Let's stop helping poor people, veterans, and farmers

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter chroot
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the implications of government spending priorities, particularly regarding support for poor people, veterans, and farmers. Participants express concerns about the economic policies of the Bush administration, including the impact of proposed changes to veteran benefits and agricultural subsidies.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Political commentary
  • Exploratory reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants criticize the allocation of funds towards "homeland security" at the expense of social support programs for veterans and the poor.
  • One participant suggests that removing price floors on crops could lead to a more balanced agricultural market, potentially eliminating the need for subsidies.
  • Concerns are raised about new costs for veterans, including potential fees for benefits and increased healthcare costs, with some expressing disbelief at the government's willingness to charge veterans for care.
  • There is a belief among some that improving the economy is essential for reducing reliance on welfare, although the effectiveness of current policies is questioned.
  • Participants express differing opinions on the potential outcomes of a Kerry presidency compared to Bush, with some believing that conditions would worsen under Kerry.
  • One participant notes that sociological research indicates a disparity in the knowledge of world events between supporters of Bush and Kerry, suggesting implications for political engagement and awareness.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on government spending priorities and the effectiveness of current policies. There is no clear consensus on the best approach to support veterans, farmers, or the poor, and multiple competing perspectives remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some claims about changes to veteran benefits and economic policies are based on specific interpretations of government actions and may depend on varying definitions of terms like "subsidy" and "price floor." The discussion reflects a mix of personal experiences and broader political commentary.

  • #31
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
JasonRox said:
majority of Canadians agreeing with private health care

Sorry to runoff topic here but...are you sure this is true JasonRox. From my experience and opinion gathering it seems to be the opposite, with the exception of Alberta.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
GENIERE said:
Moonbear-I'm for it. As soon as I finish this response, I'm E-mailing Don Rumsfeld, join me.

LOL! Seriously, I've only been pulling that stuff off the top of my head. There must be things I've overlooked that would complicate the issue (one major one would be getting university administrators to go along with the plan, but as long as it's a public institution and Federal funding is used as the bargaining chip, I think they could be persuaded). Is there some reason this wouldn't work, some hidden cost I haven't considered, etc?
 
  • #34
Moonbear said:
LOL! Seriously, I've only been pulling that stuff off the top of my head. There must be things I've overlooked that would complicate the issue (one major one would be getting university administrators to go along with the plan, but as long as it's a public institution and Federal funding is used as the bargaining chip, I think they could be persuaded). Is there some reason this wouldn't work, some hidden cost I haven't considered, etc?


I did E-mail Rumsfeld. Public or private who cares? Since I'm a tech type guy, I never got past middle management in the three hospitals I worked for and was never interested in the finance side. I'm sure the bueaucrats can (falsely) find many reasons for it not working.
 
  • #35
Ivan Seeking said:
:bugeye: :bugeye: :bugeye: YOU?

You could knock me over with a feather. I thought you were a liberal!
How could you? :cry:
power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Greg was a card carrying liberal. Then he started PF, started raking in the dough. Started looking at tax breaks for the wealthy. all you people who registered and paid your nominal fee are too blame.
 
  • #36
chroot said:
...Bush is almost assuredly going to be remembered as one of history's worst presidents.

Bush's entire goal was: 1) to avenge his father, which he as done, 2) serve a second term--unlike his father, which he as done, and 3) become a legacy in the history books as the best President our country has ever had, what ever it takes, at any cost. This is the method to the madness, and it's two out of three so far. Bush supporters will tell you he will achieve #3.

Most of these supporters have no idea about the topics discussed in this forum, let alone watch the news--be it as crappy as it is. How do you change the thinking of people like that? The only solace is that these people probably don't write history books.

As for subsidizing farmers, global warming is a larger concern if you ask me. Aside from believing that Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs should come first and be available to all, even if it means protectionism or subsidy, I hope farmers will diversify in anticipation of climate changes, and perhaps we should stock pile whatever we can.

In the meantime I agree we should support our troops and stop the lies.
 

Similar threads

News Psssttt, the deficit's shrinking
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K