Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 64 to 72 of 73

Thread: "Occupiers" try to blow up bridge that I drive on

  1. #64
    Olympic Champ r.payton@att.net's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Danville .Indiana
    Posts
    8,718

    Default Re: "Occupiers" try to blow up bridge that I drive on

    Quote Originally Posted by LkwdSteve View Post
    Another change that is never discussed, or is discussed in the most cursory fashion, is the distribution of wealth. This is a puzzler.
    I just tried to find an article i recently read where some 0.1%er was defending himself and his friends .The gist of the article was 'if you sheep didn't have us the planet would cease to rotate''.
    You know, I think I would rather be a man than a god . We don't need anyone to believe in us. We just keep going anyhow. It's what we do.

  2. #65

    Default Re: "Occupiers" try to blow up bridge that I drive on

    Quote Originally Posted by LkwdSteve View Post
    A point about the Clinton presidency. He relished debate on varying sides of an issue and had good people working for him. He displayed good judgment. He would make changes. For instance when Mack McClarty was dropping the ball, he reached down into his budget department and elevated this obscure former congressman, Leon Panetta, to be his all-important chief-of-staff. Meanwhile Hillary and Panetta conspired to remove political experts (Begala and Carville) from direct access to Clinton and built a bit of a barrier between political decisions and POLICY decisions. Great move (though the two can never be totally divorced). I voted for the admirable John Kerry, and would have voted for Hillary, which left only Ralph Nader to pencil in as the only candidate who came close to speaking for me.
    Steve, I've just read all of your posts and pretty much agree on every aspect. Clinton was a pretty good president and that is because he did what was best for the country and not himself. Like I said earlier, he made mistakes but overall he was good. I am conservative to the core on government issues but socially, I don't care what people do as long as they don't tread on someone else. Clinton was not real conservative on the government side, yet was man enough to compromise. That is what we need now. Someone who is willing to sit down with the other side and form some compromise. Obama has proven that he won't do that. He just tours the nation blaming republicans when he should be sitting down with them and compromising. It is an ego thing that many of us have. I have it too. But I'm not president and we can't afford to have a president who's ego is bigger than the country. I don't know if Romney will be able to do that or not, but the fact that we already know Obama won't is enough to give someone else a try, IMO.

  3. #66

    Default Re: "Occupiers" try to blow up bridge that I drive on

    Quote Originally Posted by r.payton@att.net View Post
    I just tried to find an article i recently read where some 0.1%er was defending himself and his friends .The gist of the article was 'if you sheep didn't have us the planet would cease to rotate''.
    I will never agree with government sponsored redistribution of wealth. The reason is because government is nothing more than people. People are flawed. People won't do it fairly. They will take bribes and do anything to get the wealth redistributed to themselves and not the people who need it. It's just a basic fact. That is why communism has never and will never work.

    What needs to happen, IMO, is people putting their money where their mouth is. People like Buffett and Gates claim to want to pay higher taxes. Guess what, nothing is stopping them from doing that right now. It is completely legal to donate money to the government if you want. These two aren't doing that. They could also be donating BILLIONS of dollars every year to charity. I'm sure they donate some, but when your worth 50 billion why not donate 49 billion of it if you are that passionate? Heck, that isn't even a sacrifice because they would still be BILLIONARES. The thing that is stopping them from doing that is the same thing that stops most humans from being truly humble. It's their ego. They claim to want true equality and for the poor to be risen up. They have the power in their own hands to do that but they don't. Government won't do it either. Utopia doesn't and will never exist. The best we can do as people is give richly to our neighbors and family when they need it. If everyone did that, we wouldn't need government to garnish our wages and then misspend them.
    Last edited by quinn14; 05-06-2012 at 03:08 PM.

  4. #67
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,934

    Default Re: "Occupiers" try to blow up bridge that I drive on

    Quote Originally Posted by ban basketball View Post
    1. Bush takes a surplus and gives us trillions in debt. Obama adds to that existing debt. As I said before, I'm guessing that, as a percentage, Bush has increased the debt more than what Obama has.

    2. You're saying that Obama has "done nothing" and "made matters worse." Maybe you want in on my bet. I'll bet you $1,000 that the overall economy is better today than it was in January of 2009. You in for a grand? Let's put your claims to the test, shall we?

    3. What are the new intrusions into personal privacy that you speak of? Please specify. Are they worse than the following: Suspension of Habeus Corpus? Secret prisons and prison abuse? Executive privilege? Wiretapping and seeeing to it that the phone companies not be prosecuted for wiretapping citizens? Dept. of Homeland Security?
    Ban Bush had a budget surplus, he still had debt, no president since Andrew Jackson has had no debt, from what I recall. Bush also dealt with the nations greatest terrorist event along with major natural disasters. So its not really an even playing field if you want to compare first terms. Bush had a lot more on his plate than Obama, things that were unforeseen. Bush did have somethings that were foreseen but handled poorly, like a housing collapse and the near collapse of the auto industry. Obama has not had to face these situations as they happened. Obama has only had to attempt to fix the issues he inherited and has done a terrible job.

