OT: Wealth Redistribution Experiment

[meadandale]

Found this little gem on the Intertubes..

[quote]
Redistribution of Wealth

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read “Vote Obama, I need the money.” I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a “Obama 08” tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference — just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need–the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
[/quote]

See, the difference between your middle class liberals and your middle class conservatives is: I don’t want you to take my money through higher taxes. I just want to keep what I’ve worked for and I want you to keep what YOU’VE worked for. You, OTOH, want to take what I’ve earned and give it to someone else whom you’ve deemed more worthy of my money than me.

How entitled of you.

[quote]
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?[/quote]

Right?

[jficquette]

This is an audio of a radio show Obama did in 2001. Topic was wealth redistribution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL…ution_of_Wealth

John

[jficquette]

This is an audio of a radio show Obama did in 2001. Topic was wealth redistribution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL…ution_of_Wealth

John

[jficquette]

This is an audio of a radio show Obama did in 2001. Topic was wealth redistribution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL…ution_of_Wealth

John

[jficquette]

This is an audio of a radio show Obama did in 2001. Topic was wealth redistribution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL…ution_of_Wealth

John

[jficquette]

This is an audio of a radio show Obama did in 2001. Topic was wealth redistribution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL…ution_of_Wealth

John

[MANmom]

Just what is it about human nature that some people feel that they have a right to take what I have worked hard for and give it to someone else? Kind of like the great idea that all of us should have to pay for someone else’s bad decision to buy a house they knew they could not afford…we all knew this was coming. Some people just won’t take personal responsibility for anything.

[DWCAP]

[quote=MANmom]Just what is it about human nature that some people feel that they have a right to take what I have worked hard for and give it to someone else? Kind of like the great idea that all of us should have to pay for someone else’s bad decision to buy a house they knew they could not afford…we all knew this was coming. Some people just won’t take personal responsibility for anything.[/quote]

It isnt about that at all. The issue is that these types of people see a public need and want to make life better. They always are able to see what their actions provide, but never what it costs. Obama, the democrats, and most of their supporters have two points of contention for those who support the system the most.

1) You can afford it.
You make alot of money (alot being subjective) and will have to sacrifice only luxeries to pay the higher taxes. So what if your vacation is to Florida instead of Fiji, you still get a vacation right? Some people dont get vacations, so be glad we are not taking more.

2) Everyone has basic rights, and it is GOV’s job to expand those basic rights.
They see all the great things they can do, no matter if it is a really expensive (insert social “reconstruction” ideal here) or not. Any way it goes, they see a need and intend on filling it. If they have to fill it with your money, then that is no big deal, they always can fall back onto point #1 above. Remember, they are making things ‘better’ and will never see the costs their “improvements” really have.

[underdose]

Full disclosure: I am a staunch republican in the libertarian sense. I strongly oppose Obama’s socialistic bent.

I will still vote for Obama. Neither candidate wants free markets. McCain stands for more of the same as the Bush administration has given us: deficit spending, sneaky taxation through monetary debasement, expanding militarism, suppression of civil rights, and appointment of complete incompetents (Michael Brown, etc.) to important posts (Sarah Palin).

All the criticisms of Obama are well founded. Those points do not make the valid criticisms of McCain as a horribly inferior alternative any less valid. The point made above that Bush (and McCain) would give the tip directly to the restaurant owner is spot on, except not extreme enough. The tip would go to the owner of the horribly mismanaged restaurant down the street with lousy food and worse fiscal savvy. Of course, this failing restauranteur would be great friends with McCain and would give McCain $1 out of every $5 received…

I’ve heard it put best: I did not leave the republican party; the republican party left me.

[jficquette]

[quote=underdose]Full disclosure: I am a staunch republican in the libertarian sense. I strongly oppose Obama’s socialistic bent.

I will still vote for Obama. Neither candidate wants free markets. McCain stands for more of the same as the Bush administration has given us: deficit spending, sneaky taxation through monetary debasement, expanding militarism, suppression of civil rights, and appointment of complete incompetents (Michael Brown, etc.) to important posts (Sarah Palin).

All the criticisms of Obama are well founded. Those points do not make the valid criticisms of McCain as a horribly inferior alternative any less valid. The point made above that Bush (and McCain) would give the tip directly to the restaurant owner is spot on, except not extreme enough. The tip would go to the owner of the horribly mismanaged restaurant down the street with lousy food and worse fiscal savvy. Of course, this failing restauranteur would be great friends with McCain and would give McCain $1 out of every $5 received…

I’ve heard it put best: I did not leave the republican party; the republican party left me.[/quote]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.

[jficquette]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John[/quote]

I was saying between McCain and Obama but your assertion that Castro would be better than Obama really gives a clue as to how seriously you take yourself.

[jficquette]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John[/quote]

I was saying between McCain and Obama but your assertion that Castro would be better than Obama really gives a clue as to how seriously you take yourself.[/quote]

No it shows what Obama really is and your’re too blind to see it.

John

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John[/quote]

I was saying between McCain and Obama but your assertion that Castro would be better than Obama really gives a clue as to how seriously you take yourself.[/quote]

No it shows what Obama really is and your’re too blind to see it.

John
[/quote]
I have lived under a liberal president and visited communist countries (Cuba, in fact). The assertion that being liberal is to the left of Communist is ignorant and not supportable.

John you just say stuff that is so crazy that you can’t be taken seriously.

[davelj]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John[/quote]

I was saying between McCain and Obama but your assertion that Castro would be better than Obama really gives a clue as to how seriously you take yourself.[/quote]

No it shows what Obama really is and your’re too blind to see it.

John
[/quote]
I have lived under a liberal president and visited communist countries (Cuba, in fact). The assertion that being liberal is to the left of Communist is ignorant and not supportable.

John you just say stuff that is so crazy that you can’t be taken seriously.[/quote]

I’m a small-l libertarian and I’m voting for Obama as well. I’ve never voted for a democrat and I rarely vote republican. I generally vote for the libertarian or I write in a candidate. Normally, Obama’s economic positions wouldn’t appeal to me. But unfortunately we’ve gotten ourselves into a position where I think we need a person that “the masses” feel comfortable with and have some confidence in. Yeah, he’ll probably raise taxes and do plenty of other things that I won’t like too much, but… frankly, Bush and his band of republican morons have fucked things up so badly that the democrats actually deserve a shot to run things for a while. Even if it doesn’t work out. The people want to give Obama a shot. Let him have it. I doubt it will be the disaster the republicans think it will be – although it certainly won’t be the panacea that democrats are hoping for either. But, McCain? Please. I almost threw my shoe at the TV last night when he said, “We need to stop these house prices from falling and I think my economic program will do that.” Sorry, I just can’t vote for anyone that’s that clueless. At least Paul Volcker – the last real Fed Chairman that we’ve had – has Obama’s ear. That trumps anything that I’ve seen out of McCain.

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John[/quote]

I was saying between McCain and Obama but your assertion that Castro would be better than Obama really gives a clue as to how seriously you take yourself.[/quote]

No it shows what Obama really is and your’re too blind to see it.

John
[/quote]
I have lived under a liberal president and visited communist countries (Cuba, in fact). The assertion that being liberal is to the left of Communist is ignorant and not supportable.

John you just say stuff that is so crazy that you can’t be taken seriously.[/quote]

I’m a small-l libertarian and I’m voting for Obama as well. I’ve never voted for a democrat and I rarely vote republican. I generally vote for the libertarian or I write in a candidate. Normally, Obama’s economic positions wouldn’t appeal to me. But unfortunately we’ve gotten ourselves into a position where I think we need a person that “the masses” feel comfortable with and have some confidence in. Yeah, he’ll probably raise taxes and do plenty of other things that I won’t like too much, but… frankly, Bush and his band of republican morons have fucked things up so badly that the democrats actually deserve a shot to run things for a while. Even if it doesn’t work out. The people want to give Obama a shot. Let him have it. I doubt it will be the disaster the republicans think it will be – although it certainly won’t be the panacea that democrats are hoping for either. But, McCain? Please. I almost threw my shoe at the TV last night when he said, “We need to stop these house prices from falling and I think my economic program will do that.” Sorry, I just can’t vote for anyone that’s that clueless. At least Paul Volcker – the last real Fed Chairman that we’ve had – has Obama’s ear. That trumps anything that I’ve seen out of McCain.
[/quote]

Sorry, no real point here. I just wanted to see how many quotes inside a quote in a row we could get. I say we go for the piggington record.

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John[/quote]

I was saying between McCain and Obama but your assertion that Castro would be better than Obama really gives a clue as to how seriously you take yourself.[/quote]

No it shows what Obama really is and your’re too blind to see it.

John
[/quote]
I have lived under a liberal president and visited communist countries (Cuba, in fact). The assertion that being liberal is to the left of Communist is ignorant and not supportable.

John you just say stuff that is so crazy that you can’t be taken seriously.[/quote]

I’m a small-l libertarian and I’m voting for Obama as well. I’ve never voted for a democrat and I rarely vote republican. I generally vote for the libertarian or I write in a candidate. Normally, Obama’s economic positions wouldn’t appeal to me. But unfortunately we’ve gotten ourselves into a position where I think we need a person that “the masses” feel comfortable with and have some confidence in. Yeah, he’ll probably raise taxes and do plenty of other things that I won’t like too much, but… frankly, Bush and his band of republican morons have fucked things up so badly that the democrats actually deserve a shot to run things for a while. Even if it doesn’t work out. The people want to give Obama a shot. Let him have it. I doubt it will be the disaster the republicans think it will be – although it certainly won’t be the panacea that democrats are hoping for either. But, McCain? Please. I almost threw my shoe at the TV last night when he said, “We need to stop these house prices from falling and I think my economic program will do that.” Sorry, I just can’t vote for anyone that’s that clueless. At least Paul Volcker – the last real Fed Chairman that we’ve had – has Obama’s ear. That trumps anything that I’ve seen out of McCain.
[/quote]

Sorry, no real point here. I just wanted to see how many quotes inside a quote in a row we could get. I say we go for the piggington record.

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John[/quote]

I was saying between McCain and Obama but your assertion that Castro would be better than Obama really gives a clue as to how seriously you take yourself.[/quote]

No it shows what Obama really is and your’re too blind to see it.

John
[/quote]
I have lived under a liberal president and visited communist countries (Cuba, in fact). The assertion that being liberal is to the left of Communist is ignorant and not supportable.

John you just say stuff that is so crazy that you can’t be taken seriously.[/quote]

I’m a small-l libertarian and I’m voting for Obama as well. I’ve never voted for a democrat and I rarely vote republican. I generally vote for the libertarian or I write in a candidate. Normally, Obama’s economic positions wouldn’t appeal to me. But unfortunately we’ve gotten ourselves into a position where I think we need a person that “the masses” feel comfortable with and have some confidence in. Yeah, he’ll probably raise taxes and do plenty of other things that I won’t like too much, but… frankly, Bush and his band of republican morons have fucked things up so badly that the democrats actually deserve a shot to run things for a while. Even if it doesn’t work out. The people want to give Obama a shot. Let him have it. I doubt it will be the disaster the republicans think it will be – although it certainly won’t be the panacea that democrats are hoping for either. But, McCain? Please. I almost threw my shoe at the TV last night when he said, “We need to stop these house prices from falling and I think my economic program will do that.” Sorry, I just can’t vote for anyone that’s that clueless. At least Paul Volcker – the last real Fed Chairman that we’ve had – has Obama’s ear. That trumps anything that I’ve seen out of McCain.
[/quote]

Sorry, no real point here. I just wanted to see how many quotes inside a quote in a row we could get. I say we go for the piggington record.

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John[/quote]

I was saying between McCain and Obama but your assertion that Castro would be better than Obama really gives a clue as to how seriously you take yourself.[/quote]

No it shows what Obama really is and your’re too blind to see it.

John
[/quote]
I have lived under a liberal president and visited communist countries (Cuba, in fact). The assertion that being liberal is to the left of Communist is ignorant and not supportable.

John you just say stuff that is so crazy that you can’t be taken seriously.[/quote]

I’m a small-l libertarian and I’m voting for Obama as well. I’ve never voted for a democrat and I rarely vote republican. I generally vote for the libertarian or I write in a candidate. Normally, Obama’s economic positions wouldn’t appeal to me. But unfortunately we’ve gotten ourselves into a position where I think we need a person that “the masses” feel comfortable with and have some confidence in. Yeah, he’ll probably raise taxes and do plenty of other things that I won’t like too much, but… frankly, Bush and his band of republican morons have fucked things up so badly that the democrats actually deserve a shot to run things for a while. Even if it doesn’t work out. The people want to give Obama a shot. Let him have it. I doubt it will be the disaster the republicans think it will be – although it certainly won’t be the panacea that democrats are hoping for either. But, McCain? Please. I almost threw my shoe at the TV last night when he said, “We need to stop these house prices from falling and I think my economic program will do that.” Sorry, I just can’t vote for anyone that’s that clueless. At least Paul Volcker – the last real Fed Chairman that we’ve had – has Obama’s ear. That trumps anything that I’ve seen out of McCain.
[/quote]

Sorry, no real point here. I just wanted to see how many quotes inside a quote in a row we could get. I say we go for the piggington record.

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John[/quote]

I was saying between McCain and Obama but your assertion that Castro would be better than Obama really gives a clue as to how seriously you take yourself.[/quote]

No it shows what Obama really is and your’re too blind to see it.

John
[/quote]
I have lived under a liberal president and visited communist countries (Cuba, in fact). The assertion that being liberal is to the left of Communist is ignorant and not supportable.

John you just say stuff that is so crazy that you can’t be taken seriously.[/quote]

I’m a small-l libertarian and I’m voting for Obama as well. I’ve never voted for a democrat and I rarely vote republican. I generally vote for the libertarian or I write in a candidate. Normally, Obama’s economic positions wouldn’t appeal to me. But unfortunately we’ve gotten ourselves into a position where I think we need a person that “the masses” feel comfortable with and have some confidence in. Yeah, he’ll probably raise taxes and do plenty of other things that I won’t like too much, but… frankly, Bush and his band of republican morons have fucked things up so badly that the democrats actually deserve a shot to run things for a while. Even if it doesn’t work out. The people want to give Obama a shot. Let him have it. I doubt it will be the disaster the republicans think it will be – although it certainly won’t be the panacea that democrats are hoping for either. But, McCain? Please. I almost threw my shoe at the TV last night when he said, “We need to stop these house prices from falling and I think my economic program will do that.” Sorry, I just can’t vote for anyone that’s that clueless. At least Paul Volcker – the last real Fed Chairman that we’ve had – has Obama’s ear. That trumps anything that I’ve seen out of McCain.
[/quote]

Sorry, no real point here. I just wanted to see how many quotes inside a quote in a row we could get. I say we go for the piggington record.

[davelj]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John[/quote]

I was saying between McCain and Obama but your assertion that Castro would be better than Obama really gives a clue as to how seriously you take yourself.[/quote]

No it shows what Obama really is and your’re too blind to see it.

John
[/quote]
I have lived under a liberal president and visited communist countries (Cuba, in fact). The assertion that being liberal is to the left of Communist is ignorant and not supportable.

John you just say stuff that is so crazy that you can’t be taken seriously.[/quote]

I’m a small-l libertarian and I’m voting for Obama as well. I’ve never voted for a democrat and I rarely vote republican. I generally vote for the libertarian or I write in a candidate. Normally, Obama’s economic positions wouldn’t appeal to me. But unfortunately we’ve gotten ourselves into a position where I think we need a person that “the masses” feel comfortable with and have some confidence in. Yeah, he’ll probably raise taxes and do plenty of other things that I won’t like too much, but… frankly, Bush and his band of republican morons have fucked things up so badly that the democrats actually deserve a shot to run things for a while. Even if it doesn’t work out. The people want to give Obama a shot. Let him have it. I doubt it will be the disaster the republicans think it will be – although it certainly won’t be the panacea that democrats are hoping for either. But, McCain? Please. I almost threw my shoe at the TV last night when he said, “We need to stop these house prices from falling and I think my economic program will do that.” Sorry, I just can’t vote for anyone that’s that clueless. At least Paul Volcker – the last real Fed Chairman that we’ve had – has Obama’s ear. That trumps anything that I’ve seen out of McCain.

[davelj]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John[/quote]

I was saying between McCain and Obama but your assertion that Castro would be better than Obama really gives a clue as to how seriously you take yourself.[/quote]

No it shows what Obama really is and your’re too blind to see it.

John
[/quote]
I have lived under a liberal president and visited communist countries (Cuba, in fact). The assertion that being liberal is to the left of Communist is ignorant and not supportable.

John you just say stuff that is so crazy that you can’t be taken seriously.[/quote]

I’m a small-l libertarian and I’m voting for Obama as well. I’ve never voted for a democrat and I rarely vote republican. I generally vote for the libertarian or I write in a candidate. Normally, Obama’s economic positions wouldn’t appeal to me. But unfortunately we’ve gotten ourselves into a position where I think we need a person that “the masses” feel comfortable with and have some confidence in. Yeah, he’ll probably raise taxes and do plenty of other things that I won’t like too much, but… frankly, Bush and his band of republican morons have fucked things up so badly that the democrats actually deserve a shot to run things for a while. Even if it doesn’t work out. The people want to give Obama a shot. Let him have it. I doubt it will be the disaster the republicans think it will be – although it certainly won’t be the panacea that democrats are hoping for either. But, McCain? Please. I almost threw my shoe at the TV last night when he said, “We need to stop these house prices from falling and I think my economic program will do that.” Sorry, I just can’t vote for anyone that’s that clueless. At least Paul Volcker – the last real Fed Chairman that we’ve had – has Obama’s ear. That trumps anything that I’ve seen out of McCain.

[davelj]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John[/quote]

I was saying between McCain and Obama but your assertion that Castro would be better than Obama really gives a clue as to how seriously you take yourself.[/quote]

No it shows what Obama really is and your’re too blind to see it.

John
[/quote]
I have lived under a liberal president and visited communist countries (Cuba, in fact). The assertion that being liberal is to the left of Communist is ignorant and not supportable.

John you just say stuff that is so crazy that you can’t be taken seriously.[/quote]

I’m a small-l libertarian and I’m voting for Obama as well. I’ve never voted for a democrat and I rarely vote republican. I generally vote for the libertarian or I write in a candidate. Normally, Obama’s economic positions wouldn’t appeal to me. But unfortunately we’ve gotten ourselves into a position where I think we need a person that “the masses” feel comfortable with and have some confidence in. Yeah, he’ll probably raise taxes and do plenty of other things that I won’t like too much, but… frankly, Bush and his band of republican morons have fucked things up so badly that the democrats actually deserve a shot to run things for a while. Even if it doesn’t work out. The people want to give Obama a shot. Let him have it. I doubt it will be the disaster the republicans think it will be – although it certainly won’t be the panacea that democrats are hoping for either. But, McCain? Please. I almost threw my shoe at the TV last night when he said, “We need to stop these house prices from falling and I think my economic program will do that.” Sorry, I just can’t vote for anyone that’s that clueless. At least Paul Volcker – the last real Fed Chairman that we’ve had – has Obama’s ear. That trumps anything that I’ve seen out of McCain.

[davelj]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John[/quote]

I was saying between McCain and Obama but your assertion that Castro would be better than Obama really gives a clue as to how seriously you take yourself.[/quote]

No it shows what Obama really is and your’re too blind to see it.

John
[/quote]
I have lived under a liberal president and visited communist countries (Cuba, in fact). The assertion that being liberal is to the left of Communist is ignorant and not supportable.

John you just say stuff that is so crazy that you can’t be taken seriously.[/quote]

I’m a small-l libertarian and I’m voting for Obama as well. I’ve never voted for a democrat and I rarely vote republican. I generally vote for the libertarian or I write in a candidate. Normally, Obama’s economic positions wouldn’t appeal to me. But unfortunately we’ve gotten ourselves into a position where I think we need a person that “the masses” feel comfortable with and have some confidence in. Yeah, he’ll probably raise taxes and do plenty of other things that I won’t like too much, but… frankly, Bush and his band of republican morons have fucked things up so badly that the democrats actually deserve a shot to run things for a while. Even if it doesn’t work out. The people want to give Obama a shot. Let him have it. I doubt it will be the disaster the republicans think it will be – although it certainly won’t be the panacea that democrats are hoping for either. But, McCain? Please. I almost threw my shoe at the TV last night when he said, “We need to stop these house prices from falling and I think my economic program will do that.” Sorry, I just can’t vote for anyone that’s that clueless. At least Paul Volcker – the last real Fed Chairman that we’ve had – has Obama’s ear. That trumps anything that I’ve seen out of McCain.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John[/quote]

I was saying between McCain and Obama but your assertion that Castro would be better than Obama really gives a clue as to how seriously you take yourself.[/quote]

No it shows what Obama really is and your’re too blind to see it.

John
[/quote]
I have lived under a liberal president and visited communist countries (Cuba, in fact). The assertion that being liberal is to the left of Communist is ignorant and not supportable.

John you just say stuff that is so crazy that you can’t be taken seriously.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John[/quote]

I was saying between McCain and Obama but your assertion that Castro would be better than Obama really gives a clue as to how seriously you take yourself.[/quote]

No it shows what Obama really is and your’re too blind to see it.

John
[/quote]
I have lived under a liberal president and visited communist countries (Cuba, in fact). The assertion that being liberal is to the left of Communist is ignorant and not supportable.

John you just say stuff that is so crazy that you can’t be taken seriously.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John[/quote]

I was saying between McCain and Obama but your assertion that Castro would be better than Obama really gives a clue as to how seriously you take yourself.[/quote]

No it shows what Obama really is and your’re too blind to see it.

John
[/quote]
I have lived under a liberal president and visited communist countries (Cuba, in fact). The assertion that being liberal is to the left of Communist is ignorant and not supportable.

John you just say stuff that is so crazy that you can’t be taken seriously.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John[/quote]

I was saying between McCain and Obama but your assertion that Castro would be better than Obama really gives a clue as to how seriously you take yourself.[/quote]

No it shows what Obama really is and your’re too blind to see it.

John
[/quote]
I have lived under a liberal president and visited communist countries (Cuba, in fact). The assertion that being liberal is to the left of Communist is ignorant and not supportable.

John you just say stuff that is so crazy that you can’t be taken seriously.

[jficquette]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John[/quote]

I was saying between McCain and Obama but your assertion that Castro would be better than Obama really gives a clue as to how seriously you take yourself.[/quote]

No it shows what Obama really is and your’re too blind to see it.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John[/quote]

I was saying between McCain and Obama but your assertion that Castro would be better than Obama really gives a clue as to how seriously you take yourself.[/quote]

No it shows what Obama really is and your’re too blind to see it.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John[/quote]

I was saying between McCain and Obama but your assertion that Castro would be better than Obama really gives a clue as to how seriously you take yourself.[/quote]

No it shows what Obama really is and your’re too blind to see it.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John[/quote]

I was saying between McCain and Obama but your assertion that Castro would be better than Obama really gives a clue as to how seriously you take yourself.[/quote]

No it shows what Obama really is and your’re too blind to see it.

John

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John[/quote]

I was saying between McCain and Obama but your assertion that Castro would be better than Obama really gives a clue as to how seriously you take yourself.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John[/quote]

I was saying between McCain and Obama but your assertion that Castro would be better than Obama really gives a clue as to how seriously you take yourself.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John[/quote]

I was saying between McCain and Obama but your assertion that Castro would be better than Obama really gives a clue as to how seriously you take yourself.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette][quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John[/quote]

I was saying between McCain and Obama but your assertion that Castro would be better than Obama really gives a clue as to how seriously you take yourself.

[jficquette]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.
[/quote]

Pick between Castro and Obama? Probably Castro since at least he is honest about his views.

John

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[/quote]

Sorry dude his views are not unique.

Also, its a bit hyperbolic to call him Castro Jr.

If you have a better pick of the 2, who would it be?

Cuz most people think McCain sucks.

[jficquette]

[quote=underdose]Full disclosure: I am a staunch republican in the libertarian sense. I strongly oppose Obama’s socialistic bent.

I will still vote for Obama. Neither candidate wants free markets. McCain stands for more of the same as the Bush administration has given us: deficit spending, sneaky taxation through monetary debasement, expanding militarism, suppression of civil rights, and appointment of complete incompetents (Michael Brown, etc.) to important posts (Sarah Palin).

All the criticisms of Obama are well founded. Those points do not make the valid criticisms of McCain as a horribly inferior alternative any less valid. The point made above that Bush (and McCain) would give the tip directly to the restaurant owner is spot on, except not extreme enough. The tip would go to the owner of the horribly mismanaged restaurant down the street with lousy food and worse fiscal savvy. Of course, this failing restauranteur would be great friends with McCain and would give McCain $1 out of every $5 received…

I’ve heard it put best: I did not leave the republican party; the republican party left me.[/quote]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=underdose]Full disclosure: I am a staunch republican in the libertarian sense. I strongly oppose Obama’s socialistic bent.

I will still vote for Obama. Neither candidate wants free markets. McCain stands for more of the same as the Bush administration has given us: deficit spending, sneaky taxation through monetary debasement, expanding militarism, suppression of civil rights, and appointment of complete incompetents (Michael Brown, etc.) to important posts (Sarah Palin).

All the criticisms of Obama are well founded. Those points do not make the valid criticisms of McCain as a horribly inferior alternative any less valid. The point made above that Bush (and McCain) would give the tip directly to the restaurant owner is spot on, except not extreme enough. The tip would go to the owner of the horribly mismanaged restaurant down the street with lousy food and worse fiscal savvy. Of course, this failing restauranteur would be great friends with McCain and would give McCain $1 out of every $5 received…

I’ve heard it put best: I did not leave the republican party; the republican party left me.[/quote]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=underdose]Full disclosure: I am a staunch republican in the libertarian sense. I strongly oppose Obama’s socialistic bent.

I will still vote for Obama. Neither candidate wants free markets. McCain stands for more of the same as the Bush administration has given us: deficit spending, sneaky taxation through monetary debasement, expanding militarism, suppression of civil rights, and appointment of complete incompetents (Michael Brown, etc.) to important posts (Sarah Palin).

All the criticisms of Obama are well founded. Those points do not make the valid criticisms of McCain as a horribly inferior alternative any less valid. The point made above that Bush (and McCain) would give the tip directly to the restaurant owner is spot on, except not extreme enough. The tip would go to the owner of the horribly mismanaged restaurant down the street with lousy food and worse fiscal savvy. Of course, this failing restauranteur would be great friends with McCain and would give McCain $1 out of every $5 received…

I’ve heard it put best: I did not leave the republican party; the republican party left me.[/quote]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=underdose]Full disclosure: I am a staunch republican in the libertarian sense. I strongly oppose Obama’s socialistic bent.

I will still vote for Obama. Neither candidate wants free markets. McCain stands for more of the same as the Bush administration has given us: deficit spending, sneaky taxation through monetary debasement, expanding militarism, suppression of civil rights, and appointment of complete incompetents (Michael Brown, etc.) to important posts (Sarah Palin).

All the criticisms of Obama are well founded. Those points do not make the valid criticisms of McCain as a horribly inferior alternative any less valid. The point made above that Bush (and McCain) would give the tip directly to the restaurant owner is spot on, except not extreme enough. The tip would go to the owner of the horribly mismanaged restaurant down the street with lousy food and worse fiscal savvy. Of course, this failing restauranteur would be great friends with McCain and would give McCain $1 out of every $5 received…

I’ve heard it put best: I did not leave the republican party; the republican party left me.[/quote]

LOL so you are going to vote for Castro Jr even though you are libertarian?? Socialism is the opposite of libertarianism. Something doesn’t add up with your post.

John

[underdose]

Full disclosure: I am a staunch republican in the libertarian sense. I strongly oppose Obama’s socialistic bent.

I will still vote for Obama. Neither candidate wants free markets. McCain stands for more of the same as the Bush administration has given us: deficit spending, sneaky taxation through monetary debasement, expanding militarism, suppression of civil rights, and appointment of complete incompetents (Michael Brown, etc.) to important posts (Sarah Palin).

All the criticisms of Obama are well founded. Those points do not make the valid criticisms of McCain as a horribly inferior alternative any less valid. The point made above that Bush (and McCain) would give the tip directly to the restaurant owner is spot on, except not extreme enough. The tip would go to the owner of the horribly mismanaged restaurant down the street with lousy food and worse fiscal savvy. Of course, this failing restauranteur would be great friends with McCain and would give McCain $1 out of every $5 received…

I’ve heard it put best: I did not leave the republican party; the republican party left me.

[underdose]

Full disclosure: I am a staunch republican in the libertarian sense. I strongly oppose Obama’s socialistic bent.

I will still vote for Obama. Neither candidate wants free markets. McCain stands for more of the same as the Bush administration has given us: deficit spending, sneaky taxation through monetary debasement, expanding militarism, suppression of civil rights, and appointment of complete incompetents (Michael Brown, etc.) to important posts (Sarah Palin).

All the criticisms of Obama are well founded. Those points do not make the valid criticisms of McCain as a horribly inferior alternative any less valid. The point made above that Bush (and McCain) would give the tip directly to the restaurant owner is spot on, except not extreme enough. The tip would go to the owner of the horribly mismanaged restaurant down the street with lousy food and worse fiscal savvy. Of course, this failing restauranteur would be great friends with McCain and would give McCain $1 out of every $5 received…

I’ve heard it put best: I did not leave the republican party; the republican party left me.

[underdose]

Full disclosure: I am a staunch republican in the libertarian sense. I strongly oppose Obama’s socialistic bent.

I will still vote for Obama. Neither candidate wants free markets. McCain stands for more of the same as the Bush administration has given us: deficit spending, sneaky taxation through monetary debasement, expanding militarism, suppression of civil rights, and appointment of complete incompetents (Michael Brown, etc.) to important posts (Sarah Palin).

All the criticisms of Obama are well founded. Those points do not make the valid criticisms of McCain as a horribly inferior alternative any less valid. The point made above that Bush (and McCain) would give the tip directly to the restaurant owner is spot on, except not extreme enough. The tip would go to the owner of the horribly mismanaged restaurant down the street with lousy food and worse fiscal savvy. Of course, this failing restauranteur would be great friends with McCain and would give McCain $1 out of every $5 received…

I’ve heard it put best: I did not leave the republican party; the republican party left me.

[underdose]

Full disclosure: I am a staunch republican in the libertarian sense. I strongly oppose Obama’s socialistic bent.

I will still vote for Obama. Neither candidate wants free markets. McCain stands for more of the same as the Bush administration has given us: deficit spending, sneaky taxation through monetary debasement, expanding militarism, suppression of civil rights, and appointment of complete incompetents (Michael Brown, etc.) to important posts (Sarah Palin).

All the criticisms of Obama are well founded. Those points do not make the valid criticisms of McCain as a horribly inferior alternative any less valid. The point made above that Bush (and McCain) would give the tip directly to the restaurant owner is spot on, except not extreme enough. The tip would go to the owner of the horribly mismanaged restaurant down the street with lousy food and worse fiscal savvy. Of course, this failing restauranteur would be great friends with McCain and would give McCain $1 out of every $5 received…

I’ve heard it put best: I did not leave the republican party; the republican party left me.

[MANmom]

It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. Many times, the smart people do not succeed, whereas the people who are not as smart become great successes. I personally know a Orthopedic surgeon that got into drugs and lost his medical license…and yet, when I went to high school, there was a girl in school who was not very bright. No one thought she would make anything of herself…BUT! Just google Shari’s Berries and see where my friend Shari is today…one of the largest and best chocolate dipped strawberry companies in the world. It just takes good ideas and a bit of courage, and anyone can do it if they go after what they want. It is not always the smart folks who succeed.

[meadandale]

[quote=MANmom]It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. [/quote]

All the rights outlined in the declaration of independence are natural rights. They are rights conveyed to EVERY person by virtue of their birth. The exercise of these rights by an individual does not necessarily affect anyone else and is only prohibited at the point that one person’s exercising their rights infringes on another’s ability to do so. That is why murder is illegal…me murdering another infringes on their right to life.

However, many of the ‘rights’ that politicians are touting now are nothing of the sort. There is no ‘right’ to health care. There is no ‘right’ to own a house or to shelter in general. There is no ‘right’ to food. As (an arguably) enlightened society, we may desire to provide these things for as many people as we can, even if they can’t provide them for themselves but it is erroneous to refer to them as ‘rights’. They are nothing of the sort.

The assertion that these are ‘rights’ is at odds with the natural rights outlined above. The exercise of these new ‘rights’ suredly means that someone else has their rights abridged or infringed in order to provide them.

Consider healthcare as a right. It should be provided for anyone regardless of their ability to pay? Who shall provide this care? The doctor or nurse? Shall they work for free? Shall they be told what they can earn or where and how they can work (we already have our quota of doctors in San Diego, you can’t practice medicine here)? Shall the doctors, nurses and hospitals be paid by the government? With taxes? That means that someone else has had the fruits of their labor confiscated to provide a ‘right’ for someone else. This doesn’t meet the test for a natural right. Exercise of this ‘right’ requires that someone else’s rights are infringed.

[MANmom]

I totally agree…when they ask me to pay for someone else’s healthcare, I want to be able to monitor what they eat, drink and smoke. I’m not paying for someone else’s gluttony. I also want to make sure they spend at least 30 minutes a day excersizing, don’t drive motorcycles…the list goes on and on. Health care is not a right, it is a personal responsibility.

[afx114]

[quote=MANmom]I totally agree…when they ask me to pay for someone else’s healthcare, I want to be able to monitor what they eat, drink and smoke. I’m not paying for someone else’s gluttony. I also want to make sure they spend at least 30 minutes a day excersizing, don’t drive motorcycles…the list goes on and on. Health care is not a right, it is a personal responsibility.[/quote]

That’s the problem. Because healthcare is so expensive now, it prevents people from preventative care. So it ends up costing us more in the long run anyway (via higher premiums).

The idea is that if we have less un-insured, more people will be seeking healthcare so that problems can be caught and treated early – before they are terminal and/or exponentially more expensive to treat.

[an]

[quote=afx114]
That’s the problem. Because healthcare is so expensive now, it prevents people from preventative care. So it ends up costing us more in the long run anyway (via higher premiums).

The idea is that if we have less un-insured, more people will be seeking healthcare so that problems can be caught and treated early – before they are terminal and/or exponentially more expensive to treat.
[/quote]
But that’s not really how it played out in real life. Just look at Canada to see what happens when everyone have free healthcare. People know it will cost them nothing to go to ER and since the wait is so long to get an appointment with a PCP, people just go to the ER for just about anything. Which causes over crowding in ER. I also hear horror stories of people waiting in the hall ways of the hospital waiting for a room because the hospital are also overcrowded. Some even get treated in the hall way and some even died in the hall way. If you want to see a specialist, I hear you’d have to wait 3-6 months after you see your PCP to see a specialist.

I blame the lawyers as one of the main reasons for our high healthcare cost. It doesn’t make financial sense to become a regular doctor anymore. Even when you make $200k/yr, your malpractice insurance are in the 6 digits. If you get sued once or twice, you can no longer practice. Imagine if you spent hundreds of thousands and over 10 years to get your MD, only to render it useless after a few years. My wife is in the healthcare field and she’s worried that by the time we’re old, we won’t have many good doctors to choose from. The only lucrative MD are surgeons, so everyone want to be a surgeon. It’s not cost effective to be a regular MD. So you have less regular doctors and increase amount people looking for healthcare since it would be free. You can draw your own conclusion.

[afx114]

asia,

Isn’t there a free market solution to that problem? Build more hospitals, hire more doctors, etc..

[an]

[quote=afx114]asia,

Isn’t there a free market solution to that problem? Build more hospitals, hire more doctors, etc..[/quote]
How can you hire more doctors if no one want to be a doctor? You can’t create doctors out of thin air. Building more hospital is a definitely solution. The question is though, if it’s so profitable to build hospital, why don’t we already have more hospital and single bed rooms. Unless the government also want to go into the business of building and running hospitals. It’s neither cheap, easy, or cost effective to build more hospitals quickly.

[MANmom]

Here’s a novel idea, offer health insurance for catastrophic illness only…cancer, accidents, major surgery, etc. Everything else we pay for out of our own pockets. We would then be inticed to shop around for a good general doctor at a good price. General docs would not have to haggle with the insurance companies, bringing down the cost of the office. Make it OK for a nurse practitioner to diagnose things like kid’s ear infections, most of the doctor’s visits I had when my kids were little were ear infections…that would save a lot of money. If they have to refer you out of the general office, then insurance would be used.

[bubba99]

The solution to health care is relatively simple – redefine the role of doctor, and pubicly fund it.

For 80% of all medical procedures/visits, a nurse practicioner is adequately trained. 10 years of med school and residency is not required to set a simple fracture, or treat a cold. Reduce the investment in “Dr.” and reduce the price.

Private medical insurance has not lived up to the high ideals of “privatization”. We have seen no innovation, no cost reductions through productivity increases, nor any capital efficiencies pushed into the industry. Each year we are seeing cost increases of 25% and more. This is hardly a great track record. The state could not be any worse.

When you start to look at the embedded capital costs created by privatization of true “Non-profit charitable Hospitals” you see where the giant increases in costs comming from. As a child I broke my arm. The doctor at the hospital emergency room set it and put on a cast after x-rays at a total cost of $100.19. This was done at a church hospital run by nurse/nuns Recently when my nephew did the same, the cost was closer to $10,000.00 The hospital for my nephews treatment was a former community hospital sold to Blue Cross, then resold three more times to “Private” non-profit entities owned by Caremark among others. Each time the “profit center” was repriced upwards creating new debt to be loaded on the “non-profit” entity. The end result, 25% year over year price increase to service un-necessary capital ocsts.

[jficquette]

[quote=bubba99]The solution to health care is relatively simple – redefine the role of doctor, and pubicly fund it.

For 80% of all medical procedures/visits, a nurse practitioner is adequately trained. 10 years of med school and residency is not required to set a simple fracture, or treat a cold. Reduce the investment in “Dr.” and reduce the price.

Private medical insurance has not lived up to the high ideals of “privatization”. We have seen no innovation, no cost reductions through productivity increases, nor any capital efficiencies pushed into the industry. Each year we are seeing cost increases of 25% and more. This is hardly a great track record. The state could not be any worse.

When you start to look at the embedded capital costs created by privatization of true “Non-profit charitable Hospitals” you see where the giant increases in costs comming from. As a child I broke my arm. The doctor at the hospital emergency room set it and put on a cast after x-rays at a total cost of $100.19. This was done at a church hospital run by nurse/nuns Recently when my nephew did the same, the cost was closer to $10,000.00 The hospital for my nephews treatment was a former community hospital sold to Blue Cross, then resold three more times to “Private” non-profit entities owned by Caremark among others. Each time the “profit center” was repriced upwards creating new debt to be loaded on the “non-profit” entity. The end result, 25% year over year price increase to service un-necessary capital ocsts.

[/quote]

I go to a PA and the one I go to has excellent skills. You would have to limit malpractice suits because if you give primary health care for routine matters over to PA’s then they will begin to get sued as Docs are now. We have to get the lawyers out of health care if we ever want the costs to be reasonable.

I say do away with insurance, get rid of lawyers and let the Docs compete on price and service.

I had disc surgery in 2001 on my lower back. I had no insurance. The Doctor had his secretary call around and get bids on use of an operating room and a 24 hour stay. I got the MRI at half price because I paid cash and the Anethesologist also gave me half off since I paid him up front. The Orthopaedic did it for $2k, the fee under insurance would have been $5k.

All total the operation cost $6750. It was $3350 for the room. When I paid the clerk upon admittance she told me that I would be getting a bill for $10k in the mail because that is what they would have billed the insurance company had I had insurance.

If I had paid insurance rates the whole thing would have been around $20k.

I say just let everyone compete and get rid of the stupid lawsuits and insurance companies.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=bubba99]The solution to health care is relatively simple – redefine the role of doctor, and pubicly fund it.

For 80% of all medical procedures/visits, a nurse practitioner is adequately trained. 10 years of med school and residency is not required to set a simple fracture, or treat a cold. Reduce the investment in “Dr.” and reduce the price.

Private medical insurance has not lived up to the high ideals of “privatization”. We have seen no innovation, no cost reductions through productivity increases, nor any capital efficiencies pushed into the industry. Each year we are seeing cost increases of 25% and more. This is hardly a great track record. The state could not be any worse.

When you start to look at the embedded capital costs created by privatization of true “Non-profit charitable Hospitals” you see where the giant increases in costs comming from. As a child I broke my arm. The doctor at the hospital emergency room set it and put on a cast after x-rays at a total cost of $100.19. This was done at a church hospital run by nurse/nuns Recently when my nephew did the same, the cost was closer to $10,000.00 The hospital for my nephews treatment was a former community hospital sold to Blue Cross, then resold three more times to “Private” non-profit entities owned by Caremark among others. Each time the “profit center” was repriced upwards creating new debt to be loaded on the “non-profit” entity. The end result, 25% year over year price increase to service un-necessary capital ocsts.

[/quote]

I go to a PA and the one I go to has excellent skills. You would have to limit malpractice suits because if you give primary health care for routine matters over to PA’s then they will begin to get sued as Docs are now. We have to get the lawyers out of health care if we ever want the costs to be reasonable.

I say do away with insurance, get rid of lawyers and let the Docs compete on price and service.

I had disc surgery in 2001 on my lower back. I had no insurance. The Doctor had his secretary call around and get bids on use of an operating room and a 24 hour stay. I got the MRI at half price because I paid cash and the Anethesologist also gave me half off since I paid him up front. The Orthopaedic did it for $2k, the fee under insurance would have been $5k.

All total the operation cost $6750. It was $3350 for the room. When I paid the clerk upon admittance she told me that I would be getting a bill for $10k in the mail because that is what they would have billed the insurance company had I had insurance.

If I had paid insurance rates the whole thing would have been around $20k.

I say just let everyone compete and get rid of the stupid lawsuits and insurance companies.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=bubba99]The solution to health care is relatively simple – redefine the role of doctor, and pubicly fund it.

For 80% of all medical procedures/visits, a nurse practitioner is adequately trained. 10 years of med school and residency is not required to set a simple fracture, or treat a cold. Reduce the investment in “Dr.” and reduce the price.

Private medical insurance has not lived up to the high ideals of “privatization”. We have seen no innovation, no cost reductions through productivity increases, nor any capital efficiencies pushed into the industry. Each year we are seeing cost increases of 25% and more. This is hardly a great track record. The state could not be any worse.

When you start to look at the embedded capital costs created by privatization of true “Non-profit charitable Hospitals” you see where the giant increases in costs comming from. As a child I broke my arm. The doctor at the hospital emergency room set it and put on a cast after x-rays at a total cost of $100.19. This was done at a church hospital run by nurse/nuns Recently when my nephew did the same, the cost was closer to $10,000.00 The hospital for my nephews treatment was a former community hospital sold to Blue Cross, then resold three more times to “Private” non-profit entities owned by Caremark among others. Each time the “profit center” was repriced upwards creating new debt to be loaded on the “non-profit” entity. The end result, 25% year over year price increase to service un-necessary capital ocsts.

[/quote]

I go to a PA and the one I go to has excellent skills. You would have to limit malpractice suits because if you give primary health care for routine matters over to PA’s then they will begin to get sued as Docs are now. We have to get the lawyers out of health care if we ever want the costs to be reasonable.

I say do away with insurance, get rid of lawyers and let the Docs compete on price and service.

I had disc surgery in 2001 on my lower back. I had no insurance. The Doctor had his secretary call around and get bids on use of an operating room and a 24 hour stay. I got the MRI at half price because I paid cash and the Anethesologist also gave me half off since I paid him up front. The Orthopaedic did it for $2k, the fee under insurance would have been $5k.

All total the operation cost $6750. It was $3350 for the room. When I paid the clerk upon admittance she told me that I would be getting a bill for $10k in the mail because that is what they would have billed the insurance company had I had insurance.

If I had paid insurance rates the whole thing would have been around $20k.

I say just let everyone compete and get rid of the stupid lawsuits and insurance companies.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=bubba99]The solution to health care is relatively simple – redefine the role of doctor, and pubicly fund it.

For 80% of all medical procedures/visits, a nurse practitioner is adequately trained. 10 years of med school and residency is not required to set a simple fracture, or treat a cold. Reduce the investment in “Dr.” and reduce the price.

Private medical insurance has not lived up to the high ideals of “privatization”. We have seen no innovation, no cost reductions through productivity increases, nor any capital efficiencies pushed into the industry. Each year we are seeing cost increases of 25% and more. This is hardly a great track record. The state could not be any worse.

When you start to look at the embedded capital costs created by privatization of true “Non-profit charitable Hospitals” you see where the giant increases in costs comming from. As a child I broke my arm. The doctor at the hospital emergency room set it and put on a cast after x-rays at a total cost of $100.19. This was done at a church hospital run by nurse/nuns Recently when my nephew did the same, the cost was closer to $10,000.00 The hospital for my nephews treatment was a former community hospital sold to Blue Cross, then resold three more times to “Private” non-profit entities owned by Caremark among others. Each time the “profit center” was repriced upwards creating new debt to be loaded on the “non-profit” entity. The end result, 25% year over year price increase to service un-necessary capital ocsts.

[/quote]

I go to a PA and the one I go to has excellent skills. You would have to limit malpractice suits because if you give primary health care for routine matters over to PA’s then they will begin to get sued as Docs are now. We have to get the lawyers out of health care if we ever want the costs to be reasonable.

I say do away with insurance, get rid of lawyers and let the Docs compete on price and service.

I had disc surgery in 2001 on my lower back. I had no insurance. The Doctor had his secretary call around and get bids on use of an operating room and a 24 hour stay. I got the MRI at half price because I paid cash and the Anethesologist also gave me half off since I paid him up front. The Orthopaedic did it for $2k, the fee under insurance would have been $5k.

All total the operation cost $6750. It was $3350 for the room. When I paid the clerk upon admittance she told me that I would be getting a bill for $10k in the mail because that is what they would have billed the insurance company had I had insurance.

If I had paid insurance rates the whole thing would have been around $20k.

I say just let everyone compete and get rid of the stupid lawsuits and insurance companies.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=bubba99]The solution to health care is relatively simple – redefine the role of doctor, and pubicly fund it.

For 80% of all medical procedures/visits, a nurse practitioner is adequately trained. 10 years of med school and residency is not required to set a simple fracture, or treat a cold. Reduce the investment in “Dr.” and reduce the price.

Private medical insurance has not lived up to the high ideals of “privatization”. We have seen no innovation, no cost reductions through productivity increases, nor any capital efficiencies pushed into the industry. Each year we are seeing cost increases of 25% and more. This is hardly a great track record. The state could not be any worse.

When you start to look at the embedded capital costs created by privatization of true “Non-profit charitable Hospitals” you see where the giant increases in costs comming from. As a child I broke my arm. The doctor at the hospital emergency room set it and put on a cast after x-rays at a total cost of $100.19. This was done at a church hospital run by nurse/nuns Recently when my nephew did the same, the cost was closer to $10,000.00 The hospital for my nephews treatment was a former community hospital sold to Blue Cross, then resold three more times to “Private” non-profit entities owned by Caremark among others. Each time the “profit center” was repriced upwards creating new debt to be loaded on the “non-profit” entity. The end result, 25% year over year price increase to service un-necessary capital ocsts.

[/quote]

I go to a PA and the one I go to has excellent skills. You would have to limit malpractice suits because if you give primary health care for routine matters over to PA’s then they will begin to get sued as Docs are now. We have to get the lawyers out of health care if we ever want the costs to be reasonable.

I say do away with insurance, get rid of lawyers and let the Docs compete on price and service.

I had disc surgery in 2001 on my lower back. I had no insurance. The Doctor had his secretary call around and get bids on use of an operating room and a 24 hour stay. I got the MRI at half price because I paid cash and the Anethesologist also gave me half off since I paid him up front. The Orthopaedic did it for $2k, the fee under insurance would have been $5k.

All total the operation cost $6750. It was $3350 for the room. When I paid the clerk upon admittance she told me that I would be getting a bill for $10k in the mail because that is what they would have billed the insurance company had I had insurance.

If I had paid insurance rates the whole thing would have been around $20k.

I say just let everyone compete and get rid of the stupid lawsuits and insurance companies.

John

[bubba99]

The solution to health care is relatively simple – redefine the role of doctor, and pubicly fund it.

For 80% of all medical procedures/visits, a nurse practicioner is adequately trained. 10 years of med school and residency is not required to set a simple fracture, or treat a cold. Reduce the investment in “Dr.” and reduce the price.

Private medical insurance has not lived up to the high ideals of “privatization”. We have seen no innovation, no cost reductions through productivity increases, nor any capital efficiencies pushed into the industry. Each year we are seeing cost increases of 25% and more. This is hardly a great track record. The state could not be any worse.

When you start to look at the embedded capital costs created by privatization of true “Non-profit charitable Hospitals” you see where the giant increases in costs comming from. As a child I broke my arm. The doctor at the hospital emergency room set it and put on a cast after x-rays at a total cost of $100.19. This was done at a church hospital run by nurse/nuns Recently when my nephew did the same, the cost was closer to $10,000.00 The hospital for my nephews treatment was a former community hospital sold to Blue Cross, then resold three more times to “Private” non-profit entities owned by Caremark among others. Each time the “profit center” was repriced upwards creating new debt to be loaded on the “non-profit” entity. The end result, 25% year over year price increase to service un-necessary capital ocsts.

[bubba99]

The solution to health care is relatively simple – redefine the role of doctor, and pubicly fund it.

For 80% of all medical procedures/visits, a nurse practicioner is adequately trained. 10 years of med school and residency is not required to set a simple fracture, or treat a cold. Reduce the investment in “Dr.” and reduce the price.

Private medical insurance has not lived up to the high ideals of “privatization”. We have seen no innovation, no cost reductions through productivity increases, nor any capital efficiencies pushed into the industry. Each year we are seeing cost increases of 25% and more. This is hardly a great track record. The state could not be any worse.

When you start to look at the embedded capital costs created by privatization of true “Non-profit charitable Hospitals” you see where the giant increases in costs comming from. As a child I broke my arm. The doctor at the hospital emergency room set it and put on a cast after x-rays at a total cost of $100.19. This was done at a church hospital run by nurse/nuns Recently when my nephew did the same, the cost was closer to $10,000.00 The hospital for my nephews treatment was a former community hospital sold to Blue Cross, then resold three more times to “Private” non-profit entities owned by Caremark among others. Each time the “profit center” was repriced upwards creating new debt to be loaded on the “non-profit” entity. The end result, 25% year over year price increase to service un-necessary capital ocsts.

[bubba99]

The solution to health care is relatively simple – redefine the role of doctor, and pubicly fund it.

For 80% of all medical procedures/visits, a nurse practicioner is adequately trained. 10 years of med school and residency is not required to set a simple fracture, or treat a cold. Reduce the investment in “Dr.” and reduce the price.

Private medical insurance has not lived up to the high ideals of “privatization”. We have seen no innovation, no cost reductions through productivity increases, nor any capital efficiencies pushed into the industry. Each year we are seeing cost increases of 25% and more. This is hardly a great track record. The state could not be any worse.

When you start to look at the embedded capital costs created by privatization of true “Non-profit charitable Hospitals” you see where the giant increases in costs comming from. As a child I broke my arm. The doctor at the hospital emergency room set it and put on a cast after x-rays at a total cost of $100.19. This was done at a church hospital run by nurse/nuns Recently when my nephew did the same, the cost was closer to $10,000.00 The hospital for my nephews treatment was a former community hospital sold to Blue Cross, then resold three more times to “Private” non-profit entities owned by Caremark among others. Each time the “profit center” was repriced upwards creating new debt to be loaded on the “non-profit” entity. The end result, 25% year over year price increase to service un-necessary capital ocsts.

[bubba99]

The solution to health care is relatively simple – redefine the role of doctor, and pubicly fund it.

For 80% of all medical procedures/visits, a nurse practicioner is adequately trained. 10 years of med school and residency is not required to set a simple fracture, or treat a cold. Reduce the investment in “Dr.” and reduce the price.

Private medical insurance has not lived up to the high ideals of “privatization”. We have seen no innovation, no cost reductions through productivity increases, nor any capital efficiencies pushed into the industry. Each year we are seeing cost increases of 25% and more. This is hardly a great track record. The state could not be any worse.

When you start to look at the embedded capital costs created by privatization of true “Non-profit charitable Hospitals” you see where the giant increases in costs comming from. As a child I broke my arm. The doctor at the hospital emergency room set it and put on a cast after x-rays at a total cost of $100.19. This was done at a church hospital run by nurse/nuns Recently when my nephew did the same, the cost was closer to $10,000.00 The hospital for my nephews treatment was a former community hospital sold to Blue Cross, then resold three more times to “Private” non-profit entities owned by Caremark among others. Each time the “profit center” was repriced upwards creating new debt to be loaded on the “non-profit” entity. The end result, 25% year over year price increase to service un-necessary capital ocsts.

[meadandale]

It’s funny. Everyone wants free education and free healthcare; when’s the last time you REALLY appreciated something you got for free?

Free education? Who cares if you don’t study or get crappy grades? You’re not paying for it. No parent’s can nag you to do better in school or they’ll cut off their funding. There’s no incentive to accel. I know that when I was paying my tuition in grad school that I paid a hell of a lot more attention in class than when I was in school as an undergrad and was getting loans and grants. Something about having to sit down and write those multi-thousand dollar checks shocks you into reality. I wanted my fricken money’s worth.

Similarly, since I am paying for my own health insurance now (full freight) and have a high deductible health plan to qualify for an HSA, I pay the whole nut on doctors visits, not some $10 copay. As such, I don’t waste my time and money (as well as the doctor’s) going to see him if I have a cold or flu…unless it degenerates into something more serious or doesn’t go away within a week or two. If he prescribes something that won’t help me get better faster or is solely for ‘pain’ or something else, I have to weigh whether I can live with the pain until I’m better or if it is worth $50 for the prescription because I’ll be paying for the whole thing.

In other words, when you are spending your own money, you tend to be a little more discriminating than when you are either a) spending someone else’s money or b) getting something for free.

More than anything, I feel that people need to have some ‘skin in the game’ with regards to these things or they’ll typically abuse them.

And, frankly, if you can afford to have a flat screen tv, $100 sneakers and $200 jeans, you can usually afford to buy health insurance, if that’s your priority. I see way too many people complaining that they can’t afford health insurance; it’s not that they can’t afford it, it’s that they’d just rather spend the money on other things. Yeah, me too. I’d rather spend my money on other things than paying for your health insurance because you have different priorities.

[meadandale]

It’s funny. Everyone wants free education and free healthcare; when’s the last time you REALLY appreciated something you got for free?

Free education? Who cares if you don’t study or get crappy grades? You’re not paying for it. No parent’s can nag you to do better in school or they’ll cut off their funding. There’s no incentive to accel. I know that when I was paying my tuition in grad school that I paid a hell of a lot more attention in class than when I was in school as an undergrad and was getting loans and grants. Something about having to sit down and write those multi-thousand dollar checks shocks you into reality. I wanted my fricken money’s worth.

Similarly, since I am paying for my own health insurance now (full freight) and have a high deductible health plan to qualify for an HSA, I pay the whole nut on doctors visits, not some $10 copay. As such, I don’t waste my time and money (as well as the doctor’s) going to see him if I have a cold or flu…unless it degenerates into something more serious or doesn’t go away within a week or two. If he prescribes something that won’t help me get better faster or is solely for ‘pain’ or something else, I have to weigh whether I can live with the pain until I’m better or if it is worth $50 for the prescription because I’ll be paying for the whole thing.

In other words, when you are spending your own money, you tend to be a little more discriminating than when you are either a) spending someone else’s money or b) getting something for free.

More than anything, I feel that people need to have some ‘skin in the game’ with regards to these things or they’ll typically abuse them.

And, frankly, if you can afford to have a flat screen tv, $100 sneakers and $200 jeans, you can usually afford to buy health insurance, if that’s your priority. I see way too many people complaining that they can’t afford health insurance; it’s not that they can’t afford it, it’s that they’d just rather spend the money on other things. Yeah, me too. I’d rather spend my money on other things than paying for your health insurance because you have different priorities.

[meadandale]

It’s funny. Everyone wants free education and free healthcare; when’s the last time you REALLY appreciated something you got for free?

Free education? Who cares if you don’t study or get crappy grades? You’re not paying for it. No parent’s can nag you to do better in school or they’ll cut off their funding. There’s no incentive to accel. I know that when I was paying my tuition in grad school that I paid a hell of a lot more attention in class than when I was in school as an undergrad and was getting loans and grants. Something about having to sit down and write those multi-thousand dollar checks shocks you into reality. I wanted my fricken money’s worth.

Similarly, since I am paying for my own health insurance now (full freight) and have a high deductible health plan to qualify for an HSA, I pay the whole nut on doctors visits, not some $10 copay. As such, I don’t waste my time and money (as well as the doctor’s) going to see him if I have a cold or flu…unless it degenerates into something more serious or doesn’t go away within a week or two. If he prescribes something that won’t help me get better faster or is solely for ‘pain’ or something else, I have to weigh whether I can live with the pain until I’m better or if it is worth $50 for the prescription because I’ll be paying for the whole thing.

In other words, when you are spending your own money, you tend to be a little more discriminating than when you are either a) spending someone else’s money or b) getting something for free.

More than anything, I feel that people need to have some ‘skin in the game’ with regards to these things or they’ll typically abuse them.

And, frankly, if you can afford to have a flat screen tv, $100 sneakers and $200 jeans, you can usually afford to buy health insurance, if that’s your priority. I see way too many people complaining that they can’t afford health insurance; it’s not that they can’t afford it, it’s that they’d just rather spend the money on other things. Yeah, me too. I’d rather spend my money on other things than paying for your health insurance because you have different priorities.

[meadandale]

It’s funny. Everyone wants free education and free healthcare; when’s the last time you REALLY appreciated something you got for free?

Free education? Who cares if you don’t study or get crappy grades? You’re not paying for it. No parent’s can nag you to do better in school or they’ll cut off their funding. There’s no incentive to accel. I know that when I was paying my tuition in grad school that I paid a hell of a lot more attention in class than when I was in school as an undergrad and was getting loans and grants. Something about having to sit down and write those multi-thousand dollar checks shocks you into reality. I wanted my fricken money’s worth.

Similarly, since I am paying for my own health insurance now (full freight) and have a high deductible health plan to qualify for an HSA, I pay the whole nut on doctors visits, not some $10 copay. As such, I don’t waste my time and money (as well as the doctor’s) going to see him if I have a cold or flu…unless it degenerates into something more serious or doesn’t go away within a week or two. If he prescribes something that won’t help me get better faster or is solely for ‘pain’ or something else, I have to weigh whether I can live with the pain until I’m better or if it is worth $50 for the prescription because I’ll be paying for the whole thing.

In other words, when you are spending your own money, you tend to be a little more discriminating than when you are either a) spending someone else’s money or b) getting something for free.

More than anything, I feel that people need to have some ‘skin in the game’ with regards to these things or they’ll typically abuse them.

And, frankly, if you can afford to have a flat screen tv, $100 sneakers and $200 jeans, you can usually afford to buy health insurance, if that’s your priority. I see way too many people complaining that they can’t afford health insurance; it’s not that they can’t afford it, it’s that they’d just rather spend the money on other things. Yeah, me too. I’d rather spend my money on other things than paying for your health insurance because you have different priorities.

[meadandale]

It’s funny. Everyone wants free education and free healthcare; when’s the last time you REALLY appreciated something you got for free?

Free education? Who cares if you don’t study or get crappy grades? You’re not paying for it. No parent’s can nag you to do better in school or they’ll cut off their funding. There’s no incentive to accel. I know that when I was paying my tuition in grad school that I paid a hell of a lot more attention in class than when I was in school as an undergrad and was getting loans and grants. Something about having to sit down and write those multi-thousand dollar checks shocks you into reality. I wanted my fricken money’s worth.

Similarly, since I am paying for my own health insurance now (full freight) and have a high deductible health plan to qualify for an HSA, I pay the whole nut on doctors visits, not some $10 copay. As such, I don’t waste my time and money (as well as the doctor’s) going to see him if I have a cold or flu…unless it degenerates into something more serious or doesn’t go away within a week or two. If he prescribes something that won’t help me get better faster or is solely for ‘pain’ or something else, I have to weigh whether I can live with the pain until I’m better or if it is worth $50 for the prescription because I’ll be paying for the whole thing.

In other words, when you are spending your own money, you tend to be a little more discriminating than when you are either a) spending someone else’s money or b) getting something for free.

More than anything, I feel that people need to have some ‘skin in the game’ with regards to these things or they’ll typically abuse them.

And, frankly, if you can afford to have a flat screen tv, $100 sneakers and $200 jeans, you can usually afford to buy health insurance, if that’s your priority. I see way too many people complaining that they can’t afford health insurance; it’s not that they can’t afford it, it’s that they’d just rather spend the money on other things. Yeah, me too. I’d rather spend my money on other things than paying for your health insurance because you have different priorities.

[gandalf]

manmom, I think this is right on target. Excellent approach to the healthcare problem. Wish it would received more consideration.

With regards to the ‘Obama is a socialist’ line being explored here, would any of the GOP types on this board like to explain the difference between socialism and government re-distribution of oil revenues in Alaska?

Hard to reconcile the contradictions, isn’t it?

[kewp]

My idea for wealth distribution.

Every tax bracket gets a 10% (i.e., if you are paying 10%, now you pay 11%) increase, except the lowest one.

Everyone that files a tax return gets a quarterly bonus drawn from the 10% pool of income taxes of the bracket above them (except the uppermost bracket).

You can do whatever you want with the bonus, buy health insurance, eat fancy food, drink booze, invest it, give it to charity, whatever.

This accomplishes a couple things:

One: it gives an incentive for the lower classes to get at least one legit job so they can get the bonus check. It disincentives illegal labor and encourages payment of taxes.

Two: It leverages the free market to optimize social services. I can choose to buy whichever medical/dental plan I want with the bonus, for example.

Three: It improves the economy, by keeping wealth circulating domestically; as opposed to going overseas. The lower classes will tend to spend their bonuses pretty quickly.

[kewp]

My idea for wealth distribution.

Every tax bracket gets a 10% (i.e., if you are paying 10%, now you pay 11%) increase, except the lowest one.

Everyone that files a tax return gets a quarterly bonus drawn from the 10% pool of income taxes of the bracket above them (except the uppermost bracket).

You can do whatever you want with the bonus, buy health insurance, eat fancy food, drink booze, invest it, give it to charity, whatever.

This accomplishes a couple things:

One: it gives an incentive for the lower classes to get at least one legit job so they can get the bonus check. It disincentives illegal labor and encourages payment of taxes.

Two: It leverages the free market to optimize social services. I can choose to buy whichever medical/dental plan I want with the bonus, for example.

Three: It improves the economy, by keeping wealth circulating domestically; as opposed to going overseas. The lower classes will tend to spend their bonuses pretty quickly.

[kewp]

My idea for wealth distribution.

Every tax bracket gets a 10% (i.e., if you are paying 10%, now you pay 11%) increase, except the lowest one.

Everyone that files a tax return gets a quarterly bonus drawn from the 10% pool of income taxes of the bracket above them (except the uppermost bracket).

You can do whatever you want with the bonus, buy health insurance, eat fancy food, drink booze, invest it, give it to charity, whatever.

This accomplishes a couple things:

One: it gives an incentive for the lower classes to get at least one legit job so they can get the bonus check. It disincentives illegal labor and encourages payment of taxes.

Two: It leverages the free market to optimize social services. I can choose to buy whichever medical/dental plan I want with the bonus, for example.

Three: It improves the economy, by keeping wealth circulating domestically; as opposed to going overseas. The lower classes will tend to spend their bonuses pretty quickly.

[kewp]

My idea for wealth distribution.

Every tax bracket gets a 10% (i.e., if you are paying 10%, now you pay 11%) increase, except the lowest one.

Everyone that files a tax return gets a quarterly bonus drawn from the 10% pool of income taxes of the bracket above them (except the uppermost bracket).

You can do whatever you want with the bonus, buy health insurance, eat fancy food, drink booze, invest it, give it to charity, whatever.

This accomplishes a couple things:

One: it gives an incentive for the lower classes to get at least one legit job so they can get the bonus check. It disincentives illegal labor and encourages payment of taxes.

Two: It leverages the free market to optimize social services. I can choose to buy whichever medical/dental plan I want with the bonus, for example.

Three: It improves the economy, by keeping wealth circulating domestically; as opposed to going overseas. The lower classes will tend to spend their bonuses pretty quickly.

[kewp]

My idea for wealth distribution.

Every tax bracket gets a 10% (i.e., if you are paying 10%, now you pay 11%) increase, except the lowest one.

Everyone that files a tax return gets a quarterly bonus drawn from the 10% pool of income taxes of the bracket above them (except the uppermost bracket).

You can do whatever you want with the bonus, buy health insurance, eat fancy food, drink booze, invest it, give it to charity, whatever.

This accomplishes a couple things:

One: it gives an incentive for the lower classes to get at least one legit job so they can get the bonus check. It disincentives illegal labor and encourages payment of taxes.

Two: It leverages the free market to optimize social services. I can choose to buy whichever medical/dental plan I want with the bonus, for example.

Three: It improves the economy, by keeping wealth circulating domestically; as opposed to going overseas. The lower classes will tend to spend their bonuses pretty quickly.

[gandalf]

manmom, I think this is right on target. Excellent approach to the healthcare problem. Wish it would received more consideration.

With regards to the ‘Obama is a socialist’ line being explored here, would any of the GOP types on this board like to explain the difference between socialism and government re-distribution of oil revenues in Alaska?

Hard to reconcile the contradictions, isn’t it?

[gandalf]

manmom, I think this is right on target. Excellent approach to the healthcare problem. Wish it would received more consideration.

With regards to the ‘Obama is a socialist’ line being explored here, would any of the GOP types on this board like to explain the difference between socialism and government re-distribution of oil revenues in Alaska?

Hard to reconcile the contradictions, isn’t it?

[gandalf]

manmom, I think this is right on target. Excellent approach to the healthcare problem. Wish it would received more consideration.

With regards to the ‘Obama is a socialist’ line being explored here, would any of the GOP types on this board like to explain the difference between socialism and government re-distribution of oil revenues in Alaska?

Hard to reconcile the contradictions, isn’t it?

[gandalf]

manmom, I think this is right on target. Excellent approach to the healthcare problem. Wish it would received more consideration.

With regards to the ‘Obama is a socialist’ line being explored here, would any of the GOP types on this board like to explain the difference between socialism and government re-distribution of oil revenues in Alaska?

Hard to reconcile the contradictions, isn’t it?

[MANmom]

Here’s a novel idea, offer health insurance for catastrophic illness only…cancer, accidents, major surgery, etc. Everything else we pay for out of our own pockets. We would then be inticed to shop around for a good general doctor at a good price. General docs would not have to haggle with the insurance companies, bringing down the cost of the office. Make it OK for a nurse practitioner to diagnose things like kid’s ear infections, most of the doctor’s visits I had when my kids were little were ear infections…that would save a lot of money. If they have to refer you out of the general office, then insurance would be used.

[MANmom]

Here’s a novel idea, offer health insurance for catastrophic illness only…cancer, accidents, major surgery, etc. Everything else we pay for out of our own pockets. We would then be inticed to shop around for a good general doctor at a good price. General docs would not have to haggle with the insurance companies, bringing down the cost of the office. Make it OK for a nurse practitioner to diagnose things like kid’s ear infections, most of the doctor’s visits I had when my kids were little were ear infections…that would save a lot of money. If they have to refer you out of the general office, then insurance would be used.

[MANmom]

Here’s a novel idea, offer health insurance for catastrophic illness only…cancer, accidents, major surgery, etc. Everything else we pay for out of our own pockets. We would then be inticed to shop around for a good general doctor at a good price. General docs would not have to haggle with the insurance companies, bringing down the cost of the office. Make it OK for a nurse practitioner to diagnose things like kid’s ear infections, most of the doctor’s visits I had when my kids were little were ear infections…that would save a lot of money. If they have to refer you out of the general office, then insurance would be used.

[MANmom]

Here’s a novel idea, offer health insurance for catastrophic illness only…cancer, accidents, major surgery, etc. Everything else we pay for out of our own pockets. We would then be inticed to shop around for a good general doctor at a good price. General docs would not have to haggle with the insurance companies, bringing down the cost of the office. Make it OK for a nurse practitioner to diagnose things like kid’s ear infections, most of the doctor’s visits I had when my kids were little were ear infections…that would save a lot of money. If they have to refer you out of the general office, then insurance would be used.

[an]

[quote=afx114]asia,

Isn’t there a free market solution to that problem? Build more hospitals, hire more doctors, etc..[/quote]
How can you hire more doctors if no one want to be a doctor? You can’t create doctors out of thin air. Building more hospital is a definitely solution. The question is though, if it’s so profitable to build hospital, why don’t we already have more hospital and single bed rooms. Unless the government also want to go into the business of building and running hospitals. It’s neither cheap, easy, or cost effective to build more hospitals quickly.

[an]

[quote=afx114]asia,

Isn’t there a free market solution to that problem? Build more hospitals, hire more doctors, etc..[/quote]
How can you hire more doctors if no one want to be a doctor? You can’t create doctors out of thin air. Building more hospital is a definitely solution. The question is though, if it’s so profitable to build hospital, why don’t we already have more hospital and single bed rooms. Unless the government also want to go into the business of building and running hospitals. It’s neither cheap, easy, or cost effective to build more hospitals quickly.

[an]

[quote=afx114]asia,

Isn’t there a free market solution to that problem? Build more hospitals, hire more doctors, etc..[/quote]
How can you hire more doctors if no one want to be a doctor? You can’t create doctors out of thin air. Building more hospital is a definitely solution. The question is though, if it’s so profitable to build hospital, why don’t we already have more hospital and single bed rooms. Unless the government also want to go into the business of building and running hospitals. It’s neither cheap, easy, or cost effective to build more hospitals quickly.

[an]

[quote=afx114]asia,

Isn’t there a free market solution to that problem? Build more hospitals, hire more doctors, etc..[/quote]
How can you hire more doctors if no one want to be a doctor? You can’t create doctors out of thin air. Building more hospital is a definitely solution. The question is though, if it’s so profitable to build hospital, why don’t we already have more hospital and single bed rooms. Unless the government also want to go into the business of building and running hospitals. It’s neither cheap, easy, or cost effective to build more hospitals quickly.

[afx114]

asia,

Isn’t there a free market solution to that problem? Build more hospitals, hire more doctors, etc..

[afx114]

asia,

Isn’t there a free market solution to that problem? Build more hospitals, hire more doctors, etc..

[afx114]

asia,

Isn’t there a free market solution to that problem? Build more hospitals, hire more doctors, etc..

[afx114]

asia,

Isn’t there a free market solution to that problem? Build more hospitals, hire more doctors, etc..

[an]

[quote=afx114]
That’s the problem. Because healthcare is so expensive now, it prevents people from preventative care. So it ends up costing us more in the long run anyway (via higher premiums).

The idea is that if we have less un-insured, more people will be seeking healthcare so that problems can be caught and treated early – before they are terminal and/or exponentially more expensive to treat.
[/quote]
But that’s not really how it played out in real life. Just look at Canada to see what happens when everyone have free healthcare. People know it will cost them nothing to go to ER and since the wait is so long to get an appointment with a PCP, people just go to the ER for just about anything. Which causes over crowding in ER. I also hear horror stories of people waiting in the hall ways of the hospital waiting for a room because the hospital are also overcrowded. Some even get treated in the hall way and some even died in the hall way. If you want to see a specialist, I hear you’d have to wait 3-6 months after you see your PCP to see a specialist.

I blame the lawyers as one of the main reasons for our high healthcare cost. It doesn’t make financial sense to become a regular doctor anymore. Even when you make $200k/yr, your malpractice insurance are in the 6 digits. If you get sued once or twice, you can no longer practice. Imagine if you spent hundreds of thousands and over 10 years to get your MD, only to render it useless after a few years. My wife is in the healthcare field and she’s worried that by the time we’re old, we won’t have many good doctors to choose from. The only lucrative MD are surgeons, so everyone want to be a surgeon. It’s not cost effective to be a regular MD. So you have less regular doctors and increase amount people looking for healthcare since it would be free. You can draw your own conclusion.

[an]

[quote=afx114]
That’s the problem. Because healthcare is so expensive now, it prevents people from preventative care. So it ends up costing us more in the long run anyway (via higher premiums).

The idea is that if we have less un-insured, more people will be seeking healthcare so that problems can be caught and treated early – before they are terminal and/or exponentially more expensive to treat.
[/quote]
But that’s not really how it played out in real life. Just look at Canada to see what happens when everyone have free healthcare. People know it will cost them nothing to go to ER and since the wait is so long to get an appointment with a PCP, people just go to the ER for just about anything. Which causes over crowding in ER. I also hear horror stories of people waiting in the hall ways of the hospital waiting for a room because the hospital are also overcrowded. Some even get treated in the hall way and some even died in the hall way. If you want to see a specialist, I hear you’d have to wait 3-6 months after you see your PCP to see a specialist.

I blame the lawyers as one of the main reasons for our high healthcare cost. It doesn’t make financial sense to become a regular doctor anymore. Even when you make $200k/yr, your malpractice insurance are in the 6 digits. If you get sued once or twice, you can no longer practice. Imagine if you spent hundreds of thousands and over 10 years to get your MD, only to render it useless after a few years. My wife is in the healthcare field and she’s worried that by the time we’re old, we won’t have many good doctors to choose from. The only lucrative MD are surgeons, so everyone want to be a surgeon. It’s not cost effective to be a regular MD. So you have less regular doctors and increase amount people looking for healthcare since it would be free. You can draw your own conclusion.

[an]

[quote=afx114]
That’s the problem. Because healthcare is so expensive now, it prevents people from preventative care. So it ends up costing us more in the long run anyway (via higher premiums).

The idea is that if we have less un-insured, more people will be seeking healthcare so that problems can be caught and treated early – before they are terminal and/or exponentially more expensive to treat.
[/quote]
But that’s not really how it played out in real life. Just look at Canada to see what happens when everyone have free healthcare. People know it will cost them nothing to go to ER and since the wait is so long to get an appointment with a PCP, people just go to the ER for just about anything. Which causes over crowding in ER. I also hear horror stories of people waiting in the hall ways of the hospital waiting for a room because the hospital are also overcrowded. Some even get treated in the hall way and some even died in the hall way. If you want to see a specialist, I hear you’d have to wait 3-6 months after you see your PCP to see a specialist.

I blame the lawyers as one of the main reasons for our high healthcare cost. It doesn’t make financial sense to become a regular doctor anymore. Even when you make $200k/yr, your malpractice insurance are in the 6 digits. If you get sued once or twice, you can no longer practice. Imagine if you spent hundreds of thousands and over 10 years to get your MD, only to render it useless after a few years. My wife is in the healthcare field and she’s worried that by the time we’re old, we won’t have many good doctors to choose from. The only lucrative MD are surgeons, so everyone want to be a surgeon. It’s not cost effective to be a regular MD. So you have less regular doctors and increase amount people looking for healthcare since it would be free. You can draw your own conclusion.

[an]

[quote=afx114]
That’s the problem. Because healthcare is so expensive now, it prevents people from preventative care. So it ends up costing us more in the long run anyway (via higher premiums).

The idea is that if we have less un-insured, more people will be seeking healthcare so that problems can be caught and treated early – before they are terminal and/or exponentially more expensive to treat.
[/quote]
But that’s not really how it played out in real life. Just look at Canada to see what happens when everyone have free healthcare. People know it will cost them nothing to go to ER and since the wait is so long to get an appointment with a PCP, people just go to the ER for just about anything. Which causes over crowding in ER. I also hear horror stories of people waiting in the hall ways of the hospital waiting for a room because the hospital are also overcrowded. Some even get treated in the hall way and some even died in the hall way. If you want to see a specialist, I hear you’d have to wait 3-6 months after you see your PCP to see a specialist.

I blame the lawyers as one of the main reasons for our high healthcare cost. It doesn’t make financial sense to become a regular doctor anymore. Even when you make $200k/yr, your malpractice insurance are in the 6 digits. If you get sued once or twice, you can no longer practice. Imagine if you spent hundreds of thousands and over 10 years to get your MD, only to render it useless after a few years. My wife is in the healthcare field and she’s worried that by the time we’re old, we won’t have many good doctors to choose from. The only lucrative MD are surgeons, so everyone want to be a surgeon. It’s not cost effective to be a regular MD. So you have less regular doctors and increase amount people looking for healthcare since it would be free. You can draw your own conclusion.

[afx114]

[quote=MANmom]I totally agree…when they ask me to pay for someone else’s healthcare, I want to be able to monitor what they eat, drink and smoke. I’m not paying for someone else’s gluttony. I also want to make sure they spend at least 30 minutes a day excersizing, don’t drive motorcycles…the list goes on and on. Health care is not a right, it is a personal responsibility.[/quote]

That’s the problem. Because healthcare is so expensive now, it prevents people from preventative care. So it ends up costing us more in the long run anyway (via higher premiums).

The idea is that if we have less un-insured, more people will be seeking healthcare so that problems can be caught and treated early – before they are terminal and/or exponentially more expensive to treat.

[afx114]

[quote=MANmom]I totally agree…when they ask me to pay for someone else’s healthcare, I want to be able to monitor what they eat, drink and smoke. I’m not paying for someone else’s gluttony. I also want to make sure they spend at least 30 minutes a day excersizing, don’t drive motorcycles…the list goes on and on. Health care is not a right, it is a personal responsibility.[/quote]

That’s the problem. Because healthcare is so expensive now, it prevents people from preventative care. So it ends up costing us more in the long run anyway (via higher premiums).

The idea is that if we have less un-insured, more people will be seeking healthcare so that problems can be caught and treated early – before they are terminal and/or exponentially more expensive to treat.

[afx114]

[quote=MANmom]I totally agree…when they ask me to pay for someone else’s healthcare, I want to be able to monitor what they eat, drink and smoke. I’m not paying for someone else’s gluttony. I also want to make sure they spend at least 30 minutes a day excersizing, don’t drive motorcycles…the list goes on and on. Health care is not a right, it is a personal responsibility.[/quote]

That’s the problem. Because healthcare is so expensive now, it prevents people from preventative care. So it ends up costing us more in the long run anyway (via higher premiums).

The idea is that if we have less un-insured, more people will be seeking healthcare so that problems can be caught and treated early – before they are terminal and/or exponentially more expensive to treat.

[afx114]

[quote=MANmom]I totally agree…when they ask me to pay for someone else’s healthcare, I want to be able to monitor what they eat, drink and smoke. I’m not paying for someone else’s gluttony. I also want to make sure they spend at least 30 minutes a day excersizing, don’t drive motorcycles…the list goes on and on. Health care is not a right, it is a personal responsibility.[/quote]

That’s the problem. Because healthcare is so expensive now, it prevents people from preventative care. So it ends up costing us more in the long run anyway (via higher premiums).

The idea is that if we have less un-insured, more people will be seeking healthcare so that problems can be caught and treated early – before they are terminal and/or exponentially more expensive to treat.

[MANmom]

I totally agree…when they ask me to pay for someone else’s healthcare, I want to be able to monitor what they eat, drink and smoke. I’m not paying for someone else’s gluttony. I also want to make sure they spend at least 30 minutes a day excersizing, don’t drive motorcycles…the list goes on and on. Health care is not a right, it is a personal responsibility.

[MANmom]

I totally agree…when they ask me to pay for someone else’s healthcare, I want to be able to monitor what they eat, drink and smoke. I’m not paying for someone else’s gluttony. I also want to make sure they spend at least 30 minutes a day excersizing, don’t drive motorcycles…the list goes on and on. Health care is not a right, it is a personal responsibility.

[MANmom]

I totally agree…when they ask me to pay for someone else’s healthcare, I want to be able to monitor what they eat, drink and smoke. I’m not paying for someone else’s gluttony. I also want to make sure they spend at least 30 minutes a day excersizing, don’t drive motorcycles…the list goes on and on. Health care is not a right, it is a personal responsibility.

[MANmom]

I totally agree…when they ask me to pay for someone else’s healthcare, I want to be able to monitor what they eat, drink and smoke. I’m not paying for someone else’s gluttony. I also want to make sure they spend at least 30 minutes a day excersizing, don’t drive motorcycles…the list goes on and on. Health care is not a right, it is a personal responsibility.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=meadandale]…Who shall provide this care? The doctor or nurse? Shall they work for free? Shall they be told what they can earn or where and how they can work (we already have our quota of doctors in San Diego, you can’t practice medicine here)? Shall the doctors, nurses and hospitals be paid by the government? With taxes? That means that someone else has had the fruits of their labor confiscated to provide a ‘right’ for someone else. This doesn’t meet the test for a natural right. Exercise of this ‘right’ requires that someone else’s rights are infringed.[/quote]

This would be funny if it didnt’ describe HMOs so accurately…

[LuckyInOC]

God’s version of redistribution of wealth:

Even God understood the difference between individuals ‘brains’ or ‘abilities’, but still expected results (profits).

Obama must have missed this sermon in church:

Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.

After a long time, the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. “Master,” he said, “you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.”

His master replied, “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!”

The man with the two talents also came. “Master,” he said, “you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.”

His master replied, “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!”

Then the man who had received the one talent came. “Master,” he said, “I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.”

His master replied, “You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

“Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

– Matthew 25:14-30 (NIV)

BTW, the Mega-Rich (Buffett, Gates, Jobs, etc.) will never see Obama’s tax. They are protected by vehicles (trusts, etc.) that will protect their income from taxation. Most the taxes will come from Small Business’ (less than 50 employees). This is where most J6P work until they lose their jobs.

I’m for limited, small government. Unfortunately, there is not very many candidates available.

Shouldn’t candidates be individuals that are ‘Candid’? Kind of Ironic…

Lucky in OC
(better known as thread killer)

[LuckyInOC]

God’s version of redistribution of wealth:

Even God understood the difference between individuals ‘brains’ or ‘abilities’, but still expected results (profits).

Obama must have missed this sermon in church:

Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.

After a long time, the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. “Master,” he said, “you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.”

His master replied, “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!”

The man with the two talents also came. “Master,” he said, “you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.”

His master replied, “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!”

Then the man who had received the one talent came. “Master,” he said, “I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.”

His master replied, “You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

“Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

– Matthew 25:14-30 (NIV)

BTW, the Mega-Rich (Buffett, Gates, Jobs, etc.) will never see Obama’s tax. They are protected by vehicles (trusts, etc.) that will protect their income from taxation. Most the taxes will come from Small Business’ (less than 50 employees). This is where most J6P work until they lose their jobs.

I’m for limited, small government. Unfortunately, there is not very many candidates available.

Shouldn’t candidates be individuals that are ‘Candid’? Kind of Ironic…

Lucky in OC
(better known as thread killer)

[LuckyInOC]

God’s version of redistribution of wealth:

Even God understood the difference between individuals ‘brains’ or ‘abilities’, but still expected results (profits).

Obama must have missed this sermon in church:

Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.

After a long time, the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. “Master,” he said, “you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.”

His master replied, “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!”

The man with the two talents also came. “Master,” he said, “you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.”

His master replied, “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!”

Then the man who had received the one talent came. “Master,” he said, “I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.”

His master replied, “You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

“Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

– Matthew 25:14-30 (NIV)

BTW, the Mega-Rich (Buffett, Gates, Jobs, etc.) will never see Obama’s tax. They are protected by vehicles (trusts, etc.) that will protect their income from taxation. Most the taxes will come from Small Business’ (less than 50 employees). This is where most J6P work until they lose their jobs.

I’m for limited, small government. Unfortunately, there is not very many candidates available.

Shouldn’t candidates be individuals that are ‘Candid’? Kind of Ironic…

Lucky in OC
(better known as thread killer)

[LuckyInOC]

God’s version of redistribution of wealth:

Even God understood the difference between individuals ‘brains’ or ‘abilities’, but still expected results (profits).

Obama must have missed this sermon in church:

Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.

After a long time, the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. “Master,” he said, “you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.”

His master replied, “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!”

The man with the two talents also came. “Master,” he said, “you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.”

His master replied, “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!”

Then the man who had received the one talent came. “Master,” he said, “I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.”

His master replied, “You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

“Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

– Matthew 25:14-30 (NIV)

BTW, the Mega-Rich (Buffett, Gates, Jobs, etc.) will never see Obama’s tax. They are protected by vehicles (trusts, etc.) that will protect their income from taxation. Most the taxes will come from Small Business’ (less than 50 employees). This is where most J6P work until they lose their jobs.

I’m for limited, small government. Unfortunately, there is not very many candidates available.

Shouldn’t candidates be individuals that are ‘Candid’? Kind of Ironic…

Lucky in OC
(better known as thread killer)

[LuckyInOC]

God’s version of redistribution of wealth:

Even God understood the difference between individuals ‘brains’ or ‘abilities’, but still expected results (profits).

Obama must have missed this sermon in church:

Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.

After a long time, the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. “Master,” he said, “you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.”

His master replied, “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!”

The man with the two talents also came. “Master,” he said, “you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.”

His master replied, “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!”

Then the man who had received the one talent came. “Master,” he said, “I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.”

His master replied, “You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

“Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

– Matthew 25:14-30 (NIV)

BTW, the Mega-Rich (Buffett, Gates, Jobs, etc.) will never see Obama’s tax. They are protected by vehicles (trusts, etc.) that will protect their income from taxation. Most the taxes will come from Small Business’ (less than 50 employees). This is where most J6P work until they lose their jobs.

I’m for limited, small government. Unfortunately, there is not very many candidates available.

Shouldn’t candidates be individuals that are ‘Candid’? Kind of Ironic…

Lucky in OC
(better known as thread killer)

[Shadowfax]

[quote=meadandale]…Who shall provide this care? The doctor or nurse? Shall they work for free? Shall they be told what they can earn or where and how they can work (we already have our quota of doctors in San Diego, you can’t practice medicine here)? Shall the doctors, nurses and hospitals be paid by the government? With taxes? That means that someone else has had the fruits of their labor confiscated to provide a ‘right’ for someone else. This doesn’t meet the test for a natural right. Exercise of this ‘right’ requires that someone else’s rights are infringed.[/quote]

This would be funny if it didnt’ describe HMOs so accurately…

[Shadowfax]

[quote=meadandale]…Who shall provide this care? The doctor or nurse? Shall they work for free? Shall they be told what they can earn or where and how they can work (we already have our quota of doctors in San Diego, you can’t practice medicine here)? Shall the doctors, nurses and hospitals be paid by the government? With taxes? That means that someone else has had the fruits of their labor confiscated to provide a ‘right’ for someone else. This doesn’t meet the test for a natural right. Exercise of this ‘right’ requires that someone else’s rights are infringed.[/quote]

This would be funny if it didnt’ describe HMOs so accurately…

[Shadowfax]

[quote=meadandale]…Who shall provide this care? The doctor or nurse? Shall they work for free? Shall they be told what they can earn or where and how they can work (we already have our quota of doctors in San Diego, you can’t practice medicine here)? Shall the doctors, nurses and hospitals be paid by the government? With taxes? That means that someone else has had the fruits of their labor confiscated to provide a ‘right’ for someone else. This doesn’t meet the test for a natural right. Exercise of this ‘right’ requires that someone else’s rights are infringed.[/quote]

This would be funny if it didnt’ describe HMOs so accurately…

[Shadowfax]

[quote=meadandale]…Who shall provide this care? The doctor or nurse? Shall they work for free? Shall they be told what they can earn or where and how they can work (we already have our quota of doctors in San Diego, you can’t practice medicine here)? Shall the doctors, nurses and hospitals be paid by the government? With taxes? That means that someone else has had the fruits of their labor confiscated to provide a ‘right’ for someone else. This doesn’t meet the test for a natural right. Exercise of this ‘right’ requires that someone else’s rights are infringed.[/quote]

This would be funny if it didnt’ describe HMOs so accurately…

[meadandale]

[quote=MANmom]It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. [/quote]

All the rights outlined in the declaration of independence are natural rights. They are rights conveyed to EVERY person by virtue of their birth. The exercise of these rights by an individual does not necessarily affect anyone else and is only prohibited at the point that one person’s exercising their rights infringes on another’s ability to do so. That is why murder is illegal…me murdering another infringes on their right to life.

However, many of the ‘rights’ that politicians are touting now are nothing of the sort. There is no ‘right’ to health care. There is no ‘right’ to own a house or to shelter in general. There is no ‘right’ to food. As (an arguably) enlightened society, we may desire to provide these things for as many people as we can, even if they can’t provide them for themselves but it is erroneous to refer to them as ‘rights’. They are nothing of the sort.

The assertion that these are ‘rights’ is at odds with the natural rights outlined above. The exercise of these new ‘rights’ suredly means that someone else has their rights abridged or infringed in order to provide them.

Consider healthcare as a right. It should be provided for anyone regardless of their ability to pay? Who shall provide this care? The doctor or nurse? Shall they work for free? Shall they be told what they can earn or where and how they can work (we already have our quota of doctors in San Diego, you can’t practice medicine here)? Shall the doctors, nurses and hospitals be paid by the government? With taxes? That means that someone else has had the fruits of their labor confiscated to provide a ‘right’ for someone else. This doesn’t meet the test for a natural right. Exercise of this ‘right’ requires that someone else’s rights are infringed.

[meadandale]

[quote=MANmom]It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. [/quote]

All the rights outlined in the declaration of independence are natural rights. They are rights conveyed to EVERY person by virtue of their birth. The exercise of these rights by an individual does not necessarily affect anyone else and is only prohibited at the point that one person’s exercising their rights infringes on another’s ability to do so. That is why murder is illegal…me murdering another infringes on their right to life.

However, many of the ‘rights’ that politicians are touting now are nothing of the sort. There is no ‘right’ to health care. There is no ‘right’ to own a house or to shelter in general. There is no ‘right’ to food. As (an arguably) enlightened society, we may desire to provide these things for as many people as we can, even if they can’t provide them for themselves but it is erroneous to refer to them as ‘rights’. They are nothing of the sort.

The assertion that these are ‘rights’ is at odds with the natural rights outlined above. The exercise of these new ‘rights’ suredly means that someone else has their rights abridged or infringed in order to provide them.

Consider healthcare as a right. It should be provided for anyone regardless of their ability to pay? Who shall provide this care? The doctor or nurse? Shall they work for free? Shall they be told what they can earn or where and how they can work (we already have our quota of doctors in San Diego, you can’t practice medicine here)? Shall the doctors, nurses and hospitals be paid by the government? With taxes? That means that someone else has had the fruits of their labor confiscated to provide a ‘right’ for someone else. This doesn’t meet the test for a natural right. Exercise of this ‘right’ requires that someone else’s rights are infringed.

[meadandale]

[quote=MANmom]It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. [/quote]

All the rights outlined in the declaration of independence are natural rights. They are rights conveyed to EVERY person by virtue of their birth. The exercise of these rights by an individual does not necessarily affect anyone else and is only prohibited at the point that one person’s exercising their rights infringes on another’s ability to do so. That is why murder is illegal…me murdering another infringes on their right to life.

However, many of the ‘rights’ that politicians are touting now are nothing of the sort. There is no ‘right’ to health care. There is no ‘right’ to own a house or to shelter in general. There is no ‘right’ to food. As (an arguably) enlightened society, we may desire to provide these things for as many people as we can, even if they can’t provide them for themselves but it is erroneous to refer to them as ‘rights’. They are nothing of the sort.

The assertion that these are ‘rights’ is at odds with the natural rights outlined above. The exercise of these new ‘rights’ suredly means that someone else has their rights abridged or infringed in order to provide them.

Consider healthcare as a right. It should be provided for anyone regardless of their ability to pay? Who shall provide this care? The doctor or nurse? Shall they work for free? Shall they be told what they can earn or where and how they can work (we already have our quota of doctors in San Diego, you can’t practice medicine here)? Shall the doctors, nurses and hospitals be paid by the government? With taxes? That means that someone else has had the fruits of their labor confiscated to provide a ‘right’ for someone else. This doesn’t meet the test for a natural right. Exercise of this ‘right’ requires that someone else’s rights are infringed.

[meadandale]

[quote=MANmom]It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. [/quote]

All the rights outlined in the declaration of independence are natural rights. They are rights conveyed to EVERY person by virtue of their birth. The exercise of these rights by an individual does not necessarily affect anyone else and is only prohibited at the point that one person’s exercising their rights infringes on another’s ability to do so. That is why murder is illegal…me murdering another infringes on their right to life.

However, many of the ‘rights’ that politicians are touting now are nothing of the sort. There is no ‘right’ to health care. There is no ‘right’ to own a house or to shelter in general. There is no ‘right’ to food. As (an arguably) enlightened society, we may desire to provide these things for as many people as we can, even if they can’t provide them for themselves but it is erroneous to refer to them as ‘rights’. They are nothing of the sort.

The assertion that these are ‘rights’ is at odds with the natural rights outlined above. The exercise of these new ‘rights’ suredly means that someone else has their rights abridged or infringed in order to provide them.

Consider healthcare as a right. It should be provided for anyone regardless of their ability to pay? Who shall provide this care? The doctor or nurse? Shall they work for free? Shall they be told what they can earn or where and how they can work (we already have our quota of doctors in San Diego, you can’t practice medicine here)? Shall the doctors, nurses and hospitals be paid by the government? With taxes? That means that someone else has had the fruits of their labor confiscated to provide a ‘right’ for someone else. This doesn’t meet the test for a natural right. Exercise of this ‘right’ requires that someone else’s rights are infringed.

[MANmom]

It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. Many times, the smart people do not succeed, whereas the people who are not as smart become great successes. I personally know a Orthopedic surgeon that got into drugs and lost his medical license…and yet, when I went to high school, there was a girl in school who was not very bright. No one thought she would make anything of herself…BUT! Just google Shari’s Berries and see where my friend Shari is today…one of the largest and best chocolate dipped strawberry companies in the world. It just takes good ideas and a bit of courage, and anyone can do it if they go after what they want. It is not always the smart folks who succeed.

[MANmom]

It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. Many times, the smart people do not succeed, whereas the people who are not as smart become great successes. I personally know a Orthopedic surgeon that got into drugs and lost his medical license…and yet, when I went to high school, there was a girl in school who was not very bright. No one thought she would make anything of herself…BUT! Just google Shari’s Berries and see where my friend Shari is today…one of the largest and best chocolate dipped strawberry companies in the world. It just takes good ideas and a bit of courage, and anyone can do it if they go after what they want. It is not always the smart folks who succeed.

[MANmom]

It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. Many times, the smart people do not succeed, whereas the people who are not as smart become great successes. I personally know a Orthopedic surgeon that got into drugs and lost his medical license…and yet, when I went to high school, there was a girl in school who was not very bright. No one thought she would make anything of herself…BUT! Just google Shari’s Berries and see where my friend Shari is today…one of the largest and best chocolate dipped strawberry companies in the world. It just takes good ideas and a bit of courage, and anyone can do it if they go after what they want. It is not always the smart folks who succeed.

[MANmom]

It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. Many times, the smart people do not succeed, whereas the people who are not as smart become great successes. I personally know a Orthopedic surgeon that got into drugs and lost his medical license…and yet, when I went to high school, there was a girl in school who was not very bright. No one thought she would make anything of herself…BUT! Just google Shari’s Berries and see where my friend Shari is today…one of the largest and best chocolate dipped strawberry companies in the world. It just takes good ideas and a bit of courage, and anyone can do it if they go after what they want. It is not always the smart folks who succeed.

[DWCAP]

[quote=MANmom]Just what is it about human nature that some people feel that they have a right to take what I have worked hard for and give it to someone else? Kind of like the great idea that all of us should have to pay for someone else’s bad decision to buy a house they knew they could not afford…we all knew this was coming. Some people just won’t take personal responsibility for anything.[/quote]

It isnt about that at all. The issue is that these types of people see a public need and want to make life better. They always are able to see what their actions provide, but never what it costs. Obama, the democrats, and most of their supporters have two points of contention for those who support the system the most.

1) You can afford it.
You make alot of money (alot being subjective) and will have to sacrifice only luxeries to pay the higher taxes. So what if your vacation is to Florida instead of Fiji, you still get a vacation right? Some people dont get vacations, so be glad we are not taking more.

2) Everyone has basic rights, and it is GOV’s job to expand those basic rights.
They see all the great things they can do, no matter if it is a really expensive (insert social “reconstruction” ideal here) or not. Any way it goes, they see a need and intend on filling it. If they have to fill it with your money, then that is no big deal, they always can fall back onto point #1 above. Remember, they are making things ‘better’ and will never see the costs their “improvements” really have.

[DWCAP]

[quote=MANmom]Just what is it about human nature that some people feel that they have a right to take what I have worked hard for and give it to someone else? Kind of like the great idea that all of us should have to pay for someone else’s bad decision to buy a house they knew they could not afford…we all knew this was coming. Some people just won’t take personal responsibility for anything.[/quote]

It isnt about that at all. The issue is that these types of people see a public need and want to make life better. They always are able to see what their actions provide, but never what it costs. Obama, the democrats, and most of their supporters have two points of contention for those who support the system the most.

1) You can afford it.
You make alot of money (alot being subjective) and will have to sacrifice only luxeries to pay the higher taxes. So what if your vacation is to Florida instead of Fiji, you still get a vacation right? Some people dont get vacations, so be glad we are not taking more.

2) Everyone has basic rights, and it is GOV’s job to expand those basic rights.
They see all the great things they can do, no matter if it is a really expensive (insert social “reconstruction” ideal here) or not. Any way it goes, they see a need and intend on filling it. If they have to fill it with your money, then that is no big deal, they always can fall back onto point #1 above. Remember, they are making things ‘better’ and will never see the costs their “improvements” really have.

[DWCAP]

[quote=MANmom]Just what is it about human nature that some people feel that they have a right to take what I have worked hard for and give it to someone else? Kind of like the great idea that all of us should have to pay for someone else’s bad decision to buy a house they knew they could not afford…we all knew this was coming. Some people just won’t take personal responsibility for anything.[/quote]

It isnt about that at all. The issue is that these types of people see a public need and want to make life better. They always are able to see what their actions provide, but never what it costs. Obama, the democrats, and most of their supporters have two points of contention for those who support the system the most.

1) You can afford it.
You make alot of money (alot being subjective) and will have to sacrifice only luxeries to pay the higher taxes. So what if your vacation is to Florida instead of Fiji, you still get a vacation right? Some people dont get vacations, so be glad we are not taking more.

2) Everyone has basic rights, and it is GOV’s job to expand those basic rights.
They see all the great things they can do, no matter if it is a really expensive (insert social “reconstruction” ideal here) or not. Any way it goes, they see a need and intend on filling it. If they have to fill it with your money, then that is no big deal, they always can fall back onto point #1 above. Remember, they are making things ‘better’ and will never see the costs their “improvements” really have.

[DWCAP]

[quote=MANmom]Just what is it about human nature that some people feel that they have a right to take what I have worked hard for and give it to someone else? Kind of like the great idea that all of us should have to pay for someone else’s bad decision to buy a house they knew they could not afford…we all knew this was coming. Some people just won’t take personal responsibility for anything.[/quote]

It isnt about that at all. The issue is that these types of people see a public need and want to make life better. They always are able to see what their actions provide, but never what it costs. Obama, the democrats, and most of their supporters have two points of contention for those who support the system the most.

1) You can afford it.
You make alot of money (alot being subjective) and will have to sacrifice only luxeries to pay the higher taxes. So what if your vacation is to Florida instead of Fiji, you still get a vacation right? Some people dont get vacations, so be glad we are not taking more.

2) Everyone has basic rights, and it is GOV’s job to expand those basic rights.
They see all the great things they can do, no matter if it is a really expensive (insert social “reconstruction” ideal here) or not. Any way it goes, they see a need and intend on filling it. If they have to fill it with your money, then that is no big deal, they always can fall back onto point #1 above. Remember, they are making things ‘better’ and will never see the costs their “improvements” really have.

[MANmom]

Just what is it about human nature that some people feel that they have a right to take what I have worked hard for and give it to someone else? Kind of like the great idea that all of us should have to pay for someone else’s bad decision to buy a house they knew they could not afford…we all knew this was coming. Some people just won’t take personal responsibility for anything.

[MANmom]

Just what is it about human nature that some people feel that they have a right to take what I have worked hard for and give it to someone else? Kind of like the great idea that all of us should have to pay for someone else’s bad decision to buy a house they knew they could not afford…we all knew this was coming. Some people just won’t take personal responsibility for anything.

[MANmom]

Just what is it about human nature that some people feel that they have a right to take what I have worked hard for and give it to someone else? Kind of like the great idea that all of us should have to pay for someone else’s bad decision to buy a house they knew they could not afford…we all knew this was coming. Some people just won’t take personal responsibility for anything.

[MANmom]

Just what is it about human nature that some people feel that they have a right to take what I have worked hard for and give it to someone else? Kind of like the great idea that all of us should have to pay for someone else’s bad decision to buy a house they knew they could not afford…we all knew this was coming. Some people just won’t take personal responsibility for anything.

[alarmclock]

Not to be a liberal apologist but the underlying pricinple is that it’s not just hard work, but intrinsic capability that determines success. In essence God hands out different quality brains with different capabilities. You ended up with a better-than-average brain, and thus better-than-average earning potential. The kicker is that you didn’t do anything to earn it–you couldn’t possibly have, unless you believe in reincarnation. So, as a society, those who undeservedly ended up with good brains are obligated to help those who undeservedly ended up without good brains.

Mmmmm… brains….

[ibjames]

it’s not about brains

it reminds me of my high school, I went to an inner city school with high teen pregnancy and high dropout rates. Not many students went to college.

My high school teachers would always talk about how many of us aren’t smart enough for college.

College is not about smarts, it is about work ethic.

My brother in law has been in remedial classes his whole life. He has to study longer, and work harder to learn material. He has a college degree and makes pretty good money. He doesn’t have many friends, isn’t the brightest bulb, but he works hard, and makes good money. He took 5 1/2 years to complete college, but he finished, he’s even thinking of working on his MBA.

Why should I or my brother in law work hard to make a good salary just to get taxed like crazy so my money can go to someone who is hanging out watching tv collecting employment (like my other brother)

[jficquette]

[quote=ibjames]it’s not about brains

it reminds me of my high school, I went to an inner city school with high teen pregnancy and high dropout rates. Not many students went to college.

My high school teachers would always talk about how many of us aren’t smart enough for college.

College is not about smarts, it is about work ethic.

My brother in law has been in remedial classes his whole life. He has to study longer, and work harder to learn material. He has a college degree and makes pretty good money. He doesn’t have many friends, isn’t the brightest bulb, but he works hard, and makes good money. He took 5 1/2 years to complete college, but he finished, he’s even thinking of working on his MBA.

Why should I or my brother in law work hard to make a good salary just to get taxed like crazy so my money can go to someone who is hanging out watching tv collecting employment (like my other brother)[/quote]

Thats great about your brother. Nothing more warming then to hear about someone who overcame barriers to reach their goals.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=ibjames]it’s not about brains

it reminds me of my high school, I went to an inner city school with high teen pregnancy and high dropout rates. Not many students went to college.

My high school teachers would always talk about how many of us aren’t smart enough for college.

College is not about smarts, it is about work ethic.

My brother in law has been in remedial classes his whole life. He has to study longer, and work harder to learn material. He has a college degree and makes pretty good money. He doesn’t have many friends, isn’t the brightest bulb, but he works hard, and makes good money. He took 5 1/2 years to complete college, but he finished, he’s even thinking of working on his MBA.

Why should I or my brother in law work hard to make a good salary just to get taxed like crazy so my money can go to someone who is hanging out watching tv collecting employment (like my other brother)[/quote]

Thats great about your brother. Nothing more warming then to hear about someone who overcame barriers to reach their goals.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=ibjames]it’s not about brains

it reminds me of my high school, I went to an inner city school with high teen pregnancy and high dropout rates. Not many students went to college.

My high school teachers would always talk about how many of us aren’t smart enough for college.

College is not about smarts, it is about work ethic.

My brother in law has been in remedial classes his whole life. He has to study longer, and work harder to learn material. He has a college degree and makes pretty good money. He doesn’t have many friends, isn’t the brightest bulb, but he works hard, and makes good money. He took 5 1/2 years to complete college, but he finished, he’s even thinking of working on his MBA.

Why should I or my brother in law work hard to make a good salary just to get taxed like crazy so my money can go to someone who is hanging out watching tv collecting employment (like my other brother)[/quote]

Thats great about your brother. Nothing more warming then to hear about someone who overcame barriers to reach their goals.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=ibjames]it’s not about brains

it reminds me of my high school, I went to an inner city school with high teen pregnancy and high dropout rates. Not many students went to college.

My high school teachers would always talk about how many of us aren’t smart enough for college.

College is not about smarts, it is about work ethic.

My brother in law has been in remedial classes his whole life. He has to study longer, and work harder to learn material. He has a college degree and makes pretty good money. He doesn’t have many friends, isn’t the brightest bulb, but he works hard, and makes good money. He took 5 1/2 years to complete college, but he finished, he’s even thinking of working on his MBA.

Why should I or my brother in law work hard to make a good salary just to get taxed like crazy so my money can go to someone who is hanging out watching tv collecting employment (like my other brother)[/quote]

Thats great about your brother. Nothing more warming then to hear about someone who overcame barriers to reach their goals.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=ibjames]it’s not about brains

it reminds me of my high school, I went to an inner city school with high teen pregnancy and high dropout rates. Not many students went to college.

My high school teachers would always talk about how many of us aren’t smart enough for college.

College is not about smarts, it is about work ethic.

My brother in law has been in remedial classes his whole life. He has to study longer, and work harder to learn material. He has a college degree and makes pretty good money. He doesn’t have many friends, isn’t the brightest bulb, but he works hard, and makes good money. He took 5 1/2 years to complete college, but he finished, he’s even thinking of working on his MBA.

Why should I or my brother in law work hard to make a good salary just to get taxed like crazy so my money can go to someone who is hanging out watching tv collecting employment (like my other brother)[/quote]

Thats great about your brother. Nothing more warming then to hear about someone who overcame barriers to reach their goals.

John

[ibjames]

it’s not about brains

it reminds me of my high school, I went to an inner city school with high teen pregnancy and high dropout rates. Not many students went to college.

My high school teachers would always talk about how many of us aren’t smart enough for college.

College is not about smarts, it is about work ethic.

My brother in law has been in remedial classes his whole life. He has to study longer, and work harder to learn material. He has a college degree and makes pretty good money. He doesn’t have many friends, isn’t the brightest bulb, but he works hard, and makes good money. He took 5 1/2 years to complete college, but he finished, he’s even thinking of working on his MBA.

Why should I or my brother in law work hard to make a good salary just to get taxed like crazy so my money can go to someone who is hanging out watching tv collecting employment (like my other brother)

[ibjames]

it’s not about brains

it reminds me of my high school, I went to an inner city school with high teen pregnancy and high dropout rates. Not many students went to college.

My high school teachers would always talk about how many of us aren’t smart enough for college.

College is not about smarts, it is about work ethic.

My brother in law has been in remedial classes his whole life. He has to study longer, and work harder to learn material. He has a college degree and makes pretty good money. He doesn’t have many friends, isn’t the brightest bulb, but he works hard, and makes good money. He took 5 1/2 years to complete college, but he finished, he’s even thinking of working on his MBA.

Why should I or my brother in law work hard to make a good salary just to get taxed like crazy so my money can go to someone who is hanging out watching tv collecting employment (like my other brother)

[ibjames]

it’s not about brains

it reminds me of my high school, I went to an inner city school with high teen pregnancy and high dropout rates. Not many students went to college.

My high school teachers would always talk about how many of us aren’t smart enough for college.

College is not about smarts, it is about work ethic.

My brother in law has been in remedial classes his whole life. He has to study longer, and work harder to learn material. He has a college degree and makes pretty good money. He doesn’t have many friends, isn’t the brightest bulb, but he works hard, and makes good money. He took 5 1/2 years to complete college, but he finished, he’s even thinking of working on his MBA.

Why should I or my brother in law work hard to make a good salary just to get taxed like crazy so my money can go to someone who is hanging out watching tv collecting employment (like my other brother)

[ibjames]

it’s not about brains

it reminds me of my high school, I went to an inner city school with high teen pregnancy and high dropout rates. Not many students went to college.

My high school teachers would always talk about how many of us aren’t smart enough for college.

College is not about smarts, it is about work ethic.

My brother in law has been in remedial classes his whole life. He has to study longer, and work harder to learn material. He has a college degree and makes pretty good money. He doesn’t have many friends, isn’t the brightest bulb, but he works hard, and makes good money. He took 5 1/2 years to complete college, but he finished, he’s even thinking of working on his MBA.

Why should I or my brother in law work hard to make a good salary just to get taxed like crazy so my money can go to someone who is hanging out watching tv collecting employment (like my other brother)

[tc]

So your brother gets unemployment now.

[tc]

So your brother gets unemployment now.

[tc]

So your brother gets unemployment now.

[tc]

So your brother gets unemployment now.

[tc]

So your brother gets unemployment now.

[alarmclock]

Not to be a liberal apologist but the underlying pricinple is that it’s not just hard work, but intrinsic capability that determines success. In essence God hands out different quality brains with different capabilities. You ended up with a better-than-average brain, and thus better-than-average earning potential. The kicker is that you didn’t do anything to earn it–you couldn’t possibly have, unless you believe in reincarnation. So, as a society, those who undeservedly ended up with good brains are obligated to help those who undeservedly ended up without good brains.

Mmmmm… brains….

[alarmclock]

Not to be a liberal apologist but the underlying pricinple is that it’s not just hard work, but intrinsic capability that determines success. In essence God hands out different quality brains with different capabilities. You ended up with a better-than-average brain, and thus better-than-average earning potential. The kicker is that you didn’t do anything to earn it–you couldn’t possibly have, unless you believe in reincarnation. So, as a society, those who undeservedly ended up with good brains are obligated to help those who undeservedly ended up without good brains.

Mmmmm… brains….

[alarmclock]

Not to be a liberal apologist but the underlying pricinple is that it’s not just hard work, but intrinsic capability that determines success. In essence God hands out different quality brains with different capabilities. You ended up with a better-than-average brain, and thus better-than-average earning potential. The kicker is that you didn’t do anything to earn it–you couldn’t possibly have, unless you believe in reincarnation. So, as a society, those who undeservedly ended up with good brains are obligated to help those who undeservedly ended up without good brains.

Mmmmm… brains….

[alarmclock]

Not to be a liberal apologist but the underlying pricinple is that it’s not just hard work, but intrinsic capability that determines success. In essence God hands out different quality brains with different capabilities. You ended up with a better-than-average brain, and thus better-than-average earning potential. The kicker is that you didn’t do anything to earn it–you couldn’t possibly have, unless you believe in reincarnation. So, as a society, those who undeservedly ended up with good brains are obligated to help those who undeservedly ended up without good brains.

Mmmmm… brains….

[CricketOnTheHearth]

Grapes vs Grape-pickers

In this world there are two main types of people: the grapes and the grape-pickers. Grapes are people who work for their living. They may work 2 or 3 minimum-wage jobs just to make ends meet, they may have worked their way through college like your brother, or they may be a doctor working of $100,000+ in med school loans. The vast majority of grapes earn under $250,000 a year. CEOs of large corporations, and there are about 500 or so of them, are the exception to this.

Then there are the grape-pickers. These are the guys who make their living off “investments”, from dividends that roll in. They are the string-pullers, the ones who push for this law or that law, who move millions of dollars around which influences where the grapes can live, where they can work, and even if they get to work a decent job at all.

It was grape-pickers who engineered this subprime/ald-A/CDOs housing mess, and they made a lot of money off the little grapes they picked– grapes who are now getting laid off, seeing their houses foreclosed upon, or both.

Grape-pickers make up less than 10% of the American population (probably less than 5%, actually) and have something like 50% of the wealth in this country. Obama proposes to “redistribute” the wealth from the grape-pickers to the grapes. The grape-pickers can well afford it– as Warren Buffett, grape-picker extraordinaire, has happily told the media on more than one occasion.

And quite frankly, both server and homeless guy were grapes in this little scenario. Servers’ wages are not much better than minimum wage; they need those tips to survive. The kinder thing in this scenario would have been to give the server his tip and give the homeless guy a $5-spot. Because as is pretty clear from the essay, the guy writing it was a bigger grape than either of them.

[an]

We all know by both tax plans that if you make over $112k, you’ll benefit more with McCain’s plans. Is $112k HOUSEHOLD income consider grape-pickers to you? If you make $112k, you’re in the top 85% household income. So you must be wealthy right? I mean, you’re richer than 85% of Americans.

[an]

We all know by both tax plans that if you make over $112k, you’ll benefit more with McCain’s plans. Is $112k HOUSEHOLD income consider grape-pickers to you? If you make $112k, you’re in the top 85% household income. So you must be wealthy right? I mean, you’re richer than 85% of Americans.

[an]

We all know by both tax plans that if you make over $112k, you’ll benefit more with McCain’s plans. Is $112k HOUSEHOLD income consider grape-pickers to you? If you make $112k, you’re in the top 85% household income. So you must be wealthy right? I mean, you’re richer than 85% of Americans.

[an]

We all know by both tax plans that if you make over $112k, you’ll benefit more with McCain’s plans. Is $112k HOUSEHOLD income consider grape-pickers to you? If you make $112k, you’re in the top 85% household income. So you must be wealthy right? I mean, you’re richer than 85% of Americans.

[an]

We all know by both tax plans that if you make over $112k, you’ll benefit more with McCain’s plans. Is $112k HOUSEHOLD income consider grape-pickers to you? If you make $112k, you’re in the top 85% household income. So you must be wealthy right? I mean, you’re richer than 85% of Americans.

[CricketOnTheHearth]

Grapes vs Grape-pickers

In this world there are two main types of people: the grapes and the grape-pickers. Grapes are people who work for their living. They may work 2 or 3 minimum-wage jobs just to make ends meet, they may have worked their way through college like your brother, or they may be a doctor working of $100,000+ in med school loans. The vast majority of grapes earn under $250,000 a year. CEOs of large corporations, and there are about 500 or so of them, are the exception to this.

Then there are the grape-pickers. These are the guys who make their living off “investments”, from dividends that roll in. They are the string-pullers, the ones who push for this law or that law, who move millions of dollars around which influences where the grapes can live, where they can work, and even if they get to work a decent job at all.

It was grape-pickers who engineered this subprime/ald-A/CDOs housing mess, and they made a lot of money off the little grapes they picked– grapes who are now getting laid off, seeing their houses foreclosed upon, or both.

Grape-pickers make up less than 10% of the American population (probably less than 5%, actually) and have something like 50% of the wealth in this country. Obama proposes to “redistribute” the wealth from the grape-pickers to the grapes. The grape-pickers can well afford it– as Warren Buffett, grape-picker extraordinaire, has happily told the media on more than one occasion.

And quite frankly, both server and homeless guy were grapes in this little scenario. Servers’ wages are not much better than minimum wage; they need those tips to survive. The kinder thing in this scenario would have been to give the server his tip and give the homeless guy a $5-spot. Because as is pretty clear from the essay, the guy writing it was a bigger grape than either of them.

[CricketOnTheHearth]

Grapes vs Grape-pickers

In this world there are two main types of people: the grapes and the grape-pickers. Grapes are people who work for their living. They may work 2 or 3 minimum-wage jobs just to make ends meet, they may have worked their way through college like your brother, or they may be a doctor working of $100,000+ in med school loans. The vast majority of grapes earn under $250,000 a year. CEOs of large corporations, and there are about 500 or so of them, are the exception to this.

Then there are the grape-pickers. These are the guys who make their living off “investments”, from dividends that roll in. They are the string-pullers, the ones who push for this law or that law, who move millions of dollars around which influences where the grapes can live, where they can work, and even if they get to work a decent job at all.

It was grape-pickers who engineered this subprime/ald-A/CDOs housing mess, and they made a lot of money off the little grapes they picked– grapes who are now getting laid off, seeing their houses foreclosed upon, or both.

Grape-pickers make up less than 10% of the American population (probably less than 5%, actually) and have something like 50% of the wealth in this country. Obama proposes to “redistribute” the wealth from the grape-pickers to the grapes. The grape-pickers can well afford it– as Warren Buffett, grape-picker extraordinaire, has happily told the media on more than one occasion.

And quite frankly, both server and homeless guy were grapes in this little scenario. Servers’ wages are not much better than minimum wage; they need those tips to survive. The kinder thing in this scenario would have been to give the server his tip and give the homeless guy a $5-spot. Because as is pretty clear from the essay, the guy writing it was a bigger grape than either of them.

[CricketOnTheHearth]

Grapes vs Grape-pickers

In this world there are two main types of people: the grapes and the grape-pickers. Grapes are people who work for their living. They may work 2 or 3 minimum-wage jobs just to make ends meet, they may have worked their way through college like your brother, or they may be a doctor working of $100,000+ in med school loans. The vast majority of grapes earn under $250,000 a year. CEOs of large corporations, and there are about 500 or so of them, are the exception to this.

Then there are the grape-pickers. These are the guys who make their living off “investments”, from dividends that roll in. They are the string-pullers, the ones who push for this law or that law, who move millions of dollars around which influences where the grapes can live, where they can work, and even if they get to work a decent job at all.

It was grape-pickers who engineered this subprime/ald-A/CDOs housing mess, and they made a lot of money off the little grapes they picked– grapes who are now getting laid off, seeing their houses foreclosed upon, or both.

Grape-pickers make up less than 10% of the American population (probably less than 5%, actually) and have something like 50% of the wealth in this country. Obama proposes to “redistribute” the wealth from the grape-pickers to the grapes. The grape-pickers can well afford it– as Warren Buffett, grape-picker extraordinaire, has happily told the media on more than one occasion.

And quite frankly, both server and homeless guy were grapes in this little scenario. Servers’ wages are not much better than minimum wage; they need those tips to survive. The kinder thing in this scenario would have been to give the server his tip and give the homeless guy a $5-spot. Because as is pretty clear from the essay, the guy writing it was a bigger grape than either of them.

[CricketOnTheHearth]

Grapes vs Grape-pickers

In this world there are two main types of people: the grapes and the grape-pickers. Grapes are people who work for their living. They may work 2 or 3 minimum-wage jobs just to make ends meet, they may have worked their way through college like your brother, or they may be a doctor working of $100,000+ in med school loans. The vast majority of grapes earn under $250,000 a year. CEOs of large corporations, and there are about 500 or so of them, are the exception to this.

Then there are the grape-pickers. These are the guys who make their living off “investments”, from dividends that roll in. They are the string-pullers, the ones who push for this law or that law, who move millions of dollars around which influences where the grapes can live, where they can work, and even if they get to work a decent job at all.

It was grape-pickers who engineered this subprime/ald-A/CDOs housing mess, and they made a lot of money off the little grapes they picked– grapes who are now getting laid off, seeing their houses foreclosed upon, or both.

Grape-pickers make up less than 10% of the American population (probably less than 5%, actually) and have something like 50% of the wealth in this country. Obama proposes to “redistribute” the wealth from the grape-pickers to the grapes. The grape-pickers can well afford it– as Warren Buffett, grape-picker extraordinaire, has happily told the media on more than one occasion.

