Obama - when will we see "Change"?

[3991v]

Yeah, I'm still wondering when we're going to see the change and hope Obama's propaganda proposed. Maybe I'm being too jumpy, or to ignorant on politics. Bah, I hate this stuff.

[RevengE]

He has only been in office for 3 months. Unless your god it takes time to revert the damage done by past Government officals. I'm not saying Obama can do no wrong, ask yourself if you were in his shoes how long would it take you to convert a country as large as ours from an economic crisis back to a normal state?

[A Cheese Danish]

Change has already happened. We are changing away from democracy, gas prices are changing, and of course, the stock market is changing.
Obama is hoping that everyone will follow him.
That's my take on it...

[pcgolfer85]

Change has already happened. We are changing away from democracy, gas prices are changing, and of course, the stock market is changing.
Obama is hoping that everyone will follow him.
That's my take on it...

Sooner or later we are going to have government officials coming into our homes to ensure we are living out lives the way the government wants us to. I have a serious fear of Socialism.

I don't agree with the saying, "Everyone deserves a piece of the pie." That's bullshit. If you work hard you will reap the benefits eventually.

I am completely against having my tax dollars go to individuals who sit on their ass all day.

[A Cheese Danish]

Sooner or later we are going to have government officials coming into our homes to ensure we are living out lives the way the government wants us to. I have a serious fear of Socialism.

I'm glad someone else agrees with me. It isn't so much as trying to get the country back on track,
but to get the people of the country to do what he wants.

[pcgolfer85]

I'm glad someone else agrees with me. It isn't so much as trying to get the country back on track,
but to get the people of the country to do what he wants.

It is seriously scary to think about it. Everyone got wrapped up in the Obama crazyness. To be honest, I stated rooting for the guy to win the election. I have since opened my eyes to what is really going on...slow and steady big government. BAD!

[DaMulta]

Change has already happened. We are changing away from democracy, gas prices are changing, and of course, the stock market is changing.
Obama is hoping that everyone will follow him.
That's my take on it...

Winter Gas is cheaper to make than Summer Gas. Yes they make a different blend for a different time of the year.

[A Cheese Danish]

Winter Gas is cheaper to make than Summer Gas. Yes they make a different blend for a different time of the year.

I'm aware of that. But I didn't think gas was that cheap in with winter of 07-08...:confused:

[mlee49]

He's got 4 years, he'll need most of it to show some real change.

[wolverineI]

Fortunately we'll have change despite him.Stock market is learning NOT to react negatively everytime he opens his mouth.

[btarunr]

When you exchange that $10 bill for a handful of quarters.

Change you can believe in.

[SK-1]

All show for our new team member.. Its all about the looks not substance I guess:(

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04122009/news/nationalnews/glamour_first_164080.htm

[wolverineI]

All show for our new team member.. Its all about the looks not substance I guess:(

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04122009/news/nationalnews/glamour_first_164080.htm

Isnt that Lieutenant Worf from star trek?

[SK-1]

Isnt that Lieutenant Worf from star trek?

In drag.
http://img.techpowerup.org/090430/Capture157.jpg
http://img.techpowerup.org/090430/Capture156.jpg

[DonInKansas]

I don't agree with the saying, "Everyone deserves a piece of the pie." That's bullshit. If you work hard you will reap the benefits eventually.



Tell that to the thousands of workers who have been laid off in the last year. Few agree with "everyone deserves a piece of the pie." Everyone that is able and works hard deserves a piece of the pie.

[hat]

Oh, you'll see change allright... you'll see change... you might not like it, but you'll see change.

[$till LegendaryU2K]

He has only been in office for 3 months. Unless your god it takes time to revert the damage done by past Government officals.

People should quote this for future used. Could had it said better myself. I think people just expect too much him, thats why they are always complaining about this and that lol.

[FordGT90Concept]

Pakistan is helping USA out to fight the Taliban, finally. That is change. Was Obama solely responsible for their change of heart, probably not.

[yogurt_21]

I am completely against having my tax dollars go to individuals who sit on their ass all day.

oh so you hate CEO's too. nice to see I'm not alone.

[$till LegendaryU2K]

Pakistan is helping USA out to fight the Taliban, finally. That is change. Was Obama solely responsible for their change of heart, probably not.

Thats not change, thats ignorance and it will only lead to more violence.

[farlex]

Sooner or later we are going to have government officials coming into our homes to ensure we are living out lives the way the government wants us to. I have a serious fear of Socialism.

I don't agree with the saying, "Everyone deserves a piece of the pie." That's bullshit. If you work hard you will reap the benefits eventually.

I am completely against having my tax dollars go to individuals who sit on their ass all day.

Apparently socialism needs to be taught better in schools, or again use wiki. Socialism isn't about free handouts to everyone, so some can just sit around all day while others pay for your way. I'm not sure why someone would even think that. The only thing I can think of is for some reason confusing social programs in place for poor or under-privileged with the socio-economic theory of socialism. Again I'm not sure why you're confusing them, but that isn't what socialism is about.

A simple definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

A more in-depth look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

I'm also not sure why you're of the notion that everyone has the same opportunities you do. I have the feeling sometimes some would rather simply not have any taxes at all spent, "government be damned the world can go to hell I want my money." That is what scares me.

[FordGT90Concept]

Change is coming and it isn't good. Because the federal government is drowning in debt, the fed had to raise interest rates. For the first time in the last several years, more people have been foreclosed that were on fixed rate mortgages than those on sub-prime mortgages. Simply put, because of all the debt, this recession is heading straight for depression.

I can't help but think if Obama vetoed that $800 billion bailout bail how things would be different. The bill wouldn't have made it past the House Republicans then.

[farlex]

Change is coming and it isn't good. Because the federal government is drowning in debt, the fed had to raise interest rates. For the first time in the last several years, more people have been foreclosed that were on fixed rate mortgages than those on sub-prime mortgages. Simply put, because of all the debt, this recession is heading straight for depression.

I can't help but think if Obama vetoed that $800 billion bailout bail how things would be different. The bill wouldn't have made it past the House Republicans then.

I'd wager we'd be a bit worse off if the bill had been vetoed, but it would have been the better long term decision. The bill curbed the bleeding, no question about it, but at a cost that is very significant for the future. Obama is currently all about the short-term, making it appear that he's "fixing" the problem Bush led us into so he can pass it off to the next. So long as it doesn't go down in his administration.....

[FordGT90Concept]

How? The federal government is broke. Most state governments are broke. People are losing jobs at an alarming rate. The snow ball that started this mess is still growing including more demographics that used to be stable. The only thing left to break is the currency which is teetering on collapse (the only thing that keeps it in check now is "faith" since Nixon killed the gold standard).

Neither bailout bill did ANYTHING to stop that initial snowball. It is continuing to roll down the hill wiping more and more cities off the map. All it did was throw money into a black hole which is banks that held sub-prime mortgages. We also can't forget throwing money at GM and Chrysler which where the equivalent of the Titanic and Britannic.

To add insult to injury, Obama still wants to push his $1 trillion healthcare reform bill when this year alone, the federal government is looking at another $2.5 trillion in debt.

Bush almost got the federal government in the black by the time he left. The first $700 billion made sure it remained in the red. He should have vetoed it but felt obligated to do it.

According to the GAO, the federal government will be seeing red for at least another 10 years.

There isn't much silverlining here.

[mlee49]

I'm just happy I dont have to pay my mortgage any more. :)


P36x8rTb3jI

[FordGT90Concept]

She's an idiot. A sheep blindly following the shepherd.

We don't need an architect (spin doctor, making it pretty, empty promises, etc.); we need an engineer (someone that sees the problem and takes care of it).

[pepsi71ocean]

I'm just happy I dont have to pay my mortgage any more. :)


P36x8rTb3jI

fucking poor people, im to poor to qualify for free gas, must be nice

to get free Diesel every time you fill up, i bet you even get free food as well

God it fucking sucks to make just enough money to survive but not enough to qualify for hand me outs.




It reminds me about how fucked up we are, Obama wants to spend trillions, lets print FUCKING TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YAY Just give us all a million dollars that will fix the problem.

Hell we could all get a million dollars a day and not spend as much money as Obama Bot did the last 120 days. It really pisses me off to think how we will all get fucked over by Socalcrap medicine that he wants to give us. Fuck him i would rather starve and pay health insurance then live with socalcrap medicine.

[FordGT90Concept]

It reminds me about how fucked up we are, Obama wants to spend trillions, lets print FUCKING TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YAY Just give us all a million dollars that will fix the problem.
Yeah, instead of giving $1.5 trillion to businesses doomed for collapse sooner or later, that would amount to $5000 for every man, woman, and child in the USA. A $5000 ($20,000 for the average family) would go a LONG way to stimulating the economy and even stop families in danger of foreclosure from foreclosing for a long time or even a down payment on refinancing. Instead, our worthless government pulled a disappearing act.

That's how incompetent the majority of the clowns in Washington D.C. are. Talk about a disconnection between the head and the body.

Quit helping failed businesses and help the damn people that slipped through the cracks (bankrupt). With that kind of money, it would have been possible to completely stop all foreclosures for at least a year (if not five).

[pepsi71ocean]

I read some where were we could have spent a million dollars a day since the year 0(when Christ was crucified) and still not spend enough money.

We could give everyone in America 10,000 or 50,000, or Hell we could pay off every morgage in america and still spend less then we have now spend.

Since Obama took office he had doubled the national debt, something that took Bush 8 years to do took Obama 120 days.....

Hell i can think of better ways to spent 4 trillion dollars, like paying off morgages for example...

[FordGT90Concept]

I read some where were we could have spent a million dollars a day since the year 0(when Christ was crucified) and still not spend enough money.
2009 years * 365.25 days/year = 733,787.25 days

733,787.25 days * 1,000,000 dollars/day = 733,787,250,000 dollars

That's not even a trillion. :|

[farlex]

I read some where were we could have spent a million dollars a day since the year 0(when Christ was crucified) and still not spend enough money.

We could give everyone in America 10,000 or 50,000, or Hell we could pay off every morgage in america and still spend less then we have now spend.

Since Obama took office he had doubled the national debt, something that took Bush 8 years to do took Obama 120 days.....

Hell i can think of better ways to spent 4 trillion dollars, like paying off morgages for example...

It's amazing isn't it the way the government spends our money. There was something else about the war in Iraq too that's pretty mind boggling: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/27/what-we-could-have-spent_n_138410.html

You just have to wonder what we could accomplish, what could be on the horizon, if we could just stop screwing ourselves......

[FordGT90Concept]

1 trillion over 5.5 years (Mar 2003 - Oct 2008: date of article) = $181.82 billion a year.

That isn't much by comparison. You can never put a price on a good friend in troubled international waters either. We won't have to rely on Saudi Arabia anymore for military staging grounds. That, alone, is worth the "rent."

1.5 trillion+ in less than a year, now that's a "whole 'nother scale." It could have been a great investment in the country's future. Instead, it went to everyone that has proven irresponsible with money in the first place. We call that incompetence. I'd rather start a war with Iran and invest in Iran's future than waste more money here. At least Iran might help us out down the road where Washington D.C. can't. If that doesn't make you stand back and stay "wow" at how shitty Capital Hill has made this situation, what would? This country is fundamentally broken starting at the top and idiots filling in the bottom ranks.

I think the GAO needs to grow teeth.

[SK-1]

On the job training in action. And this guy runs the country...
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=350053


And how can this be?
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=349703

[DrPepper]

Why was america allowed to be in such huge debt ?

[FordGT90Concept]

I wish I knew.

[pepsi71ocean]

Why was america allowed to be in such huge debt ?

because that is who we choose to elect into government....

[FordGT90Concept]

I don't know if it is "who" really. The problem is no one is held accountable for making sure the government stays in the black. That is, who steps in and says that's too much? I think that role falls to the President and his power to veto budgets; however, that power is rarely (never in recent memory?) executed.

As such, I think what we really need is to give the GAO teeth. GAO is the one that calculates long-term government deficits/surpluses. If the GAO is seeing red in the future, the GAO has the authority to override the legislative and executive branches with a veto on account of excessive spending. Obviously, the GAO can't veto vital spending like defense spending and social programs people are dependant upon but, for instance, if someone is asking for a 100 million bridge that isn't determined to be extreme collapse risk, GAO would veto it.

It doesn't necessarily have to be the GAO but someone has to hold the executive and legislative branches accountable for all the money they spend since the executive branch has become part of the problem and not the solution.

[DrPepper]

because that is who we choose to elect into government....

So its the citizens fault :p

Seriously though I'm sure we're in the red as well how can this just be hidden.

[Deusxmachina]

Quit helping failed businesses and help the damn people that slipped through the cracks (bankrupt). With that kind of money, it would have been possible to completely stop all foreclosures for at least a year (if not five).


Hell i can think of better ways to spent 4 trillion dollars, like paying off morgages for example...

Hey, pay off your own mortgage. Don't use my tax dollars to pay for your second bathroom or two-car garage. Instead of helping failed businesses, tax dollars should help failed homeowners? Those people aren't homeowners anyway. HomeOWNERS don't have these problems. These are usually renters-in-denial.

I know that may not be quite how you meant it, but just sayin'. All this "pay off other people's mortgages" stuff, or Obama wanting to put a bottom under housing, is still taking money from people who did the right thing and giving it to those who didn't.

Drop mortgage rates to 4% or 3% or 2% or 1%. They still can't afford the house.

[FordGT90Concept]

The businesses failed because of the homeowners. It is better to give that tax money back to the people than have Uncle Sam make it disappear in failed businesses.

It would have been best if there was no bailouts at all. My argument there was saying there are many better ways to spend that much money than the way they did. For the most part, they wasted it all.


The first round of foreclosures were from people that had adjustable rates (subprime mortgages). When people foreclose, the bank ends up with an asset that can't be easily liquefied. The bank declares bankruptcy.

When the bank declares bankruptcy, a lot of jobs are lost and a lot of capital vanishes. This leads to unemployment of people that had steady income for extended periods of time.

At this point (which we just hit), the second round of foreclosures hit. People are unable to pay their fixed rate mortgages because they don't have enough income. They too declare bankruptcy meaning more people out of work, less people buying goods, etc.

So, if you are going to give money to someone, stop the first domino from ever falling. Buy up the loans that are out of control, reissue the loan as a fixed rate mortgage. If the house is too expensive for them to afford on a fixed rate, they must move. Instead of paying off your loan to a bank, you're paying off your loan to the government. The tax payers would have not been out any money (some would still foreclose but that would be more than made up by interest), the banks would no longer be in danger of collapse, and most importantly, subprime mortgages would be illegal (only one bank can issue a loan and fund it--banks can't outsource funding for a loan).

[pepsi71ocean]

Hey, pay off your own mortgage. Don't use my tax dollars to pay for your second bathroom or two-car garage. Instead of helping failed businesses, tax dollars should help failed homeowners? Those people aren't homeowners anyway. HomeOWNERS don't have these problems. These are usually renters-in-denial.

I know that may not be quite how you meant it, but just sayin'. All this "pay off other people's mortgages" stuff, or Obama wanting to put a bottom under housing, is still taking money from people who did the right thing and giving it to those who didn't.

Drop mortgage rates to 4% or 3% or 2% or 1%. They still can't afford the house.


i will when i can afford to buy a house, i wasn't a dumb shit who over bought.

Not everyone can afford a house, and not everyone deserves to own a fancy car, etic.

It was the Clinton Administrations deregulation of the housing regulations that lead to the funny money loans that got us in this mess. If you make 30,000 a year you shouldn't buy a 500,000 doillar house, or a 50,000 dollar car, its way to big for your income.

So if you want that new car or a bigger house, be aq republican and RISE to the challenge get a better job. Because the democratic way of hand me outs doesn't work.

Republicans want to give you a hand up, Democrats like to give hand outs. If you loose your job the Republicans will help you rise up and get a better job(if you are motivated that is) and create a living for you, while democrats will say "im sorry you lost your job here is a hand out"

[yogurt_21]

Hey, pay off your own mortgage. Don't use my tax dollars to pay for your second bathroom or two-car garage. Instead of helping failed businesses, tax dollars should help failed homeowners? Those people aren't homeowners anyway. HomeOWNERS don't have these problems. These are usually renters-in-denial.

I know that may not be quite how you meant it, but just sayin'. All this "pay off other people's mortgages" stuff, or Obama wanting to put a bottom under housing, is still taking money from people who did the right thing and giving it to those who didn't.

Drop mortgage rates to 4% or 3% or 2% or 1%. They still can't afford the house.

are you familiar with how an ARM works? start out at 900$ a month, then go to 1800$ a month.

yet somehow that wasn't fully disclosed to the buyers by the lenders. that or the buyer was stupid. no if the ARM didn't exist we wouldn't be in this current housing crisis. people losing their houses have a 10/1 ratio for every 10 of them had ARM's only 1 had a fixed.

doesn't matter the interest is so low it matters the type of mortgage. no one should be paying 1800$ a month on a 100,000$ house. it's ridiculous. especially when you look at the straight finance of 100k over 360 payments. 278$ wow you're telling there no room to work in there?

no if the lenders denied those without the proper income to debt ratio instead of issueing them an ARM we would be fine.

me I'm at 6.75% 30 yr fixed and my house is worth 20k more than i paid for it. because I wasn't a blistering moron who thought 300k for a 3 bed 2 bath 1300 square feet was a good deal. that same place is on sale for 98k now.

I'm applying for an fha refinance to drop my rate with no out of pocket cost. based on those programs that are bailing out those who screwed up.

it sucks that those who did wrong are simply given a bail out without consequnece but I can't say I don't like the new housing legislation. not when it's saving me 150$ a month. that's almost my groceries covered.

[Wile E]

We have a fixed rate FHA loan as well.

My father has an ARM. Not because of his income, but because his credit is poor from some incidents in the past. His payment started out at $600/mo. He bought a house within his means of payment, with plenty of headroom left over, based on the initial payments. The loan officer made it sound as if the loan might fluctuate to an extra $100 or so, so he assumed $200 instead, to give a little cushion. He now pays $1800/mo. He was not told this was a possibility when he applied for the loan, or else he would've never bothered with it. Now, if he so much as loses 2 hrs of work a week, he will lose his home. There is absolutely no wiggle room in his budget. It's so bad, I often have to bring food to them. He only has to hold out for a couple more months, then a refinance to a fixed rate loan should be possible for him.

[FordGT90Concept]

:(

Why are ARMs even legal?

[Wile E]

That's what I'd like to know. And even if they do allow them, why are they allowed to triple the cost to the consumer?

[FordGT90Concept]

Especially without at least a 6 month warning before they can change your rate. If you don't accept the change, you have time to figure something else out.

[Deusxmachina]

are you familiar with how an ARM works? start out at 900$ a month, then go to 1800$ a month.


That's a different topic. Government using tax dollars to bailout banks kept them from being forced to sell their assets at real market value to stay afloat. The government is helping keep house prices high and preventing people with money on the sidelines who did the right thing to buy them at their proper value. Government is helping to continue the bubble with taxpayer money.

This is propping up crappy banks. Home "owners" can walk away and go buy a cheaper house or rent instead. Even Jose Canseco did it.

Whether ARMs are bad or not is a different topic than wanting me to pay for someone else's ARM.

[FordGT90Concept]

Why save a business that has proven they are no longer viable? Just to save a few jobs while thousands of others lose theirs?

House values in some areas are rock-bottom. Any place where there was a foreclosure (and there is lots of them on the east and west coast) all the surrounding properties also take a hit.

Bubble's burst for a reason. It is a means of releasing pressure that was pent up in the system. Government's job isn't to stop it from bursting becuase it will. The government's job is to put regulations in place that make that same kind of bubble from forming again.


Home owners that held loans from these "crappy banks" are now living in a cardboard house, with their parents, or in some community shelter. Banks are about money, they couldn't give a crap about the people that they foreclosed on.


ARMs started this mess and if they aren't made illegal, they'll cause another, and another, and another.

[Deusxmachina]

I haven't brought up a housing price vs. wages graph lately, but I'd bet housing is still overpriced vs. wages. "Rock-bottom" says who? If they're still too expensive that no one wants or can buy them, then they're still too expensive.

I've got a "rock-bottom" priced Yugo on sale for only $50,000, yet for some reason no one wants to buy it at that price. What are my choices? 1) keep it and hope its value goes up while it sits there collecting dust and rust due to no upkeep while I pay storage fees on it 2) drop the "rock-bottom" price some more to sell it and get it off my balance sheet for more cashflow.

Banks do care about foreclosing on people because banks don't want the house. I talk to a bank manager guy nearly every week. He talks about the jet skis and cars and things his bank is trying to get rid of from repossessions. They don't want that stuff. My friend was behind six or whatever months on his mortgage and cut a deal with his bank because they didn't want his house. Government stepping in kept the banks from having to cut deals and eat a loss like they should have.

Why are the people who held these bad loans now living in cardboard boxes? If housing prices are rock-bottom, they still can't afford one, or what?

If someone says it's because they can't get another loan due to bad credit, whose fault is that bad credit? Can likely still rent if they have first and last month's rent. Cash always talks. Maybe it won't be a 2500sq.ft house with three bays for the new cars they bought that they also can't afford with cupholders that hold their $6 cups of coffee, but hey.

Saying that the bailout money could have been better spent is one thing, but saying it could have been better spent and still SHOULD have been spent is something else since in both cases it's government using taxpayer money to interfere.

You're correct that bubbles burst for a reason and that it's not government's job to stop them from bursting. So why are you recommending they do just that? :confused:

Again, whether ARMs are bad or not or whether banks are evil or not or whether people buy things they can't afford or not are separate issues from making other people who did the right thing pay for it.

"ARMs are bad." "Banks are evil." Great. But why should I have to pay for them? There are supposed to be consequences when bad decisions are made. If nothing bad can happen, then people will always take the riskiest/highest-reward route.

[FordGT90Concept]

I haven't brought up a housing price vs. wages graph lately, but I'd bet housing is still overpriced vs. wages. "Rock-bottom" says who? If they're still too expensive that no one wants or can buy them, then they're still too expensive.
$150,000 houses in Flordia are going for $20,000. They are valued so low because the neighborhood is a ghost town. One house in the neighborhood foreclosed, the average value of the neighborhood dropped: the entire neighborhood is now paying more on their house loan than the house is worth. Some just leave, others stay. Another in the neighborhood lost their job and got foreclosed on. The neighborhood is again devalued. Repeat until pretty much everyone is gone. Now the banks own the neighborhood where there is no buyers.


I've got a "rock-bottom" priced Yugo on sale for only $50,000, yet for some reason no one wants to buy it at that price. What are my choices? 1) keep it and hope its value goes up while it sits there collecting dust and rust due to no upkeep while I pay storage fees on it 2) drop the "rock-bottom" price some more to sell it and get it off my balance sheet for more cashflow.
1) You'll end up bankrupt too.
2) There are no buyers. No one has money laying around for a down payment and banks don't want to give you a loan in the first place. There is no money to even start buying a house.


Banks do care about foreclosing on people because banks don't want the house. I talk to a bank manager guy nearly every week. He talks about the jet skis and cars and things his bank is trying to get rid of from repossessions. They don't want that stuff. My friend was behind six or whatever months on his mortgage and cut a deal with his bank because they didn't want his house. Government stepping in kept the banks from having to cut deals and eat a loss like they should have.
Of course they don't want repossessed items/foreclosed properties. They need to get them sold again or else they are out a lot of money (they already are0. Problem is, again, no buyers. The bank ends up declaring bankruptcy because they couldn't liquidify enough assets and the assets they do hold aren't worth hardly anything because of the rapid depreciation.

There's a good chance your friend is going to have more problems with his mortgage in the next few years unless this economy rebounds (which looks to me like we're heading straight for another bust).


Why are the people who held these bad loans now living in cardboard boxes? If housing prices are rock-bottom, they still can't afford one, or what?
They can't get a loan and/or they are out of work. If you been foreclosed on, banks really don't want to conduct business with you. You've proven yourself to be incapable of handling money.


Saying that the bailout money could have been better spent is one thing, but saying it could have been better spent and still SHOULD have been spent is something else since in both cases it's government using taxpayer money to interfere.
Option A) put regs in place and let the market it sort itself out
Option B) put regs in place, establish a federal loan program for people that struggling to pay housing loans. The interest rate would be lower but the length of time to pay it off would be much longer. All loans issued are fixed rate. Taxpayers would gain money on the interest and as this bubble cleans itself up, the federal loan program could be terminated and the remaining loans be transferred back into public banking (still fixed, low interest rate).

What they did was just plain stupid. They pumped craploads of money into banks hoping they'd start loaning again but hey, these people that have the loans can't afford them in the first place. How does that help anyone? The banks don't need money (they can always declare bankruptcy with little consequence), the loanees do (bankruptcy for individuals is a life-long scar). I would perfer Option A but Option B would have stopped the recession dead in its tracks inside of a few months.

[SK-1]

Things ARE changing... From Gallup.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120761/Cheney-Pelosi-Poor-Ratings-Common.aspx

[FordGT90Concept]

And note the speech Obama gave in Cairo. He is on the verge of ending the 50 year relationship with Israel. I wonder what he would do if many Arab nations jump on Israel again. Would he step in and stop it like Lyndon B. Johnson did back in 1967 (Six Day War)?

[SK-1]

I wonder what he will do WHEN many Arab nations jump on Israel again.

Fixed. It is not if. Its when.:(

[FordGT90Concept]

Unfortunately, you're probably right. Islam and Judaism are like oil and water; moreover, there's a lot on both sides that are fanatical and believe they have a "right" to the others' land. The perfect fuel-air mixture is already present; all it needs is another spark.


I tend to side with the little guy on this one. I have nothing against Islam but, ever since the Holocaust, Judaism has been a rare breed. We don't want a culture to go extinct.

[pepsi71ocean]

i wish the Senate was more forceful when they wrote that petitiion to obama.

WHEN Israel is attacked i think that they might do farely good. afterall they have the largest military of all the surrounded countries(including reservist and back up). That and many suspect them of being armed with nukes.

I hope Obama not will back Israel in any war that might flare up but what are the odds?

[FordGT90Concept]

Nukes are useless--you never want to be the first to use them because you won't be the last.

They may have the largest and most modern military in the area but, WHEN the shit hits the fan, the question is if any other country (e.g. Russia) gets involved like what damn near happened during the Six-Day War.

I think we really need to walk down the center and stay out the religious/cultural aspects of it. Just state simply: if anyone kicks up shit, we'll send someone to put an end to it.

[pepsi71ocean]

I would say if war breaks out we need a new "Abraham Lincoln" Brigade like there was in the Spanish Revolution in the 1930's.

Im sure there are a bunch of American's willing to volunteer to go to the middle east to go kick some Terrorist ass.

I can raise 500 rednecks, all i need to say is that There is no bagging limit, They can use any weapon of choice (i want my PIG baby"M-60", that and an M-14 and a Colt 1911 A1) That they hate beer, women, pickup trucks, fishing, country music, and Jesus. They are directly responsible for the death of Dale Earnhart, that The Islamic warring nation love the movie BrokeBack mountain.

Im sure if we employed the same tactics in iraq the war would be over by christmas.


I could see that happening.(a war over Israel that is)

[SK-1]

I bet this pisses a ton of his supporters off.
Drug czar: Feds won't support legalized pot
"Legalization is not in the president's vocabulary, and it's not in mine,"
"Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit,"
I guess the revenue stream from keeping it illegal must outweigh the potential profit from government legalization.
http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/1553061.html

[FordGT90Concept]

CNN is going to run a special on pot next week:
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/13/americas-high-the-case-for-and-against-pot/

[pepsi71ocean]

Obama is changing the government, he is STEAM ROLLING through legislation that suits his needs.

[FordGT90Concept]

With the help of all his big-government-is-good pals in Congress. :(

At least he isn't going to get his 20 some trillion healthcare plan approved in the next month. :)

[1Kurgan1]

Obama is changing the government, he is STEAM ROLLING through legislation that suits his needs.

You act like thats something no one else would do, in the end he's still a human and we seek things that benefit us, if we wanted a robot someone should have told al gore to run again.

[FordGT90Concept]

Anything is better than a dictator.

[btarunr]

Anything is better than a dictator.

Today's dictator uses economy and not military as the instrument of power. The same applies to modern-day empires as well.

[pepsi71ocean]

You act like that's something no one else would do, in the end he's still a human and we seek things that benefit us, if we wanted a robot someone should have told al gore to run again.

Stricter gun laws?, higher taxes on the rich, restricting the rights of the people, how does that benefit the civilian population????

More government control?
Freezing doctors wages to a flat 100,000 a year?
larger military?
appeasement to the fucking world

How does that help us, How does kissing ass to the rest of the world help us


IN THE words of General Douglas McArthur

In war there is no substitute for victory.

There are some who for varying reasons would appease Red China. They are blind to history's clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war. It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement had led to more than a sham peace.

Like blackmail, it lays the basis for new and successively greater demands until, as in blackmail, violence becomes the only alternative. Why, my soldiers asked of me, surrender military advantages to an enemy in the field?

THIS is what Obama bot is doing to US, WHEN have we a country of 300Million ever appeased a piss ant country like Iran, a country the size of Texas, Oklahoman, and new Mexico combined, a country with 1/5 the population?

APPEASEMENT only makes a bigger war, The weak British appeased Hitler to prevent war"I believe it is peace for our time", anyone remember that quote????, well bull because 1.5 years later we watched the most destructive war in history unfold because of appeasement.


WHY should we please these warmongering terrorist, put them on some pedestal and bow to them?, These same radicals who Behead civilians, and non combatants, WHY is Obama supporting these terrorists, why is he trying to make peace? there is 1 reason. Appeasement, IN hopes that the terrorist will lighten up and dissipate.


I WARN all of you, if this appeasement keeps up World War 3 is not to far away, and then we will be in a world of shit.


AS my pacifist G/F puts it(SHE is like Obama), "if you appease them it will just go away and everything will be better"

However, she does this all the time and guess who has to bail her out? Me, im the one who has to jack up her ex'es because they won'ty leave her alone, they walk all over her like she is a rag, why do they do this because she APPEASES them.

Its that easy.


NO other leaders would do this much ass kissing unless they were trying to push some secretive agenda through the walls, We are pushing programs through congress so fast, and were dumping money like its water.

We have nearly tripled the national debt since Obama took office? WTF? Where is all the money going? where is this "recovery" that he said would result? the answer is the downturn is to big, OBAMA WANED TO PROVE 2,000 YEARS OF PROVEN ECONOMICS WRONG. Whole EMPIRES have failed trying to do what he is doing, please someone explain how we "America" will survive this if empires 10x our size failed to do what we are trying to do.


*DISCLAIMER*-When i refer to terrorist i mean terrorist, not normal Islamic Civilians, Iran is not a terrorist nation, they just have terrorist in power.

[Deusxmachina]

AS my pacifist G/F puts it(SHE is like Obama), "if you appease them it will just go away and everything will be better"

However, she does this all the time and guess who has to bail her out? Me, im the one who has to jack up her ex'es because they won'ty leave her alone, they walk all over her like she is a rag, why do they do this because she APPEASES them.


There's another appeasement example in there. You appease your girlfriend, and so she has little reason to change her behavior.

All of this wouldn't be nearly as bad if Democrats didn't also have Congress. They write things up behind closed doors, and then the rest shove it through without even reading it. If there isn't a drastic swing in votes at the next Congressional election, then that means the people like what they see, and we're likely pretty much doomed.

[FordGT90Concept]

Today's dictator uses economy and not military as the instrument of power. The same applies to modern-day empires as well.
Exactly. They go by fancier titles too like "President" and "Prime Minister."


NO other leaders would do this much ass kissing unless they were trying to push some secretive agenda through the walls, We are pushing programs through congress so fast, and were dumping money like its water.

We have nearly tripled the national debt since Obama took office? WTF? Where is all the money going? where is this "recovery" that he said would result? the answer is the downturn is to big, OBAMA WANED TO PROVE 2,000 YEARS OF PROVEN ECONOMICS WRONG. Whole EMPIRES have failed trying to do what he is doing, please someone explain how we "America" will survive this if empires 10x our size failed to do what we are trying to do.
You basically summed up why Obama's ratings are falling. They should be hovering around 10% by now. The only reason why it isn't is because people haven't realized how much all this shit is costing them yet.


If there isn't a drastic swing in votes at the next Congressional election, then that means the people like what they see, and we're likely pretty much doomed.
I agree, 2010 elections will be interesting.

[Deusxmachina]

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/07/video_obama_tel.php

"in this video we see President Obama telling a woman whose now-105-year-old mother got a pacemaker five years ago that, under Obamacare, we might just give old ladies a pain killer instead."

[FordGT90Concept]

At least he isn't lying. It doesn't matter how you shake it, socialized medicine means you may not get what you need--you get what Uncle Sam says you can have.

[pepsi71ocean]

At least he isn't lying. It doesn't matter how you shake it, socialized medicine means you may not get what you need--you get what Uncle Sam says you can have.

Socialized medicine is called Triage medicine for a reason, it plays the odds, that is why people don't understand, they don't realize that under socialism they won't get a pacmaker until they pass the waiting list, meaning the government knows that a percentage will die which will save the government money.


This is now a frequent occurrence in America, European and Candida and even Mexicans coming to the states and having emergency operations to save their lives, knowing they will live.

There was a Canadian who was on vacation in Key west who we were drinking with, he said that he was developing chest pains and they took a vacation here, and that tomorrow he was going in because his chest pains were getting worse, and guess what, he got a triple bypass done, where normally he would have had to wait 6 months if he stayed in Canada.

To make it better, most people in Canada wait and don't report these issues at all, BECAUSE in Canada if you report heart issues or pains you dopn't qualify for the "out of country insurance", which protects your in the case something happens.

In this case, he paid 5,000 USD for the insurance and walked out with a 80,000 USD by pass.

THAT IS FUCKING THE SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[btarunr]

We don't have socialized a healthcare industry here, but we're in the middle. You have government-sponsored healthcare, government-subsidized healthcare, and private healthcare. Under private healthcare, those who can afford, can get the best healthcare (like it is in the US now). Those who don't, still have an option to avail free or subsidized healthcare, though it has every demerit you people are complaining of. The three systems coexist in the market, and each has its share of takers. America could work towards something similar, if not a socialized healthcare system your government proposes. In its present form, it stinks because the government will be exercising great control over private entities (your hospitals) to do go about with their business. It could also end up fixing prices, and stifling competition in the market, which only cripples advancements in the industry. America is too precious a healthcare industry, it gives out too many of the world's technological and scientific advancements. A crippled industry will retard progress of healthcare even outside US. In order for Obama to go about with his plan, he should first develop state-owned healthcare infrastructure, and let people choose between free/subsidized healthcare that can be availed in government-owned hospitals, or get the best healthcare from private hospitals. If he plans to use private hospitals for his ambitious plan, he's scripting what will be a historic blunder.

[FordGT90Concept]

Socialized medicine is called Triage medicine for a reason, it plays the odds, that is why people don't understand, they don't realize that under socialism they won't get a pacmaker until they pass the waiting list, meaning the government knows that a percentage will die which will save the government money.

...
That's why I think repelling the Hill-Burton Act would solve the problems. I mean, people would still bitch and moan because they can't get help unless they prove they can afford it. At least the government won't be saying you have to wait 6 months to see if you die first. It is effectively the same thing but when it stays completely in private, they don't pretend to help you--they help you or turn you away.

I think we can fix this without socializing it but no one wants to because they fail to come to terms with their own demise (you can't live forever).


We don't have socialized a healthcare industry here, but we're in the middle. You have government-sponsored healthcare, government-subsidized healthcare, and private healthcare. Under private healthcare, those who can afford, can get the best healthcare (like it is in the US now).

...
Unlike India, the population here is sparse. There's only a few densely populated areas and they are dotted along the coasts. Simply put, government ran hospitals cost way too much and would still end up putting private hospitals out of business because Americans love cheap (e.g. Wal-Mart).


Yup, everyone that has their finger on the pulse of country is saying this is bad for everyone. Some Democrats are finally coming around to accept this but it might not be enough to kill the legislation. The proposals being worked on now are completely wrong. The good proposals (cost neutral) that are also being made (e.g. Safeway Insurance Plan) aren't given a moment of thought.

I guess I can't blame them though. Obama ran promising "government health insurance." It seems to me like the majority that supported him was solely for that purpose--they still worship the concept no matter how much it will hurt them in the long run. I think I'd put the number at around 60% when he was elected--around 54% now. Some are coming around but not many.


I'm almost getting to the point that I don't care anymore. I can't fix 54% of the peoples' ignorance as demonstrated by some of the discussions on this forum. Ignorance is bliss (so, so, so true in this case).

I just wonder how badly this is going to effect me. I have kidney stones on a 4-8 month cycle (have a 4mm stone in my left kidney right now). One time, I went in on a Tuesday and they operated on Wednesday (urologist's call--I was drugged). I expect that response time to fall greatly the more socialized the system becomes.

Needless to say, I'm not looking forward to any of this.

[1Kurgan1]

Stricter gun laws?, higher taxes on the rich, restricting the rights of the people, how does that benefit the civilian population????

More government control?
Freezing doctors wages to a flat 100,000 a year?
larger military?
appeasement to the fucking world

How does that help us, How does kissing ass to the rest of the world help us

To be honest, I don't really pay attention to politics at all, so I'm not sure if you are saying thats what Obama is looking to do, or if you are being sarcastic and saying thats what he is looking to do the opposite of.

Either way, stricter gun laws is whatever I don't go looking for problems I don't understand why everyone thinks it's necessary to carry a weapon with them. More taxes on the rich... thats pretty straight forward, take some load off the average guys back and make the people who rake in the cash pay more. Restricting rights, not sure you would have to be more specific.

More government control = more jobs, granted I don't like control. Freezing doctors wages to 100,000 a year, so what thats a ton of cash. Larger military, once again more employment. Appeasing the world, showing that we recognize other countrys as the rest of the world pretty much thinks we have our heads up our asses.

[pepsi71ocean]

To be honest, I don't really pay attention to politics at all, so I'm not sure if you are saying thats what Obama is looking to do, or if you are being sarcastic and saying thats what he is looking to do the opposite of.



Either way, stricter gun laws is whatever I don't go looking for problems I don't understand why everyone thinks it's necessary to carry a weapon with them. More taxes on the rich... thats pretty straight forward, take some load off the average guys back and make the people who rake in the cash pay more. Restricting rights, not sure you would have to be more specific.


because 80% of Americans believe its a right to carry and own guns. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to own and bear arms, to protect us from an oppressive government.

The reason Obama wants to get rid of our guns is so the last check and balance is removed. GUNS ARE THE BALANCE, against an oppressive government.

Second raising taxes on the rich bu 20% will not increase revenues as much as if we raised taxes on the middle class by 2% for example, there just aren't enough rich here.

More importantly the rich own the business that employ some 70% of America, raising the taxes on the rich will just slow down any economic recovery that could happen.

Restricting the rights of citizens started with Ammunition sales, then moving on the 1st amendment rights, He has also passed laws a requiring the move of companies overseas to prevent his new "tax" hikes from taking effect.

Destruction of voice, restructuring the Justice Department, and removing guns, means that there is no check and balance system. With democrats in full power in Congress, more liberal anti-gun judges on the Justice Department(sontaymore) its a set up for a gun ban, and once that gun ban happens then an Oppressive tyranny is what is left.



More government control = more jobs, granted I don't like control. Freezing doctors wages to 100,000 a year, so what thats a ton of cash. Larger military, once again more employment. Appeasing the world, showing that we recognize other countrys as the rest of the world pretty much thinks we have our heads up our asses.

Doctors couldn't live with their pay cut in half. Most doctors make 200,000 a year it it takes them 15 to 18 years to pay off a 350,000 dollar student loan. Doctors wouldn't stand for it, i wouldn't stand for it.

PLUS 100,000 a year is the 45% tax bracket, that is 55,000 after taxes, how can anyone live on that? when student loans cost 25,000 a year. doctors would be in the poor house.

More government control is adding more tot he FBI and CIA and NSA, all 3 of which have reported larger hiring as well.

Obama has used the patriot act to great use since becoming president, wire tapping million of Americans among the right side conservative people as well. the FBI tails people now as well. All in the name of finding "terrorist, and anti Obama people".


Appeasing the world isn't fixing the problem, alot of allied countries are banding together because they fear Obama will destroy them to appease others.

Israel, Check Republic, Georgia, and a host of other small nations fear Obama will let them go to better other political gains.

HE WILL PISS OFF THE ONLY FRIENDS WE HAVE TO APPEASE OUR ENEMIES.

[Deusxmachina]

To be honest, I don't really pay attention to politics at all, so I'm not sure if you are saying thats what Obama is looking to do, or if you are being sarcastic and saying thats what he is looking to do the opposite of.

If you paid attention to politics, you might have a different opinion on many of those subjects you posted.

The Second Amendment's main purpose is to protect you from your government. Look at some youtube videos and articles of what people in Britain think after their guns were banned. People there beg and plead for U.S. citizens to not let it happen to them. You could look at crime statistics, too. When law-abiding citizens are guaranteed to not have guns, criminals have a field day because they know they are safer. We are making the streets safer for criminals! Hurray!

Here's one for you. My brother's county specifically bans certain "assault weapons." He showed me the list. One of the guns on there is a Hi-Point 9mm carbine. Why is a semi-automatic 9mm on there? Because it *looks* like an assault weapon. This is your government at work.

Meanwhile, in my area, I can buy as many of those as I want. Amazingly, I know of no crimes that have been committed here with such a weapon. How odd! I have heard of some crimes being committed with knives, though. You'd think we'd ban those already.

Instead of looking to tax the rich even more, (the top 10% of people already pay around 72% in income taxes), consider the bigger benefit of a smaller government that doesn't tax people so much because it is allowed to mismanage and waste less money than it currently does.

Government is a bloated pig that takes and takes. When the economy is good, they raise taxes because "we can afford it." When the economy is bad, they raise taxes because "we can't afford not to." It doesn't stop. Government just keeps growing and growing and digging itself into more areas of your life like parasites devouring a host. We can look at California for a decent example of what Big Government can do. People are fleeing the state. You can't even have a quiet but non-stock exhaust on your car there or you'll get a ticket.

On a different forum, someone was predicting great things from Government Motors. I kept trying to think of what businesses government runs efficiently and without deficits that would make them think it would run GM well. What is government's track record with money and management?

Someone else called for all the government lovers and tree-huggers to make sure to put their money where their mouth is and buy the new $40k battery cars that have an unproven track record -- because that's what government thinks the people want to buy.

Al Gore has said he wishes he could raise the gas taxes high enough to destroy the internal-combustion engine. Hey, Al, all those poor people you pretend to care about, they drive gas cars and can't afford your ideas. I am constantly amazed at how people can think these clowns are somehow "for the little guy." Some people actually think Cap and Trade will only be paid for by "rich people" and "big businesses." Keep a current copy of your energy bill, and let me know how that works out later.

In a nutshell, Big Government is bad in almost all areas. Its main purpose is to control your life so you are its good, little slave.
"The more government spends, the more freedom is lost."

[FordGT90Concept]

Either way, stricter gun laws is whatever I don't go looking for problems I don't understand why everyone thinks it's necessary to carry a weapon with them.
Humans have an unalienable right to protect themselves. The Constitution legislates that in the second amendment. The best defense against a gun is another gun with a faster trigger finger.

Moreover, if a war breaks out, you basically got a large, unsigned militia (hunters, gun lovers) which could be quickly organized into a makeshift army (the reason James Madison demanded the amendment). To quote Alexander Hamilton:
If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
In layman's terms: If government fucks you, you fuck back. Why would you want to give up that right? Just because some unorganized gang wants to mug you? Remember, and fear, the 800 lb gorilla. It doesn't just want your money, it wants your life too (communism is effectively a pretty badge for government slavery). You can sympathise with a mugger--someone who is having a hard time. How can you sympathise with a government?


More taxes on the rich... thats pretty straight forward, take some load off the average guys back and make the people who rake in the cash pay more. Restricting rights, not sure you would have to be more specific.
62% of the government's money already comes from the "rich." If all these tax hikes go through, the "rich" will be paying 50% or more of their income to the government in some states. Government is acting like Robin Hood and Robin Hood belongs in a feudal government (like Nottingham), not a constitutional federal republic government. That is, royalty (the king) overtaxed his people and Robin Hood took the illegitimate funds and gave it back to the people. The rich aren't taxing you, the royalty is. Hell, you should worship the ground the rich walk on. Look at all the government favors they pay for (your military, your roads, your social security, etc.). You should be angry at the King and pray for a Robin Hood to right this grotesque injustice. The rich at least earned their money; the government, not so much.


More government control = more jobs, granted I don't like control. Freezing doctors wages to 100,000 a year, so what thats a ton of cash. Larger military, once again more employment. Appeasing the world, showing that we recognize other countrys as the rest of the world pretty much thinks we have our heads up our asses.
Shitty jobs. You're talking about going all socialist (which has always failed) or communist (failed all except once--North Korea) here. That statement is alarming and telling me schools aren't teaching enough on the subject.

Doctors that do a fantastic job get paid more because they lure in a crowd of patients willing to pay to be seen by the best. When you fix the rate, just like teachers, they really don't give a shit anymore. They show up to work just to put food on the table--not to do a good job.

Not a single person that works for government can be labeled "rich." People can make much more in the private sector than they ever can in a government position.


Doctors are among the most respected careers--right up there with judges and airline pilots. Why? All three have the power to alter your life (or end it).

[erocker]

Shitty jobs. You're talking about going all socialist (which has always failed) or communist (failed all except once--North Korea) here.

North Korea FTW? I'm not so sure they are doing so hot. The government has missles and all, but the majority of people in N.Korea live in shit poverty.

[SK-1]

but the majority of people in N.Korea live in shit poverty.

Plus, the civilians actually think the Americans want to eat their children.
The propaganda in N.Korea is about as anti-American as it gets.
A family member is stationed in the DMZ atm, so I hear it all.

[farlex]

In a nutshell, Big Government is bad in almost all areas. Its main purpose is to control your life so you are its good, little slave.
"The more government spends, the more freedom is lost."

Big Government's main purpose is to create a working society, where all are provided for adequately and where society works more harmoniously instead of a disjointed effort of money hording. That is why you see government interfering so often, not b/c they want to control you, b/c they think they can improve society (which they generally seem to fail at). It's the same reason we have laws really, it's just some don't know when to stop. Unfortunately we have a system where we elect jack-asses into office then complain about how they run it. What did we expect, they're jack-asses. The problem isn't the size it's the type.

[FordGT90Concept]

North Korea FTW? I'm not so sure they are doing so hot. The government has missles and all, but the majority of people in N.Korea live in shit poverty.
I meant by that statement that it is still the only government that, as far as we know, still operates like a communist government. I in no way mean it's healthy (no communist government is for long).


Big Government's main purpose is to create a working society, where all are provided for adequately and where society works more harmoniously instead of a disjointed effort of money hording.
Society works fine without training wheels built by people not qualified to make them. How do you think humans survived the past millenia with no socilist governments? Sure, some people will always get stepped on but, at least they had a chance to get even (unless Uncle Sam got involved).

Adequacy sucks. The fight for inadequacy is the spice of life: have a dream and fight for it.

Dulldrums are not harmonious. This is why I laugh at the concept of "heaven." All the books paint it as being a glorious place. It looks great when you're not there (just like America) but, once you arrive, you're inclined to leave. Harmony is oh so boring...

Why do people immigrate to the USA? I'll tell you why: "the American Dream." That is, the idea that a humble man can be another rags to riches story. They don't come here because it is already heaven. They come here because they can make their own little peice of heaven--earn it.


How many people horde their money? There might be more "hording" their money now because they don't trust banks after so many have filed bankruptcy. Even then, saving is still lower than it was 10-20 years ago. I can't name anyone that really hordes their money. Even the thilthy rich (Gates, Buffet) have most of their money invested, not saved.


I actually agree with you on your final statements (shocking). :) The 2% approval rating on Congress confirms it. Although the type lead to the size...

We do need good, honest people in office though. Especially those with foresight and the ability to understand the consequences of legislation today will have on the future.

[Wile E]

We do need good, honest people in office though. Especially those with foresight and the ability to understand the consequences of legislation today will have on the future.

Don't forget those that are willing to completely ignore lobbyists.

If anything should be made illegal, it should be lobbying. lol.

[FordGT90Concept]

Exactly what I meant by "good, honest." Lobbyists offer bribes and bribes do not lead to good or honest decisions.

I so agree on legality of lobbying. At the same time, the lobbyists aren't going to promote socialized healthcare, major government regulations, weakening of the military, or pretty much everything else the Democratic Party stands for. The lobbyists, right now, might actually be doing more good for the country than Obama is. XD

I admit, I do like the anti-universal healthcare ads I've seen so far. They're about the only thing stoping Democrats in Congress from having their way.

[Deusxmachina]

That is why you see government interfering so often, not b/c they want to control you, b/c they think they can improve society (which they generally seem to fail at).

Kind of sums up my point right there. Government interferes because it thinks it knows best, and it fails at it, time and time again.

"Control." "Interfere." Two sides of the same coin? Tax laws are written to control you and your money and how you spend your money. Cigarette taxes get raised to control behavior. Other laws try to legislate morality. Max Hardcore is in prison for four years for "obscenity." If you get audited by the IRS, you are guilty until proven innocent. You can throw your grocery and mortgage money away on the state lottery, but it is a FELONY to play poker online in Washington State.

Of course, I'm not of the opinion that people and business and whatever should run completely without rules, but that's the difference between small government and Big Government.

They are about to tax AIR.


Dulldrums are not harmonious. This is why I laugh at the concept of "heaven." All the books paint it as being a glorious place. It looks great when you're not there (just like America) but, once you arrive, you're inclined to leave. Harmony is oh so boring...


I had a wise professor. He said everyone thinks living on a beach every day doing nothing with no cares in the world would be great. He did it for a year. Said he was bored out of his mind.

Know another guy. Made his first million around age 28 then retired. Now, at age 33 or so, he's a multi-millionaire because he got bored after a year of retirement. He's not a boring guy, either. He parties so hard that he has a 5 or 10k "last longer" bet with a friend since he figures one of them won't make it to 40 at the rate they're going.

[farlex]

I actually agree with you on your final statements (shocking). :) The 2% approval rating on Congress confirms it. Although the type lead to the size...

We do need good, honest people in office though. Especially those with foresight and the ability to understand the consequences of legislation today will have on the future.

What? Agree? What is this you speak of? :D I have little hope that our current system of representative republics can yield enough honest good working folk in power to truly effectively govern the society that is emerging. With the media the way it is it will simply continue to produce candidates who are wealthy and charismatic enough to woo the public into putting them in office so they can dismantle our belief systems and provoke our outraged cries. It seems a perpetual ride only altered by altering the ride itself.


I had a wise professor. He said everyone thinks living on a beach every day doing nothing with no cares in the world would be great. He did it for a year. Said he was bored out of his mind.

Know another guy. Made his first million around age 28 then retired. Now, at age 33 or so, he's a multi-millionaire because he got bored after a year of retirement. He's not a boring guy, either. He parties so hard that he has a 5 or 10k "last longer" bet with a friend since he figures one of them won't make it to 40 at the rate they're going.

Well I think they're both crazy. :D Depends on what doing nothing entails, but for me a million dollars, a beach, and not much to do is far less boring than the monotony of ant-like production lines I encounter so frequently in cities and such. It all depends on the person and the ego within though.

[FordGT90Concept]

I can't help think how things would be different with McCain in office. No doubt the economy would still suck but would be looking at trillions of federal debt? All I do know is that McCain voted against (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00061) it in the Senate.

[farlex]

I can't help think how things would be different with McCain in office. No doubt the economy would still suck but would be looking at trillions of federal debt? All I do know is that McCain voted against (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00061) it in the Senate.

It's true one can't help but wonder what direction he would've taken things in. Probably a bit better financially, but who knows what other problems would have been caused.

[pepsi71ocean]

I can't help think how things would be different with McCain in office. No doubt the economy would still suck but would be looking at trillions of federal debt? All I do know is that McCain voted against (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00061) it in the Senate.

all i know is my asshole sucking buttermilk senators voted for that peace of shit legislation.

[FordGT90Concept]

One did (Harkin-D) and one didn't (Grassley-R). What really sucks is that Grassley is up for reelection in 2010 and, considering how the 2008 elections went, most likely he will be replaced by a Democrat. :(

[T3hPwn3r3r]

The idiocy found in this thread knows no bounds.

The tax argument: If this were true, would we not be paying Sweden-level taxes?
The appeasement argument: If you honestly think appeasement CAUSED World War II, you're just... stupid.
The marijuana argument: It's a mind-altering substance, if you need it to have a good time you're probably the boring, fat, lazy type that help give our country our stereotype in the first place. It's not dangerous to the immediate person, but much like alcohol, can create dangerous circumstances when operating a motor vehicle among other things.
Also, stop the anti-socialized medicine BS. This rubbish about socialized medicine being inefficient and ineffective is complete bullshit. I've got family in various EU countries that are more than content, and in many cases see more rapid responses to medical problems than we do.

It took my cousin 15 minutes to see an allergist. My grandma? A day for bypass.

Me, to see an allergist? 2 weeks. My grandfather in America? They scheduled it a month later.

Then he died of related problems whilst waiting.


"Israel, Check Republic, Georgia, and a host of other small nations fear Obama will let them go to better other political gains."

Lol.



Listen, GN, we are not the greatest country in the world anymore, nor do we have the right or ability to police the world, we are not a beacon of freedom, we are not special or better in any way. The sooner you get over your nationalist pride and realize we DO need to change our ways, the sooner we can catch up with the rest of the world in education, healthcare, and economic means.
...and they charge you $1000 for an allergy test here. AFTER insurance.

We're in the double digits when it comes to quality of healthcare ranking, as well as the only developed nation in the world that doesn't have socialized healthcare.

However, look at those who trump us.


SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE IS EVIL GUYS ZOMG

[T3hPwn3r3r]

It's true one can't help but wonder what direction he would've taken things in. Probably a bit better financially, but who knows what other problems would have been caused.

We may be looking at a national ban of Tom Sawyer and To Kill a Mockingbird.

Sarah Palin was an avid supporter of book banning/burning.

[Deusxmachina]

We may be looking at a national ban of Tom Sawyer and To Kill a Mockingbird.

Sarah Palin was an avid supporter of book banning/burning.

Are you sure about that, or is it just idiocy?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/06/the-bogus-sarah-palin-banned-books-list/

". Looks like some of these library people failed reading comprehension. Take a look at the list below and you’ll find books Gov. Palin supposedly tried to ban…that hadn’t even been published yet. Example: The Harry Potter books, the first of which wasn’t published until 1998.

The smear merchants who continue to circulate the list also failed to do a simple Google search, which would have showed them that the bogus Sarah Palin Banned Book List is almost an exact copy-and-paste reproduction of a generic list of “Books Banned at One Time or Another in the United States” that has been floating around the Internet for years."

[FordGT90Concept]

We're in the double digits when it comes to quality of healthcare ranking, as well as the only developed nation in the world that doesn't have socialized healthcare.
90%+ of the treatments exercised around the world started here. We invent it, they repeat it for cheap. If we stop inventing, who will?


The problem is people getting $6,000 shots during surgeries. If doctors presented the bill to you before they operate, you could ask if you really needed that $6,000 shot. Maybe you don't which means you saved thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars. Doctors, right now, prescibe you medicines at their descretion without thinking about the costs (you just pay that later).


Again, we have a problem and we can fix it without socializing it. There's already $11 trillion dollars on my children's head. I don't want another $20+ trillion on top of that.

[SK-1]

The idiocy found in this thread knows no bounds.


The marijuana argument: It's a mind-altering substance, if you need it to have a good time you're probably the boring, fat, lazy type that help give our country our stereotype in the first place. It's not dangerous to the immediate person, but much like alcohol, can create dangerous circumstances when operating a motor vehicle among other things.


I lol at your post.
Man has been altering his conscientious since the first neanderthal spun around and got dizzy. I'm sure there were neanderthals that were against getting dizzy (NAGD) and figured it was a "gateway" drug.
Then comes sniffing Dino poop ect. just to get that rush.

I guess the Netherlands is full of idiots since med marijuana is legal.

Need it to have a good time,...no. Need it to tolerate your type,...yes.

[Wile E]

The idiocy found in this thread knows no bounds.

Yep, and it gets worse every time you post.

[pepsi71ocean]

The idiocy found in this thread knows no bounds.

i agree

The tax argument: If this were true, would we not be paying Sweden-level taxes?

I don't know what the sweeds pay, but the rich pay more then 50% of their income, no wonder some are already LEAVING THE COUNTRY, IN FEAR OBAMA WILL RAISE TAXES

The appeasement argument: If you honestly think appeasement CAUSED World War II, you're just... stupid.

If Great Britian and france stood up, and got off their lazy asses, and invaded Germany in 1935, before Germany had the chance to do a build up World War 2 could have been avoided. Hell the whole war could have been avoided if Chaimberlain didn't act so pussy like.


Also, stop the anti-socialized medicine BS. This rubbish about socialized medicine being inefficient and ineffective is complete bullshit. I've got family in various EU countries that are more than content, and in many cases see more rapid responses to medical problems than we do.

It took my cousin 15 minutes to see an allergist. My grandma? A day for bypass.

Me, to see an allergist? 2 weeks. My grandfather in America? They scheduled it a month later.

Then he died of related problems whilst waiting.


We have more people i the health care system every day in the US then most of the European countries combined per day. I believe my dad quoted it as between 8 and 12 million, all in for medical related stuff in the US. We can't afford to have 8 or 12 million in the health care system. Weather it's in the hospital for heart transplants, or a nose job.

Your from the Netherlands a country of what 5 million? so what is the most that are in the hospital in any given day 200,000?

What people don't get is socialized medicine will NOT work in America for the above stated reason.


"Israel, Check Republic, Georgia, and a host of other small nations fear Obama will let them go to better other political gains."

Lol.

Didn't you read the numerous news articles that covered this, HELL the PM of Israel has told Obama that complete halt on the West Bank, and war Reapportions, and destruction and withdraw of Israel held cities is out of the question.

[quote
Listen, GN, we are not the greatest country in the world anymore, nor do we have the right or ability to police the world, we are not a beacon of freedom, we are not special or better in any way. The sooner you get over your nationalist pride and realize we DO need to change our ways, the sooner we can catch up with the rest of the world in education, healthcare, and economic means.
...and they charge you $1000 for an allergy test here. AFTER insurance.

We're in the double digits when it comes to quality of healthcare ranking, as well as the only developed nation in the world that doesn't have socialized healthcare.

However, look at those who trump us.


SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE IS EVIL GUYS ZOMG[/QUOTE]

Well then write your congressmen and have them reinstate the law that requires health care companies to spend more on their clientele, per dollar collected in premiums.

Dall lobbyist screwed it up for us all.

[pepsi71ocean]

It is summed up like this.

Many U.N. resolutions have been echoed here in our Congress to reflect our trans nationalist, fascist President. In addition to that, watch the U.S. Department of State daily press releases, they provide clues on the hidden agendas that echo the European Union's agendas. Al-Jazeera is quite informative as well. The most ... Read Moretelling is the Iranian disaster and how Obama has sold out the Iranian democracy, and bartered with peoples lives to keep them in bondage. In Afghanistan there are three hundred women standing against the oppression. Now- Sharia law has been implemented in the Gaza strip in exchange for 2 years of 'peace'? Sharia law and peace cannot coexist. Obama and his family need to be governed by Sharia law for five years and if they like the results, we will consider it. Neither will happen. He wants to legitimize terrorist regimes like he tries to legitimize himself.

[T3hPwn3r3r]

Yep, and it gets worse every time you post.

Very well thought out, well supported argument.

[T3hPwn3r3r]

i agree

I don't know what the sweeds pay, but the rich pay more then 50% of their income, no wonder some are already LEAVING THE COUNTRY, IN FEAR OBAMA WILL RAISE TAXES
I've never heard of an American with greater than 50% income tax. In fact the highest federal tax bracket is 35% when you make over 372,000$.

If you have that much money, is it really that fucking bad to share the wealth? Taxes ARE higher in countries like Sweden, they pay more to their government, yet still maintain a higher standard of living, average life expectancy, better education system, and have fewer social problems than we do.



If Great Britian and france stood up, and got off their lazy asses, and invaded Germany in 1935, before Germany had the chance to do a build up World War 2 could have been avoided. Hell the whole war could have been avoided if Chaimberlain didn't act so pussy like.
lol

We are NOT the world police, neither were they. They were minding their own.



We have more people i the health care system every day in the US then most of the European countries combined per day. I believe my dad quoted it as between 8 and 12 million, all in for medical related stuff in the US. We can't afford to have 8 or 12 million in the health care system. Weather it's in the hospital for heart transplants, or a nose job.

Your from the Netherlands a country of what 5 million? so what is the most that are in the hospital in any given day 200,000?

What people don't get is socialized medicine will NOT work in America for the above stated reason.
The entire EU has a population far larger than the United States. If they can do it, why can't we? Are we sick more often? Seems like we have a problem to solve... so why aren't we solving it? If we aren't inferior as an ethnicity from all of the inbreeding, why are Americans unable to do what the Europeans have been doing for decades?


Didn't you read the numerous news articles that covered this, HELL the PM of Israel has told Obama that complete halt on the West Bank, and war Reapportions, and destruction and withdraw of Israel held cities is out of the question.
What are you saying?


Well then write your congressmen and have them reinstate the law that requires health care companies to spend more on their clientele, per dollar collected in premiums.

Dall lobbyist screwed it up for us all.
Or we could just take the tax dollars spent on 1000$ hot dog luncheons and use that to cover the average joe sixpack.


I ask this question of all of you though -

It's obvious socialized programs have helped keep other nations ahead of us in nearly every important domestic aspect of life, why are we so adamantly against making change?

You shouldn't expect to see change from a leader that does not have the support of the peoples' constituents in a representative "democracy" that will not allow said change to be made.

I mean, after all, are an average life expectancy over 80, a quality, free college education in a field that matters (we lack especially in the sciences), stability and safety from the outside world (when was the last time Norway got attacked by terrorists? The worst they have to worry about are black metal musicians), and a general higher standard of living REALLY that bad?

People talk about the liberals being brainwashed, and aside from health and education aspects, I consider myself fairly conservative -

It's got to be the conservatives that are most brainwashed though... still fearing the Cold War era anti-capitalists, though they've clearly worked out a better system.


Also, back to taxes, now people who earn more pay less than compared to 2008 cutoffs.

[SK-1]

Very well thought out, well supported argument.

His argument needs no extra verbiage. The truth lies in his VERY well written
post. Why ramble on and on when a simple "slap" like that will suffice.

[FordGT90Concept]

I've never heard of an American with greater than 50% income tax. In fact the highest federal tax bracket is 35% when you make over 372,000$
Federal isn't the only tax. There is state and local taxes as well. Some places have even more taxes than that. For most people, the federal tax is the least--the state is what really screws you. This site lists each state and the major taxes levied by the state:
http://www.retirementliving.com/RLtaxes.html


If you have that much money, is it really that fucking bad to share the wealth? Taxes ARE higher in countries like Sweden, they pay more to their government, yet still maintain a higher standard of living, average life expectancy, better education system, and have fewer social problems than we do.
Yes. You earned that money. Some hilly billy cheating the government for welfare checks doesn't deserve it. They didn't earn it so why should they have it? Appeasement? Votes?

The wealthy send their children to private schools, hire private security guards, install sprinkler systems in their houses, have the best healthcare available, sometimes travel by helicopter/aircraft, etc. Even though the wealthy pay the most in taxes, they get the least back on their investment. Why do you think most leave the country? Mostly because their businesses left (business taxes are very high in the USA) but also because they don't want to pay taxes for stuff they can't even use (like medicare, social security, and medicaid). Kind of like how very few cruise ships are registered in the USA or consider their home port in USA (too expensive).

The USA is more like the EU than you think. It is a bad thing, not a good thing.

[SK-1]

http://www.retirementliving.com/RLtaxes.html


:eek: Unbelievably depressing in some states.

More change for us... The Dollar sunk to a new low.http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601083&sid=aNg54YofXFJE
So much for vacation:mad:

[FordGT90Concept]

The economy isn't recoverying until we see GDP growth and more hirings than firings. Even then, we'll need to see over 4+ million jobs created to break even with where we were at in 2007.

There are signs that the recession's downward trend is at least slowing but it isn't time to celebrate yet.

[pepsi71ocean]

I've never heard of an American with greater than 50% income tax. In fact the highest federal tax bracket is 35% when you make over 372,000$.

Gross combined tax load is 49% up to 500,000.
Federal, 35%, state 6.37%, local 4% =45.37%,

The state income tax level varies by state, New Jersey is 8%, but California for example is 9.3%, so then

Federal 35%, state 9.3% local 7%, 51.3%

In California a 6-percent tax rate applies to individuals earning approximately $23,000 to $32,000. You'll pay 8 percent on income between about $32,000 and $40,000, and the highest tax bracket in California is the 9.3 percent bracket, applied to earnings exceeding $40,000.

A 5.525-percent rate applies to taxable income between approximately $40,000 and $75,000. If you make about $75,000 to $500,000 in New Jersey, you'll pay 6.37 percent, and if you're lucky enough to be making about $500,000 or more per year, you'll pay an 8.97-percent tax rate.

This is just INCOME tax, not anything else..

ITS MY GOD DAMM MONEY WHY SHOULD I LOOSE IT? WHAT INCENTIVE WILL I HAVE TO FURTHER MY BUSINESS IF I DON"T HAVE MONEY TO USE????????????????????????????????????


If you have that much money, is it really that fucking bad to share the wealth? Taxes ARE higher in countries like Sweden, they pay more to their government, yet still maintain a higher standard of living, average life expectancy, better education system, and have fewer social problems than we do.


and what percentage of those run companies? and what do socialist countries call "rich". You have to remember that 90% of the rich run companies that employ 70% of America. So if you raise the taxes on the rich they will have to let go employees or at best raise prices to help compensate.

Paying 50% of your income sucks just in income taxes.

Sweden like most socialist countries doesn't tax its people as high because t had a higher sales tax, this is how most countries now derive their income via higher sales taxes of 28-30%, but because your taxes are almost shit nothing they don't complain about paying the sales taxes.


lol

We are NOT the world police, neither were they. They were minding their own.

They were minding their own business when they aligned themselves with Poland and Checklosvalvacka?

They were minding their own when they went and signed appeasement treaties for the Sudetenland, and the rights of the Check people?

Please explain why a country would toss up its allies? sound similar? Oh thats right, liberal democrats giving up our allies to help appease-our enemies, so our enemies can destroy our allies.

Sounds like Chamberlain is in our office again, but as a new face and skin...


The entire EU has a population far larger than the United States. If they can do it, why can't we? Are we sick more often? Seems like we have a problem to solve... so why aren't we solving it? If we aren't inferior as an ethnicity from all of the inbreeding, why are Americans unable to do what the Europeans have been doing for decades?

yes, by almost 3x, HOWEVER, the population of the European Union is not that much higher then America. Only about 490,426,060, compared to America's 303,824,640.

But once again, like i said, NO ONE EU COUNTRY IS OF THE SIZE OF THE US. THEY DON"T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE POPULATION STATISTICS.


Or we could just take the tax dollars spent on 1000$ hot dog luncheons and use that to cover the average joe sixpack.


Or we could repeal the deregulation laws that Ronald Regan passed, after all he was the one that who deregulated health care, so HMO's no longer were forced to spend 85cents on the dollar of premium money on its clientele.



I ask this question of all of you though -

It's obvious socialized programs have helped keep other nations ahead of us in nearly every important domestic aspect of life, why are we so adamantly against making change?

You shouldn't expect to see change from a leader that does not have the support of the peoples' constituents in a representative "democracy" that will not allow said change to be made.

I mean, after all, are an average life expectancy over 80, a quality, free college education in a field that matters (we lack especially in the sciences), stability and safety from the outside world (when was the last time Norway got attacked by terrorists? The worst they have to worry about are black metal musicians), and a general higher standard of living REALLY that bad?


You mean how college has become a business, where as you need an education to get a shit job. And shit, males went from an average of 74 to 80 in 6 months, something must be wrong here.

We have to worry about fascist taking our guns away, restricting and banning them, as long as George Soros is alive i will fear the removal of my 2nd rights.

George Soros is a issue, he is the leading member on the Gun bans bills that have sprung up around the world. In fact he donated almost 1 Billion to defeat the republicans in 2008. Nearly 500 million landing in Obama's campaign fund alone, the rest to other anti-gun liberal democrats. What is startling is this was more then 4 times what he gave in 2004 which was $23,581,000.



People talk about the liberals being brainwashed, and aside from health and education aspects, I consider myself fairly conservative -

It's got to be the conservatives that are most brainwashed though... still fearing the Cold War era anti-capitalists, though they've clearly worked out a better system.

Also, back to taxes, now people who earn more pay less than compared to 2008 cutoffs.

The liberal don't understand how a Republic works, we are going from a Republic to a Totalitarian state and people just don't see this. and because they don't see it, they will not see the gun bans, increased taxes, mandatory drafts, and everything else associated with a communist/fascist mixed state.

If gun's are banned then the government will have nothing to fear about its citizens, for the last check and balance is removed from the equation.

[T3hPwn3r3r]

I'm not liberal and I'm pro-gun, we have several semi-automatic rifles scattered throughout the house, shotguns, handguns, etc.

As for the college becoming a business thing - you can get an education from a state-run school, the problem is just upholding state-run schools to a higher standard, private institutions cost way too much and often times are near impossible to get into unless you've already paid 50,000$ for religiously affiliated private schooling for the previous four years as well.

If any of you ever actually experience quality socialized healthcare or education, bricks will be shat.

Until then, the lot of you are ignorant and really have no right to talk. You're all horribly biased to the psuedo-freedom-fighting, intellectual-freedom-crushing, religious right.

As for the population of the EU vs. the US - much of the EU provides socialized healthcare for citizens of other nations as well, and while not drawing from a collective fund, this could be done the same way by states as by EU nations.


"Checklosvalvacka?" lol

Also, we're not giving up any allies, we're just saying "SORRY IRAQ FOR OUR PREVIOUS MONKEY'S INABILITY TO DISCERN BETWEEN WMDS AND ALREADY IMPOVERISHED AND EMBITTERED PEOPLE FROM THE LAST TIME WE PLAYED WORLD POLICE"

As for taxes - I live in Kentucky, we don't pay much for taxes. However - Sweden DOES tax the fuck out of its citizens.

I'm just arguing we need to be more like the EU, simply, because they're the ones progressing, and we're the ones who set off a chain reaction of economic depressions because of old, worn out economic policies that no longer apply to today's globalized market.

[T3hPwn3r3r]

Also, on the topic of currency devaluation, Obama didn't get us into this depression ;)

[Deusxmachina]

I've never heard of an American with greater than 50% income tax. In fact the highest federal tax bracket is 35% when you make over 372,000$.

I mean, after all, are an average life expectancy over 80, a quality, free college education in a field that matters

Americans used to pay a lot more than 50% income tax. Over 90%.

Free college? Cool! Oh, wait, it's only "free" to the person who's not paying the taxes for it, right?

Also, on the topic of currency devaluation, Obama didn't get us into this depression ;)

That is true. But it could be argued his policies are going to help keep us in it.

Did Obama's buddies and Big Government in general have anything to do with the depression and with people not having much money? I would say it is a very arguable "yes."

Someone remind me how well Big Government Great Britain is doing again? Oh yeah, they're more broke than we are.

[yogurt_21]

Gross combined tax load is 49% up to 500,000.
Federal, 35%, state 6.37%, local 4% =45.37%,

The state income tax level varies by state, New Jersey is 8%, but California for example is 9.3%, so then

Federal 35%, state 9.3% local 7%, 51.3%





ok admittedly haven't been around in a while and haven't read the rest of your post past the above.

but your numbers are very inaccurate. (hate to say it but this seems typical of someone who is young and hasn't had to file taxes, list witholdings, etc.) state income tax is taken as a percentage of federal. and as such is listed as much higher than 9% lol

my state income tax withholding is 23% of my federal. ie you take my federal tax bracket which is 15% and take 23% of that and you get my state taxes. Now this is not 15% of my income but 15% of my TAXABLE income. this is key and important as deductions for dependants, my house, donations, etc. are taken away form my gross income and then you end up with my TAXABLE income. for an example last year when both ema nd my wife were working we grossed 74000$ the TAXABLE income for us was 46000$ So you take 15% of 46000$ and you get 6900$ for federal income tax. (6900 is only 9.3% of our gross income btw) now state tax witholdings are 23% of federal so for the year that comes to 1587$ (1587$ is 2.1% of our gross income btw) add those two together and you get 8487$ we paid in income taxes last year. that makes it 11.46% of our gross income. take the highest tax bracket and it of couse goes up, but nowhere near 50% less than 25% even given that the rich tend to find nice loopholes.


that's income tax, sales tax is seperate but keep in mind not everything we buy has it. propety tax paid on my house was deducted from our income as a part of the taxable income in our filing for income taxes so that doens't quite count either.

all in all the United States has the lowest taxes out of any first world country. I really wouldn't be whining. because many of our freinds across the pond pay much much more.

[pepsi71ocean]

As for the college becoming a business thing - you can get an education from a state-run school, the problem is just upholding state-run schools to a higher standard, private institutions cost way too much and often times are near impossible to get into unless you've already paid 50,000$ for religiously affiliated private schooling for the previous four years as well.

explain why i need a college education to work as a mechanic, or pumping gas, wait better yet, a BRICK LAYER!, i was one of those at one time.


If any of you ever actually experience quality socialized healthcare or education, bricks will be shat.

WHY would people from Canada come to the US for medical issues if socialized medicine is the shit?

Why was the guy from Canada earl his name was, in the hospital for a bypass when he knew it was coming months a head of time? He told me its because in Canada they put you on a waiting list, there is no "urgent care" there.

Until then, the lot of you are ignorant and really have no right to talk. You're all horribly biased to the psuedo-freedom-fighting, intellectual-freedom-crushing, religious right.
Jack, my father works in medicine, he has said socialized medicine will not work here, it will destroy America, we can't support socialized medicine here,
Where will we get the 1 trillion to cover the costs, when we can't even pay for social security?

The government can't pay for hospital visits for old people NOW let alone uninsured people here.

Hell new jersey is 6 years behind on covering charity care to hospitals, how can we pay for up to date if we add more to the lists????


As for the population of the EU vs. the US - much of the EU provides socialized healthcare for citizens of other nations as well, and while not drawing from a collective fund, this could be done the same way by states as by EU nations. yes but it is not quality healthcare, its all triage, and percentages.

Quoting earl from Canada on Canadian socialized medicine." If your over 50 they will not do join replacements on you, unless you can fork 60% of the bill, which is about 90,000 US, if your over 45 and you go in for chestpain and you need a bypass surgery, you go on a 6 month list, i knew i needed it so we planned this trip here so i could qualify for the insurance to cover me, so my operation cost me 5,000 instead of 40,000. If you are over 65 you go on a 1 year bypass waiting list, if your over 65 you go on pain medicine. They can't afford to fix everyone so they know a majority will die while waiting for the bypass surgery."


Also, we're not giving up any allies, we're just saying "SORRY IRAQ FOR OUR PREVIOUS MONKEY'S INABILITY TO DISCERN BETWEEN WMDS AND ALREADY IMPOVERISHED AND EMBITTERED PEOPLE FROM THE LAST TIME WE PLAYED WORLD POLICE"

How is burning bridges with Georgia, Israel the Check republic have anything to do with Iraq?

How does alienating Israel have anything o do with Iraq? OH WAIT IT DOESN'T.


As for taxes - I live in Kentucky, we don't pay much for taxes. However - Sweden DOES tax the fuck out of its citizens.
and that IS WHY THEY HAVE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!


I'm just arguing we need to be more like the EU, simply, because they're the ones progressing, and we're the ones who set off a chain reaction of economic depressions because of old, worn out economic policies that no longer apply to today's globalized market.

Socialism doesn't work as a system, it eventually will bury the governments that run it. Governments can't afford to spend alot of money on things, an YOU MISSED the big picture, the part where all the European countries failed to help prevent this downturn either.

We didn't cause the depression, we merely off set it by 15 years. The economics of the world is that for the longest time when Europe was in a down turn the USA was not, and when the USA was in a recession the europeans weren't, this offset helped counteract the downturn, unfortunately this housing bubble lasted 10 years to long and overlapped this two economic systems.





ok admittedly haven't been around in a while and haven't read the rest of your post past the above.

but your numbers are very inaccurate. (hate to say it but this seems typical of someone who is young and hasn't had to file taxes, list witholdings, etc.) state income tax is taken as a percentage of federal. and as such is listed as much higher than 9% lol

Funny, ive filed taxes, nowhere else have i ever had to pay so much money, and i got a refuld for a total of 1,200 between federal and state.


my state income tax withholding is 23% of my federal. ie you take my federal tax bracket which is 15% and take 23% of that and you get my state taxes. Now this is not 15% of my income but 15% of my TAXABLE income. this is key and important as deductions for dependants, my house, donations, etc. are taken away form my gross income and then you end up with my TAXABLE income. for an example last year when both ema nd my wife were working we grossed 74000$ the TAXABLE income for us was 46000$ So you take 15% of 46000$ and you get 6900$ for federal income tax. (6900 is only 9.3% of our gross income btw) now state tax witholdings are 23% of federal so for the year that comes to 1587$ (1587$ is 2.1% of our gross income btw) add those two together and you get 8487$ we paid in income taxes last year. that makes it 11.46% of our gross income. take the highest tax bracket and it of couse goes up, but nowhere near 50% less than 25% even given that the rich tend to find nice loopholes.

last year i paid 47% of my income away, if you can cheat the system better then you should do my taxes.

Gross income was greater then 150,000 last year, after taxes i was left with about a little more then half of it.


all in all the United States has the lowest taxes out of any first world country. I really wouldn't be whining. because many of our freinds across the pond pay much much more.

its their socialized medicine that costs them so much.

[FordGT90Concept]

Where will we get the 1 trillion to cover the costs, when we can't even pay for social security?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/12/AR2009051200252.html

Social Security will become insolvant in under 30 years. Medicare will in less than 10.



I'd also like to emphasise the need/use of waiting lists. It is governments way of eliminating those that are going to die anyway--a way to increase the odds that if this person gets helped, they will live long enough for it to be worth performing the operation. There's doctors and staff that could do the operation right now but if they did without weeding out the weakest links, the country would be more bankrupt than it already is.

The waiting lists, are in effect, the same as being denied coverage by insurance. How is one acceptable and the other not? A double standard. At least you can dispute an insurance claim and, if you really need it now, you can find a place that will treat you within days somewhere in the country. Inner city hospitals are often booked/over capacity.

[Deusxmachina]

last year i paid 47% of my income away, if you can cheat the system better then you should do my taxes.

Gross income was greater then 150,000 last year, after taxes i was left with about a little more then half of it.

"Dear IRS, I'm sorry to inform you that I'm not going to be able to pay the taxes owed on April 15th, but all is not lost. I paid these taxes, accounts receivable tax, building permit tax, CDL tax, corporate income tax, dog license tax, federal income tax, unemployment tax, gas tax, hunting license tax, fishing license tax, waterfowl stamp tax, inheritance tax, inventory tax, liquor tax, luxury tax, Medicare tax, city tax, school and county property tax up to 33% the last four years.

Real estate tax, Social Security tax, road use tax, toll road tax, state and city sales tax, recreational vehicle tax, sales franchise tax, state unemployment tax, federal excise tax, telephone tax, telephone federal state and local surcharge tax, telephone minimum usage surcharge tax, telephone state and local tax, utility tax, vehicle tax, registration tax, capital gains tax, lease severance tax, oil and gas assessment tax, Colorado property tax, Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Mexico sales tax and many more I can't recall and I've run out of space and money.

When you do not receive my check April 15th, just know that it was an honest mistake. Please treat me the same as the way you've treated Congressman Charlie Rangel, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, ex-congressman Tom Daschle and, of course, your boss, Timothy Geithner. No penalties, no interest. PS, I'll make at least a partial payment as soon as I get my stimulus check. "

[pepsi71ocean]

don't forget the "heavy duty commercial licensing fee, each year, inspection fee, oh btw there is another fee for having a truck that has a GVWR of 24,999, which is 1,000 per year.

i can think of a number of other taxes related to my towing business, let ALONE my STOCK AND BOND TRADING!, i should be bankrupt by now.

[SK-1]

T3hPwn3r3r....Let me introduce you to a little helper we have @ TPU.
http://img.techpowerup.org/090730/Capture324.jpg
This is your friend. It'll even help you with your rambling..

[yogurt_21]

Funny, ive filed taxes, nowhere else have i ever had to pay so much money, and i got a refuld for a total of 1,200 between federal and state.



last year i paid 47% of my income away, if you can cheat the system better then you should do my taxes.

Gross income was greater then 150,000 last year, after taxes i was left with about a little more then half of it.



its their socialized medicine that costs them so much.

funny bs meter is off the charts

I pay more in medical than I do in taxes on my income, you've never filed taxes.

[pepsi71ocean]

funny bs meter is off the charts

I pay more in medical than I do in taxes on my income, you've never filed taxes.

i can't write off my health insurance, no FSA plans on that.

damm Stocks, capitol gains is off the charts on that. DO YOU KNOW how much your capitol gains taxes are? if not then you poor people don't get the point..

should i keep going about the other half of my business?

[Wile E]

ok admittedly haven't been around in a while and haven't read the rest of your post past the above.

but your numbers are very inaccurate. (hate to say it but this seems typical of someone who is young and hasn't had to file taxes, list witholdings, etc.) state income tax is taken as a percentage of federal. and as such is listed as much higher than 9% lol

my state income tax withholding is 23% of my federal. ie you take my federal tax bracket which is 15% and take 23% of that and you get my state taxes. Now this is not 15% of my income but 15% of my TAXABLE income. this is key and important as deductions for dependants, my house, donations, etc. are taken away form my gross income and then you end up with my TAXABLE income. for an example last year when both ema nd my wife were working we grossed 74000$ the TAXABLE income for us was 46000$ So you take 15% of 46000$ and you get 6900$ for federal income tax. (6900 is only 9.3% of our gross income btw) now state tax witholdings are 23% of federal so for the year that comes to 1587$ (1587$ is 2.1% of our gross income btw) add those two together and you get 8487$ we paid in income taxes last year. that makes it 11.46% of our gross income. take the highest tax bracket and it of couse goes up, but nowhere near 50% less than 25% even given that the rich tend to find nice loopholes.


that's income tax, sales tax is seperate but keep in mind not everything we buy has it. propety tax paid on my house was deducted from our income as a part of the taxable income in our filing for income taxes so that doens't quite count either.

all in all the United States has the lowest taxes out of any first world country. I really wouldn't be whining. because many of our freinds across the pond pay much much more.Not in all states. PA's income tax is the percentage of your gross income. And we don't get property tax deductions, school tax deductions, or anything of the sort. The only deductions we get are the generic deductions for the number of members in our family.

I'm 32, and filed my taxes every year for the past 14 years.

[FordGT90Concept]

Business taxes are as much a pain in the ass as private taxes too.


I think the only state and local tax should be income tax less dependancies and the federal government should stick to what the Constitution originally stated (taxing imports). You only pay taxes once a year for state and local and you never pay a tax up front for federal.

[yogurt_21]

i can't write off my health insurance, no FSA plans on that.

damm Stocks, capitol gains is off the charts on that. DO YOU KNOW how much your capitol gains taxes are? if not then you poor people don't get the point..

should i keep going about the other half of my business?

right and now you're claiming you're rich and I'm poor? and insulting me for it?

I have stocks and I have to report them as well and no it did not up my taxes to 50% of my gross income. In fact that statement is so ludicrous for 2008 i'd be surprised if you'd ever purchase any stocks at all. Almost everyone claimed losses for stocks in 08 which counted as write offs reducing the amount of TAXABLE income for 2008. (pay attention to that term, you obviously still don't get it, google it if you're unsure). Capital gains in 08? laughable. if you're refering to take home, then you really don't understand.

again i call bs. post the numbers the REAL numbers. not just random crap you pulled out of your butt.

Not in all states. PA's income tax is the percentage of your gross income. And we don't get property tax deductions, school tax deductions, or anything of the sort. The only deductions we get are the generic deductions for the number of members in our family.

I'm 32, and filed my taxes every year for the past 14 years.

Arizona's is as well but the withholding (ie the term I used above) is calculated as a percentage of your federal. this is because state income taxes are much lower than federal. Which means a 23% of federal with holding takes enough out of my check to make sure I don't owe the AZ govt. come tax time. (somethign they are working on coorecting with the current budget crisis, bastards) All home owners have some deductions in every state, it just depends on local laws. Not sure about PA's but if you're not getting any writeoffs for being a homeowner you're filing incorrectly and givng the govt more than you need to. If you're renting then that makes sense.

I'm actually quite shocked at how little you all know of this, perhaps I should have an accountant post up and explain it. I have several in the family.

unless you have zero deductions, or the worst tax guy ever, you shouldn't be paying anywhere near 50%.

[erocker]

again i call bs. Post the numbers the real numbers. Not just random crap you pulled out of your butt.

+1

[Deusxmachina]

""Here's all you need to know about healthcare reform," says the Buckeye Lake (Ohio) News Beacon newspaper about the following story. And they've got a point.

On July 14, U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) introduced a two-page amendment in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The Democratic majority on that committee produced legislation to create a controversial government-run health insurance "option" that could destroy private health insurance in America.

Coburn's amendment is as simple as it is profound. It requires all members of Congress and their staffs to enroll in whatever new government-run health care plan emerges from that committee, should it become law.

Sen. Coburn believes this is only fair, since in his opinion the creation of a government-sponsored insurance plan will force private insurance carriers out of the market by subsidies, mandates and regulations.

"Let's demonstrate leadership -- and confidence in the system -- by requiring that every member of Congress go into it," Sen. Coburn said, no doubt with tongue firmly in cheek.

Sen. Coburn's amendment was approved -- barely, 12-11. All the Republicans voted for it except Republican Judd Gregg (New Hampshire) who voted against it on the admirable grounds that no one should be forced to enlist in government-run insurance.

However, all the Democrats but three voted no.

Among the nay votes were senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) -- co-authors of a recent op-ed entitled "Health Reform That Works for Every American," which promises that the government's plan "will offer benefits that are as good as those available through private insurance plans -- or better." But apparently they believe their plan will "work for every American" -- except themselves.

Another "good enough for thee, but not for me" nay vote came from self-declared socialist Bernie Sanders (I-VT), despite the fact that he supports an entirely government-run health care system.

As we reported in our last two issues, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management reports that members of Congress "enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country."

And apparently some of the most ardent supporters of radical health care changes are not willing to swallow their own medicine -- that is, to entrust their own health to the very government plan they are busily creating for the rest of us.

We are reminded of the totalitarian world of George Orwell's classic fable Animal Farm, set in a barnyard where supposedly egalitarian animal rulers declare that "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

[Wile E]

right and now you're claiming you're rich and I'm poor? and insulting me for it?

I have stocks and I have to report them as well and no it did not up my taxes to 50% of my gross income. In fact that statement is so ludicrous for 2008 i'd be surprised if you'd ever purchase any stocks at all. Almost everyone claimed losses for stocks in 08 which counted as write offs reducing the amount of TAXABLE income for 2008. (pay attention to that term, you obviously still don't get it, google it if you're unsure). Capital gains in 08? laughable. if you're refering to take home, then you really don't understand.

again i call bs. post the numbers the REAL numbers. not just random crap you pulled out of your butt.



Arizona's is as well but the withholding (ie the term I used above) is calculated as a percentage of your federal. this is because state income taxes are much lower than federal. Which means a 23% of federal with holding takes enough out of my check to make sure I don't owe the AZ govt. come tax time. (somethign they are working on coorecting with the current budget crisis, bastards) All home owners have some deductions in every state, it just depends on local laws. Not sure about PA's but if you're not getting any writeoffs for being a homeowner you're filing incorrectly and givng the govt more than you need to. If you're renting then that makes sense.

I'm actually quite shocked at how little you all know of this, perhaps I should have an accountant post up and explain it. I have several in the family.

unless you have zero deductions, or the worst tax guy ever, you shouldn't be paying anywhere near 50%.
But you still don't seem to understand that my federal taxes have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on my state taxes, AT ALL. It's not even a consideration. PA has only 1 tax bracket, is based solely on your gross income, and has little to no deductions. You pay 3.07% of your gross earnings, come hell or high water. Welcome to the world of the Commonwealth state. If you don't believe me, google it.

I get plenty of deductions on my federal taxes, so I get what you are saying about overall taxes paid out. I wasn't commenting on that. I was commenting strictly on the state tax portion.

[pepsi71ocean]

right and now you're claiming you're rich and I'm poor? and insulting me for it?

I have stocks and I have to report them as well and no it did not up my taxes to 50% of my gross income. In fact that statement is so ludicrous for 2008 i'd be surprised if you'd ever purchase any stocks at all. Almost everyone claimed losses for stocks in 08 which counted as write offs reducing the amount of TAXABLE income for 2008. (pay attention to that term, you obviously still don't get it, google it if you're unsure). Capital gains in 08? laughable. if you're refering to take home, then you really don't understand.

again i call bs. post the numbers the REAL numbers. not just random crap you pulled out of your butt.


So let me get this straight, first my company pays capitol gains and incomes taxes on money i worked for and made, and then i get paid by my company, of which i have to pay income taxes as well, and that combinedis less then 50%???? i think its more then the specified BS line you keep curling......................

Its ok im poor, hell most of the income gets rolled back into savings for rainy day funds, we traders can have bad days as well, wiping out a 10,000 dollar account in 1 day can be rough. so you must always have money on hand to cover that hole, and what if your short goes awry, well be prepared to cash some big checks. SO yes i have alot of money in savings, even if it isn't technically mine i still get taxed on it. i still pay taxes on income made from savings, of which ING bank is really helpful with their 1099, and the other forms, which i usually send out to the CPA for the corporate, and sometimes i'll do my taxes when im not busy or frustrated.


I don't have a house, i rent i don't have any real credit, i pay everything in cash, or over my AMEX card, (which is a company card and itsn't mine, but anyways.....yea my CPA is always pissed because i use it to buy things that i can't write off, but then again my company doesn't really entertain so there is nothing to write off. Although anything i spend on that car i have to pay back from my personal income,

I didn't have a single write off last year, my company didn't improve on the tow vehicle, trailers, tractors, construction equipment or computer for the financial sector, so yea i had no write offs.Infact i might shutdown my towing and construction business because everything is so slow, i have one river and waterfall project that i have been working on. and its to the point where i bust my balls for 8 or 10 hours a day to make almost nothing compared to what the financial division of the company brings in.

I am not an fundamentalist, i am a technical analysis day trader. i fall under every known capitol gains tax in the world. i pay it. Because my companies income it falls under the 35% bracket, being a C corp and sole proprietorship and all. Otherwise i couldn't post losses and gains with such radical numbers. As you would know the limit for a civilian is 3,000, but hell i can piss that away in 10 mins of bad trading. Hell ive pissed off 10,000 a day in bad trading, and wait, i can't remove that from my income can i?

I buy into and out of stocks, bonds, options, futures, forex, placing some 20-25 trades a day. Someday's i'll make more then 30 trades a day on a good day.

And in case you didn't know the Short-term capital gains are taxed at a higher rate: the ordinary civilian income tax rate. Which for me is usually between 30 and 35%, AND my federal taxes have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my state taxes, so the math is correct SIR.

and i DIDN'T POST A LOSS on my TAX return either. Sadly, i saw this coming and stopped trading a week prior to the stock market fall, and then made a killing for about 3 months afterward, uncle sam got his fill on that.

And when Obama changes the short term taxes i will move to Switzerland or even Candida both countries which have better investment tax rates.

Even if i hold the stock,bond, option or future for 2 mins....

[SK-1]

SNL slammed Obama a couple of weeks ago for not doing anything, and in some cases, making things worse. Guess the putter is more important than ANYTHING.

"Today - Obama ties Pres. Bush in the number of rounds of golf played in office: 24.

Took Bush 2 yrs & 10 months."

http://www.politico.com/click/stories/0910/obama_ties_bush_on_golf.html


And the country is in a tailspin.... omg.:confused:

[FordGT90Concept]

Obama did it under 10 months!?! WTF! Now we know what habit of Obama's to blame when his "public option" healthcare plan fails. :p

You know, "maybe if you played half as many golf ball games, your popularity wouldn't be falling faster than a meteorite."

[Steevo]

So let me get this straight, first my company pays capitol gains and incomes taxes on money i worked for and made, and then i get paid by my company, of which i have to pay income taxes as well, and that combinedis less then 50%???? i think its more then the specified BS line you keep curling......................

Its ok im poor, hell most of the income gets rolled back into savings for rainy day funds, we traders can have bad days as well, wiping out a 10,000 dollar account in 1 day can be rough. so you must always have money on hand to cover that hole, and what if your short goes awry, well be prepared to cash some big checks. SO yes i have alot of money in savings, even if it isn't technically mine i still get taxed on it. i still pay taxes on income made from savings, of which ING bank is really helpful with their 1099, and the other forms, which i usually send out to the CPA for the corporate, and sometimes i'll do my taxes when im not busy or frustrated,

I don't have a house, i rent i don't have any real credit, i pay everything in cash, or over my AMEX card, (which is a company card and itsn't mine, but anyways.....yea my CPA is always pissed because i use it to buy things that i can't write off, but then again my company doesn't really entertain so there is nothing to write off. Although anything i spend on that car i have to pay back from my personal income,

I didn't have a single write off last year, my company didn't improve on the tow vehicle, trailers, tractors, construction equipment or computer for the financial sector, so yea i had no write offs.Infact i might shutdown my towing and construction business because everything is so slow, i have one river and waterfall project that i have been working on. and its to the point where i bust my balls for 8 or 10 hours a day to make almost nothing compared to what the financial division of the company brings in.

I am not an fundamentalist, i am a technical analysis day trader. i fall under every known capitol gains tax in the world. i pay it. Because my companies income it falls under the 35% bracket, being a C corp and sole proprietorship and all. Otherwise i couldn't post losses and gains with such radical numbers. As you would know the limit for a civilian is 3,000, but hell i can piss that away in 10 mins of bad trading. Hell ive pissed off 10,000 a day in bad trading, and wait, i can't remove that from my income can i?

I buy into and out of stocks, bonds, options, futures, forex, placing some 20-25 trades a day. Someday's i'll make more then 30 trades a day on a good day.

And in case you didn't know the Short-term capital gains are taxed at a higher rate: the ordinary civilian income tax rate. Which for me is usually between 30 and 35%, AND my federal taxes have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my state taxes, so the math is correct SIR.

and i DIDN'T POST A LOSS on my TAX return either. Sadly, i saw this coming and stopped trading a week prior to the stock market fall, and then made a killing for about 3 months afterward, uncle sam got his fill on that.

And when Obama changes the short term taxes i will move to Switzerland or even Candida both countries which have better investment tax rates.

Even if i hold the stock,bond, option or future for 2 mins....

You shoudn't own a business if you can't handle your money. And your CPA is a idiot. I write off almost all my expenses like hardware, internet, etc...




Capitol gains tax is only assessable when you SELL the stocks, bonds, or other profitable investments. So if your portfolio went up 9% for last year (highly unlikely) you had over 1.5 million in investment profits, from investments, you sold, personally, not a clients, yours, not mine, or his, just yours.

If you worked for and own the company then you obviously don't understand how a company makes money. Company shows by book keeping they have bought $1000 of stock, pie, cheese...... The investment went up and they sold for $1900, so they made $900, not $1000. Out of $900 they had expenses of $500. Now they stand to pay taxes on $400, now you want to spend some oney on things before the end of the year and still have some on hand. So you decide to purchase a new gadget, it cost $200, so you write that off with a scheduled deduction rate of 25% so you can deduct another $50, and your taxes paid on it the first year. So total company profit was $320 after other mics deductions.

Unless you are daytrading, for yourself with millions and making millions you are full of shit.(ch) I have to do the bookwork for my department, and have had schooling on how to do this from my own accountant I used a few years, and then when I got good at it, I have been doing this.

Sio I deduce you have your own company that you hire to day trade your money that amounts to at least 10 million dollars.

But you say you ahve to keep large amounts of cash on hand for customers? So they are investors in your company in your day trading, I assume day trading as a bond and or security is for a specified length of time, and guarenteed by the FDIC and cannot be withdrawn untill the time lapses.

So now you own a business where you have investors who give you tens of millions of dollars, allow you to keep all the profit from day trading, and some days walk in and demand their money.

Then you say that you use your AMEX card (American Express) to buy non business related items all the time, and you have no credit. So how did you originally get the money to start your business? AMEX cards aren't just handed out.....they usually require you to present your last few quarter reports and your financials to see if they match up, at least for a card with any sort of credit line.


So a man with at least ten million of investments from investors who don't want the profit, and who might some day just want their money if you aren't making yourself money, and who has a AMEX card with a daytraders job, and no real business model and who doesn't track his financials.




I guess all I can say is..........








































































































AWSOME!!!

[FordGT90Concept]

I feel sorry for all the poor bastards that thought putting Obama in office was actually going to bring about positive change. I bet most of them are kicking themselves now.

[T3hPwn3r3r]

This thread makes me very disappoint.

[FordGT90Concept]

It should. :p

[SK-1]

This thread makes me very disappoint.

This man makes me disappoint...

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/A-Disconnected-President.html

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Jobless-rate-tops-10-pct-for-apf-563122944.html?x=0&.v=8

[mlee49]

This thread makes me very disappoint.

At the very least is should incite you emotionally to generate some thought into the next election.

[Wile E]

This man makes me disappoint...

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/A-Disconnected-President.html

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Jobless-rate-tops-10-pct-for-apf-563122944.html?x=0&.v=8

Makes me disappoint, too. Sickening, really.

[FordGT90Concept]

CNN was saying that, if you figure in the underemployed and those that just quick looking for a job, the figure is closer to 17%. I'm surprised the stock market didn't crash yesterday (closed up a little bit).

[farlex]

Remember jobs are always lagging indicators of the market's current state, also recent new jobless claims were the lowest they've been in a year or 2. It's always so easy to fall, much harder to climb.

[Deusxmachina]

I'm surprised the stock market didn't crash yesterday (closed up a little bit).

Why would it crash when it's going to keep going up? :D For the time-being, anyway.

I like the one month of economic growth. Take out the lame Cash for Clunkers and crap, and that would have been negative, too. It's just window dressing. Your tax dollars at work.

Hey, aren't there a whole bunch of "toxic assets" still out there? You know, the ones the government used fear-mongering about and said give us 700 billion+ dollars because we have to buy them up Right Now. How many of those "toxic assets" did the government buy up again? Oh yeah, that's right, zero. So either they're still out there, or they never really existed. Either way, can I have my 700 billion+ dollars back?

Oh no, big "recession" that is now "over," jobs cut everywhere... how many government jobs have been cut during this? I'll keep the answer simple with "not enough."

Oh well, at least Obama and the in-power Dems have been working hard and got the U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan and definitely haven't been sending Even More soldiers to Afghanistan to fight a war that's been going on longer than WWI and WWII. (r)

[Steevo]

The goverment is not interested in guying "toxic assetts" it is interested in building better infastructure, and creating jobs for illegal immigrants by doing so. Then giving more money away to special democrat intrests groups, while providing more healthcare and benefits ofr illegals.



This whole mess is not the presidents fault though. He was handed shit,a nd the republicans are not trying to help in any way shape or form. He is sort of tied in what he can do by too liberal democrats and every republican. To say oterwise only proves your ignorance, and dogmatic stance of deep seated racial fear and hate.

[Deusxmachina]

The goverment is not interested in guying "toxic assetts" it is interested in building better infastructure, and creating jobs for illegal immigrants by doing so. Then giving more money away to special democrat intrests groups, while providing more healthcare and benefits ofr illegals.

This whole mess is not the presidents fault though. He was handed shit,a nd the republicans are not trying to help in any way shape or form. He is sort of tied in what he can do by too liberal democrats and every republican. To say oterwise only proves your ignorance, and dogmatic stance of deep seated racial fear and hate.

I can't tell if your post is serious or not. The first paragraph seems sarcastic since it's all about helping illegals, yet the second paragraph seems serious and blames people who are trying to stop Obama from tax-and-spending and socializing the entire country more than it already is, and then plays the race card on top of it.

[Steevo]

Both are dead serious.

Stopping the president from "socializing" the US, yeah, exactly, and next we will all be saying aye, and puting mayo on our "freedom fries" !!

GCCdGZod3UM

Good old USA moose fucking, salmon fucking, gun shooting, cock sucking titties are bad, USA!!!!!! WOOOO No socialized anything!!!!!! No goverment support to build roads, unless they are your roads....right? No goverment to build projects, so no electricity, unless it is yours.......right? hell, no police, we will just get back to good old time hangin, them minorities are the devil, and need to be shown their place in the White USA!!!!!!!!



Then again, if you believe any of the above, go fuck yourself.

[Wile E]

Both are dead serious.

Stopping the president from "socializing" the US, yeah, exactly, and next we will all be saying aye, and puting mayo on our "freedom fries" !!

GCCdGZod3UM

Good old USA moose fucking, salmon fucking, gun shooting, cock sucking titties are bad, USA!!!!!! WOOOO No socialized anything!!!!!! No goverment support to build roads, unless they are your roads....right? No goverment to build projects, so no electricity, unless it is yours.......right? hell, no police, we will just get back to good old time hangin, them minorities are the devil, and need to be shown their place in the White USA!!!!!!!!



Then again, if you believe any of the above, go fuck yourself. So, what does socialized programs, and Obama's complete and total lack of doing anything competent have to do with racism?

I lol at posts like this. You are just hiding behind the race card so you don't have to come up with any real arguments.

[Steevo]

Race card eh?


Fuck the races, I see people. If the argument is for US citizens to prosper the the democrats who libarally spew money on special projects need to be stopped, however the conservative republicans will do anything to stop any measure of any sort that the president wants, weatehr or not it is good for the public.

If the argument is for teh nation as a whole we have a fuckload of unemployed auto workers sitting and crying about not having jobs the "wet backs" are only good at like hard labor. so they can get off their crying lazy asses and get to fucking work.

If the argument is for the spending of trillions of dollars to support my drunk ass mexican neighbours while her drunk abusive shit headed husband is in the jail that I paid for, while she collects welfare that I pay for, while driving a beaned out car, then fuck you too, I dont want to support the friday night brawl where their children get beat and I have to call the cops as I don't want to end up in jail for beating the shit out of some asshole who needs it. All so my 3 year old doesn't have to hear other children and women getting the shit beat out of them, and the f bomb every two seconds among other exploitive durogotory terms.

Laugh all you want, I will send all the employed drunk fighting mexicans down to your house, along with the good old boy gun toting fuck your sister rednecks, and the boo hoo we don't have jobs as our union broke the US aout industry but it is easier to blame the negro president jerkoffs, and the leftwing give everybody money that we print nutjobs.


Then I will sit in the large house I bought with my own money, on the computer and other stuff that is entirely paid for and I don't have to hurt for things as I worked my ass off since I was a kid self glory and laugh. If not I am buying the duplex and kicknig all the mexicans out next year.



either way i win, and I still don't vote or take place in the farce that is the US poolitica/media machine other than a casual observer. You likey Fox news entertainment massa?

[Wile E]

Race card eh?


Fuck the races, I see people. If the argument is for US citizens to prosper the the democrats who libarally spew money on special projects need to be stopped, however the conservative republicans will do anything to stop any measure of any sort that the president wants, weatehr or not it is good for the public.

If the argument is for teh nation as a whole we have a fuckload of unemployed auto workers sitting and crying about not having jobs the "wet backs" are only good at like hard labor. so they can get off their crying lazy asses and get to fucking work.

If the argument is for the spending of trillions of dollars to support my drunk ass mexican neighbours while her drunk abusive shit headed husband is in the jail that I paid for, while she collects welfare that I pay for, while driving a beaned out car, then fuck you too, I dont want to support the friday night brawl where their children get beat and I have to call the cops as I don't want to end up in jail for beating the shit out of some asshole who needs it. All so my 3 year old doesn't have to hear other children and women getting the shit beat out of them, and the f bomb every two seconds among other exploitive durogotory terms.

Laugh all you want, I will send all the employed drunk fighting mexicans down to your house, along with the good old boy gun toting fuck your sister rednecks, and the boo hoo we don't have jobs as our union broke the US aout industry but it is easier to blame the negro president jerkoffs, and the leftwing give everybody money that we print nutjobs.


Then I will sit in the large house I bought with my own money, on the computer and other stuff that is entirely paid for and I don't have to hurt for things as I worked my ass off since I was a kid self glory and laugh. If not I am buying the duplex and kicknig all the mexicans out next year.



either way i win, and I still don't vote or take place in the farce that is the US poolitica/media machine other than a casual observer. You likey Fox news entertainment massa?
Hahahaha. I lol'ed. At what point did I say I support benefits for illegal immigrants? At what point did I bring up race at all? At what point did I say we should support anyone that's lazy?

What I'm saying is that you are an idiot for bringing up race like it actually matters in this discussion. It has zero to do with the matter at hand. Which is, Obama is not helping us, but hurting us further. It has nothing to do with the color of anyone's skin, or their country of origin. You are the only one here assuming it has anything to do with race by claiming if we disagree, we are racists. If anything, your posts show you as the racist asshole in this thread.

[MT Alex]

Wow. That last Steevo rant is what I would imagine Archie Bunker would sound like after he decided he likes black folks.

[Steevo]

I have to laugh, Archie Bunker was a freaking riot, but not the kind the police need to break up for being a threat to the president, like the Bush administration did http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1568849/20070904/id_0.jhtml, and unlike the Obama, who allowed peopel with assault rifles. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/





But hey, who is/was allowign more power to the people, obviously the right power choke down and listen or the patriot act will allow us to arrest you like we did this old guy gestapo style!!!http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/251175/Man_Arrested_For_Telling_His_Girlfriend_He_Was_Goi ng_To_Kill_Bush You have the freedom to allow us to watch, listen and record everything you do, and everythign we think you will do will land you jail time and beatings.




You guys know I'm not racist. I am just using this as a way to show the absurdity of it all. And yet you all fall right into the trap of my plethoura of plenty guffaws and giggling.


Have fun with your anti-obaeverything threads.

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/7A93FED2-1B7B-48AA-9E72-A01FE12AA801/
http://www.infowars.com/breaking-story-we-are-change-reporters-arrested-at-barbara-bush-event-in-new-york/
http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/44095/detail/



really, poor and free, or richand police state/what are YOU doing? Woudl you like every comment you ahve made here to be twisted and used against you in a court of law just as twisted by the powers that be?

Just remember, your nabour can call you in, and you will be arrested, not given a trial, and in the time you are in, they will pervert and twist justice against you by the same mass media you so dealrly love, and then deliver you up as a object of hate to the jurors who have been brainwashed by the same media you claim defends your freedom now. But hey, something good might happen, those damn presidents will not enact bills and laws against your will, and force the poor senate and HOR's to do his bidding. nevermind they are seperate, and elected seperately, as choosen by the people, to represent their wishes as best as possible, as the majority. White majority......

[Wile E]

I have to laugh, Archie Bunker was a freaking riot, but not the kind the police need to break up for being a threat to the president, like the Bush administration did http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1568849/20070904/id_0.jhtml, and unlike the Obama, who allowed peopel with assault rifles. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/





But hey, who is/was allowign more power to the people, obviously the right power choke down and listen.




You guys know I'm not racist. I am just using this as a way to show the absurdity of it all. And yet you all fall right into the trap of my plethoura of plenty guffaws and giggling.


Have fun with your anti-obaeverything threads.I think Bush fucked this country up as well, but Obama is hurting it further instead of helping. He hasn't done anything to help yet, and deserves to be criticized.

As far as your examples, they aren't even of the same nature. In the first link, people crossed police lines, in the gun toting link, nobody did. Your point is moot.

[jmcslob]

I think what so many people don't seem to understand is that it took several years to dig ourselves into the Whole we are in Now:(

And we are not Going to get out of it overnight..We spent the end of the Clinton administration and the Whole of Bush's Administration Sweeping our problems under The rug..

I don't think most people understand that The Govt (us) is paying for 10 years of Corporate greed and Middle Class Dismantling...

If we didn't pay for it Grandma and Grandpa would have no Pension's/retirement funds/Social Security
We simply cannot continue to hide our (poop) anymore..It's time to Deal with it...I'm sorry I don't believe it's right to let Millions of Americans simply Suffer after a lifetime of hard work, because Wall Street got to Greedy(slap)

And don't forget THAT IS WHAT GOT US IN THIS SITUATION *Corporate Greed* There is no ifs and or butts about it **OUR PROBLEMS ARE FROM GREED**
The rich simply have to much Control over the Money FLOW...If Poor or Middle Class People Had Money they would spend it and the Economy would be Fine, However The Rich Horded All the Money and Not enough is getting spent so more people get laid off which means even less money gets spent which means more layoffs...
Health Care, Yeah it's gonna cost us a lot of money but it already does...

People are gonna have to go back to the old ways...
They're gonna have to care about other Americans and what happens to them:eek: I no it's horrible...Those who can will be forced to help those who can't help themselves:eek: It's like the Govt is forcing Morals on US:eek:

[Steevo]

The middle class is the worst at handing money, they get a stimulus check the goverment borrowed from china, only to buy chinease goods at wal-mart, to get the US economy going? Rigggghhhtttt.


The problem is greed. But also the lazy assholes who think they deserve something for what they did. If they weren't smart enough to get $$$ for what they did, then they are too stupid to have it now.


For example, for everty fat ass lazy 14 year old with no financial responsibility and idea of how money works, we have one illegal immigrant working his but off and seing his money " home" and devaluing the USD, as well as getting benefits they are not paying into.


So now we have a net loss as the money is leaving the country, and we are paying for it to leave the country, so we as a society can be fat and lazy, and then we have the audacity to whine?


Plus the voracious spending on friviolous things and the huge sums the larger corperations are raking in by playing patty cake with the goverment beind closed doors? And yet we sit and do nothing?


Yes, there was no financial insite on the spending in the last two terms of office, however teh clinton administration had things going the right way, and then billy boy fucked that up, then kept plaing the media as a mind control device for the US. And lets face it, the average person isn't smart enough to balance their check book, simple add and subtract, let along understand the complexities of trade deficit and tarrif, GDP and imports. We are fucked, so get what you can, adn enjoy the ride.


The hard facts are there, and the US is a long ways from the top in the catergories that matter. Smart bombs and dumb kids, illegal immigrants and kids who value their Ipod more than hard work, Borrowing from countries who refuse to accept the currency as valid. Lots of examples, and yet no one here ever thingks abou those, they prefer to blame the new guy.

[MT Alex]

You guys know I'm not racist. I am just using this as a way to show the absurdity of it all. And yet you all fall right into the trap of my plethoura of plenty guffaws and giggling.

Darn rights I know you're no racist, I just wanted a chance to say something pithy, and use Archie Bunker in a post.

I also figured (with the exception of probably Deusxmachina) that I was the only one who read stuff at Infowars. Independent free thought and the success you have worked for in your life offer quite a dichotomy to the notion of socialization in your freedom fries post. The Feds build very few roads in my area, and use federal matching funds as a battering ram to control local policy. I pay my electric bill to a private company that has very little chance of expanding it's infastructure because of government regs and control.

News flash: The feds fuck up anything they touch. The less they touch the better.

[Deusxmachina]

Lots of examples, and yet no one here ever thingks abou those, they prefer to blame the new guy.

If the new guy is continuing and/or making worse those examples, why wouldn't they blame the new guy? The new guy supposedly elected for "Change." The new guy who puts the same-old same-old in his cabinet. The new guy who also has party control of Congress.

How are Republicans stopping The President and the rest of Congress from pushing through pretty much anything they want? We now also have a thread titled, "We don't need no stinkin' Republicans." And it's true, they don't. They push through things they don't even read, but you don't want to blame them?

What do you suggest, not voting for (or in your case, not voting at all) for people who might stop what you just said was bad for the country? There's plenty of blame to go around, of course, and this isn't necessarily a D vs. R thing.

If you like your government roads and "stimulus" for more of those roads so much, so does my neighbor. He usually does private road work, driveways and things, but he likes government jobs a lot more since they pay three times as much for doing the same work. My buddy owns a welding company and says the same thing. He underbids all the other contractors for government jobs, but he doesn't care since it's still a lot more than he'd make doing a private job. ...and those are government contracts they still allow bidding on. Some they don't, so you can bet the cost to taxpayers is even higher.

But if you don't think voting for people who might stop spending like that is a good thing, alrighty.

You may think your "racial trap" is full of guffaws as people "fall into it," but it's not really a trap, isn't funny, and barely makes any sense.

You mentioned Republicans and The Patriot Act. Obama and the Democrats just upheld it. So now what?

[Steevo]

They managed to get one bill through on part of a multipart process, as there WERE NO REPUBLICANS PRESENT!!!


They were all counting their kickback funds, and watching their insider trading investments grow from the companies they favor.

Darn rights I know you're no racist, I just wanted a chance to say something pithy, and use Archie Bunker in a post.

I also figured (with the exception of probably Deusxmachina) that I was the only one who read stuff at Infowars. Independent free thought and the success you have worked for in your life offer quite a dichotomy to the notion of socialization in your freedom fries post. The Feds build very few roads in my area, and use federal matching funds as a battering ram to control local policy. I pay my electric bill to a private company that has very little chance of expanding it's infastructure because of government regs and control.

News flash: The feds fuck up anything they touch. The less they touch the better.


Really the choice here is no choice IMO. Either way we are still fuckd. Republicans use mass media the way we fear, and run things behind closed doors with a police state as optimal, and it will only continue to get worse, Democrats are too happy to give away everything we the people have, to the "poor abused soul" and cry for more. The elected offals we have are in some large interest group/company's pocket by the time they make it very far, and thus represent the will of their master once elected. Neither side can actually get around to the truth and justice part, and everyone wants a piece of pie and a few months off. Meanwhile we have a influx of immigrants doing the work our youth used to do, and now the parents are being told if you do not provide every new toy for your child (made in china or the like by sweatshop workers, so you stil have to feel bad about that) then you are horrible, and no child should have to work, and everyone in the world needs a masters in somethign to be someone ( the world need ditchdiggers too) and every special interest group has needs, like the poor native americans, running casinos and still getting all sorts of other perks. When they conquered other tribes were they forced to pay them for their deeds? Yeahhhhhh, no.



"Man has dominated man to his injury"

Men are not fit to rule themselves, we can't go a single day without screwing somethign up, who ever thought we should rule each other was stupid. There is nothing we can do to keep up our current rate of consumption without a large problem soon. Already there are protests in China, what happens when the worlds largest supplyer of "stuff" decides to overthrow its goverment and make a reconing for its work? Bad things.


My suggestion is to believe we are all animals and we will do what we want. Voting for me isn't one of them, I used to laugh at the "rock the vote" on MTV as you had a bunch of drunk illinformed kids making decisions based on what celebreties told them to do, based on what their masters told them to do, based on what would be best for them. Talk about a meat puppet.


Same for this or any president really, just meat puppets, doing the bidding of the master. perhaps they throw a bone to placate the masses, but they are still not serving public intrest, they leave the public outside int he cold while they make decisions they feel are best for them, and thier wants and needs. Again, they are just animals, and will do what they want.


I believe they will do only so much and it will effect me some, and that is just the way it is, the sooner you realise that, the sooner you can go about living your short life. And just like mine and many others, it will amount to nothing on the time and scale that is the universe.

[jmcslob]

As I see it The Problem is The 2 Party system is a Fucking Farce.
When you elect a congressman That person should represent The Interest of the Area he is from, and not the interest of a National consortium.

A president is elected to lead the Govt Where they believe the country Has run astray.

Your elected officials Should be negotiating for His area of Representation, and not a National consortium..

See the problem...

[FordGT90Concept]

Supreme Court = Interpret Laws
Congress = Make Laws
President = Enforce Laws, Foreign Diplomat, Commander-In-Chief

Note how none of those roles have local significance--all issues start small and must reach the federal level before they have the authority to act. Again, USA has become too top-heavy. The more the top governs, the more disconnected government, as a whole, becomes from the bottom (the people).

[jmcslob]

Supreme Court = Interpret Laws
Congress = Make Laws
President = Enforce Laws, Foreign Diplomat, Commander-In-Chief

Note how none of those roles have local significance--all issues start small and must reach the federal level before they have the authority to act. Again, USA has become too top-heavy. The more the top governs, the more disconnected government, as a whole, becomes disconnected with the bottom (the people).
Yeah

[Steevo]

The problem is the federal laws overreach the local. YOu won't get arrested locally for copying a DVD, but the order comes from a federal branch, one who is controlled by laws made for the companies paying the congressmen.


So, you just got nailed by your congressman, your paying for your original copy of your DVD paid for the bribe and kick back that allowed your congressman to push this addendum onto a preexisting bill, your tax dollar paid for your nailing, and they will still hit you with another bill on the way through.


Really this discussion is crap, had McCain gotten into office, the good old boys club would have had no idea what to do here either, but the smears and the war would have lasted much longer as the people who profit from such things are being paid well.

[FordGT90Concept]

We'll never know how things would have been different with McCain in office. He won't run again although I'm glad he at least got close this time around.

[jmcslob]

Just to add something here..
I would have Voted for McCain If he would've picked a Better VP...
Look at Obama he has aged like 10 years since becoming president...
Do you think McCain would Lasted...
I was not going to take that chance...

Steevo your Right Big Companies One way or Another Buy people off, Elected or Not.
People (including myself) often spew 10% truths because they cannot see the whole picture cause money Closed off the info spicket...

Our News Media and Entertainment Have merged and Now we Only get Shock Value News, actual news gets lost to disinterest. (Profit before Truth mentality)

I do look around quite often to SEE whats really going on and it's not all that good for US.
I do not think "We Need any stinkin Republicans" nor do "We need any stinkin Democrats"
WE need representatives to Represent OUR PROBLEMS and NOT those of a National CONSORTIUM.
I just love to hear "We have enough Votes with the Rank and File REP/DEMS" it's bullshit
I get it sometimes we have to start somewhere rather than nowhere and fix it on the fly, but whats going on is Obscene.


You no whats really fucked up...
Not that long ago the MOB pretty much ran everything around here..it's true look it up my old Congressman James Traficant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Traficant He spoke for US not The Democratic Party THats why he really went jail..Anyways when the MOB ruled life was good, After the Mob, We get the Corps in here and life has gone to shit. Bribery Still happens but instead of the people benefiting Few Few Few Rich fucks Benefit now. But that's Legal cause I DON'T FUCKING KNOW BUT IT IS

I'm sorry if this makes no sense

[FordGT90Concept]

Do you think McCain would Lasted...
Reagan was 70 when he took the Presidental Oath; McCain would have been 71. McCain's mother is also still alive (currently 97 years old); moreover, he is very physically active and "hard to keep up with" (says 48 year old, South Dakota Senator John Thune). He'll live to 80, President or not. Being President is a walk in the park compared to being in the Hanoi Hilton for five and a half years.


I don't know how well Palin would have filled the role of President. Frankly, it doesn't matter most of the time. We're more likely to see Biden as president (due to assassination) than Plain (due to aging).

[Deusxmachina]

Vote for a third party? What?

Vote for good local and state people who fight for states' rights and challenge the federal government like they have with the national I.D. card and gun laws? What?

[jmcslob]

HAHA I think Reagan had a Good Cabinet and a good VP..But Reagan himself was an Idiot, we're very lucky we all have a planet after that guy...I'm not saying His administration was bad JUST HIM..as for McCain I think His stay at the Hanoi Hilton is going to shorten his life span..Don't get me wrong He "is" a very smart Very "good" Politician and I would have Voted for him Over Kerry but he lost the Primary to Douchebag and i don't think he would serve better as president than he would as a senator.

And yes I am all for an end to the 2 party system as well, look around...not working out so good is it

[Steevo]

There is no more smaear room, big business room or police state room for more than two wackjobs.

[Deusxmachina]

And yes I am all for an end to the 2 party system as well, look around...not working out so good is it

Well, if the people who bitch and moan and then say they don't even vote would go and vote for ANY third party, simply out of disgust for the other two parties if nothing else, maybe third parties would have more publicity and the two-party system would eventually be broken.

But I guess voting in general is worthless. It's not like states have been telling the federal government to fuck off on various issues, right, Steevo? Oh wait, they have. Maybe vote more of those kinds of people in.

[FordGT90Concept]

And yes I am all for an end to the 2 party system as well, look around...not working out so good is it
Without the two party system, Congress might be more worthless than it already is. In the end, it is impossible to stop parties from forming. Like-minded people tend to travel in packs. Political parties are just labels given to the general consensus of the pack.

Most "independents" don't vote for an independent party candidate. If they did, the independent party would become a third party in the two party system. Eventually the weaker of the three will disband among the two stronger parties due to the fact that, in politics, there is strength in numbers.

Bottomline: political parties are inevitable in any democracy.

[jmcslob]

Well, if the people who bitch and moan and then say they don't even vote would go and vote for ANY third party, simply out of disgust for the other two parties if nothing else, maybe third parties would have more publicity and the two-party system would eventually be broken.

But I guess voting in general is worthless. It's not like states have been telling the federal government to fuck off on various issues, right, Steevo? Oh wait, they have. Maybe vote more of those kinds of people in.I don't care if anyone likes this or not..I think it should be law to VOTE...It's not like you have to Vote on every issue or even for the people listed..If everyone Voted, think how quickly Govt would change..or at the very least make it Voting Days as in more than 1 day perhaps 2 days

Without the two party system, Congress might be more worthless than it already is. In the end, it is impossible to stop parties from forming. Like-minded people tend to travel in packs. Political parties are just labels given to the general consensus of the pack.

Most "independents" don't vote for an independent party candidate. If they did, the independent party would become a third party in the two party system. Eventually the weaker of the three will disband among the two stronger parties due to the fact that, in politics, there is strength in numbers.

Bottomline: political parties are inevitable in any democracy.I get that but i'm sick of the spineless stand in liners

[SK-1]

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/major_garrett_among_white_house_correspondents_to_ interview_pres_obama_today_143379.asp

One of the comments sums it up 4 me...

"The coward Obama has finally gathered enough courage to come out of his hole and face Fox news!"

[Steevo]

"The coward Obama has finally gathered enough courage to come out of his hole and face Fox news entertainment!"

o3LUid0IZ2w

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/179287/detail/

[SK-1]

o3LUid0IZ2w

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/179287/detail/

I like that guy.(r)
http://img.techpowerup.org/091117/Capture013.jpg

I think he did commercials or something before getting his own entertainment program on cable.

[FordGT90Concept]

I look at it real simple: Fox is now a distant minority--the only right-wing cable news network. They can't just report the news because the majority won't take interest; hence, they must create interest by pushing their agenda.

I don't necessarily like it but that is the position they have been forced in to over the years. To not invite them to the White House is to violate the first ammendment: Freedom of Press.

As much as I hate to say it, Fox news may very well be the only thing stopping the Democratic party from establishing a dictatorship. They've already ignored the laws of Congress, mostly silenced the ability for the public to see the flipside of what is going on, and time will establish that they control the Supreme Court. This is a very bad thing we are rapidly approaching and Fox is the only network large enough, and bold enough, to protest it (the role of the Press's mention in the Constitution).

[SK-1]

I look at it real simple: Fox is now a distant minority--the only right-wing cable news network.


And exclusivity has it's benefits.;)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/fox-news-dominates-3q-200_n_304260.html

[FordGT90Concept]

Indeed. One channel (Fox) for 30% of the market compared to about 3 others (MSNBC, ABC, CBS) fighting over the remaining 60% (20% each). CNN might fit with that second group and C-SPAN tries to not take sides.

[jmcslob]

Fox is Not News, It is an Entertainment Channel, and Thus has no First Amendment rights.
When They advertise the difference between an Opinion and the News, they then Will qualify for First Amendment rights.

EDIT:
I thought I would Mention, That it is Good to have a Media Outlet that mostly opposes A GOVT in power. Generally it tends to Keep "things in balance", However what "Fox News" does is make Legitimate Issues a Fucking Joke to most people in this country. They report on Issues that do need Addressed, but they do it with Priority1 being Ratings and Priority2 Being "Shock Value Gimmicks" over "Actual Facts"..
It's totally Disgusting, that for most people, They see Glen Beck and Bill O'Reily as The main Opposition's Voice....Which as I see it, makes most people look the other way without seeing the legitimate point behind a so CALLED "Fox Report"...

[SK-1]

Fox is Not News, It is an Entertainment Channel, and Thus has no First Amendment rights.
When They advertise the difference between an Opinion and the News, they then Will qualify for First Amendment rights.

The Clintons RESPECTFULLY disagree...:p
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3170

And FOX has some good competition out there..
http://img.techpowerup.org/091118/Capture014.jpg

[jmcslob]

The Clintons RESPECTFULLY disagree...:p
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3170

And FOX has some good competition out there..
http://img.techpowerup.org/091118/Capture014.jpg

I certainly Don't disagree about most Cable News/Entertainment channels....
The Clinton campaign said that as a Plea to Right wing Racists, to fall in line behind her, as she was getting her ass handed to her by the Black guy.....Everybody knows that..

[FordGT90Concept]

Fox is Not News, It is an Entertainment Channel, and Thus has no First Amendment rights.
When They advertise the difference between an Opinion and the News, they then Will qualify for First Amendment rights.
Entertainment or not, government has no authority to silence them. They are the "media" and the media is the 21st century term for "press." Whether they are credible or not is a completely different matter and that ultimately sorts itself out

The only way they can be shutdown/censored is if they become a cult--inspiring hate crimes. Even then, the government's ability to respond is very limited until the group actually breaks a law (like murder).


If the news wasn't entertaining to some extent, no one would watch it (like C-SPAN :p).

[jmcslob]

Entertainment or not, government has no authority to silence them. They are the "media" and the media is the 21st century term for "press." Whether they are credible or not is a completely different matter and that ultimately sorts itself and government doesn't play a role in that (legally can't).

The only way they can be shutdown/censored is if they become a cult--inspiring hate crimes. Even then, the government's ability to respond is very limited until the group actually breaks a law (like murder).Thank you Larry Flynt..

and obviously that has to be.....But It does not take a genius to See What Fox is doing is Simple Exploitation...

Nothings funny about exploiting Retards not now Not ever ( and you know what I mean)

[FordGT90Concept]

Who isn't exploiting whom? It's human nature and therefore the norm. I can't even name an exception.

[jmcslob]

Who isn't exploiting whom? It's human nature and therefore the norm. I can't even name an exception.LOL
but you have to admit this is a New extreme...... Next ....Idiocracy

No..No..the whole Third Reich "Thing" slipped ma mind LOL

[SK-1]

But It does not take a genius to See What Fox is doing is Simple Exploitation...


And WTF do you call Chris Matthews getting a hard on when the chosen one speaks?
http://newsbusters.org/stories/matthews-obama-speech-caused-thrill-going-my-leg.html?q=blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/02/13/matthews-obama-speech-caused-thrill-going-my-leg

The left wing media slobs ALL over Obamas knob...and when one TV station disagrees...THEY ARE ALL RACIST lol

[SK-1]

Nothings funny about exploiting Retards not now Not ever ( and you know what I mean)

Obama disagrees.
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1607391/20090320/story.jhtml

[jmcslob]

And WTF do you call Chris Matthews getting a hard on when the chosen one speaks?
http://newsbusters.org/stories/matthews-obama-speech-caused-thrill-going-my-leg.html?q=blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/02/13/matthews-obama-speech-caused-thrill-going-my-leg

The left wing media slobs ALL over Obamas knob...and when one TV station disagrees...THEY ARE ALL RACIST lolyour right they are...That's horrible, I know..

Obama disagrees.
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1607391/20090320/story.jhtmlWhat did he need at the time....

[SK-1]

What did he need at the time....

A hard kick in the ass??? IDK

[Steevo]

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/95336/detail/

oGqPxn7njqM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/nov/12/fox-news-obama-administration

Whoops, other countries media even sees the bias?



BTW, the MSNBC media were not allowed in the bush administrated white house in alot of cases. What did Fox do to stand up for freedom of speach, and media?




NOTHING.

[SK-1]

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/95336/detail/

oGqPxn7njqM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/nov/12/fox-news-obama-administration

Whoops, other countries media even sees the bias?



BTW, the MSNBC media were not allowed in the bush administrated white house in alot of cases. What did Fox do to stand up for freedom of speach, and media?




NOTHING.


1- Rats ass. Thats really what I think of another nations press opinion on any of our press.

2-Any commentary by a Comedy Central employee is taken as such...comedy.

2a- I'd like to see a link on Bush locking the press out.

3- Sure, I'll trade spin vid's with ya ALL day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BOykLz6XLE6BOykLz6XLE

Extra Credit Link http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28808756/

[FordGT90Concept]

BTW, the MSNBC media were not allowed in the bush administrated white house in alot of cases.
I disagree with that as much as barring Fox from the Obama administration.

[jmcslob]

1- Rats ass. Thats really what I think of another nations press opinion on any of our press.

2-Any commentary by a Comedy Central employee is taken as such...comedy.

2a- I'd like to see a link on Bush locking the press out.

3- Sure, I'll trade spin vid's with ya ALL day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BOykLz6XLE6BOykLz6XLE

Extra Credit Link http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28808756/Uhm the colbert Video shows Fox News Twisting a Joke...
The O'reily Video Shows The Daily Show Getting to the End Point of a Report..That conveys exactly what the report implies it's One thing for a comedy channel That is fact Labeled a comedy channel to do a twist joke, it's another for a Comedy Channel That's labeled the News to do the same..

Don't worry I'll say the same for CNN,MSNBC etc...

[FordGT90Concept]

I never had any love for O'Reilly. He's angry and arrogant.


Colbert and Stewart are in the same category of late night programming (twist the news for comedic value). And yes, I think Colbert and Stewart should be given a chance to interview at the White House too, if they wanted. If none else, it would lighten the mood.

[jmcslob]

I never had any love for O'Reilly. He's angry and arrogant.


Colbert and Stewart are in the same category of late night programming (twist the news for comedic value). And yes, I think Colbert and Stewart should be given a chance to interview at the White House too, if they wanted. If none else, it would lighten the mood.
I like Sheppard, and Neil...But the rest of that network....is in the parking lot outside of right field



Real News....with both sides of any story reported as is HERE...watch some trailers
http://www.hd.net/danrather.html

[Steevo]

QtklsCM4ELM

[FordGT90Concept]

"MSNBC was frozen out at the end of the Bush administration and the Bush administration now admits it."

It makes sense why they would rather censure at the end of an administration in order to go out on a positive note. It doesn't not make sense to sensure in the first year.


As to the New York Times, it sounds like Bush/Cheney dealt with them in the past and there was a falling out. It's not good to hold a grudge, obviously, and it was wrong for them to not give them a chance to redeem themselves. I mean, they could have easily requested that one journalist not come--not the whole organization. Remember, keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

[FordGT90Concept]

In ten years, the USA will owe more than half of its debt on interest alone (4.8 trillion):
http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/19/news/economy/debt_interest/index.htm


Again, Rome fell for the following reasons (http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/fallofrome/tp/022509FallofRomeReasons.htm):
Christianity - Leads most of the Conservative rallies; they haven't got the power of Catholic Bishops yet but it is slowly happening.
Barbarians and Vandals - Done. Severe immigration issues with Latin countries.
Decay - Done. Infrastructure is failing across the board.
Inflation - At risk of spirling out of control--may have already begun.
Lead - Done. We have more exotic hazards like asbestoes, various forms of radiation, and industrial waste causing the same problems.
Economic - Done. People aren't buying anymore and the few that do, rarely buy American. The economic aspects of the country are also poorly managed (companies too big to fail).
Division of the Empire - The east and west coast completely disagrees with the center -- division appears inevitable.
Hoarding and Deficit - Done. $12+ trillion in debt and rapidly rising. Because people don't trust the ability to keep their job, they are hoarding things of value.

Only three aspects have not come to fruition yet. That's how close USA is to being Rome 2.0.

[Steevo]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts988


Whoops.

Fox Entertainment/Propoganda
Report the news they see fit to have you view to forward their interests.

[jmcslob]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts988


Whoops.

Fox Entertainment/Propoganda
Report the news they see fit to have you view to forward their interests.
CNN and Fox are just Heads and Tales of the Same Bullshit coin, Heads you Liberal Bullshit and Tales you get Conservative Religious Bullshit....
And sometimes You Get Lou Dobbs LOL He is a well spoken nut Job....
I get his point but he forgets a lot of issues
Edit: wrong Reply LOL

[farlex]

In ten years, the USA will owe more than half of its debt on interest alone (4.8 trillion):
http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/19/news/economy/debt_interest/index.htm


Again, Rome fell for the following reasons (http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/fallofrome/tp/022509FallofRomeReasons.htm):
Christianity - Leads most of the Conservative rallies; they haven't got the power of Catholic Bishops yet but it is slowly happening.
Barbarians and Vandals - Done. Severe immigration issues with Latin countries.
Decay - Done. Infrastructure is failing across the board.
Inflation - At risk of spirling out of control--may have already begun.
Lead - Done. We have more exotic hazards like asbestoes, various forms of radiation, and industrial waste causing the same problems.
Economic - Done. People aren't buying anymore and the few that do, rarely buy American. The economic aspects of the country are also poorly managed (companies too big to fail).
Division of the Empire - The east and west coast completely disagrees with the center -- division appears inevitable.
Hoarding and Deficit - Done. $12+ trillion in debt and rapidly rising. Because people don't trust the ability to keep their job, they are hoarding things of value.

Only three aspects have not come to fruition yet. That's how close USA is to being Rome 2.0.

Let's not get all doomsday eh? The primary reason for Rome's fall was a massive military reach without the communication lines to keep everything close. The US does not have this problem. Things are still pretty damn good in the US, as always there is room for improvement.

[jmcslob]

Let's not get all doomsday eh? The primary reason for Rome's fall was a massive military reach without the communication lines to keep everything close. The US does not have this problem. Things are still pretty damn good in the US, as always there is room for improvement.
Plus i don't think the United States can Be considered a Reich LOL
I don't think collapse is going to Happen, I just think the Rich people who are about pay higher taxes want you to believe that...LOL

[Magibeg]

I thought this topic was about Obama and what hes been trying to change but i see it has changed by the 8th page. Here's a link to what Obama has been up to the past while.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

[FordGT90Concept]

Let's not get all doomsday eh? The primary reason for Rome's fall was a massive military reach without the communication lines to keep everything close. The US does not have this problem. Things are still pretty damn good in the US, as always there is room for improvement.
End of the USA isn't "doomsday," it's the end of the United States. Such an incident would be far from the first time an empire fell. All things are built only to fall one day.

I listed the 8 main reasons historians cite as being the fall of rome. Military decay is one of them. Economic decay (which already began) in the USA will ultimately lead to militaristic decay.


I don't think collapse is going to Happen, I just think the Rich people who are about pay higher taxes want you to believe that...LOL
This is ignorance, expected given the circumstances. I'm certain Romans were just as certain of their country's security before Rome was an empire no more.


I thought this topic was about Obama and what hes been trying to change but i see it has changed by the 8th page. Here's a link to what Obama has been up to the past while.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
All the "promises" he "kept" furthed the USA's approach towards Rome's demise. I'll take the first one, as an example: "No. 15: Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners." The $10 billion that involved compiled upon the debt USA already carries. It therefore advances the longterm, empire destroying, aspects of inflation and deficit. And the second one: "No. 33: Establish a credit card bill of rights." This legislation has caused credit card interest rates to skyrocket, inflating the individual deficit (empire destroying attribute). It will have done no good if, when the changes go into effect, the banks don't lower the interest rates. And finally, the third one: "No. 36: Expand loan programs for small businesses." Small businesses don't need a loan, they need an environment where massive corporations can't crush them like little bugs. It, again, advances the empire destroying aspect of adding debt on top of debt, increasing deficits. Need I continue?

Obama has done nothing, yet, to stop the collapse of the empire. He's putting funds into projects that help a few, not the whole. The role of president is the exact opposite (the whole, not the few).

[MT Alex]

Obama has done nothing, yet, to stop the collapse of the empire. He's putting funds into projects that help a few, not the whole. The role of president is the exact opposite (the whole, not the few).

Sure, this sounds grand, but absolutley goes against anything historically or Constitutionally accurate.

Presidents and governments ultimatley help no one. People help themselves. Modern governments forcabley take from one segment of the population (generally the middle class) and distribute it to garner the appearance of egalitarianism. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Corporate welfare outpaces impoverished welfare by leaps and bounds. The lowest economic brackets always suffer the most from redistribution of wealth. They think they are getting a bone, meanwhile corporations and friends of the fat cats get the whole damn cow. It's not government's job to help us, and every time they say they are going to, watch the fuck out.

Second, the conjecture of "the whole, not the few," or communitarianism, couldn't be farther from the mark of a Republican form of government. I'm not talking about the modern panty waists in Congress who call themselves Republicans, I'm talking about a free and independent Republic, you know, like the one that was given to us in the Constitution?

A Republic's sole puropse is to protect the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, not the masses. It does this by creating and enforcing laws that are applied evenly to every citizen in the land. To paraphrase Jefferson, when one person loses a freedom or right, we all suffer the same fate.

The bastardisation of a Republic is a democracy, which is what Ben Franklin refered to as "Two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner."

The corruption of that bastardisation is the government we are left with now.

[Magibeg]

All the "promises" he "kept" furthed the USA's approach towards Rome's demise. I'll take the first one, as an example: "No. 15: Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners." The $10 billion that involved compiled upon the debt USA already carries. It therefore advances the longterm, empire destroying, aspects of inflation and deficit. And the second one: "No. 33: Establish a credit card bill of rights." This legislation has caused credit card interest rates to skyrocket, inflating the individual deficit (empire destroying attribute). It will have done no good if, when the changes go into effect, the banks don't lower the interest rates. And finally, the third one: "No. 36: Expand loan programs for small businesses." Small businesses don't need a loan, they need an environment where massive corporations can't crush them like little bugs. It, again, advances the empire destroying aspect of adding debt on top of debt, increasing deficits. Need I continue?

Obama has done nothing, yet, to stop the collapse of the empire. He's putting funds into projects that help a few, not the whole. The role of president is the exact opposite (the whole, not the few).

Wow calm down for a second there. I was only showing what he did without commenting on the positive or negative aspects of it. </3

[FordGT90Concept]

Take, for instance, the infrastructure of the country. An example: The collapse of the I-90 Interstate bridge up in Minneapolis/St. Paul area. No one is going to build and maintain those bridges except the government and it is failing in the role it must play for the whole of the USA. Even the Romans knew this, neglected it, and look what happened to them. Providing clean water falls into the same category.

This isn't welfare, it is the backbone of the nation. Once it breaks, everything else will fall with it. Just rerouting traffic around a single failed bridge in this nation poses serious problems. Try rerouting around two, three, four, or a dozen failed bridges. That would effectively move most goods transportation to the trains and airlines which high demand and limited supply would lead to an economic stalemate that couldn't be remedied for years. I'm sure even ferries would spring up if the conditions allow but a single boat can't take more than a few vehicles across at a time. Ultimately, the country fails on account of not taking care of infrastructure.

We can add New Orleans and the aftermath of Katrina as another example of government failing to act on something critically needed. Levees and dams are also government projects that cost thousands of lives when they fail. As an example of this, the only state flanked by two rivers (Iowa) only has one full time, and one part time dam inspector. Of thousands of dams to inspect, only a few dozen were inspected.

It's not the earthquake that is going to cause severe problems on the New Madrid fault, it will be all the failing dams it breaks that cause problems.

We can turn that doom and gloom around providing a crapload of jobs in the process. Forget saving the Fortune 100 companies. They are very unimportant in the larger scheme of things (they'll fail some day--it is inevitable). Fix the problems that no one will fix but are absolutely critical to this nation.


As to taking from one hand and sticking it in the other, at least you use the roads and water systems on a daily basis. I can't say the same about AIG and GM.


And you are wrong about the "sole purpose" of a republic. Republics exist to let the people voice their concerns. It says nothing of what those concerns are--that is shaped by the people elected to represent the people.

It is the constitution's purpose to protect the rights of the individual and the republic's purpose to determine a path with a majority consensus.


Wow calm down for a second there. I was only showing what he did without commenting on the positive or negative aspects of it. </3
The point is, the government is not fulfilling its critical roles. It hasn't since Eisenhower whom established the interstate system as we know it today.

Just to demonstrate how important infrastructure is, Eisenhower was a very popular and successful general who planned the D-Day invasions. He actually cut defense spending substantially in order to fund infrastructure construction. The remainder of the 1900's was mostly prosperous for that sole reason. America could move goods from A to B with little trouble. You know two other countries that did the same thing? Germany and China. Germany ran a war virtually on their own thanks to their superior infrastructure. China is now leeching economic prosperity from the USA by copying our interstate system. Rome fell when their roads and aquaducts did. See the trend? Note how at least once every year, another sad story breaks about USA's crumbling infrastructure. Note how now, there really isn't much positive outlook. Put bluntly, the USA may be beyond saving. It is just a matter of time before the roads and water ways disappear from under us.


Think, for a moment, about traits a third world country has compared to a first world country. I don't know how one could compile a list without infrastructure being very near the top of the list of requirements. Take Africa, for example, compared to Austrialia. Both have similar climates but one has lots of paved roads, the other has few. One is prosperous, the other generally isn't. It is quite simple, really.


I doubt I can ever like an President that doesn't make a concerted effort to stop this trend.

[Steevo]

Katrina was funny.


You had people who had good warning who didn't leave, then they blamed the government for not making them leave. Then there were the levees and dams, no one down there wanted to pay for the repairs as they wanted to keep their money, the politicians didn't want to pass the laws to get them fixed, as that would of course hurt their chances of being re-elected. Then you had the actual governmental fuckup. Where they visited and patted each other on the back and congratulated each other for helping out the right way.

If people were/are too stubborn to pay to have their problems fixed, and then too stubborn to leave when told to.

Fuck them.

I blame little of Katrina, a natural disaster multiplied by peoples unwilling and shortsighted attitude on the government, and most on the people.

[farlex]

End of the USA isn't "doomsday," it's the end of the United States. Such an incident would be far from the first time an empire fell. All things are built only to fall one day.


None of the examples you gave are really even close to accurate, or on the verge of collapse as you for some reason want to believe. Take a look at the rest of the world. The only indication of the US falling apart would be the economic system it lays claim to which has been failing lately, but it will rebound as it always does. A major bridge failing and a hurricane aren't reasons for despair. Again, take a look at the rest of the world. Government doesn't get it right much of the time, this isn't new.

[FordGT90Concept]

Katrina was funny.

...
Compare the response to Katrina to, say Johnstown, Pennsylvania, back in the 19th century. That city was completely wiped off the map (killing 1/5th of the population) by a dam failure and in short order, the Red Cross and other organizations rebuilt it. What changed between here an there? There's your answers for what's wrong with America today.


None of the examples you gave are really even close to accurate, or on the verge of collapse as you for some reason want to believe. Take a look at the rest of the world. The only indication of the US falling apart would be the economic system it lays claim to which has been failing lately, but it will rebound as it always does. A major bridge failing and a hurricane aren't reasons for despair. Again, take a look at the rest of the world. Government doesn't get it right much of the time, this isn't new.
I'll let the experts do the talking:


Here's the "Report Card for America's Infrastructure (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/)" as published by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

Aviation D
Bridges C
Dams D
Drinking Water D-
Energy D+
Hazardous Waste D
Inland Waterways D-
Levees D-
Public Parks and Recreation C-
Rail C-
Roads D-
Schools D
Solid Waste C+
Transit D
Wastewater D-

America's Infrastructure GPA: D

If you go to your particular state, it lists areas that need help the most, including the how much of a budget shortfall the state is expericing in regards to infrastructure.

