Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       08-27-2012, 7:32 PM Reply   
yall know me.....I can't stand Obama. I also once thought that this would be an easy win for the repubs.

then they nominated Romney and the win didn't look so easy. But, I still had faith. Obama, is that bad.

now, the convention has started out with a rule change that's about as un-american as you can get.

keep shootin yourself in the foot guys, and we are all in trouble.

read it and see if we all agree that this is a terrible precedent to set

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/t...225837647.html

no pink bunnies please
Old    Big D (bigdtx)      Join Date: Feb 2005       08-28-2012, 5:29 AM Reply   
This is the state that has repeatedly elected Rick Perry so let's not elevate these people too far out of their depth. Mitt Romney has got to be the worst candidate put forward by either party in 50 years. I guess Mike Dukakis and Bob Dole might have something to say about that but he can't go 1/2 a day without doing or saying something stupid. He is absolutely horrible when he goes off script so if I were a Romney supporter I'd really be worried about the presidential debates. Wonder if he'll throw out another $10,000 bet.
Old    Tucker McElroy (Tucker_McElroy)      Join Date: Mar 2012       08-28-2012, 7:31 AM Reply   
Rules change... Read the comments...
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       08-28-2012, 8:08 AM Reply   
It's all corrupt. What they want is for the sheeple to bicker and argue over Romney vs Obama. Who cares? They're exactly the same, just as Bush and Obama are the same. Both major parties expand state control over your life, infringe on your rights, and tax you more. It flat out doesn't make a difference if the socialist or the fascist is elected, the end result is the same.
Old    Baitkiller (baitkiller)      Join Date: Jan 2010       08-28-2012, 8:23 AM Reply   
I am starting to shop my resume in Brazil.
Old    Justin Harrelson (skiboarder)      Join Date: Oct 2006       08-28-2012, 8:41 AM Reply   
Cory, there is a lot of truth in what you are saying. I don't care for Obama because on paper it is not in my best interest and on paper Romney is, but in the end there is not much difference. I think the slight differences between the two administration's philosophies are easily killed by our poor performing congress.

I think we can all agree that all of DC needs a tune-up.

Baitkiller, you might be on to something.
Old    Akadirtbikingdad (wakeboardingdad)      Join Date: Aug 2008       08-28-2012, 8:50 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
It flat out doesn't make a difference if the socialist or the fascist is elected, the end result is the same.
Are you sure? If you are, then what do you do? Vote? Not vote? Bury your head in the sand? Just wondering if this is a lost cause.
Old    Tucker McElroy (Tucker_McElroy)      Join Date: Mar 2012       08-28-2012, 9:20 AM Reply   
Ron Paul...
Old    Train (ttrigo)      Join Date: Dec 2004       08-28-2012, 11:23 AM Reply   
^^^^^^
still voting for him again. Popular opinion can lick my crack.
Old    Tucker McElroy (Tucker_McElroy)      Join Date: Mar 2012       08-28-2012, 11:45 AM Reply   
Check out Michelle Malkin's post...
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       08-29-2012, 2:48 PM Reply   
There are other choices than the two identical establishment parties.

I'll most likely be writing in Ron Paul, but might vote for Gary Johnson. Voting for either Obama or Romney makes no difference, either way you're voting for more trampling of your rights, higher taxes, and a rush towards economic and fiscal collapse.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       08-29-2012, 3:05 PM Reply   
It's the fact of the constant campaign. We all say we want to elect leaders with the backbone to do what's right, but once they are elected they are compelled to do what feels good right now or lose the next election. We'd see much more coherent government if the president and congress were elected for terms that were long enough to see whether their policies worked or not.
Old    Tucker McElroy (Tucker_McElroy)      Join Date: Mar 2012       08-29-2012, 3:29 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
It's the fact of the constant campaign. We all say we want to elect leaders with the backbone to do what's right, but once they are elected they are compelled to do what feels good right now or lose the next election. We'd see much more coherent government if the president and congress were elected for terms that were long enough to see whether their policies worked or not.
I disagree, four years is long enough. If it was longer than four years someone could get us into more trouble than we could get out of.

