By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Obama... Man Were We All Fooled...

pearljammer said:

My largest problem with the argument of government not having the right to tax on an incremental scale depending on wages is simply because how we value certain jobs.

As a teacher I too have worked very hard to get where I am, and I continue to work hard on a daily basis. Is there a huge paycheck waiting for me? Do I need extra tax dollars to help sustain my lifestyle? Certainly not.

I didn't go into teaching for the money as I'm sure there are many people who get paid less (or more for that matter) than myself that didn't go into their careers for the money.

I just don't see the fairness that someone may not be able to afford health care simply for wishing to pursue a certain career path.

I know that it may seem like I'm moreso complaining about free market and capitalism than I am about taxes, but that isn't what I'm trying to get across here. I'm just challenging what it means to be treated equally (I suppose I'm more of an equal opportunity guy rather than an equal treatment one)

I think we can all agree that working hard as a CEO for Nokia is not necessarily any more valuable than working hard as a grade 3 teacher (You can't really put them on the same scale as they require different things from each individual). How hard you work doesn't necessarily determine your outcome. But yet, we a rewarded very differently (don't get me wrong, the rewards of being a teacher, to me, is far more fulfilling to me than any monetary reward).

I see taxes as an attempt to make up for these inequalities. I know, I know, trying to equate an inequality with another inequality doesn't make it right, but it does make it better overall for society as opposed to leaving the capitalist society deem what professions are important or unimportant. At least I think it does.

I think it's necessary for government to regulate this inequality to a certain extent. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not suggesting communism where wages should be controlled, just some progressive taxing!

Note: Apologies for my poorly written argument. It's far past my bedtime... only half awake *yawn*

I like this argument a lot.

A couple months ago, my roommate (a very wealthy computer scientist) told me that anybody who makes less money than him does so because they were too stupid or too lazy to major in computer science.  He said that any single person in this country could get a computer science degree and make as much money as him if they really wanted to, but people just pick majors based on how hip they are or how easy they are, because nobody wants to think.

So I guess you became a teacher because you were too lazy to study computer science, right?

Man that guy was a wacko.



Around the Network

^ yeah that seems to be a typical attitude of people who make money.

What burns me about it, is how these people don't tend to understand the odds against that actually bieng achievable to most, and how they were advantaged and/or in the right place at the right time. People who don't come from a high school that has assisted programs to be able to offer basic computer science (or anything endowed for that matter) aren't going to be able to advance as some can. Without going on and on about this, I think most people can do what the richer class does, but our system is designed to have X amount make it and Y amount not. So therefor X people piss me off because they look down on Y people for the fucking sake that they are Ys.



"Let justice be done though the heavens fall." - Jim Garrison

"Ask not your horse, if ye should ride into battle" - myself

Not all rich people are that insane and elitist though, and the richest people in America are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. Look at George Soros and all the crazy shit he does with his money. He's worth $9 billion and is opposed to a free market. He's basically as far out on the loony-left as me, but one of the world's 100 richest men (haha, currently rated #99 richest).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros


A few weeks ago I read that Obama was getting more campaign contributions from Wall Street than McCain was, and when interviewed about this, one random rich dude said he was rich enough, and he wanted to vote for who he thought would take better care of everybody else.

And that was before Wall Street exploded.



I'm flipping through the channels, and as I pass Fox News I see, campaign finance talk.  Watching for 45 seconds total this is what I hear.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac donated heavily to the Obama Campaign which may explain why they got a federal bail out."

Yes Obama did this, not the Republican Treasury Secretary or the non-political Federal Reserve.  It was all Obama

"In the most recent Gallop Daily poll Obama leads by two points, this is his first lead since the week of the Republican Convention." (You mean during the week before last?)

During this a different poll is on the screen showing a +1 for McCain... they go on to explain...

"The Rasmussen Poll has McCain ahead by one point, this one is of likely voters."

What?!?  And Gallop is surveying who?  Canadians?


I changed the channel.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

Obama got the government to bail them out? I don't know if I should laugh or cry. It'll hurt too bad to do either. I'm taking another vicodin.

Man fuck Fox.

All that in 45 seconds. Wow. It would take me 45 minutes to spin that much of a yarn out of bullshit.



Around the Network
steven787 said:

I'm flipping through the channels, and as I pass Fox News I see, campaign finance talk.  Watching for 45 seconds total this is what I hear.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac donated heavily to the Obama Campaign which may explain why they got a federal bail out."

Yes Obama did this, not the Republican Treasury Secretary or the non-political Federal Reserve.  It was all Obama

Nah, Obama(and others) getting all those Contributions is why Democrats and Republicans blocked McCain's bill to reform Freddie and Fannie which is why they needed the government bailout.

Obama was getting money to let it happen.  But he had nothing to do with the actual bailout.



pearljammer said:

My largest problem with the argument of government not having the right to tax on an incremental scale depending on wages is simply because how we value certain jobs.

