Relax, you're among friends.  I agree with a lot of what you say, but also think Stan made some good points.  I totally agree the Republicans are just big spending, big government Democrat LITE.  Even Trump who I support signed the last two record breaking budgets.  But what is he going to do?  If he doesn't the Media and Dems scream he shut down the government and welfare mom's can't feed their children which is a lie, but......

Hope I wasn't coming off as "worked up", lol.  I get that this site can sometimes turn into a Republican echo-chamber just due to the demographics.  I'm just trying to espouse an opinion that it's useful to be a bit more objective about how we view other political parties.  Blaming Libertarians for a Republican loss essentially says that the R-party wasn't strong enough to win on its own.  When your party sees fit to have a crappy candidate in the race, you reap what you sow.  Can't blame Libertarians for siphoning votes away because the other candidates were seen as the "lesser evil".  As far as Trump and the budgets, he could at least start pretending like he gives a crap about the spending problem.  Obviously we all (should) know that the President doesn't make the budget decisions anyway, but at least coming forward with a plan would be prudent.  Like you said, showing any cuts to military or social services will just send the media into a frenzy about how he's abandoning our allies or our at-risk families.  Every President before him has dealt with the same thing when faced with budget cuts, but Trump will likely deal with a bit more vitriol than past Presidents no doubt (not that he didn't bring most of it on himself).

Please remember that. (That goes to everyone; not just Sooner ...).

It may be true that Rs are a lot like D lite, but when it comes to socialization, I prefer "lite" to "heavy".  And Yes, I will vote for almost any pol with an R beside their name over almost any pol with a D beside their name because voting for Ds to take over the country is voting for the ruination of our country.  Not that some of them don't have good ideas, but they vote as a block for things I despise.

I can understand the idea that you'd want to vote for potentially smaller changes than sweeping ones.  The problem that we find ourselves in (which was warned against by the Founding Fathers) is the descent into a 2-party system.  If Republicans adopted more Libertarian/Constitutionalist values, we probably would be having this discussion.  I mean, it's not like Republicans are always on the right side of social issues (criminal justice reform, marriage equality, etc.) so sometimes it's okay to vote D (or other party) if that's the biggest concern for that particular voter.

There nothing that can’t be criticized from either side.  If you didn’t have any health care, Obamacare is a miracle. If you’re one of us that is paying for it, then it’s a disaster.  Similar for Medicare/Medicaid. Sarbanes-Oxley has good and bad.  Holding CEOs accountable for fraud in their books has cost a lot of money but the oversight has been positive for business discipline.

RICO was introduced by a Democrat, but signed by Nixon.  Hard to classify a lot of legislation as  strictly R or D

Truth be told, S-O is complete waste of time and VAST amounts of money.  The only thing it did was secure a new product for the major accounting firms to rack up big $$ to audit/implement SOX programs.  As an accountant who has gone from publicly traded with SOX in 2010, then private, then back public again in 2017 . . . the amount of time I spend "documenting" (i.e. taking screen shots and changing dates on an excel spreadsheet) is longer than it takes to compile the data for the entry in the first place.  Not to mention the time spent with internal and external auditors from D&T or others explaining some mundane entry that gets made the same way it has always been made is absurd.  I have to take screenshots that include the clock on my computer desktop to "prove" the time/date the data was compiled.  As if no one could change the system time/date if they needed to backdate something . . .

It has been proven-out several times that the cost of implementing, maintaining, and auditing a SOX compliance program for publicly traded companies far outweighs the  cost of average fraud seen in the market.  It's feel-good legislation that only sucks money from the bottom line of a company.  Top brass will find ways to wriggle out of anything that occurs, SOX compliance in place or not.  The only way they get hammered is if there is infallible proof that they manipulated the books with malice.  Otherwise, golden parachute and slap on the wrist.

Either you trolling, or I don't understand your context!

How is a minimum wage job better than welfare?  Let me count the ways . . .

For one thing, there is the issue of self respect.
For another, a minimum wage job is contributing to society.  Welfare is a drag on it.
Work experience is invaluable.
Learning a work ethic, like getting up in the morning and wearing clean clothes is important.
It is easier to get a better job if you have a low paying one than it is to get a job if you are on welfare (especially for an extended time period).

Now, were you joking with your question?

My point was that if you have the option of being on welfare and not working, or working a minimum wage job for 40+ hours a week to be in the same (or worse) position financially when you add it all up, then why would anyone choose the latter?

1)Not really going to be able to play the self-respect card with people who have little concept of it in regards to working a minimum-wage job.  I know that feeling of respect, but I don't think it's something you can "sell" to those on welfare.

2)Those on welfare don't care if it's a drag on society, nor do they likely have any concept of it's impact on the government.  Most of them don't even make the link between working people's taxes paying for them to live for free.

3) I don't disagree on the concept, but convincing a welfare recipient to live on minimum wage without welfare assistance for the "work experience" is similar to convincing a lawyer to do pro bono work.

4) See answer #3 above. 

5) Absolutely, that goes with any job.  It's almost always easier to find a good job if you have one.

To summarize:  you have to remember that, by telling welfare recipients that a minimum wage job is better than welfare, you are going to have to convince them it's better.  I already know the benefits and satisfaction of doing honest labor and being self-sufficient/productive as I was raised to be so.  Those who have spent a lifetime in poverty, aren't likely to agree with you that it's better to work a minimum wage job so that they can earn the intangible benefits of self respect, valuable job experience, learning work ethic, or ease of finding a better job later on, when they'd still be in the same spot they're currently in while having to work much harder for it.

I haven't decided. I am completely underwhelmed with all of the choices on both sides. I think I could have voted for Rand Paul, but...

Yup, Rand was my 1st choice, and likely a guy who might have been able to make some big strides in turning the country around. However, he just isn't a showy politician and people want headlines and absurd talking points.

I really wish R/D voters would get so disgusted with the idea of voting for Trump or  Clinton and rally behind a 3rd party candidate, maybe like a Gary Johnson or similar.


Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!

Lol, let it go.