Archive
Judge Napolitano on Why Taxation Is Theft – Hit & Run : Reason.com
With a tax code that exceeds 72,000 pages in length and consumes more than six billion person hours per year to determine taxpayers’ taxable income, with an IRS that has become a feared law unto itself, and with a government that continues to extract more wealth from every taxpaying American every year, is it any wonder that April 15th is a day of dread in America?
Social Security taxes and income taxes have dogged us all since their institution during the last century, writes Judge Andrew Napolitano, and few politicians have been willing to address these ploys for what they are: theft.
(“Social Chaos Is Coming Because of massive dependence on government…”) ~ Government Dependency Will End in Chaos by Ron Paul
Listen to Ron Paul
The media insists on characterizing statements about dependency on government handouts as controversial, but in truth such statements are absolutely correct.
Congressman Ron Paul at an event hosted in his honor at CPAC 2011 in Washington, D.C. Please attribute to Gage Skidmore if used elsewhere. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
It’s not that nearly half of Americans are dependent on government; it’s actually more than half. If one includes not just people on food stamps and welfare, but also seniors on Medicare, Social Security and people employed by the government directly, the number is more like 165 million out of 308 million, which is 53%.
Republicans Hope, but Don’t Change by Peter Schiff
For much of the past few generations, the debate over balancing the federal budget has been a central feature of every presidential campaign.
But over time, the goalposts have moved. As the amount of red ink has grown steadily larger, the suggested time frames to restore balance have gotten increasingly longer, while the suggested cuts in government spending have gotten increasingly shallower.
Today’s Articles: LewRockwell.Com…
Friday, August 10, 2012
|
Do We Face Social Unrest or Worse?
Charles Burris on the past as current events. |
|
Still Haunting China
Eric Margolis on Mao and the Gang of 4. |
|
A Sign of the Future?
Social Security checks raided to pay for student loans. Article by Gary North. |
|
Buried by Google
Bill Sardi on online insignificance. |
|
16 Observations
On the Batman shooting. Article by Laurence Vance. MORE !!!!!
CLICK BELOW @ LINK BELOW !!!!!
|
Over 100 Million Now Receiving Federal Welfare
A new chart set to be released later today by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee details a startling statistic: “Over 100 Million People in U.S. Now Receiving Some Form Of Federal Welfare.”
BO and the Supremes Take Another Step Forward Into Totalitarianism by Jack D. Douglas
BO and the Supremes lunge to finalize the totalitarian central planning of the vast health care pseudo-system in the U.S. was so full of verbiage, rationalizations, shilly shalling, one step back and two steps forward into totalitarian central planning that it was ludicrous in a very grim way.
The details are absurdly complex and obfuscating, but basically BO imposed a “universal insurance dodge” similar to Social Security to pay for the vast trillions more in costs needed to pay for 60,000,000 new patients who cannot pay for themselves, the Supremes by 5 to 4 said that’s illegal, but you can do the same scam by changing the name to a “tax” and get away with it. The Media at first thought the Supremes had rejected the obviously unconstitutional forced purchase, then got muddled up by the wording and shilly shalling in the actual decision, then reversed themselves, then….
Should Libertarians Accept Social Security? by Laurence M. Vance
In his recent appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Representative Ron Paul was asked by Sam Stein of the Huffington Post whether he was going to set a good example for younger Americans and opt out of Social Security.

COUNCIL BLUFFS, IA – DECEMBER 29: Republican presidential hopeful U.S. Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) speaks during a town hall meeting at the Mid-America Center on December 29, 2011 in Council Bluffs, Iowa. With less than one week to go before the Iowa caucuses, Ron Paul continues to campaign through Iowa. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)
Prison Planet.com » “I’m Supporting The Party That I Belong To”: Rand Paul Speaks About Romney Endorsement
While he anticipated the backlash, Rand believes that supporting the party will enable him to get more done, and that many critics have been too quick to forget the good things he has managed to do so far from within the Senate.
“Supporting the nominee has been part of my ability to try to have influence… If Republicans see that you are not going to support the nominee, the doors close.”
The Senator believes that endorsing Romney will help earn his trust and make him more likely to listen to his policies. He agreed that it is better to have Romney as a friend than as an enemy.
English: United States Senate candidate , at a town hall meeting in Louisville, . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
“People say that ‘you’re selling your soul’. No, I’m supporting the party that I belong to, in order to try to work within the party to get things I believe in. “
Prison Planet.com » Ron Paul Still Isn’t Sure If He’s Going To His Own Republican Convention Festival
Siemon also points out that the Fairgrounds agreement came almost immediately after Sen. Rand Paul‘s surprise endorsement of Republican nominee Mitt Romney.
“It seems too coincidental,” he told Business Insider, adding slyly: “We’re conspiracy theorists, after all.”
A spokesman for the Republican National Convention has not yet responded to Business Insider’s request for comment.
(“Romney Is a Fraud He lusts for much bigger government.”) Ann Romney Asks the Right Question by Patrick J. Buchanan…
When Hillary Rosen said that Ann Romney had “never worked a day in her life,” it was among the better days of the Romney campaign.
For Rosen – present whereabouts unknown – both revealed the feminist mindset about women who choose to become wives and mothers and brought Ann Romney center stage.
Before a Connecticut audience recently, Mrs. Romney spoke of her reluctance to see her husband pursue the presidency a second time and said she resisted, until she got an answer to one critical question.
“Can you fix it?” she asked Mitt. “I need to know. Is it too late?”
Mitt Romney replied, “No, it’s getting late, but it’s not too late.”
Yet Ann’s question lingers. Is it still possible to turn this country around? Or has a fate like that of Europe become inevitable?
If one focuses on the deficit-debt crisis, and what a president can do, the temptation is to succumb to despair.
Consider. The U.S. government spends a peacetime record 24 to 25 percent of gross domestic product. Most of that is expended on five accounts: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other Great Society programs, interest on the national debt, war and defense.
Five myths about conservative voters (by Frank Luntz, based on his polls)
Five myths about conservative voters (by Frank Luntz, based on his polls)Washington Post ^ | April 27, 2012 | Frank LuntzPosted on Saturday, April 28, 2012 9:42:20 AM by Innovative1.
Dr. Frank Luntz at the 2009 Texas Book Festival, Austin, Texas, United States. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Conservatives care most about the size of government.2. Conservatives want to deport all illegal immigrants.3. They worship Wall Street4. Conservatives want to slash Social Security and Medicare.5. Conservatives don’t care about inequality.
So, if everyone is concerned about the income gap, what’s the big difference between left and right? It’s the difference between opportunity and outcome. Conservatives want to increase opportunity, giving everyone the freedom and tools to prosper, so that the poor may someday become rich.
Rick Perry Was Correct by Andrew P. Napolitano
When Texas Gov. Rick Perry, then in the early stages of his short-lived quest for the Republican presidential nomination, referred to Social Security as “a Ponzi scheme,” he was excoriated by the press, left and right, and by his fellow Republicans, as well. Earlier this week, government actuaries revealed that Perry was correct.
Governor Rick Perry of Texas speaking at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana. Please attribute to Gage Skidmore if used elsewhere. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
That revelation, which was greeted with a ho-hum by the media, basically announced that by 2033, 21 years from now, the so-called Social Security trust fund will be empty.
The only reason this was even announced is because we are approaching a presidential election campaign, and in response to Perry’s much-derided claim, the government’s actuaries, who originally told the Obama administration and the public that the fund would be solvent until 2036, re-examined their numbers and concluded that it will be in the red three years earlier than they thought.
(“Our country is tilting on the edge of a Marxist cliff, ready to fall to its death unless some ‘fearless’ ideas and leadership pull it back toward the other direction…and quickly”) Laurie Roth – We need a ‘Fearless and Principled’ President
With Obama, we have seen the United States of America wrenched and yanked into Marxism and fascism. We have seen our moral base, achievements and world leadership viciously assaulted. We are quickly being cut down to size…Obama’s size which is pathetically small and insignificant.
Our country is tilting on the edge of a Marxist cliff, ready to fall to its death unless some ‘fearless’ ideas and leadership pull it back toward the other direction…and quickly.
Dr. Laurie Roth is the ‘outside of the box’ candidate, with visionary plans both domestically and with foreign affairs. She is devoted to God, family and country and has the guts to do what needs to be done.
URGENT PROBLEMS WHICH CRY OUT FOR ACTION
The US Government is nearly 16 trillion in debt and the Obama ‘presidency’ is spending significantly more than we take in. Our minimum interest payment is several hundred billion a year and rising.
Our people have been experiencing 15-20% unemployment, (real numbers not contrived statistics) staring in horror as their homes are foreclosed. We have seen inflation soar as the economy struggles under the weight of this fraudulent regime.
Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid not secure
Social Security and Medicare / Medicaid, are entitlements, whether we like them or not. For decades, millions of our citizens have counted on medical and retirement payments. Having been forced and coerced to pay into Social Security, they now count on its monthly payments to support them. I am for exploring creative solutions for retirement with our younger folks but, we must be faithful to those who have already paid into and are now retired and counting on Social Security as the only source or major part of their income.
Perry “retires” early, begins collecting state pension
Perry “retires” early, begins collecting state pension
Hot Air ^ | December 16, 2011 | Allahpundit
Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2011 12:58:43 AM by 2ndDivisionVet
Yes, he’s still governor. He’s “retired” only for benefits purposes, which means he can start collecting his pension while he’s still collecting a salary. It’s perfectly legal. Just … unhelpful.
Perry makes a $150,000 annual gross salary as Texas govenor. Now, thanks to his early retirement, Perry, 61, gets a monthly retirement annuity of $7,698 before taxes, or $6,588 net. That raises his gross annual salary to more than $240,000…
[T]he disclosure is sure to spark criticism of Perry, who has called for sweeping changes to Social Security for average workers and has railed against special “perks” that members of Congress get.
“Perry was legally able to begin collecting the employee class annuity under the ‘rule of 80.’ The combination of his U.S. military service, state service and age exceeded 80 years and qualifies him for the annuity under Texas Government Code 813.503 as amended in 1991,” Sullivan said. “Perry continues to pay into the Employees Retirement System with a 6.5 percent withholding from his state salary.”…
80 is the New 65, Two Surveys Show
On Wednesday Wells Fargo released the results of its survey of 1,500 individuals between ages 25 and 75, titling it “80 is the New 65 for Many Middle Class Americans” while another study in June by three financial service non-profits showed three-quarters of those surveyed planning to work beyond age 65.
America Before The Entitlement State
America Before The Entitlement State
forbes ^ | 11/18/2011 | Yaron Brook and Don Watkins Yaron Brook and Don Watkins
Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2011 2:10:39 PM by MontaniSemperLiberi
…In the 19th century, even though capitalism had only existed for a short time, and had just started putting a dent in pre-capitalism’s legacy of poverty, the vast, vast majority of Americans were already able to support their own lives through their own productive work. Only a tiny fraction of a sliver of a minority depended on assistance and aid–and there was no shortage of aid available to help that minority.
…
“Those in need,” historian Walter Trattner writes, “. . . looked first to family, kin, and neighbors for aid, including the landlord, who sometimes deferred the rent; the local butcher or grocer, who frequently carried them for a while by allowing bills to go unpaid; and the local saloonkeeper, who often came to their aid by providing loans and outright gifts, including free meals and, on occasion, temporary jobs. Next, the needy sought assistance from various agencies in the community–those of their own devising, such as churches or religious groups, social and fraternal associations, mutual aid societies, local ethnic groups, and trade unions.”
