Taxes, the Deficit/Debt, and the Fiscal Cliff

[magnetfreezer]

So you don't want your money contributing to the wellbeing anyone else except yourself and your family, you want the government to provide no "entitlement" benefits to its citizens whatsoever, and you're looking to base all rational analysis of public policy on one single source document rather than the boatload of additional available data.

Sounds like you don't want any government at all. There are places in the world where that can be arranged; I've been so some of them and maybe you have too.

The "single source" was the agreement between the original 13 colonies (Articles of Confederation) that was then amended into the Constitution thereby producing a legitimate federal government instead of 13. Just like the ATO, if it doesn't fit with your idea of the changing times or the boatload of data, submit a change request instead of just setting it aside.

[nsplayr]

My point was not that the Constitution isn't valid, it certainly is since it's the source of the rest of our laws. It was that saying, "[sic] Base all public policy analysis off the constitution" is juvenile when there's obviously much more that goes into good public policy analysis than referencing a fairly short and in many ways (purposefully) vague document.

If you think Public Policy 101 = The Constitution you've clearly never taken Public Policy 101.

[Winchester]

Aka public entitlement 101.

[lloyd christmas]

In broad terms you reduce future benefits by changing the program to include less generous benefits for future enrollees, you can even reduce benefits for current enrollees if you're feeling bold.

This administration is clearly willing to reduce benefits... In "broad terms" isnt that why we are in the financial situation we are in?

[nsplayr]

This administration is clearly willing to reduce benefits... In "broad terms" isnt that why we are in the financial situation we are in?

Are you missing a "not" in there or something? Question doesn't quite make sense as written.

[slackline]

Are you missing a "not" in there or something? Question doesn't quite make sense as written.

You just missed the sarcasm in it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[disgruntledemployee]

You talking about social security or medicare specifically? Or some other program? Gotta be more specific if you want specific answers.

But here are my specific questions

Welfare? You know, food stamps, WIC, public housing, etc.

Unemplyment (federal subsidies)?

Taxes?

Minimum wage?

BTW, how do you make welfare solvent?

And lastly, since you didn't answer any questions on welfare and the current general welfare recipient mentality, let me clue you in. There is little work ethic and its all about gaining as much benefit as possible. They are experts at gaming the system to gain as much as possible. Its no longer the system it was intented to be, which was to help people get back up after falling upon hardship. Dems know this and count on the fear that Republicans want to take it all away and thus get the votes.

Out

But I get it. When someone shows you something that doesn't fit, you look the other way.

You know, I once knew a die hard liberal back in college, you know voted dem, wanted gays to serve in the military (before DADT), pro-choice, blah, blah, blah. That person went on to get married (I hear begrudginly taking the mans last name), had kids, stopped working (hubby made plenty), and over time, became one of the most conservative people I know (pro-life, marriage is between a man and woman, and so on). Its a phenomenon I've seen to varying degrees with people as they get older (wiser in my opinion). Maybe conservatism will hit you one day.

Out

[RASH]

So you don't want your money contributing to the wellbeing anyone else except yourself and your family, you want the government to provide no "entitlement" benefits to its citizens whatsoever, and you're looking to base all rational analysis of public policy on one single source document rather than the boatload of additional available data.

Exactly. Especially when it comes to charity, I want full control of my money. Give me one good reason my money should go to someone who chooses not to work...

Sounds like you don't want any government at all. There are places in the world where that can be arranged; I've been so some of them and maybe you have too.

Again, Public Policy 101. It's not government's job...

Good luck with that and good luck selling your vision to the voting public!

That's the kicker. People who would rather suckle on the government teat will always vote for that type of government. How do you think we got where we are?

I've seen it first hand. I grew up on a farm where my parents were at/below the poverty level. My older sister just turned 55 this year. She has two bachelor's degrees (Microbiology and Medical Technology) and two master's degrees that were "provided" by the government in the form of need-based scholarships, grants, and fellowships. It was during this time she realized that she doesn't have to work--Uncle Sugar will provide for her just fine. She hasn't held a job for more than 3 months, has been on some sort of entitlement program her entire life, and has had 2 illegitimate children just to keep the funds flowing.

So explain to me why we should be supporting this kind of person...

[disgruntledemployee]

I've seen it first hand. I grew up on a farm where my parents were at/below the poverty level. My older sister just turned 55 this year. She has two bachelor's degrees (Microbiology and Medical Technology) and two master's degrees that were "provided" by the government in the form of need-based scholarships, grants, and fellowships. It was during this time she realized that she doesn't have to work--Uncle Sugar will provide for her just fine. She hasn't held a job for more than 3 months, has been on some sort of entitlement program her entire life, and has had 2 illegitimate children just to keep the funds flowing.

Mind if use your story to press home the point?

Lets say that the govt no longer has the money or policy to give the sister a check/house/food credit card a month. Will the sister ask family for handouts? Maybe, but that charity only goes so far. Family will get tired easiliy of bailing out sis, especially when she is capable of work. Family may even say, if you want help, you need to drop sat/cable TV, go to a basic phone plan, stop eating out, trade the escalade in for a dodge, etc. ASAP, you will want sis earning her own keep and not sucking away the hard-earned money from family members.

My point is that the gov't has become enablers of laziness. When its so easy to get handouts, why work?

Out

[HeloDude]

When its so easy to get handouts, why work?

And what is a liberal's (ie Nsplayr) response to this:

I agree that the victim mentality of some of those stuck in persistent poverty is a problem but I would not ague it's getting worse, certainly not worse than even our recent past.

More people on some form of welfare than ever before, whether it be food stamps, government housing, disability, Medicaid, etc, but yes, 'it's not getting worse' he says--give me a break. Oh and he also tried to argue that increases in out of wedlock births 'may not be a bad thing'...yes, more unmarried moms are definitely the way forward to prosperity <sarcasm>.

The Dems always play this game--they deny, shift the discussion, and then deny again if necessary. Just look at how the Dems vote and the statistics that arise from their policy--they WANT people relying on the federal government in one form or another. Then they are the ones saying 'look what we are doing for you...the other side wants to take it away'. If the Dems were serious about cutting spending then they would have never passed Obamacare, which the GAO is now saying will add $6 TRILLION to the long-term deficit.

NSplayr is correct when it comes to one thing--to him and the left, it's all about politics and winning elections.

[Fuzz]

Its a phenomenon I've seen to varying degrees with people as they get older (wiser in my opinion). Maybe conservatism will hit you one day.

Out

As my high school government teacher said, everyone is a democrat till they have to grow up and pay taxes. I think for the most part that used to be true, now we have so many people on entitlements that they've never seen their paycheck drained to go to people who don't work.

[nsplayr]

But here are my specific questions

My clarifying question was not toward you. Here are the answers to your questions, call it volume II of the nsplayer's guide to ideal public policy:

Welfare/food stamps/WIC/public housing: structure programs to help those truly in the most need in a generous way without incentivizing freeloading by those who could provide for themselves. This means getting rid of the welfare cliffs you see now where a person could work more and earn more money, but end up with less in their pocketbook due to a larger decrease in benefit payments. It's about having smart government, not less government IMHO.

Unemployment: combine further fiscal and monetary stimulus with a revamping of the corporate tax code to simplify and reduce rates to remain competitive in a global marketplace. I'm also a big fan personally of public works projects and having the government temporarily hire (or contract hire) those who are employed to undertake the large-scale but relatively low-skill jobs that need doing.

Taxes: I think the part of the fiscal cliff deal that was a mistake was making ~82% of the Bus tax cuts permanent; I think they should have been extended until we hit an economic benchmark considered healthy and then phased in again for all taxpayers. Kind of like what the Fed is doing with monetary policy...committing to extremely pro-growth policies (low interest rates, low taxes) in the short term until X is reached, then return to a more small "c" conservative set of policies after the long, slow recovery we're experiencing is complete.

Minimum Wage: should be indexed to cost of living/inflation/some similar measure providing automatic increases or decreases as necessary. One minimum wage for the entire nation, eliminate differences between states.

You also asked, "How do you make welfare solvent?" I'll ask you here, which program do you mean exactly? Generally it's not welfare that's driving deficits, it's the vastly larger programs like Medicare; the ways to make that program solvent long-term have been pretty extensively discussed by actual policy experts.

So there ya have it...always happy to share my view but I continue to be surprised why people seem to care so much. I'm not sure what I'm offering is much different than a fairly standard Democratic party platform and it's pretty clear I'm basically Captain Joe Schmoe Air Force nav; maybe ask your Congressman these questions and see what he comes back with.

But I get it. When someone shows you something that doesn't fit, you look the other way.

How so? What have you presented that doesn't fit with what I'm saying?

You know, I once knew a die hard liberal back in college, you know voted dem, wanted gays to serve in the military (before DADT), pro-choice, blah, blah, blah. That person went on to get married (I hear begrudginly taking the mans last name), had kids, stopped working (hubby made plenty), and over time, became one of the most conservative people I know (pro-life, marriage is between a man and woman, and so on). Its a phenomenon I've seen to varying degrees with people as they get older (wiser in my opinion). Maybe conservatism will hit you one day.

Cool story. I think I'm plenty grown up with a career and a kid and a mortgage not to be patronized that, "Oh well, one day when you grow up you'll be a conservative!" Come on...40% of non-hispanic whites 55 and older identify with the Democratic party...not sure how much older and wiser (or whiter) they need to get before suddenly seeing the light and crossing over to the GOP. You're right that the older you are the more likely it is that you'll be a conservative, but by no means is that the same as saying that everyone who gets older beyond a certain threshold of self-responsibility becomes a conservative.

Rash, the way you use the forums makes it very difficult to respond since you just edit my quote rather than typing your responses separately. FWIW.

If you want full control of your money (whatever that means...no taxes?) and don't think it's the government's job to help its people who are struggling, that type of arrangement can be hand in many areas around the world. It doesn't, however, exist in any advanced nation nor am I sure why anyone would want it to.

WRT your sister, obviously you know her and I don't, seems like you're in the best position to help in whatever way you think is best. If that informs your views on public policy more broadly great, but I'm not sure if personal anecdotes are really prescriptive for society as a whole.

[nsplayr]

And what is a liberal's (ie Nsplayr) response to this:

She seems like an idiot; our assistance programs should not be structured where they become a disincentive to work. I'm assuming that's pretty much what your response would be other than I think you personally would probably call her a "crack mom" since that's your go-to phrase for setting the tone.

If the Dems were serious about cutting spending then they would have never passed Obamacare, which the GAO is now saying will add $6 TRILLION to the long-term deficit.

That's an interesting conclusion to draw from that report...it's almost like you pulled the headline right from the National Review story about it...humm...

I'm not one that's ever argued that Obamacare is ideal or without fault (I would have wanted something much more of a clean-slate, but I'm guessing the President would have wanted that too), but here's the deal: it's the law, if you don't like it I'm sorry, the fight was valiant but you've lost very dramatically in both Congress and the Supreme Court. I'm absolutely done relitigating that particular fight.

NSplayr is correct when it comes to one thing--to him and the left, it's all about politics and winning elections.

It's not all about winning elections, I also think the Democratic party is leaps and bounds ahead when it comes to smart public policy, but that's all based on your own views to YMMV obviously.

One thing I think a lot of activists on both sides miss though is that, yes, it is somewhat about winning elections. If you fail to run the right candidates or talk about issues in the right way or support policies the public overwhelmingly supports, you will be unable to even have a seat at the table when it comes to governing. I know a lot of people here are libertarians but for those who are still part of the GOP, you guys always look up to Reagan as your idol and rightly so, politically at least in my opinion. He was able to forward conservative policies, talk to the American people in a positive way that inspired hope (compared to Carter's malaise-talk), and was able to absolutely crush the Democrats in his reelection bid because of it.

If you ever want to see that kind of victory again, one that might usher in a sweeping conservative agenda, there needs to be some thought and effort put into actually winning elections in the way that Reagan and other successful conservatives have in the past.

Having positive policy prescriptions and emotionally connecting with Americans who are working hard but struggling to get by should be your first thought when it comes to presenting a conservative solution to a problem; simply forwarding the most purist policy from the get-go and using a tone that alienates large swaths of the voting population is bad technique.

If and when the next Republican or conservative wins the White House, ask yourself if he followed that advice.

Edited March 3, 2013 by nsplayr

[Vertigo]

So now I'm not only responsible for my own family, but someone else's also?

Welcome to this thing we call "society".

[matmacwc]

Ns.....Did you just reply to yourself? Minimum wage is a nogo for me, entry level job, you do not support a family on it, you are getting trained to do something therefore get paid ALOT less than anyone else, earn your raise, but that's a bigger can of worms than I will deal with on a forum.

[HeloDude]

Words...

Here's the problem I see when you try to argue (which means I'm either getting better or you're getting worse or some combination of there of) is that you argue almost entirely on emotion. Your main source of argument is that 'we should do X because it's the right thing to do, it's the 'fair' thing to do, it's what other western countries do'...blah blah blah--that's arguing on emotion. Or when you say, 'well, the majority of the people want X from the government, therefore we should do it, blah blah blah'--now you're just arguing on behalf of other people's emotions. And occasionally you'll bring up The Constitution, when it suits you--ie gay marriage, voter ID, etc...and good on you when that occasionally happens. And occasionally (you used to do it much more) you'll actually post data to back up what you say...and for the record, finding someone else to give their opinion that you share still makes it just an opinion.

So to address your comments:

-The woman in the video doesn't 'seem' like an idiot, she is one. 200 years ago she'd be dead because nobody would want to support a lazy bum (and yes, I'm aware of slavery, etc...200 years ago a white guy saying the same thing would be dead). And there are plenty more just like her, in all genders and ethnicity. Again, welfare has been rapidly on the rise over the recent years (you never responded to that one). I watched some of the DNC convenetion--your party ran on giving free stuff, whether it was healthcare, education, birth control, health insurance, etc. This woman (again, regardless of what color she is as there are crack moms of all ethnic backgrounds) helps your party win elections.

-Yep, the article on Obamacare came from the National Review, though the GAO came out with the figure. You never commented on the fact that the GAO said it will add $6 TRILLION to the debt--you just dodged the issue and talked about how you wanted something else. Also, you never responded to the fact that if the Dems were serious about spending cuts then they would have never had passed Obamacare in its current form.

-It is almost entirely about winning elections for the Dems, that and getting more people on the government dole, which then helps then win more elections. You proved my point a couple days ago by saying it was non-politically smart for Obama to decide where to make the cuts. But yet, I'm supposed to believe that he really wants cuts? If he wanted cuts, then he should have had his party accept the GOP proposal so that he as the President could decide where to make the cuts. But, since it's all about politics, he refused. Me, I would love to prioritize what's important and what's least important and make the cuts accordingly, but then that would require leadership on his part. But I understand, he'd rather campaign more than lead.

-As for future elections, dude, you called it a while back when I didn't see it--the demographics are changing so rapidly that the Dems have a distinct advantage, and thus again, that's why they want to provide more entitlements (that an amnesty) to ensure the vote. Rubio may be able to pull out a squeaker against Hillary in 2016 (and if so, may be able to pull out another close one in 2020 due to incumbency), but I think that's it. The only way the GOP could win after that is if they became more like Dems and jump on the entitlement bandwagon, but in that case, what's the difference (In many ways they've already done this). A latest poll I saw 2 weeks ago (searched but couldn't find it) stated that 79% of Hispanics believe the government should do MORE for people...well, we all know the party that enjoys giving more, and the vast majority of these 79% will vote accordingly--similar to what happened in Nov. Like you said man, it's not rocket surgery--I get it. Here is the link about how Hispanic vote is likely to double by 2030.

So there it is man, like I said, I get it. You even have more and more people from the Dem party saying we don't have a spending problem--Pelosi, Sen Harkin, and I could name others if need be. So until something big happens, like an economic collapse, I see the vector heading the same way.

...oh, and for the other BO'ers, sorry for the TDLR post again.

Welcome to this thing we call "society".

If you were a true Libertarian, you would be against just about all forms of federal welfare programs. If States want to do it, that's fine. Man, had to call you out again.

[Buddy Spike]

Ns.....Did you just reply to yourself? Minimum wage is a nogo for me, entry level job, you do not support a family on it, you are getting trained to do something therefore get paid ALOT less than anyone else, earn your raise, but that's a bigger can of worms than I will deal with on a forum.

Until nsplyr and his fellow liberals pick up an economics textbook, they will never understand the flawed logic in raising the minimum wage for "inflation/cost of living"

[nsplayr]

Here's the problem I see when you try to argue (which means I'm either getting better or you're getting worse or some combination of there of) is that you argue almost entirely on emotion. Your main source of argument is that 'we should do X because it's the right thing to do, it's the 'fair' thing to do, it's what other western countries do'...blah blah blah--that's arguing on emotion. Or when you say, 'well, the majority of the people want X from the government, therefore we should do it, blah blah blah'--now you're just arguing on behalf of other people's emotions. And occasionally you'll bring up The Constitution, when it suits you--ie gay marriage, voter ID, etc...and good on you when that occasionally happens. And occasionally (you used to do it much more) you'll actually post data to back up what you say...and for the record, finding someone else to give their opinion that you share still makes it just an opinion.