And quite frankly, both server and homeless guy were grapes in this little scenario. Servers’ wages are not much better than minimum wage; they need those tips to survive. The kinder thing in this scenario would have been to give the server his tip and give the homeless guy a $5-spot. Because as is pretty clear from the essay, the guy writing it was a bigger grape than either of them.

[kewp]

Very ironic given the multi-trillion dollar tax-payer funded bailout of Wall Street tycoons.

If your little story reflected how the real world worked, the tip should have gone to the owner of the restaurant. After all, he’s giving the waiter a job, the customer dinner and the bum outside gets to eat for free out of the dumpster.

[kewp]

Very ironic given the multi-trillion dollar tax-payer funded bailout of Wall Street tycoons.

If your little story reflected how the real world worked, the tip should have gone to the owner of the restaurant. After all, he’s giving the waiter a job, the customer dinner and the bum outside gets to eat for free out of the dumpster.

[kewp]

Very ironic given the multi-trillion dollar tax-payer funded bailout of Wall Street tycoons.

If your little story reflected how the real world worked, the tip should have gone to the owner of the restaurant. After all, he’s giving the waiter a job, the customer dinner and the bum outside gets to eat for free out of the dumpster.

[kewp]

Very ironic given the multi-trillion dollar tax-payer funded bailout of Wall Street tycoons.

If your little story reflected how the real world worked, the tip should have gone to the owner of the restaurant. After all, he’s giving the waiter a job, the customer dinner and the bum outside gets to eat for free out of the dumpster.

[kewp]

Very ironic given the multi-trillion dollar tax-payer funded bailout of Wall Street tycoons.

If your little story reflected how the real world worked, the tip should have gone to the owner of the restaurant. After all, he’s giving the waiter a job, the customer dinner and the bum outside gets to eat for free out of the dumpster.

[GoUSC]

We can talk back and forth about this all but when you historically look at tax plans, whenever there has been an increase in the tax rate there has be a decrease in the revenue brought into the Federal Government. The solution is not taxing the 10% of the population that already pays 70% of all taxes.

Oh and to Mister Grape and Grape-Picker. Obama’s idea that $250,000 constitutes a Grape Picker is bull crap.

My GF and I make combined around $250,000. We will be hit by Obama hard. Are we “rich” living here in San Diego? Certainly not. And yes it pisses me off that Obama wants to take money from me and my girlfriend who have worked very hard to get where we are…taking out school loans to forward our careers, chosing to live below our means and not running ourselves into massive credit card debt…and then have it redistributed to someone who doesn’t work as hard. Just because that’s the “right thing to do”.

The fact is in my career I am able to keep 100-200 people employeed just by doing what I do. Punishing me, in the long run, will only punish the people that work for me as I won’t be able to expend as much capital, grow the business etc. etc.

[drunkle]

since you’re not married, you’re filing singly. whichever one of you is making more than 160k will get the higher 36% rate, up from 33%. otherwise, you’ll get nothing or maybe a little money back. either way, i’m sure you won’t be forced into soup lines.

[an]

[quote=drunkle]since you’re not married, you’re filing singly. whichever one of you is making more than 160k will get the higher 36% rate, up from 33%. otherwise, you’ll get nothing or maybe a little money back. either way, i’m sure you won’t be forced into soup lines.
[/quote]
People who make minimum wage won’t be forced into soup lines either. While people on welfare will get their soup for FREE. Mmmmm…. yummy soup.

[an]

[quote=drunkle]since you’re not married, you’re filing singly. whichever one of you is making more than 160k will get the higher 36% rate, up from 33%. otherwise, you’ll get nothing or maybe a little money back. either way, i’m sure you won’t be forced into soup lines.
[/quote]
People who make minimum wage won’t be forced into soup lines either. While people on welfare will get their soup for FREE. Mmmmm…. yummy soup.

[an]

[quote=drunkle]since you’re not married, you’re filing singly. whichever one of you is making more than 160k will get the higher 36% rate, up from 33%. otherwise, you’ll get nothing or maybe a little money back. either way, i’m sure you won’t be forced into soup lines.
[/quote]
People who make minimum wage won’t be forced into soup lines either. While people on welfare will get their soup for FREE. Mmmmm…. yummy soup.

[an]

[quote=drunkle]since you’re not married, you’re filing singly. whichever one of you is making more than 160k will get the higher 36% rate, up from 33%. otherwise, you’ll get nothing or maybe a little money back. either way, i’m sure you won’t be forced into soup lines.
[/quote]
People who make minimum wage won’t be forced into soup lines either. While people on welfare will get their soup for FREE. Mmmmm…. yummy soup.

[an]

[quote=drunkle]since you’re not married, you’re filing singly. whichever one of you is making more than 160k will get the higher 36% rate, up from 33%. otherwise, you’ll get nothing or maybe a little money back. either way, i’m sure you won’t be forced into soup lines.
[/quote]
People who make minimum wage won’t be forced into soup lines either. While people on welfare will get their soup for FREE. Mmmmm…. yummy soup.

[drunkle]

since you’re not married, you’re filing singly. whichever one of you is making more than 160k will get the higher 36% rate, up from 33%. otherwise, you’ll get nothing or maybe a little money back. either way, i’m sure you won’t be forced into soup lines.

[drunkle]

since you’re not married, you’re filing singly. whichever one of you is making more than 160k will get the higher 36% rate, up from 33%. otherwise, you’ll get nothing or maybe a little money back. either way, i’m sure you won’t be forced into soup lines.

[drunkle]

since you’re not married, you’re filing singly. whichever one of you is making more than 160k will get the higher 36% rate, up from 33%. otherwise, you’ll get nothing or maybe a little money back. either way, i’m sure you won’t be forced into soup lines.

[drunkle]

since you’re not married, you’re filing singly. whichever one of you is making more than 160k will get the higher 36% rate, up from 33%. otherwise, you’ll get nothing or maybe a little money back. either way, i’m sure you won’t be forced into soup lines.

[sd_bear]

[quote=GoUSC]

My GF and I make combined around $250,000. We will be hit by Obama hard. Are we “rich” living here in San Diego? Certainly not.
[/quote]

Yes, you are. If you make a combined 250,000 a year you are rich. I don’t care how long it took to get there or how hard you worked. You may not have a private jet, but you are still rich. If you honestly don’t think so then you live in a very tiny bubble.

[GoUSC]

[quote=sd_bear][quote=GoUSC]

My GF and I make combined around $250,000. We will be hit by Obama hard. Are we “rich” living here in San Diego? Certainly not.
[/quote]

Yes, you are. If you make a combined 250,000 a year you are rich. I don’t care how long it took to get there or how hard you worked. You may not have a private jet, but you are still rich. If you honestly don’t think so then you live in a very tiny bubble.[/quote]

Ahh yes…like the small business owner who for 5+ years threw every dollar his business made, back into his business. Now he finally is able to take money out of the business to pay himself, after years of making nothing and good old Obama punishes him.

As it relates to me, imagine if both my GF and I had school loans for both our undergrad and graduate degrees. That would easily total $300,000 to $400,000. The payment on those school loans alone would tap a significant portion of take home. Add in housing costs, insurance costs for the family, schooling etc. etc. etc. Sorry but in San Diego $250k is not a definition of rich. Yes we are successful, yes we don’t have to worry how to pay our bills. But dammit I worked my ass off for it. I took a chance. I struggled making $1500/month when I got out of school. And I have a real fundamental problem with the government taking my money and giving it to someone else just because they are “less fortunate”. If I want to help someone less forutnate I will (and do) donate money to one of the many charitable associations out there.

[gandalf]

Amazing. We’re fighting a $TRILLION WAR completely OFF BOOKS, our economy is on the verge of a MELTDOWN, America has turned into the biggest DEBTOR NATION in the history of the planet in 30 short years, our infrastructure is CRUMBLING, our political system is having a PARTISAN seizure, kids growing up with a declining standard of living, and you irresponsible GOP FUCKERS are complaining about MARGINAL CHANGES to the tax code? What the fuck is wrong with you.

It’s not socialism. WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS and LARGE CORPORATIONS with ACCESS to exclusions, shelters and loopholes PAY LESS TAX than average people. They often pay ZERO tax. The present tax system is highly REGRESSIVE and has contributed to the greatest shift in wealth redistribution UPWARDS in the history of the country.

How is that good for the economy? Our society? Our government? How is that fair? It’s a simple question for all you closet socialists on the right redistributing wealth upwards to BILLIONAIRES. Liars in the GOP really need to STFU with the socialism crap.

Oh yeah, and what’s the difference between socialism and redistributing profits from Alaskan oil revenues to the people of Alaska? Don’t hear anybody complaining about that one. Sure looks to me like Palin is a fucking SOCIALIST. You people are unbelievable. Liars to the core.

[Arraya]

**FAKE DEBATE ALERT**

Amazing. We’re fighting a $TRILLION WAR completely OFF BOOKS, our economy is on the verge of a MELTDOWN, America has turned into the biggest DEBTOR NATION in the history of the planet in 30 short years, our infrastructure is CRUMBLING, our political system is having a PARTISAN seizure, kids growing up with a declining standard of living, and you irresponsible GOP FUCKERS are complaining about MARGINAL CHANGES to the tax code? What the fuck is wrong with you.

LOL, That was awesome! This is definitely one of stupidest debates I have ever seen.

Oh yeah, and what’s the difference between socialism and redistributing profits from Alaskan oil revenues to the people of Alaska? Don’t hear anybody complaining about that one. Sure looks to me like Palin is a fucking SOCIALIST. You people are unbelievable. Liars to the core

We’ve been trying to destabilize Chavez and Evo Morales in Bolivia for this. Giving natural resource money back to the people.

Something this also points out is how there is barely any difference between the two. Emotionally charged talking points that DONT mean a thing. Fake debates.

Also, Gandolf, something you might want to think about is this interview.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/12/in-a-prescient.html

Sir Robert Frost, life line British journalist interview with Benazir Bhutto. She was going over the list of people that may be the culprits of here prior assassination attempt and she mentioned the one that killed Bin laden. Huh!

Did the interviewer stop her on this NO? Did any US MSM outlets pick up on this, NO! Anybody want to venture a guess on why? I have a good explanation.

Maybe some one should show this interview to Obama with all his,”get Bin Laden rhetoric”. Come to think of it Pakistan did just descend into chaos but I’m sure his intentions are to get Bin Laden and not control of the nuclear arsenal in Pakistan.

WTF

[Arraya]

**FAKE DEBATE ALERT**

Amazing. We’re fighting a $TRILLION WAR completely OFF BOOKS, our economy is on the verge of a MELTDOWN, America has turned into the biggest DEBTOR NATION in the history of the planet in 30 short years, our infrastructure is CRUMBLING, our political system is having a PARTISAN seizure, kids growing up with a declining standard of living, and you irresponsible GOP FUCKERS are complaining about MARGINAL CHANGES to the tax code? What the fuck is wrong with you.

LOL, That was awesome! This is definitely one of stupidest debates I have ever seen.

Oh yeah, and what’s the difference between socialism and redistributing profits from Alaskan oil revenues to the people of Alaska? Don’t hear anybody complaining about that one. Sure looks to me like Palin is a fucking SOCIALIST. You people are unbelievable. Liars to the core

We’ve been trying to destabilize Chavez and Evo Morales in Bolivia for this. Giving natural resource money back to the people.

Something this also points out is how there is barely any difference between the two. Emotionally charged talking points that DONT mean a thing. Fake debates.

Also, Gandolf, something you might want to think about is this interview.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/12/in-a-prescient.html

Sir Robert Frost, life line British journalist interview with Benazir Bhutto. She was going over the list of people that may be the culprits of here prior assassination attempt and she mentioned the one that killed Bin laden. Huh!

Did the interviewer stop her on this NO? Did any US MSM outlets pick up on this, NO! Anybody want to venture a guess on why? I have a good explanation.

Maybe some one should show this interview to Obama with all his,”get Bin Laden rhetoric”. Come to think of it Pakistan did just descend into chaos but I’m sure his intentions are to get Bin Laden and not control of the nuclear arsenal in Pakistan.

WTF

[Arraya]

**FAKE DEBATE ALERT**

Amazing. We’re fighting a $TRILLION WAR completely OFF BOOKS, our economy is on the verge of a MELTDOWN, America has turned into the biggest DEBTOR NATION in the history of the planet in 30 short years, our infrastructure is CRUMBLING, our political system is having a PARTISAN seizure, kids growing up with a declining standard of living, and you irresponsible GOP FUCKERS are complaining about MARGINAL CHANGES to the tax code? What the fuck is wrong with you.

LOL, That was awesome! This is definitely one of stupidest debates I have ever seen.

Oh yeah, and what’s the difference between socialism and redistributing profits from Alaskan oil revenues to the people of Alaska? Don’t hear anybody complaining about that one. Sure looks to me like Palin is a fucking SOCIALIST. You people are unbelievable. Liars to the core

We’ve been trying to destabilize Chavez and Evo Morales in Bolivia for this. Giving natural resource money back to the people.

Something this also points out is how there is barely any difference between the two. Emotionally charged talking points that DONT mean a thing. Fake debates.

Also, Gandolf, something you might want to think about is this interview.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/12/in-a-prescient.html

Sir Robert Frost, life line British journalist interview with Benazir Bhutto. She was going over the list of people that may be the culprits of here prior assassination attempt and she mentioned the one that killed Bin laden. Huh!

Did the interviewer stop her on this NO? Did any US MSM outlets pick up on this, NO! Anybody want to venture a guess on why? I have a good explanation.

Maybe some one should show this interview to Obama with all his,”get Bin Laden rhetoric”. Come to think of it Pakistan did just descend into chaos but I’m sure his intentions are to get Bin Laden and not control of the nuclear arsenal in Pakistan.

WTF

[Arraya]

**FAKE DEBATE ALERT**

Amazing. We’re fighting a $TRILLION WAR completely OFF BOOKS, our economy is on the verge of a MELTDOWN, America has turned into the biggest DEBTOR NATION in the history of the planet in 30 short years, our infrastructure is CRUMBLING, our political system is having a PARTISAN seizure, kids growing up with a declining standard of living, and you irresponsible GOP FUCKERS are complaining about MARGINAL CHANGES to the tax code? What the fuck is wrong with you.

LOL, That was awesome! This is definitely one of stupidest debates I have ever seen.

Oh yeah, and what’s the difference between socialism and redistributing profits from Alaskan oil revenues to the people of Alaska? Don’t hear anybody complaining about that one. Sure looks to me like Palin is a fucking SOCIALIST. You people are unbelievable. Liars to the core

We’ve been trying to destabilize Chavez and Evo Morales in Bolivia for this. Giving natural resource money back to the people.

Something this also points out is how there is barely any difference between the two. Emotionally charged talking points that DONT mean a thing. Fake debates.

Also, Gandolf, something you might want to think about is this interview.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/12/in-a-prescient.html

Sir Robert Frost, life line British journalist interview with Benazir Bhutto. She was going over the list of people that may be the culprits of here prior assassination attempt and she mentioned the one that killed Bin laden. Huh!

Did the interviewer stop her on this NO? Did any US MSM outlets pick up on this, NO! Anybody want to venture a guess on why? I have a good explanation.

Maybe some one should show this interview to Obama with all his,”get Bin Laden rhetoric”. Come to think of it Pakistan did just descend into chaos but I’m sure his intentions are to get Bin Laden and not control of the nuclear arsenal in Pakistan.

WTF

[Arraya]

**FAKE DEBATE ALERT**

Amazing. We’re fighting a $TRILLION WAR completely OFF BOOKS, our economy is on the verge of a MELTDOWN, America has turned into the biggest DEBTOR NATION in the history of the planet in 30 short years, our infrastructure is CRUMBLING, our political system is having a PARTISAN seizure, kids growing up with a declining standard of living, and you irresponsible GOP FUCKERS are complaining about MARGINAL CHANGES to the tax code? What the fuck is wrong with you.

LOL, That was awesome! This is definitely one of stupidest debates I have ever seen.

Oh yeah, and what’s the difference between socialism and redistributing profits from Alaskan oil revenues to the people of Alaska? Don’t hear anybody complaining about that one. Sure looks to me like Palin is a fucking SOCIALIST. You people are unbelievable. Liars to the core

We’ve been trying to destabilize Chavez and Evo Morales in Bolivia for this. Giving natural resource money back to the people.

Something this also points out is how there is barely any difference between the two. Emotionally charged talking points that DONT mean a thing. Fake debates.

Also, Gandolf, something you might want to think about is this interview.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/12/in-a-prescient.html

Sir Robert Frost, life line British journalist interview with Benazir Bhutto. She was going over the list of people that may be the culprits of here prior assassination attempt and she mentioned the one that killed Bin laden. Huh!

Did the interviewer stop her on this NO? Did any US MSM outlets pick up on this, NO! Anybody want to venture a guess on why? I have a good explanation.

Maybe some one should show this interview to Obama with all his,”get Bin Laden rhetoric”. Come to think of it Pakistan did just descend into chaos but I’m sure his intentions are to get Bin Laden and not control of the nuclear arsenal in Pakistan.

WTF

[kewp]

[quote=gandalf]Amazing. We’re fighting a $TRILLION WAR completely OFF BOOKS, our economy is on the verge of a MELTDOWN, America has turned into the biggest DEBTOR NATION in the history of the planet in 30 short years, our infrastructure is CRUMBLING, our political system is having a PARTISAN seizure, kids growing up with a declining standard of living, and you irresponsible GOP FUCKERS are complaining about MARGINAL CHANGES to the tax code? What the fuck is wrong with you.
[/quote]

Dude I so owe you a beer!

[kewp]

[quote=gandalf]Amazing. We’re fighting a $TRILLION WAR completely OFF BOOKS, our economy is on the verge of a MELTDOWN, America has turned into the biggest DEBTOR NATION in the history of the planet in 30 short years, our infrastructure is CRUMBLING, our political system is having a PARTISAN seizure, kids growing up with a declining standard of living, and you irresponsible GOP FUCKERS are complaining about MARGINAL CHANGES to the tax code? What the fuck is wrong with you.
[/quote]

Dude I so owe you a beer!

[kewp]

[quote=gandalf]Amazing. We’re fighting a $TRILLION WAR completely OFF BOOKS, our economy is on the verge of a MELTDOWN, America has turned into the biggest DEBTOR NATION in the history of the planet in 30 short years, our infrastructure is CRUMBLING, our political system is having a PARTISAN seizure, kids growing up with a declining standard of living, and you irresponsible GOP FUCKERS are complaining about MARGINAL CHANGES to the tax code? What the fuck is wrong with you.
[/quote]

Dude I so owe you a beer!

[kewp]

[quote=gandalf]Amazing. We’re fighting a $TRILLION WAR completely OFF BOOKS, our economy is on the verge of a MELTDOWN, America has turned into the biggest DEBTOR NATION in the history of the planet in 30 short years, our infrastructure is CRUMBLING, our political system is having a PARTISAN seizure, kids growing up with a declining standard of living, and you irresponsible GOP FUCKERS are complaining about MARGINAL CHANGES to the tax code? What the fuck is wrong with you.
[/quote]

Dude I so owe you a beer!

[kewp]

[quote=gandalf]Amazing. We’re fighting a $TRILLION WAR completely OFF BOOKS, our economy is on the verge of a MELTDOWN, America has turned into the biggest DEBTOR NATION in the history of the planet in 30 short years, our infrastructure is CRUMBLING, our political system is having a PARTISAN seizure, kids growing up with a declining standard of living, and you irresponsible GOP FUCKERS are complaining about MARGINAL CHANGES to the tax code? What the fuck is wrong with you.
[/quote]

Dude I so owe you a beer!

[gandalf]

Amazing. We’re fighting a $TRILLION WAR completely OFF BOOKS, our economy is on the verge of a MELTDOWN, America has turned into the biggest DEBTOR NATION in the history of the planet in 30 short years, our infrastructure is CRUMBLING, our political system is having a PARTISAN seizure, kids growing up with a declining standard of living, and you irresponsible GOP FUCKERS are complaining about MARGINAL CHANGES to the tax code? What the fuck is wrong with you.

It’s not socialism. WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS and LARGE CORPORATIONS with ACCESS to exclusions, shelters and loopholes PAY LESS TAX than average people. They often pay ZERO tax. The present tax system is highly REGRESSIVE and has contributed to the greatest shift in wealth redistribution UPWARDS in the history of the country.

How is that good for the economy? Our society? Our government? How is that fair? It’s a simple question for all you closet socialists on the right redistributing wealth upwards to BILLIONAIRES. Liars in the GOP really need to STFU with the socialism crap.

Oh yeah, and what’s the difference between socialism and redistributing profits from Alaskan oil revenues to the people of Alaska? Don’t hear anybody complaining about that one. Sure looks to me like Palin is a fucking SOCIALIST. You people are unbelievable. Liars to the core.

[gandalf]

Amazing. We’re fighting a $TRILLION WAR completely OFF BOOKS, our economy is on the verge of a MELTDOWN, America has turned into the biggest DEBTOR NATION in the history of the planet in 30 short years, our infrastructure is CRUMBLING, our political system is having a PARTISAN seizure, kids growing up with a declining standard of living, and you irresponsible GOP FUCKERS are complaining about MARGINAL CHANGES to the tax code? What the fuck is wrong with you.

It’s not socialism. WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS and LARGE CORPORATIONS with ACCESS to exclusions, shelters and loopholes PAY LESS TAX than average people. They often pay ZERO tax. The present tax system is highly REGRESSIVE and has contributed to the greatest shift in wealth redistribution UPWARDS in the history of the country.

How is that good for the economy? Our society? Our government? How is that fair? It’s a simple question for all you closet socialists on the right redistributing wealth upwards to BILLIONAIRES. Liars in the GOP really need to STFU with the socialism crap.

Oh yeah, and what’s the difference between socialism and redistributing profits from Alaskan oil revenues to the people of Alaska? Don’t hear anybody complaining about that one. Sure looks to me like Palin is a fucking SOCIALIST. You people are unbelievable. Liars to the core.

[gandalf]

Amazing. We’re fighting a $TRILLION WAR completely OFF BOOKS, our economy is on the verge of a MELTDOWN, America has turned into the biggest DEBTOR NATION in the history of the planet in 30 short years, our infrastructure is CRUMBLING, our political system is having a PARTISAN seizure, kids growing up with a declining standard of living, and you irresponsible GOP FUCKERS are complaining about MARGINAL CHANGES to the tax code? What the fuck is wrong with you.

It’s not socialism. WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS and LARGE CORPORATIONS with ACCESS to exclusions, shelters and loopholes PAY LESS TAX than average people. They often pay ZERO tax. The present tax system is highly REGRESSIVE and has contributed to the greatest shift in wealth redistribution UPWARDS in the history of the country.

How is that good for the economy? Our society? Our government? How is that fair? It’s a simple question for all you closet socialists on the right redistributing wealth upwards to BILLIONAIRES. Liars in the GOP really need to STFU with the socialism crap.

Oh yeah, and what’s the difference between socialism and redistributing profits from Alaskan oil revenues to the people of Alaska? Don’t hear anybody complaining about that one. Sure looks to me like Palin is a fucking SOCIALIST. You people are unbelievable. Liars to the core.

[gandalf]

Amazing. We’re fighting a $TRILLION WAR completely OFF BOOKS, our economy is on the verge of a MELTDOWN, America has turned into the biggest DEBTOR NATION in the history of the planet in 30 short years, our infrastructure is CRUMBLING, our political system is having a PARTISAN seizure, kids growing up with a declining standard of living, and you irresponsible GOP FUCKERS are complaining about MARGINAL CHANGES to the tax code? What the fuck is wrong with you.

It’s not socialism. WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS and LARGE CORPORATIONS with ACCESS to exclusions, shelters and loopholes PAY LESS TAX than average people. They often pay ZERO tax. The present tax system is highly REGRESSIVE and has contributed to the greatest shift in wealth redistribution UPWARDS in the history of the country.

How is that good for the economy? Our society? Our government? How is that fair? It’s a simple question for all you closet socialists on the right redistributing wealth upwards to BILLIONAIRES. Liars in the GOP really need to STFU with the socialism crap.

Oh yeah, and what’s the difference between socialism and redistributing profits from Alaskan oil revenues to the people of Alaska? Don’t hear anybody complaining about that one. Sure looks to me like Palin is a fucking SOCIALIST. You people are unbelievable. Liars to the core.

[blahblahblah]

As it relates to me, imagine if both my GF and I had school loans for both our undergrad and graduate degrees. That would easily total $300,000 to $400,000. The payment on those school loans alone would tap a significant portion of take home. Add in housing costs, insurance costs for the family, schooling etc. etc. etc. Sorry but in San Diego $250k is not a definition of rich. Yes we are successful, yes we don’t have to worry how to pay our bills.

Well that $400K on school loans was a f***ing waste of money because you don’t even understand basic arithmetic. If combined you are bringing in $250K then each of you are making LESS than $250K. As long as you file separately you won’t pay a penny more under Obama’s tax plan. And what’s more, the $250K is TAXABLE INCOME. That is after your deductions for mortgage interest, 401K contributions, etc… If you have $250K in TAXABLE INCOME you are doing allright. If you go from $250K to $300K you will pay an additional 3% (from 36% to 39%) on that $50K which works out to $1500 per year. BOO F***ING HOO.

God almighty please have mercy on us. This place is doomed.

[Arraya]

[quote=CONCHO]
God almighty please have mercy on us. This place is doomed.[/quote]

You can say that again!

[gandalf]

Yeah, I heard about that too, arraya. Don’t know what to make of it. Not my line of work.

Our politics, and particularly the fake-patriotic GOP grandstanding, has become unacceptably divisive and disconnected from the reality on the ground. It is damaging the long-term interests of our country. A quiet, committed, effective and united foreign policy is in all of our interests.

[gandalf]

Yeah, I heard about that too, arraya. Don’t know what to make of it. Not my line of work.

Our politics, and particularly the fake-patriotic GOP grandstanding, has become unacceptably divisive and disconnected from the reality on the ground. It is damaging the long-term interests of our country. A quiet, committed, effective and united foreign policy is in all of our interests.

[gandalf]

Yeah, I heard about that too, arraya. Don’t know what to make of it. Not my line of work.

Our politics, and particularly the fake-patriotic GOP grandstanding, has become unacceptably divisive and disconnected from the reality on the ground. It is damaging the long-term interests of our country. A quiet, committed, effective and united foreign policy is in all of our interests.

[gandalf]

Yeah, I heard about that too, arraya. Don’t know what to make of it. Not my line of work.

Our politics, and particularly the fake-patriotic GOP grandstanding, has become unacceptably divisive and disconnected from the reality on the ground. It is damaging the long-term interests of our country. A quiet, committed, effective and united foreign policy is in all of our interests.

[gandalf]

Yeah, I heard about that too, arraya. Don’t know what to make of it. Not my line of work.

Our politics, and particularly the fake-patriotic GOP grandstanding, has become unacceptably divisive and disconnected from the reality on the ground. It is damaging the long-term interests of our country. A quiet, committed, effective and united foreign policy is in all of our interests.

[Arraya]

[quote=CONCHO]
God almighty please have mercy on us. This place is doomed.[/quote]

You can say that again!

[Arraya]

[quote=CONCHO]
God almighty please have mercy on us. This place is doomed.[/quote]

You can say that again!

[Arraya]

[quote=CONCHO]
God almighty please have mercy on us. This place is doomed.[/quote]

You can say that again!

[Arraya]

[quote=CONCHO]
God almighty please have mercy on us. This place is doomed.[/quote]

You can say that again!

[blahblahblah]

As it relates to me, imagine if both my GF and I had school loans for both our undergrad and graduate degrees. That would easily total $300,000 to $400,000. The payment on those school loans alone would tap a significant portion of take home. Add in housing costs, insurance costs for the family, schooling etc. etc. etc. Sorry but in San Diego $250k is not a definition of rich. Yes we are successful, yes we don’t have to worry how to pay our bills.

Well that $400K on school loans was a f***ing waste of money because you don’t even understand basic arithmetic. If combined you are bringing in $250K then each of you are making LESS than $250K. As long as you file separately you won’t pay a penny more under Obama’s tax plan. And what’s more, the $250K is TAXABLE INCOME. That is after your deductions for mortgage interest, 401K contributions, etc… If you have $250K in TAXABLE INCOME you are doing allright. If you go from $250K to $300K you will pay an additional 3% (from 36% to 39%) on that $50K which works out to $1500 per year. BOO F***ING HOO.

God almighty please have mercy on us. This place is doomed.

[blahblahblah]

As it relates to me, imagine if both my GF and I had school loans for both our undergrad and graduate degrees. That would easily total $300,000 to $400,000. The payment on those school loans alone would tap a significant portion of take home. Add in housing costs, insurance costs for the family, schooling etc. etc. etc. Sorry but in San Diego $250k is not a definition of rich. Yes we are successful, yes we don’t have to worry how to pay our bills.

Well that $400K on school loans was a f***ing waste of money because you don’t even understand basic arithmetic. If combined you are bringing in $250K then each of you are making LESS than $250K. As long as you file separately you won’t pay a penny more under Obama’s tax plan. And what’s more, the $250K is TAXABLE INCOME. That is after your deductions for mortgage interest, 401K contributions, etc… If you have $250K in TAXABLE INCOME you are doing allright. If you go from $250K to $300K you will pay an additional 3% (from 36% to 39%) on that $50K which works out to $1500 per year. BOO F***ING HOO.

God almighty please have mercy on us. This place is doomed.

[blahblahblah]

As it relates to me, imagine if both my GF and I had school loans for both our undergrad and graduate degrees. That would easily total $300,000 to $400,000. The payment on those school loans alone would tap a significant portion of take home. Add in housing costs, insurance costs for the family, schooling etc. etc. etc. Sorry but in San Diego $250k is not a definition of rich. Yes we are successful, yes we don’t have to worry how to pay our bills.

