Big Brodie

I have heard here that entitlement programs such as Medicare, Social Security, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Unemployment and Veterans Benefits, WIC and Food Stamps are socialism and should be abandoned.

Okay, if Conservatives get their way, and they hope to within the next few years, given the unemployment situation how do Conservatives propose to deal with the elderly now no longer able to afford their health care and sustenance? What do they propose to do about maimed veterans in need of therapy? How do they deal with children (especially of unemployed parents) that relied on government programs for food and medical care? What do they plan to do with all those people?

More importantly when some of these people use their "right to bear" arms to feed their families or force treatment for loved ones that they no longer receive or afford. What is their plan for that? Can they accept that they would be moving money from social programs only to spend it for policing, and expanded criminal justice programs maybe spending more money that was saved? If so what is the Conservative answer to that?

When they get their way criminalizing abortion who will pay for those unwanted children? Who will feed them? Who will care for them? Who will be responsible for them if the parents abandon them under the Conservative Plan? Since child abandonment is a crime in all fifty states of this country while those irresponsible parents are doing time who will be responsible for these children? If the government has no real place in Social Services then foster care will be privatized and government subsidies that exist in foster care (especially for treatment of the medical and psychological problems that are common with these children) would be eliminated which realistically would greatly reduce the pool of available foster and adoptive parents. What exactly would Conservatives do to solve those problems?

Piven and Cloward wrote that the social programs that currently exist were ultimately about maintaining public safety and order. So if you take them away because "we can no longer afford them as taxpayers" can we afford more police, prisons, and support staff to process it all?

I am looking for the application of the Conservative position to these problems and not invective about Liberal positions in the matter unless you want to present that as evidence that there is no Conservative Plan. Just be honest and admit that as a Conservative you don't have a plan but I don't care for Liberal or Moderate Alternatives.

A 28 year old food service worker that does not have any health care insurance falls seriously ill at home and is rushed to the hospital by ambulance where he is treated. The cost of the emergency room treatment, including the ambulance service and diagnostic testing is roughly $18K. The food service worker does not have the $18K and defaults in spite vigorous collection attempts.

Under the Conservative Health Care Plan (Conservatives do have a plan don't they?) who assumes that burden of the cost of that individual's treatment? The Conservative stated here in Yahoo among other places is that the government does not belong in Health Care so if the government doesn't cover that food service worker who does when he can't pay?

I actually asked my Member of Congress who is a Republican what is the Republican alternative solutions to the problems and challenges facing the federal government and all he could tell me that the Democrats solutions are wrong. Okay, lets assume they are wrong, what are the Republican solutions? All I hear are crickets.

We have to compete against the Chinese, Indians, and Europe for oil reserves wherever they are if investing in alternative energy solutions is wrong then what is their solution?

How would they hold the banks and insurance companies accountable for the damage they did to the Economy? What exactly is the Republican solution, especially if they are on record as being against all regulation.

How do you fight a "War on Terror" on two fronts and in several regions around the World without incurring debt or raise taxes? What is the Republican solution?

How do you pay off the debt incurred by the "War on Terror", cut taxes for EVERYONE, and still responsibly provide the services we all expect?

How do you provide for the elderly if Medicare and Social Security are wrong because they are failed socialist programs? Without those programs most of the Americans 67 years old and older are in serious trouble, including most of what is considered the Tea Party. What is the Republican solution to take care of these people when they get the "Government" out of their Medicare?

How do you keep our commitments to the rest of the Planet? We have several treaties which are commitments. Is the Republican Plan to just renege on all of them and if so what do we do when there is push back. There is precious little in any American house that is actually made here including foods.

After listening to the rhetoric of the Tea Party and other Conservative Groups it appears that the message they are sending is simply, "I want my government goodies, you don't deserve any government goodies, and I don't want to pay for any of it.

How else do you justify condemning the Stimulus in Washington but taking credit for jump starting local industries back in the home districts? (How do you not see the hypocrisy of that?)

How else do you justify subsidies to farmers and the oil industries but condemn food and healthcare assistance to the poor children?

How do you justify no-bid big money contracts to defense contractors and condemn money for social services for the veterans and their families?

I looked and I could not find anywhere on the document that only US citizens are entitled to the Bill of Rights. I did find that certain people are not entitled because they are only 3/5 of a Man. Is that where the legal argument lies?

Has any conservative actually had their guns seized that didn't commit a felony?

Has any conservative been pulled over by the police and searched without explanation?

Has any conservative had personal property seized that had paid their share of taxes and was not convicted of a felony?

Has any conservative been denied due process?

Has any conservative been subject to judgement by other than their peers?

Has any domestic terrorist organization (KKK, FALN, Crips, Bloods, Neo-Nazis, Skin Heads) been subject to a military tribunal?

Has any conservative been denied by a government agency (as opposed to a financial corporation such as a bank or insurance company) to ownership of a home, a motor vehicle, or any other property.

I want examples of what has happened not what could happen or what is perceived to might happen.

In order to follow the Constitution to the letter we need to peel back the country to the original 13 states. Shrink the Department of Defense to a loose collection of state based militias and three frigates. Eliminate public schools, abandon the infrastructure (replace deteriorating asphalt and concrete highways with wood plank), and with the windfall from putting the Louisiana Purchase on Ebay there should be a surplus, right? Oh yeah no taxation because the Nation can sustain itself with Customs tariffs. That should work right? Strip American citizenship from all those who are beyond the original 13 states. Maybe they would be Chinese since they are most likely to buy all that property.

There are many that spent billions of dollars that could of been better used to strengthen the Economy to thwart any change from business as usual. Okay, so when the next president comes in his agenda will also be stalled. Eventually the government will grind to a halt, decisions cannot be implemented, and how exactly is that a good thing?

All the Republican Party offers are "Tax Cuts" and she needed to write that on her hand to keep track. There are a huge amount of very serious issues facing the nation, how will she keep track of it all with only two palms? Will she figure of way to put some of the issues on the soles of her feet and still have access while on camera?

Sarah Palin while campaigning called the President a mere "Celebrity" and just a "Community Organizer" as if it was a bad thing. Now she is the "Celebrity" and she acts as a "Community Organizer" for the Tea Party traveling across the country to mobilize people to gut the Republican Party and attack the Democratic Party, so does that mean it is a good thing to be have celebrity charisma and the skills of a community organizer?

What is the point of saving the unborn if after they are born we believe it is okay to deny them food, shelter, and healthcare? To discard them as trash? There are those that believe that the government should turn its back on the poor. They believe that it is their fault they are poor. Perhaps if that woman who could not afford to raise a child is allowed to choose not to have it we, the taxpayers, would have less poor to pay for.

Or, perhaps we should devote our resources to take care of that woman and her child once it is born.

Am I the only one to see the paradox in the Conservative Anti-Abortion argument?

We went into billions of dollars of debt, paying a lot of it to Halliburton and Black Water, to catch and punish one corrupt dictator and his immoral sons. How is that okay and taking care of our own people is not?

The ranking Republican Senator blocked crucial Intelligence Management Appointments in the State and Homeland Security Departments because he was angry that his state, Tennessee, was not chosen for the site of a new FBI Laboratory. Having empty chairs in the National Intelligence Apparatus can't help fight Al Qaeda could it? Is this an example of Republican Senators and Members of Congress being better at keeping the Nation safe?

By the way, the good Senator claimed that he didn't have anything against the candidates for those positions he just wanted to get the President's attention. Once he believed that he had gotten the President's attention he promised to withdraw his obstacles to the appointments. Is this an example of responsible governing?

Several Republican members of Congress are on record back home in their districts taking credit for the Stimulus. Some are posing with small businesses and local municipalities that directly benefited. Apparently the Stimulus did save jobs because these members of Congress were posing with the people that either got jobs or had their jobs saved by that funding. Others were caught on camera lecturing to constituents how to take advantage of Stimulus funds.

If the Stimulus is wrong for the Nation, as Republican say, then is it not "wrong" for their constituents?

You can't have it both ways, or can you?

The former vice president claims that the war is real. If we are truly at war then how come we can't accept that we will be attacked? Why is their outrage instead of resolve to fight? There seems to be an attitude that "we have people for dealing with Al Qaeda" and when the "war" gets close there is surprise.

British citizens had to live and die with V-2 rockets, buzz bombs, and saturation bombings. The Dutch and Belgians had their cities and villages reduced to rubble by artillery. All the Europeans have similar stories. So do most Asians and Africans.

