Who'll be the better president?

[Palit_Guy]

D-

Sorry bud, gonna have to drop you from the ticket. Much too war hungry for my tastes. It's just downright creepy.

 

[btarunr]

Well, I don't think anybody's mind is changing at this point. Democrats will vote democrat, republicans will vote republican, dead, animated, and other forms of voter fraud will take place, ect. Obama will probably win barring the republicans out-frauding the democrats this time. And, technically, by arguing against the war, I am supporting Obama's stance on the issue.

I don't think this would become a who would be a better pres thread, simply put it, no matter who gets into office were screwed, regardless weather its McCain or Obama.

Well, you got your suggestion on making better use of this thread than discussing war strategy/ "blowing places up", etc., etc., before I start running out of reasons to keep the thread open (that happens after you're through with the elections).

 

[DaMulta]

D-

Sorry bud, gonna have to drop you from the ticket. Much too war hungry for my tastes. It's just downright creepy.

but but



To think a Democrat is too war hungry over a Republican is creepy, but I only said how I would run wars.

But, it's your call, it's your ticket!

 

[Palit_Guy]

Sorry, no democrats allowed. I'm sure if you study some more about what it means to be a democrat you'll come to your senses.

 

[DaMulta]

Sorry, no democrats allowed. I'm sure if you study some more about what it means to be a democrat you'll come to your senses.

I'm pretty dang sure about what it means to be a democrat!

Even when I took that college government class we had this little random test.
It asked all sorts of serious random questions.
At the end of it showed what party you should stand for.


Me and Jd will always be here when you need us

 

[DaMulta]

I agree, and it truly is a shame no doubt, however mankind is belligerent by nature. And while world peace will most likely never exist, the horrors of genocide and war have not disappeared either.

I feel that it is necessary to point out a good quote form the late Josef Stalin; "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."

Unfortunately, we as a world have become more weary of things, and we are hypersensitive to how the world views us, or how one country views another actions. In an era where we would be one united empire, and we should be pulling our resources to colonies other planets, not other countries. We should be expanding to other planets, extending the Human race to Mars, and the moon, and we should be developing hyper transport to beam ourselves between distant stars, instead of nuclear bombs the size of a briefcase.

But, i guess that this will never be true, so as long as one caveman beat up the other caveman for his extended living space for his growing family. However, despite me looking like a warmonger, i feel that the next great move to colonize and attack should be under the banner and flag of the world, and not on some small country.

Maybe one day, and even in the next term we can move that way. I hope that we are, and that we are taking just some huge path to get there. One of those odd long dark paths that you take in life for the better.

I do believe that we do a lot of good for the world, and we do less harm for/to everyone that lives on the world. What is happening is that people are just looking at our bad sides, and not our good qualities that we have.

People used to see that good, and didn't see our bad so much. Maybe the reason people care so much is because they do care/want about our good sides, but can not stand it even more about our bad sides. Blocking out what we have been trying to stand for in the world.

The whole world is looking at us right now, this election that is going on shows that. It's giving us a chance to start over fresh in our actions to a certain point.

Will we do what it takes.

Will who we put in our most powerful positions start to turn that around for us?

 

[Triprift]

I think the prob with the US is not the ppl in general its the ones who are in power. I know that the majority of ppl in America are good honest hard working ppl but your leaders in particular your last one led alot to be desired. Just like here in oz for example if there had been a referendum on wether troops should of been sent to the Middle east the majority of ppl would of said no as im sure would do to in the states. It was just dissapointing it didnt happen like that is was almost like the government saying weed to to stupid to make the right decision so weel make it for you. :/

 

[DaMulta]

i know the discussion wasnt really correct in the last pages, but maybe its time to get back on topic. In a civil way, and without insults and flaming. i know we can do it

i'll point out a fact that should have some significance in this forum. McCain admitted he doesnt even know how to turn on a computer. How could he run such a great country without understanding most of the economical and environmental problems of this world?

Sorrry to pull such an old post on you.

Re-reading the thread.


You know some of the best things that we have today and still use today was done without computers.

They did it all on paper.

 

[TheMailMan78]

But that's not what Obama is proposing anyway, bigger government control maybe, but not complete wealth distribution, nor complete government control. That article is rather propaganda-ish. I'm not really worried about more taxes for myself, I'm more worried about mine and everyone's quality of life. I would rather higher taxes than all the problems disparity and poverty can bring.

Well what if I don't give a rats ass about other people? I have enough problems of my own. Why the hell should someone else benefit from MY hard work? Riddle me that Batman?

 

[Triprift]

Whatever happened to helping your fellow man like the Black Eyed Peas said "where is the love" the homeless and the poor are shunned big time these day sad

 

[Odin Eidolon]

Sorrry to pull such an old post on you.

Re-reading the thread.


You know some of the best things that we have today and still use today was done without computers.

They did it all on paper.

no problem. sorry i didnt answer immediately.
What you say is absolutely true, but you must admit that in a society where science and computers are becoming more and more important, a society that, i believe, is already dependant from computers (what would we do without them?) it is VERY important for a future US president to understand not only the importance of this sector, but also the stuff itself. You require your president to know something about economy, dont you? You should require the guy to know something even about one of the industrial sectors that influences the society more. And, of course, we all know that computers, the internet and stuff like that will become more and more important in the future, and will make their part in the education of the future society.
Another thing. If something like making everything on paper was good 60 years ago, it doesnt mean it is good now too. We evolve. The steam engine was one of the most important inventions ever made, and permitted the developement of the whole industrial revolution. Still, i dont think someone would actually use a steam engine to power a train nowadays, since its efficiency cant even be compared to the one of a present electrical engine.

 

[Bigjohn]

I think the prob with the US is not the ppl in general its the ones who are in power. I know that the majority of ppl in America are good honest hard working ppl but your leaders in particular your last one led alot to be desired. Just like here in oz for example if there had been a referendum on wether troops should of been sent to the Middle east the majority of ppl would of said no as im sure would do to in the states. It was just dissapointing it didnt happen like that is was almost like the government saying weed to to stupid to make the right decision so weel make it for you. :/

Our Constitution was drafted and put into law as the "supreme law of the land", and vested power in the people, limiting the powers of government to control the people and such... but over time the massive EGO of some politicians, thinking about the prosperity that this nation has generated, have decided to become a cancer on that constitution. Share the wealth, Redistrubute the wealth... spread the wealth around...

So now we have the Democrat party, who belive strongly in the compassion of man - just so long as they can fund that compassion with someone elses money. They created every entitlement program that is currently destined to implode...

And every time a Conservative comes forward to try to fix these sink-holes into which these socialistic power hungry sociopathic politicians are tossing our children's futures, along comes the Democrat of the day to cry to the people "The Republicans are trying to take away your social security", or "The republicans want the poor people to die in the gutters", or "Vote for me - 95% of the people will get a tax cut..."

A conservative comes along and says "Let's be fair - cut everyones taxes by 5%" - the Democrat will demagaugue that to death calling it a tax cut for the rich....

Sure the guy making 10million will pay 5% less taxes, and the guy making 50,000 will too. But the Democrat thinks it is NOT FAIR!? Why? Because, why, 5% of 10 million is SO MUCH BIGGER A NUMBER than 5% of 50,000...

 

[ShadowFold]

Whatever happened to helping your fellow man like the Black Eyed Peas said "where is the love" the homeless and the poor are shunned big time these day sad

Everyone's definition of poor is different.. Mine is someone with out a home. People that live in crappy houses and get welfare are not poor. They are just people who messed up and everyone else has to pay for it..

 

[Tatty_Two]

Everyone's definition of poor is different.. Mine is someone with out a home. People that live in crappy houses and get welfare are not poor. They are just people who messed up and everyone else has to pay for it..

