PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Mr. Kennedy on October 27, 2008, 09:23:19 AM
-
Really Obama? Every time I think, well it won\'t be so bad when he\'s President, something comes up that reminds me otherwise. He truly believes that constitution should tell you what you can do as opposed to what the government can\'t do to you. The constitution is there to protect us.
Oppress the people "o great one". You\'ve gone beyond liberalism, this is radicalism. This is a recipe for disaster, and I can\'t believe America wants this.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/27/smells-like-socialist-spirit/
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.
Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.
I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.
-
When the gov\'t starts takin\' over farmland and snatchin\' up properties unlawfully then we need to worry.....until then...joe the plumber will recieve a tax cut under obama\'s plan and if you make $250,000 or more your taxes will increase...you\'re paranoid....the country has 9 million people out of work...2 million more than what is was last year, he\'s focusing on projects to give some relief to the folks that are hurting the most in this economy..the middle class.....Obama is not going to radicalize america.
He feels that that gov\'t should help out the people when they are suffering...period. Giving tax breaks to companies that do NOT ship jobs overseas makes sense right?,....meaning the said company\'s taxes will not go up...if you do send american jobs overseas you\'ll see a tax hike....while mccain favors giving these companies huge tax breaks whether or not they ship american jobs overseas.
The only redistribution of wealth is the kind that i\'ve mentioned above.(the rich will take a hit but it is in no way going to break them)..go look at both Obama\'s and mccains tax plan for the country...you\'ll notice that the middle class benefits in obama\'s plan are alot more than what is seen in mccains plan, what\'s more it\'s been stated that obama\'s plan will even end up being cheaper than mccains.
-
What? You missed the entire purpose of the article (you seem to have like 3 or 4 defense mechanisms that you pull at random). He was stating that the courts are too conservative and don\'t do enough to redistribute wealth. He is feels citizens are over protected by what he calls "negative liberties" which prevents the government from pursuing its agenda.
Essentially, he wants the power to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. If your comfortable giving him that power that\'s fine, but I\'m not. It very much goes against the constitution.
Just because Obama says something doesn\'t mean its true, politicians lie, you have to see beyond that. He wanted to create a class war, and he has successfully done so.
-
Obama = another Jimmy Carter
Let\'s not make that mistake again.
-
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cagle.com%2Fworking%2F081025%2Fcagle00.gif&hash=09585b53973a091752d3736a2ad3b0eebbb62213)
be calm, he could still win it
-
Man, I want your job. If only I could sit around and read political articles all day while I\'m at work, and post threads on psx2central.
In any case, you have exaggerated what Obama said in the initial quotation, just as the author of this hotair.com aricle has exaggerated and filled in with reflections of his own preconceived notions.
What? You missed the entire purpose of the article (you seem to have like 3 or 4 defense mechanisms that you pull at random). He was stating that the courts are too conservative and don\'t do enough to redistribute wealth. He is feels citizens are over protected by what he calls "negative liberties" which prevents the government from pursuing its agenda.
This is not what he said. Read it again, or listen to it again. He\'s commenting on the history of the Warren court and he is most critical of the civil rights movement. He didn\'t say the courts didn\'t do enough, and he didn\'t suggest they should have done anything else.
Essentially, he wants the power to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. If your comfortable giving him that power that\'s fine, but I\'m not. It very much goes against the constitution.
Never has he said this, or suggested it, and I have no idea where you\'re getting this.
Just because Obama says something doesn\'t mean its true, politicians lie, you have to see beyond that. He wanted to create a class war, and he has successfully done so.
I can see that you feel very strongly about protecting and accelerating the transfer of wealth from the lower 90% of the US public to the upper 10% but not every voting american shares your views. In fact, most are now coming to disagree:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27377873/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27377873/)
A substantial majority of Americans say the rich don\'t pay their fair share of taxes, opinion polls show. A growing number say the United States is becoming a nation of haves and have-nots.
The public\'s concerns reflect a shifting dynamic in recent years, as an increasing share of the wealth has gone to people at the top of the income scale. The top tenth of U.S. households now earn an average of 11.2 times what those in the bottom tenth make, according to the Census Bureau. That\'s up from a ratio of 8.7 three decades ago.
...
A majority of Americans — 51 percent in a poll by Gallup this past April — said they support "heavy taxes" on the rich to redistribute wealth. That is significantly higher than when the same question was asked in 1939, at the tail end of the Great Depression, when 35 percent agreed.
I\'m sorry you\'re on the wrong side of public sentiment on this issue, but you can\'t always have it your way. These things shift through the decades based on economic conditions. No matter how far it goes in one direction, there will always be a correction.
-
What? You missed the entire purpose of the article (you seem to have like 3 or 4 defense mechanisms that you pull at random). He was stating that the courts are too conservative and don\'t do enough to redistribute wealth. He is feels citizens are over protected by what he calls "negative liberties" which prevents the government from pursuing its agenda.
Essentially, he wants the power to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. If your comfortable giving him that power that\'s fine, but I\'m not. It very much goes against the constitution.
Just because Obama says something doesn\'t mean its true, politicians lie, you have to see beyond that. He wanted to create a class war, and he has successfully done so.
I get what you\'re saying, but i don\'t believe Obama will pursue an agenda to the point to where his presidency is like a dictatorship where the gov\'t controls everything...even if he plans to expand gov\'t, that might not be a bad thing, as long as it\'s doing what it\'s supposed to do for the people....and that does not mean giving folks a free ride or free tax cuts as some would like to believe.
-
Man, I want your job. If only I could sit around and read political articles all day while I\'m at work, and post threads on psx2central.
It\'s what I do in my down time. I\'m not a member of many online communities, this happens to be one of them.
In any case, you have exaggerated what Obama said in the initial quotation, just as the author of this hotair.com aricle has exaggerated and filled in with reflections of his own preconceived notions.
I didn\'t exaggerate anything. Obama called the Warren court "conservative". God bless you and your Obama kool-aid, you clearly can\'t see the truth.
This is not what he said. Read it again, or listen to it again. He\'s commenting on the history of the Warren court and he is most critical of the civil rights movement. He didn\'t say the courts didn\'t do enough, and he didn\'t suggest they should have done anything else.
It\'s all I\'ve been listening to all day. It further and further re-establishes his stance on socialism. We didn\'t do enough to redistribute wealth, almost a verbatim quote from the clip. Did you skip over the part of the clip on redistribution of wealth and slamming the constitution as a "charter of negative liberties"? Obviously you did, because you don\'t see any problem with what he said. This man will tear apart this country, how can you not see that?
Never has he said this, or suggested it, and I have no idea where you\'re getting this.
Where did I get it? Right from the horses mouth! Obama - "RESDISTRIBUTE WEALTH", there did you hear that? Probably not. He\'s not a socialist, he\'s just a really nice person.
I can see that you feel very strongly about protecting and accelerating the transfer of wealth from the lower 90% of the US public to the upper 10% but not every voting american shares your views. In fact, most are now coming to disagree:
I\'m sorry, how much taxes are the lower classes paying to the wealthy??? Oh that\'s right none. They just want to bring down the upper class. A third of the country doesn\'t even pay taxes, and you have the balls to say its a transfer of wealth to the rich? You call it trickle down prosperity, I call it trickle up poverty. The best part about this country is the freedom to create your own success. You on the other hand would like to see trillions of dollars go to government handouts to whatever cause Obama deems worthy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27377873/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27377873/)
Have you not realized yet that the media is in the tank for Obama? Nope, you see it as fair reporting.
I\'m sorry you\'re on the wrong side of public sentiment on this issue, but you can\'t always have it your way. These things shift through the decades based on economic conditions. No matter how far it goes in one direction, there will always be a correction.
That\'s right I\'m on the wrong side of public opinion. Lets go over the last handful of elections:
1968 - Republican
1972 - Republican
1976 - Democrat (The dreaded Jimmy Carter presidency)
1980 - Republican
1984 - Republican
1988 - Republican
1992 - Democrat
1996 - Democrat
2000 - Republican
2004 - Republican
That\'s a rough score card for the past forty years. But yeah, glad to see your on the winning team. Can we really afford Jimmy Carter II?
Keep drinking the koolaid buddy, when Obama screws you over, don\'t say I didn\'t tell you so.
-
I get what you\'re saying, but i don\'t believe Obama will pursue an agenda to the point to where his presidency is like a dictatorship where the gov\'t controls everything...even if he plans to expand gov\'t, that might not be a bad thing, as long as it\'s doing what it\'s supposed to do for the people....and that does not mean giving folks a free ride or free tax cuts as some would like to believe.
Expanding government is always a bad thing, it goes against the constitution.
-
Conservatives love to cry "socialism" when someone proposes public policy which reverses the decades-long trend of reducing taxes on the rich.
IN REALITY, we have a long long way to go before we reach the socialist nightmare conservatives love to cite in their examples: Sweden
http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/07/p3-unequal-america.html (http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/07/p3-unequal-america.html)
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fharvardmagazine.com%2F2008%2F07-images%2Fii-1-thumb-c.gif&hash=92771690529aaa74c9718be07d571d079b414350)
One widely used measure of inequality is the Gini coefficient, named for Italian statistician Corrado Gini, who first articulated the concept in 1912. The coefficient measures income distribution on a scale from zero (where income is perfectly equally distributed among all members of a society) to one (where a single person possesses all the income). For the United States, the Gini coefficient has risen from .35 in 1965 to .44 today. On the per-capita GDP scale, our neighbors are Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.K.; on the Gini scale, our neighbors include Sri Lanka, Mali, and Russia. (Even with this basic measure of inequality, it is difficult to get comparable data for all countries, and some other sources find a much wider gap between the United States and Russia. For instance, the Luxembourg Income Study ranks Russia at .43 and the United States at .37, and does not even list Sri Lanka and Mali.)
The recent increase in inequality reflects a migration of money upward as salaries have ballooned at the top. In 1965, the average salary for a CEO of a major U.S. company was 25 times the salary of the average worker. Today, the average CEO’s pay is more than 250 times the average worker’s. At the same time, the government is doing less to redistribute income than it has at times in the past. The current top marginal tax rate—35 percent—is not the lowest it’s been—there was no federal income tax at all until 1913—but it is far lower than the 91-percent tax levied on top earners from 1951 to 1963. Meanwhile, forces such as immigration and trade policy have put pressure on wages at the bottom.
-
That\'s great, economic inequality. Life isn\'t fair. What did these people we\'re redistributing wealth do to earn this money?
How could you argue that Obama is NOT a socialist after his constant "redistribution of wealth" comments?
By taxing the wealthy even more, you\'re not making the poor any richer, you\'re just making the wealthy poorer, and you\'re driving people away from the work force and rewarding laziness. Not everyone was born into wealth, in fact, most weren\'t, they made their own wealth, why can\'t you?
You\'ve avoided the two main points of this thread. His calling the constitution of "charter of negative liberties" and criticizing the courts for not doing enough to redistribute wealth. Stop having selective listening.
-
The point I was trying to make with the table and the article above is that we\'re NOT a socialist country, and a politician is NOT a socialist just because he proposes one tiny step back from the course we\'ve been following for the last 50 years.
"the Gini coefficient has risen from .35 in 1965 to .44 today" If we continue on this course, our country will become more and more polarized. The rich will own almost everything and the rest of will be paying them rent. Do you want to see us reach the wealth concentration levels of Haiti and Namibia before acknowleding that something might be going wrong? Going too far in that direction is a sure recipie for destruction.
You can stick to your simplified high minded principles, but when it comes to public policy in the real world, we need to find a stable middle ground.
-
1.
What you said:
"Essentially, he wants the power to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants."
What I said:
"Never has he said this, or suggested it, and I have no idea where you\'re getting this."
2.
You\'ve avoided the two main points of this thread. His calling the constitution of "charter of negative liberties" and criticizing the courts for not doing enough to redistribute wealth. Stop having selective listening.
He did not criticize the courts for not doing enough. He NOTED that they didn\'t do these things. He wasn\'t saying they should have. But I already stated that above.
-
3 counterpoints -
The poor don\'t pay for the rich, the rich pay for the poor.
A third of the country doesn\'t pay taxes (you still haven\'t addressed this one).
We are not a socialist country, but Obama is a socialist, he\'s not seeking a "tiny step back", he\'s proposing radical change. Read his policies.
-
1.
What you said:
"Essentially, he wants the power to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants."
What I said:
"Never has he said this, or suggested it, and I have no idea where you\'re getting this."
2.
He did not criticize the courts for not doing enough. He NOTED that they didn\'t do these things. He wasn\'t saying they should have. But I already stated that above.
The spin doctor is out in full force tonight. I clearly sensed anger and resentment in that interview towards the courts.
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.
Listen to how he says those lines. There is definite anger there.
-
So now I have to listen to his inflection and trust your "senses?"
Do realize how crazy that sounds? You are clearly reading stuff into the transcript that isn\'t there. I think you should just post text on this forum instead of all those videos and audio recordings. It\'s a waste of time.
-
So now I have to listen to his inflection and trust your "senses?"
Do realize how crazy that sounds? You are clearly reading stuff into the transcript that isn\'t there. I think you should just post text on this forum instead of all those videos and audio recordings. It\'s a waste of time.
OMFG, most of the meaning of a message is tied to inflection and tone. Or did you skip over that part in your communications class.
I just don\'t see how someone could look at that quote and not be offended... well that is unless you\'re sitting there licking your chops at another government handout.
-
We are participating in an internet forum, not a live meeting. If we agree to discuss text, then we are on level ground when we attempt to discern the meaning.
If instead we have to interpret inflections in an audio recording from a radio broadcast from 7 years ago, then we are opening the possibility of our interpretations being colored by our own bias.
Does that make sense to you?
BTW, "I just don\'t see how someone could look at that quote and not be offended... "
Not everyone sees the world the way you do. Yours is not the only true perspective on the universe. Get used to that and be happier.
-
7 years isn\'t that long ago, his opinions haven\'t changed.
Yes, I even stated after the elipsis that not everyone will have a problem with that quote.
While I\'m not thrilled with my current situation, I\'m not UNhappy, I will be if the government reaches deeper into my pocket though.
-
7 years isn\'t that long ago, his opinions haven\'t changed.
For the truth.
Edit: And wtf is that gay ass avatar with the 0\'s logo on it?
-
For some perspective Cored...
The Democrats are pushing now for a 60-seat majority in the Senate. Now, what that would mean is that they would be filibuster-proof. This has happened twice in the recent past, and the San Francisco Chronicle has a story on this, Democrats closing in on a Senate majority. "Although still a long shot, they have raised their goal to a magic and rare 60 members, a filibuster-proof majority of enormous significance." The last time that this happened was during the Jimmy Carter presidency, and you know what happened during the Jimmy Carter presidency. The left was left unchecked and it was able to implement what it believes, and you remember -- some of you may not because of your youth -- but the four years of Jimmy Carter made this economy look like utopia. I kid you not. We got 6.1% unemployment, people are working, they are still earning money. The gasoline price now down 53 cents in two weeks, and right on cue, the Drive-Bys have a story about how this is not good for the economy. This might actually hurt the economy. There are so many stories from the Associated Press. Jennifer Loven has a story in the Associated Press today that is a print Lewinsky for Obama.
The last time the Democrats ran the show in the Senate was in the Carter years and before that. When do you think the last time prior to the Democrats having a 60-seat majority in the Carter years was, Mr. Snerdley? That\'s exactly right, during the Lyndon Johnson presidency when the Democrats had 60 seats is when we got the Great Society, is when we get the War on Poverty, which was the war on the black family. It is when we got all of these entitlement programs here that have just ripped this country to shreds, and there\'s nothing that can be done about them, per se. And now this redistribution stuff, the redistribution of wealth, the Obama campaign\'s very worried about this. They and their supporters and their campaign staff and the Drive-By Media are out there saying, "It\'s just a distraction. Redistributing wealth, why, it\'s just a distraction." A distraction? Yes, it\'s a distraction because you don\'t want it to become one, you don\'t want it to take away from your lying message that Obama\'s putting out to people.
-
When the gov\'t starts takin\' over farmland and snatchin\' up properties unlawfully then we need to worry.....until then...joe the plumber will recieve a tax cut under obama\'s plan and if you make $250,000 or more your taxes will increase...you\'re paranoid....the country has 9 million people out of work...2 million more than what is was last year, he\'s focusing on projects to give some relief to the folks that are hurting the most in this economy..the middle class.....Obama is not going to radicalize america.
If the 9 million people are out of work, they aren\'t paying any taxes at all. That\'s part of being out of work...
And taxing the business owners more will increase prices and reduce employees..
Fucking brilliant...:thumb:
-
If the 9 million people are out of work, they aren\'t paying any taxes at all. That\'s part of being out of work...
And taxing the business owners more will increase prices and reduce employees..
Fucking brilliant...:thumb:
You do realize that you have to pay taxes on those unemployment checks right? I seriously doubt that 9 million people are not receiving unemployment checks.
-
You do realize that you have to pay taxes on those unemployment checks right? I seriously doubt that 9 million people are not receiving unemployment checks.
:stick:
-
And then they get the money back when they file. If you make under so much you don\'t pay a darn thing.
Unemployment checks coming from money supplied by the businesses being taxed that can\'t afford to hire them.
I just hope we are all here in about 6 years when the "I told you so\'s" can be screamed...
-
Man, unemployment is looking better and better everyday. Eventually, I may aspire to be unemployed!
Alright, I admit it, Obama has inspired me!
-
You know, I was thinking about how people scam the system and take their child care money and go on personal shopping sprees and I think there are two solutions.
One is to have the card they issue only accepted for certain SKUs at certain stores, similar to how it works in NJ.
The other is to hire some govt\' auditors who will watch for spending sprees and deduct the "excess" money from future months\' checks.
Giving struggling single moms and all that a means to raise children should be possible, but it should NOT be desirable, and I think those kind of things would help keep the system working properly.
-
According to Kennedy they don\'t deserve any support or help because 1. they are necessary to fulfil the needs of the upper class 2. they\'ve earned the right to be miserable.
And that\'s so socialist.
-
You know, I was thinking about how people scam the system and take their child care money and go on personal shopping sprees and I think there are two solutions.
One is to have the card they issue only accepted for certain SKUs at certain stores, similar to how it works in NJ.
The other is to hire some govt\' auditors who will watch for spending sprees and deduct the "excess" money from future months\' checks.
Giving struggling single moms and all that a means to raise children should be possible, but it should NOT be desirable, and I think those kind of things would help keep the system working properly.
Don\'t say that.... what you\'re proposing is bigger gov\'t involvement and you\'ll be called a socialist, even if it is doing something for the better good of the country, something that i agree with you here.
-
According to Kennedy they don\'t deserve any support or help because 1. they are necessary to fulfil the needs of the upper class 2. they\'ve earned the right to be miserable.
And that\'s so socialist.
Congratulations, Obama wanted to create class warfare and he\'s done it. He\'s instilled resentment towards the wealthy.
1. You believe in wealth redistribution, that\'s socialism.
2. If your miserable, get a better job. If you don\'t have the skills, go to school.
I am a hardworking individual who is entitled to his earnings. Everyone is entitled to the earnings their job provides, and if you don\'t like it change jobs. Don\'t give me garbage about it being too hard or unreasonable. I made a lot of sacrifices to get where I\'m at, but you think I should be paying for tax credits for people who didn\'t earn it.
We as Americans can\'t fix every problem. There will always be people at the bottom.
LIFE ISN\'T FAIR, DEAL WITH IT.
It sounds unsympathetic, but socialism has been tried before, and it failed.
-
If you can\'t afford to have kids, you shouldn\'t be having them. Kids are a huge responsibility, and you have to be ready for it.
There are rare cases where I think child support would be neccesary.
-
Congratulations, Obama wanted to create class warfare and he\'s done it. He\'s instilled resentment towards the wealthy.
1. You believe in wealth redistribution, that\'s socialism.
2. If your miserable, get a better job. If you don\'t have the skills, go to school.
I am a hardworking individual who is entitled to his earnings. Everyone is entitled to the earnings their job provides, and if you don\'t like it change jobs. Don\'t give me garbage about it being too hard or unreasonable. I made a lot of sacrifices to get where I\'m at, but you think I should be paying for tax credits for people who didn\'t earn it.
We as Americans can\'t fix every problem. There will always be people at the bottom.
LIFE ISN\'T FAIR, DEAL WITH IT.
It sounds unsympathetic, but socialism has been tried before, and it failed.
1. No, I believe in free health care and more regulations on the economy. And if that\'s socialism, then yes throw the RED SCARE on me, but the cold war is over and no one cares anymore. And btw, we\'re all in recession thanks to your kind of thinking. WAY TO GO
2. I don\'t have a job, I play poker for a living until I burn out hit rock bottom then find something. I live in Canada where if I get sick I\'m golden, even though I\'m the healthiest person I know.
You are not any more hardworking than the people who grind it out everyday fulfilling the necessary jobs yet can\'t pay for medication or something so ridiculously simple.
You aren\'t getting new taxes, so stfu about Obama taking money from you. You ain\'t upper class, you\'re just a donkey and you\'ll never reach the kind of success you dream of. Eyore. And admit it. You were some 14 year old punk named StyxKorn coming to an internet message board talking about how awesome your PS2 was. You\'re family was financially sound, don\'t act like Rocky The Retard.
-
1. No, I believe in free health care and more regulations on the economy. And if that\'s socialism, then yes throw the RED SCARE on me, but the cold war is over and no one cares anymore. And btw, we\'re all in recession thanks to your kind of thinking. WAY TO GO
Actually, we\'re in a recession because of Democrats. The community reinvestment act, along with the government spending way too much money, and too much government intervention. Get your facts straight buddy, and don\'t believe everything the MSM throws at you. Read some books on economics.