I think the 17th Amendment causes many of the problems we have today. Before the 17th Amendment the Senators had to answer to their constituents were held accountable by and to the state legislature. People actually had representation because they could go their local state legislature and get direct contact with their Senator. After the 17th Amendment the Senators became accountable to no one except the popular vote.
Old    Brett W (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       08-29-2012, 4:53 PM Reply   
Adding to what Shawndoggy says, part of the problem with our political system is that politicians have to do what's popular right now to get elected and re-elected. Few can or will do anything that's best in the long run. I don't think most Americans are willing to sacrifice for the long run. Everyone wants lower taxes now, no spending cuts on anything at all that affects them, and so very little spending on more long term capital type projects. Sam is right in that more than 4 years could allow someone to get us into too much trouble, but it also doesn't allow many to put in place some necessary longer term policies.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       08-29-2012, 5:02 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by brettw View Post
Adding to what Shawndoggy says, part of the problem with our political system is that politicians have to do what's popular right now to get elected and re-elected. Few can or will do anything that's best in the long run. I don't think most Americans are willing to sacrifice for the long run. Everyone wants lower taxes now, no spending cuts on anything at all that affects them, and so very little spending on more long term capital type projects. Sam is right in that more than 4 years could allow someone to get us into too much trouble, but it also doesn't allow many to put in place some necessary longer term policies.
precisely. Tax reform is awesome till someone declares "war on the middle class!" by taking away deductions. Medicare reform is a great idea until we have "death panels!" Social security reform is sensible until "grandma is going to have to eat cat food!"

The founding fathers never anticipated a 24/7 media circus free for all.
Old    Tucker McElroy (Tucker_McElroy)      Join Date: Mar 2012       08-29-2012, 5:41 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
precisely. Tax reform is awesome till someone declares "war on the middle class!" by taking away deductions. Medicare reform is a great idea until we have "death panels!" Social security reform is sensible until "grandma is going to have to eat cat food!"

The founding fathers never anticipated a 24/7 media circus free for all.
Nor did they anticipate the government entitlements that we have, which IMO are the cause for most of our problems.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       08-29-2012, 8:56 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
It's the fact of the constant campaign. We all say we want to elect leaders with the backbone to do what's right, but once they are elected they are compelled to do what feels good right now or lose the next election. We'd see much more coherent government if the president and congress were elected for terms that were long enough to see whether their policies worked or not.
You have this wrong. They make 10-20 year budgets because they know they won't be around to see it fail... And they know if will fail. Ron Paul is the only one who has outlined how he would balance the budget, and been specific about it. He would cut over 1 trillion dollars of government spending in the first year, and any president has the power to do it at any time. Ron Paul's plan is a balanced budget in 3 years, within his first term and he would absolutely be held accountable if it was not met. Career politicians trampling your rights won't make any big promises that would pan out within their term. Only a few will make those promises, and they're doing what they do to restore your freedom.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       08-30-2012, 6:13 PM Reply   
^Pushing millions further into poverty is hardly "restoring your freedom", particularly when RP is openly accepting something from the govt he has publicly denounced.
Old    Akadirtbikingdad (wakeboardingdad)      Join Date: Aug 2008       08-30-2012, 7:01 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tucker_McElroy View Post
Nor did they anticipate the government entitlements that we have, which IMO are the cause for most of our problems.
My sentiments exactly. Stop the free money. Yes, this will hurt. Everyone. But it is inevitable.

This is much like the power business. You shed what you have to in order to save maintain reliability and for the good of the system. Right now, if we continue on the path we are on, the entire system is going to collapse, not just the weak and unprepared.
Old    Tucker McElroy (Tucker_McElroy)      Join Date: Mar 2012       08-30-2012, 11:40 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
^Pushing millions further into poverty is hardly "restoring your freedom", particularly when RP is openly accepting something from the govt he has publicly denounced.
Yes, he accepted something that he was forced to pay into for several decades... You somehow think he should just walk away from the money he paid into the system? He has advocated for giving young people the choice of paying into SS and participating or not. Your rational is flawed, but you can't admit that. Now run and tell yor daddy I was harsh to you fanboy.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       08-31-2012, 12:49 PM Reply   
"He has advocated for giving young people the choice of paying into SS and participating or not."

UHHHHH? And my rationale is flawed? RP is able to get a check each month because us young people are paying in each paycheck. So give us the option to not participate. What does that do to SS if the majority opts out? The whole system collapses because no one else is paying into it. There is no SS account with what RP and other recipients have paid into it. So please oh wise one, explain how this is a reasonable fix.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       08-31-2012, 12:53 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeboardingdad View Post
My sentiments exactly. Stop the free money. Yes, this will hurt. Everyone. But it is inevitable.

This is much like the power business. You shed what you have to in order to save maintain reliability and for the good of the system. Right now, if we continue on the path we are on, the entire system is going to collapse, not just the weak and unprepared.
As a proud recipient of the Montgomery G.I. Bill and the Navy College Fund, I just can't agree with the notion of stopping "government entitlements".
Old    Akadirtbikingdad (wakeboardingdad)      Join Date: Aug 2008       08-31-2012, 3:43 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
As a proud recipient of the Montgomery G.I. Bill and the Navy College Fund, I just can't agree with the notion of stopping "government entitlements".
See, that is where you are wrong. What did you do to receive the GI Bill? You had to join the armed forces. In other words, you earned it. And, in other words, that was not an entitlement. A "real" entitlement is a benefit one receives for doing absolutely nothing or extends those benefits beyond what is reasonable. For instance, someone who comes to this country who never pays into the system should not receive disability from day one or ever (if they do not work). If they come here empty handed, with it extended of course, then their family should support them or the church or whoever helped them get here. Essentially. Also, what about cell phones and such? Heck, even free lunches. I mean a cell phone is not a requirement or something someone is entitled to. It is a luxury! And, if the kid has a cell phone at school, then they should not get free or even reduced lunches. I know it's granular, but it is just another straw which will eventually cause our system to collapse.

I read yours and others posts here and cannot for the life of me understand (I know someone will make a wise crack with that, so go ahead ) how your views can be so out of focus with mine. Also, and believe me when I say this, I am not one who decides to be on A or B side and stays there come he!! or high water. I try to see it from both views and just cannot see how a middle-ish (a lot of uppers in here though) class taxpayer can continue to give, give and give to those who take, take and take (without any plans to stop) and support candidates who have done nothing they said they would do. I mean, the man takes no responsibilities for his failures.

The other day, I heard that only 40% pay taxes. I assume it to be true. If it is, then why would the 60% want to vote for anyone else who said they would take their entitlement (social programs) status away. It will continue to grow and grow to a percentage of people that will be fully dependent upon the government for everything. When that happens, that person is called a slave.

I don't know about you, but I have no desire to be a slave. I am enough of one now for the paycheck I work for. However, I made that choice and did not take the risk to create my own company or business. I took a conservative path and am essentially a paid slave. The difference is that I have the choice to leave and do what I want to do though, even though I choose not to exercise that right. Some sum up what I believe: I believe that every American citizen is entitled to some sort of government assistance at some time in their life. It just cannot last forever and cannot become a generational way of life. A person must be responsible for themselves and whoever they help create.

I hate it when I get on these rambles and have deleted or cancelled most of them.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       08-31-2012, 6:14 PM Reply   
^Mitt's tax plan is going to save him "5 million a year in taxes". How does that benefit you or I? Do you believe Romney is going to use his savings to open a new store or warehouse? I suspect that money will be shoveled into an offshore account, but tax savings for the super-rich is supposed to create new jobs according to the GOP, and I disagree. Bush granted tax cuts twice and Obama extended them again, yet not one time did we see the job creation that tax cuts are supposed to create. We are "slaves" to the ultra-wealthy in this country. Food stamps and welfare is not what is bankrupting the country.

As far as "entitlements". Do you consider SS and Medicare entitlements?
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       08-31-2012, 7:34 PM Reply   
not taxing the rich is not what is bankruting this country either. The off shore accounts argument is getting old. There are plenty of politicians on both sides that have off shore accounts. In todays tax climate, it's the nature of being wealthy. If you want it to stop, make it more profitable to keep your money here. that's not rocket science. Also, over regulating and over taxing the business owner, isn't going to create jobs. That's not rocket science either.
Romney might not have the best plan ever, but my guess is that he will create a more business friendly environment. The result will be more new job creation. New job creation is the answer, even beyond old businesses merely hiring more people.

The problem is increai\sing spending without increasing GDP

Who cares what Mitt makes, is worth, or pays in taxes. We all know that the tax code needs changed. You can't fault anyone for using the current one as it's written.

We don't need a President who we'd like to play golf with, invite over to the house, or drink a beer with. We need a President that will tackle the tough issues, put people back to work, and who is able to reach across the isle. Obama certainly isn't any of those.....
Old    Akadirtbikingdad (wakeboardingdad)      Join Date: Aug 2008       08-31-2012, 7:41 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
We are "slaves" to the ultra-wealthy in this country. Food stamps and welfare is not what is bankrupting the country.

As far as "entitlements". Do you consider SS and Medicare entitlements?
Do you really think we are? Unfortunately, then we are now slaves to those who we have chosen to elect to offices. Many were or are now just what you describe. Ultra-rich. However, that is difficult to define. Is someone who is ultra-wealthy a movie star, a trident of industry (creator) or are they the CEOs of the large companies in the US that now send their manufacturing overseas and over the border. While high wages pushed that to happen (coupled with greed - both for management and the stockholder) it will stay there and increase if energy continues to be a dirty word. You work and live near TVA HQ. The Obama/EPA has effectively shut down the source of the cheapest power (outside of hydro) in the US. Coal fired generation. Who's gonna pay for that? You and I, along with every other rate payer in the US. (Sorry, I got off subject there.)

