Norcross.Talk

By Lady Alexis

June 5, 2008 5:39 PM | Link to this

I would address three questions to my fellow Republicans:

By Tim

June 5, 2008 5:40 PM | Link to this

I would ask a couple of questions. To the Democrats I would ask: 1. If 10% of your take home pay went to taking care of people who refused to take care of themselves would that be ok? So then only the people who said yes would have that amount deducted from their paychecks. And to both parties I would ask: 1. Would you support a move to euthanize people who refuse to work or be productive in society? (Not the “can’t work”, but the “won’t work”.) 2. Would you support a 24 hour turn around time on anyone convicted and sentenced to death in cases where indisputable evidence has been shown?

By Lady Alexis

June 5, 2008 5:56 PM | Link to this

Tim On the two questions to both parties, I would say YES to both. Euthanization is where I would love to go with welfare cases; however I believe we have a better shot at forced sterilization. Euthanization is an impossible sell to liberals, I mean look at how they crucify Dr. Kevorkian, who is a true humanitarian. As for a 24 hour turn-around on the death penalty — ABSOLUTELY! We waste so much time and tax payer money allowing these low-life scumbags to pursue appeal after appeal; giving them free room and board, tv, meals, excercise. It’s a travesty, and often the process is dragged out so long that they have lived nearly a full life anyway. Not really much of a death sentence.

If we could add homosexuals to the euthanization rolls then we would rid the world of the vile, disgusting creatures that try to pass themselves off as people and reduce the amount of negative influence on our children by eliminating that evil lifestyle from society.

By Bruce Wilcox

June 5, 2008 11:41 PM | Link to this

“It seems they will never learn that more doesn’t necessarily mean better.”, but maybe with more than five commissioners couldn’t sneak a backroom deal like stadium through? Ever hear of checks and balances? Questions for Republicans, Do you believe in Open Goverment? Do you believe in public input? Why are we voting on Marta when we didn’t have the opportunity to vote on the stadium? Should outside interests like the Braves decide where Gwinnett taxpapers dollars are spent?

By Katie

June 6, 2008 5:49 AM | Link to this

Tim, yes and yes. As for question 3, I think it would depend on the crime. Murder, yes. Child molestation, yes. Drug conviction, no.

By Norcross

June 6, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this

I agree Bruce about this Stadium. We all know your feelings by now though. My problem was the location, and the lack of public input. They have already broke ground on this thing. In Norcross it has taken years to get a new park design through.

Apparently the Braves refused to be “a redevelopment project” Then what the heck is Turner Field, it is itself in one of the worst, but developing, areas of town.

I do have a problem with Bert being all over the front page about this. What has he done for our district???

A new water park? Peachtree Corners (granted in his district). New stadium? Buford. Crime, bad roads, worst schools, Gwinnett Village.

Returning emails…FAIL.

Bert KNOWS his support is in Peachtree corners and bends over backwards for the UPCCA. But doing the ethical things and taking care of the whole district…haha. Of course he will tell us how much money he has brought to the village.

Save your time Bruce, we know he is a Republican. His party isnt the problem…he is. But this stadium secured his position for the next 10 years. Wise play on his part.

By Norcross

June 6, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this

Another question…

Is this the worst two people too chose from for President of the USA??

A true socialist and a democrat running.

My how far the RNC and DNC have fallen.

By Michael H. Smith

June 6, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

Do you support amending the Georgia Constitution to give power back to the people by granting to them [we the voters] ballot access in establishing – actually re-establishing - their right to have initiatives and referendums placed on the ballot?

Would you support a State of Georgia comprehensive occupational licensing law to: (1) assure a better trained workforce, available to all Georgia employers (2) assure higher quality products and services to the consumers by eliminating under-qualified and unauthorized workers from the workforce (3) promote the general welfare and lower insurance costs through enhanced public and worksite safety (4) collect all taxes and fees rightly due to the State of Georgia?

In the interest of making the State of Georgia conducive to job creation and business attractive in the competitive global marketplace, would you support creating a zero corporate tax option, whereby any corporation conducting business in the State could completely eliminate all State of Georgia corporate tax liability by provably employing a 90% U.S. Citizen workforce and no unauthorized persons directly, or indirectly knowingly hire contractors or sub-contractors that employ any unauthorized person?