2. I don\'t have a job, I play poker for a living until I burn out hit rock bottom then find something. I live in Canada where if I get sick I\'m golden, even though I\'m the healthiest person I know.
Good for you.
You are not any more hardworking than the people who grind it out everyday fulfilling the necessary jobs yet can\'t pay for medication or something so ridiculously simple.
Not my problem, get a better job.
You aren\'t getting new taxes, so stfu about Obama taking money from you. You ain\'t upper class, you\'re just a donkey and you\'ll never reach the kind of success you dream of. Eyore. And admit it. You were some 14 year old punk named StyxKorn coming to an internet message board talking about how awesome your PS2 was. You\'re family was financially sound, don\'t act like Rocky The Retard.
No I\'m not rich. But I get by. Stop making other people\'s problems, my problems. I was able to overcome my issues.
Oh and BTW, I saved over a years worth of allowance for that PS2. I didn\'t expect my parents to just give it to me because I don\'t have any money. I did the right thing, and I bought it myself.
Get over yourself. Nobody likes you.
-
Actually, we\'re in a recession because of Democrats. The community reinvestment act, along with the government spending way too much money, and too much government intervention. Get your facts straight buddy, and don\'t believe everything the MSM throws at you. Read some books on economics.
Good for you.
Not my problem, get a better job.
No I\'m not rich. But I get by. Stop making other people\'s problems, my problems. I was able to overcome my issues.
Oh and BTW, I saved over a years worth of allowance for that PS2. I didn\'t expect my parents to just give it to me because I don\'t have any money. I did the right thing, and I bought it myself.
Get over yourself. Nobody likes you.
The Democrats actually favored the less regulation bit during the Clinton years, and the debt was decreasing...so yeah one of us needs to get our facts straight. And Carter implementing the CRA didn\'t do shit, it was the banks who fucked you.
Again you never actually come out and say it but you favor a poor and useless class. You want people to take the jobs no one else will take and you want to make sure they never see any help for it. But yeah not your problem, since Obama will not raise your taxes.
Glib thinking holds you back. If you believe in America then you\'ll also believe in Democracy. And guess who controls the vote. Tough break there.
I\'ll never get over myself because like you believe you are superior to everyone else who makes less money than you, I know I am superior to you. And unlike your unfounded arrogance and blind devotion to a useless sect of politics, my ideals are clean.
-
Isn\'t any form of changing the distribution of wealth redistributing of wealth thereby being socialist?
-
The Democrats actually favored the less regulation bit during the Clinton years, and the debt was decreasing...so yeah one of us needs to get our facts straight. And Carter implementing the CRA didn\'t do shit, it was the banks who fucked you.
Are you tired making a fool of yourself yet? All the democrats are spewing is wanting more regulation, and it\'s been that way for years. So yes, the person who needs to get their facts straight is you. Here\'s another mis-statement on your part. The CRA basically forced banks to meet their quota\'s of subprime loans. So I blame the government for putting a gun to the head of the banks. But go right ahead and continue with your leftist spinning of facts that you do oh so well.
Again you never actually come out and say it but you favor a poor and useless class. You want people to take the jobs no one else will take and you want to make sure they never see any help for it. But yeah not your problem, since Obama will not raise your taxes.
Stop misquoting me. I favor people achieving success on their own. I have faith in people being able to create their own success and not getting handouts from the government. If this country was in such bad shape, why do people keep coming here? That\'s right, to escape the oppression of their shitty government. I believe people who settle for the "crappy jobs" have no one to blame blame but themselves. The means for success are available, if your really unhappy with your job go for the promotion or take classes to improve your standing in this world. Nothing comes free. I have nothing but the utmost respect for people who make sacrifices to get where they are today. You seem to think that people are stuck where they are in society and that there\'s no escape. Your inciting class warfare. Stop with the resentment towards the wealthy, they didn\'t do anything wrong.
Glib thinking holds you back. If you believe in America then you\'ll also believe in Democracy. And guess who controls the vote. Tough break there.
I do believe in America, I do believe in democracy... and democracy has led to the right person being elected the past forty years, most of whom were Republican. I\'m sorry you\'ve been on the losing end most of your life... oh wait, you don\'t even live in America.
I\'ll never get over myself because like you believe you are superior to everyone else who makes less money than you, I know I am superior to you. And unlike your unfounded arrogance and blind devotion to a useless sect of politics, my ideals are clean.
I don\'t feel superior to people who make less money then me, in fact I am the definition of middle class, so I don\'t know where you get this one. What you interpret as arrogance I see as disapointment. Disappointment over the fact that people don\'t do enough to help themselves. Disappointment over the fact that people turn to the government for help rather than helping themselves. You can believe whatever you want. I at least provide opinion backed by facts. I believe in policies that work, and you need look no further than a history book to see that. You say I\'m dated, I simply remember the old saying that history is bound to repeat itself, and there is no better predictor of the future than history. Your ideals are not clean, they\'re utopian and unrealistic, you don\'t think about the consequences of policies for which you support. You contribute nothing to these forums, you simply come in here to "stir the pot", and I\'m not the first one to take note of this today.
So I\'ll take your words of criticism with a grain of salt, because that\'s as much as your opinion means in this world.
-
Isn\'t any form of changing the distribution of wealth redistributing of wealth thereby being socialist?
Any time you take from one group of people and give to another group of people by government force, yes, then you have socialism.
-
Are you tired making a fool of yourself yet? All the democrats are spewing is wanting more regulation, and it\'s been that way for years. So yes, the person who needs to get their facts straight is you. Here\'s another mis-statement on your part. The CRA basically forced banks to meet their quota\'s of subprime loans. So I blame the government for putting a gun to the head of the banks. But go right ahead and continue with your leftist spinning of facts that you do oh so well.
Republicans have been in power....20 years since Carter left, and did nothing. But that\'s great blame 1976, but when the financial crisis occurs and a trillion dollar war is going on there\'s only one tangible person to blame.
Stop misquoting me. I favor people achieving success on their own. I have faith in people being able to create their own success and not getting handouts from the government. If this country was in such bad shape, why do people keep coming here? That\'s right, to escape the oppression of their shitty government. I believe people who settle for the "crappy jobs" have no one to blame blame but themselves. The means for success are available, if your really unhappy with your job go for the promotion or take classes to improve your standing in this world. Nothing comes free. I have nothing but the utmost respect for people who make sacrifices to get where they are today. You seem to think that people are stuck where they are in society and that there\'s no escape. Your inciting class warfare. Stop with the resentment towards the wealthy, they didn\'t do anything wrong.
Some people are stuck and you can\'t be naive enough to think otherwise. But according to you all of them, every single one of them is perfectly capable of improving their position in life...at the cost of others? But that\'s fine having a ridiculously poor bottom class? Just say its necessary so we can move on.
This resentment toward the wealthy bit some of you are throwing around ain\'t sticking. None of us believe in socialism, communism, Marxism, or whatever. But countries like France, Canada, GB, Australia, they live healthier and longer than Americans. I\'ve always been a strong supporter of free health care because it\'s every person\'s right to breathe. You shouldn\'t put a price tag on someone\'s life or sickness. But hey, every first world country doing it...just ain\'t American so they\'re obviously wrong. Nothing besides what a bunch of slave owners wrote in 1786 makes sense.
I do believe in America, I do believe in democracy... and democracy has led to the right person being elected the past forty years, most of whom were Republican. I\'m sorry you\'ve been on the losing end most of your life... oh wait, you don\'t even live in America.
George W Bush...Nixon...solid dudes. Stone made movies into both of them so at least they can brag about that. Democracy will leave to the right person being voted in this year though. Not same "LETS DO THE SAME THING AGAIN AND HOPE FOR THE BEST" guy who\'s going to die in 3 years.
I don\'t feel superior to people who make less money then me, in fact I am the definition of middle class, so I don\'t know where you get this one. What you interpret as arrogance I see as disapointment. Disappointment over the fact that people don\'t do enough to help themselves. Disappointment over the fact that people turn to the government for help rather than helping themselves. You can believe whatever you want. I at least provide opinion backed by facts. I believe in policies that work, and you need look no further than a history book to see that. You say I\'m dated, I simply remember the old saying that history is bound to repeat itself, and there is no better predictor of the future than history. Your ideals are not clean, they\'re utopian and unrealistic, you don\'t think about the consequences of policies for which you support. You contribute nothing to these forums, you simply come in here to "stir the pot", and I\'m not the first one to take note of this today.
You\'re view on history and problem solving relates more to an Utopian nature than mine btw. The "glory days" are over, new problems arise.
My policies...are my own. Besides free health care I haven\'t said shit because I\'m not American, besides voting Obama is superior. I\'m just pointing out the flaws in your Ron Paul literate because its so fucking absurd. Every time someone brings someone up you go back to the well of BS and its kind of annoying. You\'re kind of a bitch. You refuse to vote for either candidate yet you ramble on about socialism and how Obama will cripple the country?
You should say, "because that\'s as much as your opinion means in this country", since you know, the rest of the world seems to share my idealistic Utopian views.
-
I\'m just happy your vote doesn\'t count.
Our system is broken, and I don\'t care for either candidate, but push comes to shove, I\'ll take more of the same over radicalism. Anyone who denounces the constitution is committing treason in my eyes anyway.
-
Obama\'s gonna win either way, might as well move to Mexico and get an advance on real exploitation. Not the half ass American version.
What if he amends the constitution and puts some cool shit in replacing the outdated stuff? Like abolishing slavery? I\'ll openly admit that was a great amendment despite your extreme disapproval of it.
-
Obama\'s gonna win either way, might as well move to Mexico and get an advance on real exploitation. Not the half ass American version.
What if he amends the constitution and puts some cool shit in replacing the outdated stuff? Like abolishing slavery? I\'ll openly admit that was a great amendment despite your extreme disapproval of it.
I have nothing against ammendments, just people who dislike the bill of rights.
I can\'t wait for January 20th, the day Obama begins starts tearing this country apart, and people finally see him the fraud he truly is. Don\'t say I didn\'t tell you so.
-
Here\'s another mis-statement on your part. The CRA basically forced banks to meet their quota\'s of subprime loans. So I blame the government for putting a gun to the head of the banks. But go right ahead and continue with your leftist spinning of facts that you do oh so well.
Bullshit. You are the one spinning facts. You\'re so desperate to find some way to blame Democrats for the economy, that you have to go back to Jimmy Carter? Sorry, but that is absurd.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/dcca/cra/
[SIZE=+1]Evaluation of CRA Performance[/SIZE]
The CRA requires that each depository institution\'s record in helping meet the credit needs of its entire community be evaluated periodically. That record is taken into account in considering an institution\'s application for deposit facilities.
Neither the CRA nor its implementing regulation gives specific criteria for rating the performance of depository institutions. Rather, the law indicates that the evaluation process should accommodate an institution\'s individual circumstances. Nor does the law require institutions to make high-risk loans that jeopardize their safety. To the contrary, the law makes it clear that an institution\'s CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner.
Evidence indicates that CRA loans were mostly safe, responsible, and profitable for the lending institutions. The bullshit subprime loans came mostly from institutions not covered by CRA.
Michael S. Barr, in testimony before the House of Representatives:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/barr021308.pdf
More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision; another 30 percent of such originations were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts, which are not subject to routine examination or supervision, and the remaining 20 percent were made by banks and thrifts. Although reasonable people can disagree about how to interpret the evidence, my own judgment is that the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight.
As usual, the problem was insufficient regulation of financial institutions. Now that this is exceedingly obvious, Republicans who previously got hard-ons for deregulation are pretending they actually favored increased government oversight, and this is somehow the Democrat\'s fault. It\'s pathetic, and fortunately the majority of the US electorate understands that. :)
-
Federal Reserve chair Ben Bernanke has stated that an underlying assumption of the CRA – that more lending equals better outcomes for local communities – may not always be true. However, he also notes that at least in some instances, "the CRA has served as a catalyst, inducing banks to enter under-served markets that they might otherwise have ignored".
In his statement before the same hearing, New York University economics professor Larry White stated that regulator efforts to "lean on" banks in vague and subjective ways to make loans is an "inappropriate instrument for achieving those goals." In a world of national banking enterprises, these policies are more likely to drive institutions out of neighborhoods. He stated that better ways to accomplish the goals would be vigorous enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, of antitrust laws to promote competition, and federal funding of worthy projects directly through an "on-budget and transparent process" like the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.
Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry.[49] In a commentary for CNN, Congressman Ron Paul, who serves on the United States House Committee on Financial Services, charged that the CRA with "forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks."[55] In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Austrian school economist Russell Roberts wrote that the CRA subsidized low-income housing by pressuring banks to serve poor borrowers and poor regions of the country.
So there that goes... oh well, you tried. Remember, perception always wins out over intention. While you may perceive the CRA to be an effective tool for making loans that didn\'t force banks to make loans, in actuality it did. I\'ll respect the words of the man who correctly predicted this crisis back in 2002.
-
Nor does the law require institutions to make high-risk loans that jeopardize their safety. To the contrary, the law makes it clear that an institution\'s CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner.
Those people that undertook those loans screwed themselves. Greed is what lead to this meltdown. The statement above clearly states when processing a loan, make sure you do not shoot yourself in the foot during the process...if the banks knew that certain people would not qualify, they should have been rejected....simple.
Now because of thier greed...the wealthy(wall st.) is stealing from the middleclass and poor to the tune of a 850 billion bailout...with over $400,000 of it already bein\' used for lavish trips for one of the big establishments(AIG)...yes people had some responsibility as well, but the banks could have avoided this mess by just saying no...but yet you complain of obama raisin\' taxes on the wealthy overall at about 3% on average?....like i stated before, raising the taxes to the time of the clinton years is not going to break these companies....they are only complaining because of greed,..they have more than enough money to follow thru with daily operations yet they still are unhappy with a plan that actually makes sense....at least to the middleclass.
-
As usual, the problem was insufficient regulation of financial institutions. Now that this is exceedingly obvious, Republicans who previously got hard-ons for deregulation are pretending they actually favored increased government oversight, and this is somehow the Democrat\'s fault. It\'s pathetic, and fortunately the majority of the US electorate understands that. :)
Tonight, when you are in bed with your lover Barney Frank, roll over and ask him to be honest with you.