Anyway, regarding SS and Medicare. If you paid in, you get it. If not, then you don't. With some caveat; which is the tough part. Here's what I'm against (and I've posted it before; I think): A Russian immigrant used to work with me. She came here with the assistance of the church and became a citizen with two very successful daughters. MIT and Wharton grads I think. Anyway, because someone helped her, she decided to help others. One of the individuals she helped bring here used to mow and upkeep her yard and shrubs. That sounds like a hard working individual doesn't it? Well, he was and he was also cunning. When he arrived, he immediately jumped on the SS roles while.......drum roll please..... Disabled. If we continue to give money to every Tom, Dick and Harry that gets off a boat or airplane or crosses some line in the sand, then we'll continue to be bombarded with takers (opposite of tax payers). I know it is much more complex than that, but something has to happen to stop the spending and handouts.

It is not the time to be all noble and super environmentally conscious when you are in the middle of a recession. Unfortunately, Obama has chosen to be just that; at the cost of the every man, woman and child in the US for the next two generations. What's the goal here? To break us and our economy to fulfill his seemingly socialist agenda.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       09-01-2012, 12:39 AM Reply   
The goal is to move OUR money to the third world. Just look at the policies and it is as obvious as the nose on your face. The policies of making sure the ultra poor get handouts is so they can have a permanent class of dependents so they can stay elected while the middle class pays for it.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       09-01-2012, 6:44 AM Reply   
^Again, food stamps and welfare is not bankrupting the country. Now you may not agree with someone getting a "handout", and there is nothing wrong with that opinion, but don't use the whole, "Welfare and food stamps are making the country broke" argument, because it is simply not true.

"You work and live near TVA HQ"

That is true. My dad recently retired from TVA and my sister-in-law has worked there for ten years. I also have several close friends that are employed there. But look what happened in 2008 up around Knoxville at the Kingston Fossil Plant. Due to heavy rains and flooding, some coal ash holding ponds spilled over and caused an environmental disaster that residents are still facing today. TVA, of course, attempted to downplay any sort of wrongdoing in order to keep monetary damages to the agency to a minimum. So I am sorry that I don't agree nor will I ever agree with letting companies get a pass on destroying the environment for the sake of cheaper energy. There are several creeks here that are not safe to even swim in, still to this day, because of pollution from the 20th century. And I am sure people had a similar argument to yours; "we can't sell cheap steel here in Chattanooga because they aren't letting them dump toxic waste into the Chickamauga creek".
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       09-02-2012, 5:30 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
^Again, food stamps and welfare is not bankrupting the country. Now you may not agree with someone getting a "handout", and there is nothing wrong with that opinion, but don't use the whole, "Welfare and food stamps are making the country broke" argument, because it is simply not true.
I wasn't going to feed our resident troll but it appears others have taken the bait. I suppose I will too, and perhaps hope for an intelligent response with facts, not emotional nonsense justifying theft.

Have a look at a visual representation of the 2010 federal budget here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...us/budget.html

Food stamps and other welfare spending account for $1.56 trillion of the 2010 federal budget... Or 43% of the budget. All these unethical and immoral programs and spending (theft) can immediately be ended and taxes heavily cut.

That's not even touching the $724 billion of social security, which needs to be ended as well. Cut everyone a check for what they paid in and end the program, or allow no new enrollments or contributions and let it die off with the current generation. This would allow an immediate or eventual but substation reduction in taxes.

Military spending was $722 billion and could easily be heavily cut with no effect on safety. This country hasn't fought a defensive war since the forties and there are no immediate threats to us.


The point is, welfare spending is a very large part of what makes this country broke, as it accounts for 43% of the budget, or 64% if you include social security.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       09-02-2012, 3:07 PM Reply   
^The resident troll?? Whatever, but you have absolutely NO credibility if you say food stamps and welfare account for $1.56 trillion. Because that is about three times what was actually spent if you include unemployment.

"Mandatory spending: $2.173 trillion (+14.9%)
$695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
$571 billion (+58.6%) – Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt"

So next time, before you act like you are the most knowledgable person in the world, at least check your facts and figures. Because you essentially spent 20 minutes fabricating a lie and it makes you look stupid. So try again.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       09-02-2012, 4:10 PM Reply   
"Cut everyone a check for what they paid in and end the program"

Yea, sounds like a great plan. But where do you think we can get the 20 or 30 trillion dollars we would need to "cut these checks"?
Old    Seahawks #1 Fan Robert T (cwb4me)      Join Date: Apr 2010       09-02-2012, 4:14 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
^The resident troll?? Whatever, but you have absolutely NO credibility if you say food stamps and welfare account for $1.56 trillion. Because that is about three times what was actually spent if you include unemployment.

"Mandatory spending: $2.173 trillion (+14.9%)
$695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
$571 billion (+58.6%) – Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt"

So next time, before you act like you are the most knowledgable person in the world, at least check your facts and figures. Because you essentially spent 20 minutes fabricating a lie and it makes you look stupid. So try again.
What makes your statement correct? How do we know your statements are true figures? Please don't say Snopes. We all know that's a BS site.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       09-02-2012, 6:49 PM Reply   
^Came from the GAO. Doesn't get any truer than that. The numbers in parentheses are percentage increases from Budget Year 2009. Real easy to find, took me about 30 seconds to identify the false claims from Cory.

And I find it amusing you didn't ask Cory for his sources. And besides, if you look at the link in his post, you will see that food stamps only account for "$68.68 Billion in 2010". Unemployment programs accounted for "$158 Billion". So according to Cory's figures, we still need to find about $1.25 trillion in welfare.

I mean crap Cadunkle, did you even bother to read the link before you chose to post? I should have checked it myself, but I assumed it was some kooky blog.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       09-03-2012, 12:05 PM Reply   
" A person must be responsible for themselves and whoever they help create.", so, you are pro choice DBD?

Cory said "Military spending was $722 billion and could easily be heavily cut with no effect on safety. This country hasn't fought a defensive war since the forties and there are no immediate threats to us."
I agree, to me(not you) the miltary is a social workfare system, dig a hole, fill it up! I am not against spending on military, some cities and communities thrive from military assistance.
Cory also said "That's not even touching the $724 billion of social security, which needs to be ended as well. Cut everyone a check for what they paid in and end the program, or allow no new enrollments or contributions and let it die off with the current generation. This would allow an immediate or eventual but substation reduction in taxes."
or we can try to tax the rich at 35% like it was late in the 20th century when America was growing and prospering.
Old    Akadirtbikingdad (wakeboardingdad)      Join Date: Aug 2008       09-03-2012, 1:27 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeshmoe View Post
" A person must be responsible for themselves and whoever they help create.", so, you are pro choice DBD?
Thanks for putting me on the spot.

That is a very difficult question to answer because it is neither black nor white. However, I am probably 80% pro-choice. An abortion should be legal under the following basic conditions: Rape, financially irresponsibility, not paid for by the gov't (unless aggravated case - rape, incest, molestation, in other words, someone goes to jail). In my mind, someone should not be able to have abortion after abortion instead of using abstinence or contraception. While there is some basic issues that I do think about: "What should I do to stop irresponsible abortions?", I feel that the abortion, and the choice to proceed with it, is between the mother, father and God.

So, I answered your question, but how did you come up with that from what I stated? They are really not one and same. This is what I meant by what I said: A person shall not be allowed to be compensated for the sake of having children. Today, that is what is happening in so many entitlement households. They realize, that by having X kids, they receive X amount per month. The receivers fail to see that by having X number of kids, they will have to feed, raise and provide a proper home for X kids. They only see it as X amount per month because there is a great chance that their parent(s) failed to raise them properly also because they were also considered worth X amount per month.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       09-03-2012, 1:39 PM Reply   
so, those of you who are pro choice and pro democrat, are you also pro "extra large soda" and pro "unhealthy fatty foods"?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       09-03-2012, 1:52 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeboardingdad View Post
For instance, someone who comes to this country who never pays into the system should not receive disability from day one or ever (if they do not work).
How do they do that? SS disability has to be earned. If you only worked a few years your disability is limited to a few years. Maybe if you just started working a few months you might earn a years worth.

Quote:
In general, to get disability benefits, you must meet two different earnings tests:

A “recent work” test based on your age at the time you became disabled; and
A “duration of work” test to show that you worked long enough under Social Security.

Certain blind workers have to meet only the “duration of work” test.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       09-03-2012, 4:24 PM Reply   
AKD, I agree 100%, We should not pay mothers to have more kids, when they cannot take care of the ones they have! Such a quick fix-->limit the amount they get.
In Ohio the welfare recipients are supposed to be assessed every two years, so they have limits on them and how long they can receive benefits.
You said a person must be responsible for themselves and their kids, so I assumed that you were pro choice. What I cannot understand is a person who is pro life, but does not want to or cannot support the girls that have the babies. One of the reasons I am pro choice is because I do not believe I or the government should have to support any unborn kids that are not wanted by their parents.
John said, " SS disability has to be earned."
SS should be earned, making it an entitlement, but just as the welfare was reformed back in the 90's, SS needs to be updated, kids go on SS without working a day in their lives, this is not SS, it is welfare! and when the kids turn 18, they go on public assistance, if they work, they do not get public assistance, so guess what? they don't work!
Cliff, I do not drink caffeinated drinks, so I don't drink soda
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       09-03-2012, 5:20 PM Reply   
I don't drink sodas either. I only brought it up, because it's the type of thing that really turns me off to the entire left. They preach personal rights and freedoms, but want to prohibit you from buying a big gulp or an entree that has to many trans fats. While these crusades are going on, they completely ignore that smoking kills because they are "in bed" with the tobacco industry.

My very liberal gay sister, chastised me to no end the other day, because I went to chik-fil-a on boycott day. I even explained that I wasn't making a political stance, I was just supporting a local colleague who runs a very efficient store. He and his staff and family shouldn't be victims of a national movement for something that he has no control over. She disagreed and forwarded an email from a play write explaining her position. The play write wrote a few paragraphs on how the CEO sends money to countries that execute people for being gay. He finished by saying that people who eat at chik fil a want gays dead. She text me saying that I must want her dead. I bowed out of the conversation.
After the RNC, she began posting about the repubs wanting to take away personal freedoms. I had enough. I brought up the big gulps, trans fats, and finally Obama's support of the muslim brotherhood. If she maintains the chik fil a logic, she can't possibly support Obama.........

I have found that if anyone opposes whatever movement the left deems worthy at the time, they are called hateful names. This seems to be true even if the left has chosen not to be consistent with its philosophy.

I find this type of thing very tiring and laughable. It's one reason that I could never be a liberal......
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       09-04-2012, 12:19 PM Reply   
"I have found that if anyone opposes whatever movement the left deems worthy at the time, they are called hateful names. This seems to be true even if the left has chosen not to be consistent with its philosophy."

I agree, but it is not only true with the left, it is true with the right as well. Look at Obamacare. It was crafted by the GOP in the 90's. Romney implemented an almost identical policy in MA. Now it is called socialism. Another thing is the airstrikes in Libya. Repubs have denounced the action because Obama did not seek Congressional approval, which is not needed according to our Constitution, but Reagan ordered air strikes against Libya in the early 80's without Congress' approval. But it was okay then to the GOP.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       09-04-2012, 12:55 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
^Came from the GAO. Doesn't get any truer than that. The numbers in parentheses are percentage increases from Budget Year 2009. Real easy to find, took me about 30 seconds to identify the false claims from Cory.

And I find it amusing you didn't ask Cory for his sources. And besides, if you look at the link in his post, you will see that food stamps only account for "$68.68 Billion in 2010". Unemployment programs accounted for "$158 Billion". So according to Cory's figures, we still need to find about $1.25 trillion in welfare.

Welfare spending, according to the New York Times breakdown of FY2010 spending, does in fact account for $1.56 trillion, actually more if you include the less expensive handout programs.

Medicare: $462 B
Income Security (includes food stamps): $629 B
Health: $386 B
Education: 93.01 B

Total: $1570.01 B

These are not my numbers, they are NYT numbers. If they are wrong, it was not my intention. I do not believe these numbers are incorrect though, as other portions I've checked previously with figures directly from the government match. NYT just assembled them into a easy to read and break down chart.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       09-04-2012, 6:05 PM Reply   
Don't we pay into Medicare? How do you lump that in with "welfare spending"? Education is not "welfare spending". The Health figure you are attempting to lump in as well is not "welfare spending"? So again, you are trying to lump in apples with oranges and makes your argument seem disingenuous. The numbers I posted were direct from the GAO.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       09-04-2012, 7:32 PM Reply   
at least play the add before you log off because of the website....

http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/09/04/...vs-2012-obama/
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       09-04-2012, 8:42 PM Reply   
Jeremy, it's all welfare spending. Handouts to people who didn't earn it taken at gunpoint from people who did earn it. The only thing I don't lump into welfare spending is social security, though it is quite similar. I already mentioned two possible solutions to SS though. The bottom line is don't steal from people to give to those who didn't earn it. Theft is wrong, no matter what way you slice it.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       09-05-2012, 3:29 AM Reply   
But if I pay into Medicare, how is it a "handout that I didn't earn" when I start collecting it? SS is the same way, and even your man RP receives a check each month. And yes, you did offer a solution, but it is not a feasible one. You still haven't answered the question on where to get the money to pay off everyone that opts out and decides they want what they paid in back in a lump sum. And you were probably explained by whoever hired you at whatever job, that you would have to pay into SS and Medicare out of each paycheck. You still accepted employment, correct? How exactly does that constitute "theft"?
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       09-05-2012, 4:18 AM Reply   
Jeremy, just like SS an average person will receive more than they pay in. One such source: http://www.adamgoldfein.com/2012/05/...-and-medicare/ ... Be sure to check the links at the bottom of the post, and google for more figures to back up that blog post. This is theft. When I was hired at my current job nobody explained these things. You should already know your master and how he steals from you. It's not the employers responsibility to disclose what is not part of your contract with them. My employer does not steal money from me, the government does. I have no option to opt out of SS, Medicare, unemployment, etc and other welfare related taxes. If I did, I gladly would opt o on the condition that I never collect from those welfare programs.