Van Jones Exploits Children to Push Communist Agenda
Van Jones Exploits Children to Push Communist Agenda
Townhall.com ^ | November 11, 2011 | Katie Pavlich
Posted on Friday, November 11, 2011 5:20:42 PM by Kaslin
Here we are again, the Left exploiting children to push their own convoluted agenda. This time, it’s Van Jones using children to push his 10-point “Contract for the American Dream” plan. Ironically, in the video the children plead to increase Social Security taxes so our seniors can have a secure retirement. Too bad Van Jones isn’t telling these kids that when they get a job and start paying into the Social Security system, they’ll never see a dime of their own money back when they retire.
Points made in the video:
(More Generational Strife?) Retirement Wars
(More Generational Strife?) Retirement Wars
American Spectator ^ | 11.10.11 | David N. Bass
Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2011 7:21:38 AM by Publius804
Will Baby Boomers be the last generation to enjoy the modern concept of a leisure-filled retirement? It’s a worthy question to ponder in light of a new Pew Research Center report showing a growing wealth gap between young and old in the United States.
Using government data over the last 25 years, Pew found that households headed by those over 65 have made “dramatic gains” in economic well-being, while those headed by younger adults have fallen steadily behind.
A Letter from an Enraged Lady…
A Letter from an Enraged Lady
EMAIL | NA | Patty Meyers, WYO
Posted on Sunday, October 30, 2011 1:43:06 PM by dvan
I Think She Is Upset!
Alan Simpson, Senator from Wyoming , Co-Chair of Obama’s deficit commission, called senior citizens the Greediest Generation as he compared “Social Security” to a Milk Cow with 310 million teats. Here’s a response in a letter from PATTY MYERS in Wyoming … I think she is a little ticked off! She also tells it like it is!
“Hey Alan, let’s get a few things straight..
1. As a career politician, you have been on the public dole for FIFTY YEARS.
2. I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since I was 15 years old. I am now 63).
3 My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in an interest bearing account for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of zero ambition losers in return for votes, thus bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme that would have made Bernie Madoff proud..
Ron Paul is Not “Ending” Student Loans
There are many headlines out there now stemming from his Meet the Press interview yesterday claiming that Ron Paul wants to end student loans. Well no, in fact, though he abolishes the Department of Education along with four other federal departments, the student loan part is taken out and handled elsewhere.
Everyone recognizes we have major problems with Social Security and Medicare, and yet when anyone attempts to address these problems, they are immediately accused of “ending,” “slashing” or “getting rid of” such programs. Ron Paul is not suggesting this for anyone currently reliant on these programs or for those who will be in the near future. In fact, Paul’s opt-out for Social Security in his budget plan is age 25—not exactly imminent doom for the program or those on it.
The same is true of student loans. To recognize that we are bankrupt and we must have drastic change in this country is not to say that certain programs Americans have come to rely on will be gotten rid of overnight. Paul is certainly saying no such thing.
But the costs must be addressed—and not simply what the government spends, but the massive debt incurred by those in this country who just want a college education. To be sure, the countless Americans who are now slaves to education-related debt can tell you there are substantial problems with our current system.
Ron Paul simply wants to fix them.
via Prison Planet.com » Ron Paul is Not “Ending” Student Loans.
Does a Surviving Spouse Always Collect 100 Percent of Social Security Benefits?
Dear Carrie: Does my wife collect 100 percent of my Social Security benefits at my death? Thank you. — Bert
Dear Bert: I wish I could provide you with a quick answer to such a straightforward question. But as with so many issues related to government programs, there are a number of factors that come into play. So yes, it is (possible for your wife to collect 100 percent of your Social Security benefits after you die. But read on for some of the fine print.
Before we get into those details, I want to clarify that there is a difference between standard spousal Social Security benefits, which max out at 50 percent of the worker’s benefit and survivor benefits, which can go as high as 100 percent.