-
Great, great progress has been made in our country since our founding. However, Barack Obama and the Democrat Party still see this nation as the greatest failure in the experiment of social and economic justice and equality that the human race has ever produced.
You see, the people of this country love their Constitution, reject socialism, and don\'t support an authoritarian judiciary -- yet this is the Obama agenda: he wants to unleash the full power of the federal government against the people.
Moral of the story:
Whether you call a phone sex hotline or you call the Democrat Party, you\'re going to get screwed either way.
And I\'ll leave it at that.
-
So there that goes... oh well, you tried. Remember, perception always wins out over intention. While you may perceive the CRA to be an effective tool for making loans that didn\'t force banks to make loans, in actuality it did. I\'ll respect the words of the man who correctly predicted this crisis back in 2002.
Where is the link?
BTW, you only believe what Ron Paul tells you to believe. How is that any different from the criticisms you have made against Obama supporters?
-
Where is the link?
BTW, you only believe what Ron Paul tells you to believe. How is that any different from the criticisms you have made against Obama supporters?
Ron Paul predicted the financial crisis, Obama did not. Do you want to start a list of Ron Paul accomplishments vs. Obama accomplishments.
Rather, I think we\'d be better off reading the shortest book in the world, "Barack Hussein Obama\'s Political Accomplishments."
Ron Paul\'s Accomplishments (http://www.newsli.com/2007/12/06/presidential-candidate-ron-paul-bears-an-empty-pot-for-americans/)
Barack Obama\'s Accomplishments (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d91jxghTnE)
Reference Material for CRA statements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
anything else?
-
In related news, I just EMPTIED my daughter\'s saving account and bought silver bars. I also bought a ton of my own. Where I work, we buy & sell precious metals, and we cannot keep ANYTHING in stock. people are emptying their accounts and paying exorbanant premiums for gold, silver & platinum. We have probobly sold $25-30 mil in the last 3 weeks. People with money are running scared, and a lot of them are self-made wealthy people. I hear "I worked too damn hard my whole life to have someone give it to people who can\'t stop f*cking and having kids they can\'t feed..."
watch out, socialism is around the corner.
-
Because I earn money, I view impoverished men, women and children with disdain and contempt. May they rot in hell while I go for a swim in my piles of gold and silver.
That about the gist of it?
There was a time when liberal was only an insult if we added "bleeding heart" in front of it. And the overall idea behind free healthcare and in providing child support for those who need it is compassion.
Yeah, I wish bad parents would stop having sex, but in the absence of that, I\'d prefer not to see the children punished for it more than they already will be.
-
Because I earn money, I view impoverished men, women and children with disdain and contempt. May they rot in hell while I go for a swim in my piles of gold and silver.
That about the gist of it?
Because I do not earn money, I view the wealthy as my providers. I cannot provide for myself, so I expect my government to take care of me from cradle to grave. I resent the wealthy for their success and rather than achieve my own success, I\'d just like some of theirs.
That about the gist of it?
-
Yes.
Except for resenting the wealthy, it\'s probably more of a jealousy thing, or in some cases just a general apathy.
-
7 years isn\'t that long ago, his opinions haven\'t changed.
Yes, I even stated after the elipsis that not everyone will have a problem with that quote.
While I\'m not thrilled with my current situation, I\'m not UNhappy, I will be if the government reaches deeper into my pocket though.
Are you in the top 5% wage earners in this country?
-
Are you in the top 5% wage earners in this country?
Nope, but I\'m a man of principal, and I don\'t believe his tax plan for one second.
Please Read (http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/10/obamas-redistribution-tax-increase-now.html)
We are no longer talking about the top 1%, or even the top 2% of earners. With a tax increase that will hit individuals earning $84,000 - $125,000 per year, the top 20% of taxpayers and small businesses would now see an increase in taxes. This expansion of Obama\'s tax increase base amounts to an increase in taxes on a group 20 times larger than his initial proposals. Now imagine if this is not the end.
/reality check
-
I love the right screaming socialism.. when really all Obama\'s tax plan will do is roll it back to the tax structure how it was under the Clinton administration... basically undo the huge tax cuts for the rich in this country. 3% is gonna make you want to scream socialism? Save me the inevitable "slippery slope" comment also.
I remember reading a story a guy wrote who made about 280k a year... he broke down the changes that would take place under an Obama administration and kept crying about how 280k doesn\'t go as far as it used to in Toledo, Ohio and that the Obama plan was going to raise his taxes by about $450.
Cry me a fucking river
-
I love the right screaming socialism.. when really all Obama\'s tax plan will do is roll it back to the tax structure how it was under the Clinton administration... basically undo the huge tax cuts for the rich in this country. 3% is gonna make you want to scream socialism? Save me the inevitable "slippery slope" comment also.
I remember reading a story a guy wrote who made about 280k a year... he broke down the changes that would take place under an Obama administration and kept crying about how 280k doesn\'t go as far as it used to in Toledo, Ohio and that the Obama plan was going to raise his taxes by about $450.
Cry me a fucking river
You didn\'t address the link and/or quote that I posted. It\'s top 20%, not top 3%. Remember, it started at top 1%.
-
You didn\'t address the link and/or quote that I posted. It\'s top 20%, not top 3%. Remember, it started at top 1%.
We\'ll just have to wait and see eh?....Tho truth be told,...i did notice how he dropped the number from $250,000 to $200,000 on tha low, with no explanation yet as to why, and even tho i\'m still not within that bracket, that was a bit concerning. In truth both him and McCain would have to raise taxes at some point,...with the current state of the economy, it\'s bound to happen.
Anyway families makin\' over 200,000 a year are still living pretty well and what he\'s proposing again will not break them, but i now wonder what is the number for an individual since the family was dropped to $200,000...dammit obama you better not be pulling an okeedoke!!.....i\'m sure the McCain fanatics will jump all over me for sayin\' this, but if we\'re truly going to have an honest discussion, that is the only thing that bothered me last night during his infomercial.
I don\'t know, he has the former economic team that surrounded bill clinton back in the day so i\'m sure what ever they are planning will be in connection with what we are dealing with in the current state of the economy. The economy is in bad shape,..none of us are feeling it at the rock bottom level because we are all working and still have our homes, but it\'s going to take alot to get it back on track,..i still trust that obama will work hard to get it right again.
-
Seriously, if the top 20% get a tax hike, then the top 20% get a tax hike. Tough noogies. Normally, and realistically, it\'ll pretty much always be the top 100% getting the tax hike, so less people have to bite it this time around. Yay.
Big deal.
Or, instead of taxes, maybe we can just run completely on money we borrow from China for a few years.
-
Seriously, if the top 20% get a tax hike, then the top 20% get a tax hike. Tough noogies. Normally, and realistically, it\'ll pretty much always be the top 100% getting the tax hike, so less people have to bite it this time around. Yay.
Big deal.
Or, instead of taxes, maybe we can just run completely on money we borrow from China for a few years.
maybe we could stop spending money on things like you know... the iraq war, foreign aid, welfare, the IRS, and other useless government beauracracies.
-
maybe we could stop spending money on things like you know... the iraq war, foreign aid, welfare, the IRS, and other useless government beauracracies.
How would we catch drug dealers and gangsters without the IRS!!?!!?