As a teacher I too have worked very hard to get where I am, and I continue to work hard on a daily basis. Is there a huge paycheck waiting for me? Do I need extra tax dollars to help sustain my lifestyle? Certainly not.

I didn't go into teaching for the money as I'm sure there are many people who get paid less (or more for that matter) than myself that didn't go into their careers for the money.

I just don't see the fairness that someone may not be able to afford health care simply for wishing to pursue a certain career path.

I know that it may seem like I'm moreso complaining about free market and capitalism than I am about taxes, but that isn't what I'm trying to get across here. I'm just challenging what it means to be treated equally (I suppose I'm more of an equal opportunity guy rather than an equal treatment one)


I think we can all agree that working hard as a CEO for Nokia is not necessarily any more valuable than working hard as a grade 3 teacher (You can't really put them on the same scale as they require different things from each individual). How hard you work doesn't necessarily determine your outcome. But yet, we a rewarded very differently (don't get me wrong, the rewards of being a teacher, to me, is far more fulfilling to me than any monetary reward).

I see taxes as an attempt to make up for these inequalities. I know, I know, trying to equate an inequality with another inequality doesn't make it right, but it does make it better overall for society as opposed to leaving the capitalist society deem what professions are important or unimportant. At least I think it does.

I think it's necessary for government to regulate this inequality to a certain extent. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not suggesting communism where wages should be controlled, just some progressive taxing!

Note: Apologies for my poorly written argument. It's far past my bedtime... only half awake *yawn*

You really aren't complaining about the free Market.  Your complaining about the lack of one.

Since MOST schools are government run.... and all schools have to run a government decided curriculium for the most part the prices teacheres get paid are going to be fixed pretty regularly... sure you can get bonus' if you move certain places or if you teach at a private school.... but it's the almost monopoly that Public Schools have that is your problem.

I also find it funny people keep argueing healthcare against me when i've said about 20 times i'm for nationalied Healthcare.  But REAL Nationalized Healthcare, and the stuff Obama proposes is a halfass solution that leads to a fake kind of healthcare like Autoinsurance that just penalizes those who can't afford it.

 



Kasz216 said:
steven787 said:

I'm flipping through the channels, and as I pass Fox News I see, campaign finance talk.  Watching for 45 seconds total this is what I hear.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac donated heavily to the Obama Campaign which may explain why they got a federal bail out."

Yes Obama did this, not the Republican Treasury Secretary or the non-political Federal Reserve.  It was all Obama

Nah, Obama(and others) getting all those Contributions is why Democrats and Republicans blocked McCain's bill to reform Freddie and Fannie which is why they needed the government bailout.

Obama was getting money to let it happen.  But he had nothing to do with the actual bailout.

 

s.190 never made it out of committee (Committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs), Barrack Obama isn't and wasn't on that committee.  Obama had nothing to do with that bill... though he would have if he had been on the committee, but he wasn't so it's a moot point. (He was a first year senator in 2005)

You are right about everthing else.  Both parties are corrupt.  Obama is too.  So is McCain, he just got caught (and then lucky) so he introduces lots of bills that will never pass so he can look better.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

Kasz216 said:

You really aren't complaining about the free Market.  Your complaining about the lack of one.

Since MOST schools are government run.... and all schools have to run a government decided curriculium for the most part the prices teacheres get paid are going to be fixed pretty regularly... sure you can get bonus' if you move certain places or if you teach at a private school.... but it's the almost monopoly that Public Schools have that is your problem.

I also find it funny people keep argueing healthcare against me when i've said about 20 times i'm for nationalied Healthcare.  But REAL Nationalized Healthcare, and the stuff Obama proposes is a halfass solution that leads to a fake kind of healthcare like Autoinsurance that just penalizes those who can't afford it.

 

I don't just mean teachers though, I was just using that as an example because that was my experience. But you are right, I should have used a different example.Our wages are fixed as I think it should be for the teaching profession regardless. That isn't what my problem is. I'm referring to any job in the private sector, any at all. Salaries, in many cases, do not necessarily refelect the hard work and education put into a career. It's difficult to scale the work put into getting an English degree to become a writer as opposed to doing Engineering. They require different types on intelligences, and one obviously has a higher chance of sucess.

All I'm trying to say is that I don't trust the market (again, doesn't include teaching... bad example) to determine what jobs are more important than another but I can trust the government (it hurt a little to say that) to help even that out a little to help remedy the inherent inequality that comes with a free market.

As a side note, in Canada teaching in an urban area as opposed to a rural one. There are no bonuses for achieving certain academic goals, nor for making an extra effort in extra-curricular activities.

Edit: To your last point, I'm not sure if that was partially directed at me, but my initial post wasn't particularly directed at anyone. But I do agree with you, Obama's plan is half-assed. I genereally like to keep out of US politics, but I absolutely love the healthcare system here in Canada. It has it's faults like any system, but it does the job in satisfying one our basic rights without discrimination.

 



Wow, people in this thread who claim that Obama had anything to do with the bailouts = fucking retards.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson