GOP pushes social issues at conservative showcase

Mar 7, 2014 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Ledger-Enquirer.com

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Southern Baptist pastor, set the tone early in the second day of the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Comments
161 - 180 of 222 Comments Last updated Mar 14, 2014
guest

United States

#163 Mar 12, 2014
Cookie_Parker wrote:
Why is it corporations aren't paying you enough money to have a Lexus? Shouldn't the "job makers" be required to give you an opportunity to own a Lexus? Or do you think only "job creators" should be allowed Lexus's?
It's not a corporations duty to pay me enough to buy a Lexus. Neither are they required to give me an opportunity to own a Lexus.

You do realize that the goal of a corporation is to make a profit, right?

BTW, are you ready to admit your error regarding your claims about 2005, or are you hoping no one noticed I blew your position completely out of the water with all those hard facts I posted?
guest

United States

#164 Mar 12, 2014
Exposing the idiocy of liberalism....as easy as taking candy from a baby.

Don't you liberals have anyone worthy of debate? Nothing but brain dead obamabots on this thread. I'm getting bored.*yawn*

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#165 Mar 12, 2014
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Like the other liberals on this thread, you ignore facts and reality and spew nothing but baseless crap.
In 2005 unemployment was 5% and falling from the spike we saw after the 9/11 attack in 2001 rocked our economy. Here are the facts from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
Contrary to your claim, average wages increased in 2005 in every labor field measured by the BLS. Look at chart 3 that clearly shows that:
http://www.bls.gov/cew/ew05chartbook.pdf
Broad economic metrics also prove that the economy was doing well in 2005. The Gross Domestic Product was in the midst of many years of sustained growth, just as Iíve already noted in an earlier post. The GDP growth rate in 2005 was 3.4%, which is a hell of a lot better than at any time since Democrats gained control of Congress after the 2006 elections. Hereís the proof:
http://useconomy.about.com/od/GDP-by-Year/a/U...
The facts completely obliterate your errant claims. The truth is that in 2005 the economy was growing, unemployment was falling, and wages were increasing. Exactly the opposite of what you claimed.
In light of facts and reality, are you willing to admit your error and abandon the lying liberal claims youíve been regurgitating?
I'm not sure what you think one years' statistics mean in the larger scheme of things. If we compare job creation and income growth for the entire Bush presidency to the entire Clinton presidency, the economy far outperformed during the 90's. The only recent presidency during which the average American shared as much from the fruits of our industry as the wealthy rentiers was Clinton.

I notice you don't mention the deficit, which is now below the legacy that Bush left Obama.(Remember the SURPLUS that Clinton left Bush?)

What's worse is that the policies that Obama's opponents recommend failed miserably under Bush. When Clinton raised taxes to close the deficit, the same people who now recommend lowering taxes and spending predicted that higher taxes would push the economy into recession. Instead, the economy accelerated during most of the Clinton presidency. The same people promised that the Bush tax cuts would unleash unprecedented prosperity. The reality was a middling economy and a huge deficit.

The economy still sucks. Perhaps completely undoing the Bush tax cuts would help.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#166 Mar 12, 2014
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not a corporations duty to pay me enough to buy a Lexus. Neither are they required to give me an opportunity to own a Lexus.
You do realize that the goal of a corporation is to make a profit, right?
BTW, are you ready to admit your error regarding your claims about 2005, or are you hoping no one noticed I blew your position completely out of the water with all those hard facts I posted?
Yes, but when employers pay less in real terms than they did in 1967, something is wrong with the social contract. When the average worker for the nations' largest employer needs food stamps to feed the family and Section 8 to pay the rent, the costs of their employees are socialized to tax payers who may not even use their products.

Why is it okay with you that my tax money subsidizes employees of Walmart and McDonalds? Why not demand that these corporations carry their own burden by paying their employees enough to live? And doesn't living require health care?

Do you really want poor women in labor to be turned away from the hospital? The alternatives are (1) have the employer pay enough to cover insurance or (2) socialize the cost of providing health care to the employees--either through insurance subsidies or payments for emergency care.

Your policies actually end up socializing costs to the benefit of corporations who pocket the savings by underpaying workers. That's the real reason the costs of social programs are increasing: Without government subsidies to the poor, businesses would have to pay employees enough to live on. Businesses don't want the subsidies to end.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#167 Mar 12, 2014
Fred wrote:
<quoted text>
STFU
Can't address any of the issues?

