| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/06/2008 08:39:36 PM · #26 |
| Most who vote are voting for what's best for them (if they even know what that is) never mind what's good for the country. I'm with Emma Goldman. |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 10:16:50 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by coronamv:
Now take into consideration that acording to DHR stats less than 5% of receipients actualy need welfare ... |
That has got to be the biggest piece of unsupported statistical bovine byproduct I've seen posted here in quite some time. If you feel that way why not show evidence otherwise.
Do Congress members need a perdiem in addition to their salaries? YES, if they are on state business
Do oil companies deserve special tax consideration instead of using their billions in profits? YES if they violate no laws in doing so.
You think millionaires should make more and pay less, but that hungry kids don't "need" welfare? Rip me apart but yes. Because one earned the income the other did not. People need to take responsibility for their actions..
Open your eyes and walk through any US downtown and repeat that with a straight face. [i][i]I can, but there again I'm not asking for a free handout... |
Message edited by author 2008-07-06 22:18:09. |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 10:22:47 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Rino63:
Originally posted by coronamv:
[I do agree with the statement that if your not a US citizen you should not be extended the rights under the constitution. Like voting or the right to bare arms or due process... |
look that this is a dangerous idea. in these days in italy we have a minister that want take the fingerprints to the ROM children only because ROM(i.e. an ethnicity that come principally from Romania) and for me this is racism. if you denies the right of the costitution of your country to someone that live in your country, even if this person don't have your same nationality or if this person is an irregular immigrant, this leads along a dangerous way...... |
Well I agree separating a sect of your own population of citizens due to ethnic background is racism, but limiting the rights of non citizens is not racism at all. Everyone who come to the US by legal means "as a resident" has every opportunity to apply for naturalization. And it's not irregular immigrant it's called Illegal Alien. |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 11:14:21 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
You think millionaires should make more and pay less, but that hungry kids don't "need" welfare? Rip me apart but yes. Because one earned the income the other did not. People need to take responsibility for their actions.. |
Excuse me, but even the IRS recognizes income derived solely from renting others your money ("investing") as "unearned income."
Don't tell me that someone with a billion dollars who lends it out at a profit has "worked" as hard as a minimum-wage worker working two jobs to stay above the food-stamp limit ... why is it that this society values highest the aggrandizement of wealth -- why should an investment banker make more than a doctor or a teacher or a firefighter; which really contributes more to the overall betterment of society? |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 11:41:08 PM · #30 |
I feel that the US made a big mistake when we went off the gold standard for our currency, and that is when inflation began to take off. Gold was at $35/oz US when I graduated, and minimum wage, which had just been established, was about $1.25/hr, and you could make a small but secure living on that.
During the "oil crisis" in the early 1970's , there was a shortage at the pump and gas was rationed at 10 gal/car. This time, there is someone making a ton of money who knows that if the price is doubled, the sales will still be more than half as before. With that tactic, they cut overhead by not refining and delivering as much product, and still have about half left to sell later at the even higher price. I notice that here is no shortage at the pump today.
It's still one person, one vote, for everyone, not just tax payers. That was one of the founding principles of this country. I think that the process by which we actually pick a president is flawed in this age of communication and technology. It was a good idea back when communication was by hand carried letters and horesback. I feel that it should be by popular vote now that we have the technology. (Keep in mind that this is the opinion of a Florida voter about voting technology.) : )
It's election year, expect a big jump up in oil price shortly after Jan 22nd in the US, no matter who is in office.
|
|
|
|
07/06/2008 11:52:30 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
I do agree with the statement that if your not a US citizen you should not be extended the rights under the constitution. Like voting or the right to bare arms or due process... |
Is wearing a tank top and baring arms even a constitutional issue? I mean, if some guy (or gal even) from another country wants to come over and show off their arms, I don't see what the problem is. Even if their pits are hairy. |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 11:57:36 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by coronamv:
Now take into consideration that acording to DHR stats less than 5% of receipients actualy need welfare ... |
That has got to be the biggest piece of unsupported statistical bovine byproduct I've seen posted here in quite some time. If you feel that way why not show evidence otherwise.
