Rank the Republican contenders by order of craziness.

[Argus]

Of course not. They love big government. Instead, they propose universal programs regarding everything under the sun.

You mean they want to help people. What does the Tea Party want? Less taxes so they can keep more money themselves. The poor? The old? Children? Screw em. Let em die. If the Tea Party had a crest, the motto on it would be Not my problem.

[Shady]

You mean they want to help people. What does the Tea Party want? Less taxes so they can keep more money themselves. The poor? The old? Children? Screw em. Let em die. If the Tea Party had a crest, the motto on it would be Not my problem.

Complete nonsense. The government already spends trillions of dollars on the old, and the poor, and children. You know, helping people. But if you wanna talk about craziness, crazy is proposing more spending, with a a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit, a 14 trillion dollar debt, and 55 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilites for your so-called help. Your so-called help is illustrated perfectly in countries like Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland and England. Your so-called help bankrupts countries and ends in everyone needing help.

[Shady]

You mean they want to help people. What does the Tea Party want? Less taxes so they can keep more money themselves. The poor? The old? Children? Screw em. Let em die. If the Tea Party had a crest, the motto on it would be Not my problem.

And your belief in big government is more disturbing than somebody's belief in God.

[blueblood]

Depends. If you think praying to God to save the economy is a good economic strategy, that's crazy.

Funny, in this instance it probably would have been a good strategy. We'll let God (the market) readjust itself and liquidate all of those bad assets. Home prices would crash, people would scoop them up for pennies on the dollar, people would save money, labour costs would go down, jobs would return, gov't spending would become more realistic. Hmm, that actually sounds pretty good. Praise Jesus, it's a miracle!!!!

You know the democrats have a stupid idea when praying for God to fix the economy is a better idea.

[blueblood]

But the thing is, most people love those programs, so why not fix them, instead of removing them?

When your broke sacrifices have to be made...

[Smallc]

When your broke sacrifices have to be made...

Like I said, fix it. If you destroy programs that are the very fabric of society, then you might as well be broke.

[blueblood]

Has a democratic candidate for president proposed doing away with social security and medicair?

Has a current republican president proposed increased government spending???

[blueblood]

Like I said, fix it. If you destroy programs that are the very fabric of society, then you might as well be broke.

How are a lot of them the very fabric of society. America got along just fine before social programs ever existed. Hell it prospered.

[Smallc]

How are a lot of them the very fabric of society. America got along just fine before social programs ever existed. Hell it prospered.

Before Medicare? There's a reason that it was put in place, you know. Who wants to insure a 65 year old at a reasonable price?

Social Security could easily be fixed, using the CPP/OAS/GIS model.

There is, truly, a minimum social safety net that an egalitarian democracy can have...the United States probably isn't much above that.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Smallc

[blueblood]

You can, in the context of religion, believe any silly thing you want. However, if you want to run the country and deal with real-world economic issues then I don't think religion can be more than a moral guide. It certainly can't teach you how to deal with economic problems.

Personally, I think Mormons are kind of nutty. And their religion still practices ostracism, which I consider more than a little sinister.

I'm also leery of having a guy in charge or morals laws who needs to wear special underwear to have sex with his wife so he doesn't see anything forbidden...

Cain, who thinks the answer to the growing public outcry about too much wealth in the hands of too few people is to raise taxes on 84% of the population and massively lower them on the rich is kinda crazy too. I mean, who runs for president with an economic plan that's never been reviewed by an economist? Who tells reporters that it's their own fault the unemployed don't have jobs?

Then you've got Rick Perry threatening to have Texas secede from the union and talking about having the fed reserve chairman charged with treason... Duh!

And Michele Bachman. Come on. Seriously now. Michele Bachman? What bunch of fruit loops ever elected her to anything?

Wow, Cain tells the truth and is correct. Outstanding, hell he went on Piers Morgan and defended his claims. If he makes a mistake he owns up to it right away. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Tax base needs to grow and more people down there need to pay taxes instead of soaking those who already contribute enough.

