|
|
|
|
Even the GOP wants him to be a push over. I can't remember who said it, but some guy was talking about the next party leader probably coming from the House, and Romney should just basically be their free-pass to make whatever laws they want.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On August 26 2012 14:31 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2012 06:04 HunterX11 wrote:On August 26 2012 00:21 BluePanther wrote:On August 26 2012 00:12 Doraemon wrote:On August 25 2012 23:24 BluePanther wrote:On August 25 2012 14:52 aksfjh wrote:On August 25 2012 14:48 coverpunch wrote:On August 25 2012 14:17 ref4 wrote:
I vote for Obama because he (most) likely won't cut science funding X_X
here's to hoping I am correct, NIH and NSF funds are drying up too fast and too much, tough time being a scientist when your country spends more money on air condition for troops than in investing in humanity's future. Obama is bad for basic science. He's putting more money in science but only for very specific problems such as curing cancer, alternative energy, or building new drones. So if you're asking something more basic that doesn't necessarily get you closer to those things, then your funding will get cut. Is that good or bad for science? It depends on your perspective. Certainly this way provides some discipline to science by forcing it to answer specific questions. At the same time, you might argue that it stifles creativity and the essence of science because it forces that kind of discipline rather than providing intellectual freedom for scientists to explore new territory. But with tight budgets and a lack of public breakthroughs (Curiosity notwithstanding), Obama doesn't want to get caught funding IgNobel Prizes. It's not like Romney would be any better though. At this point, a vote for either one will probably come at cuts to professional science projects. With Romney's plan of gutting all government programs, however, you're probably better off choosing Obama. Is it just me or is it kind of sad that he's voting on who will give him more free shit? And we wonder why we're in so much debt... getting more "free shit" is very much a top incentive for voters, especially uneducated ones who are unable to recognise the feasibility and ramifications of each proposition. i don't see a problem with people basing their votes on what they perceive they will receive the most from, it's only logical and a primary form of self-preservation. just my 2cents anyway And I think this is sad. Why is this sad? The United States is not some poor, destitute, impoverished nation the way people like to make it out to be. We are not Somalia or Kygyzstan or Moldova or something. The United States is an extremely wealthy country, in terms of natural resources, in terms of arable land, in terms of finance, in terms of trade, etc. W e can afford to provide an awful lot for our citizens, but choose not to. If anything, the biggest problem is that people DON'T base their vote on who they think will give them the most, but instead on who they think will deprive others of the most. That's not republicanism at all, it's just elevating worship of the rich to some sort of cult. The problem is in the give fish/learn to catch the fish department. Instead of voting and demanding more opportunities to work better yourself and become better of, people just want somebody else to work and provide for the them, because it is easier. The problem is, in the end, society only has as much resourses to distribute as the amount of work is done. It is not just about the rich. Nobody wants most of their work getting sucked by the "public". Especially considering the punitive tax brackets and wellfare based on the poorness, so if you have money, you`re not ellighable for many services that you actually pay for with your taxes. It is absolutely ridiculous at the moment.
I'm surprised people still believe in this 'give fish/learn to catch' bullshit. They actually believe that people love being helplessly poor because they don't want to do anything.
The whole nature of a capitalist society is that it fosters competition. Consequentially, the advent of competition means two things: that there are always "losers," and that the level of competitiveness increases over time.
No matter how you spin it, there is no possible way to give everyone a high-paying job. Even hi-tech jobs are being shipped over to India these days. Competition will always be at its fiercest for the most high-paying jobs (or most limited), and the losers will always have to settle for less. Not to mention the whims of the economy as a huge factor. Do you think unemployment rates are a measure of the amount of people who do not want to work or something?
There is no society that can afford to submit these "losers" to a life lacking the most basic of needs, and no society can afford to relegate those unfortunate children to be the victims of a vicious cycle. You think this is ridiculous? Try any of the many countries that do not take care of their poor citizens. You'll see ridiculous.
Then there is the level of competitiveness, an increasing problem in the U.S. Even someone who has "learned to catch" is not guaranteed a life outside of poverty these days. The value of a PhD and the opportunities available are decreasing at an alarming rate. How can you catch fish if there are no fish to begin with? Only guppies, water, and a whole lotta debt.
This is not even mentioning those born into poverty, the physically or mentally handicapped, the senior citizens too old to work, those merely inbetween jobs, immigrants, veterans who are unable to readjust to society, those who lose everything due to natural disasters, ex-cons, and others.
You say people don't vote for new jobs? That is absolute nonsense. People vote for more jobs every single election. It just so happens that while jobs pay, they also COST, and there will never be enough high-paying ones.
|
On August 26 2012 14:31 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2012 06:04 HunterX11 wrote:On August 26 2012 00:21 BluePanther wrote:On August 26 2012 00:12 Doraemon wrote:On August 25 2012 23:24 BluePanther wrote:On August 25 2012 14:52 aksfjh wrote:On August 25 2012 14:48 coverpunch wrote:On August 25 2012 14:17 ref4 wrote:
I vote for Obama because he (most) likely won't cut science funding X_X
here's to hoping I am correct, NIH and NSF funds are drying up too fast and too much, tough time being a scientist when your country spends more money on air condition for troops than in investing in humanity's future. Obama is bad for basic science. He's putting more money in science but only for very specific problems such as curing cancer, alternative energy, or building new drones. So if you're asking something more basic that doesn't necessarily get you closer to those things, then your funding will get cut. Is that good or bad for science? It depends on your perspective. Certainly this way provides some discipline to science by forcing it to answer specific questions. At the same time, you might argue that it stifles creativity and the essence of science because it forces that kind of discipline rather than providing intellectual freedom for scientists to explore new territory. But with tight budgets and a lack of public breakthroughs (Curiosity notwithstanding), Obama doesn't want to get caught funding IgNobel Prizes. It's not like Romney would be any better though. At this point, a vote for either one will probably come at cuts to professional science projects. With Romney's plan of gutting all government programs, however, you're probably better off choosing Obama. Is it just me or is it kind of sad that he's voting on who will give him more free shit? And we wonder why we're in so much debt... getting more "free shit" is very much a top incentive for voters, especially uneducated ones who are unable to recognise the feasibility and ramifications of each proposition. i don't see a problem with people basing their votes on what they perceive they will receive the most from, it's only logical and a primary form of self-preservation. just my 2cents anyway And I think this is sad. Why is this sad? The United States is not some poor, destitute, impoverished nation the way people like to make it out to be. We are not Somalia or Kygyzstan or Moldova or something. The United States is an extremely wealthy country, in terms of natural resources, in terms of arable land, in terms of finance, in terms of trade, etc. W e can afford to provide an awful lot for our citizens, but choose not to. If anything, the biggest problem is that people DON'T base their vote on who they think will give them the most, but instead on who they think will deprive others of the most. That's not republicanism at all, it's just elevating worship of the rich to some sort of cult. The problem is in the give fish/learn to catch the fish department. Instead of voting and demanding more opportunities to work better yourself and become better of, people just want somebody else to work and provide for the them, because it is easier. The problem is, in the end, society only has as much resourses to distribute as the amount of work is done. It is not just about the rich. Nobody wants most of their work getting sucked by the "public". Especially considering the punitive tax brackets and wellfare based on the poorness, so if you have money, you`re not ellighable for many services that you actually pay for with your taxes. It is absolutely ridiculous at the moment.
People that assume that all unemployed or lower class people imust be lazy bewilder me.
Ask yourself -- Do you have a job? How did you get it? What neighborhood did you grow up in? Did your parents help you financially? Did anyone in your immediate family ever suffer a terminal illness, or need health care? Did you have aunts and uncles or other role models and mentors that helped you become successful.
I know this is hard to believe, because seriously, most people are that sheltered or live in some kind of middle-upper-class feedback loop -- but poverty is a generational problem that compounds. Someone that grows up poor has to work twice as hard to get the same job someone in middle-upper class typically does.
I don't think anyone is asking for a 'hand-out', but when a candidate proposing putting medicaid on vouchers, repealing Obamacare, cutting pell-grants, and cutting the tax cut on mortgage interest, you're just making it harder and harder for poor people to ascend, and easier and easier for the middle class to descend, regardless of how hard they work. And that's horrible for the economy.
|
On August 26 2012 08:04 Danglars wrote:RNC is exactly the kind of insider baseball that groups like the tea party hoped to reform. Let me tell you from my dealings with the ultra corrupt California Republican Party leadership that they would like nothing better than to decide on their candidate without the aid of the primary process. Let me say it again, at the highest levels right now, it was seen preferable for the highest leadership to decide on which candidate to send in (presidential and other races) and unite the money behind him and all that. The way I see this is Romney changing the rules he sees are bad, aka leaving his impact on the Republican party now that he's their only hope. Until he gives his view why this is necessary (probably in unbroadcast portions of the convention, but will be available after), I will hold judgement on whether these changes are a good idea to stop something wrong going on, or more insider politics. Speaking of what Obama thrives on, a documentary recently opened on him to try to explain these eccentricities. Strangely enough, even with its very limited release to theatres actually made 4th placeShow nested quote +1. The Expendables 2 (Millenium/Lionsgate) Week 2 [3,355 Runs] R
Friday $3.7M (-64%), Weekend $12.3M, Cume $51.2M
2. The Bourne Legacy (Universal) Week 3 [3,652 Runs] PG13
Friday $2.7M, Weekend $8.8M, Cume $84.9M
3. ParaNorman (Focus Features) Week 2 [3,455 Runs] PG
Friday $2.3M (-50%), Weekend $7.8M, Cume $27.5M
4. 2016 Obama’s America (Rocky Mountain) NEW [1,091 Runs] PG
Friday $2.2M, Weekend $5.7M, Cume $8.6M
5. The Campaign (Warner Bros) Week 3 [3,302 Runs] R
Friday $2.2, Weekend $7.0M, Cume $64.2M I've seen enough of what he seeks to do with his presidential power to not be interested in a documentary on the man, but, though its definitely a conservative release, it has been recommended to me by both democratic friends and independents. Garnering that much money from so limited a release is really surprising. Article has more. Now about how I view Romney's team ... the way he has run his campaign. I agree with his choice of Ryan as it shows he is serious about entitlement reform. His biggest fault in my opinion is standing by his Massachusetts "Romneycare," so here's a vice presidential candidate that does more than just talk about reform. I disagreed with his pandering to all sides in the Primary campaign, continuing to alienate the conservative base and play it safe with moderates. So essentially, my vote for him in November will be yet again a vote for the guy I'm least opposed to. But I do like a successful, rich businessman that was good at making money that didn't spend the last 20 years commuting to Washington D.C. I would consider him a moderate that has conservative leanings. It'll take quite a future record to erase his past.
