Many people will not do the right or safe thing unless mandated (by government) to do it. So mandatory seatbelt use didn't go into affect until around 1985. Idiot parents wouldn't use child car seats unless required to (again, by government). No, they didn't have them when I was growing up but we didn't have all the super highways and do all the driving we do today. People lived in small town or suburbs and worked there and did their shopping there, etc...

"So yes they will do what is safest for us because they know that is what we want" you wrote. I almost choked when I read that. I have never heard a more naive statement. I know a creek where Marcellus shale dumps their waste Water that you can either drink out of or eat the fish out of (if there are any). Remember that scene in Erin Brockovich when the reps from the big polluting company were sitting at the table and one reached for the Water and Erin said - go ahead we brought it in from the ____creek (the one that was being polluted) and the rep declined. Well, if you trust corporate America to do the right thing, you are in the minority.

Also, don't you remember Ralph Nadar's "Unsafe at any speed". Another case: this one manufacturer of the hip replacement parts didn't want to spend 5 cents to clean the oil off of the ball part in their manufacturing process. Because of this, when these were placed in people, the oil prevented their tissue from growing on it. The people had excruciating pain, had to have them removed and replaced. Yeah, corporate American is looking out for our safety and well-being.

I said the republicans wanted Obama to fail and thus America. Because if his agenda failed - which was economic recovery and health care - then America fails. The economy is slowly improving. All people need to be able to have health insurance. These are things that improve American life but the republicans didn't support it. They even withdrew their support from their own ideas when Obama supported it.

I don't have time to find my post but it was from the NYT about the republicans meeting on Jan. 11, 2009 to band together to oppose everything Obama would be proposing. This was before the swearing in of Obama. If you know what # post that was, let me know. I will look later. He gave in to them on the stimulus with making about 30% of it tax cuts and they still opposed it. Their opposition was to Obama. They recently opposed aid to 9/11 first responders even though it was paid for. That one republican said he wanted more committee hearings about it. Guess what? There were committe hearings, he is on that committee and he didn;t show up. This is just one of many examples of how they just want Obama to fail and they don't care what is good for the country. How could aid to 9/11 responders be bad for the country.

I don't know what you mean about Issa. He wants to know from them what government regulations they don't like. Well, those would be any that interfere with their maximizing profits. Duh!! Safety be damned. Concern for the middle class investments be damned. Get rid of all those. And just let us do our thing, and oh, by the way, if we fail we will be asking for a bailout. Then we will welcome government "interference"

I don't buy the arguement that just because it's always been done that way that it always should be. If people are buying and selling things - that is regulated. I don't see the big deal. I need a license or permit to fix up my house.

Neocons, republicans and those right wing extremists don't just want to cherry pick regulations, they want to eliminate them almost entirely. I would rather err on the side of over-regulation than under-regulation. We already saw what happens when we do that.

[ariscus99 1]

Ill bet your mad because there is talk of regulating offshore drilling because Im sure you believe BP Oil, you know, the big corp that doesnt pay taxes on the 40 plus billion dollar profits, you know, the company that looks out for employee safety, the one where the oil platform blew up killing several employees, fathers, mothers, children after being warned by said employees of a disaster soon to happen. Ask the family members how they would have felt about being inconvenience by a few extra safety regulations ! And as always you want the gov involved in things that would benefit you. There are two classes, wait, 3, oh no there used to be 3 classes of citizens in this country until you-know-who was in charge, your right Chenney but anyway, what the gov does for the lower class might not benefit you in the Im sure upper-class.

There should be SOME regulation in offshore drilling, but not so much as to shut it down or make it not profitable. People seem to think the US is the only country that people do business in, if we keep down this path of over regulation of everything, there will come a time, probably sooner than later, when large companies will just flat refuse to do business with us. Why do they need to? China and India are growing like crazy. Especially in the oil field, China is second only to the US in oil consumption and have stated that their oil consumption will grow by over 80% in the next 15 years. Meaning they will surpass us. They already use much more coal than we do, and India is right on China's tail. So when we've implemented all these regulations on everything that used to be profitable here in the US, the companies will just pull up stakes and move elsewhere. Why not? China and India don't have the ridiculous regulations and taxes, and fee's and oversight that suffocates different industries, why do you think so many have already moved huge portions of their companies overseas. So keep regulating and run this country into the ground. Then what? Companies will leave, they've already started. A good example of this on a smaller scale is California, it's like an exodus of companies trying to get out because of the high corporate taxes in California. I've actually seen a lot of billboards from Nevada telling businesses to come to their state because of lower taxes and that they'll give even larger tax breaks when you first come over. Thats what's going to happen and really already is happening to the US.

I'm all for helping the "lower class" through donations, and volunteering and helping them help themselves. Not by handouts, and encouraging them to stay on welfare, unemployment, medicade what have you forever. Like I said in my previous post, I have a buddy that makes the equivalent of an $18 an hour job 40 hrs a week, while being on unemployment, why would he want to do all that to break even? If he took a job flipping burgers at min wage he'd take a HUGE pay cut. But if that wasn't there, he'd have to and he would. My wife and I donate money every year to several charities. And the last two years we've done our own impromptu adopt-a-family type deal at christmas time for two families each year. At the fire stations in so Cal we do a gift giving thing similar to toys for tots, called spark of love, and we've chose two families that we felt needed it badly, and were really trying to better themselves and took them to the super wal-mart in town and bought them everything for a Christmas dinner, presents for the kids, and for them, as the parents rarely get anything(they were simple gifts, new socks, new underpants, toiletries etc.) extra school supplies. I enjoy helping, I never do garage sales, I always give whatever I have extra to the salvation army, or to people I know who aren't as well off.

As for your other post. I don't make 200k a year, I make well over 100k and with my wife's salary we clear that usually. But if you care to do some research on California fire departments look at the salaries for firemen and then realize you can usually at least double that for all the overtime we work. I have been fortunate, I've made some good choices, and worked hard. And I know cm will say that I couldn't have done it without the government, and I agree, I wouldn't have roads, or schools, I did go to public school, and a state University. But I didn't take loans, I worked, hard. I understand not all people want what I want, or have the motivation I have for certain things. And that is fine, but it shouldn't be expected for the hard workers to take care of the slackers, there are those who need a temporary hand up, I'm all for helping them. One area I believe we absolutely need lots more government regulation is in these hand out programs that are there to stop the fraud, to investigate into why these people can't find jobs, or are they just choosing not to because they're making decent money on unemployment, and don't need to find a job because they can get by just fine on the government hand out?

I've said on multiple occasions we need an overhaul of the medical system, but the plan that the dems came up with just isn't IMO the best one. There are parts that are good, the pre-existing conditions part for example. The mandate, NOT a good part. That is "junk."

And I guess the majority of Americans decided to vote to send their kids off to die instead of research green stuff, like your ultimatum implied. Since this was the biggest win in over 70 years.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

With regard to child car seats:

After the first automobile was manufactured and put on the market in the early 1900s, many modifications and adjustments have been implemented to protect those that drive and ride in these vehicles. Most restraints were put into place to protect adults without regard for children, infant through pre-school age. Though child seats were beginning to be manufactured in the early 1930s, their purpose was not the safety of children. The purpose was to act as booster seats to bring the child to a height easier for the driving parent to see them. It wasn’t until 1962 that seats were invented with the purpose of protecting a child, by Leonard Rivkin, of Denver Colorado.^[1]

Before these seats were invented, rates of death in infants to young children were staggering.^{[citation needed]} Over 2,000 children under the age of fourteen in the United States die every year in automobile accidents.^[2] and another 320,000 are injured each year.^[3] These injuries and deaths are not just a result of the severity of the accidents themselves. The staggering numbers, in general, can be related to the number of children not being properly restrained within the vehicles. These children are either strapped into adult seat belts or else completely unrestrained.

Law

United States of America

As a result of these statistics, it is required by law the children under the age of seven be secured in safety seats made for children in all of the fifty states. Also, all states require booster seats for children aged four to fourteen depending upon each individual child's age, weight, height, and state. Note that these laws are basic guidelines only and can differ state to state, because each state has some variance in the laws.

Child deaths would decline when the big, bad government made their use mandatory. But today's republicans and tea party hypocrites would probably be opposed to these laws.

[ariscus99 1]

CM are you one of those people that call the police when you see a lemonade stand set up on the corner of your street? "I bet that six year old girl didn't get the proper permits and I'll be damned if I let her do business without a license in my neighborhood, that could be tainted lemonade, shut her down!!!!" Over regulation is driving business out of this country, and before too long it will all be gone and we'll be left with next to nothing. Then what are you going to do, how will you pay for your handouts when there is no industry left in this country? They will leave, they already are.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

CM are you one of those people that call the police when you see a lemonade stand set up on the corner of your street? "I bet that six year old girl didn't get the proper permits and I'll be damned if I let her do business without a license in my neighborhood, that could be tainted lemonade, shut her down!!!!" Over regulation is driving business out of this country, and before too long it will all be gone and we'll be left with next to nothing. Then what are you going to do, how will you pay for your handouts when there is no industry left in this country? They will leave, they already are.