And Republicans are leery of a guy like Obama in charge of things, and for good reason, the USA is broke.

Old Froot Loop Michele Bachmann has a better economic plan than Obama's, what does that say about the democrats???

[blueblood]

Before Medicare? There's a reason that it was put in place, you know. Who wants to insure a 65 year old at a reasonable price?

Social Security could easily be fixed, using the CPP/OAS/GIS model.

There is, truly, a minimum social safety net that an egalitarian democracy can have...the United States probably isn't much above that.

That's a massive expense taking care of 65+ year olds. Fareed Zakaria makes this point over and over again. USA is spending 4x as much on the elderly as they are on kids. And they wonder why there is a situation with their education system. There is a limit to spending money on people that just consume and the western world is going to discover that when the baby boomers hit 65+.

[Smallc]

There is a limit to spending money on people that just consume and the western world is going to discover that when the baby boomers hit 65+.

I don't know if you're aware, but people work past 65....and the above is rather shameful.

[msj]

I would just like to say that if I were to rank the people who have responded in this thread so far, I think smallc is the least crazy among you.

[blueblood]

I don't know if you're aware, but people work past 65....and the above is rather shameful.

Than I guess one of the great intellectuals of our time is also shameful. I'll go with mr. Zakaria on this one. The western world has an entitlement problem and one way or another it's going to eventually be fixed. The question is do we create enough wealth for a significant portion of the population to be takers and not makers?

[blueblood]

I would just like to say that if I were to rank the people who have responded in this thread so far, I think smallc is the least crazy among you.

[Smallc]

The question is do we create enough wealth for a significant portion of the population to be takers and not makers?

Yes, we'd better. What are we going to do with 80 year olds otherwise? Make them work? Let them die?

[blueblood]

Yes, we'd better. What are we going to do with 80 year olds otherwise? Make them work? Let them die?

And that's the debate no one wants to have... Fareed Zakaria brings up the issue, but didn't discuss it. I can see the retirement age being raised however. This is a considerable expense coming down the pipe and there might not be enough money to pay for it.

[msj]

Yes, we'd better. What are we going to do with 80 year olds otherwise? Make them work? Let them die?

Well, we're gonna have to let them die at some point.

Medicine isn't that good and I'm sure you'd agree neither is prayer....

[Smallc]

Medicine isn't that good

Not yet, but you know what I meant

[Smallc]

And that's the debate no one wants to have... Fareed Zakaria brings up the issue, but didn't discuss it. I can see the retirement age being raised however.

I agree with something like that, but taking away healthcare? No.

[blueblood]

I agree with something like that, but taking away healthcare? No.

If we continue down that road, there lies the potential debate of is the cost of caring for the elderly worth a massive economic slowdown. I'm thinking the USA might want to look at liberalizing that border with Mexico because they are going to Need all the taxpayers they can get.

[Smallc]

If we continue down that road, there lies the potential debate of is the cost of caring for the elderly worth a massive economic slowdown.

This is why we can't leave everything to money. Money is important, but human life is worth a wee bit more.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Smallc

[blueblood]

This is why we can't leave everything to money. Money is important, but human life is worth a wee bit more.

Ah yes, but we are talking about taking opportunities from young people. Younger people potentially living a lesser life. Perhaps younger people having a more difficult time accessing healthcare.

[Smallc]

Ah yes, but we are talking about taking opportunities from young people.

Not really. There should be more jobs than we can fill.

Younger people potentially living a lesser life. Perhaps younger people having a more difficult time accessing healthcare.

And perhaps not, if we manage things properly. Some people actually are starting to say things won't be as bad as first imagined.

[Bonam]

I like Cain, he seems the most honest of them all and doesn't try to pander and give the safe politically correct answer as most of the others. Refreshing, and a big part of his appeal.

I'm not convinced. Cain mentioned building a lethal electric fence along the border with Mexico. When asked about it, he said he had been "joking". When asked about it by someone more conservative (and anti-immigration) a few days later, he said that it would be worth considering as a serious idea. Was he joking or wasn't he? Cain lies and twists like the rest of them.