NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11133732/


I am not a democrat, But I am with the democrats on this one.

This is great news, though I’d like to see these things completely eliminated.

If you want to Kishijoten, feel free to donate your own money to those causes, but it isn’t ethical to force me to do it as well.

This is great news, though I’d like to see these things completely eliminated.

If you want to Kishijoten, feel free to donate your own money to those causes, but it isn’t ethical to force me to do it as well.
Of course, your money is much better spent on missiles, aircraft carriers and bombers.

I'm glad that I only have one more year of schooling. Otherwise I'd be in a world of hurt. I'm already in debt up to my ears.

This is great news, though I’d like to see these things completely eliminated.

If you want to Kishijoten, feel free to donate your own money to those causes, but it isn’t ethical to force me to do it as well.




What about the people who need this aid to help pay for college or their health bills? Don't they matter?

Of course, your money is much better spent on missiles, aircraft carriers and bombers.
I don’t want it spent on those things either. I want to spend my money on, well, me.

I'm glad that I only have one more year of schooling. Otherwise I'd be in a world of hurt. I'm already in debt up to my ears.



I am with you, I only have 7 months left and am glad. This hurts me.

What about the people who need this aid to help pay for college or their health bills? Don't they matter?
Like I said, if you want to help them out, fine.
I don’t care about them and I actually consider the vast majority of charity to be a waste of resources.

I don’t want it spent on those things either. I want to spend my money on, well, me.
How very altruistic of you. I certainly hope you never need said programs' to pay for you college and/or medical bills. Because that would be ironic.

I don’t want it spent on those things either. I want to spend my money on, well, me.

You are spending it on you: you are helping future consumers earn more income to buy the crap you will be producing.

Seriously, do you not see how the concept "a rising tide raises all ships" works with respect to education?

Of course, your money is much better spent on missiles, aircraft carriers and bombers.
Don't forget bridges to nowheresville, secret spying programs, unenforceable and unliked school regulations, and subsidies for industries that shouldn't be subsidised.

Like I said, if you want to help them out, fine.
I don’t care about them and I actually consider the vast majority of charity to be a waste of resources.



Yeah, screw the sick and poor. :rolleyes: I guess helping the lowerclass is not something we should bother with. How in the world did this become ok?

Don't forget bridges to nowheresville, secret spying programs, unenforceable and unliked school regulations, and subsidies for industries that shouldn't be subsidised.
I didn't forget them. I simply consider them to be so obviously a prime-necessity that they didn't need mentionning. Anybody would be crazy suggesting *any* country could function without them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11133732/


I am not a democrat, But I am with the democrats on this one.
Yeah and our state is already 12 percent behind their CUT levels of funding (not loans but actual school funding)
Personally I would like to see them make that up before they work on loans

So far I have avoided school loans ... at least I am used to it and wont have to ever get one (cause I probably wont now)

Don't forget bridges to nowheresville, secret spying programs, unenforceable and unliked school regulations, and subsidies for industries that shouldn't be subsidised.



And bribes to our allies and government perks.

I don’t want it spent on those things either. I want to spend my money on, well, me.

Look at it this way....either way you're going to be spending the money. Which would you rather see it go to?

I'm glad that I only have one more year of schooling. Otherwise I'd be in a world of hurt. I'm already in debt up to my ears.
join the club ;) :headbang: :headbang:

This is great news, though I’d like to see these things completely eliminated.

If you want to Kishijoten, feel free to donate your own money to those causes, but it isn’t ethical to force me to do it as well.


But it is perfectly ethical to let the poor, sick, and elderly rot, and completely rape the possibility of education for most people in the US.

And let crime run rampant...

And let any house fire destroy an entire city...

And, you know, let's just let anarchy and destruction reign upon us, because paying taxes is a horrible unethical practice.

