BF2S Forums The bottomline on Obama "spread the wealth around"

Reciprocity wrote:

lol, the red menace is alive and well.


lowing sounds like a lttle McCarthy.

If we wanna solve this welfare problem, we just need to get rid of all the useless southern, red states.

I notice more and more people like you in this forum do not actually make an argument, you just insult the opinion before you.

lowing wrote:

Nope, my plan is to, OMG dare I say it, provide a chance for them EARN for themselves! Sounds crazy huh? But if you get what you want, steal form the achievers t ogive to the non-achievers, you will have stiffled growth. people will not be able to start small business ( providing jobs) and small businesses will not be able to grow into big businesses ( providing even more jobs)

A chance to earn for themselves doesn't mean that they have to do it by themselves.

Nothing from a welfare handout is stopping businesses from growing. The opposite is true. You raise the poverty line, and guess what happens, safer job security for businesses, because there is more employment opportunity, better education for the nation as a whole.

If the poverty line is raised, you'll see more children in school. Results in a larger work force, larger pool of resources for business to tap into. And the lowest of the low, is no longer the homeless on the street. You have them in society with a normal job. It might be low earning. It might be long hours. But it is enough to make them contribute to society.

If they do move further up, it is because they earned it. If you fuck up and lose all your money, sure you could end up homeless. Welfare isn't going to be a fix all, end all.

The approach you take will gift only a very select few, and piss on everyone below.

I don't see welfare as something which is a nice option. I don't think anyone does. I can't understand how you think it's possible to even live off welfare alone.

If welfare helps you find employment and keeps the lowest income earners in some form of housing and able to afford enough food to survive, it's not exactly going to harm the rest of society.

lowing wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Welfare, social programs and charity is already established in America, are you unaware of this fact?

So the poverty line starts at the point you can't afford the latest video card, because there are welfare and social programs?

I must have missed the the welfare handout that entitled the less fortunate to a house, computer and graphics card.

Aren't these the same welfare programs you wanted to crack down on?

Maybe your plan is to starve the homeless into extinction.

Nope, my plan is to, OMG dare I say it, provide a chance for them EARN for themselves! Sounds crazy huh? But if you get what you want, steal form the achievers t ogive to the non-achievers, you will have stiffled growth. people will not be able to start small business ( providing jobs) and small businesses will not be able to grow into big businesses ( providing even more jobs)

Provide a chance - like supporting social programs to teach homeless people life and job skills to better their standard of living?  Sounds pretty liberal of you.

Steal from the achievers to give to the non-achievers - like taking 700 billion tax dollars (that aren't there) and giving a large chunk to cronies of the man clutching the purse strings?  Or are you still caught up in the '80s black crackhead welfare mom Reaganite tripe, thinking that all social programs are exploited by undeserving darkies?  Stealing from welfare gets Ann Coulter on your ass, lobbying politicians and brokering backroom deals gets you a cool name like "Bush Pioneer" and maybe if you're lucky a cool nickname like "Kenny Boy".

Stifle growth - like allowing companies for the last 30 years to outsource all production and manufacturing while at the same time allowing the Federal Reserve to print money with no tie to any commodity?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

lowing wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

So the poverty line starts at the point you can't afford the latest video card, because there are welfare and social programs?

I must have missed the the welfare handout that entitled the less fortunate to a house, computer and graphics card.

Aren't these the same welfare programs you wanted to crack down on?

Maybe your plan is to starve the homeless into extinction.

Nope, my plan is to, OMG dare I say it, provide a chance for them EARN for themselves! Sounds crazy huh? But if you get what you want, steal form the achievers t ogive to the non-achievers, you will have stiffled growth. people will not be able to start small business ( providing jobs) and small businesses will not be able to grow into big businesses ( providing even more jobs)

Provide a chance - like supporting social programs to teach homeless people life and job skills to better their standard of living?  Sounds pretty liberal of you.

Steal from the achievers to give to the non-achievers - like taking 700 billion tax dollars (that aren't there) and giving a large chunk to cronies of the man clutching the purse strings?  Or are you still caught up in the '80s black crackhead welfare mom Reaganite tripe, thinking that all social programs are exploited by undeserving darkies?  Stealing from welfare gets Ann Coulter on your ass, lobbying politicians and brokering backroom deals gets you a cool name like "Bush Pioneer" and maybe if you're lucky a cool nickname like "Kenny Boy".

Stifle growth - like allowing companies for the last 30 years to outsource all production and manufacturing while at the same time allowing the Federal Reserve to print money with no tie to any commodity?

Support programs ar ealready in existance I guess what you support is FORCING people to attend?

I do not support the bailout, not one bit. the credit problems should be between the bank and the debtor. It is not my problem and my tax money should not be involved.

Blame your beloved unions that have artifically raise the worth of a worker. A company is in business to make money for those that risk money investing into that business, they are not in business to provide you with a quality of life.

Reciprocity wrote:

lowing wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

lol, the red menace is alive and well.


lowing sounds like a lttle McCarthy.

If we wanna solve this welfare problem, we just need to get rid of all the useless southern, red states.

I notice more and more people like you in this forum do not actually make an argument, you just insult the opinion before you.

because your arguement is absurd and your opinion is shit.


I shouldn't say that.

Who wants to travel into your fantasy world to have an argument?

I'll just agree with you.

Obama is a secret muslim communist.  He's hell bent on converting us infidels to islam.  He's detirmined to redistribute all the wealth of our nation with an unbearable tax burden.  This is, of course, why Warren Buffett and colin Powell support Obama.

My fantasy land? I  an not the one who thinks the whole world joins together, sits around a campfire and sings Cumbiyah and drinks CocaCola. I live in the real world, and in the real world, you are responsibile for yourself and your actions. What you support is making us ALL responsible for each other, including those that do not want to share in that responsibility. No thanks, I will solve my problems and you and your collective can solve yours.

lowing wrote:

Support programs ar ealready in existance I guess what you support is FORCING people to attend?

No, I support an overhaul to the system so that instead of forcing you to abide by asinine conditions (like having to take any job they give you regardless of pay or location) born out of bureacracy, there are real programs with quantifiable results and benchmarks.  I also support a complete end to any type of lobbying and an end to political donations - because that is directly responsible for a fair amount of said bureacracy.  Lowing, you don't know that which you so heavily criticize - the social programs in America.  You only see what you want to believe - that money is being spent ineffiecently - and for some reason you don't realize that happens on a much larger scale in many different areas of government.

lowing wrote:

I do not support the bailout, not one bit. the credit problems should be between the bank and the debtor. It is not my problem and my tax money should not be involved. 

Blame your beloved unions that have artifically raise the worth of a worker. A company is in business to make money for those that risk money investing into that business, they are not in business to provide you with a quality of life.

Why aren't you starting five thousand threads on the ridiculousness of the bailout instead of threads saying it's the the dirty liberals' fault (or the debt-laden consumer) for the siphoning of public money to the elite?  It's the people you endorse and promote (power-elite; Republicans;) that took your tax money, not dirty liberals with drug habits.

Not your problem - you are wrong.  It may not be your problem now, but perhaps it will be your kid's problem.  The mass emigration of US capital, labor, and manufacturing is your problem (and mine, and should be every Americans) - and it is not in the best interest of American business or civics.  How is relying on another country's labor output beneficial to American national security?  How is relying on projected American power to gain access to and exploit resources on behalf of multinational companies who aren't promoting a strong US industrial base beneficial to Americans?  How is the artificial creation of wealth at the expense of 99% of the population to benefit less than 1% of the population beneficial?  I'll give you a hint: it isn't.

Feel free to refute anything I've said and stop creating your own strawmen to argue against.

PS - what I think of unions, from your very own mash-at-the-keyboard angry topic:

Union = weekend off
Union = 8 hour work days
Union = child labor laws
Union = creation of NLRB

Union = often inflated wages
Union = another medium for organized crime to flourish
Union = job security

Unions are not inherently bad institutions.  It is when a union outlives it's initial purpose (which is to ensure labor rights and provide a somewhat level platform for bargaining between employees and employer) that it ceases to be a positive institution.  Unions constantly promote worker's rights in an economy that often favors the bottom line, and no more.

The problem as I see it is not that unions are bad, but that there is too much indifference to supporting employees combined with the increasing power many unions have.  If American capitalist economics continue to promote profit and nothing more, our economy will collapse.  There will be a small amount of "haves" and a large amount of "have-nots".  The main goal of our economy should be to provide a self-sustaining economy that at the same time increases the standard of living and well-being of most or all of the population.

^^^ that is relevant to the role of corporations - as opposed to just "making money" as you so succintly argue.

Also, this reply is not for you lowing.  This is perhaps for a person with an open mind to look at and think about, not for someone who will make their own statement, attribute it to the mindset of those ideologically opposed, then argue against that statement.  That's what a strawman argument is, Mr. Supreme Overlord of Strawmen.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-10-20 20:26:26)

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

How, exactly does welfare "help you find employment". Getting off your ass is the only way to find employment and GIVING you a free ride does nothing to help you get off your ass.

Welfare does not stop businesses from growming, taxing the people that are trying to build a business does. When they are taxed heavily as you suggest, that money cuts into profit, which cuts into salaries or even jobs. Beleive it or not, the OWNER will and should be the last one out the door when a business closes. If you take the money earned by small business, you remove incentive. Because believe it or not, people are not in business to give away all they have earned and worked for. Imagine that.

It's hard to gain employment if you turn up for a job, during the application you are asked why your resume lacks a current address, and have to mention the fact your have no home. Getting off your ass and into a job is not easy. Why do you think all it takes is motivation? Some people can't afford a suit, gas money or transportation to a job, no matter how willing and able they are.

If your taxing those that own businesses, they aren't exactly at the rough end of the stick now are they?

Fir example, if you raise taxes for those earning $150,000 per year to give those below $30,000 a tax break or financial assistance in finding full time employment, those now earning $150, 000 can hardly cry poor if they lose some money. Especially considering those on less than $30,000 can now apply for a job with them after finding steady housing and basic income through tax breaks and financial assistance.

Taxing the poor, to give to the rich isn't going to grow business, unless you want slave labour.

"Getting off your ass and into a job is not easy" <---------no shit, yet people do it every fucking day.

The poor does not pay taxes. The wealthy already pay the majority of the taxes, oh, and provide ALL of the jobs.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

lowing wrote:

Support programs ar ealready in existance I guess what you support is FORCING people to attend?

No, I support an overhaul to the system so that instead of forcing you to abide by asinine conditions (like having to take any job they give you regardless of pay or location) born out of bureacracy, there are real programs with quantifiable results and benchmarks.  I also support a complete end to any type of lobbying and an end to political donations - because that is directly responsible for a fair amount of said bureacracy.  Lowing, you don't know that which you so heavily criticize - the social programs in America.  You only see what you want to believe - that money is being spent ineffiecently - and for some reason you don't realize that happens on a much larger scale in many different areas of government.

lowing wrote:

I do not support the bailout, not one bit. the credit problems should be between the bank and the debtor. It is not my problem and my tax money should not be involved. 

Blame your beloved unions that have artifically raise the worth of a worker. A company is in business to make money for those that risk money investing into that business, they are not in business to provide you with a quality of life.

Why aren't you starting five thousand threads on the ridiculousness of the bailout instead of threads saying it's the the dirty liberals' fault (or the debt-laden consumer) for the siphoning of public money to the elite?  It's the people you endorse and promote (power-elite; Republicans;) that took your tax money, not dirty liberals with drug habits.

Not your problem - you are wrong.  It may not be your problem now, but perhaps it will be your kid's problem.  The mass emigration of US capital, labor, and manufacturing is your problem (and mine, and should be every Americans) - and it is not in the best interest of American business or civics.  How is relying on another country's labor output beneficial to American national security?  How is relying on projected American power to gain access to and exploit resources on behalf of multinational companies who aren't promoting a strong US industrial base beneficial to Americans?  How is the artificial creation of wealth at the expense of 99% of the population to benefit less than 1% of the population beneficial?  I'll give you a hint: it isn't.

Feel free to refute anything I've said and stop creating your own strawmen to argue against.

PS - what I think of unions, from your very own mash-at-the-keyboard angry topic:

Union = weekend off
Union = 8 hour work days
Union = child labor laws
Union = creation of NLRB

Union = often inflated wages
Union = another medium for organized crime to flourish
Union = job security

Unions are not inherently bad institutions.  It is when a union outlives it's initial purpose (which is to ensure labor rights and provide a somewhat level platform for bargaining between employees and employer) that it ceases to be a positive institution.  Unions constantly promote worker's rights in an economy that often favors the bottom line, and no more.

The problem as I see it is not that unions are bad, but that there is too much indifference to supporting employees combined with the increasing power many unions have.  If American capitalist economics continue to promote profit and nothing more, our economy will collapse.  There will be a small amount of "haves" and a large amount of "have-nots".  The main goal of our economy should be to provide a self-sustaining economy that at the same time increases the standard of living and well-being of most or all of the population.

^^^ that is relevant to the role of corporations - as opposed to just "making money" as you so succintly argue.

Also, this reply is not for you lowing.  This is perhaps for a person with an open mind to look at and think about, not for someone who will make their own statement, attribute it to the mindset of those ideologically opposed, then argue against that statement.  That's what a strawman argument is, Mr. Supreme Overlord of Strawmen.

1. I have already expressed my opinion on whose fault it is that a person in debt isn't paying his debt. Pretty obvious to me. but of course I have this nutty opinion that nobody forces loans on people and that we are all responsible for our own finances. Crazy I know, but I do not feel one bit responsible for your finances and I do not want you t ofeel obligated to handle mine.

2. Yer right, what I should have said is, it SHOULDN"T be my problem, but since we are rapidly approaching an end to personal responsibility for the comfort of the collective and let others take care of me and take responsiblity for my actions.

3. You can blame socialism on mass immigration with no intention of contributing or becoming citizens. Immigration is not the problem, immigration for the sake of leeching and taking what you can get before you haul ass is the problem. Like I said, unions do not help, the get people who are not marketable exuberant wages and benefits, this forces compnaies to look elsewhere to get the job done.  Unions have basically priced themselves out of work. Probably why union membership is and has been on the decline.

4. It is pretty simple, when a company makes money, everyone benefits from it, when unions insist on cutting into that profit companies suffer and the bottomline is affected. The only way for an economy to run is by businesses cranking out widgets for a profit. Period. An economy does not run on giving away free shit to everyone who does not feed the economy by being a consumer, ( of something more than beer cigarettes, and lottery tickets)

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

"Getting off your ass and into a job is not easy" <---------no shit, yet people do it every fucking day.

The poor does not pay taxes. The wealthy already pay the majority of the taxes, oh, and provide ALL of the jobs.

Pretty damn insulting to say poor people don't pay tax lowing. Unemployed people fair enough, but there are plenty of people out there working hard in shitty jobs, trying to put food on their table and giving a big chunk of their shitty pay check to 'the man' every week.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/03/ric … taxes.html

I hate that true is insulting I really do.

How very dare you...

lowing wrote:

The poor does not pay taxes

...Big old difference between paying less and not paying any at all lowing. And the low income earners feel the pinch of the tax man more; a raise in taxes for a fortune 500 CEO might mean one less holiday a year but for a minimum wage worker it might mean only one of the kids can go to college or maybe the family can't afford to eat meat this week.

How dare Obama try to bridge this gulf between the wealthy and the poor, it's just plain un-American and downright evil!

lowing wrote:

1. I have already expressed my opinion on whose fault it is that a person in debt isn't paying his debt. Pretty obvious to me. but of course I have this nutty opinion that nobody forces loans on people and that we are all responsible for our own finances. Crazy I know, but I do not feel one bit responsible for your finances and I do not want you t ofeel obligated to handle mine.

2. Yer right, what I should have said is, it SHOULDN"T be my problem, but since we are rapidly approaching an end to personal responsibility for the comfort of the collective and let others take care of me and take responsiblity for my actions.

3. You can blame socialism on mass immigration with no intention of contributing or becoming citizens. Immigration is not the problem, immigration for the sake of leeching and taking what you can get before you haul ass is the problem. Like I said, unions do not help, the get people who are not marketable exuberant wages and benefits, this forces compnaies to look elsewhere to get the job done.  Unions have basically priced themselves out of work. Probably why union membership is and has been on the decline.

4. It is pretty simple, when a company makes money, everyone benefits from it, when unions insist on cutting into that profit companies suffer and the bottomline is affected. The only way for an economy to run is by businesses cranking out widgets for a profit. Period. An economy does not run on giving away free shit to everyone who does not feed the economy by being a consumer, ( of something more than beer cigarettes, and lottery tickets)

Oh, I forgot that you just start threads to spout your unified theory on society and government.  That's retarded.

I think you missed a couple talking points.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. I have already expressed my opinion on whose fault it is that a person in debt isn't paying his debt. Pretty obvious to me. but of course I have this nutty opinion that nobody forces loans on people and that we are all responsible for our own finances. Crazy I know, but I do not feel one bit responsible for your finances and I do not want you t ofeel obligated to handle mine.

2. Yer right, what I should have said is, it SHOULDN"T be my problem, but since we are rapidly approaching an end to personal responsibility for the comfort of the collective and let others take care of me and take responsiblity for my actions.

3. You can blame socialism on mass immigration with no intention of contributing or becoming citizens. Immigration is not the problem, immigration for the sake of leeching and taking what you can get before you haul ass is the problem. Like I said, unions do not help, the get people who are not marketable exuberant wages and benefits, this forces compnaies to look elsewhere to get the job done.  Unions have basically priced themselves out of work. Probably why union membership is and has been on the decline.

4. It is pretty simple, when a company makes money, everyone benefits from it, when unions insist on cutting into that profit companies suffer and the bottomline is affected. The only way for an economy to run is by businesses cranking out widgets for a profit. Period. An economy does not run on giving away free shit to everyone who does not feed the economy by being a consumer, ( of something more than beer cigarettes, and lottery tickets)

Oh, I forgot that you just start threads to spout your unified theory on society and government.  That's retarded.

I think you missed a couple talking points.

I did, where? Unions? Oh yeah, I already told ya how I felt about unions, they are corrupt, they are a for profit organization and they are as big business as any other, they only difference between them and a company, is they take the money you earn from a company who pays you. Then they pin you against your company in orderto make you feel like you can live without their protection from the big bad company. Ya know, the very company YOU applied to and ASKED for a job.

lowing wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. I have already expressed my opinion on whose fault it is that a person in debt isn't paying his debt. Pretty obvious to me. but of course I have this nutty opinion that nobody forces loans on people and that we are all responsible for our own finances. Crazy I know, but I do not feel one bit responsible for your finances and I do not want you t ofeel obligated to handle mine.

2. Yer right, what I should have said is, it SHOULDN"T be my problem, but since we are rapidly approaching an end to personal responsibility for the comfort of the collective and let others take care of me and take responsiblity for my actions.

3. You can blame socialism on mass immigration with no intention of contributing or becoming citizens. Immigration is not the problem, immigration for the sake of leeching and taking what you can get before you haul ass is the problem. Like I said, unions do not help, the get people who are not marketable exuberant wages and benefits, this forces compnaies to look elsewhere to get the job done.  Unions have basically priced themselves out of work. Probably why union membership is and has been on the decline.

4. It is pretty simple, when a company makes money, everyone benefits from it, when unions insist on cutting into that profit companies suffer and the bottomline is affected. The only way for an economy to run is by businesses cranking out widgets for a profit. Period. An economy does not run on giving away free shit to everyone who does not feed the economy by being a consumer, ( of something more than beer cigarettes, and lottery tickets)

Oh, I forgot that you just start threads to spout your unified theory on society and government.  That's retarded.

I think you missed a couple talking points.

I did, where? Unions? Oh yeah, I already told ya how I felt about unions, they are corrupt, they are a for profit organization and they are as big business as any other, they only difference between them and a company, is they take the money you earn from a company who pays you. Then they pin you against your company in orderto make you feel like you can live without their protection from the big bad company. Ya know, the very company YOU applied to and ASKED for a job.

Then, I suppose, the question is, what mechanism do you propose be put in place to ensure workers rights are protected? I submit this rather well-known case here of a case where unions can be a powerful force for what I see as the positive - the protection of rights, not the wheedling of pay rises and a strike-happy attitude.

As for welfare, I think you've missed our point. In my view, certain social security measures are absolutely critical for the continuing stability  and growth of an economy. Take an broad example: migrant workers following WWII that migrated en masse to Australia and the US. These people - and there is a huge number of them - want nothing more than to get a good job and settle down in a nice, peaceful, stable country. But you can't just move and expect things will grow by themselves - this is where what you call 'handouts' are very important. You would need some money to get off the ground in the first place and make a basic living - i.e. food, accommodation - or it would need to be provided directly. You would need skill training. You would need language training. And this would almost all have to be government provided because these migrant workers, though they have the will, they do not have the resources to do it themselves.

Just one example.