Do Congress members need a perdiem in addition to their salaries? YES, if they are on state business
Do oil companies deserve special tax consideration instead of using their billions in profits? YES if they violate no laws in doing so.
You think millionaires should make more and pay less, but that hungry kids don't "need" welfare? Rip me apart but yes. Because one earned the income the other did not. People need to take responsibility for their actions..
Open your eyes and walk through any US downtown and repeat that with a straight face. [i][i]I can, but there again I'm not asking for a free handout... |
|
Once again you've shown that callousness and uncaring really do have few limits. |
|
|
|
07/07/2008 02:37:05 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by coronamv:
You think millionaires should make more and pay less, but that hungry kids don't "need" welfare? Rip me apart but yes. Because one earned the income the other did not. People need to take responsibility for their actions.. |
Excuse me, but even the IRS recognizes income derived solely from renting others your money ("investing") as "unearned income."
Don't tell me that someone with a billion dollars who lends it out at a profit has "worked" as hard as a minimum-wage worker working two jobs to stay above the food-stamp limit ... why is it that this society values highest the aggrandizement of wealth -- why should an investment banker make more than a doctor or a teacher or a firefighter; which really contributes more to the overall betterment of society? |
Yes a person who accepts the risk and places their money at such risk as loaning money out has worked as hard as someone who earns minimum wage! You seem to forget the sole purpose of working a job, and that is to make money. THIS IS NOT A SOCIALIST OR COMMUNIST COUNTRY! |
|
|
|
07/07/2008 03:12:37 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by coronamv:
You think millionaires should make more and pay less, but that hungry kids don't "need" welfare? Rip me apart but yes. Because one earned the income the other did not. People need to take responsibility for their actions.. |
Excuse me, but even the IRS recognizes income derived solely from renting others your money ("investing") as "unearned income."
Don't tell me that someone with a billion dollars who lends it out at a profit has "worked" as hard as a minimum-wage worker working two jobs to stay above the food-stamp limit ... why is it that this society values highest the aggrandizement of wealth -- why should an investment banker make more than a doctor or a teacher or a firefighter; which really contributes more to the overall betterment of society? |
Yes a person who accepts the risk and places their money at such risk as loaning money out has worked as hard as someone who earns minimum wage! You seem to forget the sole purpose of working a job, and that is to make money. THIS IS NOT A SOCIALIST OR COMMUNIST COUNTRY! |
Fortunately for the civilized among us, it's not the Objectivist dream world you seem to believe in either.
And no, playing golf while your investments make your millions into even more millions isn't work, sorry.
Wait...did you say risk? According to your other nonsensical posts, being successful and making lots of money is all about hard work. Luck, good or bad isn't a factor, so which is it? You either believe in chance or you don't.
Message edited by author 2008-07-07 03:15:51. |
|
|
|
07/07/2008 03:18:14 AM · #35 |
This is not a socialist or a communist country, agreed. Far from it, from the social aspect. What do you call the system of government where the ruling elite loans between 600,000,000,000 and 1,100,000,000,000 dollars from a 3rd party in the name of its own people and spends it all irrevocably without getting anything in return?
And still, there is no mention on how are we planning to return that money. What will happen next? What did the Congress do every last instance when the govt was in debt? Raise taxes. What are we trying to do now, keep the tax cuts, so that we can do what?
Obama will have to raise taxes, if he wins. So will McCain, or the government will have to shut down. Much like all the ordinary people that kept buying stuff on credit cards and taking out home equity loans until the equity was no more.
And the future tax hike will not go to the programs for the poor - no need to worry about socialization here. It will go to repay the debt, one small percentage at the time. Until it is repaid.
And then, for our children if they are still alive, they will be able to look at the big country across the Pacific, with mixed feelings of envy, hatred, and longing for better life across the pond...
I may be wrong, but I don't see how...