Yeah, screw the sick and poor. I guess helping the lowerclass is not something we should bother with. How in the world did this become ok?
Why should I care about them?
You are spending it on you: you are helping future consumers earn more income to buy the crap you will be producing.

Seriously, do you not see how the concept "a rising tide raises all ships" works with respect to education?
Sure, maybe I'll get the money back in the future. That doesn't mean they aren't stealing it from me now. If you want to help them, get together with a bunch of people and start a scholarship program. Leave me out of it.

But it is perfectly ethical to let the poor, sick, and elderly rot, and completely rape the possibility of education for most people in the US.

And let crime run rampant...

And let any house fire destroy an entire city...

And, you know, let's just let anarchy and destruction reign upon us, because paying taxes is a horrible unethical practice.
If you want those things, you pay for it. I’d be willing to pay a fire department to protect me, but I’m not paying for some punk's education or some drug addict's dialysis.

If you want those things, you pay for it. I’d be willing to pay a fire department to protect me, but I’m not paying for some punk's education or some drug addict's dialysis.


Because of course, all children are "punks" and basically deserve to be uneducated working class drones.


Unless they're rich, of course, in which case they deserve to own the world.

Why should I care about them?

Sure, maybe I'll get the money back in the future. That doesn't mean they aren't stealing it from me now. If you want to help them, get together with a bunch of people and start a scholarship program. Leave me out of it.



I would just like to say that the comments of this person do NOT reflect the opinions of the majority of Americans.

Like I said, if you want to help them out, fine.
I don’t care about them and I actually consider the vast majority of charity to be a waste of resources.

Perhaps, but only those who have the financial security to never need welfare, medicaid, social security, student loans, etc. etc. We might as well throw in any natural disaster support, or third-world country assistance.
the fact of the matter is that while some of us do have the intelligence to think about our futures, we occasionally need a helping hand to get us started. If everyone who had money were allowed to ignore those who need the help, we would have a society of a handful of extremely wealthy and a nation of extremely poor. We've worked passed the feudal system and one price we pay is a responsibility to each other.

Sure, maybe I'll get the money back in the future. That doesn't mean they aren't stealing it from me now. If you want to help them, get together with a bunch of people and start a scholarship program. Leave me out of it.

How many times do we have to go over this? It isn't stealing if the government is trying to provide you with a service and their intent is not for self-interest. The fact that you'd really prefer this service comes for free makes no difference on whether your having to pay for governmental services is just.

More specifically, if you want to start feeding prisoners in your own personal cells, dig your own dump and deposit your own garbage, install your own foolproof fire-supression system that covers every square inch of your property, build your own roads on the property you yourself bought and own to get anywhere you need, build your own nuclear arsenal to keep yourself safe, innoculate yourself against diseases and start your own CDC to cover any contaminants on your property, build your own university to personally educate yourself, ad nauseum, then you can talk to me about how government is "stealing" your money. Until then, they are doing you a service that you are severely underappreciating it. So can it with the pseudo-populist crap.

I would just like to say that the comments of this person do NOT reflect the opinions of the majority of Americans.
You’re right, because most Americans are statist assholes.
Because of course, all children are "punks" and basically deserve to be uneducated working class drones.


Unless they're rich, of course, in which case they deserve to own the world.
Never said that. Ever heard of a scholarship? They help the talented. Really, if you care so much, why don’t you just donate everything you own to one of those?

I would just like to say that the comments of this person do NOT reflect the opinions of the majority of Americans.

And I'd just like to say that you don't need to point this out to everyone on the board seeing as they are intellegent enough to figure this out on their own.

Never said that. Ever heard of a scholarship? They help the talented. Really, if you care so much, why don’t you just donate everything you own to one of those?


Ah, yes, a scholarship for grade school. Good thinking. Because we can obviously weed out the talented from a bunch of completely uneducated children.

And I'd just like to say that you don't need to point this out to everyone on the board seeing as they are intellegent enough to figure this out on their own.



