'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Se...

'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate

There are 270139 comments on the thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com story from Oct 1, 2010, titled 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate. In it, thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com reports that:

"Fox News Sunday" is heading to Louisville, Ky. Jack Conway, Kentucky's attorney general and the Democratic candidate for Senate , and Rand Paul, the Republican nominee and son of Representative Ron Paul, Republican of Texas, have agreed to a live debate on "Fox News Sunday" on Oct.3 at 9 a.m. (Eastern time).

Join the discussion below, or Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com.

Commietator

Madisonville, KY

#160225 Apr 4, 2014
Well wrote:
<quoted text>Most elderly people have more assets and cumulative wealth than the young workers who are having their income diverted from investments that could make them less dependent on future generations. Why do you assume some elderly people will die? Don't these people have family? Were people dying in the streets before we began forcibly taking the money from younger workers to pay older people? Social security incentivizes people to save less for the eventuality of old age by removing a significant portion of their income that could be used for savings for themselves and creates the expectation that the burden of old age will be borne by other people. The burden of old age should be borne by other people if someone is not able to care for himself and those other people should be first and foremost his family. Adult children should take care of their parents. Its called honoring thy Mother and Father. Today, they can get some other American to honor their Mother and Father.
I don't lose sleep over the rich accumulating more wealth. Try not to think of wealthy people as an exclusive group of individuals who hold a monopoly on getting rich. People move in out of the top 1% all the time. I am pleased to see we have more billionaires than before. It doesn't exclude other people from earning money and becoming wealthy. The entire notion of people getting rich that excludes others from doing the same is rather silly.. People get wealthy for the most part by doing things that serve and please their fellow man. People have different capacities to do that and that is reflected by the disparities in people's wealth. It simply represents a disparity in people's ability to please and serve others.
Do you think the average person over 65 has $250,000 in the bank to pay for their heart attack or cancer treatment?
Let's look at the difference SS made in the elderly's life.
Without Social Security, 22.2 million more Americans would be poor, according to the latest available Census data (for 2012). At the beginning of SS 80% of those over 65 was listed as poor. Today due to SS only 10% of those over 65 fall into the poverty level.
.
Like I have posted many times. There are many nations without any form of government social services. Nations like Haiti and most nations in Africa. I know it would be a Repub dream to turn America into a third world nation but most people don't want to see that happen.
stankoCON

Johnson City, TN

#160226 Apr 4, 2014
RepubliCONS wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Calvin. Sorry I missed you. Thanks for the laughs. My partner and I DID win that tournament. Won $200 and a new set of darts. It was fun.
How many RepubliCONS does it take to fix a problem?
No one knows, it has never happened.
RIP GOP
DITCH MITCH
Hey calvin, how many STANKY FINGERS DOES IT TAKE? all of StankoCONS and your fists!
RIP MY BIG HOLE
KEEP MITCH
JEB 2016
Jay

Springville, TN

#160227 Apr 4, 2014
Commietator wrote:
<quoted text>The Law has been the same since Reagan signed it. It has never been changed. Very stupid post on your part. Mine explained why everyone by LAW must be treated.
**********

The point is - if you don't like the laws now on the books, gather your minions, write your congressman and/or senator and oppose it. There are numbers of petitions on line that oppose a former law. Get with it and complain, get it done, change it.....what else can I say?
Commietator

Madisonville, KY

#160229 Apr 4, 2014
Jay wrote:
<quoted text>**********

The point is - if you don't like the laws now on the books, gather your minions, write your congressman and/or senator and oppose it. There are numbers of petitions on line that oppose a former law. Get with it and complain, get it done, change it.....what else can I say?
Never said didn't like the Law. Only pointed out that it is the Law. By the way there are Laws still today that are over 100 years old.
Mao-bama Zombies

United States

#160230 Apr 4, 2014
Jay wrote:
<quoted text>
**********
Imagine the bandwidth she sucks up publishing her newspaper articles that nobody reads!
Long and boring, sheesh ...

Reagan, Bush, Bush, Reagan, and there was no other president in between that can do those changes, Republicans screwed up...according to liberals...!!
Mao-bama Zombies

San Diego, CA

#160231 Apr 4, 2014
Commietator wrote:
<quoted text>The Law has been the same since Reagan signed it. It has never been changed. Very stupid post on your part. Mine explained why everyone by LAW must be treated.
So, the laws cannot be changed between Reagan and Bush right ...????? You just like to bitch bitch bitch...enough already ...!!
Jay

Springville, TN

#160232 Apr 4, 2014
Commietator wrote:
<quoted text>
Never said didn't like the Law. Only pointed out that it is the Law. By the way there are Laws still today that are over 100 years old.
**********

Like no spitting on the sidewalk?

8p
Well

Lexington, KY

#160233 Apr 4, 2014
Commietator wrote:
<quoted text>Do you think the average person over 65 has $250,000 in the bank to pay for their heart attack or cancer treatment?
Let's look at the difference SS made in the elderly's life.
Without Social Security, 22.2 million more Americans would be poor, according to the latest available Census data (for 2012). At the beginning of SS 80% of those over 65 was listed as poor. Today due to SS only 10% of those over 65 fall into the poverty level.
.
Like I have posted many times. There are many nations without any form of government social services. Nations like Haiti and most nations in Africa. I know it would be a Repub dream to turn America into a third world nation but most people don't want to see that happen.
Would these people have been better off taking their earnings that were given to SS and investing for their own retirement needs? I believe so. There would be far fewer people needing others to pay for their old age needs. To credit SS as the reason fewer people over 65 are poor today ignores the opportunity cost to these people having their earnings confiscated. Without SS, its likely these people would have been better off with the chance to receive a greater return elsewhere. We need to take into account the "invisible" effects of making people less able to care of themselves by forcing them to contribute to SS. Its harder to see that most people would have been better off using their money as they see fit. Some people of course will make unwise decisions and need the charity of others but most people left to take care of themselves would be better off. But aside from the economic issue whether people are better off with or without SS, government taking a person's money to give to another person for SS is no different morally than me taking a person's money to give to a needy old person.

There are other factors that make nations like Haiti and these African countries poor. It is not a lack of government social services. Lack of property rights, rule of law, and corruption are far more likely the culprit that keeps these nations poor - not lack of government services. Was the US before social welfare programs even close to the level of poverty that the nations you mention? What these nations need is a healthy dose of capitalism. But capitalism requires a property rights structure and rule of law.
Commietator

Madisonville, KY

#160234 Apr 4, 2014
Mao-bama Zombies wrote:
<quoted text>So, the laws cannot be changed between Reagan and Bush right ...????? You just like to bitch bitch bitch...enough already ...!!
No. I simply present facts you Serb Hag.
Commietator

Madisonville, KY

#160235 Apr 4, 2014
Well wrote:
<quoted text>Would these people have been better off taking their earnings that were given to SS and investing for their own retirement needs? I believe so. There would be far fewer people needing others to pay for their old age needs. To credit SS as the reason fewer people over 65 are poor today ignores the opportunity cost to these people having their earnings confiscated. Without SS, its likely these people would have been better off with the chance to receive a greater return elsewhere. We need to take into account the "invisible" effects of making people less able to care of themselves by forcing them to contribute to SS. Its harder to see that most people would have been better off using their money as they see fit. Some people of course will make unwise decisions and need the charity of others but most people left to take care of themselves would be better off. But aside from the economic issue whether people are better off with or without SS, government taking a person's money to give to another person for SS is no different morally than me taking a person's money to give to a needy old person.

