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

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

tokilamockingbrd on 18 September 2008
steven787 said:
Username2324 said:
I hope you all know that Obama is only the democratic nominee because he is African-American, just like Hillary only had a chance because she was a woman. I don't mean to sound racist or sexist but it's true. This is election isn't even about the politics, Democrats just want the black vote, and the votes from the idiots who say "Oh he's black I will vote for him", and it's not just the Democrats, Palin was only picked up so that the republicans could snag some Hillary supporters and all the feminists out there.

Just think about it, we will either have the first black president or the first female vice president, neither party is concerned with their abilities, they will just do whatever they can to secure more votes.

So it had nothing to do with his speaking ability, his "fresh face", his Columbia/Harvard education, his entire adult life in public service, his family values, his intelligence, his ideas and presentation, his superior organization getting out the youth vote.

Glad to know it was so simple, not as complicated as I thought.

 

there are plenty of white guys from harvard who can talk really pretty. he does have a very good presentation, and intelliegence. I cannot agree with anything else you said about him. He came up through cut throat Chicago politics, so I do give him points on knowing how to win a campaign. But the man never stays put very long.... what is he going to run for when he is president? I kid. But seriously he has never stayed at the same place long enough to make an impact. In the illinois senate he was there less than 2 years before he made a run at Congress, and was smashed. They in 04 he went for Senate.

 



psn- tokila

add me, the more the merrier.

Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 18 September 2008
The Ghost of RubangB said:
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.

 

Same can be said to your roommate when a doctor is talking about people who make less then 300k. What your roommate said is ridiculous.

Anyway, to this line

"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."

The problem is you are not in a fee market, you are in a government run one. If Education was allowed to run like all other capitalist businesses, you would be making a lot of money as a teacher (if your a good one), and out of a job if you suck at it.

Just like the rest of us.



Kasz216 on 18 September 2008
steven787 said:
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.


Riiiiight.  So he said "This is going to destroy the economy" just incase it did.

Made a huge big deal about it... and everything... just to cover his bases because he knew it was going to destroy the country and didn't care?  Really that's your arguement?

You've got a weird sense of reality.



Kasz216 on 18 September 2008
pearljammer said:
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.

 

 

Writers I think is a bad example since i'd argue a lot more people WANT to be writers then they want to be Engineers.

I mean there is a reason Plumbers get paid a lot of money despite the fact that it doesn't take a lot of education.  It's a somewhat complicated job that nobody wants to do.

It's not just "value" and "qualfications" but how people want to do said job.



outlawauron on 22 September 2008
Auron said:
Bigjon you should have your own show after bill oriely.

I really don't get the Bill O' Reilly hate? I think he is a refreshment from the constant one-sided reporting from others (including the normal Fox News).



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Around the Network
akuma587 on 22 September 2008

I'm officially boycotting this thread, because it got me banned. And ironically for something that wasn't even that bad compared to some of what I have said before.



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

halogamer1989 on 22 September 2008

Join us bigjon! The one is not what he puts himself out to be! Rezko, Wright, weather underground, inexperience, "clinging to guns and religion", the list goes on...



steven787 on 22 September 2008

The "bailout" is probably the best thing the government could have done for the economy other than something more directly affecting the homeowners.

Government didn't just give money, it bought bad debt. If there is one thing the gov't is good at it's collecting money. As interest is being paid off on these loans, they will make a profit.

To manage the accounts the U.S. treasury department is going to hire private firms.



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

Rath on 22 September 2008
steven787 said:
The "bailout" is probably the best thing the government could have done for the economy other than something more directly affecting the homeowners.

Government didn't just give money, it bought bad debt. If there is one thing the gov't is good at it's collecting money. As interest is being paid off on these loans, they will make a profit.

To manage the accounts the U.S. treasury department is going to hire private firms.

They bought toxic debt, currently it is essentially worthless and they quite possibly will never get their money back.

I agreed with the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as those two going under would have destroyed everything financial, however I'm not sold on the rescue of AIG and this $700B bailout.



steven787 on 22 September 2008
Rath said:
steven787 said:
The "bailout" is probably the best thing the government could have done for the economy other than something more directly affecting the homeowners.

Government didn't just give money, it bought bad debt. If there is one thing the gov't is good at it's collecting money. As interest is being paid off on these loans, they will make a profit.

To manage the accounts the U.S. treasury department is going to hire private firms.

They bought toxic debt, currently it is essentially worthless and they quite possibly will never get their money back.

I agreed with the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as those two going under would have destroyed everything financial, however I'm not sold on the rescue of AIG and this $700B bailout.

It all depends on how they go about collecting it.  But you are right, I was painting it rosier than it is in reality for the sake of argument.



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