You would be surprised. I just want to make sure I don't get clumped in with that person. I care about the poor and sick and believe we should help them, its called compassion. You have it, some don't.

How many times do we have to go over this? It isn't stealing if the government is trying to provide you with a service and their intent is not for self-interest. The fact that you'd really prefer this service comes for free makes no difference on whether your having to pay for governmental services is just.

More specifically, if you want to start feeding prisoners in your own personal cells, dig your own dump and deposit your own garbage, install your own foolproof fire-supression system that covers every square inch of your property, build your own roads on the property you yourself bought and own to get anywhere you need, build your own nuclear arsenal to keep yourself safe, innoculate yourself against diseases and start your own CDC to cover any contaminants on your property, build your own university to personally educate yourself, ad nauseum, then you can talk to me about how government is "stealing" your money. Until then, they are doing you a service that you are severely underappreciating it. So can it with the pseudo-populist crap.
I don’t consider all taxes theft if it’s going to what governments are supposed to do, protect the citizens, within reason (no foreign wars) and provide basic infrastucture.
There are private universites in the US, in fact, they are among the best in the world.
Oh, and you did not just call me a populist. Populism is the problem.

Because of course, all children are "punks" and basically deserve to be uneducated working class drones.


Unless they're rich, of course, in which case they deserve to own the world.
Good, you learn fast. You'll make a good factory drone.

Have a cookie, and get back to work now.

Good, you learn fast. You'll make a good factory drone.

Have a cookie, and get back to work now.

Yay! Cookies!

Ah, yes, a scholarship for grade school. Good thinking. Because we can obviously weed out the talented from a bunch of completely uneducated children.
As long as we are democracy, I will consider elementary and secondary education to be basic infrastructure, thus I am willing to pay for it.

You would be surprised. I just want to make sure I don't get clumped in with that person. I care about the poor and sick and believe we should help them, its called compassion. You have it, some don't.
Then you and everyone else that wants to can go help them. Don’t force me to, damn it. How hard is that to understand?

As long as we are democracy, I will consider elementary and secondary education to be basic infrastructure, thus I am willing to pay for it.



But college and health care are not?

As long as we are democracy, I will consider elementary and secondary education to be basic infrastructure, thus I am willing to pay for it.


Well ok, you hadn't said that before, at least, not that I'd seen. Sorry about that.


Does health care count under basic infrastructure? By your opinion, at least, care of the old or addicted doesn't count, but at least general emergency room health care?

(I can't really say any more on any of these subjects until I know your actual stance, since now I am not sure I know it)

Yay! Cookies!
God, how I love capitalism.

But college and health care are not?


For college, at least, I am now questioning wether they are at all O.o.


I may be mistaken, but from what I've seen, most of college is paid for by: students working their way through, the cold hard cash of rich parents, loans, or scholarships.


My dad worked in the programming department of a big student loan company, but it seemed like the loan system runs without government support. I might just be ignorant of wether that's true or not, though. It just seemed that way.

My dad worked in the programming department of a big student loan company, but it seemed like the loan system runs without government support. I might just be ignorant of wether that's true or not, though. It just seemed that way.

Here's the deal: The government has a contract with loan companies to cover a certain amount of the interest. For example, if the average interest rate is 15% the government would cover 10% over the life of the loan and all interest that would usually accrue while you are in school (that is, if you have an unsubsidized loan, otherwise you're on your own during school).

But college and health care are not?
A college education isn’t required to vote at least somewhat reasonably, although our current public school system is failing at that job miserably.
Actually public education as a program in the US will always technically be a failure, because when it was taken to the scale as we know it today, its proponents told people it would all but eliminate crime and unemployment. They were wrong.
Does health care count under basic infrastructure? By your opinion, at least, care of the old or addicted doesn't count, but at least general emergency room health care?
A medical emergency, such as an epidemic, requires a public response. And I’m fine with county hospitals as long as they are responsible and not overly extravagant.

In many cases I agree with Undelia - forcing some citizens to involuntarily pay up to subsidize the lives of other citizens is not something I agree with the high-degree implementation of. That said, education is an exception. Because:

- It's the base of our country's political and economic power. By being citizens of the US, we enter into a contract with each other and the government, with the motive of security and benefit for ourselves. The strength and integrity of America, especially economically, is vital to that interest.

- Free education is in my opinion a fundamental requirement for a capitalistic market, since it aids the level playing field which is a required inherent assumption of the system. Access to knowledge, learning, and education is the defining attribute of the successful modern economy and worker, and is unfortunately one thing that a student or potential student just cannot get on their own in all cases, and the lack of it cripples people from the start. It's a requirement for future success that's needed early, and which would be impossible for many without public education.

- Every taxpayer get something in return. In fact, several somethings. More, wealthier consumers to buy your products or buy the products of the company you are employed by, raising your paycheck. A stronger economy for you to live and trade in. More and more qualified skilled workers for your company or department. A stronger, richer, more secure nation.

In many cases I agree with Undelia - forcing some citizens to involuntarily pay up to subsidize the lives of other citizens is not something I agree with the high-degree implementation of. That said, education is an exception. Because: [...]
Well put, I would just like to add that a good educational system increases the intelligence of our people (something I'm not by any means saying we have achieved in the US), which gives us a higher standard and comparison rate to other countries. What kind of powerful nation are we if our president is known for making up words?

LOL. I wince every time I hear him say 'nukular' or something similarly moronic. The guy can barely speak.

LOL. I wince every time I hear him say 'nukular' or something similarly moronic. The guy can barely speak.
Don't worry, we of the rest of the civilized world know he's not indicative of the majority of the residents of the USA's IQ.

After all, only slightly more than 25% of US citizens voted for him.

I can't stand his chuckle and that smirk he gets on his face. This is the first year I didn't watch the state of the union.

Don't worry, we of the rest of the civilized world know he's not indicative of the majority of the residents of the USA's IQ.

After all, only slightly more than 25% of US citizens voted for him.

Yeah sure the rest of the world knows, now will you just convince the Republicans?

Don't worry, we of the rest of the civilized world know he's not indicative of the majority of the residents of the USA's IQ.

After all, only slightly more than 25% of US citizens voted for him.


I believe you mean approve of him, unless you think that the touch screen voting machines were THAT rigged.

I mean, of course they were rigged, but that's insane, since in the popular vote he had a clear win, according to the results.

If that were true, then he really, really should have lost :\

I believe you mean approve of him, unless you think that the touch screen voting machines were THAT rigged.

I mean, of course they were rigged, but that's insane, since in the popular vote he had a clear win, according to the results.

If that were true, then he really, really should have lost :\

He won the majority of the votes, but that only accounts for a little less than half of our population eligible for voting.

Yeah sure the rest of the world knows, now will you just convince the Republicans?
*shrug* That is your job, not ours.

Hey, if more of the 50% who didn't vote on your last elections had taken the time to stop by a polling station, maybe we'd have been rid of him.

Remember that in some parts of the world, people are willing to die to earn the right to put a check in one of these little boxes.

I can't stand his chuckle and that smirk he gets on his face. This is the first year I didn't watch the state of the union.

That too. His entire style of speaking is that of a condescending stupid person - someone who is in fact far below you, but doesn't know it and patronizes you as if he was well above.

I realize our election system is flawed. Some of us do understand the priviledge and responsibility of voting, I was campaigning just to get people to vote, even if they did want to vote for Dubbya. Unfortunately, there are too many misconceptions about voting that we are losing interest. My grandmother fought for my right to vote, as have thousands of thousands of soldiers and I would rather have a flawed attempt at democracy then none at all.

I believe you mean approve of him, unless you think that the touch screen voting machines were THAT rigged.

I mean, of course they were rigged, but that's insane, since in the popular vote he had a clear win, according to the results.