*YAWN*

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#168 Mar 12, 2014
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet another liberal denying facts and reality even when someone rubs his nose in it.
ad hominem fallacy

NEXT

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#169 Mar 12, 2014
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not a corporations duty to pay me enough to buy a Lexus. Neither are they required to give me an opportunity to own a Lexus.
You do realize that the goal of a corporation is to make a profit, right?
BTW, are you ready to admit your error regarding your claims about 2005, or are you hoping no one noticed I blew your position completely out of the water with all those hard facts I posted?
red herring fallacy

irrelevant

lies
guest

United States

#170 Mar 12, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
I'm not sure what you think one years' statistics mean in the larger scheme of things.
I was obliterating the false claims made by another poster about the year 2005. That is why I posted the facts regarding that specific year.
If we compare job creation and income growth for the entire Bush presidency to the entire Clinton presidency...
What's the correlation with job growth and the occupant of the White House? There is none. As I've stated numerous times in this thread, the President has no governmental power over the economy. None. Read the Constitution.

Here's another example of you liberals denying facts and reality.

All governmental power over the economy resides with Congress. Congress alone as the power to coin money and regulate its value. Congress alone has power to lay and collect taxes. Congress alone has the power to borrow money on the credit of the U.S. Congress must authorize the spending of every federal dollar.

If you want to compare the state of the economy to someone in government, it makes sense to compare it to those who controlled Congress. Comparing the state of the economy to the President is like comparing the number of cars sold in Dallas to the number of pregnancies in Alaska. They don't have anything to do with one another.
I notice you don't mention the deficit, which is now below the legacy that Bush left Obama.(Remember the SURPLUS that Clinton left Bush?)
Here's another example of you liberals denying facts and reality.

When Clinton left office, the nation was farther in debt that when he took office. That's a fact. There never was any surplus. That's another fact. The debt increased every year that Clinton was in office. That's yet another fact.

That being said, the Republican controlled Congress did pass balanced budget after balanced budget, but actual spending continued to outpace revenues, causing deficits every year when Clinton was President, which of course added to the debt. And that's yet another fact.

Republicans controlled Congress for 12 years. During that time, the national debt increased $4 trillion, or an average annual increase of $333 billion. And that's yet another fact. Since Democrats gained control of Congress after the 2006 elections, the average annual deficit has been 4 times that much,$1.3 trillion per year. And that's yet another fact.

Again, look at who has the power to borrow money. It ain't the President. Blame or credit goes to Congress.
The economy still sucks.
Of course it does. Throwing away borrowed money isn't the answer. Democrats have proven they don't have a clue how to fix the economy. What needs to be done is to implement policies that stimulate economic growth, not stifle it like Democrats have done for the last 5 years.
guest

United States

#171 Mar 12, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
Yes, but when employers pay less in real terms than they did in 1967, something is wrong with the social contract.
There is no such thing as a social contract. That's just double speak for government taking over the free market economy.

What an employer and an employee agree upon is the only contract that is applicable.
When the average worker for the nations' largest employer needs food stamps to feed the family and Section 8 to pay the rent, the costs of their employees are socialized to tax payers who may not even use their products.
Sounds to me like the employees need to gain more knowledge and skill so they can get a better paying job. Cutting open large cardboard boxes and stocking shelves is a job anyone can do. That means it's not worth much.
Why is it okay with you that my tax money subsidizes employees of Walmart and McDonalds?
I never said it was. I'm against government socialist programs and think they should all be abolished. If the hamburger flipper at McDonald's doesn't like what he's getting paid, let him learn a new skill that is in higher demand, then he'll increase his earning capacity.

I once worked for a fast food restaurant. I didn't want to earn minimum wage all my life so I went to college, then landed a better paying job. But I didn't stop there, I continued to gain knowledge, skills and abilities so that when better opportunities came alone I was prepared to take advantage of them.