In terms of survivor benefits, if you should die your wife’s benefit will depend on three things: 1) when you begin to take your Social Security benefits 2) her age when she begins to collect survivors benefits and 3) whether or not you had started to collect benefits prior to your death.
Since I don’t know the particulars of your situation, I’ll just briefly lay out a few scenarios.
IF YOU TAKE YOUR BENEFITS AT FULL RETIREMENT AGE
The simplest is if you begin taking benefits at full retirement age (66 for those born between 1943 and 1954). That would mean you’d collect your full benefit and your wife, should you pass away before her, could then collect 100 percent of your benefits as long as she also was at full retirement age. This doesn’t mean you absolutely have to start taking benefits at age 66. You could also choose to delay up to age 70. The advantage here is that the longer you delay taking Social Security, the larger your benefit–and the larger your wife’s survivor’s benefit–would be.
IF YOU TAKE YOUR BENEFITS EARLY
If you begin taking your Social Security benefits at 62, the earliest age you become eligible, your monthly benefit would be reduced permanently by about 25 percent. In this case, your wife’s benefit is also affected. The IRS rules state that a widow or widower at full retirement age qualifies for 100 percent of what a spouse (set ital) has been receiving (end ital). So if you opt to take Social Security early, upon your death, your wife would collect 100 percent of your (set ital) reduced (end ital) benefits. Unfortunately, the IRS doesn’t boost the benefit to the full rate when someone dies.
IF YOUR WIFE TAKES SURVIVOR BENEFITS EARLY
As I mentioned, a spouse at full retirement age can collect 100 percent of the deceased spouse’s benefit. But a surviving spouse can begin to collect benefits at age 60 if necessary (or age 50, if disabled). In this case, however, the benefit is reduced by a small percentage for each month before the surviving spouse reaches full retirement age. This could potentially reduce the monthly benefit to between 71 percent and 99 percent of the full benefit.
For example, assuming that your wife’s full retirement age is 66, if she started collecting survivor benefits at 60, she would get only 71.5 percent of your benefit. If she started at 62, she’d get 81 percent, and so on. The rationale is that by claiming benefits early, you receive them for a longer period of time so it potentially adds up to the same total. You can find a detailed chart of the various ages and percentages on the Social Security website at ssa.gov/suvivorplan.
IF YOU DIE BEFORE STARTING TO TAKE BENEFITS
Should you die before filing for benefits, no matter how old you are, once your wife reaches full retirement age she would qualify for 100 percent of the benefit you would have received (or her own benefit, whichever is greater). If she starts to collect early, however, it will be reduced as I just described.
STRATEGIES FOR TODAY
While your question concerns survivor benefits, you might also want to make sure you and your wife are maximizing the benefits you’re entitled to today. For instance, if you’ve already filed for benefits, your wife could collect benefits either based on her own work history or the spousal benefit, whichever is higher.
If you haven’t explored your various options, I suggest talking to your financial advisor to come up with the best strategy. You can also contact the Social Security administration. It offers information and counseling to help you weigh the different factors. You can speak to a Social Security counselor at your local SSA office or call 1-800-772-1213. Best of luck.
via Does a Surviving Spouse Always Collect 100 Percent of Social Security Benefits?.
Nearly Half of U.S. Lives in Household Receiving Government Benefit
Families were more dependent on government programs than ever last year.
Nearly half, 48.5%, of the population lived in a household that received some type of government benefit in the first quarter of 2010, according to Census data. Those numbers have risen since the middle of the recession when 44.4% lived households receiving benefits in the third quarter of 2008.
The share of people relying on government benefits has reached a historic high, in large part from the deep recession and meager recovery, but also because of the expansion of government programs over the years. (See a timeline on the history of government benefits programs here.)
Means-tested programs, designed to help the needy, accounted for the largest share of recipients last year. Some 34.2% of Americans lived in a household that received benefits such as food stamps, subsidized housing, cash welfare or Medicaid (the federal-state health care program for the poor).