If it is not clear what's happening now, look at the Truman/Marshall plan for Europe and how that elevated US to the top of the world. Ask yourself who is Marshall today, and who is getting the aid... |
|
|
|
07/07/2008 03:21:48 AM · #36 |
| So from what I gather is there is no point in bettering ones self. No point in education at any higher level. No point in working a job that pays well. No point in trying to achieve more in life. Just let someone else do it and redistribute their money since they do not deserve it. Is that the consensus? So what do we do when everyone chooses to be on welfare? Who will carry the tab? |
|
|
|
07/07/2008 03:27:59 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
So from what I gather is there is no point in bettering ones self. No point in education at any higher level. No point in working a job that pays well. No point in trying to achieve more in life. Just let someone else do it and redistribute their money since they do not deserve it. Is that the consensus? So what do we do when everyone chooses to be on welfare? Who will carry the tab? |
Only if you are satisfied with the welfare-level life. There is still benefit from going up in a society, if it can be done based on what you are trying to do for you by improving/bettering yourself.
Nobody suggests that all people should enjoy life to its fullest on welfare. When I was commenting on such topics here @DPC, I primarily addressed healthcare. Not right to buy gas cheap, or to go to Carribean resorts once a year (non-peak times) etc..
|
|
|
|
07/07/2008 03:30:33 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
This is not a socialist or a communist country, agreed. Far from it, from the social aspect. What do you call the system of government where the ruling elite loans between 600,000,000,000 and 1,100,000,000,000 dollars from a 3rd party in the name of its own people and spends it all irrevocably without getting anything in return?
And still, there is no mention on how are we planning to return that money. What will happen next? What did the Congress do every last instance when the govt was in debt? Raise taxes. What are we trying to do now, keep the tax cuts, so that we can do what?
Obama will have to raise taxes, if he wins. So will McCain, or the government will have to shut down. Much like all the ordinary people that kept buying stuff on credit cards and taking out home equity loans until the equity was no more.
And the future tax hike will not go to the programs for the poor - no need to worry about socialization here. It will go to repay the debt, one small percentage at the time. Until it is repaid.
And then, for our children if they are still alive, they will be able to look at the big country across the Pacific, with mixed feelings of envy, hatred, and longing for better life across the pond...
I may be wrong, but I don't see how...
If it is not clear what's happening now, look at the Truman/Marshall plan for Europe and how that elevated US to the top of the world. Ask yourself who is Marshall today, and who is getting the aid... |
Agree to a point. That being said we elect the "ruling party". The Federal Government should spend money on defense and infrastructure such as roads and bridges. The States should handle education and share in the infrastructure of roads and bridges and law enforcement. Everything else should be private sector.
Message edited by author 2008-07-07 03:32:46. |
|
|
|
07/07/2008 03:47:01 AM · #39 |
According to the engineer's interpretation of the constitution, (one of) the reason(s) for the US to even exist is to "promote the general welfare".
How do you suppose this is to be done? I guess promoting may be talking about it in the media?
But that's beside the point. The OP (or his dad or someone he knows) indicated that no matter who gets elected, we are going down the drain. I'm more curious about that discussion. What are the limits, or are there any limits on what the government can spend in my name? There is no such thing as government money. There is only tax money they collect. OK, government can print some money every once in a while, but that's bad if overdone. Prices go up, and the newly printed money runs the risk of not being worth the paper it is printed on...
The question is not, what do we do not to get down the drain... the question is "How the hell do we get out, we are slipping..." |
|
|
|
07/07/2008 03:55:45 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
Originally posted by Rino63:
Originally posted by coronamv:
[I do agree with the statement that if your not a US citizen you should not be extended the rights under the constitution. Like voting or the right to bare arms or due process... |
look that this is a dangerous idea. in these days in italy we have a minister that want take the fingerprints to the ROM children only because ROM(i.e. an ethnicity that come principally from Romania) and for me this is racism. if you denies the right of the costitution of your country to someone that live in your country, even if this person don't have your same nationality or if this person is an irregular immigrant, this leads along a dangerous way...... |
Well I agree separating a sect of your own population of citizens due to ethnic background is racism, but limiting the rights of non citizens is not racism at all. Everyone who come to the US by legal means "as a resident" has every opportunity to apply for naturalization. And it's not irregular immigrant it's called Illegal Alien. |
I agree on the vote rights except that for the local (i.e. the town or the city) administration where they are simply resident even if not naturalized (it's obvious that for the federal administration, presidentials and other they need be citizen). the question change if you speak of other rights that every costitution guarantees to every citizen or people, that must be guaranted for everyone even if irregular. Many of this rights have their reason in the human rights and every civil country must guarantee that rights. It's difficult in an age where the economic crisis is very hard everywhere speak of reception and solidarity and even in italy we have some problem because many persons think that we must close our frontiers but the real problem is that in too much sides of the world there isn't freedom and decent living conditions. |
|
|
|
07/07/2008 06:30:10 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by coronamv:
You think millionaires should make more and pay less, but that hungry kids don't "need" welfare? Rip me apart but yes. Because one earned the income the other did not. People need to take responsibility for their actions.. |
Excuse me, but even the IRS recognizes income derived solely from renting others your money ("investing") as "unearned income."