If that were true, then he really, really should have lost :\
Only about 50% of US citizens voted in your elections. Of those 50%, slightly more than half voted for him. Slightly more than half of 50% makes something like 25.5%, or 26%.

Look up the participation results. It's very enlightening.

It's very enlightening.

or very depressing.:(

damn strait.

I realize our election system is flawed. Some of us do understand the priviledge and responsibility of voting, I was campaigning just to get people to vote, even if they did want to vote for Dubbya. Unfortunately, there are too many misconceptions about voting that we are losing interest. My grandmother fought for my right to vote, as have thousands of thousands of soldiers and I would rather have a flawed attempt at democracy then none at all.
First off, no your grandfather fought for FDR’s ambitions if he fought in WW2 and he fought for nothing if you speak of Korea or God help you, Vietnam.

What misconceptions about voting are you talking about. Maybe it’s the fact that the people no longer own the government, or possibly it’s the fact that the two people most likely to win are extremely close on almost every issue? Both of those are true.

I had to give a speech on it a couple months ago, and the statistics are truly damn depressing. Steady negative trends since the mid-century, numbers verging on less than 50% in the last two Presidential elections, voter apathy and nonrepresentative government running rampant, campaigns winning or losing based on whether they can motivate their supporters to actually vote....it's fucking pathetic.

or very depressing.:(
Both, I suppose.

Only about 50% of US citizens voted in your elections. Of those 50%, slightly more than half voted for him. Slightly more than half of 50% makes something like 25.5%, or 26%.

Look up the participation results. It's very enlightening.


Good point, I hadn't thought about participation.


It'd be funny if there was cumpulsory voting...


And the 50% who hadn't voted before voted for Nader.

First off, no your grandfather fought for FDR’s ambitions if he fought in WW2 and he fought for nothing if you speak of Korea or God help you, Vietnam.

What misconceptions about voting are you talking about. Maybe it’s the fact that the people no longer own the government, or possibly it’s the fact that the two people most likely to win are extremely close on almost every issue? Both of those are true.
Not my grandFATHER though he did fight in WW2, my grandMOTHER fought in the women's liberation movement. Back when women were seen as too simple-minded to do anything outside of cook, clean, and bear children.
Misconceptions? Where to start? There's the belief that my vote doesn't count. There's the learned helplessness of the minority parties who have resigned to the fact they will never have a voice in our bipartisan system. The registration processes make it difficult (or too confusing) for some to sign up. Voting stations are not set up to adequately handle the large flux of people who come in at peak times (lunch breaks, before work, after work, etc.) There's allegations (I don't know the actual accuracy of them) that some polling stations find ways to discriminate against minorities. There is the redistricting that gives the incumbant party the advantage. Many people find the political system boring or too confusing so they don't bother trying to make an informed choice. And my personal favorite: Some regions use polling registration lists for jury duty, which is another right we are so quick to throw away.

Good point, I hadn't thought about participation.


It'd be funny if there was cumpulsory voting...


And the 50% who hadn't voted before voted for Nader.
or Bart Simpson, he gets some write-ins every year in my hometown.

or Bart Simpson, he gets some write-ins every year in my hometown.


Hehehe... It's true that you are aloud to vote for whoever the hell you want. I could be an ass about it when I get to vote and vote for my friends or cool teachers, but it'd be a waste of a vote :\



There should be no/one/very many political parties, and we could have a presidential voting system like Finland. Each serious hopeful candidate parades his/her ass around the country, spreading his/her political word around the country. The first round of voting is really to determine the top 2 candidates. A second round of voting is purely between those 2 candidates.


:\


It seems like the US is too big to do that efficiently, though...

If you wanted to get the majority of the U.S. involved it would have to become a reality show. Every week they give us a show and we can call in to kick someone off!!

If you wanted to get the majority of the U.S. involved it would have to become a reality show. Every week they give us a show and we can call in to kick someone off!!

Real World: D.C.

Road Rules: Presidential

The Inferno: Voting Time

Yeah, screw the sick and poor. :rolleyes: I guess helping the lowerclass is not something we should bother with. How in the world did this become ok?

You're arguing with a person who's just fine with genocide so long as it doesn't effect them. Logic will not have any effect on them and they have clearly sold their emotions to Satan in exchange for wealth.

You're arguing with a person who's just fine with genocide so long as it doesn't effect them. Logic will not have any effect on them and they have clearly sold their emotions to Satan in exchange for wealth.
Well that's harsh. Let's remember one thing we all agree on is democracy, which means everyone has a right to their opinion, so even if we disagree we should respect their rights.

Well that's harsh. Let's remember one thing we all agree on is democracy, which means everyone has a right to their opinion, so even if we disagree we should respect their rights.

The great thing about the US is that I don't even have to respect their rights. Just so long as I don't try to curtail them.

Then what makes you any better than him/her? we can sit and degrade dissenters, but it solves nothing. It's when we focus on the arguments that we make progress and have even the slightest chance at changing their views (or our own).

Then what makes you any better than him/her? we can sit and degrade dissenters, but it solves nothing. It's when we focus on the arguments that we make progress and have even the slightest chance at changing their views (or our own).

You try arguing with someone who simply doesn't care about anything but themselves. You see how far you can get with it.

"You attract more flies with honey then vinegar." Though I may not like flies, I will make a better impression than your strategy.
We are all hedonistic to some extent. I am not going to ignore people or insult them just because they're egocentric.

"You attract more flies with honey then vinegar." Though I may not like flies, I will make a better impression than your strategy.
We are all hedonistic to some extent. I am not going to ignore people or insult them just because they're egocentric.

I know that everyone is, to an extent, egocentric. That everyone is hedonistic. But what kinda beast says, "We shouldn't have done anything about the Holocaust"? You tell me.

An isolationist.

An isolationist.

"No man is an island."

I'm being flippant. My point is that arguments/wars/threads/whatever, get no where when you start attacking the people and not their arguments. It could be he was just playing devils advocate. As you can see from the start of this thread, we all jumped on him without actually listening to his argument.
I rather like these threads as a place of intellectual discussion. I see no need for insulting other members.
Attack the argument, prove him wrong, but what good does it do to call him a beast? That will just antagonize him to act more crudely.

I'm being flippant. My point is that arguments/wars/threads/whatever, get no where when you start attacking the people and not their arguments. It could be he was just playing devils advocate. As you can see from the start of this thread, we all jumped on him without actually listening to his argument.
I rather like these threads as a place of intellectual discussion. I see no need for insulting other members.
Attack the argument, prove him wrong, but what good does it do to call him a beast? That will just antagonize him to act more crudely.

So what you're saying is that if I want even more people to discount his opinions, I should antagonize him more, so that he acts more crudely?

just because they discount his, doesn't mean you'll win them to your side. It's the proverbial mud-slinging tournament, neither side comes out looking good.

just because they discount his, doesn't mean you'll win them to your side. It's the proverbial mud-slinging tournament, neither side comes out looking good.

Heh. Well. Good luck. If you're gonna try. I don't think it'll work, though.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11133732/


I am not a democrat, But I am with the democrats on this one.

quite frankly, I often find these articles to be largely ambigious and misleading... they say, cuts to subsidies and medicare... medicare is a pretty big program, what do these cuts entail, and what benifits are being shaved off.. I suspect when you look into the statistics there is reason why these programs were targeted, weather because they are ineffective or inefficent.

Congress has to balance two priorities here: cutting the deficit and dealing with the constant increase in mandatory spending programs.

Democrats and others complain loud and long about how we're not being fiscally responsible. So when they're forced to choose as to what should be cut, the answer is invariably nothing - because the only solution they seem willing to accept is to increase taxes.

These cuts are miniscule - less than half of one percent Medicare and Medicaid respectively. The cuts to the student loan programs are miniscule as well - most of the savings is in reducing lender subsidies, not actually cutting the money available to students.

At the end of the day, we're going to have to start making tough decisions on where to cut things from the budget. This was a good first step. More needs to be done, and it needs to be done without the hue and cry of "you hate old people" or "you're anti-education", because those are ridiculous positions to take.

If we're truly going to reduce the deficit and not harm the economy by raising taxes, then we've got to cut. This was a good first (tiny) step.

This is great news, though I’d like to see these things completely eliminated.

If you want to Kishijoten, feel free to donate your own money to those causes, but it isn’t ethical to force me to do it as well.

I'm with you. On the first half anyway. The more the Republicans do things like this, the greater the likelihood that they'll loose the legislature in 2006 where the elderly tend to vote dispropportionatly.

As for the other half... Well, it's a hell of a lot more ethical than forcing me to pay for the demolition of Iraq and the government padding of Enron, Halliburton, and Bechtel coffers.

I'm with you. On the first half anyway. The more the Republicans do things like this, the greater the likelihood that they'll loose the legislature in 2006 where the elderly tend to vote dispropportionatly.

Not going to happen.

Not enough competitive districts or open seats. Democrats may make gains, but both Houses will remain Republican assuming nothing crazy happens between now and November.

Hence that age old reality... the Republicans are a party of bad ideas, the democrats a party of NO ideas.

They (the democrats) are simply complacient, satisfied to sit back and ridicule while producing no alternatives. The response to the state of the Union was an excellent example. May times the phrase "there is a better way" was used, yet we were all left wondering what this way was as the topic was quickly changed after saying how the administraiton has gone astray.

Sure, some (if not much) of what Bush has proposed has major faults.. but where are the alternatives ? November is comming fast, and Im justing wondering how long we will have to wait before they pull something out of somewhere.

As someone recieving a Pell Grant as we speak, I'm a little bothered by this.

Nevertheless, I understand the need to cut wasteful spending.

....

Here's a novel concept. Why not bust the asshats living above me who are cheating unemployment (and have been for NINE MONTHS, WTF)? You're losing more money on them than you are on me, plus they're a bunch of stoners anyway. Punks.

I swear, we'd save a lot more money if we took down the losers who are abusing the systems we've provided for the poor dudes like myself. You wouldn't need to cut funding as a whole if huge sums of it weren't going to places they didn't belong. Of course, the same could be said of any branches of government, I suppose. :P

As a democrat, I need to interject. Yes, there are many whining dems, but I hear the same thing from the other side. There are good (and stupid) ideas from both sides, but we're so busy hating everything the other side is doing that we would rather pass something stupid from our side than something of merit from the other.
As far as school loans go, they are basically closing a loophole that needs to be closed, I admit that, but they need to ensure that all students have the opportunity for an education. I work in a student loan collections office and the worst part is that there is well over a quarter million dollars in debt that we doubt we'll ever see. We can attempt prosecution, but it's too expensive and often doesn't lead to payment. The loan can be assigned to the government who can take further action, but we never see the money! We should be given more power to collect on loans or hold the debtee responsible!
I heard an idea I rather like: every citizen who passed a certain milestone (be it turning 21, graduating high school, etc.) would be granted a $250,000 loan from the government at a very low interest rate. This money could be used any way you choose but you must pay it back. There are some details I'm rather fuzzy on, but the idea would be everyone would be offered a start.
What do you think?

:headbang: Thank you so much "No Child Left behind" making Government.

Hence that age old reality... the Republicans are a party of bad ideas, the democrats a party of NO ideas.

Damn straight, and ain't it a bitch. We need to start the NS General Party....of course, we'd then be the party with too many ideas, all contradicting each other....

But seriously, I'd start a third party if I thought it would have any effect.