Another 14.5% lived in homes where someone was on Medicare (the health care program for the elderly). Nearly 16% lived in households receiving Social Security.
High unemployment and increased reliance on government programs has also shrunk the nation’s share of taxpayers. Some 46.4% of households will pay no federal income tax this year, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. That’s up from 39.9% in 2007, the year the recession began.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com …
via Nearly Half of U.S. Lives in Household Receiving Government Benefit.
Superman vs. Warm Body (Thomas Sowell)
One of the problems in trying to select a leader for any large organization or institution is the tendency to start out looking for Superman, passing up many good people who fail to meet that standard, and eventually ending up settling for a warm body.
Some Republicans seem to be longing for another Ronald Reagan. Good luck on that one, unless you are prepared to wait for several generations. Moreover, even Ronald Reagan himself did not always act like Ronald Reagan.
The current outbreak of “gotcha” attacks on Texas Governor Rick Perry show one of the other pitfalls for those who are trying to pick a national leader. The three big sound-bite issues used against him during the TV “debates” have involved Social Security, immigration and a vaccine against cervical cancer.
Where these three issues have been discussed at length, whether in a few media accounts or in Governor Perry’s own more extended discussions in an interview on Sean Hannity‘s program, his position was far more reasonable than it appeared to be in either his opponents’ sound bites or even in his own abbreviated accounts during the limited time available in the TV “debate” format.
On Social Security, Governor Perry was not only right to call it a “Ponzi scheme,” but was also right to point out that this did not mean welshing on the government’s obligation to continue paying retirees what they had been promised.
Even those of us who still disagree with particular decisions made by Governor Perry can see some of those decisions as simply the errors of a decent man who realized that he was faced not with a theory but with a situation.
For example, the ability to save young people from cervical cancer with a stroke of a pen was a temptation that any decent and humane individual would find hard to resist, even if Governor Perry himself now admits to second thoughts about how it was done.
Many of us can agree with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann‘s contention that it should have been done differently. But it reflects no credit on her to have tried to scare people with claims about the dangers of vaccination. Such scares have already cost the lives of children who have died on both sides of the Atlantic from diseases that vaccination would have prevented.
The biggest mischaracterization of Governor Perry’s position has been on immigration. The fact that he has more confidence in putting “boots on the ground” along the border, instead of relying on a fence that can be climbed over or tunneled under where there is no one around, is a logistical judgment, not a question of being against border control.
Texas Rangers have already been put along the border to guard the border where the federal government has failed to guard it. Former Senator Rick Santorum‘s sound-bite attempts to paint Governor Perry as soft on border control have apparently been politically successful, judging by polls. But his repeated interrupting of Perry’s presentation of his case during the recent debate is the kind of cheap political trick that contributes nothing to public understanding and much to public misunderstanding.
Those of us who disagree with Governor Perry’s decision to allow the children of illegal immigrants to attend the state colleges and universities, under the same terms as Texas citizens, need at least to understand what his options were. These were children who were here only because of their parents’ decisions and who had graduated from a Texas high school.
Governor Perry saw the issue as whether these children should now be allowed to continue their education, and become self-supporting taxpayers, or whether Texas would be better off with a higher risk of those young people becoming dependents or worse. I still see Governor Perry’s decision as an error, but the kind of error that a decent and humane individual would be tempted to make.
I have far more questions about those who would blow this error up into something that it is not. Error-free leaders don’t exist — and we don’t want to end up settling for a warm body.
Ultimately, this is not about Governor Perry. It is about a process that can destroy any potential leader, even when the country needs a new leader with a character that the “gotcha” attackers demonstrate they do not have.
Why these presidential debates aren’t serious (Maximum style, minimum substance)
The presidential debates are looking more like symptoms of our problems than they do like part of the solution. Maximum style, minimum substance. Focus on sizzle, forget about the steak.
