Jump to content
As someone who grew up Republican, I'm appalled at the "my way or the highway" attitude of the now party of the greedy, by the greedy and for the greedy. While I was never in the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party, it was a mistake to impose ideological orthodoxy rather than sticking with Reagan's 11th commandment. Now, even my idol, Barry Goldwater, could not be a modern Republican as he was pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. If Rand Paul is truly ready to saw off the last vestiges of moderation, then the Republican Party is doomed to minority status, with only gerrymandering and similar electoral tricks left for them to keep power here in the USA.
From 2001 to 2003 I had a Blue Cross of Kansas health care policy that was very affordable. Then from 2004 through 2006 I was in Florida, and Blue Cross coverage there was horribly expensive as compared with Kansas (costing 5 to 7 times as much per month). Why? Well, basically 2 reasons. First, Blue Cross of Kansas was still operating as a nonprofit (it has since converted into a for profit company). And second, health care costs in Florida are biased by a huge quantity of retirees who use lots more health care services that cost lots more money. Younger people who opt for private health care coverage in Florida were getting the shaft a decade ago, and I don't think Obamacare will do anything to change that situation. The only way to equalize health care insurance costs in Florida is to have a nationwide pool (national health insurance in some way, shape, or form).
Darwinism is not a religion. It is a scientific theory. If you have scientific facts which disprove any scientific theory, including Darwinism, then Darwinism goes away into the box labeled "flat Earth theories and other falsehoods." And if you don't know the difference between a religion and a scientific theory, then you should lose your right to pontificate in the public press on that and any related issue.
Similarly, anybody who believes Christians can't pray in public is seriously lacking in true knowledge of reality. Google "See You At The Pole" (SYATP), a school tradition for mostly Christians. Anybody of any religious persuasion whatsoever can exercise that religion in any "traditional forum," which generally includes (with few exceptions) anywhere on any public sidewalk, and in any other public space generally open for any kind of public demonstration.
And these two observations are just the beginning.
Jenkins: You are a clueless commentator providing heavily biased and non-factual assertions about important issues of public civility. Its a fine sermon. But its out of place in the real world.
As always, this is all about the team making more money. More (and bigger) luxury boxes to sell. Plusher surroundings to justify higher ticket prices and higher concession prices. Anything (and everything) to make more bucks. Luckily, they are only hitting up taxpayers for $200 million (plus unspecified ancillary costs). As long as you avoid buying anything at a local hotel/motel, and avoid going to any games, you won't have to pay a dime.....
With unemployment still running at nearly 8%, can't we deport illegals back to their nation of origin? Maybe getting the illegals out of our workforce would help some of the rest of us find jobs. How about making e-Verify mandatory for all employers? Anybody who can't pass the e-Verify system gets fired or not hired. Then Romney's "self-deportation" might become a reality and us citizens can get on with the rest of our lives.
Obama can't spend a penny unless the Republican-controlled Congress passes an appropriations bill, so you can never hang the "spend" title on Obama alone. And lets not forget: if nothing passes now, then we get BOTH huge tax increases on ALL OF US plus massive spending cuts, equally divided between domestic and defense spending. Is that what you really want? If so, good luck with that! If not, then support Saxby Chambliss to get us to a better deal!
Romney has promised to limit federal spending to 20% of GDP. It is currently running at 24% of GDP. Cutting off 4% of GDP would result in the loss of about 6.3 million jobs (jobs supported by that spending, either directly or indirectly). However, Romney has also promised to increase defense spending to 4% of GDP, leaving only 16% of GDP for all remaining federal programs (including Social Security, Medicare, and everything else). It is presently running at about 21% of GDP, so the cut in non-defense spending would amount to 5% of GDP. (GDP is the annual value of all goods and services produced in the USA, and it is about equal to the national debt at about $16 trillion per year, meaning our debt is about 100% of GDP, which is considered to be a dangerous level.)
Meanwhile, Obama has been pressing Congress for about a 2-for-1 ratio between spending cuts and "revenue enhancements" (tax increases). Congress has refused to consider ANY "revenue enhancements," which leaves the Republican budget proposal in an totally impossible situation. Current tax revenues are only about 16% of GDP, and Romney wants to cut taxes even further. So, if Romney wants to balance the budget, he would need to cut spending down to about 13% of GDP if he actually cuts taxes by 20% from what they are now. That would cut federal spending by about 11% of GDP and result in the loss of about 19 million jobs that are funded either directly or indirectly by that spending.
So, both Romney and Obama have promised spending cuts to eventually balance the federal budget. Obama's plan is more practical. Romney's plan would leave the federal government unable to spend any money other than "entitlements" like Social Security and Medicare, and even they would have to be limited and/or cut to some degree to stay within the other parameters of his budget he has spoken about.
In my view, there is no way Romney can produce a balanced budget, and political pressure will result in additional huge budget deficits, particularly if Romney cuts taxes and fails to make far greater cuts in spending as we are already running a budget deficit of over $1 trillion per year.
Amen to that! BuzzG: How is a state-level "educational empire" supposed to be more beneficial to Gwinnett citizens than the local-level "educational empire" we have now? Sorry, but it makes a ton more sense to me to stick with local control. If you don't like what is going on, run for school board! if we turn control over to the state, good luck getting ANY changes made!
Personally I'm against the amendment because I believe in local control. Gwinnett schools should be controlled by Gwinnett citizens through our elected school board. I greatly resent the folks in Atlanta trying to take away local control!
With that said, I do not mind if Gwinnett schools uses some of my tax dollars to try and maintain local control of our schools. They certainly have MY permission!
So these folks are OK with men who have multiple wives and concubines on the side because those sorts of families are part of the Bible? I think we've evolved beyond the libertine concept of "Biblical Families."
Last login: Sunday, August 4, 2013