We were content to ignore the carnage and now it is washing up on our shores. Instead of invective and derogatory remarks why aren't our loudest warmongers insisting on us learning all we can about our enemies? We should all be familiar with the Koran so we can question what motivates them. I can assure you that our enemies know our Bible and use quotations in it as a call to battle (what we now know as Jihad) Obviously our enemies were quick to learn all they could about us, including our vulnerabilities and that we are so easily frightened. They apparently learned well from the Vietnamese who beat us.

I am just curious if the job losses are coming from industrial sectors that technologically obsolete or on the way to be technologically obsolete. Then we have to figure out where the jobs of the future are.

An increase in your monthly premiums by $100 if we don't reform this horrific health care system or an increase in your federal tax withheld by $10 - $25 per month if we do.

Depending on who you ask emergency treatment for uninsured people (yes the illegal aliens too) add $900 to $1100 to the total premiums we pay a year. It is the reason that when we go to the hospital an aspirin costs $7 each. I am paying approx. $400 a month for a family plan which is $4800 a year. Thinking "conservatively" I would save $900 a year on my premiums but pay $300 more in taxes, thinking "liberally". I would save $600. I can do a lot with $600

Now I realize this is all theory but so was manned flight, internal combustion, radio, television, and space travel.

I had a very good friend get denied coverage for treatment and appealed to his insurance company. They told him that his appeal will be heard by a "Treatment Review Committee" that is composed of an RN, a MD, and a Financial Specialist, all working for the insurance company. They told him that they will review his doctor's request of treatment and discuss other "less expensive" treatment alternatives with his doctor. These three people that do not know him will decide whether or not to pay for treatment his doctor has ordered. Is this the "Death Panel" Palin was talking about?

If you are denied because of a preexisting condition, or your coverage is dropped because you treatments have reach a point when the insurance company has spent all the money they choose to spend on you then you can't really complain because this is the health care you fought for, right? This is the health care you deserve, correct?

Can you accept that responsibility, and the responsibility for all those that currently can't afford health care and really need it? If so, then we won't hear you complain when you are denied treatment you need because we all will know that you will just suck it up.

I have heard more than one conservative, including many here in Yahoo, state that the whole purpose of the Second Amendment is for the citizenry to arm itself against its own government. I have read the Second Amendment and it does not say that the citizens are required or even allowed to be armed for the purpose of attacking its own government.

Here is the Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Okay it starts with a well REGULATED Militia being necessary for a free state. Not just a militia, not just a regulated militia but a well regulated militia. The definition of "Regulated" is controlled or governed by rule or law. So a group of people with guns and an attitude not controlled or more importantly "governed" is not a well regulated militia. As I understand it a well regulated militia answer to a higher authority than itself-there is a chain of command.

I have looked at this statement and it appears that the Second Amendment gives sheriffs and federal marshals the authority to deputize citizens to deal with any threat to the Law.

What I do not see anywhere in the statement is that the people can bear arms against the government if some people don't care for having any laws being enforced upon them.

More importantly the Fourth and Fifth Amendment guarantee that the government cannot act arbitrarily against any individual or force that individual to incriminate itself. Moreover the Sixth Amendment guarantee a fair trial, an impartial jury, and to confront any witness against you.

it appears the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments guarantee that an individual has protections against an overbearing government and case law from the Supreme Court have proved that they work.

So, given that if an individual or a group of individuals would violate the law would be subject to arrest, and it would be the police or federal officer (depending on the crime) that would execute a warrant, as per the 4th Amendment, how would the 2nd Amendment justify the killing of a police or federal officer in the performance of his duty executing that warrant?

The legislators that wrote those laws, both state and federal, are not the people that will execute those laws. Cops will execute those laws so how can you justify killing cops with the 2nd Amendment? if there is a law you feel is unjust you have two avenues, legislative and judicial. Neither of those require killing cops.

Take a breath, and try to articulate your answer intelligently. The Second Amendment is a small paragraph. It does not say that the people can overthrow its government by force if they are not happy with the laws it imposes upon them. It does not say individuals are charged with interpreting laws. That job is assigned to the courts system in another part of the document.

So you are an individual violating the law, and a police officer effects an arrest upon you where is the justification of using a firearm to kill that officer instead of getting a lawyer and challenging the law in court?