These events are supposed to be about quality information, raising the bar, and producing a thoughtful, informed electorate. But they are being produced to provide entertainment, and we are barely getting that.
Technology doesn’t take the place of substance. YouTube and real-time polling are not substitutes for thoughtful, provocative questioning.
Can it really be, after all the heat he has taken on Social Security, that Rick Perry was not pushed on how specifically how he would reform it?
Can it be, as expert after expert has laid out the long list of failures of Romneycare in Massachusetts and its unquestionable similarities to Obamacare, that Mitt Romney was not called out on his sidestepping and denials?
Can it be that, on a day where the stock market in our country dropped 3.5 percent and in China by 5 percent, that candidates were not asked what they think is wrong with the global economy?
Can it be that, when many experts agree that government meddling in housing and mortgages was central to the recent financial collapse, there has not been a single question on why Fannie and Freddie are still standing, propped up by government, and untouched?
Why, when everyone knows that Rick Santorum is a social conservative, would the question on “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military be directed at him? His answer was a surprise to no one. Why wasn’t Romney the one questioned on this?
Why, instead of wasting time on stupid questions like “Who on this stage would you choose as your vice president?” would the question not be asked “Who is your favorite justice on the Supreme Court”?
Both Romney and Michele Bachmann have said they will repeal Obamacare on day one. Shouldn’t someone ask what happens on day two? What would they do to fix our health care system, which clearly has problems?
With all the focus on Social Security, policy experts generally agree that the problems of Medicare are much bigger and more complex. Yet, there has not been a single question about how to reform Medicare.
But perhaps even more fundamentally, the cable sponsors of these events have failed grotesquely to bring out the fault lines that divide these Republican candidates and the Republican Party.
Where are these candidates on Roe v. Wade and the role of law in protecting unborn lives?
Where are these candidates on preservation on the integrity of traditional marriage?
With all the talk about states’ rights, why are there no questions about the appropriateness of a federal court overturning a popular vote in the state of California — Proposition 8 — to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in their state?
Or the denial of the District of Columbia government to even allow a vote of its residents on this issue before declaring same-sex marriage legal?
Does the collapse of the traditional family in America — something undeniably happening as we rapidly approach having half of our children born to unwed mothers — even matter? Should candidates not be forced to weigh in on this?
The downward spiral into an exclusively technocratic discussion about the economy — like we’re all laboratory mice in a box with politicians pushing the buttons — obfuscates key differences between these Republican candidates and the two parties.
It is a symptom of the big problems of our country that we appear incapable of having presidential debates with serious questions.
– Examiner Columnist Star Parker is an author and president of CURE, the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (urbancure.org). She is syndicated nationally by Scripps Howard News Service
via Why these presidential debates aren’t serious (Maximum style, minimum substance).
Why Are Rick Perry And Mitt Romney Getting About Twice As Much Talking Time?
Why Are Rick Perry And Mitt Romney Getting About Twice As Much Talking Time? romney perry
Considering the fact that no real votes will be cast until next year and considering the fact that the polls are constantly changing, shouldn’t all of the candidates participating in the Republican debates be given roughly the same amount of time to talk? After all, what kind of a “debate” is it when certain candidates are given double (or sometimes even triple) the amount of talking time? Why is it that Rick Perry and Mitt Romney have been getting about twice as much talking time as the other candidates during the Republican debates? It is amazing that more people are not calling into question the credibility of these “debates”. Whether you support one of the Republican candidates or not, we should all be able to agree that one of the goals for these debates should be to treat the candidates as fairly and evenly as possible. Unfortunately, as the numbers you are about to see indicate, that is definitely not happening.
According to blogger Wes Hemings, the following is how much talking time each candidate received during the last Republican debate….MORE…..
via Prison Planet.com » Why Are Rick Perry And Mitt Romney Getting About Twice As Much Talking Time?.























Recent Comments