I don't have time to listen to whining crybabies. Everyone in America has the opportunity to succeed. No one needs to stay at a minimum wage job unless he's too damn lazy or too stupid to improve his job skills.
Why not demand that these corporations carry their own burden by paying their employees enough to live?
Because we have a free market economy, not government controlled socialism. If you want that type of control, move to Russia, China or North Korea.
Do you really want poor women in labor to be turned away from the hospital?
I didn't tell them to get pregnant. Again, their plight is their own responsibility. Why should I have to pay for the consequences of some gal's wild night at the bar when she chose to have a one night stand and ended up pregnant? It's her problem to deal with, not mine.
Your policies actually end up socializing costs to the benefit of corporations who pocket the savings by underpaying workers.
No they don't. The problem isn't the wages employers pay. The problem is socialist programs implemented by Democrats. If not for them, people would be forced to be responsible for themselves, as they should be, and working people like me wouldn't have to pay the cost for other people's problems.

“Crybaby men are such a bore”

Since: Mar 14

The wild wild north

#172 Mar 12, 2014
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Because this is American, founded upon the principles of individual freedom and limited government, and established on rugged individualism and self reliance. That is our culture.
The culture you Marxists support is contrary to the American ethic. If you don't want to live free and be responsible for yourself, then you should move to a Marxist country where you'll be taken care of by government.
You are a traitor to America and every American. By supporting rank Marxism, you spit on the graves of every soldier who died fighting for the freedoms you so willingly surrender to get a free handout from big daddy government. You are a disgrace.
First off let me say that America was founded on a big steaming pile of BULLSHIT. Drunkards and money mongers that could not have cared less about the citizenry.

Actually you are the traitor and the self absorbed wangless wonder . My WW2 dad was a GOOD American, he believed in caring and concern for his fellow citizens. He was not a self absorbed crybaby like you. Like I said...Hit the road jack......need help packing? Find someone who gives a rip about you....good luck.
guest

United States

#173 Mar 12, 2014
Morgana9Rules wrote:
First off let me say that America was founded on a big steaming pile of BULLSHIT.
Then why do you choose to live here? Move.
Actually you are the traitor and the self absorbed wangless wonder
I'm not the one trying to destroy the bedrock principles that this nation was founded upon, you are.
My WW2 dad was a GOOD American
Too bad you turned out to be a traitor. I bet you're quite a disappointment to him.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#174 Mar 12, 2014
guest wrote:
No they don't. The problem isn't the wages employers pay. The problem is socialist programs implemented by Democrats. If not for them, people would be forced to be responsible for themselves, as they should be, and working people like me wouldn't have to pay the cost for other people's problems.
Actually, government aid for the poor has been foisted on the public as an alternative to raising minimum wage. As I pointed out (and you're too stubborn to see), government aid enables workers to live on wages that don't cover the cost of living. Other tax payers have to pick up the tab for providing those workers for the corporations.

You are actually the socialist here. I want corporations to pay the full freight of providing the services they offer. You are perfectly content to force people into reliance on government hand-outs. But you still want you Walmart and your McDonalds and you want the waitress at the fancy restaurant to take care of your family for a couple of bucks an hour.

So stop complaining about the taxes. You can't have underpaid workers at Walmart and lower dependency. Think about how illogical your argument is: If every worker at Walmart got a college education, we'd still need Walmart workers. But Walmart wouldn't pay them any more for stocking shelves just because they have a degree.
Shinichiro Takizawa

Tokyo, Japan

#175 Mar 12, 2014
Wars, nuclear-power-plant-disasters, huge-earth-quakes and huge-natural-disasters must occur in Japan, China, Taiwan, South-Korea, Germany and Russia now!

Wars, nuclear-power-plant-disasters, huge-earth-quakes and huge-natural-disasters in Japan, China, Taiwan, South-Korea, Germany and Russia
will cause reconstruction-demands in Japan, China, Taiwan, South-Korea, Germany and Russia

Wars, nuclear-power-plant-disasters, huge-earth-quakes and huge-natural-disasters in Japan, China, Taiwan, South-Korea, Germany and Russia
will increase Japan's, China's, Taiwan's, South-Korea's, Germany's and Russia's domestic-demands!

Wars, nuclear-power-plant-disasters, huge-earth-quakes and huge-natural-disasters in Japan, China, Taiwan, South-Korea, Germany and Russia
will decrease supplies from Japan, China, Taiwan, South-Korea, Germany and Russia!

Japan must have military-draft-system of Japan in Japan now!
All Jap between the age of 18 and 27 must be drafted by Japanese-Forces now!
All Japanese-men and and Japanese-boys between the age of 18 and 27 must be drafted by Japanese-Forces now!
All Japanese-women and all Japanese-girls between the age of 18 and 27 must be drafted by Japanese-Forces now!

Japan, South-Korea, Taiwan and Germany must increase their military-budgets and military-forces now!
Japan, South-Korea, Taiwan, British, Italy and Germany must protect Japan, South-Korea, Taiwan, British, Italy and Germany by themselves now!

We are American-99%!
I love the U.S.! I love Americna-99%!

Remember Pearl Harbor!
Finally, Japan will be destoyed!
China, Taiwan, Japan, South-Korea, Germany and Russia are evil-fascism-communism-empires !
Responsibility

Petaluma, CA

#176 Mar 12, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, government aid for the poor has been foisted on the public as an alternative to raising minimum wage. As I pointed out (and you're too stubborn to see), government aid enables workers to live on wages that don't cover the cost of living. Other tax payers have to pick up the tab for providing those workers for the corporations.
You are actually the socialist here. I want corporations to pay the full freight of providing the services they offer. You are perfectly content to force people into reliance on government hand-outs. But you still want you Walmart and your McDonalds and you want the waitress at the fancy restaurant to take care of your family for a couple of bucks an hour.
So stop complaining about the taxes. You can't have underpaid workers at Walmart and lower dependency. Think about how illogical your argument is: If every worker at Walmart got a college education, we'd still need Walmart workers. But Walmart wouldn't pay them any more for stocking shelves just because they have a degree.
Great comment - thank you.
Cat74

Oswego, IL

#177 Mar 12, 2014
There is no social contract. When you take a job you agree to do it at a certain salary. If you don't want to work for that amount take another position. Unemployment is so high if you don't want to work for what the company offers you they can find someone else that will agree to do it. They owe you nothing. If you don't own the company you agree to their rules.
Responsibility

Petaluma, CA

#178 Mar 12, 2014
Cat74 wrote:
. When you take a job you agree to do it at a certain salary..
Yes, catboy, and anyone who works full time hopes they do not need help from the pesky government and they can pay their bills and support their family on that "certain salary".
1 post removed

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#180 Mar 12, 2014
Responsibility wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, catboy, and anyone who works full time hopes they do not need help from the pesky government and they can pay their bills and support their family on that "certain salary".
Most people work at close to minimum wage. Even truck drivers work for around $15 per hour. The brilliant economists all taught us the free market and invisible hand mantra. We don't build much stuff here and all the good jobs get outsourced and people get laid off. Try paying for health insurance if you work for yourself once you are over forty. GOP gives lip service to social issues as usual.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#181 Mar 12, 2014
Morgana9Rules wrote:
<quoted text>
First off let me say that America was founded on a big steaming pile of BULLSHIT. Drunkards and money mongers that could not have cared less about the citizenry.
Actually you are the traitor and the self absorbed wangless wonder . My WW2 dad was a GOOD American, he believed in caring and concern for his fellow citizens. He was not a self absorbed crybaby like you. Like I said...Hit the road jack......need help packing? Find someone who gives a rip about you....good luck.
Very true.

Since: Sep 08

Anderson, IN

#182 Mar 13, 2014
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
I've outlined it in this thread already. Go back and review. I'm not going to give you remedial training.
I don't want an outline. I want a your definition of Marxism and examples of this government being Marxist.

If you don't know, just say so. You won't be the first right winger to not know the definitions of the terms they use.

Since: Sep 08

Anderson, IN

#183 Mar 13, 2014
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why do you choose to live here? Move.
<quoted text>
I'm not the one trying to destroy the bedrock principles that this nation was founded upon, you are.
<quoted text>
Too bad you turned out to be a traitor. I bet you're quite a disappointment to him.
Bad response. There are two parties, for the most part, in this nation. We vote for what we want unless the right has gerry mandered the district. Then we vote for whom they have sectioned off.

I love my nation. But I don't like the politics for the rich and the outcome of poverty for 98% of the American people like the republicans created prior to the big depression. That I can change and that is why your argument to leave is so lame.

What are the "bedrock principles" this nation was founded upon?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 8 min Brian_G 46,316
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 17 min Agents of Corruption 256,242
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 28 min Brian_G 32,475
Longtime GOP Texas Gov. Perry wins another term (Nov '10) 38 min fubar 22,288
Ukraine Says Russia Has Invaded 55 min Minority heard 8
Teen's Shooting Highlights Racial Tension 1 hr Concern Citizen 1,377
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr Yeah 1,100,230
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

US Politics People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••