In the interests of security and prosperity for the State and the Nation would you support either eliminating or greatly reducing the State tax on “all alternative fuel and energy” produced in Georgia, until such time as energy independence is achieved?

Would you support a work-for-fair-pay system for all authorized persons seeking any form of public assistance, whereby the recipients would have to accept and work, any available job that they are mentally and physically qualified to perform, if under-employed or unemployed, with the State compensating them in assistance and/or income to at least the amount of their federal established poverty level; in no case however, should assistance and/or income received exceed one and a half times their federal established poverty level?

Do you support building and generating energy via nuclear power for the purposes of: (1) producing economical reliable electricity (2) desalination to supply drinking water and aquifer replenishment (3) achieving energy independence in a greener cleaner environment?

I would go on but I’m tired of typing, got other things to do and I agree Norcross. The RNC and DNC have failed the American people.

We’re screwed folks :(

By Bruce Wilcox

June 6, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this

Norcross, I realize the stadium is Bert’s baby, but remember every commissioner was in on the scam for over a year.

Bert told me that the Braves didn’t want to be part of Gwinnett Village and they picked out the site, that’s was really gets me.

The ‘work-for-fair-pay system’ was passed by the Federal goverment back in 96 or 98 by Newt and Willy.

A “zero corporate tax option”, sounds good, but who picks up the slack of the missing corporate tax? We the people?

The first nuclear plant will be the first thing pushed for the Gwinnett Village. In France 80% of their electric power comes from nulclear power.

McCain, bush II Barr , “He’s just gooder”. Obama, could be the real thing or a flop, hard to tell.

By Bruce Wilcox

June 6, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, Pub.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, enacted 1996-08-22) is a United States federal law considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor.

By Norcross

June 6, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this

I would like the following questions on the Ballot.

What “Change” specifically does Obama intend?

Are people voting for Obama for only one reason, that being he is a bi-racial canidate that appears black?

Why would anyone vote for McCain?

Liberman might well be the most level headed person left in Washington.

By Michael H. Smith

June 6, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this

If you don’t like corporations owning and running the government and those in it, then who should pay for it?

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, Pub.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, enacted 1996-08-22) is a United States federal law considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor.

Is that working towards achieving upward mobility for the recipients to get off of government assistance or has it only created a bigger government feeding trough for those stuck in the quagmire of a deeper socialist rut that lacks incentives and training for something better than a life in the socio-economic pigsty?

Obama has great promises for change, and his change will be for the worse. No need to talk about McSame after eight years of dress rehearsals.

The Republicans deserve to lose but the Democrats certainly don’t deserve to win by a Republican default and we the American people, a union of over 280 million members strong, should be in the streets and on strike against our government that has failed us so miserably in its’ collective bargaining on our behalf.

By Bruce Wilcox

June 6, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this

Obama, who hsn’t and now the Democratic party, will not accept any donations from lobbyists, there is a change right there.

Obama hasn’t been around Washington that long to be a member of the good old boys club, there is another change.

We will know how serious he is by who he picks as his running mate.

“Is that working towards achieving upward mobility for the recipients to get off of government assistance”, that is the bills purpose, read the summation of the Bill.

The interest on our Federal Debt is far greater than what we spend on any kind of welfare, including corporate.

While you want you reform welfare of the poor, you want to give massive tax breaks to corporations, tell me Mr. Smith why is one better or worst than the other? I always believed that companies lived under the rule sink or swim, now they survive on government subsidies and tax breaks, I can’t understand the reasoning?

By Michael H. Smith

June 6, 2008 4:13 PM | Link to this

Very simple Mr. Wilcox corporations don’t pay tax, we the consumers eventually pay all the tax that corporations pass onto us in one form, way or the other. I don’t know if you ever worked in the private sector long enough to see how business is actually conducted. If you had, then you should know that getting a business to pay any tax is about as likely as being able extorting money from the Mafia. If you get one penny from them, they will only up the price of their products and services the next day by that penny plus one more to cover the overhead created by extraction of the penny that was taken from them the day before. Business is not in the business of losing money, not even to the government my friend.

The interest on our Federal Debt is far greater than what we spend on any kind of welfare, including corporate.

That I seriously doubt!

I always believed that companies lived under the rule sink or swim, now they survive on government subsidies and tax breaks, I can’t understand the reasoning?

