English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Came across this in a survey....would like to know opinions!


http://www.blogthings.com/howliberalorconservativeareyouquiz/

2007-02-21 16:01:56 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

Thanks for the answers so far. Both is the obvious answer but Im asking if you had a choice what would it be. One or the other.

2007-02-21 16:14:09 · update #1

9 answers

It is more important for our country to help the poor and homeless. It is more important for our government to reduce the deficit and national debt.

2007-02-21 16:05:56 · answer #1 · answered by WJ 7 · 1 0

I strongly suspect that serious efforts towards A would accomplish much of B.

Most people want to be productive. Many have kids and can't find jobs that pay more than childcare costs. So they stay home and the public pays for their food and housing.

People with no health insurance end up clogging emergency rooms with preventable illnesses that have progressed to the trauma stage, this also diminishes the ability to work, again resulting in costs to the public that could have been avoided with a simple annual checkup.

Poor nutrition decreases mental and physical function and diminishes the ability to work. We pay a price in public safety for the fact that people who don't get paid sick leave go to work sick.

I could go on and on, but making taxpayers out of people who want to work, but lack childcare, transportation, nutrition, and healthcare would be a much better investment of, say, the $500 BILLION we have squandered in Iraq so far.

2007-02-22 00:51:44 · answer #2 · answered by oimwoomwio 7 · 0 0

In our country, we have the resources to do both..Unfortunately, our resources are being used to kill the innocents in Iraq and to help kill our young soldiers.

Before Bush became president, we had a balanced budget, the deficit was ridiculously low, many really good social programs were out there and we were seeing some progress.

Bush has decided that oil is the most important thing....and we all know he is the "decider"......

2007-02-22 00:06:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

We can, and should, do both! But if only one can be chosen, I would say definitely help the poor and helpless. We Americans disagree on many things, but one thing we agree on is helping those in need! We can all be proud of that! It would have to be monitored MUCH better than any help given now though--there's just too much fraud going on!

2007-02-22 01:10:10 · answer #4 · answered by jlmGranny 2 · 1 0

as Americans, we like to consider this the greatest country on the face of the earth. If that is the case, we need to find a way to do both.

2007-02-22 00:13:46 · answer #5 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 1 0

I'm all for helping poor and helpless but NOT THE LAZY------those unable to fend for themselves-------YES---if not---what kind of society would we be?

2007-02-22 00:07:17 · answer #6 · answered by EZMZ 7 · 1 0

Both .With a balancing act

2007-02-22 00:27:28 · answer #7 · answered by Dr.O 5 · 0 0

Either one would be fine with me - it's this current total disregard for both that really galls me.

2007-02-22 00:06:27 · answer #8 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 2 0

Yes...and most definitely YES.

2007-02-22 00:09:34 · answer #9 · answered by chole_24 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers