Republican or democrat?

[Nemont]

. By the way, which things do you find more important than the American family?

Below is far more important to the future of our country and our children and grandchildren than whether a kid lives without a father, with two fathers or two mothers or a mother and father.

The boomer generation is going to eat it's young if they don't decide they can survive on a little less.

February 14, 2013, 7:43 p.m. ET
Generational Theft Needs to Be Arrested

A Democrat, an independent and a Republican agree: Government spending levels are unsustainable.


By GEOFFREY CANADA, STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER AND KEVIN WARSH

We come from different backgrounds, parties and pursuits but are bound by a common belief in the promise and purpose of America. After all, each of us has been the beneficiary of the choices made—and opportunities created—by previous generations of Americans.

One of us grew up poor in the South Bronx of the 1960's and went on to lead a children's antipoverty program in Harlem. Another grew up in a small town in South Jersey, and went on to be a leading money manager. The third grew up in a small suburb in upstate New York and found his way to serve in the government amid the financial crisis.


One of us is a Democrat; one, an independent; another, a Republican. Yet, together, we recognize several hard truths: Government spending levels are unsustainable. Higher taxes, however advisable or not, fail to come close to solving the problem. Discretionary spending must be reduced but without harming the safety net for our most vulnerable, or sacrificing future growth (e.g., research and education). Defense and homeland security spending should not be immune to reductions. Most consequentially, the growth in spending on entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare—must be curbed

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc_tv-morning_joe/#50987679

 

[RobG]

Nemont, do you think the guy who bought this site from a guy in idaho wants his television audience to be just from montana? doubt he would survive if that was the case. have no problem with you folks from montana talking about the bills you have going on. find some of them interesting. but just because you guys repubs are asses and the dems work for you(?), does not mean that's the way it is everywhere. as I said, look at the facts and figures from illinois. more people not working than we have working. and let's not forget about the dems that ARE trying to take away our guns. hell, they even want to pass tougher laws. the hell with enforcing the ones we have. sounds vaguely familiar to the immigration laws?

I agree with you that we need not to paint with a broad brush since issues and the best parties are different depending on where you live. With that in mind, I'll suggest that you change you avatar.

The focus on MT legislation is mostly because the most active people in the subject live in Montana, including the administrator of the site. Plus our republican leaders seem pretty confused when it comes to the facts.

Best,
Rob

 

[1_pointer]

Below is far more important to the future of our country and our children and grandchildren than whether a kid lives without a father, with two fathers or two mothers or a mother and father.

The boomer generation is going to eat it's young if they don't decide they can survive on a little less.

February 14, 2013, 7:43 p.m. ET
Generational Theft Needs to Be Arrested

A Democrat, an independent and a Republican agree: Government spending levels are unsustainable.


By GEOFFREY CANADA, STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER AND KEVIN WARSH

We come from different backgrounds, parties and pursuits but are bound by a common belief in the promise and purpose of America. After all, each of us has been the beneficiary of the choices made—and opportunities created—by previous generations of Americans.

One of us grew up poor in the South Bronx of the 1960's and went on to lead a children's antipoverty program in Harlem. Another grew up in a small town in South Jersey, and went on to be a leading money manager. The third grew up in a small suburb in upstate New York and found his way to serve in the government amid the financial crisis.


One of us is a Democrat; one, an independent; another, a Republican. Yet, together, we recognize several hard truths: Government spending levels are unsustainable. Higher taxes, however advisable or not, fail to come close to solving the problem. Discretionary spending must be reduced but without harming the safety net for our most vulnerable, or sacrificing future growth (e.g., research and education). Defense and homeland security spending should not be immune to reductions. Most consequentially, the growth in spending on entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare—must be curbed

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc_tv-morning_joe/#50987679

I assume that the authors and the title are in same order. I found it funny that the Democrat is named Canada!

I heard much of the same suggestion from an ag economist in a presentation about the new Farm Bill. His basic premise is that ag/conservation budgets have little to nothing to due with the deficit. However, they are easier targets than the 'elephants' mentioned above and will probably recieve a disproportionate amount of cuts...

 

[dustinf]

So we should just let them make a moral wrong into a "civil right" and move on to the other important things? Get married, who cares, but why do they have to make such a large deal out of it and demand the same "legal" rights as everyone else?

EVERY United States citizen is entitled to the same rights. At least, until they are convicted of a crime by a jury of their peers, or join the military.

Who decides what is morally wrong?

 

[rhomas]

fowladdict1, since the two pictures you posted represent the Liberal Democrat point of view, albeit the shirt may reflect some segment of GOP views, is it safe to say that you don't support either party???????

Nemont, in the quote you posted, since when did Social Security and Medicare become and entitlement as the author suggested? I believe that since the American worker is forced to contribute a portion of their salaries to the program, they aren't entitlements, but actually repayments. Wouldn't you agree?????

 

[Nemont]

Nemont, in the quote you posted, since when did Social Security and Medicare become and entitlement as the author suggested? I believe that since the American worker is forced to contribute a portion of their salaries to the program, they aren't entitlements, but actually repayments. Wouldn't you agree?????

First of all they are both entitlements for a couple of reasons.

For the Average Social Security recipient will get back multilples of what they pay in regardless of what their income is. That is an entitlement. Social Security is a pay as you go system, not a saving account in your name. That means workers today have to fund those drawing out. As the boomers age they will swamp the system. The so called Social Security Trust fund is really stuffed full of government bonds when means when the trust fund has to be tapped, the country has to borrow more out of current budgets to fund the system.

You pay a portion of you income to income taxes as well and do you feel you should be repaid for that money as well?

The liberal view it that you have earned both Social Security and Medicare and therefore regardless of the next generation to make good on promises they never had a choice in making. I guess if you don't care about what happens to you grand kids and great grand kids you can pretend that you earned those benefits because you paid in but for those of us who understand that we have to take less in order not to enslave the future generations Entitlement reforms are the only way to reign in our fiscal nightmare.

Medicare is a blank check to the elderly that will bankrupt our country long before Social Security does and just try to touch Medicare, even the Tea Party feels entitled to Medicare.

Think as you wish but the boomers are going to put their kids and grandkids into debt prison because they aren't willing to admit times have changed.

The next 10 years will see both programs going broke if changes are not made.


Nemont

 

[1_pointer]

First of all they are both entitlements for a couple of reasons.

For the Average Social Security recipient will get back multilples of what they pay in regardless of what their income is. That is an entitlement. Social Security is a pay as you go system, not a saving account in your name. That means workers today have to fund those drawing out. As the boomers age they will swamp the system. The so called Social Security Trust fund is really stuffed full of government bonds when means when the trust fund has to be tapped, the country has to borrow more out of current budgets to fund the system.

You pay a portion of you income to income taxes as well and do you feel you should be repaid for that money as well?

The liberal view it that you have earned both Social Security and Medicare and therefore regardless of the next generation to make good on promises they never had a choice in making. I guess if you don't care about what happens to you grand kids and great grand kids you can pretend that you earned those benefits because you paid in but for those of us who understand that we have to take less in order not to enslave the future generations Entitlement reforms are the only way to reign in our fiscal nightmare.

Medicare is a blank check to the elderly that will bankrupt our country long before Social Security does and just try to touch Medicare, even the Tea Party feels entitled to Medicare.

Think as you wish but the boomers are going to put their kids and grandkids into debt prison because they aren't willing to admit times have changed.

The next 10 years will see both programs going broke if changes are not made.


Nemont

Yeah, what he said! Really!

 

[Elkmagnet]

Yes that is exactly what is wrong with this country. It's the basic breaking down of the traditions and family values that made this country what it is. This thinking spreads into other areas of our society. So we should just let them make a moral wrong into a "civil right" and move on to the other important things? Get married, who cares, but why do they have to make such a large deal out of it and demand the same "legal" rights as everyone else? They are the ones taking up our time and not letting us worry about those other important things you are talking about. By the way, which things do you find more important than the American family?

Do you enjoy telling people how to live their lives? If gays merry it will not affect my life in any way and they will be happy = win-win. Oh and you will be mad that you didn't get to tell them what to do =win-win-win.
Your point of view Is no different than Peta telling me I can't hunt, those idiots truly believe they're saving the world.
To answer your question, Almost everything else budget, healthcare, yada yada yada.

 

[Nemont]

Gays should have a right to get married, then get divorced and lose half their stuff.

Nemont

 

[fowladdict]

fowladdict1, since the two pictures you posted represent the Liberal Democrat point of view, albeit the shirt may reflect some segment of GOP views, is it safe to say that you don't support either party???????

Like I said, I lean conservative, but I support what I think is the best option at voting time. My point in my previous post was that I have a hard time being on the same "side" as people that post that crap or wear a shirt like that because they make it less appealing to those who are trying to decide which side to vote on (or those in the middle as Nemont schooled me on). IMHO these exaggerated agendas that come from both sides ruin it for all of us.

 

[Four White Socks]

Hi,

Wasn't being serious. Sorry if you mistook it for that.

Just making a point. No sweat.

 

[Four White Socks]

Hi,

Wasn't being serious. Sorry if you mistook it for that.

You need to check the voting records then. Obviously your not following what's going on in Helena.

Please don't talk down to me. I was talking about the stereo type surrounding R legislators that I notice on this site. It doesn't line up with the character of the ones that I know. As far as voting records go, there are any number of reasons a person would vote against or for any given bill.

 

[jryoung]

Gays should have a right to get married, then get divorced and lose half their stuff.

Nemont

You'd think divorce lawyers and bridal registries would have totally lobbied for this. The Home Depot and Lowes could tap into a new market for registries for all the butch women out there.

 

[BuzzH]

As far as voting records go, there are any number of reasons a person would vote against or for any given bill.

The biggest one being they better line up with the rest of the Republican Party Leadership, or risk their own party ripping them to shreds...

Party line votes are nothing more than group-think at its ugliest.

 

[RobG]

Please don't talk down to me. I was talking about the stereo type surrounding R legislators that I notice on this site. It doesn't line up with the character of the ones that I know. As far as voting records go, there are any number of reasons a person would vote against or for any given bill.

I'm not sure where you are from, but the Rs are pretty wildlife unfriendly in MT right now - you can't deny their record. They used to be really bad in Idaho too. In other states I'm sure the opposite is true.

rg

 

[track1]

Frank Caliendo: [as George Bush] See I'm fine with Gay Marriage. As long as it's a gay man marrying a gay woman, or a gay woman marrying a gay man, but to me your parts have to match up. You can't plug a lamp into a lamp.

 

[rhomas]

When discussing Social Security, we have to remember that it was LBJ who through an act very similar to the current sequester situation, violated the original sanctity of the program and allowed it to be raided in order to fund social programs as part of his civil rights legislation. Many of the problems associated with SS and Medicare could be solved through the elimination of welfare, and government handouts to the sorry worthless low life scum that keep putting the Democrats in office. The larger portion of our economic peril could be solved by eliminating all foreign aid, both humanitarian and military, withdrawal of our military from bases where we are paying the host country for the privilege of providing their national security, closing our borders and deporting all illegals, stop the war on drugs in Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, Chile, etc., legalize marijuana and tax it, eliminate criminal's extensive appeals processes and actually carry out the death sentences instead of supporting death row inmates for 20 and 30 years, demand that our lawmakers have the exact same retirement and health benefits that the common people have, establish term limits, eliminate public and private sector unions, and abolish the minimum wage, curtail OSHA, muzzle the TSA, get out of the UN and NATO, and then start working on getting out of debt to China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia by drilling, drilling, and drilling!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jryoung]

You forgot legalize prostitution.

 

[jryoung]

Frank Caliendo: [as George Bush] See I'm fine with Gay Marriage. As long as it's a gay man marrying a gay woman, or a gay woman marrying a gay man, but to me your parts have to match up. You can't plug a lamp into a lamp.

How to Christmas lights work then?

 

[Four White Socks]

The biggest one being they better line up with the rest of the Republican Party Leadership, or risk their own party ripping them to shreds...

Party line votes are nothing more than group-think at its ugliest.

C'mon, both sides of the isle vote party line sometimes. Sometimes they are just like minded. Sure there is pressure, but that's how in works in politics, you try to get others to think your way.