You could use a new religious faith Mr. Wilcox. How do you believe the Federal Debt and Trade Deficits have been created, if not through welfare, subsidies and tax breaks?

Don’t kid yourself about social welfare programs. The entitlement programs alone will bankrupt this country by consuming the entire federal budget in the near future if steps are not taken and taken very soon to change these social programs as they now exist, so said the present Federal Reserve Chief in testimony before Congress and that’s without adding the socialized medicine proposals of the single payer healthcare plans.

By Huh?

June 6, 2008 4:13 PM | Link to this

I see Alexis is still worhipping and apologizing for Hitlers actions. And she calls herself a “good christian”.

By Lady Alexis

June 6, 2008 5:07 PM | Link to this

I would never apologize for Hitler’s actions. There is nothing to apologize. He was doing his moral duty to eliminate homosexual evil from our world. Adolph Hitler may have been a tad overzealous when it came to exterminating the Jews, but it was all in the effort to purify Europe and remove the evil sins of homosexuality from the motherland. It was never about Jews.

By Huh?

June 6, 2008 5:13 PM | Link to this

Riiiight.. you keep telling yourself that Alexis… you might actually believe that someday. You are a sad excuse for a human being, not to mention someone who considers themself a “christian”.

By Bruce Wilcox

June 6, 2008 6:16 PM | Link to this

Mr. Smith, do you really believe that by giving the corporations massive, or no tax at all will bring a windfall to the comsumer? Are you sure it won’t be spent on the millions already awarded CEO’s, some so incmpetent, they fire many with million dollar packages. Just like deregulation was suppose to lower prices by increasing competition, hasn’t seen it yet?

Mr. Smith what do you think the payment is at the current interest rate on a $9 Trillion dollar national debt is?

What is the “entitlement programs” you speak of? Social Security? Medicare with the bush bonus pack of Drugs? I believe people have paid into these programs for years, are all people that have retired no more than welfare recipients? Gee, are you now on welfare too Mr. Smith?

If you want discuss the biggest expense is, the Defense Department, welfare programs are just a drop in bucket when compared.

The typical Republican scare tactic, attack the poor and aged, blame welfare for the poor, Social Security and Medicare as the reason for all ills, we’ll just pass by the corporate welfare.

By Michael H. Smith

June 6, 2008 8:09 PM | Link to this

What you just presented Mr. Wilcox is the typical Democrat scare tactic and nothing else.

Mr. Smith, do you really believe that by giving the corporations massive, or no tax at all will bring a windfall to the comsumer?

Not as these massive corporate tax cuts and subsidies are presently being given to corporations that outsource American jobs. Even Obama knows that much, though, he really isn’t go to do what he pretends he will do to reverse the present unfair course of flat world Free Trade.

Are you sure it won’t be spent on the millions already awarded CEO’s, some so incmpetent, they fire many with million dollar packages.

I’m very sure that presently CEOs are reaping millions of dollars they really don’t earn nor can they justify receiving in compensation for riping off the stockholders of many publicly traded companies they head. Where taxes are not being paid because the money is outside of this country in offshore accounts. But if the situation was turned around by 180 degrees so that America chartered corporation were penalized and taxed for taking jobs and money outside of this country and rewarded for keeping those jobs and that money here at home we would not have nearly all the debt foreign and domestic that now exists. And we would be producing jobs instead of witnessing what is now become a 5.5 unemployment rate in this country. That is just some of what I know, Mr. Wilcox.

You know full well what entitlement programs. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and you cannot discredit or repudiate the testimony that was given to Congress by the Fed Chief. So don’t pretend to worry about defense spending, Mr. Wilcox, there will not be any money left over for that in the near future if the spending on the entitlement programs are not fiscally dealt with responsibly nor money left over to offer any other assistance to the poor and aged of this country.

By Lady Alexis

June 6, 2008 10:08 PM | Link to this

I take exception to the criticism of CEO pay. Executive pay in this country is aligned with the job stresses of running the company —- the larger the company the larger the executive pay package. It makes perfect sense. You want to keep the CEO happy so that they keep the company moving forward, driving costs out of the business, driving innovative technologies and developing new products. If a CEO was meagerly paid, what incentive would they have to provide shareholder value? As a shareholder in several companies, and the wife of an executive who is also a board member of three Forbes 20 companies, I honestly believe you should scale back your attacks on executive pay. I am sure it’s jealousy, but still.

By Michael H. Smith

June 6, 2008 11:36 PM | Link to this

Yeah it is really stressful losing a company and their stockholders billions while employees lose jobs and getting paid millions on your way out the door for having done such an incredibly great executive job. Hey Alexis, pass the word around the Fortune 20 for me will ya? I can guarantee I won’t lose any one of them half as much money as some of their executives and I’ll work for less than a six figure income, no perks, stock options or golden parachute required.

By Michael H. Smith

June 6, 2008 11:56 PM | Link to this

Where forth art thou Mr. Wilcox? Didn’t you say something to the affect recently that Bob Barr is looking good? Care to stick with your tale? Oh, before you answer that question check out what Libertarians Barr and Beck had to say about the entitlement programs. Just a little taste from that interview, Mr. Wilcox:

BECK: I talked to the former chief accountant for the GAO, David Walker. And he said discretionary spending. Thats nothing. Weve got this crushing debt coming down on us that we cant -- I mean, youre a guy who follows the dollar, and what the Fed is doing to the dollar.

There are theories out there — and I happen to believe them — that we are intentionally tubing the dollar because we cannot afford the interest on the debt. We can`t afford our dollar to be strong right now. The crushing debt that is coming our way, what do you do with that?

BARR: It`s well in excess of $9 trillion right now. And we have a…

BECK: No, no, no. Im talking long term. Im talking about the obligations. I`m talking about $54 trillion in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. One-third of everybody who lives here in Manhattan, one-third, currently living on Medicaid.

BARR: Actually, its even worse. If you calculate them all, project them all out, its over $100 trillion total. I mean, it is. Its unimaginable. What you have to do is -- first of all, you have to do what George W. Bush, unfortunately, did not have the guts to do. And that is to do what you say youre going to do.

You have to tackle Social Security. You have to tackle Medicare and Medicaid.

BECK: What do you do?

BARR: What do you is you institute, do everything you can, to immediately institute savings accounts that are credited against Social Security taxes as an initial step. You — you then — you take a look at who gets what, when they get it and start calculating it so that everybody, so that you don`t increase it every time there is a cost of living, or a raise in inflationary pressure. It just keeps — it magnifies itself.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/06/gb.01.html

Now tell me again about that $9 Trillion in chump change?

By Bruce Wilcox

June 7, 2008 5:45 AM | Link to this

Mr. Smith I am here, I was working in the back, when I think I must have broken a couple of ribs (lower ones), no problem, just can’t sleep. Now to the questions presented.

Beck is a complete butt-hole, just look at the parts of the interview you presented.

He never let let Barr answer the question on the National Debt did he or how he would handle it?

Clinton for the last four years of his term we actually had surpluses, of course we didn’t invade a country under a false pretense either, now nit-pickers will say where’s the money from the surpluse. Well it actually nickled and dimed the surplus, Clinton put the moneny back into the Social Security Trust Fund.

Feel free to check the facts Mr. smith.

Mr. Smith I try to never misrepresent anything you say, I will at all times use quotation marks when I use your comments.

Something like you used me, “Now tell me again about that $9 Trillion in chump change?” I do not by any neans understand what you are attempting to say?

The National Debt includes more than Social Security, in fact Bekk skipped right over it and attacked Social Security? I don’t understand why “The People “who have paid into it should be considered some kind of second class citizens. If you can come up with a program where people could get out by choice, but they would still have to pay in a certain amount to keep the currant system going, I’ll be all for it.

See Mr. Smith, guys like Beck and Dobbs skipped over the details, they never give a plan or how much it would cost, they both blow smoke up the mooses as…

By LT5000

June 7, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this

Brucie always cracks me up.

*Obama, who hsn’t and now the Democratic party, will not accept any donations from lobbyists, there is a change right there. *

Apparently Brucie didn’t have his mommy read him the paper about Rezko’s recent conviction. He was funneling money through the Obama campaign.

What a maroon.

LT5000

By Michael H. Smith

June 7, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this

Now, now, Mr. Wilcox, if you have some facts available to consider, then challenge Mr. Beck’s claim or Mr. Barr’s claim. After all $54 Trillion and $100 Trillion…. I mean, those are very large sums of money.

Yes, the national debt is also a very tidy sum of money in anyone’s language. Considering all the evidence that has come to fore, including from the Fed Chief, a guy that is not just some TV jock hungry for ratings telling the country’s purse holders, that august body of the Congress, the entitlement programs will if allow to continue without some efforts at the very least, to slow down increases in benefits there exists the danger of these programs consuming the entire federal budget… Well, simply calling someone a butt-hole because you don’t like the stark reality of what they are telling you, telling all of us, is rather juvenile.

In very point of fact, as Mr. Dobbs would say , it is this very juvenile irresponsible dismissive attitude that our government has used to deal with issues concerning this country’s security and prosperity over several decades now that has created this oncoming debacle.

And then, to have you and others try to float this maddening idea of Free Healthcare, a single payer system that would be added into the entitlements as an enhancement, in point of fact, an expansion of Medicare , Medicaid and SCHIP’s is the very insanity encapsulated in the proverbial reasoning behind rearranging the furniture on the deck of the titanic.

I don’t understand why “The People “who have paid into it should be considered some kind of second class citizens.

Well, at least you finally are beginning to face some sense of reality. No you obviously don’t understand Mr. Wilcox, nor do many other liberals, elitists and Democrats. If some very painful choices and some very painful sacrifices are not made by my generation, our generation, then the next generations of Americans for many untold years, will in fact, become second class citizens beyond all considerations in anyone’s economic terms.

Guys like Lou Dobbs that you and other ethnocentric groups and their mouthpieces like Senator Obama who rail against Mr. Dobbs with any number of distortions, are the very ones substituting high-tone over-the-top rhetoric in resistance to any sane discourse or plans being offered.

Mr. Obama, who was a recent recipient of the Washington Post’s most prestigious Pinocchio award, meriting four of them in fact, for his wildly inaccurate claims made against Lou Dobbs. It is beginning to sound all too familiar from those who don’t like the message…. they’ll just kill the messengers, Mr. Wilcox.

Four Pinocchio’s, now that’s some real smoke singles to think about before blowing a vote.

By Michael H. Smith

June 7, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this

Alarming news from the Bardely Project, that is sure to delight every ethnocentric group and Internationalist in the country.

America is in fact suffering an Identity Crisis. Something I’ve spoken about in various comments on these AJC blogs many times in the past. Of course, sadly, this issue appears nowhere on either Democrat or Republican ballots. However, with the very poisoned atmosphere that has been set about us by those who will assail any word that speaks of national pride, of sole loyalty to America, of a demand to speak U.S. English the language that unites us as one nation of one people, of the American culture standing pre-eminent, of ancestries treasured as heirlooms to be placed away with other personal belongs, it is “understandable, though, unacceptable” that these two local political parties are in fact, “oblivious to the obvious”, as Senator Dorgan of North Dakota aptly put it in regards to brain dead politics.

This is something I talked about as far back as the 2000 election and proposed then that schools throughout the State should have a mandatory class in Citizenship taught separately from the normal course of teaching U.S. or American History. After reviewing the contents of the Bradely Project I hope that many of you will confront our two major local political parties directly about this very important issue.

How can we allow any student of any school in this country to leave our educational system with so little knowledge about what it means to be an American?

How can we demand of our legal immigrants assimilation and naturalization when so few of our very own American citizens know so little about being an American?

How can we, how can you Democrat or Republican speak of unity with the one tongue and then with another tongue ascribe colors and ancestries to American, when America is but the embodiment of one idea, E. Pluribus Unum?

80% of Americans believe that our schools should focus on American citizenship, not ethnic identity. Majorities of Latinos (70%) and African-Americans (54%) agree.

These words from the Bradely Project summarize the issue the best:

The next generation of Americans will know less than their parents know about our history and founding ideals. And many Americans are more aware of what divides us than of what unites us. We are in danger of becoming not ‘from many, one’—E Pluribus Unum—but its opposite, ‘from one, many.’”

http://bradleyproject.org

By Bruce Wilcox

June 7, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this

Mr. Smith, no one needs a lecture and you’ve beat the word limit, I ‘am sure Woody will reward you.

As a “elitist” (or is it a socialist, maybe a liberal), please make up your mind on what I may be?