Well that $400K on school loans was a f***ing waste of money because you don’t even understand basic arithmetic. If combined you are bringing in $250K then each of you are making LESS than $250K. As long as you file separately you won’t pay a penny more under Obama’s tax plan. And what’s more, the $250K is TAXABLE INCOME. That is after your deductions for mortgage interest, 401K contributions, etc… If you have $250K in TAXABLE INCOME you are doing allright. If you go from $250K to $300K you will pay an additional 3% (from 36% to 39%) on that $50K which works out to $1500 per year. BOO F***ING HOO.

God almighty please have mercy on us. This place is doomed.

[blahblahblah]

As it relates to me, imagine if both my GF and I had school loans for both our undergrad and graduate degrees. That would easily total $300,000 to $400,000. The payment on those school loans alone would tap a significant portion of take home. Add in housing costs, insurance costs for the family, schooling etc. etc. etc. Sorry but in San Diego $250k is not a definition of rich. Yes we are successful, yes we don’t have to worry how to pay our bills.

Well that $400K on school loans was a f***ing waste of money because you don’t even understand basic arithmetic. If combined you are bringing in $250K then each of you are making LESS than $250K. As long as you file separately you won’t pay a penny more under Obama’s tax plan. And what’s more, the $250K is TAXABLE INCOME. That is after your deductions for mortgage interest, 401K contributions, etc… If you have $250K in TAXABLE INCOME you are doing allright. If you go from $250K to $300K you will pay an additional 3% (from 36% to 39%) on that $50K which works out to $1500 per year. BOO F***ING HOO.

God almighty please have mercy on us. This place is doomed.

[GoUSC]

[quote=sd_bear][quote=GoUSC]

My GF and I make combined around $250,000. We will be hit by Obama hard. Are we “rich” living here in San Diego? Certainly not.
[/quote]

Yes, you are. If you make a combined 250,000 a year you are rich. I don’t care how long it took to get there or how hard you worked. You may not have a private jet, but you are still rich. If you honestly don’t think so then you live in a very tiny bubble.[/quote]

Ahh yes…like the small business owner who for 5+ years threw every dollar his business made, back into his business. Now he finally is able to take money out of the business to pay himself, after years of making nothing and good old Obama punishes him.

As it relates to me, imagine if both my GF and I had school loans for both our undergrad and graduate degrees. That would easily total $300,000 to $400,000. The payment on those school loans alone would tap a significant portion of take home. Add in housing costs, insurance costs for the family, schooling etc. etc. etc. Sorry but in San Diego $250k is not a definition of rich. Yes we are successful, yes we don’t have to worry how to pay our bills. But dammit I worked my ass off for it. I took a chance. I struggled making $1500/month when I got out of school. And I have a real fundamental problem with the government taking my money and giving it to someone else just because they are “less fortunate”. If I want to help someone less forutnate I will (and do) donate money to one of the many charitable associations out there.

[GoUSC]

[quote=sd_bear][quote=GoUSC]

My GF and I make combined around $250,000. We will be hit by Obama hard. Are we “rich” living here in San Diego? Certainly not.
[/quote]

Yes, you are. If you make a combined 250,000 a year you are rich. I don’t care how long it took to get there or how hard you worked. You may not have a private jet, but you are still rich. If you honestly don’t think so then you live in a very tiny bubble.[/quote]

Ahh yes…like the small business owner who for 5+ years threw every dollar his business made, back into his business. Now he finally is able to take money out of the business to pay himself, after years of making nothing and good old Obama punishes him.

As it relates to me, imagine if both my GF and I had school loans for both our undergrad and graduate degrees. That would easily total $300,000 to $400,000. The payment on those school loans alone would tap a significant portion of take home. Add in housing costs, insurance costs for the family, schooling etc. etc. etc. Sorry but in San Diego $250k is not a definition of rich. Yes we are successful, yes we don’t have to worry how to pay our bills. But dammit I worked my ass off for it. I took a chance. I struggled making $1500/month when I got out of school. And I have a real fundamental problem with the government taking my money and giving it to someone else just because they are “less fortunate”. If I want to help someone less forutnate I will (and do) donate money to one of the many charitable associations out there.

[GoUSC]

[quote=sd_bear][quote=GoUSC]

My GF and I make combined around $250,000. We will be hit by Obama hard. Are we “rich” living here in San Diego? Certainly not.
[/quote]

Yes, you are. If you make a combined 250,000 a year you are rich. I don’t care how long it took to get there or how hard you worked. You may not have a private jet, but you are still rich. If you honestly don’t think so then you live in a very tiny bubble.[/quote]

Ahh yes…like the small business owner who for 5+ years threw every dollar his business made, back into his business. Now he finally is able to take money out of the business to pay himself, after years of making nothing and good old Obama punishes him.

As it relates to me, imagine if both my GF and I had school loans for both our undergrad and graduate degrees. That would easily total $300,000 to $400,000. The payment on those school loans alone would tap a significant portion of take home. Add in housing costs, insurance costs for the family, schooling etc. etc. etc. Sorry but in San Diego $250k is not a definition of rich. Yes we are successful, yes we don’t have to worry how to pay our bills. But dammit I worked my ass off for it. I took a chance. I struggled making $1500/month when I got out of school. And I have a real fundamental problem with the government taking my money and giving it to someone else just because they are “less fortunate”. If I want to help someone less forutnate I will (and do) donate money to one of the many charitable associations out there.

[GoUSC]

[quote=sd_bear][quote=GoUSC]

My GF and I make combined around $250,000. We will be hit by Obama hard. Are we “rich” living here in San Diego? Certainly not.
[/quote]

Yes, you are. If you make a combined 250,000 a year you are rich. I don’t care how long it took to get there or how hard you worked. You may not have a private jet, but you are still rich. If you honestly don’t think so then you live in a very tiny bubble.[/quote]

Ahh yes…like the small business owner who for 5+ years threw every dollar his business made, back into his business. Now he finally is able to take money out of the business to pay himself, after years of making nothing and good old Obama punishes him.

As it relates to me, imagine if both my GF and I had school loans for both our undergrad and graduate degrees. That would easily total $300,000 to $400,000. The payment on those school loans alone would tap a significant portion of take home. Add in housing costs, insurance costs for the family, schooling etc. etc. etc. Sorry but in San Diego $250k is not a definition of rich. Yes we are successful, yes we don’t have to worry how to pay our bills. But dammit I worked my ass off for it. I took a chance. I struggled making $1500/month when I got out of school. And I have a real fundamental problem with the government taking my money and giving it to someone else just because they are “less fortunate”. If I want to help someone less forutnate I will (and do) donate money to one of the many charitable associations out there.

[sd_bear]

[quote=GoUSC]

My GF and I make combined around $250,000. We will be hit by Obama hard. Are we “rich” living here in San Diego? Certainly not.
[/quote]

Yes, you are. If you make a combined 250,000 a year you are rich. I don’t care how long it took to get there or how hard you worked. You may not have a private jet, but you are still rich. If you honestly don’t think so then you live in a very tiny bubble.

[sd_bear]

[quote=GoUSC]

My GF and I make combined around $250,000. We will be hit by Obama hard. Are we “rich” living here in San Diego? Certainly not.
[/quote]

Yes, you are. If you make a combined 250,000 a year you are rich. I don’t care how long it took to get there or how hard you worked. You may not have a private jet, but you are still rich. If you honestly don’t think so then you live in a very tiny bubble.

[sd_bear]

[quote=GoUSC]

My GF and I make combined around $250,000. We will be hit by Obama hard. Are we “rich” living here in San Diego? Certainly not.
[/quote]

Yes, you are. If you make a combined 250,000 a year you are rich. I don’t care how long it took to get there or how hard you worked. You may not have a private jet, but you are still rich. If you honestly don’t think so then you live in a very tiny bubble.

[sd_bear]

[quote=GoUSC]

My GF and I make combined around $250,000. We will be hit by Obama hard. Are we “rich” living here in San Diego? Certainly not.
[/quote]

Yes, you are. If you make a combined 250,000 a year you are rich. I don’t care how long it took to get there or how hard you worked. You may not have a private jet, but you are still rich. If you honestly don’t think so then you live in a very tiny bubble.

[GoUSC]

We can talk back and forth about this all but when you historically look at tax plans, whenever there has been an increase in the tax rate there has be a decrease in the revenue brought into the Federal Government. The solution is not taxing the 10% of the population that already pays 70% of all taxes.

Oh and to Mister Grape and Grape-Picker. Obama’s idea that $250,000 constitutes a Grape Picker is bull crap.

My GF and I make combined around $250,000. We will be hit by Obama hard. Are we “rich” living here in San Diego? Certainly not. And yes it pisses me off that Obama wants to take money from me and my girlfriend who have worked very hard to get where we are…taking out school loans to forward our careers, chosing to live below our means and not running ourselves into massive credit card debt…and then have it redistributed to someone who doesn’t work as hard. Just because that’s the “right thing to do”.

The fact is in my career I am able to keep 100-200 people employeed just by doing what I do. Punishing me, in the long run, will only punish the people that work for me as I won’t be able to expend as much capital, grow the business etc. etc.

[GoUSC]

We can talk back and forth about this all but when you historically look at tax plans, whenever there has been an increase in the tax rate there has be a decrease in the revenue brought into the Federal Government. The solution is not taxing the 10% of the population that already pays 70% of all taxes.

Oh and to Mister Grape and Grape-Picker. Obama’s idea that $250,000 constitutes a Grape Picker is bull crap.

My GF and I make combined around $250,000. We will be hit by Obama hard. Are we “rich” living here in San Diego? Certainly not. And yes it pisses me off that Obama wants to take money from me and my girlfriend who have worked very hard to get where we are…taking out school loans to forward our careers, chosing to live below our means and not running ourselves into massive credit card debt…and then have it redistributed to someone who doesn’t work as hard. Just because that’s the “right thing to do”.

The fact is in my career I am able to keep 100-200 people employeed just by doing what I do. Punishing me, in the long run, will only punish the people that work for me as I won’t be able to expend as much capital, grow the business etc. etc.

[GoUSC]

We can talk back and forth about this all but when you historically look at tax plans, whenever there has been an increase in the tax rate there has be a decrease in the revenue brought into the Federal Government. The solution is not taxing the 10% of the population that already pays 70% of all taxes.

Oh and to Mister Grape and Grape-Picker. Obama’s idea that $250,000 constitutes a Grape Picker is bull crap.

My GF and I make combined around $250,000. We will be hit by Obama hard. Are we “rich” living here in San Diego? Certainly not. And yes it pisses me off that Obama wants to take money from me and my girlfriend who have worked very hard to get where we are…taking out school loans to forward our careers, chosing to live below our means and not running ourselves into massive credit card debt…and then have it redistributed to someone who doesn’t work as hard. Just because that’s the “right thing to do”.

The fact is in my career I am able to keep 100-200 people employeed just by doing what I do. Punishing me, in the long run, will only punish the people that work for me as I won’t be able to expend as much capital, grow the business etc. etc.

[GoUSC]

We can talk back and forth about this all but when you historically look at tax plans, whenever there has been an increase in the tax rate there has be a decrease in the revenue brought into the Federal Government. The solution is not taxing the 10% of the population that already pays 70% of all taxes.

Oh and to Mister Grape and Grape-Picker. Obama’s idea that $250,000 constitutes a Grape Picker is bull crap.

My GF and I make combined around $250,000. We will be hit by Obama hard. Are we “rich” living here in San Diego? Certainly not. And yes it pisses me off that Obama wants to take money from me and my girlfriend who have worked very hard to get where we are…taking out school loans to forward our careers, chosing to live below our means and not running ourselves into massive credit card debt…and then have it redistributed to someone who doesn’t work as hard. Just because that’s the “right thing to do”.

The fact is in my career I am able to keep 100-200 people employeed just by doing what I do. Punishing me, in the long run, will only punish the people that work for me as I won’t be able to expend as much capital, grow the business etc. etc.

[urbanrealtor]

This is a comment regarding the original thread post.

If anyone thinks that insulting someone who serves them food is a good idea, I laugh at what stuff you have eaten in your life.

During college, I worked as a waiter. Make no mistake. The one who handles the food you put in your mouth has the ultimate control.

If someone gave me bad service I would give them 15% instead of 20% and mention it courteously and briefly. If it was terrible service, I would stiff them and then never eat there again.

If you think that going to a different server is a good enough measure, think again. Servers tend to party, drink, and sleep together. They certainly know which clients are pricks.

I recall one rude gentleman that thought it appropriate to lecture our staff on wine tasting and etiquette. He drank nothing but red Gallo cooking wine (in Chateauneuf-du-Pape bottles) for a year. He never knew about it but we got our revenge and usually a tip afterward.

[Coronita]

[quote=urbanrealtor]This is a comment regarding the original thread post.

If anyone thinks that insulting someone who serves them food is a good idea, I laugh at what stuff you have eaten in your life.

During college, I worked as a waiter. Make no mistake. The one who handles the food you put in your mouth has the ultimate control.

If someone gave me bad service I would give them 15% instead of 20% and mention it courteously and briefly. If it was terrible service, I would stiff them and then never eat there again.

If you think that going to a different server is a good enough measure, think again. Servers tend to party, drink, and sleep together. They certainly know which clients are pricks.

I recall one rude gentleman that thought it appropriate to lecture our staff on wine tasting and etiquette. He drank nothing but red Gallo cooking wine (in Chateauneuf-du-Pape bottles) for a year. He never knew about it but we got our revenge and usually a tip afterward.[/quote]

Yeah, and if you knew what goes on at some asian restaurants in the U.S…. Oh boy, don’t want to go there.

But regarding the original post, LOL…..
I hope that person never goes to the same restaurant again (for his/her sake).

[cr]

Wow, a lot quoting going on. Also a lot of socialist talk from what I thought were level-headed piggs.

Here’s a thought. The Government collects nearly $3 Trillion in taxes each year, and yet they fail to make that profitable.

That’s pathetic, and raising taxes is a cop out of doing what needs to be done.

When a business becomes unprofitable it can’t simply raise costs arbitrarily without losing business. They have to cut costs.

How about a smaller, more efficient Government that can actually balance a budget WITHOUT raising taxes?

It doesn’t matter who ends up paying higher taxes, the NET effect will be negative: bigger Government, more welfare/socialism, more unemployment, less consumption, lower quality of life and so on.

It’s a self-destructive cycle that will only end with a smaller Government that can actually balance a budget.

[CA renter]

It doesn’t matter who ends up paying higher taxes, the NET effect will be negative: bigger Government, more welfare/socialism, more unemployment, less consumption, lower quality of life and so on.
———————

Sounds an awful lot like what we got from our Fearless Leader — “free market and lower taxes for the rich” — Republican President Bush.

I’ll take the Democratic version…at least we can have healthcare instead of war, jobs (even if they are govt jobs) instead of house flipping, and labor over capital (one can hope).

Bring it on.

[CA renter]

It doesn’t matter who ends up paying higher taxes, the NET effect will be negative: bigger Government, more welfare/socialism, more unemployment, less consumption, lower quality of life and so on.
———————

Sounds an awful lot like what we got from our Fearless Leader — “free market and lower taxes for the rich” — Republican President Bush.

I’ll take the Democratic version…at least we can have healthcare instead of war, jobs (even if they are govt jobs) instead of house flipping, and labor over capital (one can hope).

Bring it on.

[CA renter]

It doesn’t matter who ends up paying higher taxes, the NET effect will be negative: bigger Government, more welfare/socialism, more unemployment, less consumption, lower quality of life and so on.
———————

Sounds an awful lot like what we got from our Fearless Leader — “free market and lower taxes for the rich” — Republican President Bush.

I’ll take the Democratic version…at least we can have healthcare instead of war, jobs (even if they are govt jobs) instead of house flipping, and labor over capital (one can hope).

Bring it on.

[CA renter]

It doesn’t matter who ends up paying higher taxes, the NET effect will be negative: bigger Government, more welfare/socialism, more unemployment, less consumption, lower quality of life and so on.
———————

Sounds an awful lot like what we got from our Fearless Leader — “free market and lower taxes for the rich” — Republican President Bush.

I’ll take the Democratic version…at least we can have healthcare instead of war, jobs (even if they are govt jobs) instead of house flipping, and labor over capital (one can hope).

Bring it on.

[CA renter]

It doesn’t matter who ends up paying higher taxes, the NET effect will be negative: bigger Government, more welfare/socialism, more unemployment, less consumption, lower quality of life and so on.
———————

Sounds an awful lot like what we got from our Fearless Leader — “free market and lower taxes for the rich” — Republican President Bush.

I’ll take the Democratic version…at least we can have healthcare instead of war, jobs (even if they are govt jobs) instead of house flipping, and labor over capital (one can hope).

Bring it on.

[cr]

Wow, a lot quoting going on. Also a lot of socialist talk from what I thought were level-headed piggs.

Here’s a thought. The Government collects nearly $3 Trillion in taxes each year, and yet they fail to make that profitable.

That’s pathetic, and raising taxes is a cop out of doing what needs to be done.

When a business becomes unprofitable it can’t simply raise costs arbitrarily without losing business. They have to cut costs.

How about a smaller, more efficient Government that can actually balance a budget WITHOUT raising taxes?

It doesn’t matter who ends up paying higher taxes, the NET effect will be negative: bigger Government, more welfare/socialism, more unemployment, less consumption, lower quality of life and so on.

It’s a self-destructive cycle that will only end with a smaller Government that can actually balance a budget.

[cr]

Wow, a lot quoting going on. Also a lot of socialist talk from what I thought were level-headed piggs.

Here’s a thought. The Government collects nearly $3 Trillion in taxes each year, and yet they fail to make that profitable.

That’s pathetic, and raising taxes is a cop out of doing what needs to be done.

When a business becomes unprofitable it can’t simply raise costs arbitrarily without losing business. They have to cut costs.

How about a smaller, more efficient Government that can actually balance a budget WITHOUT raising taxes?

It doesn’t matter who ends up paying higher taxes, the NET effect will be negative: bigger Government, more welfare/socialism, more unemployment, less consumption, lower quality of life and so on.

It’s a self-destructive cycle that will only end with a smaller Government that can actually balance a budget.

[cr]

Wow, a lot quoting going on. Also a lot of socialist talk from what I thought were level-headed piggs.

Here’s a thought. The Government collects nearly $3 Trillion in taxes each year, and yet they fail to make that profitable.

That’s pathetic, and raising taxes is a cop out of doing what needs to be done.

When a business becomes unprofitable it can’t simply raise costs arbitrarily without losing business. They have to cut costs.

How about a smaller, more efficient Government that can actually balance a budget WITHOUT raising taxes?

It doesn’t matter who ends up paying higher taxes, the NET effect will be negative: bigger Government, more welfare/socialism, more unemployment, less consumption, lower quality of life and so on.

It’s a self-destructive cycle that will only end with a smaller Government that can actually balance a budget.

[cr]

Wow, a lot quoting going on. Also a lot of socialist talk from what I thought were level-headed piggs.

Here’s a thought. The Government collects nearly $3 Trillion in taxes each year, and yet they fail to make that profitable.

That’s pathetic, and raising taxes is a cop out of doing what needs to be done.

When a business becomes unprofitable it can’t simply raise costs arbitrarily without losing business. They have to cut costs.

How about a smaller, more efficient Government that can actually balance a budget WITHOUT raising taxes?

It doesn’t matter who ends up paying higher taxes, the NET effect will be negative: bigger Government, more welfare/socialism, more unemployment, less consumption, lower quality of life and so on.

It’s a self-destructive cycle that will only end with a smaller Government that can actually balance a budget.

[Coronita]

[quote=urbanrealtor]This is a comment regarding the original thread post.

If anyone thinks that insulting someone who serves them food is a good idea, I laugh at what stuff you have eaten in your life.

During college, I worked as a waiter. Make no mistake. The one who handles the food you put in your mouth has the ultimate control.

If someone gave me bad service I would give them 15% instead of 20% and mention it courteously and briefly. If it was terrible service, I would stiff them and then never eat there again.

If you think that going to a different server is a good enough measure, think again. Servers tend to party, drink, and sleep together. They certainly know which clients are pricks.

I recall one rude gentleman that thought it appropriate to lecture our staff on wine tasting and etiquette. He drank nothing but red Gallo cooking wine (in Chateauneuf-du-Pape bottles) for a year. He never knew about it but we got our revenge and usually a tip afterward.[/quote]

Yeah, and if you knew what goes on at some asian restaurants in the U.S…. Oh boy, don’t want to go there.

But regarding the original post, LOL…..
I hope that person never goes to the same restaurant again (for his/her sake).

[Coronita]

[quote=urbanrealtor]This is a comment regarding the original thread post.

If anyone thinks that insulting someone who serves them food is a good idea, I laugh at what stuff you have eaten in your life.

During college, I worked as a waiter. Make no mistake. The one who handles the food you put in your mouth has the ultimate control.

If someone gave me bad service I would give them 15% instead of 20% and mention it courteously and briefly. If it was terrible service, I would stiff them and then never eat there again.

If you think that going to a different server is a good enough measure, think again. Servers tend to party, drink, and sleep together. They certainly know which clients are pricks.

I recall one rude gentleman that thought it appropriate to lecture our staff on wine tasting and etiquette. He drank nothing but red Gallo cooking wine (in Chateauneuf-du-Pape bottles) for a year. He never knew about it but we got our revenge and usually a tip afterward.[/quote]

Yeah, and if you knew what goes on at some asian restaurants in the U.S…. Oh boy, don’t want to go there.

But regarding the original post, LOL…..
I hope that person never goes to the same restaurant again (for his/her sake).

[Coronita]

[quote=urbanrealtor]This is a comment regarding the original thread post.

If anyone thinks that insulting someone who serves them food is a good idea, I laugh at what stuff you have eaten in your life.

During college, I worked as a waiter. Make no mistake. The one who handles the food you put in your mouth has the ultimate control.

If someone gave me bad service I would give them 15% instead of 20% and mention it courteously and briefly. If it was terrible service, I would stiff them and then never eat there again.

If you think that going to a different server is a good enough measure, think again. Servers tend to party, drink, and sleep together. They certainly know which clients are pricks.

I recall one rude gentleman that thought it appropriate to lecture our staff on wine tasting and etiquette. He drank nothing but red Gallo cooking wine (in Chateauneuf-du-Pape bottles) for a year. He never knew about it but we got our revenge and usually a tip afterward.[/quote]

Yeah, and if you knew what goes on at some asian restaurants in the U.S…. Oh boy, don’t want to go there.

But regarding the original post, LOL…..
I hope that person never goes to the same restaurant again (for his/her sake).

[Coronita]

[quote=urbanrealtor]This is a comment regarding the original thread post.

If anyone thinks that insulting someone who serves them food is a good idea, I laugh at what stuff you have eaten in your life.

During college, I worked as a waiter. Make no mistake. The one who handles the food you put in your mouth has the ultimate control.

If someone gave me bad service I would give them 15% instead of 20% and mention it courteously and briefly. If it was terrible service, I would stiff them and then never eat there again.

If you think that going to a different server is a good enough measure, think again. Servers tend to party, drink, and sleep together. They certainly know which clients are pricks.

I recall one rude gentleman that thought it appropriate to lecture our staff on wine tasting and etiquette. He drank nothing but red Gallo cooking wine (in Chateauneuf-du-Pape bottles) for a year. He never knew about it but we got our revenge and usually a tip afterward.[/quote]

Yeah, and if you knew what goes on at some asian restaurants in the U.S…. Oh boy, don’t want to go there.

But regarding the original post, LOL…..
I hope that person never goes to the same restaurant again (for his/her sake).

[urbanrealtor]

This is a comment regarding the original thread post.

If anyone thinks that insulting someone who serves them food is a good idea, I laugh at what stuff you have eaten in your life.

During college, I worked as a waiter. Make no mistake. The one who handles the food you put in your mouth has the ultimate control.

If someone gave me bad service I would give them 15% instead of 20% and mention it courteously and briefly. If it was terrible service, I would stiff them and then never eat there again.

If you think that going to a different server is a good enough measure, think again. Servers tend to party, drink, and sleep together. They certainly know which clients are pricks.

I recall one rude gentleman that thought it appropriate to lecture our staff on wine tasting and etiquette. He drank nothing but red Gallo cooking wine (in Chateauneuf-du-Pape bottles) for a year. He never knew about it but we got our revenge and usually a tip afterward.

[urbanrealtor]

This is a comment regarding the original thread post.

If anyone thinks that insulting someone who serves them food is a good idea, I laugh at what stuff you have eaten in your life.

During college, I worked as a waiter. Make no mistake. The one who handles the food you put in your mouth has the ultimate control.

If someone gave me bad service I would give them 15% instead of 20% and mention it courteously and briefly. If it was terrible service, I would stiff them and then never eat there again.

If you think that going to a different server is a good enough measure, think again. Servers tend to party, drink, and sleep together. They certainly know which clients are pricks.

I recall one rude gentleman that thought it appropriate to lecture our staff on wine tasting and etiquette. He drank nothing but red Gallo cooking wine (in Chateauneuf-du-Pape bottles) for a year. He never knew about it but we got our revenge and usually a tip afterward.

[urbanrealtor]

This is a comment regarding the original thread post.

If anyone thinks that insulting someone who serves them food is a good idea, I laugh at what stuff you have eaten in your life.

During college, I worked as a waiter. Make no mistake. The one who handles the food you put in your mouth has the ultimate control.

If someone gave me bad service I would give them 15% instead of 20% and mention it courteously and briefly. If it was terrible service, I would stiff them and then never eat there again.

If you think that going to a different server is a good enough measure, think again. Servers tend to party, drink, and sleep together. They certainly know which clients are pricks.

I recall one rude gentleman that thought it appropriate to lecture our staff on wine tasting and etiquette. He drank nothing but red Gallo cooking wine (in Chateauneuf-du-Pape bottles) for a year. He never knew about it but we got our revenge and usually a tip afterward.

[urbanrealtor]

This is a comment regarding the original thread post.

If anyone thinks that insulting someone who serves them food is a good idea, I laugh at what stuff you have eaten in your life.

During college, I worked as a waiter. Make no mistake. The one who handles the food you put in your mouth has the ultimate control.

If someone gave me bad service I would give them 15% instead of 20% and mention it courteously and briefly. If it was terrible service, I would stiff them and then never eat there again.

If you think that going to a different server is a good enough measure, think again. Servers tend to party, drink, and sleep together. They certainly know which clients are pricks.

I recall one rude gentleman that thought it appropriate to lecture our staff on wine tasting and etiquette. He drank nothing but red Gallo cooking wine (in Chateauneuf-du-Pape bottles) for a year. He never knew about it but we got our revenge and usually a tip afterward.

[34f3f3f]

Raising taxes doesn’t mean quite the same thing as redistribution of wealth, at least in the sense that some socialists or Marxists refer to it. Obama’s plan is the redistribution of taxes, and Republicans are very clearly distorting it for political leverage. Raising taxes is just that, and is used for a host of causes. Redistribution of wealth is more wholesale, and involves nationalizing industries, compulsory acquisitions, and sometimes heavily taxing inherited wealth. If raising taxes means redistributing wealth, then it follows that lowering taxes concentrates wealth, which clearly makes no sense either.

However, I would agree that in the current crisis it is probably not the best time to be talking about raising taxes, but in the long term I don’t see how the huge US deficits are going to be paid for.

[an]

Linky

Under their last tax proposal, if your family make more than $66k/yr, on average, you’ll get more $ back from McCain’s plan.

[cr]

Good find AN.

Some of you are are missing the point. Bigger Govt is not a solution. It’s the problem. I’ve said all along the bailouts are wrong and most agree, yet many here are now calling for socialism everywhere else.

Do you really want the Government handling Healthcare, Banks, Housing or job creation? I’m dumbfounded by the things you guys say these days, and reminded of when Peter Schiff said the Govt can’t manage the post office, how can they manage banks?

Any job created by the Govt is funded by taxes, as is any social program. Everyone who works will pay more eventually if this happens.

I’m amazed at the shift in social issues I’ve seen on piggington. How so many of you made the shift from Ron Paul to Obama, and now support his socialist causes is beyond me.

qwerty007 – what’s the difference if by raising taxes Obama gives the benefits from that money to people who have done nothing to work for it?

More handouts for the lazy, and let’s be clear – poor is NOT necessarily lazy. Poor is primarily hard on luck. Lazy is living on welfare b/c it’s easier than getting a job. Now you want more publicly subsidized programs for these people?

Unless that’s the goal you all have in mind, then you really ought to think past the Obamanation propaganda you’ve so easily subscribed to.

[34f3f3f]

[quote=cooprider]Good find AN.

qwerty007 – what’s the difference if by raising taxes Obama gives the benefits from that money to people who have done nothing to work for it?
[/quote]

Firstly, we don’t know that he will raise taxes. He’s going to inherit an enormous problem, and he may find raising taxes in the near term is politically imprudent. Many people feel the markets have failed, as a result of laissez faire economics, and that the few squeezed the many fraudulently, and are putting it down to Republican style economics. I rather doubt there are many people in the US who have first hand experience of socialism, and I would include Obama in that number. Tax is always unfair, and we all hate it, but it has become a necessary evil. How it is apportioned really boils down to your world view, philosophy, and morality. However, in the US I would not cast a vote on this issue as it is tiny in comparison with the really pressing issues, such as the economy, energy, social welfare and health, and global warming. It’s getting closer to that hour when we need to put our selfish differences behind us, and realize that the very real problems over the next twenty years are only going to be solved by consensus building and sacrifice. For all those who toiled hard and resent the enforced charity to those who they feel didn’t, maybe need to swallow the pill. This is not about socialism, or any other idealism. We need a man of the hour, and my guess is as good as yours whether Obama is that man. Let’s hope so because that’s what the odds say.

[cr]

[quote=qwerty007]Firstly, we don’t know that he will raise taxes.

Tax is always unfair, and we all hate it, but it has become a necessary evil.

…we need to put our selfish differences behind us…[/quote]

I agree with a lot that, but isn’t the first thing Obama plans to do is repeal the Bush tax cuts?

