What Obama is all about, check it out

There are many fundamental problems with how our society works. Let's examine the opinions of a very important man in our history:

Thomas Jefferson:

"I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more

dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending

money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but

swindling futurity on a large scale."

Jefferson on liberty:"rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within

limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add

'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant’s

will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

Wikipedia on Jefferson:"Hence, for Jefferson, though government cannot create a right to

liberty, it can indeed violate it. And the limit of an individual's

rightful liberty is not what law says it is but is simply a matter of

stopping short of prohibiting other individuals from having the same

liberty. A proper government, for Jefferson, is one that not only

prohibits individuals in society from infringing on the liberty of

other individuals, but also restrains itself from diminishing individual liberty."

Jefferson on guns(he took this from another writer):"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are

neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make

things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they

serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man

may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Jefferson on corporations: "I hope we shall crush ... in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

I have a lot of respect for these ideas. I don't agree with Jefferson in all instances. He had some views which we generally accept as false today. He also owned slaves, though seemed to be an opponent of slavery through his public actions. I don't like the fact that he opposed it and yet had slaves, but that shouldn't take away from the power and depth of these statements.

And how they relate to our situation today.

 
So you don't care even if it turns out to be one of those "long-term quagmires"? Sounds like a case of principle over practicality. Look, I don't know how much you keep up on the Middle East, but al Qaeda doesn't just operate on the Afghani/Pakistan borer. Iraq is also currently an important battleground for al Qaeda. The surge has been working in Iraq, so if anything, we should increase our presence in Afghanistan immediately, but not pull out of Iraq until the situation is enough under control.
 
You're blurring numbers Drew. They already pay that and then some. And whats going to stop them from packing their bags and moving if it gets much higher? Also, the ratio of wealth in old money (those born intos) has shrunk as a result of the global economy. This stuff doesn't work in a vacuum.
 
HAHA you could be right but I still think that the media is essentially conservative just because who they are owned by.

Just look at all the networks and papers - mostly owned my a handful of conservative capitalists, including the mack daddy of them all, Rupert Murdoch. I did a paper on this called "Mass media and modern politics", every lecturer and professor pretty much outlined how the international media is exclusively conservative. But Don't take my word for it, people (especially that Spinna... girl) should go read/watch "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky and Edward Hermin. An don't tell me "Chomsky would say those things, he's a left learning liberal". I believe he's not that way because thats where he stands but he's that way because it's a product of his many years of study and analysis of FACTS.

Conclusion: Media = conservative. Ultra conservative.

 
hes blurring numbers... i dont see any from you. this is slightly hypocritical cuz im not gonna go searching for them now. but i am almost positive that the top 90% of the poplulation pays 90% of the taxes.
 
Less actually. Probably more like 70% if we're purely going off personal income taxes. The number goes up sharply when you tack on things like real estate, capital gains, etc. When I was thinking of the 90-something% of income tax, I must have been thinking of the top half by mistake.
 
wow. thats what i meant. is less. and they should pay more. sorry. this is what i get for nsing and homework at the same time hahaha. my brain is fried. fuck midterm week
 
see and i agree with that chart. they are making more than 90% of the population, they should be paying alot more
 
having to do it again; let us recall the end of world war one, into world war two

Do you really think it doesn't matter how you finish a war, that the likely hood of destabilization isn't contingent on the means by which you withdraw?

I'll agree that the future may be unpredictable to some extent, but to say that you don't have any way to affect it is irrational.

Can you paint in a better 'big picture' it is my understanding that we have option one; ignore Afghanistan as we've been doing while also undertaking the Iraq project. or option two ; Withdraw from Iraq, and properly finish-up in Afghanistan. I don't want the military spending, but if my options are two separate campaigns, or one more focused one, i'll chose the latter.

I realize it's not the ideal situation, but we don't have the ideal solution available for us to chose from, do we?

 
I couldn't possibly read the whole thread right now but Obama voted for the Patriot act. Just thought you should know that.
 
Yeah.. after he said he wouldn't, too..

I still don't understand that at all.

Whatever. At this rate, he's still probably going to win...
 
It's so funny for me to read posts like this.

IT IS BULLSHIT.... You will find that out as you get older and make more money and have responsibities and such.

I get sick of hearing.. oh woe is me.... I is uneduercated and I can't git no job. my mama is single and had to work.. oh woe is me, I gots no opportunity...

I pissed years away goofing off, jealous of the "haves" Not sure what happened, one day I went to work, applied my self and now. I am pissed that I loose nearly HALF of what I make to all sorts of stuff to go to those who, what?
 
Losers kids being raised by loser parents, that's all it is, not inequality. If you only earn minimum wage you shouldn't have kids; if you do, don't be surprised when your kids have the same moral bankruptcies and work ethic as you.
 
i dont know drew, we cant talk absolutes, but having a fair amount of family members that live in "lower class" they ARE lazy. believe me, it pains me to say that about my own family but the truth hurtsp. they made/ make, bad choices....... life is all about the choices you make, people make good choices, people make bad choices, and the outcomes are different.

O BTW get your checkbook out, because there is a new addition to the "leech on society" class, i work with him, and it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to know that capitalism rewards hard work, and he is a Piece of SHIT worker who will probably be a leech for the rest of his life.

/sarcasm on the fuzzy feeling/

 
education, i would like to see a voucher program... just IMO

i agree we need to reform welfare.

SCHIPS, (i think thats what its called) covers a fair amount of children...

 
745px-Laffer-Curve.svg.png

 
would you rather be making 50% of a 100k salary or 90% of a 60k salary? Trust me a 60k salary is exponentially easier to acheive than a 100k salary.
 
if you do have kids and work minimum wage, you should teach/raise them to work hard and get to college and get a well paying job...move up, unless they're happy being a loser.
 
Well duh. Thats why I bring up that we need to stay in Iraq until we have a local government thats strong enough to deal with most of the problems. At present we are not at the point, and we probably won't be on whatever short sighted time-table Obama has in mind.

On the other side of the coin, we can totally pull out immediately and bring them home, not just cart them off to Afghanistan. We're committed to Iraq, and if the situation in Afghanistan is as important as people say, we need to be committed there as well. Doing either half assed will end up doing more damage than anything else. You either need to pull out totally, or to step it up.

So essentially, both of "options" suck. We need to properly "finish" up Iraq before with start getting fully committed someplace else, but we can phase in a stronger presence in Afghanistan until the point where we can properly "finish" up there.

Unless of course someone falls into the total cost cutting camp (see people like Ron Paul) and you want completely withdraw our presence with total disregard to the repercussions if we just mailed it in.
 
You really have no idea how taxes work do you? The bulk of the assets those wealthy people own are taxed separately through things like estate and inheritance. Not all assets have a present dollar value that can be liquidated immediately. I don't care how you split the pie, its totally unfair to tax someone on an asset that they cannot cash out.

You can take my parents for example, they're paying more taxes now than when I lived with them (thank Clinton). My dad is fairly well off and makes six figures, but it's a very far cry from your constant example of the 400k+ CEO. They are forced to pay more because they've had a bunch of new assets dropped in their lap since my grandparents died. He can't cash out on the estate because it hasn't been fully settled legally, not to mention its impossible to sell houses right now. So their basically stuck with paying a shitload of taxes and having little or nothing left over after basic expenses. It's not so much the income taxes that hit them, its all the other ones on top of it.

So you just want to basically tax the "rich" twice through both a larger income tax and separate existing taxes? That hardly "provides equality" as you put it.
 
People in America probably have the strongest opportunity to succeed of anyone in the world. I don't buy this "inequality" argument for a moment.

Poor kids have to work harder to succeed, period. Even in the shittiest inner city schools they can succeed, its called self-discipline. If everything is handed to you on a platter (i.e. French socialism) then what incentive is their to succeed? Why shrug off the great benefits you get? Succeeding and then having to pay for them? The Robin Hood system has never worked, if you like you can find me an example.

 
I agree with you that we need to change the way we spend taxes. But that doesn't mean raise taxes. Before we raise taxes I want to make sure that the new taxes aren't just funding a new set of wasteful programs. The government has plenty of taxes to work with, maybe too much, that's why Congress wastes money to a criminal extent. Providing more money only encourages more wasteful spending.
 
i dont trust obama and i dont want him to be our president he has a sketchy past and i think he could still be working for the terrorist
 
I don't like Obama either. But McCain is even sketchier and shadier.

He is not a statesman. He is not even a General.

He is a politician but compared to his father and grandfather has accomplished the least.