    Since Obama has taken over, we still have a dept. of homeland security and Gitmo still exists. Not only that but Obama recently signed a bill restricting the the ability of people to protest the president. They have to be placed into designated areas, which to me seems to be a violation of our right to assemble peaceably and freedom of speech, but hey who cares about that. Lets look at the violation of individual rights called Obama Care, forcing people to purchase something they dont want is a violation of personal freedom. How about the fact that he created czars so that the proper vetting could not be done, and he recently went around the senate to appoint heads of dept.. The list goes on and on .

    I wont bet because I dont have the ability to make up crazy numbers, but I had recently read the 1 million people have stopped working and stopped looking for works in the past 30 months and that the economy has lost 170,000 jobs in the last 2 months. That doesn't sound like growth to me. If all things accounted for many economist believe that the unemployment rate is closer to 11%. If there has been any gain it isn't noticeable and the public aren't seeing it judging from his approval rating.

  5. #68

    Default Re: "Occupiers" try to blow up bridge that I drive on

    Well said, Ugly. The problem is that people like Ban claim that signing a bill like that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because Obama put out a press release that said he'd never use it. Why would a president sign into law something that he doesn't agree with and claims he'll never use? The answer is because he will use it or he knows someone else will. Ban can't seem to take the blinders off and see what's best for the country because he's somehow beholden to a political party. What is truly sad is that people like Ban are the people who vote.

  6. #69

    Default Re: "Occupiers" try to blow up bridge that I drive on

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    The more I read your posts the more curious I get!! You just admitted that Obama has risen unemployment more than Bush, but it's okay in your mind because its only slightly more. This is what I talk about when I say you are hilariously trying to defend Obama when there is no defense. God help us all if voters think raising unemployment is okay because the guy has a "D" next to his name.
    As a percentage, who rose it more? Even the graph shows the HUGE jump that the unemployment rate took when Bush left office, compared to what it was when he began office. Compare Obama's jump in the unemployment rate to Bush's jump, and, as a percentage, it isn't even comparable. As I said before, had Obama started with a clean slate, then, yes, he would deserve some serious criticism, but the fact is is that the worldwide economy was on the verge of collapse when Obama took office, and to think that all economic indicators are improving is a HUGE accomplishment.
    UNI Panthers...Because it's just right.

  7. #70

    Default Re: "Occupiers" try to blow up bridge that I drive on

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    As to why did it go up drastically from 08-09, I'm not sure. But I'm going to wager a guess that it was Bush's fault and Obama was merely a victim even though it rose under his watch and hasn't dropped to the rates under Bush.
    Hint: See "Inside Job."
    UNI Panthers...Because it's just right.

  8. #71
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,962

    Default Re: "Occupiers" try to blow up bridge that I drive on

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    I will never agree with government sponsored redistribution of wealth. The reason is because government is nothing more than people. People are flawed. People won't do it fairly. They will take bribes and do anything to get the wealth redistributed to themselves and not the people who need it. It's just a basic fact. That is why communism has never and will never work.

    What needs to happen, IMO, is people putting their money where their mouth is. People like Buffett and Gates claim to want to pay higher taxes. Guess what, nothing is stopping them from doing that right now. It is completely legal to donate money to the government if you want. These two aren't doing that. They could also be donating BILLIONS of dollars every year to charity. I'm sure they donate some, but when your worth 50 billion why not donate 49 billion of it if you are that passionate? Heck, that isn't even a sacrifice because they would still be BILLIONARES. The thing that is stopping them from doing that is the same thing that stops most humans from being truly humble. It's their ego. They claim to want true equality and for the poor to be risen up. They have the power in their own hands to do that but they don't. Government won't do it either. Utopia doesn't and will never exist. The best we can do as people is give richly to our neighbors and family when they need it. If everyone did that, we wouldn't need government to garnish our wages and then misspend them.
    Bill Gates is dedicating the remainder of his life to running the Gates Foundation. Warren Buffet is one of three trustees on this foundation and has given
    billions to it. Both have pledged to donate all of their fortune to charity. From the articles I have read the Gates foundations is extremely effective and has been making a large difference in some parts of the world. Not the greatest examples for your argument.

  9. #72

    Default Re: "Occupiers" try to blow up bridge that I drive on

    My argument is that it isn't for anyone to judge how much someone should give. Neither Gates or Buffet have given enough billions to no longer be billionaires. They have a whole lot more to give if they wanted. Yet, they are trying to influence the government to force others to give more in taxes. We can always tell someone else to give more, but that isn't our job. To make matters worse, Buffet is fighting the IRS on taxes right now. Why doesn't he just give them what they want? Why doesn't he give his fortune to charity now? Do either of them really need 50 billion dollars? The answer is that it's not for us to judge how much they or anyone else needs. It also isn't up to the government to do that.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •