I don't like social welfare, either. We should pay people who work enough to live on.
There are some people who truly need welfare. Those who collect welfare and are able to work should report to work for the government every morning. This is way too big of a subject for me to get started on now. Maybe we can do it sometime when we can get started earlier. I will add this. Some government expenditures for industry are good. Some projects are too big for industry. The internet is an example of a technology which would have never been viable without the government. It was developed for the military. The space program made possible the computer you are using to access the internet. The government should be involved in some projects. They have an obligation to the American people to try to keep the economy strong. They could have done that by keeping the reasonable regulations on the finance industry. Then we wouldn't have to bail them out. What this is proving is some people have no problem with welfare as long as it is spent on what they want it spent on. They care more about the rich getting richer than keeping people above the poverty level. On Sep 23, 1:32 am, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tell you what Sarge... > > You agree to stop Public Welfare, and I will agree to stop Welfare to > Business. > > We spend MUCH MORE on Social Services EVERY Year, than we are talking > about "Bailing out" right now... > > We send $700 Billion a Year RIGHT NOW just on Foreign Oil, and they > are spending that money now buying our Banks. > > Because Idiots like YOU won't let the Richest Energy Nation in the > World AT ANY OF THAT Energy... > > And then YOU try and blame the Republicans for all the ills you and > yours are causing. > > in 30 YEARS we could have Built a Multi-Trillion Dollar Oil Industry > in this Nation with Refineries and everything, that come WITH High > PAYING Jobs, but NOOOOOOO!!!!! > > Damn Liberals have to stop every effort to expand our Oil Industry and > force it "Offshore". > > And now you want to blame others... > > Imagine that. > > On Sep 22, 10:25 pm, SgtUSMC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > No, it doesn't. The point I should make is Chrysler could have gotten > > pretty much the same deal and result by filing bankruptcy. The > > creditors footed the bill. The government bailed out Chrysler at the > > expense of many others. They fudged the facts on their recovery to > > increase stock value. I don't agree with corporate welfare and I don't > > think the US government should be in the business of trading stocks. > > > All these free market people become socialists when it comes to > > bailing out the elite. > > > On Sep 23, 1:20 am, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Sep 22, 9:54 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > So, you agree with the facts that the Gunney posted. I mean, you made > > > > no effort to dispute any of them so that's a reasonable conclusion for > > > > me to make. > > > > Does any of that dispute the facts that I posted?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
