See what I mean:har::har::har::har::har:

Welfare, social security and Medicare/Medicaid aren't charity, they're insurance.

And that is a perspective I've never heard, nor do I comprehend.

Explain, please?

Thinking from Finnish point of view (however relevant that is), I think Mookie means that welfare is not something you pay for and someone else benefits. It's something everyone pays for and everyone benefits. So when you need it, it's there for you.

You get unemployed all the sudden, the government makes sure you'll have at least enough money to feed yourself and you can concentrate on finding a new job instead of just fighting for basic survival. You get sick all the sudden, you can go to a clinic and know you'll get help (note that I have no experience of the American health insurance system, so I can't compare our and your system). I would also count free education all the way up to the university level into this.

In that way it's not charity. I'd say it's even the opposite of charity. That's the point: in case you get into trouble, you are not on the mercy of anyone's charity. You know you'll be taken care of, no matter what.

I'm not going to fantasize here: it has its problems and loopholes as any system. Why do you think it says as it says on my "location"? But at least I have so far been pretty happy with it. Just offering those famous two cents.

Okay, I get that. My problem with the Democrats on the issue of Welfare is that when the conservatives and Tea Party members proposed safeguards and checks to prevent druggies and other people from abusing the system, they either get shot down, or in a few cases, sued

I couldn't have said it better myself!

We as a society have decided that it's better for people who find themselves out of work or in dire financial straits during an economic downturn to have a modicum of support instead of dying in the streets of hunger or sickness.

Good thing Republicans never engage in back room deals.

Yeah, trying to help Britain in WW2 was wrong. What a warmonger. :doh:

Who? When?

Uhh... Newt Gingrich? Both parties have cheaters galore.

This is still relevant because Democratic Party of 2011 is only marginally different from that of the 1860's, and Democrats today would wholeheartedly support segregation. :doh:

:rotfl2: You might want to get your facts straight. I guess you're talking about FDR, and I guess you mean the "Second Bill of Rights" which Roosevelt listed in a speech in Congress- some secret! Read it and tell me where "almost all freedoms" are handed to the Feds.


Guess who created the EPA. Hint: it wasn't a Democrat.

(which is not a Democratic organization) (which is actually in California, and was illegally placed there)
(none of which was done or promoted by the ACLU).

Just a little say on that....
Welfare is a good thing but it should never be the way its done in some EU countries where people are actually living on it.
In Israel we used to have extended welfare many years ago.
Some people had been actually living on it while working illegally.
Now its up to 4 month of welfare and that's it.
You must go work at most ****ty job weather you like it or not for at list a year before coming back knocking at the door.

On another hand i would not like to be USA citizen with your health-care.

Come on angus, you can do much better than that, his complaint against the EPA is just hilarious regardless of who was in power when it was set up.

I agree. There's lots of loopholes and shortfalls in the system as it is currently enacted. People who don't use it as temporary insurance but rather a lifestyle are doing it wrong.

As for health care - I am one of the ones lucky enough to have health insurance through my job. It's not cheap (around $120 a month, plus another $30 or so everytime I see the doctor, plus another $10 each time I get a prescription filled) but it could be much, much worse.

In going back to why Perry wil or will not be President....

While his evangelical side will appeal to many of the Christian right and his fiscal / economic views will satisfy tea partiers, his record on poverty and education results will give more moderate republicans pause. However, his real problem is not "at home".

Perry has some major flaws - his foreign policy. His experience outside the country has been nothing but salesmanship - promotiing free trade and free markets for Texas goods. The people he has chosen to deal with on non-economic matters - are people like Doug Feith. This denotes a return to the "neo-conservative" foreign policy which resulted in significant economic stress and military weakening of this country. America - whether Republican, Democrat or Independant, will shudder at the thought of more wars or foreign interventions. The citizenry just doesn't have the stomach for it.

In any other time, Perry would be likely to pull the nomination - and I think a dog could run against Obummer and win - but the majority of republicans are not hard right, bible thumping internationalist willing to strengthen our economy only to see it spent on overseas action.

The American people are more in tune with returning to focusing at home, not pursuing an aggressive foreign policy abroad. Yes, there will always be places that need our attention outside our borders, but Perry looks to be emulating the latter Bush - and that will create an opening for his opponents to exploit.

I guess it's official now.

http://www.rickperry.org/news/why-im-running/

Alrighty then, makes the decision a lot easier to make.

I'd like to see Scott Brown run sometime...I think he'd go quite far. He seems to be a decent chap. :hmmm: From an outsiders point of view anyway.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/19...omination-bid/

Again, he appeals to out of staters. Texans, not so much.