In my most recent posts here it's been extremely broad brushes on almost every major domestic issue...not sure how you want me to back everything up with facts without extreme violations of TLDR. On top of that, some things are based on your worldview; I'm hoping everyone's worldview is backed up by facts but there is an aspect of what you think is right, what fits with your values. Liberty and security are often held up as opposite values, and while that's not entirely true, neither value is right or wrong, in fact I'd say they're both "right." If you argued for a policy that ensured more liberty and I argued for one that ensured more security (hypothetically), would that be based on emotion and thus null and void in your view?

The woman in the video doesn't 'seem' like an idiot, she is one. 200 years ago she'd be dead because nobody would want to support a lazy bum (and yes, I'm aware of slavery, etc...200 years ago a white guy saying the same thing would be dead).

So you'd rather her be dead then dependent on help from the rest of society? I think I know the answer but giving you a fair shot.

This woman (again, regardless of what color she is as there are crack moms of all ethnic backgrounds) helps your party win elections.

If she voted for Democratic party candidates in the past, which we don't know but it seems likely if she voted at all, good on her. If that's the case she's an idiot based on what she said in the video but I'll absolutely take her vote for my party or my candidate. If you're not interested in getting voters to vote for your party or your candidate in elections, you really aren't interested in governing. Academic debates on what policies are best are all in good fun, but until you're able to govern (or influence those who govern) what you believe in doesn't really mean sh*t in terms of impacting the country.

You never commented on the fact that the GAO said it will add $6 TRILLION to the debt--you just dodged the issue and talked about how you wanted something else.

Because that's not what they said at all. Under one possible forecasting model for the future, Obamacare, if its cost control measures are not fully implanted or sustained as intended, will add 0.7% of GDP to the debt. That's an entirely different conclusion than "X will cause Y," which is what the headline and Sen. Sessions who ordered the study implied for obvious reasons.

Also, you never responded to the fact that if the Dems were serious about spending cuts then they would have never had passed Obamacare in its current form.

Since I and probably the rest of the party believe that the cost control measures in Obamacare will in fact control costs more than the previous baseline (i.e. no change to healthcare law), there's no disconnect. It's also hard to argue that, "Well, they supported something in the past that led to deficits, they must not be serious about deficit reduction!" since both parties are guilty as charged then. Like I said before, Obamacare is signed, sealed and delivered, let's focus on other things. The Dems say they want to reduce the deficit by a certain set of policies, the GOP wants to reduce the deficit with a different set.

-It is almost entirely about winning elections for the Dems, that and getting more people on the government dole, which then helps then win more elections. You proved my point a couple days ago by saying it was non-politically smart for Obama to decide where to make the cuts. But yet, I'm supposed to believe that he really wants cuts? If he wanted cuts, then he should have had his party accept the GOP proposal so that he as the President could decide where to make the cuts. But, since it's all about politics, he refused. Me, I would love to prioritize what's important and what's least important and make the cuts accordingly, but then that would require leadership on his part. But I understand, he'd rather campaign more than lead.

Our assessments differ, big surprise. Because politicians engage in politics does not make it "all about politics" in my opinion.

-As for future elections, dude, you called it a while back when I didn't see it--the demographics are changing so rapidly that the Dems have a distinct advantage, and thus again, that's why they want to provide more entitlements (that an amnesty) to ensure the vote. Rubio may be able to pull out a squeaker against Hillary in 2016 (and if so, may be able to pull out another close one in 2020 due to incumbency), but I think that's it. The only way the GOP could win after that is if they became more like Dems and jump on the entitlement bandwagon, but in that case, what's the difference (In many ways they've already done this). A latest poll I saw 2 weeks ago (searched but couldn't find it) stated that 79% of Hispanics believe the government should do MORE for people...well, we all know the party that enjoys giving more, and the vast majority of these 79% will vote accordingly--similar to what happened in Nov. Like you said man, it's not rocket surgery--I get it. Here is the link about how Hispanic vote is likely to double by 2030.

Well it's an issue for the GOP...do they want to remain fully pure to their current ideological positions or do they want to win national elections? If that becomes an either/or (not sure we're there yet), I guarantee ideological positions will be the thing that changes. The Dems today are very different on a lot of things than they were in the late 1970s and early 1980s when they got run out of power, I expect the GOP will evolve in a similar fashion in order to continue to have a role in governing the nation.