-
people makin\' over $200k are living well? That\'s all realtive, son... If you live in a place like NYC, it doesn\'t go as far as other places. Or even New York State, where we have exorbanant state income tax. And with inflation in place, and the cost of energy sky-high, I think that number is hitting upper-mid class at best, not "wealthy"
-
maybe we could stop spending money on things like you know... the iraq war, foreign aid, welfare, the IRS, and other useless government beauracracies.
So the wealthy face their first bad break in at least 8 years and we should abolish all the government agencies that benefit middle and lower class America and the world at large?
How about instead, the wealthy take their medicine and stop complaining.
Remember that government is by the people and for the "people".
"People" now extends to all races and creeds and income levels and sexual orientation and political alignment. That means the government is for a single, jobless mother of six just as much as it\'s for Captain Kennedy, Self-Sufficient Man of the Year.
So, no, you can\'t have it your way.
-
The government is there to protect us, not run our lives, it says so in the bill of rights.
Tell me where in the constitution it says we shall redistribute wealth and provide free health care based on the mere fact that they\'re a U.S. citizen. People need to understand the difference between rights and priveleges, and it has nothing to do with wealth and everything to do with getting off your ass and taking responsibility for your life.
If we start doling out welfare checks and health care to every schmuck that walks the street their will be no benefit to the hard working individuals of this country. I am a fan of workers, not moochers. If you think people are incapable of overcoming adversity you have a very cynical view of society.
I see it like this, more good comes from freedom than bad. You start giving the government more and more power, bad things will happen.
-
I am middle class. Explain how the IRS and welfare benefit me Eik.
No one forced that mother to have six kids. Sounds like she is lacking in the personal responsibility department. I should not have to pay for her laziness, inability to use birth control and use common sense.
-
Moral of the story. We are responsible for our own lives and the decisions we make, as well as the consequences of those decisions.
-
No one forced that mother to have six kids. Sounds like she is lacking in the personal responsibility department.
*gasp* Taking the words right out of my mouth.
-
I thought Giga was pro life?
-
I am middle class. Explain how the IRS and welfare benefit me Eik.
No one forced that mother to have six kids. Sounds like she is lacking in the personal responsibility department. I should not have to pay for her laziness, inability to use birth control and use common sense.
Maybe the bible did. :confused:
-
Moral of the story. We are responsible for our own lives and the decisions we make, as well as the consequences of those decisions.
Would you guys be happy if those folks weren\'t getting a check? Or would you find something else to criticize?....seems to me everybody is up in arms over these folks gettin\' a check, and i see the point to a degree, but it\'s just about impossible to figure out who is really benefiting from welfare and those that abuse it.
I guess you can have a type of monitoring program where a social worker monitors a certain group of folks, but even then...i think gov. whitman (when i used to live in jersey) passed legislation that required folks to get off of welfare witin 6 - 7 months, but i don\'t think it worked out very well,...people either tried to find work, but couldn\'t, or ended up asking for extensions, i\'m not really sure what happened with that law.
-
The government is there to protect us
If we start doling out welfare checks and health care to every schmuck that walks the street their will be no benefit to the hard working individuals of this country.
"Us" includes every schmuck that walks the street and "protecting," well that\'s a conveniently vague term, isn\'t it? Offering a kind of minimum means to live and raise those children is protection. And, there are no happy health care and welfare fairies who create the support and protection for these families, even if it\'s protection from their own incompetent mothers and fathers. That kind of protection costs money and that means we all have to foot the bill since we fund the government and this is part of the government\'s role.
I am middle class. Explain how the IRS and welfare benefit me Eik.
Welfare doesn\'t benefit you. For that matter, neither does ovarian cancer research, but the world and government don\'t revolve around only your needs. Thank God.
No one forced that mother to have six kids. Sounds like she is lacking in the personal responsibility department. I should not have to pay for her laziness, inability to use birth control and use common sense.
Yeah, you\'re right about her lack of responsibility, but unless you want a government that comes in and ties our citizens\' tubes, or one that leaves hard-luck children to die like in a third world country, then you\'ll have to pay for welfare.
Even if you can\'t think of anyone but yourself, luckily most of the country values American life and has already put those programs in place. They\'re not perfect and could use some tweaking, but they\'re necessary.
I really don\'t get the high-horse, holier-than-thou, government-for-me-only attitude. It\'s like wanting to vote for your own personal fantasy world, no? That\'s one way to go, I guess.
-
Excellent post Eik....i agree 100%..:applause:
-
I\'d be for giving children under the age of 18 health coverage, but I\'d say once their out of high school or college (should they choose to continue their education which I always recommend), that they\'re on their own and must find work. I say this because in this case I think it\'s best for the child to focus on their education.
My big issue is people who don\'t go to college, or the military, or enter the workforce and expect the working individuals of this country to pay for them. There has to be a reasonable line between those who can\'t and those who won\'t work.
They should do this without increasing taxes, should be easy if you cut off all the people who are abusing the system of welfare.
-
My big issue is people who don\'t go to college, or the military, or enter the workforce and expect the working individuals of this country to pay for them. There has to be a reasonable line between those who can\'t and those who won\'t work.
That I can agree with. I hate moochers too, and living in a city, I mean, I see them and it pisses me off, ya know? That\'s why I\'m thinking we need to fix the welfare system and all that, get it running the way it was probably meant to when it was conceptualized.
-
I thought Giga was pro life?
Wrong. I have never stated I was pro life. Generalizations suck don\'t they. BTW I am not religious either.
-
Generalizations suck don\'t they.
i think you just blew a hole in the space-time continuum
-
If that were the case Nobama wouldn\'t even be a citizen in this country. Well... maybe he isn\'t. At least his Aunt isn\'t anyway.
-
Sure he isnt......
http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news
-
Somebody on welfare should not have the right to vote in an election, so that they are not allowed to continue there welfare and to leach off the system and possibly better themselves.
-
Somebody on welfare should not have the right to vote in an election, so that they are not allowed to continue there welfare and to leach off the system and possibly better themselves.
Dumbest thing...ever
Next we\'ll add people to disability. Then people who have WIC...The list goes on and on.
-
People with disability isn\'t comparable to welfare in the least.
-
Somebody on welfare should not have the right to vote in an election, so that they are not allowed to continue there welfare and to leach off the system and possibly better themselves.
And everyone on the welfare system is leeching? You can\'t punish everyone because some people are abusing the system.
-
Enough people do to make a case for it.
Maybe we could do a weighted system whereas, the more you contribute to society, the more your vote counts.
Let\'s just keep brainstorming ideas.
-
So what would determine who "contributes" to society? Sounds on the surface like a ploy to give the top 5% even more influence than they already have. Everyone has an equal say in this country, anything less is outright blasphemous.
-
things like...
works
donations to charity/research
no felonies
those are good judgments of character and contribution to society, not sure how that factors into the top 5%
-
The majority of us work and don\'t have felonies so that just leaves.....
Donations- so you\'re saying the people with the most money get the most influence, isn\'t that something people have fought to stop? I mean, I work hard, i make a decent living, but I don\'t have a spare half a mil in my bank account to donate. Does that mean my rich buddy, who only has money because of his parents (this is not a fictional character), can donate more than I can make in a year and have more influence than me? How can that even remotely sound like a good idea.
Edit: I\'m just confused why on earth you would want a tiered voting system, it just reeks of jim crow laws.
-
everyone would have more money if we had less taxes
-
I wish they could make you take a test before voting. I mean there are a lot of people out there that there is NO WAY they can make an informed decision.
These are of course the people on the DNC busses being tricked to the polling locations. :)
-
things like...
works
donations to charity/research
no felonies
those are good judgments of character and contribution to society, not sure how that factors into the top 5%
In every way.
They all have to work to keep that money.
Most of them donate b/c of the benefits they recieve either from the IRS or public image.
Alot have committed several felonies on their way to the top.
-
Alot have committed several felonies on their way to the top.
so that would work against them
I agree with Vid, there should be a test to vote. Know your candidates policies instead of just voting for the black guy.
-
Where do you get this notion that black people vote? lol
The ones that do, I would only assume since they cared enough to vote they would know a little about who they were voting for.
I want to see the voting demographics Wednesday and compare to previous elections.
If we are going to do tests, we may as well test ppl to see if they know how to hold their liquor
Driving tests are a joke. Look how many people that cannot drive, drive improperly, and just flat out do not know the rules of the road. Dumb ass people still get DL\'s. :)
-
The system has enough checks and balances as it is. Even if the public elects a terrible candidate... Even if they elect this person twice... ya know, hypothetically... Life goes on..
-
so that would work against them
I agree with Vid, there should be a test to vote. Know your candidates policies instead of just voting for the black guy.
Listen to how silly you sound....i guess the white folks that are voting for him are only doing it because he\'s black as well right? Even tho most blacks vote democratic anyway? I thought we already had this discussion....what do you say to all of those black voters that voted for those other white candidates of years past?....nothing right? since they are all white, you don\'t have a problem with blacks voting for them, but because there\'s a black candidate, all of a sudden all blacks are going to vote for him regardless of his policies. :rolleyes:
A test to vote? That\'s plain dumb...if you\'re a citizen you should be allowed to vote, end of story.... all of these rules and regulations and requirements that some are proposing are absolutely idiotic. Seems like some are tryin\' to enforce their own campaign to deter legit voters...i do believe you should at least know the candidate of your choice policies, but i don\'t think you should be penalized for not knowing his policies and voting for other reasons.
Sheesh,.. some of those older ignorant white folks need to know McCain\'s policies instead of just votin\' for the "white" guy.
-
Even tho most blacks vote democratic anyway?
And why is that? Free stuff.
I have nothing against Obama personally, it\'s his policies, and the policies of most democrats that angers me.
hey clips, lets just let babies vote! they\'re US citizens!
I just don\'t understand the obsession with the guy. If McCain somehow won, your telling me all these blacks who threw their support behind Obama wouldn\'t riot? They would... until it comes time for them to pickup their welfare checks.
I know it sounds ignorant and racist, but its the truth, and the truth doesn\'t see colors.
I have many black friends, and I choose not to bring politics into the conversation at the risk of offending them for not supporting Obama.
-
And why is that? Free stuff.
I have nothing against Obama personally, it\'s his policies, and the policies of most democrats that angers me.
hey clips, lets just let babies vote! they\'re US citizens!
Let me know what\'s being handed out for free. And if you don\'t like his policies, i can roll with that...but stop with the blacks is only votin\' for him because he\'s black argument,...yes some are, but there some white folks are votin\' for McCain for the very same reason. I\'ve stated before i consider myself a dem, but i supported bush last election, regardless of sharpton and that other afri. american bein there. I\'ll vote for the person that has policies that implements the best common sense strategies for our country,....and not the kind that we\'ve seen from our current president.
-
lol..classic bigot.....
*makes racist comment*
*follows up with I have many black friends/co-workers/whatever in-laws*
-
I just don\'t understand the obsession with the guy. If McCain somehow won, your telling me all these blacks who threw their support behind Obama wouldn\'t riot? They would... until it comes time for them to pickup their welfare checks.
I know it sounds ignorant and racist, but its the truth, and the truth doesn\'t see colors.
I have many black friends, and I choose not to bring politics into the conversation at the risk of offending them for not supporting Obama.
Why would they riot? because obama didn\'t win? I don\'t think they would...life would go on....myself personally i don\'t have a problem with McCain...i don\'t agree with some of his policies, but if he won i would just accept it, and i actually like McCain,...he does sincerly seems like he cares about the country,..Palin on the other hand is extremely annoying and fake....i hope she dissappears after this election if she and McCain doesn\'t win.
And i can see why your black friends would be offended, if you\'re going around sayin\' blacks are only votin\' for him because he\'s black, they have a right to be pissed....blacks came out and voted for clinton in record numbers and he was white, but nobody had anything to say about that when blacks folks voted for him, again because most blacks vote democratic anyway....
Tell your black friends that you disagree with obama\'s policies and i\'m sure they won\'t have an issue with you....i haven\'t had an issue with you until you\'ve mentioned the race factor, if we\'re ever gonna get over that racial hump, just stop lookin\' at color and focus on his policies...
-
Let me know what\'s being handed out for free.
How about tax cuts for people who don\'t pay taxes. That\'s called a tax credit, which is a form of welfare, which is a hand out.
There, that wasn\'t very hard.
-
Tell your black friends that you disagree with obama\'s policies and i\'m sure they won\'t have an issue with you....i haven\'t had an issue with you until you\'ve mentioned the race factor, if we\'re ever gonna get over that racial hump, just stop lookin\' at color and focus on his policies...
I asked them to list Obama\'s accomplishments and they changed the subject.
-
lol..classic bigot.....
*makes racist comment*
*follows up with I have many black friends/co-workers/whatever in-laws*
right, I\'m just a bitter racist American clinging to my bible and gun, where have I heard that before?
-
How about tax cuts for people who don\'t pay taxes. That\'s called a tax credit, which is a form of welfare, which is a hand out.
There, that wasn\'t very hard.
Sometimes you gotta look at the overall greater good it\'s doing...it\'s helping out middleclass families,...some of those folks will recieve a check, it\'s hard to determine who\'s abusing the system and who truly needs it. We\'re borrowing 10 billion a month in iraq for an unjust war, and we give a generous amount of cash to third world countries all over the world, i guess it\'s unamerican to help out your own tho. So what some are going to get some extra cash, that doesn\'t mean all of a sudden you\'re going to see them at those expensive country clubs and all exlcusive resorts,...:D.. relax...those folks will still remain lazy and poor, you have nothing to worry about.
I asked them to list Obama\'s accomplishments and they changed the subject.
Well they need to do some homework, Obama has some accomplishments but he hasn\'t been in the senate that long to beef up his resume....it doesn\'t matter if he doesn\'t have a long list...what matters is how he\'ll get the country back on track, and while you may not agree with it, an incredible amount of other people think otherwise...we\'ve had folks in the presidency with experience and the country is still stinkin\' up tha joint...it\'s time for something new.
right, I\'m just a bitter racist American clinging to my bible and gun, where have I heard that before?
I don\'t think you\'re racist, but i don\'t like the argument of black folks votin\' for him because he\'s black, when past elections have proved otherwise,..by you saying that, you have some inner racial overtones that you need to deal with.
And Obama was telling the truth in a sense..in regards to those up in that particular part of PA....you\'ll find those folks that have the intelligence capacity of a doorknob, that\'ll say stuff like.."this is the united states of america and we\'re not gonna let those immigrants or blacks take over..yee-haw...bang bang"....that\'s a wee bit exaggeration, but you get the point.