Don't tell me that someone with a billion dollars who lends it out at a profit has "worked" as hard as a minimum-wage worker working two jobs to stay above the food-stamp limit ... why is it that this society values highest the aggrandizement of wealth -- why should an investment banker make more than a doctor or a teacher or a firefighter; which really contributes more to the overall betterment of society? |
Yes a person who accepts the risk and places their money at such risk as loaning money out has worked as hard as someone who earns minimum wage! You seem to forget the sole purpose of working a job, and that is to make money. THIS IS NOT A SOCIALIST OR COMMUNIST COUNTRY! |
Why not eliminate from society the poorest people who show the least interest in work - say people who have been out of work for 2 years, the disabled (physical or mental), and any pensionless elderly people who can no longer work for their food. They are a drain on society and society as a whole would be improved by their elimination.
In order to eliminate them you could either take away all sources of social support (like you suggest) - they will eventually starve or freeze to death. Or you could simply round them up and take them away to a place where that process could be accelerated far more efficiently - no one wants a society where people are dying on the streets, or resorting to crime in order to feed themselves. If you sited the facility far enough away from major population centres, the workers that make the country great would be blissfully unaware of the shots being fired and the stench of the incinerators.
Message edited by author 2008-07-07 06:30:50. |
|
|
|
07/07/2008 07:35:10 AM · #42 |
| You know what? My bellybutton is full of lint too. |
|
|
|
07/07/2008 08:28:11 AM · #43 |
I agree that people do not want the natural order of things to occur. What I am advocating is it is not the governments job to facilitate these things. It is up to your families, churchs, private organizations. Then you have a choice...
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by coronamv:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by coronamv:
You think millionaires should make more and pay less, but that hungry kids don't "need" welfare? Rip me apart but yes. Because one earned the income the other did not. People need to take responsibility for their actions.. |
Excuse me, but even the IRS recognizes income derived solely from renting others your money ("investing") as "unearned income."
Don't tell me that someone with a billion dollars who lends it out at a profit has "worked" as hard as a minimum-wage worker working two jobs to stay above the food-stamp limit ... why is it that this society values highest the aggrandizement of wealth -- why should an investment banker make more than a doctor or a teacher or a firefighter; which really contributes more to the overall betterment of society? |
Yes a person who accepts the risk and places their money at such risk as loaning money out has worked as hard as someone who earns minimum wage! You seem to forget the sole purpose of working a job, and that is to make money. THIS IS NOT A SOCIALIST OR COMMUNIST COUNTRY! |
Why not eliminate from society the poorest people who show the least interest in work - say people who have been out of work for 2 years, the disabled (physical or mental), and any pensionless elderly people who can no longer work for their food. They are a drain on society and society as a whole would be improved by their elimination.
In order to eliminate them you could either take away all sources of social support (like you suggest) - they will eventually starve or freeze to death. Or you could simply round them up and take them away to a place where that process could be accelerated far more efficiently - no one wants a society where people are dying on the streets, or resorting to crime in order to feed themselves. If you sited the facility far enough away from major population centres, the workers that make the country great would be blissfully unaware of the shots being fired and the stench of the incinerators. |
|
|
|
|
07/07/2008 08:48:49 AM · #44 |
Soylent Green is people!
(Hmmm, that could have been a good concept for the Green challenge). |
|
|
|
07/07/2008 08:53:28 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Soylent Green is people!
(Hmmm, that could have been a good concept for the Green challenge). |
I am surprised that no one hit on that for a challenge entry in the "Green" challenge. I thought about it but figured that not many of this generation would "get it".
eta, On a slightly different tack, I look for the Fed Gov to tie fuel tax to the price instead of the gallon soon. They can't be happy with getting the same tax per gallon as they did when gas was $.99. Maybe it hasn't happened yet because they are getting some of the oil Co profits at the other end of the money chain.
Back to the original poster's line of thought. I wondered if Obama was put in the game by the party to stir things up with the media, and to get tons of free media attention. I also think that media attention for the party had a lot to do with Hillary staying in the game so long. I honestly believe that the Dems thought Hillary would get the nomination from the beginning. I also think that someone masterminded the two states voting too early for the publicity. I feel that the Nov election is about whose name you have heard the most often for a lot of people, instead of the issues and the nominee's stand on them.
"How can you trust a government that calls the outfit in charge of everything outdoors the Dept of the Interior?" G Carlin
Message edited by author 2008-07-07 09:11:09.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2008 10:25:00 AM · #46 |
And what happens when the well-off decide that they would rather build another vacation home and buy another Hummer rather than give to charity? Unfortunately, for your ideal, personal greed far outweighs altruism.
Would you just leave the poor to die in the streets or would you send in the goon squads to round them up and put them in camps? That way you could force them to work. The elderly, sick, kids too right? If they get too sick to work, then maybe you'd send them off to the "showers".
Originally posted by coronamv:
I agree that people do not want the natural order of things to occur. What I am advocating is it is not the governments job to facilitate these things. It is up to your families, churchs, private organizations. Then you have a choice...
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by coronamv:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by coronamv:
You think millionaires should make more and pay less, but that hungry kids don't "need" welfare? Rip me apart but yes. Because one earned the income the other did not. People need to take responsibility for their actions.. |
Excuse me, but even the IRS recognizes income derived solely from renting others your money ("investing") as "unearned income."
Don't tell me that someone with a billion dollars who lends it out at a profit has "worked" as hard as a minimum-wage worker working two jobs to stay above the food-stamp limit ... why is it that this society values highest the aggrandizement of wealth -- why should an investment banker make more than a doctor or a teacher or a firefighter; which really contributes more to the overall betterment of society? |
Yes a person who accepts the risk and places their money at such risk as loaning money out has worked as hard as someone who earns minimum wage! You seem to forget the sole purpose of working a job, and that is to make money. THIS IS NOT A SOCIALIST OR COMMUNIST COUNTRY! |
Why not eliminate from society the poorest people who show the least interest in work - say people who have been out of work for 2 years, the disabled (physical or mental), and any pensionless elderly people who can no longer work for their food. They are a drain on society and society as a whole would be improved by their elimination.
In order to eliminate them you could either take away all sources of social support (like you suggest) - they will eventually starve or freeze to death. Or you could simply round them up and take them away to a place where that process could be accelerated far more efficiently - no one wants a society where people are dying on the streets, or resorting to crime in order to feed themselves. If you sited the facility far enough away from major population centres, the workers that make the country great would be blissfully unaware of the shots being fired and the stench of the incinerators. |
|
|
|
|
|
07/07/2008 10:50:08 AM · #47 |
Its simplified, but true.
Only two types of people vote republican,
Multimillionaires and the naive.
Which one are you? |
|
|
|
07/07/2008 11:00:18 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Its simplified, but true.
Only two types of people vote republican,
Multimillionaires and the naive.
Which one are you? |
heh. I've heard something very similar about voting democrat. :) |
|
|
|
07/07/2008 11:29:14 AM · #49 |
Who do ya'll think will decide who gets the best care under socialized medecine?
Will it be the aged, the smoker, the overweight or some other person who the government decides has contributed to their condition? I doubt they will be the ones getting the best care. Do some research and you will find countries who already let the government doctors decide when to end someones life who, in the US would have life saving treatments available. |
|
|
|
07/07/2008 11:32:19 AM · #50 |
Which is worse spending other peoples money you did not earn or spending your own money you earned?
|
|