There are other factors that make nations like Haiti and these African countries poor. It is not a lack of government social services. Lack of property rights, rule of law, and corruption are far more likely the culprit that keeps these nations poor - not lack of government services. Was the US before social welfare programs even close to the level of poverty that the nations you mention? What these nations need is a healthy dose of capitalism. But capitalism requires a property rights structure and rule of law.
Capitalism like America gave to teens in China at .30/ hr?
Jay

Springville, TN

#160236 Apr 4, 2014
Commietator wrote:
<quoted text>
Never said didn't like the Law. Only pointed out that it is the Law. By the way there are Laws still today that are over 100 years old.
**********

Now wait a minute Commie. You said:

"A socialist commie President signed a LAW that forces all healthcare providers to treat everyone regardless of anything. i.e. illegal, non-payment.
Who was this commie socialist President that would do such a thing in America?
.
Ronald Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act in 1986 forcing all providers to treat everyone. "

**********

You called Reagan a socialist/communist - which of course is not true, but gave me the idea that you did not like him, or his law. That is what I responded to. Now you indicate that you did not say you don't like the law. Make up your mind, or be more clear about your opinion in your posts. You may have gotten a different response.
Mao-bama Zombies

San Diego, CA

#160237 Apr 4, 2014
Commietator wrote:
<quoted text>Do you think the average person over 65 has $250,000 in the bank to pay for their heart attack or cancer treatment?
Let's look at the difference SS made in the elderly's life.
Without Social Security, 22.2 million more Americans would be poor, according to the latest available Census data (for 2012). At the beginning of SS 80% of those over 65 was listed as poor. Today due to SS only 10% of those over 65 fall into the poverty level.
.
Like I have posted many times. There are many nations without any form of government social services. Nations like Haiti and most nations in Africa. I know it would be a Repub dream to turn America into a third world nation but most people don't want to see that happen.
After 65, Americans have Medicare that pays 80%, if you are poor, you can have Medical to cover the other 20%, or if you don't qualify for medical, you can go with HMO and in most cases you are covered 100%, sometimes you have to pay maybe $5.00 or $10.00...Health Net/HMO pays 100% including disabled Americans. Now, Republicans don't want to turn America into a third world nation, but liberals just love to go COMMUNIST, that way they can easily control sheeple like you.

Wake up 'uncle tabby'...!! Only you can post stupid comment like this one. You can change names, but not your thinking...!!
wtf

Munfordville, KY

#160238 Apr 4, 2014
Commietator wrote:
<quoted text>The Law has been the same since Reagan signed it. It has never been changed. Very stupid post on your part. Mine explained why everyone by LAW must be treated.
How do you know if the law has stayed the same? How do you know if parts of the law haven't been changed? Sort of like no parts of Obamacare has never been changed or delayed since it became law...right? Obamacare is the law of the land and it's here to stay? Isn't that what Obama has claimed many times? Oh I see, what he really meant was it is the law of the land AFTER elections so the dems don't lose their asses in those elections because of their Obamacare support. What's the harm in telling a few lies and cooking the books and changing the law whenever and however you see fit...if it keeps political control of Washington on your side while your messiah is still King for a couple of more years? We the people have no clue as to what has changed or been delayed with the Obamacare law. Well, we only know what democrats and Obama tells us has changed or been delayed. Aren't these the same politicians that swore to us, same as Obama did, that we could keep our policy and our doctor if we liked them? Period? lol No reason not to believe them now just because they got caught in a few crucial lies about Obamacare.
Mao-bama Zombies

San Diego, CA

#160239 Apr 4, 2014
Commietator wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I simply present facts you Serb Hag.
We already know that, what's your point libdirt...??
Well

Lexington, KY

#160240 Apr 4, 2014
Commietator wrote:
<quoted text>
Capitalism like America gave to teens in China at .30/ hr?
Doesn't capitalism make it possible for average people to be able to enjoy the comforts once only rich people could enjoy? If so, goods and services must be cheap enough for average people to afford. Certainly, low wages are common when a capitalist enterprise is getting started but over time workers tend to do better. In the future, Chinese workers can expect to do better over time just as Americans endured the "growing pains" of our early capitalist existence. To your point, if a teen in China works for $.30/hr, is it a safe bet that he is exercising his best option? People who complain about low wage workers should offer them a better wage if they are offended by the wage someone else pays them.
Mao-bama Zombies

