Defending Bush on social issues

If you would have asked me yesterday, I would have said that there is nothing you could tell me that could possibly lower my estimation of Ralph Reed.

The man oozes pus and evil.

 

Someone might know more about this, but it seems the country is Sweden. No family's wages are below a strong minimum - far above ours percentage-wise. They spend less on social ills we seem to spend more on than anyone.

When wages are up, crime is down, drug abuse is down (including dealers who can made a safer wage), social ills are down. It doesn't mean they go away, but it's considerably lower.

 

All-righty then.

Thanks for that.

 

So let's compare the expense on social ills with what it would cost to have a legitimate living wage for every family in this country. C'mon Zeke, you obviously have an enormous arsenal of information in addition to the plethora of knowledge in your head. Crunch the numbers.

 

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

 

Liv Ullmann movies, too.

 

I didn't realize it was the government's job to provide a "legitimate" living wage, whatever that is, for everybody.

 

It's not, Lyman.

Our government's job is to do the job of the government of Iraq.

They have no domestic responsibilities whatsoever.

 

Sarcasm isn't your strong suit, Zeke.

The government isn't supposed to provide a legitimate living wage for anybody. That's up to you.

 

Well, that's only if you believe "To promote the general welfare" is just in there to fill the meter of the Preamble.
Lyman lost this argument in 1929 and doesn't know it.

 

The government isn't supposed to set up governments in other places.

That's up to them.

It's a crazy, mixed up world out there, Lyman.

 

Rather disingenuous to try to mix the Great Depression with giving everybody a check, isn't it, F_B? Then again, obfuscation is your middle name.