Quantcast
Republican or Democrat?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Republican or Democrat?

If I had to choose between these two great evils, I'd probably choose Democrats just because I think Republicans are the bigger evil. I'm under the impression they're trying to defend the rich and big companies even at the cost of others. That said, I don't think Democrats are much better either.



Around the Network
dsage01 said:

2. The Republican's treating the poor unfairly.

The Republican's have stated before they think that the poor are lazy despite them working 40 hours a week on average. Republicans have blamed the poor for this financial crysis that they are going through. Well what will you do when your monthly expenses outpace your income? And with hardly any finacial or social assisstance just make things worse. They have stated that the poor are subsidezed by welfare. WTF they don't even qualify for public assistance. Only the people who are severly injured or disables get SOME help. Not the ones who are working there ass off earning money?

I just thought I would mention something I mentioned in a past post.  If you have a husband and wife working 40 hours per week at a McDonalds for $8 an hour, they will make combined income of $32,000 per year.  This amount of money SO easily covers the necessary expenses it isn't even funny.  Cell phones are not necessary.  Satellite television is not necessary.  Video games are not necessary.  Going out to eat (AT ALL!!!) isn't necessary (this is a big one).  Going on expensive vacations is not necessary.  Gambling is not necessary.  SMOKING is defiantly not necessary.  I'm not trying to diss smokers, but if you did get addicted to it, we shouldn't be the ones that have to help you out when you have no money.  Oh, here's another big one.  If you are making $32,000 per year, you don't need to be living in a $300,000 house, a much smaller house or apartment is perfectly fine.  Lets see here...oh yea, cars.  You don't need a brand new, $20,000 car if you are only making $32,000 a year.  Make due with something cheaper.  Oh, here's another one, internet is not necessary.  If you live in a town with a library, you can easily go to the library to do anything necessary on the internet, such as look for a better job, or anything else.

I know life wouldn't necessary be quite the same without all of that stuff, but if you can't afford it, DON'T BUY IT.

So to ask what people will do when they have their expenses outpacing their income, then they should cut some of their expenses.  If a family of 2 is indeed working full time at $8 an hour,  there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why they shouldn't be able to afford living (and yes, with being given absolutely no money from the government).

So no offense to you, but to say people working their ass off should qualify for government handouts is absolute bullcrap.  (Note that above, I'm just saying that stuff isn't ESSENTIAL...you will likely still have plenty of money left over after the necessary things that you will be able to buy some of those things if you so wish, as well as put some money into the bank to save for the future).

Also, I hope you realize that the people working full time aren't the ones the Republicans are calling lazy.  The ones the Republicans are calling lazy are the ones that live on government handouts year after year, yet still don't go and get a fricking job like everybody else.

I just thought I would mention.  A lot of the less wealthy people that are whining probably have a bunch of those things in their life (not necessarily smoking, that is just there for those that do have it in their life).  Hell, a cell phone and satellite television alone are probably near $200 a month depending on your plan.  Going out to eat once a week at $25 each time (for 2 people) is another $100 a month.  Smoking 4 packs (between 2 people) of cigarettes per week (I'm not totally sure what a pack costs...$5?) is another $80 per month.  Internet is another $20-$50 a month depending on what kind of plan you have.  This is almost $400 a month being saved, and it doesn't even include the big things such as vacations, a house payment that is way too big, and a car payment that is way too big.

No offense to anybody here, but I REALLY don't feel sorry for anybody who has 2 people working full time in a house, but still can't make it in regards to money.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Viper1 said:
MARCUSDJACKSON said:

agreed. i may like Ron but that doesn't mean he's the guy that can get the job done. we will see as the debate goes on into the election.

You got anybody else in mind that has the integrity and voting record to back up what he says?  

After Paul, I see a bunch of neo-cons and bandwagon riders. 

Gary Johnson is a less crazy (but unfortunately less popular) version of Ron Paul. My personal favourite is Rudy Giuliani, but he hasn't announced that he will run, and it's not even being widely speculated. The nomination will go to either Romney (whom I still like MUCH more than most of the Republican field) or those nutcases Cain, Palin and Bachmann.

Ron Paul is an extremist. He has the right idea, but he takes it so far as to make it ludicrous. He opposed raising the debt ceiling when there were two days left before the Treasury ran out of money (yes, the final deal was terrible, but only because all of the Democrats were screaming "Don't touch Medicare!" and the Republicans screamed back "No tax increases!).

This whole debt debacle cemented my belief that both parties are led by childish individuals who put their own bank accounts and positions of office above the interests of the American people.

That said, I will give the slight edge to the Democrats at the moment, only because Obama is very slightly better than Boehner and his lot (and because the Tea Party are the most dangerous force in the country).



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

gamrReview - Arthur Kabrick | My All-Time Top 50 | 2013 Metascores

                                        

Zkuq said:
If I had to choose between these two great evils, I'd probably choose Democrats just because I think Republicans are the bigger evil. I'm under the impression they're trying to defend the rich and big companies even at the cost of others. That said, I don't think Democrats are much better either.