Wow dude, you think he was "playing it safe with the moderates" and NOT pandering to conservatives in the primaries...??
Holy crap.......
That's kinda scary.
|
On August 26 2012 18:47 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2012 14:31 naastyOne wrote:On August 26 2012 06:04 HunterX11 wrote:On August 26 2012 00:21 BluePanther wrote:On August 26 2012 00:12 Doraemon wrote:On August 25 2012 23:24 BluePanther wrote:On August 25 2012 14:52 aksfjh wrote:On August 25 2012 14:48 coverpunch wrote:On August 25 2012 14:17 ref4 wrote:
I vote for Obama because he (most) likely won't cut science funding X_X
here's to hoping I am correct, NIH and NSF funds are drying up too fast and too much, tough time being a scientist when your country spends more money on air condition for troops than in investing in humanity's future. Obama is bad for basic science. He's putting more money in science but only for very specific problems such as curing cancer, alternative energy, or building new drones. So if you're asking something more basic that doesn't necessarily get you closer to those things, then your funding will get cut. Is that good or bad for science? It depends on your perspective. Certainly this way provides some discipline to science by forcing it to answer specific questions. At the same time, you might argue that it stifles creativity and the essence of science because it forces that kind of discipline rather than providing intellectual freedom for scientists to explore new territory. But with tight budgets and a lack of public breakthroughs (Curiosity notwithstanding), Obama doesn't want to get caught funding IgNobel Prizes. It's not like Romney would be any better though. At this point, a vote for either one will probably come at cuts to professional science projects. With Romney's plan of gutting all government programs, however, you're probably better off choosing Obama. Is it just me or is it kind of sad that he's voting on who will give him more free shit? And we wonder why we're in so much debt... getting more "free shit" is very much a top incentive for voters, especially uneducated ones who are unable to recognise the feasibility and ramifications of each proposition. i don't see a problem with people basing their votes on what they perceive they will receive the most from, it's only logical and a primary form of self-preservation. just my 2cents anyway And I think this is sad. Why is this sad? The United States is not some poor, destitute, impoverished nation the way people like to make it out to be. We are not Somalia or Kygyzstan or Moldova or something. The United States is an extremely wealthy country, in terms of natural resources, in terms of arable land, in terms of finance, in terms of trade, etc. W e can afford to provide an awful lot for our citizens, but choose not to. If anything, the biggest problem is that people DON'T base their vote on who they think will give them the most, but instead on who they think will deprive others of the most. That's not republicanism at all, it's just elevating worship of the rich to some sort of cult. The problem is in the give fish/learn to catch the fish department. Instead of voting and demanding more opportunities to work better yourself and become better of, people just want somebody else to work and provide for the them, because it is easier. The problem is, in the end, society only has as much resourses to distribute as the amount of work is done. It is not just about the rich. Nobody wants most of their work getting sucked by the "public". Especially considering the punitive tax brackets and wellfare based on the poorness, so if you have money, you`re not ellighable for many services that you actually pay for with your taxes. It is absolutely ridiculous at the moment. People that assume that all unemployed or lower class people imust be lazy bewilder me. Ask yourself -- Do you have a job? How did you get it? What neighborhood did you grow up in? Did your parents help you financially? Did anyone in your immediate family ever suffer a terminal illness, or need health care? Did you have aunts and uncles or other role models and mentors that helped you become successful. I know this is hard to believe, because seriously, most people are that sheltered or live in some kind of middle-upper-class feedback loop -- but poverty is a generational problem that compounds. Someone that grows up poor has to work twice as hard to get the same job someone in middle-upper class typically does. I don't think anyone is asking for a 'hand-out', but when a candidate proposing putting medicaid on vouchers, repealing Obamacare, cutting pell-grants, and cutting the tax cut on mortgage interest, you're just making it harder and harder for poor people to ascend, and easier and easier for the middle class to descend, regardless of how hard they work. And that's horrible for the economy.
You can't carry that to the other extreme though. Your questions and implications about the middle-upper class are a little too dismissive of the effort and talent that it takes for them to create and maintain their intergenerational success. Sure, I grew up in a middle-upper class suburb, but that doesn't mean I didn't work hard, as hard or harder than people who are less successful or come from impoverished backgrounds.
For example, take Koreans vs foreigners in StarCraft. Sure, Korea has better infrastructure and a more accepting society of pro-gamers to develop their talent, but it's unfair to say foreigners have to work twice as hard as Koreans to be successful and imply that means Koreans don't have to work very hard. I don't subscribe at all to the idea that foreigners are lazy, but if we agree Korea has a culture that allows pro-gamers to devote their full effort and foreigners don't have that but should, you're talking about a much more difficult problem and it's not something that can be bought.
