<p>Myrmidon! Might I direct your attention....</p>
<p>If you want to pull that bs that rich people don't earn their money by citing a few outliers, than, using your though process, it is fair to say many of the people using social security/welfare programs are people who are leaching off the system and not working as hard as they could.
Doctors, lawyers, professors, politicians(such as BO and McCain, both top 1%income bracket), entrpeuners, business owners, architechs(sp), engineers, scientists are among the many professions of the wealthy Americans. Many captains of industry such as Rockefellar also donated large amounts of money for various charities/causes (look at what Mellon did in PGH). At the time of the IR, those business practices were acepted. Why should a man such as Rockefeller, who was an intelligent business man who realized he could maximize profit by buying competetitors(Who were not forced to sell their company), or Bill Gates, be punished or villified for making smart business decisions or inventing superior products?
People use the whole the system is broken mantra as an excuse or as a way to villify the wealthy. I am far, far from being rich, but people such as the Heinz's in Pittsburgh have done many great things for our city, and never hesitate to help the struggling Americans. The whole Wall Street greed thing- if you're buying stocks and investments as a living, wy wouldn't you be "greedy"? Wall street is now suffering the consequences, so stop complaining. Oh, but wait. The Dems allowed a huge Wall Street bailout to pass. I guess Obama feels he needs to help those greedy, selfish Wall Street investors.
Gates had a great idea. If you don't agree with his practices, don't by or use Microsoft products.
Once again, OBAMA VOTED FOR THE WALL STREET/INVESTMENT BANK BAILOUT. Whose side is he really on? I mean, he's just another greedy rich man in the top 1% income bracket, who is rich because he wrote a book(which certainly isn't a blue collar job).</p>
<p>Obama voted for the bailout plan because he, like any reasonable person out there, don't want investments to freeze leading to depression. Further government oversight is absolutely necessary to prevent some of Wall Street's illegitimate practices. Bailing out Wall Street is not just letting Wall Street get back on its feet as if nothing has happened; no reasonable person would look at how much they screwed up and think they could do a good job the second time. If I pay a contractor to invest my money well and he screws up bad horribly, I'm not giving him a second chance. The bill will be accompanied by further changes to the system that will prevent FUBARS like the mortgage crisis this from occurring in this scale.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In all honesty, the biggest reason I would prefer McCain over the two is that it brings a split between Congress and Presidency. Whenever one party controls both, bad things tend to happen, because legislation gets passed more more easily. This is why all the tax cuts from the last eight or so years were so bad; Bush didn't do anything to stop them. Whereas, when the republicans tried to do it before, Clinton smacked it down.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you vote for anything solely based on if it is unpopular? Excellent, logical, informed way of voting, you are a fantastic model for all educated citizens of America.</p>
<p>Ummm, right.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So you vote for anything solely based on if it is unpopular? Excellent, logical, informed way of voting, you are a fantastic model for all educated citizens of America.</p>
<p>Ummm, right.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>When did I say I voted for anything unpopular? I just realize that neither party should have control of both the legislative and executive branches, because then problems arise between the ideal intent of plans, and their reality. Differences tend to keep these in check. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Myrmidon! Might I direct your attention....</p>
<p>New Deal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you seriously telling me that the New Deal is a good example of what happens when a president and Congress have the same party? There is a lot of thought that the New Deal actually prolonged the Depression. Similarly, if you want to talk about how great FDR was, please also talk about his court-packing schemes.</p>
<p>"The rich benefit by far the greatest from society. This is evidenced by the fact that the rich have been growing even richer over time, and the poor poorer."</p>
<p>What a crock of ess-h-eye-tee...</p>
<p>You're an IDIOT if you think INVESTMENT banks would freeze lending. It was a bunch of fear mongering by politicians who needed an excuse to bailout their buddies on Wall Street. They wanted a bailout because the assets they are holding, which they haven't sold yet, were losing value.
Interest rates would have gone up to compensate for the artificially low rates imposed by the fed, and credit standards would have returned to normal levels, ie unqualified people wouldn't be obtaining mortgages because of a government mandate. The government allowed this to happen, and Dems and Reps sat around and allowed it.
No reasonable man would(yes, McCain too) would vote for a bailout that included tax breaks to NASCAR. The bailout is giving a $700 billion check, and all the power over which companies, mortagages and investments are bought by the gov, to one man, Henry Paulson. Who do you think Paulson is going to hire to watch these bought assets? His personal buddies. It is completely inexcusable to give one man so much power over the economy, I mean look what happened because of Greenspan. Let the economy fix itself, because gov involvement caused this mess in the first place.
The bailout benefited people who made poor investments. Let them suffer the consequences for poor decisions, because I don't hear them complaining when it's booming. They go by the assumption that they are "too big too fail", and the gov needs to grow a spine and let them fail. Letting them fail would do the most for Wall Street and investors, because they would finally realize the gov isn't going to hold their hand, and they would make better decisions.
My college fund took a huge hit because of the market, but I still don't think the gov should help me out because poor investment decisions were made. The basic mentality of the gov is to bail out wealthy companies/investors, but let the average American suffer the consequences of poor decisions. You can't have it both ways.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Many times, getting an abortion is the vastly more responsible act, for all parties.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>you blew over the first issue here, it goes like this:</p>
<p>Situation 1:
have sex when you might not be able to handle the consequences?
yes/no</p>
<p>Situation 2:
you are pregnant. You cannot afford the kid. Get abortion?
yes/no</p>
<p>Getting an abortion is the more responsible act in situation 2, I agree. HOWEVER, situation 2 does not exist if you made the correct choice in situation 1.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No one is trying to get pregnant. One is allowed to have sex even if there is a very small chance that is will result in pregnancy. There is a much greater chance that you will get into a serious car accident when you drive or ride a car. Do you still drive/ ride cars? Obviously. If you take all the precautions, but end up getting sideswiped by someone who blew a stop sign, are you accountable? By your logic, yes because you could have easily avoided the catastrophe if you decided to abstain from traveling anywhere.</p>
<p>In other words, up yours.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Everyone knows that when you drive on the road, there is a chance you will get into an accident. If you are not prepared for that chance, you don't drive.</p>
<p>Everyone knows that when you have sex, you could get pregnant. If you are not prepared for that chance, don't have sex.</p>
<p>just because there is VERY LOW risk, does not mean that there is NO risk.</p>
<p>Since this seems to have turned toward abortion in the last few pages, I thought I would throw this out:</p>
<p>"It [the Constitution] reflected the fundamental flaw of the country that continues to this day."
- Barack Obama, 2008 Presidential Candidate</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>What are you trying to show with that quote? No context = nearly useless, though I'd guess he was talking about racism/slavery or something similar... which hardly seems controversial unless you think racism is a good thing.</p>
<p>What about selling the baby instead?
Easy way to get a few extra grand, the baby lives and a couple gets a baby.
It's a win win</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>Sounds good, but you could then run into potential problems like kidnappings or women constantly getting pregnant just so that they can sell their children. If many of these people were low-income, it would contribute significantly to a rise in health care costs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What about selling the baby instead?
Easy way to get a few extra grand, the baby lives and a couple gets a baby.
It's a win win
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, because it's not like selling people is illegal or anything! And pregnancy and birth are just a snap for everyone, totally an easy way to make some $$$. Not to mention I'm sure there will be tons of people clamoring for those non-white babies, and there are no issues of exploitation at all in this scenario, nope. Plus giving a baby up is a snap, no emotional upheaval or potential for anguish at all. Great idea!</p>
<p>Seriously, I would have a very hard time not killing myself if I got pregnant and was forced to carry it to term. The physical changes associated with pregnancy are not something I think I would be able to deal with under the best of circumstances, let alone with an unplanned pregnancy that was the result of rape (pretty much the only scenario where I'd be likely to end up pregnant given who I'm having sex with). So there's no way I'm ever voting for anyone who wants to legislate what happens in my damn uterus.</p>
<p>You are allowed to legally sell babies, well technically you just pay for "medical expenses".
I never said anything about forcing people to have kids.
I will say I can understand someone having 1 abortion, but that's it. If abortions are to remain legal, then restrictions on the number is perfectely acceptable. Obviously certain exceptions would exist (health of mom, health of child, incest, rape), but otherwise there is no need to have more than one.
Some girl in my school, who was 16, managed to get pregnat 3 times- 2 abortions and 1 miscarriage. The second time she got pregnant she was on the pill but missed a day. People like that should not be allowed to have more than 1 abortion because they can't have responsible sex. Condoms are cheap enough. There are other health risks to having unprotected sex as well, so its really just inexcusable at a certain point.</p>
<p>I watched some videos by this group called Guys for Life on Youtube.</p>
<p>Anyway, since you guys are all about abortion right now, did you know that Obama promised to Planned Parenthood, "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," </p>
<p>Did you know Planned Parenthood's founder was in favor of racial eugenics and human "purity"?</p>
<p>Black</a> Pastor Can't Support Barack Obama Because He's Extreme on Abortion</p>
<p>Just saying.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What are you trying to show with that quote? No context = nearly useless, though I'd guess he was talking about racism/slavery or something similar... which hardly seems controversial unless you think racism is a good thing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe, I just didn't think that slavery was still "continuing to this day"</p>
<p>No, but racism certainly is.</p>
<p>projected effects of tax plans to 2018:</p>
<p>McCain: +2,126,000 jobs per year on average
Obama: +915,800 jobs per year on average</p>
<p>GDP in 2018 is $320.7 billion higher under McCain than Obama
Growth is on average 3 times higher under McCain than Obama</p>
<p>McCain: +$5,138 per year in disposable income on average for a family of 4
Obama: +$3,631 per year in disposable income on average for a family of 4</p>
<p>"Senator McCain's plan is substantially better at spurring economic growth than Senator Obama's."</p>
<p>The</a> Obama and McCain Tax Plans: How Do They Compare?</p>
<p>So, McCain wants to create jobs to help out low income earners... Obama wants to give them money for nothing. Clearly one of these plans is better than the other.</p>
<p>^ not to mention that of the two, Obama's health plan will increase costs quite a bit more than McCain's.</p>
<p>So, I suppose the question is...should we give them a meal or teach them to fish?</p>
<p>this election will be legendary</p>