The ..2012.... Political thread
-
-
I see the US have recently made illegal attacks into Syria ( 8 civilians dead , including 4 children )
-
deKooningartist:
Actually Mustang Sally, you have a good heart and I too many years believed alot of the retoric that comes out of the liberal faction of the democratic party....the horrible evil rich people...the fat cats on wall street.... and so on. I don't envy people who are wealthy. I think it's great that they are a success! I admire people who have worked hard or even people who have inherited money from the hard work of their parents and are now doing some great humanitarian works. And even if they don't - so what? It's there life and they are living the life that their loved one wished for them. And I think that is wonderful! Social Security? I think it was a good idea but it has been totally mishandled. And by the way, you do work for your social security - it's taken out of your paycheck. I've paid alot into social security but whose to say it will be there if I really need it someday? Everything that you and I have paid into it is gone! Before FDR and social security how did people retire? Well, it was a different time but those that did saved up for it and they alone decided how it would be invested, not the government. I firmly believe that each individual should decide how the money that they have earned is spent....not a bunch of politicians. What are the qualifications to be a politician? There are none except being a U.S. citizen. Why in the world would I entrust my hard earned money to people with little or no financial experience? Anyway, those are just my thoughts
Actually, you are right, I do have some compassion. But you are wrong in that I envy wealthy people. I actually am in a decent financial position I'm very lucky. SS is a good program and it will be there and better managed under an Obama administration. The guy is a fantastic manager see his campaign. You and I have talked before and I have come to the conculsion that you do not have any feeling for those who are less fortunate. Life is not fair in its distribution of abilities and gifts. This distribution of wealth that you republicans are using now is just a talking point. A smoke and mirrors to disguise your greed and hate. The distribution of wealth has occurred under the republicans(do your homework) where there has been a major disparity of wealth concentrated in the top most wealthy-this is a fact. http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/08/paul_krugman_wa.html
-
OK, I'll bite...what kind of change do you want and what kind of change do you think will be good for the country?? Not trying to bang you here, just curious. Umm.. How about change for the better? Creating a thriving economic environment in a global economy? You know that kind of stuff.. that's the change I want. Sorry, nothing Obama says he wants to do supports that kind of change. Fair enough, though how do you define "better" and what does a thriving economic environment look like to you?? Both have occurred before and I'm curious what it means to you..... A thriving economic environment looks to me like little government in a free market economy where the laws of supply and demand stnad true without government intervention in what is acceptable practice (i.e. you are a bad loan risk so NO LOAN). So you believe that the laws of supply and demand always work "perfectly" benefiting individuals equally.......hmmm, I think not. Banks make loans....sometimes they work, sometimes they don't...that's the nature of the business because you don't have complete control over all events. Yes - I do believe that the laws of supply and demand eventually level the marketplace. I do not believe that it benefits individuals equally. It's not supposed to. Companies are held to their own merit and seek to their stockholders to reaffirm their profit plans so everyone seeks to gain on a gain rather than gamble against a loss. In general, I agree....however, it don't always work that way . Was it profitable for Wal-Mart to pay some of their workers such low wages that they applied for food stamps?? Sure it was! Was it right to do so? Not if I'm a taxpayer and I need to "subsidize" a multi-billion dollar company. Those workers are not forced at gunpoint to work at Walmart, if they are so bad off - why don't they find other work? If Walmart can't hire workers at a low wage, they can't operate, so they increase the wage until people are WILLING TO WORK AT THAT RATE Wages are paid based on supply and demand and what the market deems a fair wage rather than a government deeemed "living wage". Wish that were still true (sigh)....the market deems that a "fair wage" so that a company can make a profit are the wages based in China and India....as those economies are developing and not fully matured as the US, are you willing to make what the Chinese and Indians make and live in the US?? Good luck! You can't ignore that we are in a global economy. The market doesn't deem a fair wage relative to company profit, it is fair based on what others are willing to do the same work for. Like it or not, we are competing globally for those jobs. Why would I pay you $5 to do the same thing someone else will do for $1? I am for less government support and more Capitalism and free market. That, to me, is a thriving economic environment, where people work and compete for what they want and government does little more than enforce the law rather than to provide healthcare, "equality" and whatever else. Smaller government does work for me as well......you do know that the countries we compete with provide healthcare in some manner? Yes, especially in Europe. They are called Socialist countries and they have a 50% income tax and they are not America. If you want what those countries offer- go there. I am for those who choose to work harder to be rewarded more and that those who choose to work less to reap fewer rewards (if any). Even if I do work hard, I expect to be challenged against those smarter and better than I am for that is my competition. I am entitiled to NOTHING other than the opportunity to work hard and succeed in competition with others. Can't disagree with you here, except to say at some point after you bust your ass and not get the rewards you believe you should, your perspective might change a little. Lots of people expect to have more than they do, even after busting my ass and not getting what I want, I don't expect the government to come to my rescue. That's the biggest difference between Obama and McCain supporters, Obama supporters want the government to come to the rescue.
