I orderd $80 worth of food at Chick Fil A yestrday after gol

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ1NGmGGCxyQVTyXYrs-suWoUryc3hYfy4I4TIF3Yy8eH8Wfnu5kw

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS8KiSxt6e_vBfTXPDXXW_zQaog8GwkgDSPCuJt541Yq9GJ5SbK

archer wrote: Yeah, I have read that too. Which makes me wonder why they would be so generous with their money, yet continue to vote for Republicans who, at least right now, are bent on taking support from the sick, the elderly, and the poor. It just doesn't make sense to me. I'm no longer a church goer, but I believe that those of us who have been so blessed to do well in this country and enjoy the security of having a home, not worrying about where our next meal is coming from, can afford good medical care/health insurance, and can afford higher education for ourselves and our children have a moral obligation to help our less advantaged fellow citizens at least obtain the basic necessities and a decent life, especially for their children who did not choose to be born disadvantaged.

Being bent on taking responsibility for individual welfare away from the federal government is not the same as being bent on taking away support for them, despite the continual efforts of the collectivists to portray it as such. It is an attempt to reclaim power which was taken from the people and the States by the federal government and spread the power around among the various levels of government so that the level of government responsible for the individual welfare of the citizens of the States is not concentrated at the one which is most distant and least responsive.

We can do a better job of caring for the poor and the elderly by returning that responsibility to the State and local governments with an occasional assistance from the federal government when needed. That is the conservative premise archer. You may disagree with it, but the patently false talking point of wanting to leave those at risk without any support at all is at best a disingenuous one.

The more federal support for higher education that has become available, the more rapidly the cost of that education has risen. For every dollar of federal support in Pell Grants and Student Loans, the cost of the tuition has gone up at least $2. College education is now less affordable than it ever has been precisely because the schools are treating the federal programs as a bottomless reservoir from which money for their institutions flows. In the 1960's, before the federal government inserted themselves into providing money for college educations, a middle class family had the possibility of affording an education for their children at some of the most prestigious colleges in the union without borrowing any money at all. Now that the federal government is guaranteeing student loans and handing out Pell Grants like candy on Halloween, it is all but impossible for the median income family to afford a college education for their children at even a local state public institution without accruing debt to finance it. That sure is progress, isn't it?

PrintSmith wrote: We can do a better job of caring for the poor and the elderly by returning that responsibility to the State and local governments with an occasional assistance from the federal government when needed. That is the conservative premise archer. You may disagree with it, but the patently false talking point of wanting to leave those at risk without any support at all is at best a disingenuous one.

I absolutely disagree with it....all states are not created equal when it comes to spending on the poor, the sick, the elderly. Some have smaller tax bases, some have less inclination to spend on education, healthcare, etc. We need a national basis for SS, medicare, education, health care, assistance to the poor, especially children. If we don't, people in need may well migrate to those states that do support them thus over burdening those states. And states that don't want the expense of public education, SS, medicare etc just won't provide it and let those in need go somewhere else. You may trust the states to "do the right thing"....I don't. I lived 12 years in Texas, I know how easily a state can cut people off from assistance, cut education, and not blink an eye. Which is why they are at the bottom of the US in healthcare and education.

Spare me your "the states can do better than the feds".....no they won't, and no they can't.

Raees wrote:

CritiKalBill wrote: Rahm should be far more concerned about the crime rate in his city that is worse than the Mexican border. I'm pretty sure the people of Chicago would be much more satisfied with Rahm cracking down on criminals instead of preaching tolerance while being intolerant.

Chicago’s murder rate is not proof that gun control doesn’t work. It’s proof that, in a country with one gun per citizen, local gun laws are meaningless.

Let’s look at Tokyo, one of the safest cities on that list, with a murder rate of 0.5 per 100,000 citizens. Japan’s constitution does not guarantee its citizens the right to bear arms. Handguns are prohibited. Semi-automatic weapons are prohibited. Automatic rifles are prohibited. The only exceptions are hunting shotguns and target-shooting pistols. The penalty for illegal possession of a gun is up to 15 years in prison. Japan has a population of 127 million. In 2006, two people were murdered with guns.

Japan starts with the principle that citizens have no right to a gun, and forces them to prove they need one. The United States starts with the principle that guns are an inalienable right, and forces the government to justify banning them.

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-ro ... z22hdy2Uyj

Comparing Chicago with Tokyo, that not even comparing apples and oranges, that’s comparing apples to buicks.

archer wrote: Spare me your "the states can do better than the feds".....no they won't, and no they can't.

And that friends is the goal and dream of the big all powerful, centralized government progressive.

And now for stupid bigot-tricks:

[youtube:jgzyl2ua][/youtube:jgzyl2ua]

Grady wrote:

archer wrote: Spare me your "the states can do better than the feds".....no they won't, and no they can't.

And that friends is the goal and dream of the big all powerful, centralized government progressive.

You got that right.......breaking the US up into single states without a central government has never been a goal of mine......I believe that we can do better as a nation when we work together, not work against each other. I believe that the federal government can do better than the states working independent of each other to defend this nation, to protect us from foreign intruders, to deal with national issues that make us strong like education and yes, health care. Tell me, which of the individual states could have pulled off a mars landing like last night all by itself?

I believe that the federal government should be lean, but strong. I believe that the states should have jurisdiction over those things that effect their state, but they must abide by the laws of the US, and should not circumvent those laws. Call me a socialist if you want.....doesn't matter to me what you call me, I know who I am, and what I believe.

archer wrote:

Grady wrote:

archer wrote: Spare me your "the states can do better than the feds".....no they won't, and no they can't.

And that friends is the goal and dream of the big all powerful, centralized government progressive.

You got that right.......breaking the US up into single states without a central government has never been a goal of mine......I believe that we can do better as a nation when we work together, not work against each other. I believe that the federal government can do better than the states working independent of each other to defend this nation, to protect us from foreign intruders, to deal with national issues that make us strong like education and yes, health care. Tell me, which of the individual states could have pulled off a mars landing like last night all by itself?

I believe that the federal government should be lean, but strong. I believe that the states should have jurisdiction over those things that effect their state, but they must abide by the laws of the US, and should not circumvent those laws. Call me a socialist if you want.....doesn't matter to me what you call me, I know who I am, and what I believe.

Who on this board EVER said they wanted to do away with the Federal government? The government gets bigger every year which is easy to see. Is there not a point in which you would want the Fed to stop growing or would you like it to keep taking power from the states (not to mention freedom from the individual)? At what point will the Federal Government be big enough to satisfy the averaage liberal/progressive?