[MT Alex]

And you are wrong about the "sole purpose" of a republic. Republics exist to let the people voice their concerns. It says nothing of what those concerns are--that is shaped by the people elected to represent the people.

It is the constitution's purpose to protect the rights of the individual and the republic's purpose to determine a path with a majority consensus.

Gee whiz, Ford. There is no doubt that you are a smart cookie, but I grow weary of trying to explain simple civics.

OK. Republics don't exist to offer a spring board for free speech, people are born with the ingrained right of free speech. A republic is simply a social contract formed between citizens to ensure that their neighbors and foriegn invaders don't limit their ability to live freely. Secondly, leaders aren't elected to represent the whole of the nation, but only people from their district.

Next, and of extreme importantance, the Constitution does nothing to protect or delegate the rights of the people. Under the Constitution, people are inately born with all rights. The Constituion LIMITS what the government can do. PERIOD. End of story. That's why it doesn't say things like "The people shall be allowed to bear arms," it says "The rights of the people ... Shall not be infringed." This isn't just symantics. It is huge. The government (and the Constitution for that matter) don't decide or dictate rights, the people already have them.

Lastly, the "path of majority concensus" is so far from the point of our government and the ideas that the framers had for this country it's scary. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Nothing is worse than mob rule, and that is what democracy and concensus are, the founders loathed both notions. A republic is based on a constituion of laws, that are supposed to be supreme, above the frivolous swaying of public sentiment. You could probably convice 55 people in a room of 100 that stealing, some forms of murder, ect. is alright or justified. Does that majority make it right or lawfull? Hell no, but if we were following some crappy "majority concensus" type of government it would be.

I'm not sure the point of your infastructure diatribe. Perhaps you love FDR and think a modern CCC could solve all the nations ails?:)

Why don't you read something like the Federalist Papers or The Law by Frederick Bastiat? You have good logic and common sense, but seem to lack a knowledge of historical government concepts, and how our goverment was actually set up.

[farlex]

I'll let the experts do the talking:


Here's the "Report Card for America's Infrastructure (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/)" as published by the American Society of Civil Engineers.



By quick count I didn't see any grade above a C since 1991. So these are perhaps some tough graders. Also, what are they comparing it to? If US gets those grades, I'd love to see what others get. As I said there are always problems, our infrastructure is not currently the best it could be, but it is far from collapsing.

[FordGT90Concept]

@MT Alex: The constitution declares rights and limits the government's response to such actions. It doesn't matter what came first. As proof of this, there are many governments around the world, for example, that have forcibly removed the right for women to speak in a public forum. Both cases are true (government limits create/restrict individual rights, recognized rights create/restrict the power of government). In the context of this discussion, it matters not.

The only difference between a democracy and a republic is one little phrase, "with rights of the minority." Only application and enforcement of that phrase separate the two. Failure to do so turns theoretical republics into democracies by application.

I dispise FDR or at least the failure of following administrations to take down Social Security as intended by FDR. Because it hasn't happen, his policies have created an enormous, growing debt for the country that no one wants to address. The only thing comendable that FDR did, in my eyes, is creating almost fanatical support in the USA in support for ending the war. At the same time, Pearl Harbor alone may have incited those feelings so I do not know how much credit he deserved.



@farlex, they may be tough graders but the fact remains that the USA's infrastructure has been deteriorating, virtually unabted, for decades (roads), if not centuries (water and sewage mains).

They are comparing the current state of the infrastucture to conditions that are known to be safe and at little risk of failure (except improper installation).


This search has yielded some results for multiple countries but it looks like none of them are free:
http://www.google.com/search?q=europe+infrastructure+report

[farlex]

@farlex, they may be tough graders but the fact remains that the USA's infrastructure has been deteriorating, virtually unabted, for decades (roads), if not centuries (water and sewage mains).

They are comparing the current state of the infrastucture to conditions that are known to be safe and at little risk of failure (except improper installation).


This search has yielded some results for multiple countries but it looks like none of them are free:
http://www.google.com/search?q=europe+infrastructure+report

More likely what they are comparing it with is ideal conditions with unlimited funds and perfect planning and coordination from all arms of those who build and upkeep it. (u)(r)(r) In other words, fantasy. The highway system has greatly improved from it's state 50 years ago, water and sewage mains are actually still quite well up-kept, read a study that said generally speaking tap water is statistically safer than bottled water (tap is checked and regulated heavily while most bottled water comes from the same source but is not as regulated). Deterioration is an inevitability with time, all things considered though we're moving in the right direction, we're just a bit broke atm. Those who hope for a perfectly harmonious and efficient infrastructure will be hoping for some time though, other things will have to come to fruition first, and red tape tends to slow progress.

[FordGT90Concept]

You don't need unlimited funds to make a 50 year bridge and maintain it. You need funds to replace that 50 year bridge every 50 years when it no longer meets the needs of the transit system and its components are starting to fail through fatigue and corrosion. Most bridges in the USA were built between 1950 and 1980 as 30 year old bridges. Very few of them (except the high visibility like Golden Gate and Brooklyn bridges) have been properly maintained. They are over capacity, undermaintained, and even well maintained, they are reaching the end of their life span; hence, the C rating.

Engineering has absolutely nothing to do with fantasy.


50 years ago, the country was mostly dirt and only locally maintained. Just as with oil use, the well being out of the country now requires the state of the transit system be in good condition for economic growth to continue. If either are allowed to fail, economic disaster follows shortly thereafter.


There are numerous cities with major water and sewage issues including the threat of the two combing being very real if the problem is not fixed. Additionally, there are cities (I believe in Maryland) the are still using 100+ year old water pipes that are failing with great frequency causing artificial floods to boil up from broken water mains. The same issues are arising in large cities across the nation and all they can afford to do is plug the hole and wait until it happens again, and again, and again. Money, nationally, is being put into unimportant projects when we have to fix these problems. Bandages cost much more, over time, than ripping it up and replacing it.

Most bottled water comes from a tap, that is no surprise; moreover, there are no regulations on the quality of bottled water (besides what the corporations are willing to impose upon themselves) where there is on municipal water.

We are not moving in the right direction (ignoring failing aspects of the infrastructure). We are heading in the wrong direction (expand the infrastructure and fill the holes once people start dying). This has been going on for over a century and failures are growing more catastrophic (e.g. levee failures at Katrina). You don't have to look more than 20 miles from the average home to find some piece of infrastructure that is at high risk of failure.

[farlex]

You don't need unlimited funds to make a 50 year bridge and maintain it. You need funds to replace that 50 year bridge every 50 years when it no longer meets the needs of the transit system and its components are starting to fail through fatigue and corrosion. Most bridges in the USA were built between 1950 and 1980 as 30 year old bridges. Very few of them (except the high visibility like Golden Gate and Brooklyn bridges) have been properly maintained. They are over capacity, undermaintained, and even well maintained, they are reaching the end of their life span; hence, the C rating.

Engineering has absolutely nothing to do with fantasy.

The state of bridges in the country is exaggerated by the media following the major collapse in Minnesota. But yes, there are many bridges that need to be maintained. La de da. US won't fall apart at the seams b/c of it.

Perhaps you misunderstood me (surprise :rolleyes:). My point was an A+ in those guys books most likely is unattainable due to monetary and bureaucratic limits.

[Steevo]

Compare the response to Katrina to, say Johnstown, Pennsylvania, back in the 19th century. That city was completely wiped off the map (killing 1/5th of the population) by a dam failure and in short order, the Red Cross and other organizations rebuilt it. What changed between here an there?.

Much better weather tracking available on the internet, phones, TV, radio, newspaper, and police driving through the streets warning people.


So what was/is different?

[FordGT90Concept]

The state of bridges in the country is exaggerated by the media following the major collapse in Minnesota. But yes, there are many bridges that need to be maintained. La de da. US won't fall apart at the seams b/c of it.

Perhaps you misunderstood me (surprise :rolleyes:). My point was an A+ in those guys books most likely is unattainable due to monetary and bureaucratic limits.
This is coming from engineers, not the media, and the engineers have already been proven right on more than one occasion (New Orleans levees being insufficient and I-35 bridge collapse being merely examples). It is wise to heed their warnings.

An A/A+ is a stable structure that fulfills its role and shows no signs of fatigue, corrosion, or other hazards that will ultimately lead to the failure of the structure. A new bridge, for instance, that was built to specification without cutting corners would most likely receive an A/A+.

The only bureaucracy involved in infrastructure is getting access to the land. From what I've seen, that's rarely a long-term obstacle. It is cheaper to inspect, maintain, and replace infrastructure than pay out millions in settlements for damaged property, injuries, and fatalities.


Much better weather tracking available on the internet, phones, TV, radio, newspaper, and police driving through the streets warning people.


So what was/is different?
Weather tracking isn't going to tell you if and when a dam will fail. A good inspector could but you still need an engineer to fix it. Besides the point:

a) There aren't enough roads out of the city to completely evacuate New Orleans before it was known Katrina would make land near by. The roads out of the city were congested with those that decided to leave. It is better to stay in your home than get caught in 100+ MPH winds and flash flooding in a vehicle.

b) Hurricanes, like Tornadoes, are difficult to predict. You only know where it will approximately hit and even then, your models could be wrong.

c) People don't expect levees to fail.

d) Some people can't afford to leave even if they had a way out. They have no relatives or friends they can rely on or don't have enough money to afford an exodus.

e) Some people simply refuse to leave because their residence is their life.

f) Some people can't leave (like the elderly) because they have no escorts to take them away from the danger (even assuming they have enough warning).

Need I continue? Had the levees been reinforced like was recommended earlier in the 2000's, thousands of lives would have been saved and large portions of the city wouldn't have been condemned. Hell, sponsoring people to move away from the land that the sea is claiming (former marsh land) is probably the most productive way to deal with New Orleans. But no, do nothing and hope disaster will never strike.

[farlex]

This is coming from engineers, not the media, and the engineers have already been proven right on more than one occasion (New Orleans levees being insufficient and I-35 bridge collapse being merely examples). It is wise to heed their warnings.

An A/A+ is a stable structure that fulfills its role and shows no signs of fatigue, corrosion, or other hazards that will ultimately lead to the failure of the structure. A new bridge, for instance, that was built to specification without cutting corners would most likely receive an A/A+.

The only bureaucracy involved in infrastructure is getting access to the land. From what I've seen, that's rarely a long-term obstacle. It is cheaper to inspect, maintain, and replace infrastructure than pay out millions in settlements for damaged property, injuries, and fatalities.

Just as global warming comes from scientists right? Don't be foolish.

You have no basis to believe that. As I said, deterioration is inevitable with time, it's just going to happen. I'm sure many bridges are built to specification without cutting corners, most likely the majority of them, they will still deteriorate over time, and it costs money to build and upkeep them.

Bureaucracy is involved in everything that involves the government doing something. There are various requirements and steps for doing anything, even something as simple as building a bridge.

Anyway as I said deteriorating bridges do not signify end times for the US. Rome's main problem was a long reach spread thin without the technology to uphold it's empire. This is a very different world today, and really to even compare Rome to the US takes a leap of the imagination, something you are sometimes rather good at.

[Steevo]

Weather tracking isn't going to tell you if and when a dam will fail. A good inspector could but you still need an engineer to fix it. Besides the point:

a) There aren't enough roads out of the city to completely evacuate New Orleans before it was known Katrina would make land near by. The roads out of the city were congested with those that decided to leave. It is better to stay in your home than get caught in 100+ MPH winds and flash flooding in a vehicle.

b) Hurricanes, like Tornadoes, are difficult to predict. You only know where it will approximately hit and even then, your models could be wrong.

c) People don't expect levees to fail.

d) Some people can't afford to leave even if they had a way out. They have no relatives or friends they can rely on or don't have enough money to afford an exodus.

e) Some people simply refuse to leave because their residence is their life.

f) Some people can't leave (like the elderly) because they have no escorts to take them away from the danger (even assuming they have enough warning).

Need I continue? Had the levees been reinforced like was recommended earlier in the 2000's, thousands of lives would have been saved and large portions of the city wouldn't have been condemned. Hell, sponsoring people to move away from the land that the sea is claiming (former marsh land) is probably the most productive way to deal with New Orleans. But no, do nothing and hope disaster will never strike.


a) Bullshit.

Wiki about Katrina.

With the hurricane threatening the Gulf Coast, many New Orleans residents started taking precautions to secure their homes and prepare for possible evacuation on Friday the 26th and Saturday the 27th. By mid morning on the 27th, many local gas stations which were not yet out of gas had long lines. Nagin first called for a voluntary evacuation of the city at 5:00 p.m. on August 27 and subsequently ordered a citywide mandatory evacuation at 9:30 a.m. on August 28, the first such order in the city's history. In a live news conference, Mayor Nagin predicted that, "the storm surge most likely will topple our levee system", and warned that oil production in the Gulf of Mexico would be shut down.[14] President Bush made a televised appeal for residents to heed the evacuation orders, warning, "We cannot stress enough the danger this hurricane poses to Gulf Coast communities."[14] Many neighboring areas and parishes also called for evacuations. By mid-afternoon, officials in Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, Lafourche, Terrebonne, Jefferson, St. Tammany, and Washington parishes had called for voluntary or mandatory evacuations."[15]


Two days to pack up and leave, is more than enough, they had busses at the very last.

Although Mayor Ray Nagin ordered a mandatory evacuation of the city, many people refused to leave, which a CNN writer described as "gambling with their own lives."[16] Reasons were numerous, including a belief that their homes or the buildings in which they planned to stay offered sufficient protection, lack of financial resources or access to transportation, or a feeling of obligation to protect their property. These reasons were complicated by the fact that an evacuation the previous year for Hurricane Ivan had resulted in the illnesses of many elderly people since cars were stalled in traffic for six to ten hours. The fact that Katrina occurred at the end of the month, before pay checks were in the hands of many was also significant.[17] A "refuge of last resort" was designated at the Louisiana Superdome. Beginning at noon on August 28 and running for several hours, city buses were redeployed to shuttle local residents from 12 pickup points throughout the city to the "shelters of last resort."[18


I had friends who were on teh responder teams. When one offered a group of teens some MRE's they circled him and started yelling and demanding McDonalds and were threatening him. He watched others helping get knocked down and some kids take off shoes and personal items and run off.


Fuck them. Toss them out to die.


B) They live in a hurricane prone area, that has been damaged many times before, and have been warned 4 days in advance of the destruction probability, then the city issues a evacuation order, and then a mandatory order. Still people refused to leave. They know of this storms possible effects at least 4 days in advance, and put a value of thier possesions above their life and safety by being complacent.


I live in a tornado prone area, But I have a basement, and one room with two cement walls, and double reinfoced partition walls and a solid wood door. It is small enough that any collapsing will not break it down. So if I was told there was a tornado coming my way and refused to listen. Too bad for me. I pay for tornado and a few otehr insurances. I have removed the trees close to my home to prevent them falling on it and damaging my home.

If the people though this was something to ignore and died, the only people I feel sorry for are the ones who had to carry their dead ass out of the stench for thier mistake.

C) A report was issues days before that the levees were going to break. It was ignored by the same people who refused to pay for the repairs that would have saved them. Again, I fall back to the "boo hoo hoo too fucking bad" idea.

D) I don't buy that bullshit. Total fuel cost to drive 200 miles inland in a car/truck is less than $50

If they were to stupid to realize that staying meant they wouldn't ahve a place to go either....

Down south they could have camped out it wasn't freezing like it is up here, it wasn't ideal but better than death.

E) Tough Shit.


F) They had community busses, but I understand that some can't leave. Everyone has to be responsible for their elderly parents/loved ones. If your elderly mother were thre what would you have done? If they were the only one left and had no friends, then i feel sorry for their life, and not their death. And for the person who had to put them in a bodybag.


That covers all the bases, and assigns blame for the disaster where it lay, not where everyone else wants to point fingers.

[FordGT90Concept]

You have no basis to believe that.
Go walk under a nearby bridge that wasn't built recently and look for structural weaknesses. It's not hard to see how common the problem is.


Anyway as I said deteriorating bridges do not signify end times for the US. Rome's main problem was a long reach spread thin without the technology to uphold it's empire. This is a very different world today, and really to even compare Rome to the US takes a leap of the imagination, something you are sometimes rather good at.
If too many important aspects of the infrastructure fail at once, the USA economy will be severely crippled for a period of years and most likely, unrecoverably.


...ordered a citywide mandatory evacuation at 9:30 a.m. on August 28...
Katrina made landfall on August 29. A whole 24 hour warning...


Fuck them. Toss them out to die.
They only died because the levee's failed. Did they put themselves, in greater danger by not moving to higher land, yes.


They live in a hurricane prone area, that has been damaged many times before, and have been warned 4 days in advance of the destruction probability, then the city issues a evacuation order, and then a mandatory order. Still people refused to leave.
Which gave them a false confidence in the levees. If they survived a hurricane before, why wouldn't they survive Katrina as well?

Only goes to show the lack of confidence the Army Corps of Engineers had in the levees:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/20/AR2005092001894.html

But with the help of complex computer models and stark visual evidence, scientists and engineers at Louisiana State University's Hurricane Center have concluded that Katrina's surges did not come close to overtopping those barriers. That would make faulty design, inadequate construction or some combination of the two the likely cause of the breaching of the floodwalls along the 17th Street and London Avenue canals -- and the flooding of most of New Orleans.


I don't buy that bullshit. Total fuel cost to drive 200 miles inland in a car/truck is less than $50
And the people that don't even own a car/truck?


They had community busses, but I understand that some can't leave. Everyone has to be responsible for their elderly parents/loved ones. If your elderly mother were thre what would you have done? If they were the only one left and had no friends, then i feel sorry for their life, and not their death. And for the person who had to put them in a bodybag.
The city was responsible for taking care of the elderly and they failed to do so. Most children of the elderly don't live anywhere close to them and entire, full, nursing homes were flooded. It is just another facet of the failed handling of Katrina.

[Steevo]

Greyhound bus, ride with friends and family, start walking.



they ahd 4 days warning that this was going to cause severe damage, and about 5 days warning that the storm was going to be bad.


The city was responsible? Sounds like a cop out to me, no where around me are cities responsible for the welfare of their elderly. The homes they stay in are supposed to take care of them for the large sum they are charged. Their relatives not taking care of them? Sounds like a cop out too.


I was sayign fuck the idiots who didn't leave and willingly stayed behind only to cause trouble, they should have been left for fish food.


False confidence? Wow, how about we use a thesauaus.

Same as, dillusional, same as fallacy, same as blunder, same as misconception, same as misbelief, same as mistake


So they were self dilluded into making a mistake about what they were told by the mayor? Sounds like a personal problem to me.




I understand how you like blame Obama for everything, and every part of the government. But you can't have this both ways, claiming the govermert was respnsible for the welfare and wellbeing and safety of the people, when they are not supposed to be any part of ther lives, or at least as little as possible, and not track them to know who is out and who isn't.



You are responsible for finding where New Orleans was responsible for the welfare and removal of the elderly. The goverment was responsible for the welfare of the idiots that were told to leave. the general populace was responsible to pay for damages to a privitized sector of the US.


I provided links instead of opinions. Facts instead of personal ideas. Evidense instead of rumors.

[FordGT90Concept]

I understand how you like blame Obama for everything, and every part of the government. But you can't have this both ways, claiming the govermert was respnsible for the welfare and wellbeing and safety of the people, when they are not supposed to be any part of ther lives, or at least as little as possible, and not track them to know who is out and who isn't.
This has little to do with Obama beyond that he hasn't changed the trend over the last 50 years. The blame starts with Reagan when some of the bridges built during Eisenhower's administration came due for servicing but didn't get it. It carried through both Bushs, Clinton, and Obama. As such, the topic is somewhat off topic.

This isn't welfare. It is responsibility. The government needs to create and maintain sound infrastructure and failing that, they have the responsbility of aiding those their mistakes have affected. Infrastructure has nothing to do with welfare.



You are responsible for finding where New Orleans was responsible for the welfare and removal of the elderly. The goverment was responsible for the welfare of the idiots that were told to leave. the general populace was responsible to pay for damages to a privitized sector of the US.
Let me clarify that. The nursing home should have notified the care takers of each of their patients and the city. The city would arrange for a bus, ambulance, or whatever service is needed to move them (if available). If the city can't help, the nursing home must contract a provider to do the same (e.g. a bussing service). If the care takers can't evactuate them, the nursing home staff must do their best.

Still, had the levees not have failed, it is very unlikely that they would have died.


I provided links instead of opinions. Facts instead of personal ideas. Evidense instead of rumors.
I don't see a single link, just a reference to Wikipedia which is opinion by its very nature.

[Steevo]

Mistakenly for you, the Obama administration is getting the infastructure work done and creating jobs in the US, if he forced the speed of the jobs and thus the hiring of more workers to get the job done, and hte elemination of illegals doing the work.......


I have seen the effects of the work being done in the mountains. It is nice, and something I wish they would have kept the millions of dollars they gave away to the residents here in Colorado from a tax overpayment. Stupid.

Had the people paid more attention to the warnings, and repots as is their CIVIC DUTY they wouldn't have died either. So the goverment and everyone you are blaming is made up of.....people. Just like you and I. I took care of my duties to keep my family and property safe. I don't object to paying taxes and civic duties. I do obstain from voting, but I keep current on the state of affairs and do what needs be done.

[FordGT90Concept]

Mistakenly for you, the Obama administration is getting the infastructure work done and creating jobs in the US, if he forced the speed of the jobs and thus the hiring of more workers to get the job done, and hte elemination of illegals doing the work.......
I count $70.9 billion (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneymatters/a/ecstimroads.htm) set aside for infrastructure of a $787 billion (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneymatters/a/ecstimhub.htm) bill. Less than 10% went to infrastructure and $2.2 trillion is needed on top of that $71 billion over a period of five years (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/report-cards) just to raise the average rating from a D to a C.

Only $220.1 billion of the $787 billion (http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx) has been paid out and even the accuracy of that government operated site is in question (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575691,00.html).

[Steevo]

And the total spending by the other administration was.......oh yes, death to the hard working class that also signs up to defend our oil. Whoops, freedom from uhh, iraq dictators sending us nasty e-mails and stuff.



I don't see a single link, just a reference to Wikipedia which is opinion by its very nature.

Bother to read the links, and the highlighted parts, that are quoted from otehr sources. Opinated to the facts mostly.

Wikipedia is a reference tool, and yes some pages are utter trash, but why go looking for the links when one source provides a unbiased look at teh subjet at hand.


Fact, they had advance warning. 4 days, two days for volentary evacuation, and one day for a mandatory evacuation.

Fact, they were told the levees would fail.

Fact, people stayed behind due to their own stupidity. Lets not argue semantics of what you or I consider stupid. If both of us were standing on a train track and head a train would you cry for the goverment to rescue you? Or shoot at the ones trying? Or rob and steal from the others who stayed and fared worse than you?

Fact, It is the duty of the facility and or relatives to provide for the patients/elderly. Not the cities, not FEMA, not mine, not yours.

Fact, It cost less than $50 in fuel to escape the tragedy that was, less than the entrance fee to a theme park, or a night out drinking, a good pair of shoes, or a decent dinner.

Fact, There was plenty of media coverage to alert people to the storm as far as a week in advance, and updates constantly.



Debate Wiki all you want, but the facts remain when we strip away the emotional side of it all.

[FordGT90Concept]

And the total spending by the other administration was.......oh yes, death to the hard working class that also signs up to defend our oil. Whoops, freedom from uhh, iraq dictators sending us nasty e-mails and stuff.
Oil is just as critical to the economic stability of the nation as the infrastructure is (because the infrastructure relies heavily on oil).

Remember, oil hit $140/barrel just a few months before the housing market crisis. Coincidence? I think rather likely. People that could barely afford their housing bills as is were faced by spending $100+ more per month on fuel in order to get to work. That $1200+ a year could have easily amounted to missed payments and ultimately foreclosure. Had that $140/barrel price lasted a month longer, the layoffs would start coming (coming from the GE CEO).