However, I will agree that it is against society's interest for the government to create a system that reinforces and cements legacies, so that people from a wealthier background have an insurmountable advantage over the poor. We've gone through Romney's policies and debated their effect on the poor, but I think it speaks volumes that you don't write anything in support of Obama. Has Obama done a lot to improve the plight of the poor? I don't think so.
In fact, both Romney and Obama have the same basic goal for improving the situation, which is economic growth. Everyone recognizes that these tools we want to give to the poor to ascend are luxuries of a successful and growing economy. When Google talks about providing free Wi-fi to everyone in the San Francisco Bay Area, they can afford to do that because they're highly profitable. If RIM talked about giving away phones for charity, we'd laugh in their face. They're unprofitable and running out of cash quickly, are you crazy?
So what you're groping toward is which candidate's policies is more likely to spur growth while not giving away hand-outs and not cementing legacies. That's...not easy.
|
On August 26 2012 16:19 aksfjh wrote:
Even the GOP wants him to be a push over. I can't remember who said it, but some guy was talking about the next party leader probably coming from the House, and Romney should just basically be their free-pass to make whatever laws they want.
Your thinking of Grover Norquist who said all Romney needs to be able to do is hold a pen and sign his name as the Republicans pass laws, budgets etc.
|
On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote:
I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Bush: "Iraq has WOMD"
Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol.
He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever.
Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product.
Scary times.
Shame one of them will win.
America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain.
I don't know about you, but I'm forced to buy car insurance. The only way that Obamacare forces you to pay more is if you don't have health insurance and are buying it now, or are making a conscious choice not to. Only the second is a tax, and I honestly fail to empathize on it.
I think, with politicians especially, we need to remember what a lie is. A lie is when you say something that is untrue, and you know it or when you say something and have absolutely no intention of backing it up.
|
On August 27 2012 03:12 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote:
I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Bush: "Iraq has WOMD"
Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol.
He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever.
Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product.
Scary times.
Shame one of them will win.
America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain. I don't know about you, but I'm forced to buy car insurance. The only way that Obamacare forces you to pay more is if you don't have health insurance and are buying it now, or are making a conscious choice not to. Only the second is a tax, and I honestly fail to empathize on it.
Only morons run around without health insurance, but that's not the issue. The idea that the federal government can coerce private persons into buying things is the issue. I don't mind states doing it because 1) it clearly falls within their powers, and 2) people can just move away if they don't like what their state is doing.
|
On August 27 2012 03:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 03:12 Gahlo wrote:On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote:
I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Bush: "Iraq has WOMD"
Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol.
He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever.
Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product.
Scary times.
Shame one of them will win.
America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain. I don't know about you, but I'm forced to buy car insurance. The only way that Obamacare forces you to pay more is if you don't have health insurance and are buying it now, or are making a conscious choice not to. Only the second is a tax, and I honestly fail to empathize on it. Only morons run around without health insurance, but that's not the issue. The idea that the federal government can coerce private persons into buying things is the issue. I don't mind states doing it because 1) it clearly falls within their powers, and 2) people can just move away if they don't like what their state is doing.
There are people that cannot afford health insurance.
1. Why do states "clearly" have the power to coerce private people into buying things?
2. Saying that people can just move away is a false choice, though. First of all, that's just as true with the federal government as it is with state government, but also it's not unrealistic to find all states doing things that you don't like.
|
On August 27 2012 03:20 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 03:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 03:12 Gahlo wrote:On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote:
I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Bush: "Iraq has WOMD"
Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol.
He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever.
Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product.
Scary times.
Shame one of them will win.
America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain. I don't know about you, but I'm forced to buy car insurance. The only way that Obamacare forces you to pay more is if you don't have health insurance and are buying it now, or are making a conscious choice not to. Only the second is a tax, and I honestly fail to empathize on it. Only morons run around without health insurance, but that's not the issue. The idea that the federal government can coerce private persons into buying things is the issue. I don't mind states doing it because 1) it clearly falls within their powers, and 2) people can just move away if they don't like what their state is doing. There are people that cannot afford health insurance. 1. Why do states "clearly" have the power to coerce private people into buying things? 2. Saying that people can just move away is a false choice, though. First of all, that's just as true with the federal government as it is with state government, but also it's not unrealistic to find all states doing things that you don't like.
1. Police powers are reserved to the states.
2. Are you really going to argue that immigrating to another country is just as easy as moving between states in the US? C'mon man.
|
On August 27 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 03:20 DoubleReed wrote:On August 27 2012 03:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 03:12 Gahlo wrote:On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote:
I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Bush: "Iraq has WOMD"
Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol.
He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever.
Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product.
Scary times.
Shame one of them will win.