Wow that's exactly what I'm saying and people say my OP is a fail! Wow.



Baalzamon said:
dsage01 said:

2. The Republican's treating the poor unfairly.

The Republican's have stated before they think that the poor are lazy despite them working 40 hours a week on average. Republicans have blamed the poor for this financial crysis that they are going through. Well what will you do when your monthly expenses outpace your income? And with hardly any finacial or social assisstance just make things worse. They have stated that the poor are subsidezed by welfare. WTF they don't even qualify for public assistance. Only the people who are severly injured or disables get SOME help. Not the ones who are working there ass off earning money?

I just thought I would mention something I mentioned in a past post.  If you have a husband and wife working 40 hours per week at a McDonalds for $8 an hour, they will make combined income of $32,000 per year.  This amount of money SO easily covers the necessary expenses it isn't even funny.  Cell phones are not necessary.  Satellite television is not necessary.  Video games are not necessary.  Going out to eat (AT ALL!!!) isn't necessary (this is a big one).  Going on expensive vacations is not necessary.  Gambling is not necessary.  SMOKING is defiantly not necessary.  I'm not trying to diss smokers, but if you did get addicted to it, we shouldn't be the ones that have to help you out when you have no money.  Oh, here's another big one.  If you are making $32,000 per year, you don't need to be living in a $300,000 house, a much smaller house or apartment is perfectly fine.  Lets see here...oh yea, cars.  You don't need a brand new, $20,000 car if you are only making $32,000 a year.  Make due with something cheaper.  Oh, here's another one, internet is not necessary.  If you live in a town with a library, you can easily go to the library to do anything necessary on the internet, such as look for a better job, or anything else.

I know life wouldn't necessary be quite the same without all of that stuff, but if you can't afford it, DON'T BUY IT.

So to ask what people will do when they have their expenses outpacing their income, then they should cut some of their expenses.  If a family of 2 is indeed working full time at $8 an hour,  there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why they shouldn't be able to afford living (and yes, with being given absolutely no money from the government).

So no offense to you, but to say people working their ass off should qualify for government handouts is absolute bullcrap.  (Note that above, I'm just saying that stuff isn't ESSENTIAL...you will likely still have plenty of money left over after the necessary things that you will be able to buy some of those things if you so wish, as well as put some money into the bank to save for the future).

Also, I hope you realize that the people working full time aren't the ones the Republicans are calling lazy.  The ones the Republicans are calling lazy are the ones that live on government handouts year after year, yet still don't go and get a fricking job like everybody else.

I just thought I would mention.  A lot of the less wealthy people that are whining probably have a bunch of those things in their life (not necessarily smoking, that is just there for those that do have it in their life).  Hell, a cell phone and satellite television alone are probably near $200 a month depending on your plan.  Going out to eat once a week at $25 each time (for 2 people) is another $100 a month.  Smoking 4 packs (between 2 people) of cigarettes per week (I'm not totally sure what a pack costs...$5?) is another $80 per month.  Internet is another $20-$50 a month depending on what kind of plan you have.  This is almost $400 a month being saved, and it doesn't even include the big things such as vacations, a house payment that is way too big, and a car payment that is way too big.

No offense to anybody here, but I REALLY don't feel sorry for anybody who has 2 people working full time in a house, but still can't make it in regards to money.

Do you think everyone can get a job at Mcdonalds?



Around the Network
Baalzamon said:
dsage01 said:

2. The Republican's treating the poor unfairly.

The Republican's have stated before they think that the poor are lazy despite them working 40 hours a week on average. Republicans have blamed the poor for this financial crysis that they are going through. Well what will you do when your monthly expenses outpace your income? And with hardly any finacial or social assisstance just make things worse. They have stated that the poor are subsidezed by welfare. WTF they don't even qualify for public assistance. Only the people who are severly injured or disables get SOME help. Not the ones who are working there ass off earning money?

I just thought I would mention something I mentioned in a past post.  If you have a husband and wife working 40 hours per week at a McDonalds for $8 an hour, they will make combined income of $32,000 per year.  This amount of money SO easily covers the necessary expenses it isn't even funny.  Cell phones are not necessary.  Satellite television is not necessary.  Video games are not necessary.  Going out to eat (AT ALL!!!) isn't necessary (this is a big one).  Going on expensive vacations is not necessary.  Gambling is not necessary.  SMOKING is defiantly not necessary.  I'm not trying to diss smokers, but if you did get addicted to it, we shouldn't be the ones that have to help you out when you have no money.  Oh, here's another big one.  If you are making $32,000 per year, you don't need to be living in a $300,000 house, a much smaller house or apartment is perfectly fine.  Lets see here...oh yea, cars.  You don't need a brand new, $20,000 car if you are only making $32,000 a year.  Make due with something cheaper.  Oh, here's another one, internet is not necessary.  If you live in a town with a library, you can easily go to the library to do anything necessary on the internet, such as look for a better job, or anything else.

I know life wouldn't necessary be quite the same without all of that stuff, but if you can't afford it, DON'T BUY IT.

So to ask what people will do when they have their expenses outpacing their income, then they should cut some of their expenses.  If a family of 2 is indeed working full time at $8 an hour,  there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why they shouldn't be able to afford living (and yes, with being given absolutely no money from the government).

So no offense to you, but to say people working their ass off should qualify for government handouts is absolute bullcrap.  (Note that above, I'm just saying that stuff isn't ESSENTIAL...you will likely still have plenty of money left over after the necessary things that you will be able to buy some of those things if you so wish, as well as put some money into the bank to save for the future).

Also, I hope you realize that the people working full time aren't the ones the Republicans are calling lazy.  The ones the Republicans are calling lazy are the ones that live on government handouts year after year, yet still don't go and get a fricking job like everybody else.

I just thought I would mention.  A lot of the less wealthy people that are whining probably have a bunch of those things in their life (not necessarily smoking, that is just there for those that do have it in their life).  Hell, a cell phone and satellite television alone are probably near $200 a month depending on your plan.  Going out to eat once a week at $25 each time (for 2 people) is another $100 a month.  Smoking 4 packs (between 2 people) of cigarettes per week (I'm not totally sure what a pack costs...$5?) is another $80 per month.  Internet is another $20-$50 a month depending on what kind of plan you have.  This is almost $400 a month being saved, and it doesn't even include the big things such as vacations, a house payment that is way too big, and a car payment that is way too big.

No offense to anybody here, but I REALLY don't feel sorry for anybody who has 2 people working full time in a house, but still can't make it in regards to money.

http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/

Worth looking at, in quite a few places two people earning $8 an hour in full time jobs does not meet living expenses. As soon as those two people have a kid it becomes almost all places that you don't meet living expenses.



Wow I always thought Canadians were less misinformed and ignorant of American issues than the rest of the world. This is one of the saddest rants I've ever seen.



maximus22 said:
Wow I always thought Canadians were less misinformed and ignorant of American issues than the rest of the world. This is one of the saddest rants I've ever seen.


Nah we Canadians know about the whole world. While from what I've seen American's think U.S.A = World or the only existing country in this planet



I'm in shock as to how misinformed the OP is . Wow... dude if you're going to give an opinion at least give an informed one. You are using all sorts of uneducated rhetoric. Just a few:

1.)Republicans do not think the poor are "lazy." This is just a misconception that you and your liberal buddies throw around. Social programs are fine and in alot of cases they are even GOOD but they should be there to help the improverished, NOT the middle class which is not what they are meant to do. What good is it for a country to give out free cell phones?

2.)You see, your misinformed mind's perception of the rich is different than liberal politican's view of the rich. Your view of the rich is people that own jets and huge houses and expensive cars.... Guess what? "Rich" as far as politics go are people that make 200-250K a year. You don't have to be a genius to know that THAT IS NOT THAT MUCH MONEY. Hell, I make more than that and I can assure you I am saddled with student loan debt and getting established just like every else... I drive a damn 2002 Toyota Camry with 175,000 miles on it. You wanna call me rich now and raise my taxes?

Not every republican thinks we need LESS taxes on the rich, but we sure as hell do not need MORE taxes...at least not in the form of higher income brackets. Are there loopholes that some rich and corporations take advantage of? YES and I think those should be taken care of.

Are there ultra conservative nutjobs out there? Yes, as there are ultra liberal nutjobs. Our country is in bad shape right now and most of the answers to our problems are not conservative or liberal....they tend to be a mixture of both. This is why I wish our country had more than a dominant two-party system, it would really help with our polarized political climate.



Kantor said:

Gary Johnson is a less crazy (but unfortunately less popular) version of Ron Paul. My personal favourite is Rudy Giuliani, but he hasn't announced that he will run, and it's not even being widely speculated. The nomination will go to either Romney (whom I still like MUCH more than most of the Republican field) or those nutcases Cain, Palin and Bachmann.

Ron Paul is an extremist. He has the right idea, but he takes it so far as to make it ludicrous. He opposed raising the debt ceiling when there were two days left before the Treasury ran out of money (yes, the final deal was terrible, but only because all of the Democrats were screaming "Don't touch Medicare!" and the Republicans screamed back "No tax increases!).

This whole debt debacle cemented my belief that both parties are led by childish individuals who put their own bank accounts and positions of office above the interests of the American people.

That said, I will give the slight edge to the Democrats at the moment, only because Obama is very slightly better than Boehner and his lot (and because the Tea Party are the most dangerous force in the country).

You are forgetting someone.

Rick Perry is the likely nominee now. He's within 2% of Romney and hasn't even declared. He has too much going for him to lose to Romney, and isn't quite as nutty as Bachmann.

Otherwise, I agree with you.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.