Off topic: Bush balanced the federal budget before the $700 bank bailout bill.


Fact, they had advance warning. 4 days, two days for volentary evacuation, and one day for a mandatory evacuation.
Only that it was going to make landfall in the Gulf of Mexico between Texas and Florida.


Fact, they were told the levees would fail.
With the mandatory evactuation issued 24 hours before it made land fall. The storm was a Category 4 at this time and the levees were only certified for Category 3. Research after the hurricane hit showed that the levees should have held because the Hurricane was a Catagory 3 when it hit land. They then discovered that several levees failed because they were poorly constructed--not because they shouldn't have been able to handle the storm surge.

Moreover, telling people that the levees would fail encourages the people at greatest risk to get away from the danger. That wasn't necessarily a statement backed by engineers.


Fact, It cost less than $50 in fuel to escape the tragedy that was, less than the entrance fee to a theme park, or a night out drinking, a good pair of shoes, or a decent dinner.
You forgot paying for shelter (another $100+ per night) and food ($40+ per day) without any means to pay for it (unemployed). Most of the people that were displaced either lived in abandonded houses, shacks, the mess that was the New Orleans Superdome, or spent $1000's a week away from the area. The low income people that lived near the levees were therefore, quite out of options in New Oreleans and away from New Oreleans.


Fact, There was plenty of media coverage to alert people to the storm as far as a week in advance, and updates constantly.
As with every hurricane. The media didn't know there would be catastrophic failures of levees either. They just knew a Hurricane is heading towards the Mississippi/Alabama coastal regions. Again, routine stuff until it veered towards New Orleans (at about the 36-hour mark before land fall triggering the mandatory evactuation).

[Wile E]

I'm sorry. I have to side with Steevo on this one. Those without the money to afford boarding somewhere could've camped somewhere, or slept outside, possibly in the rain, but at least out of the hurricane, and still alive.

They had advanced warning, they were told the levees could fail. The govt did everything that was their job. The rest was on the people.

Too stubborn or stupid to try to get out? Oh well, you got what you deserved.

Am I insensitive? When it comes to people being stupid, absolutely. If your own stupidity leads to your death, I do not feel bad for you.

[FordGT90Concept]

If the levees stayed in tact and they died from the wind/rain/house structural failures, they deserved it. All those that died due to engineering faults is a completely different matter, in my eyes. Those levees could have been reinforced to handle a Category 4 hurricane in the 5+ years between engineers saying it was inadequate and Katrina striking. The same goes for the I-35 bridge (we know they are failing and auto/financial institutes failing are no excuse not to fix it).

[Wile E]

If the levees stayed in tact and they died from the wind/rain/house structural failures, they deserved it. All those that died due to engineering faults is a completely different matter, in my eyes. Those levees could have been reinforced to handle a Category 4 hurricane in the 5+ years between engineers saying it was inadequate and Katrina striking. The same goes for the I-35 bridge (we know they are failing and auto/financial institutes failing are no excuse not to fix it).

No, they were told the levees could fail. Those that stayed and died from it have themselves to blame. If the levees failed without warning, then it would've been the govt's fault.

[FordGT90Concept]

The levees were installed by the Army Corps of Engineers whom got sued, and lost (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-katrina-flooding19-2009nov19,0,3370102.story), with a federal judge citing "gross negligence." The Army Corps of Engineers is a government organization. Just because the government warned you does not mean they are not responsible for damages done.

[Wile E]

The levees were installed by the Army Corps of Engineers whom got sued, and lost (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-katrina-flooding19-2009nov19,0,3370102.story), with a federal judge citing "gross negligence." The Army Corps of Engineers is a government organization. Just because the government warned you does not mean they are not responsible for damages done.

Winning a civil case also means squat these days. It doesn't prove guilt.

And if the govt told you to evac, and you didn't, it is your fault, plain and simple.

[FordGT90Concept]

The death count and the holes in the levees (in places not even taking the blunt force of the storm surge) proves guilt. If there was not a single hole in the levees and they were, in fact, over topped, the judge would have ruled in favor of the Army Corps of Engineers.

It is not the fault of the people that died that the levees failed.

[MT Alex]

Please do not argue with Ford, he knows all, if you try to educate him differently he will spit back the same response he has posted since time immortal. If it is raining cats and dogs and he doesn't think so, windshield wipers be damned...that's not rain because he says it isn't.

Damn, I love a good debate, but it's more productive to beat your head against an alabaster wall. Facts be damned.

I think Tom Petty says it best: "It's good to be king, and have your own way, get a feeling of peace, at the end of the day, and when your bulldog barks, and your canary sings, your out there with winners...it's good to be king..."

"It's good to be king, and have your own world, it helps to make friends, it's good to meet girls...:D"

I can't say that it's bad to have your own opinions and stick to them, I know someone else like that myself...(r)

[FordGT90Concept]

I do not know all but taking what I do know, I have formed an educated opinion. In this argument, all the facts state the government failed to fix the levees knowing they needed work for 40 years. That's pretty damning in my book. I'm not saying people weren't stupid to not flee but again, I can't blame their deaths on an "act of god" when a levee failed to perform as intended.


The problem is, this isn't an isolated case. Half of Iowa got flooded not long ago due to failing levees along the Mississippi as well. Numerous infrastructure-related events take place all over the nation due to corrosion and lack of maintance. We can stop the trend, but don't.

[Wile E]

I never blamed their deaths or the levees failing on an "act of God". I blamed their deaths on themselves for ignoring the warnings. If there was no hurricane, and they were warned the levees could break at any time, yet they stayed, my opinion would still stand.

It's the fault of the people that died because they didn't leave like they were told they should.

[Magibeg]

Just thinking from a logical perspective about the failing levees after Katrina. We knew they needed work but no one improved them. When Katrina started heading over people were told the levees would probably fail.

That's sorta like standing on a set of train tracks, being warned the trains brakes no longer work but choosing not to move out of the way anyway. Yes the levees shouldn't have failed but it's also not the governments fault for people refusing to get out of the way of danger.

[FordGT90Concept]

It's the fault of the people that died because they didn't leave like they were told they should.
Yes the levees shouldn't have failed but it's also not the governments fault for people refusing to get out of the way of danger.
I agree with both of those statements (as stated no less than (http://www.generalnonsense.net/showpost.php?p=16645&postcount=209) two (http://www.generalnonsense.net/showpost.php?p=16668&postcount=217) times (http://www.generalnonsense.net/showpost.php?p=16677&postcount=223) on the previous page) yet no one says the government isn't at fault for the levees failing. We are agreeing, yet disagreeing; how odd. Let me explain: the point I am trying to emphasize is the fact the levees failed when they shouldn't have. The opposition is trying to emphasize people were being stupid and didn't evacuate when ordered to. I say people being stupid isn't something we can fix; bad engineering is.

[Wile E]

If bad engineering leads to us getting rid of more stupid people, I'm all for it. :D

[FordGT90Concept]

A bridge could fail the moment you are driving over it. Acts of god may take care of the stupid (especially earthquakes causing tsunamis) but bad engineering can strike when you least expect it (unless, of course, it is well inspected ;)).

[Wile E]

Well inspected doesn't mean they can see everything wrong with a structure, and it also doesn't mean the money to fix these things is available.

Out of the thousands of both that there are in this country, some are bound to fail. Even sometimes a few that were inspected to be structurally sound. It's a matter of odds. It doesn't mean we have to get all doomsday and say our infrastructure is failing. Those "grades" posted earlier don't mean shit if we don't know the curve of grading.

[FordGT90Concept]

Well inspected doesn't mean they can see everything wrong with a structure, and it also doesn't mean the money to fix these things is available.
True. Money needs to be made available. Cut spending across the board if need be. Even take a lesson out of Ike's book and get most of the funding by drawing back the DoD budget.


Out of the thousands of both that there are in this country, some are bound to fail. Even sometimes a few that were inspected to be structurally sound. It's a matter of odds. It doesn't mean we have to get all doomsday and say our infrastructure is failing. Those "grades" posted earlier don't mean shit if we don't know the curve of grading.
Engineers know it isn't about odds. Yes, there are some aspects of a structure that can't be thoroughly inspected (like the condition of rebar) but the structural fatigue on the exterior of the structure would hint that there is a problem inside. Bridges like the Brooklyn Bridge can stand for over 150 years because of good engineering and maintainence. The same can be said about the Cathedrals of Europe and the pyramids of Egypt (they lack maintence, however, so they don't look like they did).


This explains the grading:
http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=92


A point of comparison:
2005 5-year investment needed: $1.6 trillion (GPA: D)
2009 5-year investment needed: $2.2 trillion (GPA: D)

[Wile E]

Looking over their explanation, the grading is completely arbitrary, and the scale is based on ideals rather than some sort of reality. If, for example, our water system get's those kinds of grades, then that's an awfully high standard, as we have a good water system in place.

[FordGT90Concept]

Drinking water = D-

D- = only 65-66% in good condition or better. 34% (1/3) need help.

[Wile E]

Drinking water = D-

D- = only 65-66% in good condition or better. 34% (1/3) need help.

Did they quantify what they mean by "need help"?

I'm sorry, I just don't buy their assessments. I think they are just trying to justify some grant money.

[FordGT90Concept]

Look at the detailed report for 2005 for details. For drinking water:
http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=103

America faces a shortfall of $11 billion annually to replace aging facilities and comply with safe drinking water regulations. Federal funding for drinking water in 2005 remained level at $850 million, less than 10% of the total national requirement. The Bush administration has proposed the same level of funding for FY06.
This resulted in a 2001 D grade being reduced to D- in 2005 (hasn't changed as of 2009). Funding is not keeping pace with regulations.

[Wile E]

If the water system hasn't been diseased, or unhealthy for us, or caused illnesses and death, why do we need new regs? I'll tell you why, to artificially justify grant money, boost the income of some major corporations that deal with water related industries, and to fatten the pockets of politicians and other govt officials with kick backs.

[FordGT90Concept]

And you'd be mistaken:
U.S. Water Use Declines, But Points to Troubling Trends, Says USGS Report (http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2009/world/u-s-water-use-declined-from-2000-to-2005-part-of-growing-trend-usgs-report-finds/)

“I think it’s obvious from looking at water situations across the country that there’s a lot of competition irrespective that total water withdrawal remains static. If this doesn’t continue we’re in big trouble, because we’re already running into serious regional constraints on water availability.”

Direct Link to Report (http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1344/pdf/c1344.pdf)

An example of where water is becoming a serious issue is Atlanta, GA (http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2009/water-shortage-10-19-2009.html). In the long term future, we are looking at the Ogallala Aquifer (http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Oc-Po/Ogallala-Aquifer.html) depleting which will cause an enormous drop in US agricultural production. Additionally, the water system supplying central California all the way down to Los Angeles isn't exactly very secure either. This isn't the best site in the world for information on California's precarious water supply state but it will do for now: http://www.calwatercrisis.com/problem.htm


New regulations? I'm not proposing that. The regulations have worked and all the low-flow technologies are helping. What we need is more supply and to cement the availablity of the supply (ehm, more robust infrastructure).

[farlex]

And you'd be mistaken:


An example of where water is becoming a serious issue is Atlanta, GA (http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2009/water-shortage-10-19-2009.html). In the long term future, we are looking at the Ogallala Aquifer (http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Oc-Po/Ogallala-Aquifer.html) depleting which will cause an enormous drop in US agricultural production. Additionally, the water system supplying central California all the way down to Los Angeles isn't exactly very secure either. This isn't the best site in the world for information on California's precarious water supply state but it will do for now: http://www.calwatercrisis.com/problem.htm


New regulations? I'm not proposing that. The regulations have worked and all the low-flow technologies are helping. What we need is more supply and to cement the availablity of the supply (ehm, more robust infrastructure).

The drinking water in Atlanta is heavily regulated, inspected several times a day, and not remotely dangerous to drink. They have also received record rainfall in the last few months (and some flooding) and reservoirs are full. Overpopulation is a problem, but they aren't in danger of running out of drinking water. I don't know why you continue to insist upon yelling on the corner about end-times for the US. Just drop it it's ok, let's get the economy going then we can get some other stuff going.

[Steevo]

Water availability is not unclean or poor water, you can't conjure someting up where there is nothing.


We ahve water issues here in Colorado, and the mountins that hold the snow that mels to the water is here too!!!!!


You ahve the poeple with their rights and more money burying those with no money, even when it is a clear cut case. Cities are buying up farmland for the water rights, and then leaving a desolate land behind that starts to erode and become worthless.

So do we have water issues fitting for a D-, no, we have greedy politicians that do whatever it takes to get the vote the money and the water. Including passing laws that harm the people. No farms means no corn, means no feed for animals, cerials, chips, and that means higher prices, and that means items also must be trucked further, and that means higher fuel prices, etc........

So is the problem water? Nope.

It is the new golf corse that takes as much water as three farms. It is the new housing development that needs acres of pretty green grass, and lots of trees that use water by the hundreds of gallons per day.

Plain and simple most of the issue with the country is greed. It pops its head in everything, and has a finger in every pie.

The levees were not fixed as the amount of money that could be saved for other pet projets like overpaying kickback rich companies for simple jobs, defending our oil, and other crap was spent on "Americana Pride" and the associated bullshit.


They need to stop the wars, come home and make troops do somethign useful for the country they supposedly serve. That doesn't include being killed, or killing. Save billions in war money, invest that here, get some use out of the enlisted and teach them somethign real, I have met a few of the vets from this war, and they learned to hate, sweat, and curse joining, and those are the ones who don't have issues with accidentally killing women and children, seeing dead bodies like ragdolls on the street, and recurring nightmares about friends being killed. Some enjoyed the fight, and those are the ones who scare me. They have no regard for human life, just for killing and hurting.

[FordGT90Concept]

The drinking water in Atlanta is heavily regulated, inspected several times a day, and not remotely dangerous to drink. They have also received record rainfall in the last few months (and some flooding) and reservoirs are full. Overpopulation is a problem, but they aren't in danger of running out of drinking water. I don't know why you continue to insist upon yelling on the corner about end-times for the US. Just drop it it's ok, let's get the economy going then we can get some other stuff going.
Not immediately but the problem will surface again and again until something major is done (e.g. an aqueduct or a mandatory population redistribution in the area). There simply isn't enough water coming in to supply a major population center.

This specific problem will spread to more areas of the nation as the population continues to climb.


You ahve the poeple with their rights and more money burying those with no money, even when it is a clear cut case. Cities are buying up farmland for the water rights, and then leaving a desolate land behind that starts to erode and become worthless.

So do we have water issues fitting for a D-, no, we have greedy politicians that do whatever it takes to get the vote the money and the water. Including passing laws that harm the people. No farms means no corn, means no feed for animals, cerials, chips, and that means higher prices, and that means items also must be trucked further, and that means higher fuel prices, etc........
Colorado is practically a desert unfit to grow crops without tapping an aquifer. Eastern Nebraska, Western Iowa, Eastern South Dakota, Southwestern Minnesota, Eastern Kansas, Northern Missouri, and Southern Illinois are all climates suitable to growing corn. Guess what happens when the water runs out and we stop farming it. It turns back into tall-grass prairie land in less than five years.

Colorado buys a lot of corn from the states I listed to feed their cattle when there isn't enough water to grow grass. Trying to grow corn in an environment that doesn't support it is extremely damaging to the environment.

Almost all corn is shipped via freight trains over land. The only thing more efficient at moving corn is a ship. Usually trucks are only involved in getting it from the field to a grain elevator. From there it is transported by rail and sold as a uniform product. Only specialized corn gets specialized treatment (sweet corn and genetically modifieds) because it is worth more than generic field corn.


It is the new golf corse that takes as much water as three farms. It is the new housing development that needs acres of pretty green grass, and lots of trees that use water by the hundreds of gallons per day.
Take a look at that USGS report I linked to. The three states that have seen the largest reduction in water consumption (Texas, Illinois, and California) have done so because pumping water to places it doesn't belong is no longer viable. These states have converted large swaths of land to agricultural use more suited to the land--saving a lot of money and water in the process. One field serviced by a pivot consumes far more water than any golf course does. Grass requires far less water to grow than corn.



The levees were not fixed as the amount of money that could be saved for other pet projets like overpaying kickback rich companies for simple jobs, defending our oil, and other crap was spent on "Americana Pride" and the associated bullshit.
Fixing the infrastructure creates jobs and those are jobs only a government can create. Any time the government hands money off to a private contractor, expect it to get lost (transparancy concepts and the freedom of information acts do not apply to private contractors). The harder a country presses to fix the infrastructure, the more jobs it creates.

[Wile E]

So, how does people using water unwisely equate to a bad water system?

The report is complete bullshit, and I feel sorry for you for falling for their blatant propaganda. It's kinda sad, really.

[FordGT90Concept]

ASCE is only looking at infrastructure--namely the conditions of the networks supplying water. As with all infrastructure, it is an issue of supply and demand. Market circumstances dictate the demand and infrastructure dictates the supply. People using water unwisely creates unnecessary demand but, as supply diminishes, so does demand. Water is not free. What dictates a bad water system is inadequate maintenance and expansion of all aspects that supply and treat water. As stated in the review, water infrastructure has been underfunded for at least a decade. Demands are increasing and funding is not.


As to your second statement, ignorance is bliss. It is easy to ignore all the problems we face; it is not to address and correct them.

[Wile E]

ASCE is only looking at infrastructure--namely the conditions of the networks supplying water. As with all infrastructure, it is an issue of supply and demand. Market circumstances dictate the demand and infrastructure dictates the supply. People using water unwisely creates unnecessary demand but, as supply diminishes, so does demand. Water is not free. What dictates a bad water system is inadequate maintenance and expansion of all aspects that supply and treat water. As stated in the review, water infrastructure has been underfunded for at least a decade. Demands are increasing and funding is not.


As to your second statement, ignorance is bliss. It is easy to ignore all the problems we face; it is not to address and correct them.

I'm not ignorant to the fact that we have problems in America. I just believe that they are being blown completely out of proportion by the ASCE.

[FordGT90Concept]

Who would be more qualified to determine the state of the USA's infrastructure than ASCE?

[Deusxmachina]

You forgot paying for shelter (another $100+ per night) and food ($40+ per day) without any means to pay for it (unemployed). Most of the people that were displaced either lived in abandonded houses, shacks, the mess that was the New Orleans Superdome, or spent $1000's a week away from the area. The low income people that lived near the levees were therefore, quite out of options in New Oreleans and away from New Oreleans.

I dunno... I watched the "Trouble the Water" documentary, and while most of it was shot in a "poor" neighborhood, there sure were a lot of gold teeth in attendance.

Either way, for those interested in Katrina, check it out from one person's ground-zero perspective.


Take a look at that USGS report I linked to. The three states that have seen the largest reduction in water consumption (Texas, Illinois, and California) have done so because pumping water to places it doesn't belong is no longer viable. These states have converted large swaths of land to agricultural use more suited to the land--saving a lot of money and water in the process. One field serviced by a pivot consumes far more water than any golf course does. Grass requires far less water to grow than corn.


Then there's stuff like this: http://republicans.resourcescommittee.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=5921

"The Man-Made California Drought
California’s San Joaquin Valley is the salad bowl of the world, but is in danger of becoming a dust bowl unless immediate action is taken to change policies that put the needs of fish above the livelihood of people."

There's also news vids on youtube about California's "man-made" drought. True or not, I don't know. Just tossing it out there since I don't always keep up on the large amount of douche stuff the state of California does.

[FordGT90Concept]

I agree that environmentalists have a lot to do with the problems in California (that state is full to the brim of them); however, there are still millions of people that will be virtually without water should the irrigation system reverse (that's the real danger in California if the water level of some key lakes falls).

It is very much a "man-made drought" because, like Vegas, all those people hoarded in the stupidest of places (no water except unusable salt water). In all fairness, I sit on the fence with the water issues. The reason why I am sympathetic is because a crapload of money has been invested into artificially irrigating the land. Because of that, people have moved there. I am not sympathetic that people have hoarded in places that don't naturally support a human population but, what can we do? Close off the irrigation and have a mass exodus of people from California to the North and East? The last thing I know I need is Hollywood moving the midwest. At the same time, if Uncle Sam cut off the disproportionate amount of aide California receives, that's exactly what would happen.

What it comes down to is that, if there isn't serious water issues (specifically, controlling large masses of water above ground) today, it is coming. We have one of two choices: let the water dry up and have those droves of people flee to places unable to support them or attempt to use human ingenuity to fix it (e.g. find high-volume means to desalinate water). I think we must at least try human ingenuity first because if we don't, the hoards of people fleeing the West Coast will eventually come.


FYI, most of the midwestern states produce more agricultural goods than California does when you consider how much larger California is (e.g. California has 3 times as much land as Iowa yet it it doesn't output even close to 3 times the volume of crops as Iowa). If California were to completely dry up, the only prices it would effect is that of exotic foods like carrots, lettuce, onions, broccoli, tomatoes, strawberries, grapes, oranges and almonds. The foods of life (grains, meats, and dairy) would still be coming (people on the West Coast would have to pay more for dairy to ship it from the central USA over the Rockies).

[jmcslob]

I agree that environmentalists have a lot to do with the problems in California (that state is full to the brim of them); however, there are still millions of people that will be virtually without water should the irrigation system reverse (that's the real danger in California if the water level of some key lakes falls).

It is very much a "man-made drought" because, like Vegas, all those people hoarded in the stupidest of places (no water except unusable salt water). In all fairness, I sit on the fence with the water issues. The reason why I am sympathetic is because a crapload of money has been invested into artificially irrigating the land. Because of that, people have moved there. I am not sympathetic that people have hoarded in places that don't naturally support a human population but, what can we do? Close off the irrigation and have a mass exodus of people from California to the North and East? The last thing I know I need is Hollywood moving the midwest. At the same time, if Uncle Sam cut off the disproportionate amount of aide California receives, that's exactly what would happen.

What it comes down to is that, if there isn't serious water issues (specifically, controlling large masses of water above ground) today, it is coming. We have one of two choices: let the water dry up and have those droves of people flee to places unable to support them or attempt to use human ingenuity to fix it (e.g. find high-volume means to desalinate water). I think we must at least try human ingenuity first because if we don't, the hoards of people fleeing the West Coast will eventually come.


FYI, most of the midwestern states produce more agricultural goods than California does when you consider how much larger California is (e.g. California has 3 times as much land as Iowa yet it it doesn't output even close to 3 times the volume of crops as Iowa). If California were to completely dry up, the only prices it would effect is that of exotic foods like carrots, lettuce, onions, broccoli, tomatoes, strawberries, grapes, oranges and almonds. The foods of life (grains, meats, and dairy) would still be coming (people on the West Coast would have to pay more for dairy to ship it from the central USA over the Rockies).
Without Ca I would not notice a thing....we get that stuff from south America mostly, Argentina Has the worlds best seedless Giant Red grapes...



Anyway I agree with ford here (to a Point) on the infrastructure....


Americans would rather give Tax Breaks to Very Well off individuals, Rather than pay for infrastructure Costs...Now they gotta start paying again....and they throw TEABAG parties...

[FordGT90Concept]

We all use the infrastructure. No one deserves a tax break or tax hike in regards to it.

[Deusxmachina]

Americans would rather give Tax Breaks to Very Well off individuals, Rather than pay for infrastructure Costs...Now they gotta start paying again....and they throw TEABAG parties...

I don't think the majority of the teabag party people are "very well off." It's the middle class, as usual, getting caught in-between not being rich enough not to struggle and not being poor enough to get free stuff.

When government shows it can manage money properly, I'll be all for higher taxes if they are needed. But until government waste and auto-increasing budgets are put on a leash, it's just money down a hole.

If more people paid income taxes out of their bank account instead of it being auto-deducted from their check every two weeks, I think there'd be a whole lot more tea parties.

[FordGT90Concept]

True, but out of sight, out of mind keeps most people sedated in terms of taxation compared to, say, Europe, where the VAT slaps them in the ass pretty much every day. How do they put up with it?

[Steevo]

Higher standard of life, and a good education to understand what is good.