United States

#160241 Apr 4, 2014
wtf wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know if the law has stayed the same? How do you know if parts of the law haven't been changed? Sort of like no parts of Obamacare has never been changed or delayed since it became law...right? Obamacare is the law of the land and it's here to stay? Isn't that what Obama has claimed many times? Oh I see, what he really meant was it is the law of the land AFTER elections so the dems don't lose their asses in those elections because of their Obamacare support. What's the harm in telling a few lies and cooking the books and changing the law whenever and however you see fit...if it keeps political control of Washington on your side while your messiah is still King for a couple of more years? We the people have no clue as to what has changed or been delayed with the Obamacare law. Well, we only know what democrats and Obama tells us has changed or been delayed. Aren't these the same politicians that swore to us, same as Obama did, that we could keep our policy and our doctor if we liked them? Period? lol No reason not to believe them now just because they got caught in a few crucial lies about Obamacare.
Reagan and Bush's fault ...!!

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#160242 Apr 4, 2014
Ari son of Anarchy wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO!
sorry I missed you today.
Looks like you were busy.
:)
I've been off and on all day but have spent a lot of the time trying to pull some
species/ volume figures and sorting on these hardwood sticks we've accumulated for possible export.

“ Trumpanzees...”

Since: Apr 13

..a basket of deplorables

#160243 Apr 4, 2014
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
I wish I could watch you squirm on the last day of your pitiful, worthless existence you loud mouth halfwit queer bastard! If the human race were based on trash like you, we are nothing but a waste!
go ahead and watch
anything else?
Jay

Springville, TN

#160244 Apr 4, 2014
wtf wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know if the law has stayed the same? How do you know if parts of the law haven't been changed? Sort of like no parts of Obamacare has never been changed or delayed since it became law...right? Obamacare is the law of the land and it's here to stay? Isn't that what Obama has claimed many times? Oh I see, what he really meant was it is the law of the land AFTER elections so the dems don't lose their asses in those elections because of their Obamacare support. What's the harm in telling a few lies and cooking the books and changing the law whenever and however you see fit...if it keeps political control of Washington on your side while your messiah is still King for a couple of more years? We the people have no clue as to what has changed or been delayed with the Obamacare law. Well, we only know what democrats and Obama tells us has changed or been delayed. Aren't these the same politicians that swore to us, same as Obama did, that we could keep our policy and our doctor if we liked them? Period? lol No reason not to believe them now just because they got caught in a few crucial lies about Obamacare.
**********

Good post.

There are a lot of laws that were passed in January of this year, and I'll just becha half the country never even knew it.

At the turn of the century there were laws on the books that we laugh at today, like no cattle in your back yard if you live in the city: no chickens roaming the city streets. The no spitting on the sidewalk pertained to the fact that if you use *chaw tobacky, no spitting on the sidewalk because every bar room had a spittoon. So, times changed and the laws were never removed from the books, so essentially they still apply.

Obama changes laws like he changes socks, and half the country doesn't even keep up with it. Some don't care, some don't understand it when they have it explained to them. Insurance companies are being tossed this-a-way and that with him protecting his democrats who voted for them and now regret it. So....time will tell - and there may be big surprised coming for those who followed the leader. Good times coming then for the conservatives, so be it!

“ Trumpanzees...”

Since: Apr 13

..a basket of deplorables

#160245 Apr 4, 2014
Mao-bama Zombies wrote:
<quoted text>
Bible or Quran ...it's wrong ...!!
Submit to 'man' or anyone else, when hell freezes over...!
so you're a pagan...I like you better already
wanna get naked?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Manchester Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
George Dezarn aka axl ROSE FOUND DEAD ON BRIDGE... 1 hr Question 3
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 1 hr Blacklagoon 163,813
Girley Pregnant 2 hr Miss crazy 9
Kids caught partying up at Laurel Lake 11 hr Brian v 12
Gilberta miller 13 hr Citizen 1
Linda Gibson Hensley 13 hr Barbie girl 1
Tiffany Deston Gibson 14 hr cm harris 3

Manchester Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Manchester Mortgages