Mr. Smith, you DID NOT answer any question presented? You want to impress someone? I see you have LT’s backing, good company, both BS’ers side Mr. Smith, why does the State of Georgia rank somewhere in the 40’s on education with a 56% drop-out rate?

Let’s see, the former School Super was arrested and jailed, go, GOP. The one we have now is as stupid as the children we are pushing out.

Mr. Smith, you’re nothing more than a embarrassed Republican sniffing up media’s butt Lou Dobbs. Please for once, do some research

By Michael H. Smith

June 7, 2008 5:51 PM | Link to this

Why should I answer any question you pose Mr. Wilcox, you never answer any of mine. And, as for lectures Mr. Wilcox, you can save yours as well. I don’t want to hear them and no one else seems much interested in them either. Of course when you lack any ideas of your own to present of any value, you really can’t blame anyone.

Research? Yeah right, do that Mr. Wilcox, it might serve you well instead of what you sniff and continuously regurgitate.

By Norcross

June 9, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this

What do we do for those people that lose their jobs based upon defense spending cuts? What about their taxes we take in for those higher paying jobs, which they don’t have? I guess that is a state issue as States pay unemployment….

I pay a lot of money into Social Security, what should I do with the fact that SS goes broke 3 years before I retire.

I am not a Bush supporter, but at least he brought it up and was heckled by people.

What should we do?

By Bruce Wilcox

June 10, 2008 12:46 AM | Link to this

What to do about Social Security Norcross, I liked two of President William Jefferson Clinton’s ideas, one was actually paying down the debt and restore funds to S.S., the other was to allow government savings accounts over and above the normal amount taken out.

The idea was to get people to at least invest a little more in a government 401K, but you just can’t take away the amount paid into S.S., the idea would ensure S.S. for all and down the road do away with it as we know it.

Big question left hanging out there, what about those who get disabled? A certain amount of what we all paid or pay in has to go for that.

Every President brings it up, mostly forming Blue Ribbon panels to study the problem and that’s is as far as it gets.

By Norcross

June 10, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this

I personally believe we need to have financial education mandated in highschool.

I max out my 401k and my Roth IRA, while my college buddies drive Hummers and BMW’s.

I realize that SS will not be there for me, that promise was broken by both parties long long ago.

By Katie

June 10, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this

If we’re paying into SS, why will we not get any of it? Our children and their children will be paying our SS, right???

I know, stupid question…..

By Katie

June 10, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this

The way I see it is that the government wants us to be fully dependent on them. In the future I see the government issuing more food, food stamps, housing and being fully in control of more things so that they can ration it to the people. The more people that are layed off will increase the need for government support if they are unable to find jobs they’re skilled to do. As people breed more and more the problems will increase. I don’t see how this can be avoided. There will be two classes of people, the wealthy and the ones supported by the government. The middle class will be gone. Am I wrong???

By Bruce Wilcox

June 10, 2008 9:50 AM | Link to this

Katie it’s not a stupid question at all, that is excactly the way it worked for so many decades.

Three things happened to the change the formula, the governemnet started tapping into or barrowing from it in the sixties, a much higher life span than the average in the forties and less workers to keep the fund stable.

Remember Al Gore promised if elected Social Security would go into a “lock box”, all taxes collected for S.S., would stay in Social Security.

“I personally believe we need to have financial education mandated in high school.”, excellent idea Norcross, some have no idea how to balance a checkbook or understand interest rates on credit cards. This teaching to the test is just pushing out robots, not people who can think for themselves. Make courses, like math, relative to everday life, I’m sure you’ll see far better results than we’re getting now.

By Michael H. Smith

June 10, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this

The way I see it is that the government wants us to be fully dependent on them. In the future I see the government issuing more food, food stamps, housing and being fully in control of more things so that they can ration it to the people.

The Democrats would surely like that to happen and the Republicans seem to want economic conditions that will give the Democrats their wish come true.

The more people that are layed off will increase the need for government support if they are unable to find jobs they’re skilled to do.

In the flat world economy of globalization there really is no jobs that are not vulnerable. People will find jobs they are skilled to do at far less pay. Between jobs being shipped out through offshore outsourcing, and the ones that can’t be sent out of country being filled by imported cheaper labor, legal and illegal, the American workers will face lower wages, lower standards of living and a caste-system that you mention later on in your comment.

As people breed more and more the problems will increase.

In respects to this country that is the very reason immigrations must be looked at sanely and sensibly. The increases in population that exist in the country today are being produced by the immigrant population, which is not necessarily a bad thing. However, like any good thing when done in excess, it then becomes a very bad thing that produces very bad results.

I don’t see how this can be avoided.

Unless the American people unite to change the present situation it will not be avoided.

There will be two classes of people, the wealthy and the ones supported by the government. The middle class will be gone. Am I wrong???

No!

By Michael H. Smith

June 10, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this

What should we do, Norcross?

What I can say, is we don’t repeat the proven failures of the past. By now most of us realize you can’t depend on government. Promises made are seldom kept by both major political party and the best lock pickers in this nation are kept in the Congress not behind the bars of the prison system in this country. Your statement says it all: I max out my 401k and my Roth IRA, while my college buddies drive Hummers and BMW’s.

Government, no matter who is in power, cannot replace personal responsibility; therefore, government should not place the consequences of personal irresponsibility upon the responsible people. Yet, that is exactly what government has done and continues to do. Unfortunately, as of present, we have not made irresponsible government face the consequences for its responsibilities.

By Katie

June 10, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this

Here’s a good example of our country, as it is now. A mother suing an airline because they served peanuts on the plane. Since when is it the job of the airline to supervise what someones child eats? The mother should be 100% responsible but she doesn’t see it that way. That’s our system, in a nut shell. There are thousands of other examples that could be made. Personal responsibility and accountability are gone, you can always blame, and sue, someone else.

By EC

June 10, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this

The most obvious answer is the one Miss Alexis hates: Allow gays to marry!

They are already self-reliant so they won’t end up on welfare rolls, they cannot reproduce so they will adopt less fortunate children, helping to reduce the stress on welfare.

They make lots of money so they can pay taxes, taxes, taxes! for the benefits and rights that you enjoy and they can not.

By Norcross

June 10, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this

What rights do they not have as defined in our Consitution?

I am not against it at all. I agree with your comments, but what rights are they being denied that the Government is taking away from them.

By Katie

June 11, 2008 8:00 AM | Link to this

What people do in their bedrooms is their business, not mine. I do not have the right to tell someone what they can or can’t do with their genitals—period. I also do not have the right to tell someone who they can spend their lives with—that’s their personal decision.

By Bruce Wilcox

June 11, 2008 8:39 AM | Link to this

Norcross, the if it’s not in the Constitution it’s not real defense is weak. Was slavery in the Constitution? How about a White and Black couldn’t marry?

It was only a few years ago the conservatives in congress wanted a Constitutional Amendment against Gay Marriage, mind you thr Iraqi war had just started?

The state’s that have gay marriage have the line, “All men are created equal”. Too bad the line never made it to the Federal Constitution.

By Norcross

June 11, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this

Bruce, what am I defending that makes my defense weak?

Explain please.

Thanks.

I agree with Katie and think that OK and People magazines showing us celebrity weddings and divorces every week is the problem here. Not gay marriage. I think everyone should be able to get married, then divorced or whatever.

By Bruce Wilcox

June 11, 2008 9:35 PM | Link to this

There is nothing in our Constitution that states anything about marriage, that is why it is weak.

By Katie

June 12, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

I am married but we did not have a religious ceremony. I do not think that I would have gotten married if I had had religion jammed down my throat. I really don’t care what god thinks about my marriage, it’s between me and my husband.

By Norcross

June 12, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this

Thank you for proving my point Bruce.

Your rush to show how smart you are and put down others = weak.

Comment I was replying to: *They make lots of money so they can pay taxes, taxes, taxes! for the benefits and rights that you enjoy and they can not. *

My post: *What rights do they not have as defined in our Consitution?

I am not against it at all. I agree with your comments, but what rights are they being denied that the Government is taking away from them.*

Thanks again for proving my point.The post was about marriage, I then basically asked where is the right to marry in the Contitution.

By Bruce Wilcox

June 12, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this

Of course Norcross, my mistake, it was about taxes, not marriage, I am embarrassed.

By Woody Bass

June 13, 2008 4:41 PM | Link to this

Rest in Peace Tim Russert.