My definition of "poor" is fairly simple I think, there are 3 key physical needs that all humans have, food, shelter and warmth, if they cannot afford any one of those they are poor.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Whatever happened to helping your fellow man like the Black Eyed Peas said "where is the love" the homeless and the poor are shunned big time these day sad

I give what I can WHEN I can. I don't need the damn government making that decision for me. Taking that choice away from me is socialism. Ever heard the term "charity starts at home"?

If the government starts to "spread the wealth" then guess what. I wont be donating to jack shit anymore. Ill tell them to go call the president. FYI I donated 1800 bucks last year to different charities out of the good of my heart. I DID NOT take one tax break from it because its not charity if I profit. No Mr. Obama wants to take MY hard earned cash and give it away to those our flawless government deems necessary? Then to hell with me ever giving out another dime.

Screw it. At least with Bush I knew my money was making bombs. With Obama Ill be buying 22" Escalade rims.

 

[Bigjohn]

My definition of "poor" is fairly simple I think, there are 3 key physical needs that all humans have, food, shelter and warmth, if they cannot afford any one of those they are poor.

But what caused them to be in that condition? And, why not private charity to take care of them? Why must GOVERNMENT steal from the successful to pay for the mistakes of the few who just can't buy a clue?

 

[btarunr]

Do you guys have tax exemptions for charity? I think Obama's wealth-spreading ideas aren't quite charitable. Larger charity organisations might suffer, eg: WWF, UNCF (UNICEF), Sal. Army, etc. People might think that the higher slabs of tax they end up paying goes into the government's own [welfare] policies.

 

[DaMulta]

Franklin D. Roosevelt Democrat
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/fr32.html

He was elected President in November 1932, to the first of four terms. By March there were 13,000,000 unemployed, and almost every bank was closed. In his first "hundred days," he proposed, and Congress enacted, a sweeping program to bring recovery to business and agriculture, relief to the unemployed and to those in danger of losing farms and homes, and reform, especially through the establishment of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

By 1935 the Nation had achieved some measure of recovery, but businessmen and bankers were turning more and more against Roosevelt's New Deal program. They feared his experiments, were appalled because he had taken the Nation off the gold standard and allowed deficits in the budget, and disliked the concessions to labor. Roosevelt responded with a new program of reform: Social Security, heavier taxes on the wealthy, new controls over banks and public utilities, and an enormous work relief program for the unemployed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Roosevelt created the New Deal to provide relief for the unemployed, recovery of the economy, and reform of the economic and banking systems.[2] Although recovery of the economy was incomplete until almost 1940, the programs he initiated such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) continue to have instrumental roles in the nation's commerce. One of his most important legacies is the Social Security system

.



Senator Huey Long
December 11, 1934
http://www.themoderntribune.com/governor_huey_long_speech_1934_share_the_wealth.htm

According to the tables which we have assembled, it is our estimate that 4 percent of the American people own 85 percent of the wealth of America, and that over 70 percent of the people of America don't own enough to pay for the debts that they owe.

Any man with a thimble-full of sense ought to know that if you take 85 percent off of that table and give it to one man that you are bound to have 2/3 the people starving because they haven't got enough to eat.

So, what values help us, and which ones don't?

What happened after that and America went into high gear?

We taxed the hell out the rich!

http://www.cflonline.org/news.php?id=236

In fact, back in 1942, a call for what amounted to a “maximum wage” actually came from the President of the United States. President Franklin D. Roosevelt that year asked Congress to impose a 100% tax on all individual income over $25,000, the equivalent of about $300,000 today, after adjusting for inflation.

FDR didn't get his 100% top tax rate. But he did get Congress to pass a 94% top tax rate on all income over $200,000. And America's top tax rate on high incomes would hover around 90% for the next two decades, years that would see unprecedented economic prosperity for average American families.

Those high tax rates on high incomes FDR inspired have disappeared. In 1943, the very richest Americans paid 78% of their total incomes in federal income tax. In 2003, by contrast, our very richest Americans paid a mere 17.5% of their total incomes in federal tax.

 

[Palit_Guy]

The idea of using taxes to support certain segments of the population is a tough one to really understand. One thing that is lacking is a definition of what types of conditions the government should be trying to alleviate in the first place.

There is also the question of what type of government you have if you have any type of program that uses tax money to benefit anyone. At the most extreme one could say that any redistribution of wealth is socialist, Marxist or communist.

I'm not sure it's that easy though because all of those systems do not necessarily include representation of all citizens. In the case of the US and government welfare programs, they were adopted by dully elected representatives and not imposed upon us by a group of people beyond the reach of citizens.

As for relying on free commerce to help, well, in a perfect world that would certainly be preferable. But in the real world there are so many avenues for abuse down that path I don't think it's a realistic option.

So that only leaves the government to manage these types of things. The idea being that if the government does it there is far less potential for abuse of both the people receiving the assistance as well as the people that distribute it.

That covers the how, now for the why...

 

[Solaris17]

I'm pretty dang sure about what it means to be a democrat!

Even when I took that college government class we had this little random test.
It asked all sorts of serious random questions.
At the end of it showed what party you should stand for.


Me and Jd will always be here when you need us

Me and Justice will be here when you need us

 

[Palit_Guy]

Or perhaps I should have said the who...

There are people in this country that could otherwise do very well for themselves and the rest of their community if they were better educated. Sometimes people get fired for bad reasons or a company goes out of business. These people can benefit from an injection of cash until such time as they can replace their income. Without such an injection mortgage payments can be missed, CC payments, college tuition etc.

Personally I don't have a problem helping when bad things happen to good people and I think that's what these types of programs were originally intended to do. That's a very conservative approach to the general health and welfare of the populace because the story stops there.

The democrat approach has expanded these programs to the point that they are an entitlement and not a privilege. You can usually tell how far left you are on the democrat scale by how long you think those programs should run.

In any case, I think the biggest problem we have is that programs like this aren't well defined enough right from the beginning. I don't have a problem with the government using tax money to help citizens that actually need help. It really doesn't cost that much. But the way these programs are laid out doesn't suit me. There are just too many loop holes that allow abuse and misuse. There are no real penalties for citizens that abuse these programs.

 

[mdm-adph]

Palit Guy, are you allowed to get political in forums?

 

[DaMulta]

ou can usually tell how far left you are on the democrat scale by how long you think those programs should run.

Down to the man living in the gutter.
We should give him a dollar or two, and continue to do it, even if he continues to do that till he dies.

Why not?

Would Jesus just let you die?
Would he not help you over and over no matter what happened?
Would you let your mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter just die?
I think none of those people would, then we should not be like that to everyone else.

To add
Does the Bible not teach that?
Even if you don't believe in the Bible it does tell you good ways to live your life.

 

[Palit_Guy]

I recently was the recipient of unemployment. Through no fault of my own I found myself between jobs. I really liked the program. The amount of money I received helped me get through a tough time. BUT...

It did not replace all the income I was making. My weekly check was based on the amount of money I had been making, the length of time I had been making it and it was capped at a maximum amount. That max applied to both the amount per check as well as the length of time I could receive the funds.

Here's how it played out. All the money (in theory) came from money I had paid into the system. I was required to look for work each week and I had to turn in the contact information of art least three of those places each week. Failure to do so resulted in no check.

No I did cheat the system a bit. I didn't actually go to many places or fill out many applications, i just entered the information into the system and they didn't check it. I knew they wouldn't check it. Big deal. I also used every bit of money I had in my savings account as well as running up all my credit cards just to get by while I wasn't getting a pay check.

I did all that because I knew the job I have now was coming and I was pretty sure I was going to get it. There was a chance i wouldn't but what would life be without some risk, huh? Had unemployment not been available to me I would not have been able to wait for this job and none of you would know me the way you do.

 

[SK-1]

This thread is so good to just look back and read. There is so much information here to learn, and change your views on certain issues if you take the time and read this whole thread....

Touche,..I have yet to even read some replys to my posts because of a crappy swing shift my
company said I have to be on for 3-4 weeks (I am slowly dieing )