Yes, taxes are a necessary evil, but my question is why is the Gov’t solution always to raise them when it comes to crunch time? Why can’t they manage $3 Trillion responsibly? Cut spending?!?

I’ll be the first to say Americans’ greed and sense of entitlement is long overdue for a dose of reality, and I have no problem helping out my fellow brother in need. I’d rather help the starving children on our streets though, than some HELOC refi on already welfare and unemployment.

What I don’t want is Obama at the reigns, spending my hard-earned money, on people that don’t deserve the help, and whatever special interest groups he caters to.

With the Community Reinvestment Act Obama helped poor and minority families get into “affordable” housing Governemnt assistance ala FNM, FMAC.

It was called subprime, and it didn’t exactly turn out well.

[34f3f3f]

[quote=cooprider]

What I don’t want is Obama at the reigns, spending my hard-earned money, on people that don’t deserve the help, and whatever special interest groups he caters to.

With the Community Reinvestment Act Obama helped poor and minority families get into “affordable” housing Governemnt assistance ala FNM, FMAC.
[/quote]

Having lived in Europe for many years, I have first hand knowledge of the social security safety net, and there are many problems with it; not least it allows the lazy to live off the industrious, and is a tax burden. However, there will always be unemployed comprising those who either can’t or don’t want to work. Means testing the unwilling is fraught with difficulty and leaves you with a choice of whether you ignore the problem and hope it doesn’t manifest itself into a worse problem like racial tension, crime, or civil unrest, or take a gamble and hope the straddlers aren’t too many in number. Yes, it’s a given that you carry a small percentage of the population, but generally most prefer to work because it pays better.

Failure in public policy is often measured by the outcome of the next election, so it may be Obama wins by default. You may have to put up with his decisions for the next eight years, but I seriously doubt many of us are going to be seriously more worse off than with McCain at the helm. I am happy to be proven wrong.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=qwerty007][quote=cooprider]

What I don’t want is Obama at the reigns, spending my hard-earned money, on people that don’t deserve the help, and whatever special interest groups he caters to.

With the Community Reinvestment Act Obama helped poor and minority families get into “affordable” housing Governemnt assistance ala FNM, FMAC.
[/quote]

Having lived in Europe for many years, I have first hand knowledge of the social security safety net, and there are many problems with it; not least it allows the lazy to live off the industrious, and is a tax burden. However, there will always be unemployed comprising those who either can’t or don’t want to work. Means testing the unwilling is fraught with difficulty and leaves you with a choice of whether you ignore the problem and hope it doesn’t manifest itself into a worse problem like racial tension, crime, or civil unrest, or take a gamble and hope the straddlers aren’t too many in number. Yes, it’s a given that you carry a small percentage of the population, but generally most prefer to work because it pays better.

Failure in public policy is often measured by the outcome of the next election, so it may be Obama wins by default. You may have to put up with his decisions for the next eight years, but I seriously doubt many of us are going to be seriously more worse off than with McCain at the helm. I am happy to be proven wrong.
[/quote]
Best post on this thread so far. I don’t agree with it but it solid and well thought out.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=qwerty007][quote=cooprider]

What I don’t want is Obama at the reigns, spending my hard-earned money, on people that don’t deserve the help, and whatever special interest groups he caters to.

With the Community Reinvestment Act Obama helped poor and minority families get into “affordable” housing Governemnt assistance ala FNM, FMAC.
[/quote]

Having lived in Europe for many years, I have first hand knowledge of the social security safety net, and there are many problems with it; not least it allows the lazy to live off the industrious, and is a tax burden. However, there will always be unemployed comprising those who either can’t or don’t want to work. Means testing the unwilling is fraught with difficulty and leaves you with a choice of whether you ignore the problem and hope it doesn’t manifest itself into a worse problem like racial tension, crime, or civil unrest, or take a gamble and hope the straddlers aren’t too many in number. Yes, it’s a given that you carry a small percentage of the population, but generally most prefer to work because it pays better.

Failure in public policy is often measured by the outcome of the next election, so it may be Obama wins by default. You may have to put up with his decisions for the next eight years, but I seriously doubt many of us are going to be seriously more worse off than with McCain at the helm. I am happy to be proven wrong.
[/quote]
Best post on this thread so far. I don’t agree with it but it solid and well thought out.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=qwerty007][quote=cooprider]

What I don’t want is Obama at the reigns, spending my hard-earned money, on people that don’t deserve the help, and whatever special interest groups he caters to.

With the Community Reinvestment Act Obama helped poor and minority families get into “affordable” housing Governemnt assistance ala FNM, FMAC.
[/quote]

Having lived in Europe for many years, I have first hand knowledge of the social security safety net, and there are many problems with it; not least it allows the lazy to live off the industrious, and is a tax burden. However, there will always be unemployed comprising those who either can’t or don’t want to work. Means testing the unwilling is fraught with difficulty and leaves you with a choice of whether you ignore the problem and hope it doesn’t manifest itself into a worse problem like racial tension, crime, or civil unrest, or take a gamble and hope the straddlers aren’t too many in number. Yes, it’s a given that you carry a small percentage of the population, but generally most prefer to work because it pays better.

Failure in public policy is often measured by the outcome of the next election, so it may be Obama wins by default. You may have to put up with his decisions for the next eight years, but I seriously doubt many of us are going to be seriously more worse off than with McCain at the helm. I am happy to be proven wrong.
[/quote]
Best post on this thread so far. I don’t agree with it but it solid and well thought out.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=qwerty007][quote=cooprider]

What I don’t want is Obama at the reigns, spending my hard-earned money, on people that don’t deserve the help, and whatever special interest groups he caters to.

With the Community Reinvestment Act Obama helped poor and minority families get into “affordable” housing Governemnt assistance ala FNM, FMAC.
[/quote]

Having lived in Europe for many years, I have first hand knowledge of the social security safety net, and there are many problems with it; not least it allows the lazy to live off the industrious, and is a tax burden. However, there will always be unemployed comprising those who either can’t or don’t want to work. Means testing the unwilling is fraught with difficulty and leaves you with a choice of whether you ignore the problem and hope it doesn’t manifest itself into a worse problem like racial tension, crime, or civil unrest, or take a gamble and hope the straddlers aren’t too many in number. Yes, it’s a given that you carry a small percentage of the population, but generally most prefer to work because it pays better.

Failure in public policy is often measured by the outcome of the next election, so it may be Obama wins by default. You may have to put up with his decisions for the next eight years, but I seriously doubt many of us are going to be seriously more worse off than with McCain at the helm. I am happy to be proven wrong.
[/quote]
Best post on this thread so far. I don’t agree with it but it solid and well thought out.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=qwerty007][quote=cooprider]

What I don’t want is Obama at the reigns, spending my hard-earned money, on people that don’t deserve the help, and whatever special interest groups he caters to.

With the Community Reinvestment Act Obama helped poor and minority families get into “affordable” housing Governemnt assistance ala FNM, FMAC.
[/quote]

Having lived in Europe for many years, I have first hand knowledge of the social security safety net, and there are many problems with it; not least it allows the lazy to live off the industrious, and is a tax burden. However, there will always be unemployed comprising those who either can’t or don’t want to work. Means testing the unwilling is fraught with difficulty and leaves you with a choice of whether you ignore the problem and hope it doesn’t manifest itself into a worse problem like racial tension, crime, or civil unrest, or take a gamble and hope the straddlers aren’t too many in number. Yes, it’s a given that you carry a small percentage of the population, but generally most prefer to work because it pays better.

Failure in public policy is often measured by the outcome of the next election, so it may be Obama wins by default. You may have to put up with his decisions for the next eight years, but I seriously doubt many of us are going to be seriously more worse off than with McCain at the helm. I am happy to be proven wrong.
[/quote]
Best post on this thread so far. I don’t agree with it but it solid and well thought out.

[34f3f3f]

[quote=cooprider]

What I don’t want is Obama at the reigns, spending my hard-earned money, on people that don’t deserve the help, and whatever special interest groups he caters to.

With the Community Reinvestment Act Obama helped poor and minority families get into “affordable” housing Governemnt assistance ala FNM, FMAC.
[/quote]

Having lived in Europe for many years, I have first hand knowledge of the social security safety net, and there are many problems with it; not least it allows the lazy to live off the industrious, and is a tax burden. However, there will always be unemployed comprising those who either can’t or don’t want to work. Means testing the unwilling is fraught with difficulty and leaves you with a choice of whether you ignore the problem and hope it doesn’t manifest itself into a worse problem like racial tension, crime, or civil unrest, or take a gamble and hope the straddlers aren’t too many in number. Yes, it’s a given that you carry a small percentage of the population, but generally most prefer to work because it pays better.

Failure in public policy is often measured by the outcome of the next election, so it may be Obama wins by default. You may have to put up with his decisions for the next eight years, but I seriously doubt many of us are going to be seriously more worse off than with McCain at the helm. I am happy to be proven wrong.

[34f3f3f]

[quote=cooprider]

What I don’t want is Obama at the reigns, spending my hard-earned money, on people that don’t deserve the help, and whatever special interest groups he caters to.

With the Community Reinvestment Act Obama helped poor and minority families get into “affordable” housing Governemnt assistance ala FNM, FMAC.
[/quote]

Having lived in Europe for many years, I have first hand knowledge of the social security safety net, and there are many problems with it; not least it allows the lazy to live off the industrious, and is a tax burden. However, there will always be unemployed comprising those who either can’t or don’t want to work. Means testing the unwilling is fraught with difficulty and leaves you with a choice of whether you ignore the problem and hope it doesn’t manifest itself into a worse problem like racial tension, crime, or civil unrest, or take a gamble and hope the straddlers aren’t too many in number. Yes, it’s a given that you carry a small percentage of the population, but generally most prefer to work because it pays better.

Failure in public policy is often measured by the outcome of the next election, so it may be Obama wins by default. You may have to put up with his decisions for the next eight years, but I seriously doubt many of us are going to be seriously more worse off than with McCain at the helm. I am happy to be proven wrong.

[34f3f3f]

[quote=cooprider]

What I don’t want is Obama at the reigns, spending my hard-earned money, on people that don’t deserve the help, and whatever special interest groups he caters to.

With the Community Reinvestment Act Obama helped poor and minority families get into “affordable” housing Governemnt assistance ala FNM, FMAC.
[/quote]

Having lived in Europe for many years, I have first hand knowledge of the social security safety net, and there are many problems with it; not least it allows the lazy to live off the industrious, and is a tax burden. However, there will always be unemployed comprising those who either can’t or don’t want to work. Means testing the unwilling is fraught with difficulty and leaves you with a choice of whether you ignore the problem and hope it doesn’t manifest itself into a worse problem like racial tension, crime, or civil unrest, or take a gamble and hope the straddlers aren’t too many in number. Yes, it’s a given that you carry a small percentage of the population, but generally most prefer to work because it pays better.

Failure in public policy is often measured by the outcome of the next election, so it may be Obama wins by default. You may have to put up with his decisions for the next eight years, but I seriously doubt many of us are going to be seriously more worse off than with McCain at the helm. I am happy to be proven wrong.

[34f3f3f]

[quote=cooprider]

What I don’t want is Obama at the reigns, spending my hard-earned money, on people that don’t deserve the help, and whatever special interest groups he caters to.

With the Community Reinvestment Act Obama helped poor and minority families get into “affordable” housing Governemnt assistance ala FNM, FMAC.
[/quote]

Having lived in Europe for many years, I have first hand knowledge of the social security safety net, and there are many problems with it; not least it allows the lazy to live off the industrious, and is a tax burden. However, there will always be unemployed comprising those who either can’t or don’t want to work. Means testing the unwilling is fraught with difficulty and leaves you with a choice of whether you ignore the problem and hope it doesn’t manifest itself into a worse problem like racial tension, crime, or civil unrest, or take a gamble and hope the straddlers aren’t too many in number. Yes, it’s a given that you carry a small percentage of the population, but generally most prefer to work because it pays better.

Failure in public policy is often measured by the outcome of the next election, so it may be Obama wins by default. You may have to put up with his decisions for the next eight years, but I seriously doubt many of us are going to be seriously more worse off than with McCain at the helm. I am happy to be proven wrong.

[cr]

[quote=qwerty007]Firstly, we don’t know that he will raise taxes.

Tax is always unfair, and we all hate it, but it has become a necessary evil.

…we need to put our selfish differences behind us…[/quote]

I agree with a lot that, but isn’t the first thing Obama plans to do is repeal the Bush tax cuts?

Yes, taxes are a necessary evil, but my question is why is the Gov’t solution always to raise them when it comes to crunch time? Why can’t they manage $3 Trillion responsibly? Cut spending?!?

I’ll be the first to say Americans’ greed and sense of entitlement is long overdue for a dose of reality, and I have no problem helping out my fellow brother in need. I’d rather help the starving children on our streets though, than some HELOC refi on already welfare and unemployment.

What I don’t want is Obama at the reigns, spending my hard-earned money, on people that don’t deserve the help, and whatever special interest groups he caters to.

With the Community Reinvestment Act Obama helped poor and minority families get into “affordable” housing Governemnt assistance ala FNM, FMAC.

It was called subprime, and it didn’t exactly turn out well.

[cr]

[quote=qwerty007]Firstly, we don’t know that he will raise taxes.

Tax is always unfair, and we all hate it, but it has become a necessary evil.

…we need to put our selfish differences behind us…[/quote]

I agree with a lot that, but isn’t the first thing Obama plans to do is repeal the Bush tax cuts?

Yes, taxes are a necessary evil, but my question is why is the Gov’t solution always to raise them when it comes to crunch time? Why can’t they manage $3 Trillion responsibly? Cut spending?!?

I’ll be the first to say Americans’ greed and sense of entitlement is long overdue for a dose of reality, and I have no problem helping out my fellow brother in need. I’d rather help the starving children on our streets though, than some HELOC refi on already welfare and unemployment.

What I don’t want is Obama at the reigns, spending my hard-earned money, on people that don’t deserve the help, and whatever special interest groups he caters to.

With the Community Reinvestment Act Obama helped poor and minority families get into “affordable” housing Governemnt assistance ala FNM, FMAC.

It was called subprime, and it didn’t exactly turn out well.

[cr]

[quote=qwerty007]Firstly, we don’t know that he will raise taxes.

Tax is always unfair, and we all hate it, but it has become a necessary evil.

…we need to put our selfish differences behind us…[/quote]

I agree with a lot that, but isn’t the first thing Obama plans to do is repeal the Bush tax cuts?

Yes, taxes are a necessary evil, but my question is why is the Gov’t solution always to raise them when it comes to crunch time? Why can’t they manage $3 Trillion responsibly? Cut spending?!?

I’ll be the first to say Americans’ greed and sense of entitlement is long overdue for a dose of reality, and I have no problem helping out my fellow brother in need. I’d rather help the starving children on our streets though, than some HELOC refi on already welfare and unemployment.

What I don’t want is Obama at the reigns, spending my hard-earned money, on people that don’t deserve the help, and whatever special interest groups he caters to.

With the Community Reinvestment Act Obama helped poor and minority families get into “affordable” housing Governemnt assistance ala FNM, FMAC.

It was called subprime, and it didn’t exactly turn out well.

[cr]

[quote=qwerty007]Firstly, we don’t know that he will raise taxes.

Tax is always unfair, and we all hate it, but it has become a necessary evil.

…we need to put our selfish differences behind us…[/quote]

I agree with a lot that, but isn’t the first thing Obama plans to do is repeal the Bush tax cuts?

Yes, taxes are a necessary evil, but my question is why is the Gov’t solution always to raise them when it comes to crunch time? Why can’t they manage $3 Trillion responsibly? Cut spending?!?

I’ll be the first to say Americans’ greed and sense of entitlement is long overdue for a dose of reality, and I have no problem helping out my fellow brother in need. I’d rather help the starving children on our streets though, than some HELOC refi on already welfare and unemployment.

What I don’t want is Obama at the reigns, spending my hard-earned money, on people that don’t deserve the help, and whatever special interest groups he caters to.

With the Community Reinvestment Act Obama helped poor and minority families get into “affordable” housing Governemnt assistance ala FNM, FMAC.

It was called subprime, and it didn’t exactly turn out well.

[34f3f3f]

[quote=cooprider]Good find AN.

qwerty007 – what’s the difference if by raising taxes Obama gives the benefits from that money to people who have done nothing to work for it?
[/quote]

Firstly, we don’t know that he will raise taxes. He’s going to inherit an enormous problem, and he may find raising taxes in the near term is politically imprudent. Many people feel the markets have failed, as a result of laissez faire economics, and that the few squeezed the many fraudulently, and are putting it down to Republican style economics. I rather doubt there are many people in the US who have first hand experience of socialism, and I would include Obama in that number. Tax is always unfair, and we all hate it, but it has become a necessary evil. How it is apportioned really boils down to your world view, philosophy, and morality. However, in the US I would not cast a vote on this issue as it is tiny in comparison with the really pressing issues, such as the economy, energy, social welfare and health, and global warming. It’s getting closer to that hour when we need to put our selfish differences behind us, and realize that the very real problems over the next twenty years are only going to be solved by consensus building and sacrifice. For all those who toiled hard and resent the enforced charity to those who they feel didn’t, maybe need to swallow the pill. This is not about socialism, or any other idealism. We need a man of the hour, and my guess is as good as yours whether Obama is that man. Let’s hope so because that’s what the odds say.

[34f3f3f]

[quote=cooprider]Good find AN.

qwerty007 – what’s the difference if by raising taxes Obama gives the benefits from that money to people who have done nothing to work for it?
[/quote]

Firstly, we don’t know that he will raise taxes. He’s going to inherit an enormous problem, and he may find raising taxes in the near term is politically imprudent. Many people feel the markets have failed, as a result of laissez faire economics, and that the few squeezed the many fraudulently, and are putting it down to Republican style economics. I rather doubt there are many people in the US who have first hand experience of socialism, and I would include Obama in that number. Tax is always unfair, and we all hate it, but it has become a necessary evil. How it is apportioned really boils down to your world view, philosophy, and morality. However, in the US I would not cast a vote on this issue as it is tiny in comparison with the really pressing issues, such as the economy, energy, social welfare and health, and global warming. It’s getting closer to that hour when we need to put our selfish differences behind us, and realize that the very real problems over the next twenty years are only going to be solved by consensus building and sacrifice. For all those who toiled hard and resent the enforced charity to those who they feel didn’t, maybe need to swallow the pill. This is not about socialism, or any other idealism. We need a man of the hour, and my guess is as good as yours whether Obama is that man. Let’s hope so because that’s what the odds say.

[34f3f3f]

[quote=cooprider]Good find AN.

qwerty007 – what’s the difference if by raising taxes Obama gives the benefits from that money to people who have done nothing to work for it?
[/quote]

Firstly, we don’t know that he will raise taxes. He’s going to inherit an enormous problem, and he may find raising taxes in the near term is politically imprudent. Many people feel the markets have failed, as a result of laissez faire economics, and that the few squeezed the many fraudulently, and are putting it down to Republican style economics. I rather doubt there are many people in the US who have first hand experience of socialism, and I would include Obama in that number. Tax is always unfair, and we all hate it, but it has become a necessary evil. How it is apportioned really boils down to your world view, philosophy, and morality. However, in the US I would not cast a vote on this issue as it is tiny in comparison with the really pressing issues, such as the economy, energy, social welfare and health, and global warming. It’s getting closer to that hour when we need to put our selfish differences behind us, and realize that the very real problems over the next twenty years are only going to be solved by consensus building and sacrifice. For all those who toiled hard and resent the enforced charity to those who they feel didn’t, maybe need to swallow the pill. This is not about socialism, or any other idealism. We need a man of the hour, and my guess is as good as yours whether Obama is that man. Let’s hope so because that’s what the odds say.

[34f3f3f]

[quote=cooprider]Good find AN.

qwerty007 – what’s the difference if by raising taxes Obama gives the benefits from that money to people who have done nothing to work for it?
[/quote]

Firstly, we don’t know that he will raise taxes. He’s going to inherit an enormous problem, and he may find raising taxes in the near term is politically imprudent. Many people feel the markets have failed, as a result of laissez faire economics, and that the few squeezed the many fraudulently, and are putting it down to Republican style economics. I rather doubt there are many people in the US who have first hand experience of socialism, and I would include Obama in that number. Tax is always unfair, and we all hate it, but it has become a necessary evil. How it is apportioned really boils down to your world view, philosophy, and morality. However, in the US I would not cast a vote on this issue as it is tiny in comparison with the really pressing issues, such as the economy, energy, social welfare and health, and global warming. It’s getting closer to that hour when we need to put our selfish differences behind us, and realize that the very real problems over the next twenty years are only going to be solved by consensus building and sacrifice. For all those who toiled hard and resent the enforced charity to those who they feel didn’t, maybe need to swallow the pill. This is not about socialism, or any other idealism. We need a man of the hour, and my guess is as good as yours whether Obama is that man. Let’s hope so because that’s what the odds say.

[cr]

Good find AN.

Some of you are are missing the point. Bigger Govt is not a solution. It’s the problem. I’ve said all along the bailouts are wrong and most agree, yet many here are now calling for socialism everywhere else.

Do you really want the Government handling Healthcare, Banks, Housing or job creation? I’m dumbfounded by the things you guys say these days, and reminded of when Peter Schiff said the Govt can’t manage the post office, how can they manage banks?

Any job created by the Govt is funded by taxes, as is any social program. Everyone who works will pay more eventually if this happens.

I’m amazed at the shift in social issues I’ve seen on piggington. How so many of you made the shift from Ron Paul to Obama, and now support his socialist causes is beyond me.

qwerty007 – what’s the difference if by raising taxes Obama gives the benefits from that money to people who have done nothing to work for it?

More handouts for the lazy, and let’s be clear – poor is NOT necessarily lazy. Poor is primarily hard on luck. Lazy is living on welfare b/c it’s easier than getting a job. Now you want more publicly subsidized programs for these people?

Unless that’s the goal you all have in mind, then you really ought to think past the Obamanation propaganda you’ve so easily subscribed to.

[cr]

Good find AN.

Some of you are are missing the point. Bigger Govt is not a solution. It’s the problem. I’ve said all along the bailouts are wrong and most agree, yet many here are now calling for socialism everywhere else.

Do you really want the Government handling Healthcare, Banks, Housing or job creation? I’m dumbfounded by the things you guys say these days, and reminded of when Peter Schiff said the Govt can’t manage the post office, how can they manage banks?

Any job created by the Govt is funded by taxes, as is any social program. Everyone who works will pay more eventually if this happens.

I’m amazed at the shift in social issues I’ve seen on piggington. How so many of you made the shift from Ron Paul to Obama, and now support his socialist causes is beyond me.

qwerty007 – what’s the difference if by raising taxes Obama gives the benefits from that money to people who have done nothing to work for it?

More handouts for the lazy, and let’s be clear – poor is NOT necessarily lazy. Poor is primarily hard on luck. Lazy is living on welfare b/c it’s easier than getting a job. Now you want more publicly subsidized programs for these people?

Unless that’s the goal you all have in mind, then you really ought to think past the Obamanation propaganda you’ve so easily subscribed to.

[cr]

Good find AN.

Some of you are are missing the point. Bigger Govt is not a solution. It’s the problem. I’ve said all along the bailouts are wrong and most agree, yet many here are now calling for socialism everywhere else.

Do you really want the Government handling Healthcare, Banks, Housing or job creation? I’m dumbfounded by the things you guys say these days, and reminded of when Peter Schiff said the Govt can’t manage the post office, how can they manage banks?

Any job created by the Govt is funded by taxes, as is any social program. Everyone who works will pay more eventually if this happens.

I’m amazed at the shift in social issues I’ve seen on piggington. How so many of you made the shift from Ron Paul to Obama, and now support his socialist causes is beyond me.

qwerty007 – what’s the difference if by raising taxes Obama gives the benefits from that money to people who have done nothing to work for it?

More handouts for the lazy, and let’s be clear – poor is NOT necessarily lazy. Poor is primarily hard on luck. Lazy is living on welfare b/c it’s easier than getting a job. Now you want more publicly subsidized programs for these people?

Unless that’s the goal you all have in mind, then you really ought to think past the Obamanation propaganda you’ve so easily subscribed to.

[cr]

Good find AN.

Some of you are are missing the point. Bigger Govt is not a solution. It’s the problem. I’ve said all along the bailouts are wrong and most agree, yet many here are now calling for socialism everywhere else.

Do you really want the Government handling Healthcare, Banks, Housing or job creation? I’m dumbfounded by the things you guys say these days, and reminded of when Peter Schiff said the Govt can’t manage the post office, how can they manage banks?

Any job created by the Govt is funded by taxes, as is any social program. Everyone who works will pay more eventually if this happens.

I’m amazed at the shift in social issues I’ve seen on piggington. How so many of you made the shift from Ron Paul to Obama, and now support his socialist causes is beyond me.

qwerty007 – what’s the difference if by raising taxes Obama gives the benefits from that money to people who have done nothing to work for it?

More handouts for the lazy, and let’s be clear – poor is NOT necessarily lazy. Poor is primarily hard on luck. Lazy is living on welfare b/c it’s easier than getting a job. Now you want more publicly subsidized programs for these people?

Unless that’s the goal you all have in mind, then you really ought to think past the Obamanation propaganda you’ve so easily subscribed to.

[blahblahblah]

Wow AN, thanks for the link! Families making between $66K-$112K of TAXABLE INCOME (after deductions, 401K contributions, etc…) will receive a WHOPPING $223 more per year under McCain’s plan than Obama’s! That will go a long way towards making up the difference once our employers S***CAN OUR F***ING HEALTH INSURANCE after his hare-brained scheme to tax employers on healthcare benefits goes into effect. Of course he’s going to give us all a $5K tax credit to purchase our own health insurance. I’m sure that will go great for one of my relatives that is a type 1 diabetic and is totally uninsurable thanks to his unlucky draw in the DNA lottery. Without employer health insurance he is F***ED and so you will everyone that has ever had cancer, heart disease, or basically anything other than a cough. I had to get my own health insurance a few years back when I quit the corporate world and started my own business, and take it from me, it ain’t easy — and I’m healthy!

So yeah vote for McCain all you dummies. You’ll get an extra couple of hundred bucks a year that you can use to pay the interest on your CC bill after all those jetskis and crap you bought the last 8 years. Now if you’ll excuse me I’m gonna have to go vomit because this whole discussion is making me ill…

[an]

How come none of the major Obama supporter on this board are able to communicate their point without cussing and name calling? Do you think you’ll sound more intelligent or get your point across better by cussing? I just posted the link from CNN, who definitely are more favorable to Obama than McCain. BTW, I’m voting for Barr, so… you know what they say about assume.

[blahblahblah]

How come none of the major Obama supporter on this board are able to communicate their point without cussing and name calling?

I’m not a major Obama supporter but given the choice between him and McCain I’ll choose Obama. Barr has good stands on most of the issues but I don’t think I could live with myself if McCain won because too many indepenents voted 3rd party. 2000 was bad enough.

As for why we curse and call names it is simply because we are frustrated and angry with these ridiculous divisive tactics and false arguments, like the one you posted. Sure, you will get a $200 larger tax cut under McCain, but at what expense? A good chance of losing your employer-provided health care, for one. If you don’t want to have cussing and name calling then use geniune arguments, not phony ones. And do a little thinking before you post. Yes, those families do receive a whopping 200 additional bucks in their tax cut but they are likely to be worse off. I’m sure most of the people that post this stuff realize this but they choose to omit it because it doesn’t help their argument.

Also I wasn’t calling YOU a dummy, but rather I was calling everyone who would be swayed by your SILLY, DISINGENUOUS argument a dummy. If you’re on this board, you’re probably like the rest of us and you pay off your credit cards in full every month, you have a good paying job, and you save a ton of money (yet we STILL can’t afford to buy the house we want — go figure). There are no dummies on this board, but there are people who are using and repeating arguments designed to influence dummies. And that makes some of us F***ING ANGRY.

[an]

Being angry is not a valid excuse for cussing. Sorry, but I’m no longer in High School. Learn to express your anger in a way that will persuade others who don’t agree with your point of view.

You’re blaming CNN for coming up with ridiculous divisive tactics and false arguments that favor McCain? Wow, that have to be the first. I didn’t put any of my own argument in that post, just a link to CNN and regurgitate their fact. Can you prove that there’s a good chance of losing your employer-provided health care? Healthcare cost have been going up every year, do you see companies dropping healthcare from their benefit list? Is the chance of losing your employer-provided healthcare because of increase in healthcare tax be as likely as you being “let go” because employer taxes are going up?

You complained about not able to buy a house you want and yet you’re support a guy who voted for the bailout? Sorry to break this to you, but you can’t always have what you want. Deal with it. If you really hate it that much, then vote for a guy who actually didn’t vote for the bailout.

[an]

Being angry is not a valid excuse for cussing. Sorry, but I’m no longer in High School. Learn to express your anger in a way that will persuade others who don’t agree with your point of view.

You’re blaming CNN for coming up with ridiculous divisive tactics and false arguments that favor McCain? Wow, that have to be the first. I didn’t put any of my own argument in that post, just a link to CNN and regurgitate their fact. Can you prove that there’s a good chance of losing your employer-provided health care? Healthcare cost have been going up every year, do you see companies dropping healthcare from their benefit list? Is the chance of losing your employer-provided healthcare because of increase in healthcare tax be as likely as you being “let go” because employer taxes are going up?

You complained about not able to buy a house you want and yet you’re support a guy who voted for the bailout? Sorry to break this to you, but you can’t always have what you want. Deal with it. If you really hate it that much, then vote for a guy who actually didn’t vote for the bailout.

[an]

Being angry is not a valid excuse for cussing. Sorry, but I’m no longer in High School. Learn to express your anger in a way that will persuade others who don’t agree with your point of view.

You’re blaming CNN for coming up with ridiculous divisive tactics and false arguments that favor McCain? Wow, that have to be the first. I didn’t put any of my own argument in that post, just a link to CNN and regurgitate their fact. Can you prove that there’s a good chance of losing your employer-provided health care? Healthcare cost have been going up every year, do you see companies dropping healthcare from their benefit list? Is the chance of losing your employer-provided healthcare because of increase in healthcare tax be as likely as you being “let go” because employer taxes are going up?

You complained about not able to buy a house you want and yet you’re support a guy who voted for the bailout? Sorry to break this to you, but you can’t always have what you want. Deal with it. If you really hate it that much, then vote for a guy who actually didn’t vote for the bailout.

[an]

Being angry is not a valid excuse for cussing. Sorry, but I’m no longer in High School. Learn to express your anger in a way that will persuade others who don’t agree with your point of view.

You’re blaming CNN for coming up with ridiculous divisive tactics and false arguments that favor McCain? Wow, that have to be the first. I didn’t put any of my own argument in that post, just a link to CNN and regurgitate their fact. Can you prove that there’s a good chance of losing your employer-provided health care? Healthcare cost have been going up every year, do you see companies dropping healthcare from their benefit list? Is the chance of losing your employer-provided healthcare because of increase in healthcare tax be as likely as you being “let go” because employer taxes are going up?

You complained about not able to buy a house you want and yet you’re support a guy who voted for the bailout? Sorry to break this to you, but you can’t always have what you want. Deal with it. If you really hate it that much, then vote for a guy who actually didn’t vote for the bailout.

[an]

Being angry is not a valid excuse for cussing. Sorry, but I’m no longer in High School. Learn to express your anger in a way that will persuade others who don’t agree with your point of view.

You’re blaming CNN for coming up with ridiculous divisive tactics and false arguments that favor McCain? Wow, that have to be the first. I didn’t put any of my own argument in that post, just a link to CNN and regurgitate their fact. Can you prove that there’s a good chance of losing your employer-provided health care? Healthcare cost have been going up every year, do you see companies dropping healthcare from their benefit list? Is the chance of losing your employer-provided healthcare because of increase in healthcare tax be as likely as you being “let go” because employer taxes are going up?

You complained about not able to buy a house you want and yet you’re support a guy who voted for the bailout? Sorry to break this to you, but you can’t always have what you want. Deal with it. If you really hate it that much, then vote for a guy who actually didn’t vote for the bailout.

[afx114]

The right has framed all of this as giving handouts to bums and crack whores on the streets. It’s hardly that. This “wealth distribution” is more better described as investments in alternative energy, investments in infrastructure, investments in health, investments in education, investments in our youth, and paying down our debt.

Most agree that we need to do all of these things, but no one wants to pay for them. This nation is on the brink of insolvency, yet when the bill comes due everyone whines about having to pay it.

Lets go back to the original metaphor used in this post. Imagine you go out to dinner every night for 8 years, but you always charge it, never pay cash, and never pay down your credit card balance. All of a sudden your credit card company says, “dude, pay up, or else.” Are you then going to sit there and whine and moan that you have to pay the bill that you’ve spent the last 8 years racking up? You’ve had “free” meals for the past 8 years on someone else’s dime, yet you complain when your wallet is on the line. I think it’s time to grow up and face the reality of the situation.

[an]

[quote=afx114]
Lets go back to the original metaphor used in this post. Imagine you go out to dinner every night for 8 years, but you always charge it, never pay cash, and never pay down your credit card balance. All of a sudden your credit card company says, “dude, pay up, or else.” Are you then going to sit there and whine and moan that you have to pay the bill that you’ve spent the last 8 years racking up? You’ve had “free” meals for the past 8 years on someone else’s dime, yet you complain when your wallet is on the line. I think it’s time to grow up and face the reality of the situation.[/quote]
Using your example, which is a very good example, I’d stop eating out and go on a rice & soy sauce diet, until I pay off all the debt. I would not keep on eating out and ask my boss to pay me more or ask for handouts from my parents. Do you see where I’m going w/ this?

[an]

[quote=afx114]
Lets go back to the original metaphor used in this post. Imagine you go out to dinner every night for 8 years, but you always charge it, never pay cash, and never pay down your credit card balance. All of a sudden your credit card company says, “dude, pay up, or else.” Are you then going to sit there and whine and moan that you have to pay the bill that you’ve spent the last 8 years racking up? You’ve had “free” meals for the past 8 years on someone else’s dime, yet you complain when your wallet is on the line. I think it’s time to grow up and face the reality of the situation.[/quote]
Using your example, which is a very good example, I’d stop eating out and go on a rice & soy sauce diet, until I pay off all the debt. I would not keep on eating out and ask my boss to pay me more or ask for handouts from my parents. Do you see where I’m going w/ this?

[an]

[quote=afx114]
Lets go back to the original metaphor used in this post. Imagine you go out to dinner every night for 8 years, but you always charge it, never pay cash, and never pay down your credit card balance. All of a sudden your credit card company says, “dude, pay up, or else.” Are you then going to sit there and whine and moan that you have to pay the bill that you’ve spent the last 8 years racking up? You’ve had “free” meals for the past 8 years on someone else’s dime, yet you complain when your wallet is on the line. I think it’s time to grow up and face the reality of the situation.[/quote]
Using your example, which is a very good example, I’d stop eating out and go on a rice & soy sauce diet, until I pay off all the debt. I would not keep on eating out and ask my boss to pay me more or ask for handouts from my parents. Do you see where I’m going w/ this?

[an]

[quote=afx114]
Lets go back to the original metaphor used in this post. Imagine you go out to dinner every night for 8 years, but you always charge it, never pay cash, and never pay down your credit card balance. All of a sudden your credit card company says, “dude, pay up, or else.” Are you then going to sit there and whine and moan that you have to pay the bill that you’ve spent the last 8 years racking up? You’ve had “free” meals for the past 8 years on someone else’s dime, yet you complain when your wallet is on the line. I think it’s time to grow up and face the reality of the situation.[/quote]
Using your example, which is a very good example, I’d stop eating out and go on a rice & soy sauce diet, until I pay off all the debt. I would not keep on eating out and ask my boss to pay me more or ask for handouts from my parents. Do you see where I’m going w/ this?

[an]

[quote=afx114]
Lets go back to the original metaphor used in this post. Imagine you go out to dinner every night for 8 years, but you always charge it, never pay cash, and never pay down your credit card balance. All of a sudden your credit card company says, “dude, pay up, or else.” Are you then going to sit there and whine and moan that you have to pay the bill that you’ve spent the last 8 years racking up? You’ve had “free” meals for the past 8 years on someone else’s dime, yet you complain when your wallet is on the line. I think it’s time to grow up and face the reality of the situation.[/quote]
Using your example, which is a very good example, I’d stop eating out and go on a rice & soy sauce diet, until I pay off all the debt. I would not keep on eating out and ask my boss to pay me more or ask for handouts from my parents. Do you see where I’m going w/ this?

[afx114]

The right has framed all of this as giving handouts to bums and crack whores on the streets. It’s hardly that. This “wealth distribution” is more better described as investments in alternative energy, investments in infrastructure, investments in health, investments in education, investments in our youth, and paying down our debt.

Most agree that we need to do all of these things, but no one wants to pay for them. This nation is on the brink of insolvency, yet when the bill comes due everyone whines about having to pay it.

Lets go back to the original metaphor used in this post. Imagine you go out to dinner every night for 8 years, but you always charge it, never pay cash, and never pay down your credit card balance. All of a sudden your credit card company says, “dude, pay up, or else.” Are you then going to sit there and whine and moan that you have to pay the bill that you’ve spent the last 8 years racking up? You’ve had “free” meals for the past 8 years on someone else’s dime, yet you complain when your wallet is on the line. I think it’s time to grow up and face the reality of the situation.

[afx114]

The right has framed all of this as giving handouts to bums and crack whores on the streets. It’s hardly that. This “wealth distribution” is more better described as investments in alternative energy, investments in infrastructure, investments in health, investments in education, investments in our youth, and paying down our debt.

Most agree that we need to do all of these things, but no one wants to pay for them. This nation is on the brink of insolvency, yet when the bill comes due everyone whines about having to pay it.

Lets go back to the original metaphor used in this post. Imagine you go out to dinner every night for 8 years, but you always charge it, never pay cash, and never pay down your credit card balance. All of a sudden your credit card company says, “dude, pay up, or else.” Are you then going to sit there and whine and moan that you have to pay the bill that you’ve spent the last 8 years racking up? You’ve had “free” meals for the past 8 years on someone else’s dime, yet you complain when your wallet is on the line. I think it’s time to grow up and face the reality of the situation.

[afx114]

The right has framed all of this as giving handouts to bums and crack whores on the streets. It’s hardly that. This “wealth distribution” is more better described as investments in alternative energy, investments in infrastructure, investments in health, investments in education, investments in our youth, and paying down our debt.

Most agree that we need to do all of these things, but no one wants to pay for them. This nation is on the brink of insolvency, yet when the bill comes due everyone whines about having to pay it.

Lets go back to the original metaphor used in this post. Imagine you go out to dinner every night for 8 years, but you always charge it, never pay cash, and never pay down your credit card balance. All of a sudden your credit card company says, “dude, pay up, or else.” Are you then going to sit there and whine and moan that you have to pay the bill that you’ve spent the last 8 years racking up? You’ve had “free” meals for the past 8 years on someone else’s dime, yet you complain when your wallet is on the line. I think it’s time to grow up and face the reality of the situation.

[afx114]

The right has framed all of this as giving handouts to bums and crack whores on the streets. It’s hardly that. This “wealth distribution” is more better described as investments in alternative energy, investments in infrastructure, investments in health, investments in education, investments in our youth, and paying down our debt.

Most agree that we need to do all of these things, but no one wants to pay for them. This nation is on the brink of insolvency, yet when the bill comes due everyone whines about having to pay it.

Lets go back to the original metaphor used in this post. Imagine you go out to dinner every night for 8 years, but you always charge it, never pay cash, and never pay down your credit card balance. All of a sudden your credit card company says, “dude, pay up, or else.” Are you then going to sit there and whine and moan that you have to pay the bill that you’ve spent the last 8 years racking up? You’ve had “free” meals for the past 8 years on someone else’s dime, yet you complain when your wallet is on the line. I think it’s time to grow up and face the reality of the situation.

[blahblahblah]

How come none of the major Obama supporter on this board are able to communicate their point without cussing and name calling?

I’m not a major Obama supporter but given the choice between him and McCain I’ll choose Obama. Barr has good stands on most of the issues but I don’t think I could live with myself if McCain won because too many indepenents voted 3rd party. 2000 was bad enough.

As for why we curse and call names it is simply because we are frustrated and angry with these ridiculous divisive tactics and false arguments, like the one you posted. Sure, you will get a $200 larger tax cut under McCain, but at what expense? A good chance of losing your employer-provided health care, for one. If you don’t want to have cussing and name calling then use geniune arguments, not phony ones. And do a little thinking before you post. Yes, those families do receive a whopping 200 additional bucks in their tax cut but they are likely to be worse off. I’m sure most of the people that post this stuff realize this but they choose to omit it because it doesn’t help their argument.

Also I wasn’t calling YOU a dummy, but rather I was calling everyone who would be swayed by your SILLY, DISINGENUOUS argument a dummy. If you’re on this board, you’re probably like the rest of us and you pay off your credit cards in full every month, you have a good paying job, and you save a ton of money (yet we STILL can’t afford to buy the house we want — go figure). There are no dummies on this board, but there are people who are using and repeating arguments designed to influence dummies. And that makes some of us F***ING ANGRY.

[blahblahblah]

How come none of the major Obama supporter on this board are able to communicate their point without cussing and name calling?

I’m not a major Obama supporter but given the choice between him and McCain I’ll choose Obama. Barr has good stands on most of the issues but I don’t think I could live with myself if McCain won because too many indepenents voted 3rd party. 2000 was bad enough.

As for why we curse and call names it is simply because we are frustrated and angry with these ridiculous divisive tactics and false arguments, like the one you posted. Sure, you will get a $200 larger tax cut under McCain, but at what expense? A good chance of losing your employer-provided health care, for one. If you don’t want to have cussing and name calling then use geniune arguments, not phony ones. And do a little thinking before you post. Yes, those families do receive a whopping 200 additional bucks in their tax cut but they are likely to be worse off. I’m sure most of the people that post this stuff realize this but they choose to omit it because it doesn’t help their argument.

Also I wasn’t calling YOU a dummy, but rather I was calling everyone who would be swayed by your SILLY, DISINGENUOUS argument a dummy. If you’re on this board, you’re probably like the rest of us and you pay off your credit cards in full every month, you have a good paying job, and you save a ton of money (yet we STILL can’t afford to buy the house we want — go figure). There are no dummies on this board, but there are people who are using and repeating arguments designed to influence dummies. And that makes some of us F***ING ANGRY.

[blahblahblah]

How come none of the major Obama supporter on this board are able to communicate their point without cussing and name calling?

I’m not a major Obama supporter but given the choice between him and McCain I’ll choose Obama. Barr has good stands on most of the issues but I don’t think I could live with myself if McCain won because too many indepenents voted 3rd party. 2000 was bad enough.

As for why we curse and call names it is simply because we are frustrated and angry with these ridiculous divisive tactics and false arguments, like the one you posted. Sure, you will get a $200 larger tax cut under McCain, but at what expense? A good chance of losing your employer-provided health care, for one. If you don’t want to have cussing and name calling then use geniune arguments, not phony ones. And do a little thinking before you post. Yes, those families do receive a whopping 200 additional bucks in their tax cut but they are likely to be worse off. I’m sure most of the people that post this stuff realize this but they choose to omit it because it doesn’t help their argument.

Also I wasn’t calling YOU a dummy, but rather I was calling everyone who would be swayed by your SILLY, DISINGENUOUS argument a dummy. If you’re on this board, you’re probably like the rest of us and you pay off your credit cards in full every month, you have a good paying job, and you save a ton of money (yet we STILL can’t afford to buy the house we want — go figure). There are no dummies on this board, but there are people who are using and repeating arguments designed to influence dummies. And that makes some of us F***ING ANGRY.

[blahblahblah]

How come none of the major Obama supporter on this board are able to communicate their point without cussing and name calling?

I’m not a major Obama supporter but given the choice between him and McCain I’ll choose Obama. Barr has good stands on most of the issues but I don’t think I could live with myself if McCain won because too many indepenents voted 3rd party. 2000 was bad enough.

As for why we curse and call names it is simply because we are frustrated and angry with these ridiculous divisive tactics and false arguments, like the one you posted. Sure, you will get a $200 larger tax cut under McCain, but at what expense? A good chance of losing your employer-provided health care, for one. If you don’t want to have cussing and name calling then use geniune arguments, not phony ones. And do a little thinking before you post. Yes, those families do receive a whopping 200 additional bucks in their tax cut but they are likely to be worse off. I’m sure most of the people that post this stuff realize this but they choose to omit it because it doesn’t help their argument.

Also I wasn’t calling YOU a dummy, but rather I was calling everyone who would be swayed by your SILLY, DISINGENUOUS argument a dummy. If you’re on this board, you’re probably like the rest of us and you pay off your credit cards in full every month, you have a good paying job, and you save a ton of money (yet we STILL can’t afford to buy the house we want — go figure). There are no dummies on this board, but there are people who are using and repeating arguments designed to influence dummies. And that makes some of us F***ING ANGRY.

[an]

How come none of the major Obama supporter on this board are able to communicate their point without cussing and name calling? Do you think you’ll sound more intelligent or get your point across better by cussing? I just posted the link from CNN, who definitely are more favorable to Obama than McCain. BTW, I’m voting for Barr, so… you know what they say about assume.

[an]

How come none of the major Obama supporter on this board are able to communicate their point without cussing and name calling? Do you think you’ll sound more intelligent or get your point across better by cussing? I just posted the link from CNN, who definitely are more favorable to Obama than McCain. BTW, I’m voting for Barr, so… you know what they say about assume.

[an]

How come none of the major Obama supporter on this board are able to communicate their point without cussing and name calling? Do you think you’ll sound more intelligent or get your point across better by cussing? I just posted the link from CNN, who definitely are more favorable to Obama than McCain. BTW, I’m voting for Barr, so… you know what they say about assume.

[an]

How come none of the major Obama supporter on this board are able to communicate their point without cussing and name calling? Do you think you’ll sound more intelligent or get your point across better by cussing? I just posted the link from CNN, who definitely are more favorable to Obama than McCain. BTW, I’m voting for Barr, so… you know what they say about assume.

[blahblahblah]

Wow AN, thanks for the link! Families making between $66K-$112K of TAXABLE INCOME (after deductions, 401K contributions, etc…) will receive a WHOPPING $223 more per year under McCain’s plan than Obama’s! That will go a long way towards making up the difference once our employers S***CAN OUR F***ING HEALTH INSURANCE after his hare-brained scheme to tax employers on healthcare benefits goes into effect. Of course he’s going to give us all a $5K tax credit to purchase our own health insurance. I’m sure that will go great for one of my relatives that is a type 1 diabetic and is totally uninsurable thanks to his unlucky draw in the DNA lottery. Without employer health insurance he is F***ED and so you will everyone that has ever had cancer, heart disease, or basically anything other than a cough. I had to get my own health insurance a few years back when I quit the corporate world and started my own business, and take it from me, it ain’t easy — and I’m healthy!

So yeah vote for McCain all you dummies. You’ll get an extra couple of hundred bucks a year that you can use to pay the interest on your CC bill after all those jetskis and crap you bought the last 8 years. Now if you’ll excuse me I’m gonna have to go vomit because this whole discussion is making me ill…

[blahblahblah]

Wow AN, thanks for the link! Families making between $66K-$112K of TAXABLE INCOME (after deductions, 401K contributions, etc…) will receive a WHOPPING $223 more per year under McCain’s plan than Obama’s! That will go a long way towards making up the difference once our employers S***CAN OUR F***ING HEALTH INSURANCE after his hare-brained scheme to tax employers on healthcare benefits goes into effect. Of course he’s going to give us all a $5K tax credit to purchase our own health insurance. I’m sure that will go great for one of my relatives that is a type 1 diabetic and is totally uninsurable thanks to his unlucky draw in the DNA lottery. Without employer health insurance he is F***ED and so you will everyone that has ever had cancer, heart disease, or basically anything other than a cough. I had to get my own health insurance a few years back when I quit the corporate world and started my own business, and take it from me, it ain’t easy — and I’m healthy!

So yeah vote for McCain all you dummies. You’ll get an extra couple of hundred bucks a year that you can use to pay the interest on your CC bill after all those jetskis and crap you bought the last 8 years. Now if you’ll excuse me I’m gonna have to go vomit because this whole discussion is making me ill…

[blahblahblah]

Wow AN, thanks for the link! Families making between $66K-$112K of TAXABLE INCOME (after deductions, 401K contributions, etc…) will receive a WHOPPING $223 more per year under McCain’s plan than Obama’s! That will go a long way towards making up the difference once our employers S***CAN OUR F***ING HEALTH INSURANCE after his hare-brained scheme to tax employers on healthcare benefits goes into effect. Of course he’s going to give us all a $5K tax credit to purchase our own health insurance. I’m sure that will go great for one of my relatives that is a type 1 diabetic and is totally uninsurable thanks to his unlucky draw in the DNA lottery. Without employer health insurance he is F***ED and so you will everyone that has ever had cancer, heart disease, or basically anything other than a cough. I had to get my own health insurance a few years back when I quit the corporate world and started my own business, and take it from me, it ain’t easy — and I’m healthy!

So yeah vote for McCain all you dummies. You’ll get an extra couple of hundred bucks a year that you can use to pay the interest on your CC bill after all those jetskis and crap you bought the last 8 years. Now if you’ll excuse me I’m gonna have to go vomit because this whole discussion is making me ill…

[blahblahblah]

Wow AN, thanks for the link! Families making between $66K-$112K of TAXABLE INCOME (after deductions, 401K contributions, etc…) will receive a WHOPPING $223 more per year under McCain’s plan than Obama’s! That will go a long way towards making up the difference once our employers S***CAN OUR F***ING HEALTH INSURANCE after his hare-brained scheme to tax employers on healthcare benefits goes into effect. Of course he’s going to give us all a $5K tax credit to purchase our own health insurance. I’m sure that will go great for one of my relatives that is a type 1 diabetic and is totally uninsurable thanks to his unlucky draw in the DNA lottery. Without employer health insurance he is F***ED and so you will everyone that has ever had cancer, heart disease, or basically anything other than a cough. I had to get my own health insurance a few years back when I quit the corporate world and started my own business, and take it from me, it ain’t easy — and I’m healthy!

So yeah vote for McCain all you dummies. You’ll get an extra couple of hundred bucks a year that you can use to pay the interest on your CC bill after all those jetskis and crap you bought the last 8 years. Now if you’ll excuse me I’m gonna have to go vomit because this whole discussion is making me ill…

[an]

Linky

Under their last tax proposal, if your family make more than $66k/yr, on average, you’ll get more $ back from McCain’s plan.

[an]

Linky

Under their last tax proposal, if your family make more than $66k/yr, on average, you’ll get more $ back from McCain’s plan.

[an]

Linky

Under their last tax proposal, if your family make more than $66k/yr, on average, you’ll get more $ back from McCain’s plan.

[an]

Linky

Under their last tax proposal, if your family make more than $66k/yr, on average, you’ll get more $ back from McCain’s plan.

[34f3f3f]

Raising taxes doesn’t mean quite the same thing as redistribution of wealth, at least in the sense that some socialists or Marxists refer to it. Obama’s plan is the redistribution of taxes, and Republicans are very clearly distorting it for political leverage. Raising taxes is just that, and is used for a host of causes. Redistribution of wealth is more wholesale, and involves nationalizing industries, compulsory acquisitions, and sometimes heavily taxing inherited wealth. If raising taxes means redistributing wealth, then it follows that lowering taxes concentrates wealth, which clearly makes no sense either.

However, I would agree that in the current crisis it is probably not the best time to be talking about raising taxes, but in the long term I don’t see how the huge US deficits are going to be paid for.

[34f3f3f]

Raising taxes doesn’t mean quite the same thing as redistribution of wealth, at least in the sense that some socialists or Marxists refer to it. Obama’s plan is the redistribution of taxes, and Republicans are very clearly distorting it for political leverage. Raising taxes is just that, and is used for a host of causes. Redistribution of wealth is more wholesale, and involves nationalizing industries, compulsory acquisitions, and sometimes heavily taxing inherited wealth. If raising taxes means redistributing wealth, then it follows that lowering taxes concentrates wealth, which clearly makes no sense either.

However, I would agree that in the current crisis it is probably not the best time to be talking about raising taxes, but in the long term I don’t see how the huge US deficits are going to be paid for.

[34f3f3f]

Raising taxes doesn’t mean quite the same thing as redistribution of wealth, at least in the sense that some socialists or Marxists refer to it. Obama’s plan is the redistribution of taxes, and Republicans are very clearly distorting it for political leverage. Raising taxes is just that, and is used for a host of causes. Redistribution of wealth is more wholesale, and involves nationalizing industries, compulsory acquisitions, and sometimes heavily taxing inherited wealth. If raising taxes means redistributing wealth, then it follows that lowering taxes concentrates wealth, which clearly makes no sense either.

However, I would agree that in the current crisis it is probably not the best time to be talking about raising taxes, but in the long term I don’t see how the huge US deficits are going to be paid for.

[34f3f3f]

Raising taxes doesn’t mean quite the same thing as redistribution of wealth, at least in the sense that some socialists or Marxists refer to it. Obama’s plan is the redistribution of taxes, and Republicans are very clearly distorting it for political leverage. Raising taxes is just that, and is used for a host of causes. Redistribution of wealth is more wholesale, and involves nationalizing industries, compulsory acquisitions, and sometimes heavily taxing inherited wealth. If raising taxes means redistributing wealth, then it follows that lowering taxes concentrates wealth, which clearly makes no sense either.

However, I would agree that in the current crisis it is probably not the best time to be talking about raising taxes, but in the long term I don’t see how the huge US deficits are going to be paid for.

[afx114]

Yep, the question becomes: Who was doing all the eating these past 8 years? I’ll also add that if the balance is not paid off in a timely manner, your interest rate (tax rate in this example) should and will go up.

[an]

[quote=afx114]Yep, the question becomes: Who was doing all the eating these past 8 years? I’ll also add that if the balance is not paid off in a timely manner, your interest rate (tax rate in this example) should and will go up. [/quote]
I say the majority of American have been eating at restaurants they shouldn’t have. From the guy making minimum wage buying a 1/2 million $ house to the government increasing spending by 40% to the fat cats making millions. Majority of the people have been living well beyond their means. That’s why we didn’t experience as bad of a recession as we should have in 2001. Consumer spending fill in where corporate spending left off. Majority love to point finger at the other guy, but if everyone just look in the mirror, that’s the person they all should blame. So, everyone have to do their share to pay down this debt.

[an]

[quote=afx114]Yep, the question becomes: Who was doing all the eating these past 8 years? I’ll also add that if the balance is not paid off in a timely manner, your interest rate (tax rate in this example) should and will go up. [/quote]
I say the majority of American have been eating at restaurants they shouldn’t have. From the guy making minimum wage buying a 1/2 million $ house to the government increasing spending by 40% to the fat cats making millions. Majority of the people have been living well beyond their means. That’s why we didn’t experience as bad of a recession as we should have in 2001. Consumer spending fill in where corporate spending left off. Majority love to point finger at the other guy, but if everyone just look in the mirror, that’s the person they all should blame. So, everyone have to do their share to pay down this debt.

[an]

[quote=afx114]Yep, the question becomes: Who was doing all the eating these past 8 years? I’ll also add that if the balance is not paid off in a timely manner, your interest rate (tax rate in this example) should and will go up. [/quote]
I say the majority of American have been eating at restaurants they shouldn’t have. From the guy making minimum wage buying a 1/2 million $ house to the government increasing spending by 40% to the fat cats making millions. Majority of the people have been living well beyond their means. That’s why we didn’t experience as bad of a recession as we should have in 2001. Consumer spending fill in where corporate spending left off. Majority love to point finger at the other guy, but if everyone just look in the mirror, that’s the person they all should blame. So, everyone have to do their share to pay down this debt.

[an]

[quote=afx114]Yep, the question becomes: Who was doing all the eating these past 8 years? I’ll also add that if the balance is not paid off in a timely manner, your interest rate (tax rate in this example) should and will go up. [/quote]
I say the majority of American have been eating at restaurants they shouldn’t have. From the guy making minimum wage buying a 1/2 million $ house to the government increasing spending by 40% to the fat cats making millions. Majority of the people have been living well beyond their means. That’s why we didn’t experience as bad of a recession as we should have in 2001. Consumer spending fill in where corporate spending left off. Majority love to point finger at the other guy, but if everyone just look in the mirror, that’s the person they all should blame. So, everyone have to do their share to pay down this debt.

[an]

[quote=afx114]Yep, the question becomes: Who was doing all the eating these past 8 years? I’ll also add that if the balance is not paid off in a timely manner, your interest rate (tax rate in this example) should and will go up. [/quote]
I say the majority of American have been eating at restaurants they shouldn’t have. From the guy making minimum wage buying a 1/2 million $ house to the government increasing spending by 40% to the fat cats making millions. Majority of the people have been living well beyond their means. That’s why we didn’t experience as bad of a recession as we should have in 2001. Consumer spending fill in where corporate spending left off. Majority love to point finger at the other guy, but if everyone just look in the mirror, that’s the person they all should blame. So, everyone have to do their share to pay down this debt.

[afx114]

Yep, the question becomes: Who was doing all the eating these past 8 years? I’ll also add that if the balance is not paid off in a timely manner, your interest rate (tax rate in this example) should and will go up.

[afx114]

Yep, the question becomes: Who was doing all the eating these past 8 years? I’ll also add that if the balance is not paid off in a timely manner, your interest rate (tax rate in this example) should and will go up.

[afx114]

Yep, the question becomes: Who was doing all the eating these past 8 years? I’ll also add that if the balance is not paid off in a timely manner, your interest rate (tax rate in this example) should and will go up.

[afx114]

Yep, the question becomes: Who was doing all the eating these past 8 years? I’ll also add that if the balance is not paid off in a timely manner, your interest rate (tax rate in this example) should and will go up.

[Dukehorn]

So, to use a real life scenario, what you are saying is:

a child that was born to a poor parent deserved to die from his cavities because his mother was too stupid and too poor to get him healthcare. Right? That as a society we don’t have a duty to our fellow human beings to make the world a live-able and sustainable place.

The corollary is if a child is born to a sexual predator, he/she deserves to be abused. Right? Natural law?

How very Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and Islam of you…..

Seriously, try to understand the difference between managing poverty and “wealth distribution”. And don’t forget that kids are the ones that truly get harmed here though it seems you don’t give a rat’s ass.

[cr]

[quote=Dukehorn]So, to use a real life scenario, what you are saying is:

a child that was born to a poor parent deserved to die from his cavities because his mother was too stupid and too poor to get him healthcare. Right? That as a society we don’t have a duty to our fellow human beings to make the world a live-able and sustainable place.

The corollary is if a child is born to a sexual predator, he/she deserves to be abused. Right? Natural law?

How very Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and Islam of you…..

Seriously, try to understand the difference between managing poverty and “wealth distribution”. And don’t forget that kids are the ones that truly get harmed here though it seems you don’t give a rat’s ass.[/quote]

Wow, could you patronize what those against communism are saying any more erroneously?

[raptorduck]

Some very very good and well thought out comments here so I decided to say what I often don’t.

I hate the socialist redistribution of wealth mentality. And I actually understand Pareto efficiency and appreciate it. Why do I hate it?

I grew up in one of the poorest neighboorhoods in the US. The worst of the worst “hoods.” We were a population of fatherless kids. Almost all my friends had mothers on welfare, the poster child social program of wealth redistribution to care for the “needy.” Well most of those same folks worked jobs “under the table.” And almost all of them had a higher quality of life and had more “things” than my family did. They bought nice cars with that extra cash since the government picked up the bill for their day to day expenses.

We were not so lucky, but t