-
Just some information for the undecided voter to consider: 1) 2 million Americans have lost their jobs in 2008. 2) 46 million people in the U.S. do not have health insurance. 3) 22,ooo people die in the U.S. each year because they have no health insurance. McCain supporters would have you believe that Obama's health insurance program of health care for all Americans is too much government and is a handout BUT the 2 million people who lost their jobs in this terrible economy that has had to put up with the failed policies of George W. Bush for the last 8 years may be part of those 46 million without health insurance; as disgruntled workers might be BUT ask yourself how many people who are not in that 46 million figure will be added to that number when their severence package health care benefits run out? These people who lost their jobs earned their health care and it was not a handout, which is in line with the thinking of McCain supporters, but once you're out of a job the fact that you worked for and earned your health care doesn't matter one bit. Many, if not most, Americans live paycheck to paycheck and McCain's healthcare incentive of $5,000 falls vastly short of the $12,000 average cost of health insurance. How do the Americans who don't have the additional $7,000 get health insurance? McCain's healthcare plan "fosters competition" which is a fancy way of saying that it benefits the big corporate health insurance companies at the expense of people who can't afford health insurance or make up the $7,000 difference. Obama's health insurance program solves this problem. Take what you can get and be thankful for it does not address the fact that there are lobbyists galore in Washington who throw around their influence and money to influence politicians toward corporations at the expense of the middle class and unemployed. Obama has vowed to take on the lobbyists in Washington D.C.. Under Obama's healthcare plan for all Americans the number of people who die in the U.S. each year (presently 22,000) would be decreased. It makes me wonder if these 22,000 deaths would be looked upon as population control by McCain supporters even though health insurance probably would have saved their lives. All of these numbers are unacceptable and Obama has a healthcare plan to address these problems much better than McCain's throwing $5,000 at you and telling you to comparative shop the 50 States for the best health insurance deal. This is where education factors in. Many uneducated people may not have the where-with-all to shop for health care on their own causing them to fall through the cracks. The last thing we need is McCain who voted 90% of the time for George W. Bush's policies that got us in this present mess. Policies such as tax cuts for the wealthy which McCain wants to make permanent and continuing Bush's unnecessary Iraq War! Given the above, Obama/Biden is the only sensible choice for the betterment of the country and ALL Americans!
-
[quote="Fan Since 1964"]Many, if not most, Americans live paycheck to paycheck and McCain's healthcare incentive of $5,000 falls vastly short of the $12,000 average cost of health insurance. How do the Americans who don't have the additional $7,000 get health insurance? [\quote] I think I understand. The government should be responsible for providing healthcare because people are living beyond their means living paycheck to paycheck and therefore can't afford to buy what they need.
-
-
nellie apple:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081027/ap_on_el_pr/skinhead_plot God Forbid!
When I asked my dad what he thinks about Obama he said "I hope he stays alive 'til the elections!" I hope he isn't right once again because he's really good at making political predictions!
-
Oh, wirklich? Ich denke, Ihr Vater ist richtig?
-
nellie apple:
Oh, wirklich? Ich denke, Ihr Vater ist richtig?
Blitzgescheit, der Mann!
-
So you believe that the laws of supply and demand always work "perfectly" benefiting individuals equally.......hmmm, I think not. Banks make loans....sometimes they work, sometimes they don't...that's the nature of the business because you don't have complete control over all events. Yes - I do believe that the laws of supply and demand eventually level the marketplace. I do not believe that it benefits individuals equally. It's not supposed to. Then as long as you get yours, that's ok.... In general, I agree....however, it don't always work that way . Was it profitable for Wal-Mart to pay some of their workers such low wages that they applied for food stamps?? Sure it was! Was it right to do so? Not if I'm a taxpayer and I need to "subsidize" a multi-billion dollar company. Those workers are not forced at gunpoint to work at Walmart, if they are so bad off - why don't they find other work? If Walmart can't hire workers at a low wage, they can't operate, so they increase the wage until people are WILLING TO WORK AT THAT RATE What other work?? Walmart chooses to pay low wages...and I beg to differ, they can operate....you forgot to answer the point about taxpayers paying for the foodstamps for their workers Wish that were still true (sigh)....the market deems that a "fair wage" so that a company can make a profit are the wages based in China and India....as those economies are developing and not fully matured as the US, are you willing to make what the Chinese and Indians make and live in the US?? Good luck! You can't ignore that we are in a global economy. The market doesn't deem a fair wage relative to company profit, it is fair based on what others are willing to do the same work for. Like it or not, we are competing globally for those jobs. Why would I pay you $5 to do the same thing someone else will do for $1? We've been in a global economy for the past 35 years and it sounds like you will be moving to Banglagore shortly, that is if they will hire you...I prefer living the US myself where I can enjoy the living standards that they are only now building. I am for less government support and more Capitalism and free market. That, to me, is a thriving economic environment, where people work and compete for what they want and government does little more than enforce the law rather than to provide healthcare, "equality" and whatever else. Smaller government does work for me as well......you do know that the countries we compete with provide healthcare in some manner? Perhaps you haven't noticed but we have been in a global economy for over 35 years. So according to you, it's perfectly "okay" for Microsoft to cry to Congress about H-B1 visas so they can ignore qualified people here...I thought you did not want government interferring with the market. You're not allowed to compete for jobs at Microsoft. Yes, especially in Europe. They are called Socialist countries and they have a 50% income tax and they are not America. If you want what those countries offer- go there. No need to get snippy or snotty here....to be clear, I already do have what those countries offer and I live in the US. Government does not "control healthcare "here, .....that's called, the "free market" as you've define it. Can't disagree with you here, except to say at some point after you bust your ass and not get the rewards you believe you should, your perspective might change a little. Lots of people expect to have more than they do, even after busting my ass and not getting what I want, I don't expect the government to come to my rescue. That's the biggest difference between Obama and McCain supporters, Obama supporters want the government to come to the rescue. It's a well known fact that the "market" did not correct itself in 1930-32. Ever see the film, "Cinderella Man"?? It was the hardest thing Jim Braddock ever did....sign up at the relief office so he could pay the heating bill in the middle of winter to get his three kids back. He wasn't the type of guy who wanted the "government" to rescue him. He always supported his wife and kids. That film wasn't hollywood fantasy: that was a true story. It's too bad arrogance and small minded thinking can't possibly conceive of something like that happening. ....but the truth of the matter is it can and it does. btw, when Braddock got back on his feet again and was able to box again, he paid back the relief money that nasty government gave him
-
anna_medlicka:
nellie apple:
Oh, wirklich? Ich denke, Ihr Vater ist richtig?
Blitzgescheit, der Mann!
He he heh! Am ich froh, dass wir kommunizieren könnten!
-
heilig
-
SurSteven:
heilig
Oh! Was meinst du damit?
-
nellie apple:
SurSteven:
heilig
Oh! Was meinst du damit?
my mother's maiden name is heilig!
-
Judge rules Ohio homeless voters may list park benches as addresses Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:32 PM COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations that aren't buildings as their addresses. U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors. Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return, Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional ballots across all Ohio counties. The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional ballots would disenfranchise some voters. http://dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/28/ajudgerule.html?sid=101
-
Let's see: Obama has promised that those not receiving over X amount would not see an increase in their income taxes (here are the X amounts): 1. As of a month or more ago it was $250,000 2. A week or so ago, Obama changed the amount to $200,000 3. A few days ago Joe the Biden said it was $150,000 Can these guys ever get it together? So now those making over $150,000 are now very wealthy and they need to have their wealth re-distributed Obama never got much flack for saying (at different times & to different audiences) that he was for the (1) Rays; (2) Phillys I think he's playing the same games with our money And with our intelligence!! In The Who's words: "We're not going to take it!"
-
Andy_Shofar:
Judge rules Ohio homeless voters may list park benches as addresses Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:32 PM COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations that aren't buildings as their addresses. U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors. Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return, Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional ballots across all Ohio counties. The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional ballots would disenfranchise some voters. http://dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/28/ajudgerule.html?sid=101
You really think that homeless people should not be allowed to vote? How very bush of you. If McSame should somehow steal this election. Which really is NOT going to happen. Not this Year! But lets imagine if, there would probably be alot more homeless as he pursues the same bush polices that created this mess to begin with.
-
mustangsally10:
Andy_Shofar:
Judge rules Ohio homeless voters may list park benches as addresses Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:32 PM COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations that aren't buildings as their addresses. U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors. Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return, Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional ballots across all Ohio counties. The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional ballots would disenfranchise some voters. http://dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/28/ajudgerule.html?sid=101
You really think that homeless people should not be allowed to vote? How very bush of you. If McSame should somehow steal this election. Which really is NOT going to happen. Not this Year! But lets imagine if, there would probably be alot more homeless as he pursues the same bush polices that created this mess to begin with.
So, let me see - you think that because I posted an article without any commentary on my part that I approve of its substance. I think the mustang in you has gotten you to jump to conclusions. fyi - I do not approve. I think it's the work of a far left judge to come up with such a decision. Far left, Acorn like, Obama - event planner like, ... etc.
-
bump - now onto more important things ...
Andy_Shofar:
Let's see: Obama has promised that those not receiving over X amount would not see an increase in their income taxes (here are the X amounts): 1. As of a month or more ago is was $250,000 2. A week or so ago, Obama changed the amount to $200,000 3. A few days ago Joe the Biden said it was $150,000 Can these guys ever get it together? So now those making over $150,000 are now very wealthy and they need to have their wealth re-distributed Obama never got much flack for saying (at different times & to different audiences) that he was for the (1) Rays; (2) Phillys I think he's playing the same games with our money And with our intelligence!! In The Who's words: "We're not going to take it!"