McCain is not a diplomat either. He wants to be a War Commander I think. He seems irrational and unstable and yes, he is an old man. Why do we want someone who represents so much that is wrong with our country to be our leader. I think Obama is not a great alternative, but McCain is just so openly belligerent and incompetent I am amazed that so many people have jumped aboard the McCain train.

These are the same people who were excited when the war in Iraq began. They were watching TV to see the progress of our glorious advance into a third world country. Nothing like embedded reporters giving you a first person view of our invasion of liberation.

If there ever is a draft, and I hope that will never happen, they should draft only people over forty.

The President is a powerful position, but not as powerful as the rest of the government. We should be more concerned about the man's principles, character and history than we are about what he says today. Because he says today, whatever is necessary to be elected. We should be more concerned too, with who we are putting in Congress. If we had a majority of Congressmen who were really good people, they would never let the President do as he pleased.

 
O yeah that crazy pastor saying lies like black people were "actually" slaves at one point and are still opressed.
 
Hell yeah! and the representation that Alaska gets with its 700000 people is SO equal to the representation California gets with its 38 MILLION!

WOOOHOOO!
 
Honestly Laura your mad chill and we need to shred soon once the snow hits but, you need to realize that everyone doesn't have the same opportunities, as much as we would like to think, Im glad i will never have to know poverty or what its like but when your in a situation that is just tough as shit its really easier said than done to work your ass off and make it. There are people who work 3 jobs and still cant make ends meat. Some people need a boost. I understand when theres a single mother with five kids, she probably shouldnt have had those kids if she wasnt able to support them but people make descisions without thinkin earilier in their lives and they dont see the reprecussions of it till later until its too late. Now there are alot of contributing factors to why a person with five kids who probably gave birth very young had five kids without thinking. Growing up without a father or shit like that. The government cant really control that but its just something that happens when your uneducated and poor. The other thing is although it would be great if they could just teach their kids to work hard and go to college, one college is expensive as shit especially if its a regular university, when you arent educated in school its hard to advance over to college also. usually most poor or uneducated people just go over to easy low paying jobs since its hard to get any other jobs. Like if the person cant pay enough to go to a community college how will they get the tools to suceed? they really cant.

My mexican nanny since i was born was really poor when she came to this country, her sister and mother all moved over here, and they were living in a one room house in the ghetto of oakland california. They were poor as shit but My mom helped them out and her sister went on to get an education at Cal Berkely one of the top universities. Basically what im tryin to get at is people just need that little extra help.

Dont get me wrong I dont think socialism is a great thing cause it does get rid of peoples incentive to work harder but, i feel like capitalism with some government help isnt a bad thing for these kinds of people.

Dont snap back at me cause im just trying to have a educated discussion about this. Im not tryin to change your opinion either just putting mine out there.

 
i do realize all those things, and agree with a lot of what you said. what i said originally was in response/addition to the person i quoted (and didn't feel like going into any more detail haha). i know there are a ton of people in this world who aren't fortunate enough to be handed opportunities and have to bust their ass to make things happen, like my dad. it definitely is a lot easier said than done.
 
thank you nico, for putting it in simple terms.

To add onto it, people also shouldnt be upset about people like Nico's nanny, who was likely an immigrant from Mexico. Those people bust their freaking ass off, and I've seen them. working 90+ hour weeks, trying to get overtime pay, and barely getting any sleep, or having any fun. They do jobs that nobody else is willing to do, and it helps people out, as well as the economy.

I'll tell you.. California wouldnt be within the top 10 economies in the world if it didnt have that workforce. I want to applaud them for their hard work every time I see them doing extremely hard work in restaurants, and warehouses, and all of the above - just trying to make it in this world.

Above all, they send money back to their country, which only really benefits us. Imagine if Canada was poor? How many of them would be coming into Vermont to buy alcohol, because its cheaper here. Thats a huge economic boost to that region, and thats just one of many examples.

If Mexico's economy gets better, it only helps us out.

No, they dont necesarily pay taxes, and yes, they use our healthcare system sometimes and get away with it for free.. but then again, they bust their ass off at jobs that are so underpaid, and in such depolorable conditions without benefits that its ridiculous. To give them the bare minimum is hardly the sacrafice they made to leave their families, and come here.

Yeah, so i'm coming across as a bit of a bleeding heart, but seriously people. HAVE ONE for once, you greedy bastards! lol.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top