stevenash

:):) :)

Correct, LumRaiderFan.   But I think they over rate the punitive value of that effort.

Smitty- It would appear that if the "more englightened" can't find fault with the article or its origin, they will simply avoid your inquiry.

There is no accountability in government. I agree with Bullets also. The old theory that government employees needed to be paid more in order to compete with the private sector simply isn't true anymore. In the majority of cases, government employees earn more than their private business counterparts and get retirement benefits unavailable to most in the private sector. That is why we should not lose sight of the value of the profit motive where everyone is held accountable.

In the second quarter of 2014, the U.S. Postal Service lost 2 billion dollars. In the same quarter last year, it lost 740 million dollars. If you add to these two numbers the fact that the USPS defaulted on its debt last fall, how on earth can ANYONE believe that government needs to be more involved in the businesses conducted in this country? In the meantime, privately held and managed UPS and FedEx continue to be profitable. self supporting enterprises.

I much prefer for the markets to determine who manufactures goods and where they are manufactured than to have the government do it. We can readily improve the jobs situation not by more government intervention but by government getting out of the way. Keystone pipeline is a great example of jobs waiting to happen. If one believes that we should somehow mandate that we buy only what we produce, he or she ought to consider that we would likely lose some jobs for people who are involved in manufacturing goods that are exported. I would also be willing to bet that there would be more full time jobs right now if Obamacare did not exist.

una fuerte explosion   asado

[Hidden Content]

EOC- If Hillary is going to spank those that you call the Teabaggers, why even bother talking about them? After all, they are an insignificant majority who will not ( in your mind) play a meaningful part in the political process. In spite of all that, you constantly malign them as though they are a threat to the well being of the country. Exactly what is it that troubles you about people supporting lower taxes and smaller government?

Dove- if you disagree with the rationale regarding men( heads of families) leaving home, could you offer what you believe is the more likely reason? If most of the people do not, as you contend, reach out for assistance until they really need it, is there anything wrong in trying to be more aggressive in dealing with those who reach out who dont really need it? If someone is being given a well deserved helping hand, should that helping hand be there permanently or is it reasonable to place some limitations on the duration of those helping hands?

Indubitably- and they were "broke" when they left the Whitehouse

Only ECO can answer that question as he is the only non biased and truly objective participant on this board.

un boum roti

Big Girl- Looks like the circumstance that prevented you from reading the article in another post has not slowed you down on the other subjects.  Be honest- you read the article but denied doing so because you could nt find fault with Mr. Cobb or what he had to say.

Thank you for all of the credible and relevant responses.  Particularly from those who cry and bemoan the lack of "facts" expressed on this board.

EOC- who on this board has identified himself as a teabagger? Or is it just a label you have decided to affix to those who disagree with you?

The question was addressed to ECO and the question was not who was a true Republican but rather why there were no democrats on Mt. Rushmore. Sorry, ECO, but there is no BOOM ROASTED here.

Why are there no democrats on Mount Rushmore?

You are really making some impressive points.

Be careful there, ECO- you know how you hate blanket generalizations

Why don't you read the article about him that was given in the original post and then let us know

Is it a possibility that perhaps we shouldn't have the government do anything regarding peoples weight? I know that is a very novel approach to a certain segment of population, but there are actually some aspects of our lives for which we do not need government.

I am not a big fan of government attempting to regulate human behavior via the tax system. Who is going to establish the parameters for being fat? What if a person is within those parameters in September but exceeds them in October and then falls back into "compliance" in November

ECO- Are all people who are overweight in that position because " they eat too much/often at Whataburger"? Are there medical conditions that can cause one to be overweight? As a social liberal, shouldn't you be more "compassionate" toward those who have weight issues?

ECO- You are telling me to see my way out? Sorry, sir but you are a rookie and I am a veteran. And you talk about somebody whining. You have been whining daily about how the board is too conservative, too unfair, and too biased. Surely you aren't still trying to sell the idea that you are an independent.