America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain. I don't know about you, but I'm forced to buy car insurance. The only way that Obamacare forces you to pay more is if you don't have health insurance and are buying it now, or are making a conscious choice not to. Only the second is a tax, and I honestly fail to empathize on it. Only morons run around without health insurance, but that's not the issue. The idea that the federal government can coerce private persons into buying things is the issue. I don't mind states doing it because 1) it clearly falls within their powers, and 2) people can just move away if they don't like what their state is doing. There are people that cannot afford health insurance. 1. Why do states "clearly" have the power to coerce private people into buying things? 2. Saying that people can just move away is a false choice, though. First of all, that's just as true with the federal government as it is with state government, but also it's not unrealistic to find all states doing things that you don't like. 1. Police powers are reserved to the states. 2. Are you really going to argue that immigrating to another country is just as easy as moving between states in the US? C'mon man.
1. Police powers means that you can force people to buy things from private corporations??? That seems like a massive stretch. Can states require people to buy broccoli under police powers??
2. I don't need to argue that. You're the one arguing that it's remarkably easy for people to just get up and move from state to state. But that's not really an argument against it being a false choice. I mean, if every state required auto insurance for instance (I don't know if that's true), you don't get a choice no matter what state you move to. It's a false choice.
|
On August 27 2012 03:35 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 03:20 DoubleReed wrote:On August 27 2012 03:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 03:12 Gahlo wrote:On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote:
I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Bush: "Iraq has WOMD"
Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol.
He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever.
Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product.
Scary times.
Shame one of them will win.
America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain. I don't know about you, but I'm forced to buy car insurance. The only way that Obamacare forces you to pay more is if you don't have health insurance and are buying it now, or are making a conscious choice not to. Only the second is a tax, and I honestly fail to empathize on it. Only morons run around without health insurance, but that's not the issue. The idea that the federal government can coerce private persons into buying things is the issue. I don't mind states doing it because 1) it clearly falls within their powers, and 2) people can just move away if they don't like what their state is doing. There are people that cannot afford health insurance. 1. Why do states "clearly" have the power to coerce private people into buying things? 2. Saying that people can just move away is a false choice, though. First of all, that's just as true with the federal government as it is with state government, but also it's not unrealistic to find all states doing things that you don't like. 1. Police powers are reserved to the states. 2. Are you really going to argue that immigrating to another country is just as easy as moving between states in the US? C'mon man. 1. Police powers means that you can force people to buy things from private corporations??? That seems like a massive stretch. 2. I don't need to argue that. You're the one arguing that it's remarkably easy for people to just get up and move from state to state. But that's not really an argument against it being a false choice. I mean, if every state required auto insurance for instance (I don't know if that's true), you don't get a choice no matter what state you move to. It's a false choice.
1. That's exactly what it means, and that's exactly what states do (like auto insurance).
2. Obviously there are limits to the ability to move if every state is doing something. However, there are real differences between the states and people move from state to state all of the time in pursuit of their own personal preferences.
|
On August 27 2012 03:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 03:35 DoubleReed wrote:On August 27 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 03:20 DoubleReed wrote:On August 27 2012 03:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 03:12 Gahlo wrote:On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote:
I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Bush: "Iraq has WOMD"
Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol.
He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever.
Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product.
Scary times.
Shame one of them will win.
America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain. I don't know about you, but I'm forced to buy car insurance. The only way that Obamacare forces you to pay more is if you don't have health insurance and are buying it now, or are making a conscious choice not to. Only the second is a tax, and I honestly fail to empathize on it. Only morons run around without health insurance, but that's not the issue. The idea that the federal government can coerce private persons into buying things is the issue. I don't mind states doing it because 1) it clearly falls within their powers, and 2) people can just move away if they don't like what their state is doing. There are people that cannot afford health insurance. 1. Why do states "clearly" have the power to coerce private people into buying things? 2. Saying that people can just move away is a false choice, though. First of all, that's just as true with the federal government as it is with state government, but also it's not unrealistic to find all states doing things that you don't like. 1. Police powers are reserved to the states. 2. Are you really going to argue that immigrating to another country is just as easy as moving between states in the US? C'mon man. 1. Police powers means that you can force people to buy things from private corporations??? That seems like a massive stretch. 2. I don't need to argue that. You're the one arguing that it's remarkably easy for people to just get up and move from state to state. But that's not really an argument against it being a false choice. I mean, if every state required auto insurance for instance (I don't know if that's true), you don't get a choice no matter what state you move to. It's a false choice. 1. That's exactly what it means, and that's exactly what states do (like auto insurance). 2. Obviously there are limits to the ability to move if every state is doing something. However, there are real differences between the states and people move from state to state all of the time in pursuit of their own personal preferences.
Seriously, xDaunt. Elaborate. Don't just throw crap out there.
I'm not saying states do not have the power, but explain how you get "States can force people to purchase from private companies" from "Police Powers." I do not follow. Actually explain. Don't just say "That's obvious" or "That's what it means." Jesus.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On August 27 2012 03:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 03:12 Gahlo wrote:On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote:
I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Bush: "Iraq has WOMD"
Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol.
He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever.
Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product.
Scary times.
Shame one of them will win.