Edited March 4, 2013 by nsplayr

[matmacwc]

More words, can we force the PYB name on this guy?

[HeloDude]

So you'd rather her be dead then dependent on help from the rest of society? I think I know the answer but giving you a fair shot.

If she is able to work and not make poor choices and decides to do the opposite and that kills her, then so be it. Just like when someone kills themselves when they drink and drive or do drugs--personal responsibility man. Like you said, it's not rocket surgery. You want people to be able to marry whoever they way, ie make their own choices, and I agree. No different in this case--she can get off her ass and do something, and if not, she gets the consequences. If your kid doesn't do their homework or study for their tests and then gets a bad grade and fails are you going to say it was their fault or somebody else's fault?

Now, having said all of this...I believe it's up to each individual State to determine how they take care of their poor--whether they want massive taxes and entitlements or to do nothing and let them fend for themselves or somewhere in between. And by the way, charities have always been there in this country to help the most venerable. The government didn't hire Mother Theresa to help people...she decided to that on her own.

As for the rest of the stuff you posted, I'm interested in Liberty, Rights and Freedom...you're more interested in winning elections and turning the country into an even larger welfare state. Hence why I don't back up the GOP's nonsense either...I'm actually surprised they kept together and didn't break before the Sequester, though I guess they always still could.

And again, you never commented on why we have wayyyy more people on some sore of welfare today? You say it's not getting worse, then why are more people on it? And why are we spending more on it? Again, if taxing more and the government spending more led to more prosperity, then why wouldn't every country be doing it and also doing well?

[nsplayr]

Now, having said all of this...I believe it's up to each individual State to determine how they take care of their poor--whether they want massive taxes and entitlements or to do nothing and let them fend for themselves or somewhere in between.

The YMMV country! I just don't get the fascination with having states with radically different policies, are we one nation or what? That's a whole different story though, no need to respond.

And by the way, charities have always been there in this country to help the most venerable. The government didn't hire Mother Theresa to help people...she decided to that on her own.

Private charity can be very efficient but it has no scale. A better combination to me is a partnership between private charity and government programs aimed at raising people out of poverty and providing a minimum level of security for everyone.

And again, you never commented on why we have wayyyy more people on some sore of welfare today? You say it's not getting worse, then why are more people on it? And why are we spending more on it?

The recession of 2008/2009. What I'm saying is the "entitlement mentality" (not total number of people receiving government assistance) today is not worse than it has been in the past.

[Jughead]

Its a phenomenon I've seen to varying degrees with people as they get older (wiser in my opinion). Maybe conservatism will hit you one day.

“Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.”

[MT near]

The YMMV country! I just don't get the fascination with having states with radically different policies, are we one nation or what? That's a whole different story though, no need to respond.

Private charity can be very efficient but it has no scale. A better combination to me is a partnership between private charity and government programs aimed at raising people out of poverty and providing a minimum level of security for everyone.

The recession of 2008/2009. What I'm saying is the &quot;entitlement mentality&quot; (not total number of people receiving government assistance) today is not worse than it has been in the past.

Do you do anything else other than post opinions on baseops?

[Vertigo]

If you were a true Libertarian, you would be against just about all forms of federal welfare programs. If States want to do it, that's fine. Man, had to call you out again.

Reading comprehension. Get it.

He didn't say pay for, he said responsible for.

A libertarian would rather help someone get on their feet rather than paying for them... but by putting in that effort they are still acting as a responsible party for that person. That's what society is all about.

Now go up to the chalkboard and write the phrase "I will work on my reading comprehension" 100 times.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Vertigo

[disgruntledemployee]

If she voted for Democratic party candidates in the past, which we don't know but it seems likely if she voted at all, good on her. If that's the case she's an idiot based on what she said in the video but I'll absolutely take her vote for my party or my candidate. If you're not interested in getting voters to vote for your party or your candidate in elections, you really aren't interested in governing. Academic debates on what policies are best are all in good fun, but until you're able to govern (or influence those who govern) what you believe in doesn't really mean sh*t in terms of impacting the country.

Ah hah! I knew it. You want lots of welfares so you and your party can get more votes. Its all about buying the election versus principle and leadership.

Based on this evidence, are you the type that will take any measure necessary to get promoted? Whatever it takes to ge the votes, right? Because once you gain high rank, you can govern, right? Maybe not, but it has a common sounding theme.

Out