In a shocking attack in the real 'War On Women', a leftist pundit attacked Mitt Romney's wife, Ann Romney. Why? For not working outside of her home! Hilary Rosen is a Democratic Strategist, CNN Political Contributor and Obama apologist. She also happens to be a partner at SKDKnickerbocker, run by former Obama Communications Director Anita Dunn. You may remember Ms. Dunn as a fan of Chairman Mao. They also represent a client who helped to spawn the left's newest manufactured 'crisis', Sandra Fluke. What a coincidence!
So, there's Ms. Rosen talking to Anderson Cooper about the 'War On Women', in particular, how Mitt Romney is daring to take his wife's opinion on the economic struggles facing women. "His wife has never actually worked a day in her life," said Rosen. She also claimed, "He just doesn't really see us as equal." Stay-at-home moms all over the world balked at the working comment! Twitter is still buzzing about the serious lack of respect coming from Rosen towards working women. In response to all the buzz, Mrs. Romney started her own Twitter account, @AnnDRomney where she wrote, "I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work."
Some of President Obama's campaign staff, Jim Messina and David Axelrod have both wisely denounced what Rosen's comments and suggested she apologize. Looks like they will have a long wait because Rosen isn't sorry in the least bit. She wrote, "Spare me the faux anger from the right who view the issue of women's rights and advancement as a way to score political points." Beg your pardon, Ms. Rosen, but isn't that exactly what you were doing on AC360, using the faux 'War on Women' to further your political agenda?
Women have worked too hard to allow rhetoric like this to slide. Dana Loesch probably said it best, "If the goal of feminism is choice, Rosen betrays the mutual respect amongst members of the female sex by degrading the choices of other women. Considering Ann Romney is a breast cancer survivor who reared five children and played the backbone to her successful husband, I'm not sure this is a battle Democrats want to pick -- especially with an opponent like Ann Romney, a breast cancer survivor living with MS who raised five children." Damn right.
© Margie Wilson-Mars 2012
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 168
Ask any Man...there is nothing more unattractive than a Militant Feminist.
I said MAN.
...bubba.
As a woman, I am completely disgusted at the Feminist Movement and want nothing to do with it! Ann Romney has been living my dream, and I give her so much credit.
Shouldn't you be out buck dancing with Allen West?
I have noticed a trend that whenever some on the left demonize the right, (eg, conservative "war on women") it is more likely that they are themselves are engaging in whatever activity they find "offensive".
I wonder who planted that seed of thought? bla bla bla
and yes, pp did not support any of those population control ideas - because their founder had her own method (which she instructed people to not admit too), and it only involved people of color and the poor - i too have lived long enough to have seen things - like books by sanger and her support of the fabians, and eugenics in general.
Socialism:
1. political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles
2. movement based on socialism: a political movement based on principles of socialism, typically advocating an end to private property and to the exploitation of workers
3. stage between capitalism and communism: in Marxist theory, the stage after the proletarian revolution when a society is changing from capitalism to communism, marked by pay distributed according to work done rather than need
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+Socialism&qs=ds&form=QB
The word Fascists: believer in Fascism.
Fascism:
dictatorial movement: any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+fascism&qpvt=fascism+definition&FORM=DTPDIA
Some would love to play the deceitful game of painting political parties as one of these types or the other, without giving much real logical explanation of why they would draw such conclusions.
You don’t have to dig far into conservatism to see that it stands for freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to pursue happiness, and the freedom to own property. Ultimately respecting the rights of all others (regardless of race or religion) to do the same. In the case of both of government types, they do not believe in freedom for all, but oppression for the majority and dictatorial authority for the few.
Where I might agree that conservatives have a tendency toward nationalism, I am not sure what the definition of extreme nationalism would be. But in any case, that is where the similarities end. “dictatorial government†is an oppressive government, conservatives believe in distributed authority, like what is defined in the enumerated authority listed in the constitution. “centralized control of private enterprise†conservatives believe in free market capitalism where private enterprise is allowed to make decisions in its own best interests. This applies to worldwide corporations, sole proprietorships, families and individuals. “repression of all oppositionâ€, conservatives believe in the “Freedom of Speechâ€, the presumption of innocents, and a week federal government that does not have the right to persecute the individual without due process. I have also seen some definitions of Fascism where there is a religious aspect, and in this case as in all the others I go back to Freedom, conservatives believe in freedom of religion. The best description of the boundaries of freedom that you have the right to exercise your freedom up until the point where you infringe on others to do the same.
These two definitions of Fascism and Socialism really are not all that different. In both cases an all-powerful government is the authority and all personal rights are given up to that authority. The founders created our decentralized republic in a way were States have the bulk of the authority and the federal government has very limited enumerated responsibilities. Conservatives would like to maintain that vision of the founders and it maximizes personal freedom and personal responsibility. In the end that is the root of the issue. Liberals will have you believe that if you give up responsibility and place those responsibilities under government control, then you will gain freedom. This is a lie. The two go hand in hand. You cannot have freedom without responsibility. Thus, “if you give up that responsibility for the promise of freedom, you will receive and deserve neither†(just to paraphrase many of the founders). The opposite is also true that if you don’t have responsibilities then you can’t have freedom.
The National park service has posted signs, don’t feed the animals, they will become dependent and unable to fend for themselves.
http://www.nps.gov/dena/naturescience/keepwildlifewild.htm
Once the individual starts to give up his freedom and responsibility to the government, the individual will be ever increasing that dependence on the government.
So let’s get this straight, the government does not want animal dependence, but is working hard to encourage human dependence.
Why?
“Powerâ€
Politicians, most Democrats and some Republicans pit us against each other, redefine words to hide their motives, and created this dependence in order to have authority for them, in order to dictate over YOU!
The goal is to enslave YOU!
So do you want to play as the puppet to our politician puppet masters? Do you want to continue to give them unconstitutional authority to dictate what we can and can’t do? Do you want to give up your freedom for their promises of a better tomorrow? Or are you like me and believe that this country was not built by politicians making promises that they can’t pay off. Are you like me and do not believe that a free America is dependent on government handouts? Are you like me and believe that this country was built by hard working people who believe that nothing of value is free and if you work hard enough, you can build your own American dream?
They do not and will not own me!
Do they own you?
Sorry not on my watch.
They do not and will not own me!
But they do own You, RF!
Feel free to call conservatives “Fascists” as often as you wish, the more you say it, does not make it more true. In fact I demonstrated how conservatives are not dictatorial and yet you fail to point out what you think my error is.
Thanks JJ.
OR stay at home seems to be the topic of this article. "Left Attacks Stay-At-Home Mom, Ann Romney!"
My POINT.
"His wife has never actually worked a day in her life" Wow, raising 5 boys, a cake walk huh? How many JOBS has Obama held down? Hmmm, "let me tink..."
To continue a pregnancy or terminate
yes - tho the so-called pro-choice are quick to imply or state straight out, that the smart thing is too remove that 'growth' like it was a malignent tumor.
more or less saying "well ...... i suppose you COULD go to term, but why put yourself thru that? it is your choice, even tho only one is the intelligent thing to do".
and i want to thank you for proving that point, by claiming that anyone with an opinion differnt than yours is saying women are stupid (and by inference so is the person holding the opposing opinion).
Women aren't even a 1/10 as stupid as you'd like to pretend we are.
A refresher course for you rusty, crusty brain...
The Democrat Party has been the pro-slavery party, the pro-segregation party, the anti-civil rights party but the majority of the black community votes democrat, The Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist fraternity founded by the Democrat Party & their message was simple: vote or die. And when you vote, make sure it’s Democrat. And THAT is history and fact.
I couldn't get online all day, so I tuned into cable news & listened to the regurgitating of this crap. Axlerod & Messina (I intend to block all his emails) should've stayed out of it~they turned a molehill into a friggin' mountain! What did she say~she said the truth! If it was a friggin' lie, I can see everyone getting upset. AND, this is why stuff doesn't get done in Washington, and our fearless lawmakers are sooooo ineffective, because they focus on BS like this instead of focusing and resolving REAL problems~what a disgusting waste!
However, I do agree with "this is why stuff doesn't get done in Washington, and our fearless lawmakers are sooooo ineffective, because they focus on BS like this instead of focusing and resolving REAL problems" but I would go a step further and say that they distract Americans from focusing on real problems.
I detest that terminology~there's no "war on men" is there?!!? There should be~they're responsible for the majority of crime in the U.S., murders, rapes, child molesting, what goes on in Washington~this country's going to Hell in a handbasket. Yeah, & let's relive the '70's while we're at it~STUPIDITY at its worst!
2, What is “less gendered”?
3, would that not be an eye for an eye?
4, we can’t feed animals in the parks, lest they become dependent, why is it ok for the government to be less humane to people?
5, is it not the right of a women to choose? To choose the life of her child over her own?
6, so we should tax everyone so that the government can parent my child for me? No wonder this country is messed up...
7, maybe they were over spending and now the people want their money back.
8, never mind the death panels, never mind that over 90% of job losses since 2009 were lost by women, under the loveing watch of Obama. Spending what money? we are almost $16T in debt
9, amen, about time, millions will be saved, people should go to a Dr, when they need one, not a butcher.
10, No, no, I did not see family planning listed as a responsibility of the federal government, per the constitution.. Wild horses is that not Harry Reads district?
"ie, while we are talking about contraception and Trayvon Martin and Rush Limbaugh, we are not focused on relevant issues to America. "
You are correct, this is by design. Obama, the media and his minions are masters of diversion.... I might not sleep until November.
You got it right Renee and Clark. Fabricated BS distraction from O's record.
That's exactly the opposite of what your "party" is practicing. Your party wants to legislate who can marry who, who can get birth control, what choices women have in regards to their healthcare, who can exercise the franchise. And the legislative record is there to prove it.
You are changing the subject. And you have no idea what I want so please don't tell what I want. The left wants everyone's money to pay for the irresposnible behaviors that often go on in private bedrooms, so we all are being forced into the bedrooms by the LEFT.
I don't think a few have the right to decide for themselves to change the very definition of marriage that has been proven to be the best "institution" to promote a healthy society.
"Birth control" is available to everyone who wants it. I hear over and over again how Planned Parenthood should be supported by taxpayer dollars because of the health services they provide to women. The left has what they want so stop your complaining. If you really believe that women don't have access to birth control then should you be for defunding PP since they apparently are not using taxpayer money for "women health services"?
Why do you want everyone to pay for the sexual choices women make?
You're right about this, but the Pub party of today is a far cry from the party is was back then, and that is a fact of the present.
Spot on!
Laughs!!!
One can only surmise, with a statement such as this, that an I.Q. of approximately the upper-single digits, and a Leftist, is at play...
Moron.
And I have to admit I am not a little put out by the fact that Rush has not called me to aks me about my views.
Thanks for making my point so clear.
I do respect your right to disagree with my conclusions. Is it not great that we can live in a country that allows us express our views? God Bless America.
God Bless America.
Over 90% of job losses since 2009 were lost by women.
SURE, so let's change the subject to keep the useful idiots interested.
'No freeloading here. I've been working and paying taxes for 1/2 a century. '
Clearly you have not paid enough... Did you pay your fare share? This year your federal fare share comes to about $15,000 not including SS and Medicare, City, State and Local. Can you afford it? I can't!
Running a household is a full time job - no doubt about it. And I have no problem with Ann Romney choosing that "job". I have also respected her struggles with her illnesses. All I would say about her is she had it better than most women raising children because she had money.
My mother was a working mother because she was divorced. Should she have stayed in a loveless marriage just to be home with the kids? Are we going to go back in time to that being the only alternative if republicans have their way and women who are married must stay home with their children? Which they would be forced to have if birth control were abolished. My mother had it bad back then when working because women weren't paid half of their worth in the work force. She didn't have a car, took two buses at times, was gone from 7 a.m. each morning until nearly 6 each evening. Once she came home, she ate and went to bed. Now - here is where I'm split a bit - my mother was not the "nurturing" type. She had two kids because it was what women did when they married. Plus, she wanted babies. But she didn't want kids. Or teens. She was happy to get out of the house each day and when home, chose to spend her time doing stuff she liked. I think, had she stayed home with us while we were growing up, she would have been miserable and had a breakdown. And while at times I envied those kids on t.v. who had stay at home moms, the thought of my mother being home all of the time was more than I could bear.
Another question I would bring up is this - the republicans - so eager to have mothers home with the kids and future republicans - why don't they suggest doing what other - gasp! - socialist countries do - and financially support children? Last I heard there are countries who actually pay families who have kids, and give generous paid time off to both new mothers and fathers who work. But why should our government pay a penny to these children they want born? The republicans seem to delight in cutting off funding for those very kids they don't want to be victims of abortion or even birth control. Along with their mothers.
Many women thought it was weird that I didn't go out to work outside the home. I always told them it was my choice. Just as now it's my choice to work from home. But I was lucky in that I got a college education, and plenty of work experience, before I had my first child. Not all women have that advantage. And I feel better about myself these days now that I am making money of my own. As I stated, had the internet been around when my kids were young, you can believe I would have been pounding the keyboard daily to make some money. I never liked using my husband's pay to buy his birthday and holiday gifts. Often, I would go out and get a short term seasonal job at night to make money to do things like that. But hey, that's just me - one of those liberal democratic pro choice women.
Also, just on the subject - I don't see where the entire left is slamming Ann Romney or women who stay home.
And yes, I would like to see us get off these issues that should not be relevant to the up and coming elections and get on what matters - the economy, economy, economy!
Jeannes point still stands that this is not what matters.
My point is that this is Obamas way to stir the pot and divert attention away from his failed policies. Given a chance, they will do it again... And they will, it is a long, long time to November and nothing Obama has done will have any real effect in that period. So don’t pay any attention to the man behind the curtain, all is rosy.
That's not the MSM, that's the historical record.
You've been lucky to have this shiny object to temporarily distract the attention of the public about the big Boondogle, part 2. But it will be gone soon.
In political jargon, useful idiot is a pejorative term used to describe people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they do not understand, who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause.
useful idiot - definition
Term invented in Soviet Russia to describe people who blindly supported the likes of Lenin and Stalin while they committed atrocity after atrocity.
Keep yapping, you make my point.
"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into
prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying
to lift himself up by the handle."
--Sir Winston Churchill
The government must pay itself to administrate over the spending and does not often make good decisions. Government often targets its spending in a way that have a side benefit to those elected officials that vote for it. Not that I did not blame Democrats as Republicans do it too. It is corrupt. The media will almost never count the number of jobs created and divide by the amount spent. I have seen some jobs cost the federal government over $500,000 and at times its closer to $1 Million per job. In my book you could hire 3 to 6 people in the private sectored for that amount.
Tax cuts and putting money back in your hands to spend as you need is a way to limit the corruption. If they don’t tax it they can’t spend it in their own best interest. That was part of the reason the founders wanted the states to have more power that the federal government.
I did find this and found it interesting:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/45677
You say that we are all in a agreement that we must do something about the debt. Well, you and I can agree on that, but the politicians seem to be content spending what our grand children’s grand children have not earned yet. The fact is that the current and previous administration have done little to nothing except talk about balancing the budget. When plans are proposed, they are demonized and shot down and no alternative plans are ever presented. Thus we will spend on!
I liken it to a corporate funded dinner. If you know it is on the company dime, and you can get whatever you want, you are more likely to go to a nicer restaurant and to get the more expensive dish.
You cannot throw money at problems, the first thing that comes to mind are the green energy initiatives. Yes, we can all agree that we would choose solar panels and wind mills over a nuclear power plant and we will get there through innovation and entrepreneurship. The answer does not lie throwing money at companies that cannot compete that end up going bankrupt. What a waste.
If it is given back to the people, we will spend much more frugally.
Precisely...the first thing that comes to my mind is the School System. The more we throw at this scam, the more that is wasted. And, you'd be hard-pressed to find one of those tackers capable of spelling the word "scam," or identifying Ronald Reagan from a photograph...
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...
I'm going to take you at your word, and that you really do want answers. Your above response is so laden with misconceptions, I've felt both averse and compelled to respond.
"I've always wondered - if those huge tax cuts worked - or were supposed to work - what went wrong?" -- Jeanne
Bush acted as a Leftist, and spent like a Lib.
"It seemed like under Bush the rich were getting richer and our overall economy was sinking like it was in quicksand."
Nonsense. The Economy was flourishing, Americans were flourishing. And working. Small Businesses were very successful. When the Rich do well, the entire economy is doing the same, including Lower, Middle, and Upper-Income earners.
"We want the economy to work, and we want the country out of debt. There's agreement all around on that." -- Jeanne
Oh? Who's "we?"
"It seems like in the past we've had social programs that worked and didn't cause the economy go go under the way it has during the past ten or so years." -- Jeanne
Oh? Which "social programs worked?" Handouts work only as long as there is money to STEAL from others to PAY FOR IT. We've been stealing from the next Generation ONE GENERATION TOO LONG. The Bill has come due. Wake up.
"Yet these are the first things some want cut - yet is that really where all the money is going? I'm asking because I honestly don't know. I'm not a political expert - I've simply been around for over half a century now and have seen our economy go through ups and downs - but never like this." -- Jeanne
Yes, Jeanne, that IS where all the money is going. And, into the pockets of Politicians who promise to steal it from you to give to them. Allow me to repeat myself, lest you missed it the first time: We've been stealing from FUTURE GENERATIONS for far too long...and the Bill has now come DUE.
Leftists want to continue this CRIMINAL insanity...do YOU???
I don't believe that she wants "answers;" she's been getting them from you, and from us, forever.
If she is genuine, God Bless her. Why don't we wait and see how she responds.
...if she responds.
Yes, I do want answers. I realize Clark has given me many, but it doesn't mean I'm always hearing a complete answer, or that more questions aren't generated based on the answers given. I can tell you one thing - based on what has been said, I read something the other day that normally I would ignore, but for once, it sounded right. The article was talking about taxing the rich, like Obama wants to do. First of all, I'm not opposed to those making more money paying at least the same tax rate as those making much, much less. Where I'm going with this is that the article mentioned the amount of money would be a drop in the bucket over the next ten years in our debt. At the same time, tax cuts for businesses and such that hire people - the money would roll back in to the economy and ultimately keep us from going deeper and deeper in to debt, plus make a cut bigger in to the debt over a ten year period.
I realize the debt will not be cut overnight - it was interesting seeing it explained like that - the results - over a ten year period. As I stated - I am not a politician or economist and don't have the answers. I took a few grad courses in Modern Studies when I went to Loyola which helped in a sociological way - my degrees are in mental health/human services and psychology.
I'm not a pouncer. Sometimes I may see something in an answer that gets me motivated to ask more questions as I've said. I may "have answers" - at least some, from Clark, but I also enjoy talking with him. I see no need to be nasty to someone, even if he or she is nasty towards me, because it resolves nothing and does nothing more than make me upset and I won't do that to myself. Anger is wasted energy.
In response to your "stealing from future generations" I have seen that happen with the money people put in to their social security. Perhaps we disagree on this area, but the thought of that disappearing is scary, to me, because I think of my husband who paid in to it all of his working life and the thought that the money there has been borrowed by the government time and again is frightening.
I believe politicians on all facets of the political realm have become more and more corrupt. I am not happy with Obama. I am also not happy with the republican's choice. This is probably the very first time I have not been happy with the choices offered. Obama has been a big disappointment to me - and I'll be to other democrats as well. Yet, to my son, he is a hero. He sees a man who took down Bin Laden, and someone of color who made it to the White House. I would have preferred Hilary Clinton. My son knows this and will try to argue this constantly with me. While I liked McCain - I did not care for Sarah Palin. That pretty much decided my vote four years ago.
What I often see going on is neither side willing to budge on issues. Yet, I think the people in this country are making it known what they want. And isn't that what our leaders are supposed to be doing - listening to the people and trying to respond to their needs as best as possible?
One last thought - if people, like myself, got answers from others "forever" there would be no need for topics of conversation, or articles beyond a certain point. Perhaps it's like the child who asks, "Why is the sky blue?" - and you answer in a simple way that a young one can understand, yet the child keeps asking, "But why?!!". If you were to give the scientific explanation, more than likely if the child is very young she'll get bored and run off. But as the child gets older, and is able to comprehend more, the answer will lead to other questions, and seeking of more knowledge in that area. The questions may never stop - and that can be good, because maybe someday - that little girl will grow up to be a scientist or physician and come up with an answer to one or more of her burning questions. Repetitive questions are not useless. They are simply a way, sometimes, of trying to see something from another angle.
"Americans have the highest income inequality in the rich world and over the past 20–30 years Americans have also experienced the greatest increase in income inequality among rich nations."
Let's look at this phrase, this ridiculous phrase, "Income Inequality", it is just like "social justice", "distributive justice",
RF, There is opportunity in this country, many opt of of scholarly pursuits. We have been duped by a "devolving" of our culture, instead of promoting good things (like promotion of family, excellence, study, the American dream, hope), we teach BAD things (destruction of family, idol worship [ie, Kim Kardasian, Paris Hilton], dependency, hatred for one another, a constant reminder of race, a constant pounding about how bad we are and American "Imperialism"). No wonder there is a disparity, but "Income Equality" is a made-up, stupid phrase. People work hard, they are rewarded and that goes for everyone. This is generally speaking, RF. For those who operate in greed and lack of integrity and loopholes, THOSE people need to be held accountable. But the average person, such as myself, that has worked 12 hour days while going to school at night and has worked, scratched, clawed my way up, I deserve my money. I give to charity, I help my family, I contribute to the economy by spending my money. And you want to take my money to spend it on moving a plant in San Francisco or Building a Bridge to nowhere or racking up the debt and raping us all?
NO!
Renee...excellent.
A conversation, I believe, is defined by dialogue. That would entail responding specifically to one another, in focused conversation, one point at a time, until that point is understood, accepted, or conceded.
Can we do that?
I do feel that many of the social services programs are being abused. I get upset when I see, in my city at least, well dressed women with the most up to date smartphones and bluetooth devices pulling out their "independence cards" (food stamps) to pay for groceries. Something doesn't feel right about that. I wear my clothes to bits and have a cell phone with a qwerty keyboard but it's not an iphone or anything like that. I pay cash/debit card for my groceries. Out of money I've earned. My husband got his college undergraduate degree thanks to the old V.A. programs that would pay for four years of college. The Ph.D. he did on his own. He now gets social security thanks to years of hard work. Our children got it, too, when he turned sixty-five. Our lives were better during that period because we had that extra money coming in.
But getting back to the social service programs - perhaps I am living in the past when I knew others on them who were barely getting by - yet making it, due to the programs. One I knew was going to U. of Baltimore to get a degree and then a job in order to get off public assistance. She made it. There are people in our city - a lot of the elderly - who would end up dying from the cold in the winter if it weren't for energy assistance programs. Some, who didn't take advantage of them, have ended up dying. Houses have burned down, children in them, because candles were lit when the electricity was turned off. Even if the parents didn't pay the bill, why should the children have to suffer like that?
I'm also aware there are many politicians getting personally rich during times of economic woes. That is wrong, too. I've always wanted my kids to be able to have skills and take care of themselves to ensure they have a future. I have no problem with people who are receiving public assistance being required to do some sort of "work" in exchange. There's a lot of litter in our streets that could be picked up. Community gardens that could be cultivated and cared for. Aides at schools are needed. It would give those receiving something some skills and work/volunteer experience - often the first step towards getting a paying job. And if someone manages to get off and get a job, giving some assistance to ensure the kids get medical care if that is not covered.
Anyway, I'm tired now so I'll end here. I guess some of my questions will never have answers because they are too much in the realm of "Why do some people get terminally ill?" - questions where there aren't any right or wrong or definitive answers. Perhaps they are more concerns than questions. I'm just trying to make the right choices and do what I hope is the right thing each time.
I didn't say that Social Programs didn't give out money...I said that we have been stealing the money from Taxpayers and our Children, generation after generation, to do it, the Boomers are retiring, and the Bill is come due. We cannot afford it. Keynesian spending fails every time it is tried. We cannot continue stealing and giving away the money of others.
"There are people in our city - a lot of the elderly - who would end up dying from the cold in the winter if it weren't for energy assistance programs." --
Jeanne, please don't play this game with me. You are being disingenuous because you don't really want answers--just as I've said. Clark has been trying to help you, as well. You simply refuse to listen. I didn't say anything about "safety nets." No-one would be against Winter Energy Assistance for the Elderly, for goodness sake. Please don't approach me with the typical "straw-men" so ubiquitously abused by the Left, which goes precisely like this:
"oh, so you don't like roads and Police Protection and Firemen and bridges? So you want babies to starve and die? You hate old People???"
Please. If we are to get anywhere (and I'm sure you will now bow out of this conversation), let us cut out the rubbish, might we? Let's talk about Truths here. I would appreciate that.
Please, one item at a time. Do you understand my response?
I understand your angered response. How am I to appreciate how real and sincere you are when you do not give me the same? I am not playing a game - I am asking questions. I agree with Clark that a safety net is a wonderful approach and definitely needed. At the same time I worry because what I hear is simply cutting off programs without a suggestion as to what - if anything - will take it's place. Tell me there will still be a safety net in place for the truly vulnerable in our society. That would be a real answer. Agreement that safety nets are good is one thing - I would feel better reading that who ever is elected would feel the same and ensure this.
As I said - I'm getting a bit more "unenamored" of the way the economy is going and the current administration's suggestions for what will work. AT the same time, I would like to hear a real plan in place. And I will continue to ask about safety nets and assurance for those in real need because having been there myself, I know it can do good. Even if the money comes from taxes, if those who fall into the safety net have given in to this in the past, or have the promise of doing so in the future - I don't see where that's a huge problem. Are we a society or are we fifty individual entities that do not work together? And within those fifty states - are we a society within a society, or is it every man for himself?
Perhaps I'm pissed because in doing our taxes this year, we made less, but ended up owing the feds far more than last year. It doesn't make sense. Yet we are getting back nearly double from the state this year. What made the difference? Is that a good enough question to show you I'm not playing a game? Because I also do not understand economics.
The issue is that some politicians do not want these issues fixed. Some politicians like the power over those in the safety nets. That is why they design them in a way that is difficult to get out once you are in. Worse yet it seems like some politicians would like to see the collapse of an entity as a means to ratchet up the amount of laws, regulations that dictate how we are to enter into contracts, business transactions or just day to day life decisions. These entities like car companies, hedge funds, banks, insurance companies, Freddie, Fannie, and in the feature could include, Federal Student loan program, Social security, Medicare and the prescription drug program. In fact if you look at what they are doing, buy not fixing the economy and getting people hooked on government programs like Food Stamps, and they then let those programs grow full of more and more people. At some point our systems like Greece will start to fail. The people will cry out for help and at the last moment the federal government will ride to save us all from the danger as they always do. They will give us a solution that will fix our problems. But there will be a price. Freedom. Regardless of what they say, it’s what they do that counts.