America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain. I don't know about you, but I'm forced to buy car insurance. The only way that Obamacare forces you to pay more is if you don't have health insurance and are buying it now, or are making a conscious choice not to. Only the second is a tax, and I honestly fail to empathize on it. Only morons run around without health insurance, but that's not the issue. The idea that the federal government can coerce private persons into buying things is the issue. I don't mind states doing it because 1) it clearly falls within their powers, and 2) people can just move away if they don't like what their state is doing.
Wow, who woulda thought, that the reason why 50 million people are without health insurance is because they are all morons! Holy shit, how enlightening.
I thought better of you. This is hands down the stupidest thing you've said thus far.
|
On August 27 2012 03:50 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 03:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 03:35 DoubleReed wrote:On August 27 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 03:20 DoubleReed wrote:On August 27 2012 03:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 03:12 Gahlo wrote:On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote:
I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Bush: "Iraq has WOMD"
Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol.
He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever.
Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product.
Scary times.
Shame one of them will win.
America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain. I don't know about you, but I'm forced to buy car insurance. The only way that Obamacare forces you to pay more is if you don't have health insurance and are buying it now, or are making a conscious choice not to. Only the second is a tax, and I honestly fail to empathize on it. Only morons run around without health insurance, but that's not the issue. The idea that the federal government can coerce private persons into buying things is the issue. I don't mind states doing it because 1) it clearly falls within their powers, and 2) people can just move away if they don't like what their state is doing. There are people that cannot afford health insurance. 1. Why do states "clearly" have the power to coerce private people into buying things? 2. Saying that people can just move away is a false choice, though. First of all, that's just as true with the federal government as it is with state government, but also it's not unrealistic to find all states doing things that you don't like. 1. Police powers are reserved to the states. 2. Are you really going to argue that immigrating to another country is just as easy as moving between states in the US? C'mon man. 1. Police powers means that you can force people to buy things from private corporations??? That seems like a massive stretch. 2. I don't need to argue that. You're the one arguing that it's remarkably easy for people to just get up and move from state to state. But that's not really an argument against it being a false choice. I mean, if every state required auto insurance for instance (I don't know if that's true), you don't get a choice no matter what state you move to. It's a false choice. 1. That's exactly what it means, and that's exactly what states do (like auto insurance). 2. Obviously there are limits to the ability to move if every state is doing something. However, there are real differences between the states and people move from state to state all of the time in pursuit of their own personal preferences. Seriously, xDaunt. Elaborate. Don't just throw crap out there. I'm not saying states do not have the power, but explain how you get "States can force people to purchase from private companies" from "Police Powers." I do not follow. Actually explain. Don't just say "That's obvious" or "That's what it means." Jesus.
The police power is the general power to regulate individual behavior. The states are only limited by the Bill of Rights in exercising this power. I can't really make it any simpler than that. It is an elementary rule of Constitutional law.
|
On August 27 2012 03:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 03:12 Gahlo wrote:On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote:
I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Bush: "Iraq has WOMD"
Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol.
He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever.
Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product.
Scary times.
Shame one of them will win.
America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain. I don't know about you, but I'm forced to buy car insurance. The only way that Obamacare forces you to pay more is if you don't have health insurance and are buying it now, or are making a conscious choice not to. Only the second is a tax, and I honestly fail to empathize on it. Only morons run around without health insurance, but that's not the issue. The idea that the federal government can coerce private persons into buying things is the issue. I don't mind states doing it because 1) it clearly falls within their powers, and 2) people can just move away if they don't like what their state is doing.
Am I an idiot/moron etc for not being able too afford health insurance before and now. My dads job didnt offer it, my mom couldnt afford it, then she left her job(was getting it from her before) too move closer too family after my step dad died and my step dad was disabled for 4 years absolutely unable to work eith severe brain damage, we only got disability back pay, and forward for the last month of his life cleared by the judge(as soon as a judge talked to him we got it, but it wasnt until then) government 1 month before he died, disability is a mess. How were we supposed too afford health insurance for me a healthy 18 year old, when we have tons of doctor bills and 1 income for the household.( I don't live at home now but yeah)
It falls within their powers according to the supreme court...
Also, Your ignoring the fact that moving is a big deal/process especially over a long distance like across the country, but how about just using the same argument at the national level. You can move out of the country if you don't like what your country is doing technically, so that argument doesn't work.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On August 27 2012 01:33 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2012 18:47 Defacer wrote:On August 26 2012 14:31 naastyOne wrote:On August 26 2012 06:04 HunterX11 wrote:On August 26 2012 00:21 BluePanther wrote:On August 26 2012 00:12 Doraemon wrote:On August 25 2012 23:24 BluePanther wrote:On August 25 2012 14:52 aksfjh wrote:On August 25 2012 14:48 coverpunch wrote:On August 25 2012 14:17 ref4 wrote:
I vote for Obama because he (most) likely won't cut science funding X_X
here's to hoping I am correct, NIH and NSF funds are drying up too fast and too much, tough time being a scientist when your country spends more money on air condition for troops than in investing in humanity's future. Obama is bad for basic science. He's putting more money in science but only for very specific problems such as curing cancer, alternative energy, or building new drones. So if you're asking something more basic that doesn't necessarily get you closer to those things, then your funding will get cut. Is that good or bad for science? It depends on your perspective. Certainly this way provides some discipline to science by forcing it to answer specific questions. At the same time, you might argue that it stifles creativity and the essence of science because it forces that kind of discipline rather than providing intellectual freedom for scientists to explore new territory. But with tight budgets and a lack of public breakthroughs (Curiosity notwithstanding), Obama doesn't want to get caught funding IgNobel Prizes. It's not like Romney would be any better though. At this point, a vote for either one will probably come at cuts to professional science projects. With Romney's plan of gutting all government programs, however, you're probably better off choosing Obama. Is it just me or is it kind of sad that he's voting on who will give him more free shit? And we wonder why we're in so much debt... getting more "free shit" is very much a top incentive for voters, especially uneducated ones who are unable to recognise the feasibility and ramifications of each proposition. i don't see a problem with people basing their votes on what they perceive they will receive the most from, it's only logical and a primary form of self-preservation. just my 2cents anyway And I think this is sad. Why is this sad? The United States is not some poor, destitute, impoverished nation the way people like to make it out to be. We are not Somalia or Kygyzstan or Moldova or something. The United States is an extremely wealthy country, in terms of natural resources, in terms of arable land, in terms of finance, in terms of trade, etc. W e can afford to provide an awful lot for our citizens, but choose not to. If anything, the biggest problem is that people DON'T base their vote on who they think will give them the most, but instead on who they think will deprive others of the most. That's not republicanism at all, it's just elevating worship of the rich to some sort of cult. The problem is in the give fish/learn to catch the fish department. Instead of voting and demanding more opportunities to work better yourself and become better of, people just want somebody else to work and provide for the them, because it is easier. The problem is, in the end, society only has as much resourses to distribute as the amount of work is done. It is not just about the rich. Nobody wants most of their work getting sucked by the "public". Especially considering the punitive tax brackets and wellfare based on the poorness, so if you have money, you`re not ellighable for many services that you actually pay for with your taxes. It is absolutely ridiculous at the moment. People that assume that all unemployed or lower class people imust be lazy bewilder me. Ask yourself -- Do you have a job? How did you get it? What neighborhood did you grow up in? Did your parents help you financially? Did anyone in your immediate family ever suffer a terminal illness, or need health care? Did you have aunts and uncles or other role models and mentors that helped you become successful. I know this is hard to believe, because seriously, most people are that sheltered or live in some kind of middle-upper-class feedback loop -- but poverty is a generational problem that compounds. Someone that grows up poor has to work twice as hard to get the same job someone in middle-upper class typically does. I don't think anyone is asking for a 'hand-out', but when a candidate proposing putting medicaid on vouchers, repealing Obamacare, cutting pell-grants, and cutting the tax cut on mortgage interest, you're just making it harder and harder for poor people to ascend, and easier and easier for the middle class to descend, regardless of how hard they work. And that's horrible for the economy. You can't carry that to the other extreme though. Your questions and implications about the middle-upper class are a little too dismissive of the effort and talent that it takes for them to create and maintain their intergenerational success. Sure, I grew up in a middle-upper class suburb, but that doesn't mean I didn't work hard, as hard or harder than people who are less successful or come from impoverished backgrounds. For example, take Koreans vs foreigners in StarCraft. Sure, Korea has better infrastructure and a more accepting society of pro-gamers to develop their talent, but it's unfair to say foreigners have to work twice as hard as Koreans to be successful and imply that means Koreans don't have to work very hard. I don't subscribe at all to the idea that foreigners are lazy, but if we agree Korea has a culture that allows pro-gamers to devote their full effort and foreigners don't have that but should, you're talking about a much more difficult problem and it's not something that can be bought. However, I will agree that it is against society's interest for the government to create a system that reinforces and cements legacies, so that people from a wealthier background have an insurmountable advantage over the poor. We've gone through Romney's policies and debated their effect on the poor, but I think it speaks volumes that you don't write anything in support of Obama. Has Obama done a lot to improve the plight of the poor? I don't think so. In fact, both Romney and Obama have the same basic goal for improving the situation, which is economic growth. Everyone recognizes that these tools we want to give to the poor to ascend are luxuries of a successful and growing economy. When Google talks about providing free Wi-fi to everyone in the San Francisco Bay Area, they can afford to do that because they're highly profitable. If RIM talked about giving away phones for charity, we'd laugh in their face. They're unprofitable and running out of cash quickly, are you crazy? So what you're groping toward is which candidate's policies is more likely to spur growth while not giving away hand-outs and not cementing legacies. That's...not easy.
Yeah, the middle-class definitely do not sit around. For the most part I believe most of them are hard workers and deserve every bit of their success. However, he's probably saying that those with money are generally afforded more opportunities and have less of a burden, a point I have to agree with.
Those from impoverished backgrounds are usually stuck in bad public schools, they often juggle between school and work from the age of 16 while caring for any younger siblings, they cannot afford to move across the country to attend their preferred university (unless it's fully paid for), and they cannot afford to participate in unpaid internships. Add the fact that they usually live in terrible environments (a most damaging factor) and are without health insurance, and we can see that it's much harder to acquire equivalent success for a poor person.
This is the dilemma though, isn't it? By no means do the people who achieve success do it by sitting around - they work hard as well. But there are too many crucial factors hindering the growth of the poor to force them to fend for themselves.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On August 27 2012 06:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 03:50 DoubleReed wrote:On August 27 2012 03:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 03:35 DoubleReed wrote:On August 27 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 03:20 DoubleReed wrote:On August 27 2012 03:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 03:12 Gahlo wrote:On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote:
I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Bush: "Iraq has WOMD"
Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol.
He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever.
Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product.
Scary times.
Shame one of them will win.
America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain. I don't know about you, but I'm forced to buy car insurance. The only way that Obamacare forces you to pay more is if you don't have health insurance and are buying it now, or are making a conscious choice not to. Only the second is a tax, and I honestly fail to empathize on it. Only morons run around without health insurance, but that's not the issue. The idea that the federal government can coerce private persons into buying things is the issue. I don't mind states doing it because 1) it clearly falls within their powers, and 2) people can just move away if they don't like what their state is doing. There are people that cannot afford health insurance. 1. Why do states "clearly" have the power to coerce private people into buying things? 2. Saying that people can just move away is a false choice, though. First of all, that's just as true with the federal government as it is with state government, but also it's not unrealistic to find all states doing things that you don't like. 1. Police powers are reserved to the states. 2. Are you really going to argue that immigrating to another country is just as easy as moving between states in the US? C'mon man. 1. Police powers means that you can force people to buy things from private corporations??? That seems like a massive stretch. 2. I don't need to argue that. You're the one arguing that it's remarkably easy for people to just get up and move from state to state. But that's not really an argument against it being a false choice. I mean, if every state required auto insurance for instance (I don't know if that's true), you don't get a choice no matter what state you move to. It's a false choice. 1. That's exactly what it means, and that's exactly what states do (like auto insurance). 2. Obviously there are limits to the ability to move if every state is doing something. However, there are real differences between the states and people move from state to state all of the time in pursuit of their own personal preferences. Seriously, xDaunt. Elaborate. Don't just throw crap out there. I'm not saying states do not have the power, but explain how you get "States can force people to purchase from private companies" from "Police Powers." I do not follow. Actually explain. Don't just say "That's obvious" or "That's what it means." Jesus. The police power is the general power to regulate individual behavior. The states are only limited by the Bill of Rights in exercising this power. I can't really make it any simpler than that. It is an elementary rule of Constitutional law.
The federal government is allowed to implement taxes, which is what they're doing (even if the Obama Administration keeps denying it). Police power would be arresting or fining them for not having health insurance, which require citations and remain on your record. It's different, although you can argue that taxing them and fining them are basically the same thing, though handled entirely differently.
|
On August 27 2012 06:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 03:50 DoubleReed wrote:On August 27 2012 03:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 03:35 DoubleReed wrote:On August 27 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 03:20 DoubleReed wrote:On August 27 2012 03:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 03:12 Gahlo wrote:On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote:
I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Bush: "Iraq has WOMD"
Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol.
He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever.
Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product.
Scary times.
Shame one of them will win.
America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain. I don't know about you, but I'm forced to buy car insurance. The only way that Obamacare forces you to pay more is if you don't have health insurance and are buying it now, or are making a conscious choice not to. Only the second is a tax, and I honestly fail to empathize on it. Only morons run around without health insurance, but that's not the issue. The idea that the federal government can coerce private persons into buying things is the issue. I don't mind states doing it because 1) it clearly falls within their powers, and 2) people can just move away if they don't like what their state is doing. There are people that cannot afford health insurance. 1. Why do states "clearly" have the power to coerce private people into buying things? 2. Saying that people can just move away is a false choice, though. First of all, that's just as true with the federal government as it is with state government, but also it's not unrealistic to find all states doing things that you don't like. 1. Police powers are reserved to the states. 2. Are you really going to argue that immigrating to another country is just as easy as moving between states in the US? C'mon man. 1. Police powers means that you can force people to buy things from private corporations??? That seems like a massive stretch. 2. I don't need to argue that. You're the one arguing that it's remarkably easy for people to just get up and move from state to state. But that's not really an argument against it being a false choice. I mean, if every state required auto insurance for instance (I don't know if that's true), you don't get a choice no matter what state you move to. It's a false choice. 1. That's exactly what it means, and that's exactly what states do (like auto insurance). 2. Obviously there are limits to the ability to move if every state is doing something. However, there are real differences between the states and people move from state to state all of the time in pursuit of their own personal preferences. Seriously, xDaunt. Elaborate. Don't just throw crap out there. I'm not saying states do not have the power, but explain how you get "States can force people to purchase from private companies" from "Police Powers." I do not follow. Actually explain. Don't just say "That's obvious" or "That's what it means." Jesus. The police power is the general power to regulate individual behavior. The states are only limited by the Bill of Rights in exercising this power. I can't really make it any simpler than that. It is an elementary rule of Constitutional law.
What about the massive amount of different kinds of tax credits and such that regulate individual behavior?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