It is not overregulation that is outsourcing jobs, it is cheap labor. It is also the trade imbalance. We import much more than we export. We had regulations when we made things and we did well. When Reagan lifted the tariffs off of cheap, imported Japanese steel, that pretty much destroyed the steel and related industries. We don't make clothes in this country anymore and that isn't due to regulations, that's because they can pay someone in Vietnam 50 cents an hour to make it and import it cheaper. We need to punish corporations that ship jobs overseas and reward them when they keep them here. We already reward them to the tune of $25 billion dollars a year in tax loopholes but apparently that isn't enough.

Walmart is the biggest retailer in the country. They want to under cut any competition so they set the prices. So, let's say Mattel wants to sell a Barbie doll for $10 and make $5 profit. Walmart says it will sell the doll for $7 or $6. That's the deal, take it or leave it. The only way for Mattel to still make that $5 profit is to have them made in some developing, cheap labor country. They need Walmart. The biggest importer of cheap goods.

[ariscus99 1]

What do you think will happen when you close those "tax loopholes?" Do you really believe the businesses will stay in the US? They'll just pick up and move to another country, forget cheap labor, they'll have cheap taxes and anything else they want, and they'll just import it here and sell as a foreign company. We aren't the biggest player anymore, and companies do leave because of over regulation as well. We have more and more US oil companies drilling elsewhere, and selling elsewhere, it wouldn't surprise me to see all US owned oil companies to be foreign owned by the end of the decade. China has ten times as many people as the US. Japan is huge, Australia, India, Israel, all big countries that are growing and consuming, and will probably be outpacing the US before to long. Then big business will pack up and move elsewhere. And you wont have capitalism anymore, and the dems and libs and leftwing loons will have won, but at what expense?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I found my post - here it is:

Well here it is from the New York Times:

Published: November 3, 2010

The PowerPoint slides presented to House Republicans in January 2009 seemed incongruously optimistic at a time when the very word “hope” belonged to the newly ascendant Democrats and their incoming president, Barack Obama.

“If the goal of the majority is to govern, what is the purpose of the minority?” one slide asked.

“The purpose of the minority,” came the answer, “is to become the majority.”

The presentation was the product of a strategy session held 11 days before Mr. Obama’s inauguration, when top Republican leaders in the House of Representatives began devising an early blueprint for what they would accomplish in Tuesday’s election: their comeback.

So, there was no spirit of working together, of helping the economy on the brink of destruction, of working to help build America. None of that. Their first order of business was to find out how to unseat Obama and the democrats.

This post has been edited by Cleo's Mom: 04 November 2010 - 11:42 AM

I am not going to split hairs on the syntax they used. By saying you want to unseat Obama and the democrats that means that you can't support anything they propose lest they be given the credit for success. So the republicans opposed everything Obama proposed even BEFORE he was inaugurated and proposed anything. Their mind was made up at least 11 days before the swearing in. By being laser focused on becoming the majority, they weren't focused on the nation's problems. So, as far as I'm concerned that translates into wanting Obama and America to fail.

[ariscus99 1]

I am not going to split hairs on the syntax they used. By saying you want to unseat Obama and the democrats that means that you can't support anything they propose lest they be given the credit for success. So the republicans opposed everything Obama proposed even BEFORE he was inaugurated and proposed anything. Their mind was made up at least 11 days before the swearing in. By being laser focused on becoming the majority, they weren't focused on the nation's problems. So, as far as I'm concerned that translates into wanting Obama and America to fail.

As far as I'm concerned, they realized, early on, Obama was going to move the country in a bad direction, and decided to stop that movement however possible. It definitely means they want Obama to fail, IF his goal is to move more towards socialism, and in which case I too want him to fail if that's his end goal, which I'm fairly confident reading and watching many things he's said in the past.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Why are Republicans bashing Obama's tax loophole plan against offshore companies?

Posted By: on November 4, 2010 at 1:45 am People are making the claim that companies will have to leave the country if we impose tax penalties on them for sending our jobs overseas. That is absolutely not how this works. If a company sends our jobs overseas, which is generally for cheaper labor, if we penalize them for doing so, then they will not have a financial incentive for going overseas. If, however, those same companies decide to leave our country due to those tax penalties, then they will lose their main market, the U.S. How is this not a perfect way to prevent companies from sending our jobs overseas?

I concur.

Close the loopholes, punish them if they send jobs overseas, rewards them for keeping them here, and impose stiff tariffs if they want to enter our lucrative market to sell their stuff, which they need.

What's to prevent them from just doing that now? Moving to another country? Surely the benefit of doing business in a country with low taxes and cheap labor would more than offset their tax loopholes.