Medicare is theft and a handout. I don't want to receive medicare handouts. I want to keep my money (and my time) and use it as I see fit, not be robbed.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-05-2012, 6:02 AM Reply   
I love the IDEA of pure libertarian personal responsibility, and I can understand the appeal to those who espouse it. Practically, though, I feel pretty strongly that the world is full of morons. So let's say we do cut people checks for what they paid into SS. Once that money gets squandered on hookers and blow, ponzi schemes, MLM franchises, and other dumb ideas and these folks are penniless with no shot at even a reasonable pension, then what? Homeless shelters? Who pays for that? Death squads?

Cutting people checks won't make them smart.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       09-05-2012, 9:47 AM Reply   
Reagan ordered attacks on Libya as a direct response of terrorist attacks sponsored by Libya against American citizens. He sent in a missile that killed part of his family. Libya sponsored the blowing up of the 747 airliner in Lockerbe Scotland and I think they may have been involved in the Italian cruise ship hijacking when they threw the American citizen in the wheel chair overboard. I don't think I would bring in Reagan's actions up as a response to Obama's actions.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-05-2012, 10:04 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
Reagan ordered attacks on Libya as a direct response of terrorist attacks sponsored by Libya against American citizens. He sent in a missile that killed part of his family. Libya sponsored the blowing up of the 747 airliner in Lockerbe Scotland and I think they may have been involved in the Italian cruise ship hijacking when they threw the American citizen in the wheel chair overboard. I don't think I would bring in Reagan's actions up as a response to Obama's actions.
It's true. Reagan had a cowboy pimp-swagger on TV (evil empire, tear down this wall, etc), but was really kindof a puss militarily. Cut and run from Beirut, showboating weaksauce single airstrike on Libya, no military response to KAL 007, and the big operation... invading the island nation of Grenada.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       09-05-2012, 11:08 AM Reply   
Shawndoggy, it does not matter if they squander it or save and invest to live out retirement. If they had been allowed to keep that money in the first place they could have invested it at a much greater rate of return and been far better off. It's not my problem what other people do with their money, and it's not my problem if they waste it on drugs or scams and can't afford food. Then it's right back to the workforce for them. We have all made bad decisions, those of us who are motivated learn from them, pay for them in one form or another, and move on. Others who are on the dole receiving money stolen from people like you and I have no motivation to address their mistakes and learn from them. There is no condition another man can be in or have put himself in that justifies violation of my rights, theft of my property, or enslavement.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-05-2012, 11:11 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
Shawndoggy, it does not matter if they squander it or save and invest to live out retirement. If they had been allowed to keep that money in the first place they could have invested it at a much greater rate of return and been far better off. It's not my problem what other people do with their money, and it's not my problem if they waste it on drugs or scams and can't afford food. Then it's right back to the workforce for them. We have all made bad decisions, those of us who are motivated learn from them, pay for them in one form or another, and move on. Others who are on the dole receiving money stolen from people like you and I have no motivation to address their mistakes and learn from them. There is no condition another man can be in or have put himself in that justifies violation of my rights, theft of my property, or enslavement.
It becomes your problem when those folks become homeless. Desperately poor homeless vagrants are a threat to civil society.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       09-05-2012, 1:32 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
Reagan ordered attacks on Libya as a direct response of terrorist attacks sponsored by Libya against American citizens. He sent in a missile that killed part of his family. Libya sponsored the blowing up of the 747 airliner in Lockerbe Scotland and I think they may have been involved in the Italian cruise ship hijacking when they threw the American citizen in the wheel chair overboard. I don't think I would bring in Reagan's actions up as a response to Obama's actions.
Why not? Wasn't it the same guy Obama ordered attacks against? What, was he a good guy in 2011? If you don't agree with Obama's actions, then how in the world can you say that Reagan's actions were justified? More hypocrisy from the mouth of Delta.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       09-05-2012, 1:38 PM Reply   
This is no different than it is now, where I live. I live in a middle class town that is between, and within walking distance of a town full of obscenely rich people (a $300k house is a "poor person" in that town, where $1m +/- is more the norm) and the town with the highest violent crime rate in the country. Well actually downgraded to #2 a year or two ago but there have been shootings (often 4+ in a night) almost every night. I've personally been burgled by people from that town several times as have my neighbors. I personally have experienced and understand what desperately poor homeless vagrants do, and it's not nearly as bad as government subsidized vagrants in the town down the street. What makes it worse is the inability to (legally) defend yourself or your property, in NJ you have a legal duty to retreat under all circumstances, even in your own home.

None of this matters though, as theft is wrong and nothing justifies that. Against the government you stand no chance as if you resist they will come down on you with thousands of trained soldiers with guns and itchy trigger fingers. You do not ever resist the government, or you will be either jailed for life or killed. Everything the government does is with the threat of violence. Against one, or even a small group of vagrants, you have a chance to defend yourself from bodily harm or theft and actually come out ahead.

I would much rather deal with desperately poor homeless vagrants than the government stealing the vast majority of my earnings (essentially slavery). I could even do something to improve the community and the quality of life of those vagrants if I could keep the 2/3 or more of my income the government takes. and it would likely cost a lot less, leaving a better situation for everyone involved. As in NH... Live free or die.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       09-05-2012, 3:50 PM Reply   
http://www.examiner.com/article/gary...-to-the-ballot

Gary Johnson still successfully fighting off Mitt and his goons.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       09-05-2012, 7:26 PM Reply   
Jeremy,

Do I really need to point out your complete ignorance or do you wish to issue an a retraction?







Ok..... I waited long enough. Jeremy, Reagan sent in a missile to retaliate against a terrorist and Reagan did not campaign against wars and killing people who did nothing to the US. What did Libya do to the US in the last 30 years? I agree with the president to do so, but, you are on the wrong side of the discussion yet again. Math + human consequence + democrat = FAIL
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       09-06-2012, 5:01 AM Reply   
"What did Libya do to the US in the last 30 years?"

Since you all of the sudden seem to have a chubby for math, let me break it down for you. 2012 - 30 = 1982. Lockerbie bombing: 1988. 1982 < 1988 < 2012.

The crux of the whole argument, something that you waited ages to jump in to; akin to being the guy that sits down at a movie with 30 minutes left and asks, "What's going on?"; is that there have been approximately 190 president-ordered, military actions used, without Congressional approval, in the history of the US (and sorry for the run-on sentence). GOP has now taken issue with it, because Obama ordered it. I gave you one example with Reagan and in Tuckeresque style, you attempted to prove me wrong by arguing semantics. The GOP simply says that Obama is wrong for not getting Congressional approval, and you are somewhat agreeing with them but you are wanting an asterisk for it to be okay under certain circumstances (i.e when a Republican is president). I am arguing either it is wrong or it is right. You cannot have it both ways depending on what party controls the WH at the time. Another time Reagan ordered military action without Congress' approval was in 1981 in El Salvador, but again, he wasn't the only president to do so. So no, I don't wish to "issue an a retraction". I wish for you to use Google and a bit of common sense when attempting to pick apart every sentence I post.

Rush * Quasi-Reality + Having no clue what is actually going on + Glen Beck's kooky beliefs/Romney = DELTA

Last edited by wake77; 09-06-2012 at 5:07 AM.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       09-06-2012, 6:37 AM Reply   
I believe the point here is that the dems demonize the right for a strong and involved military, but like you have stated, make many of the same calls that our republican leaders have made. I don't really have an issue with Obama involving our military in a "police action". I just don't think that it's inconsistent to demonize the right for being "pro military" while your doing it. Obama has been Commander in Chief in 3 conflicts in 3.5 years. The death count of U.S. solders is higher than when under Bush. The dems ought to stop the "jawing" about republican and Romney being war mongers and look in the mirror......
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-06-2012, 8:32 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by ord27 View Post
I believe the point here is that the dems demonize the right for a strong and involved military, but like you have stated, make many of the same calls that our republican leaders have made. I don't really have an issue with Obama involving our military in a "police action". I just don't think that it's inconsistent to demonize the right for being "pro military" while your doing it. Obama has been Commander in Chief in 3 conflicts in 3.5 years. The death count of U.S. solders is higher than when under Bush. The dems ought to stop the "jawing" about republican and Romney being war mongers and look in the mirror......
This is a great point. And I think it demonstrates that it's possible to support the troops without supporting the military action that the CIC commits them to.

Likewise I'd love to see the right recognize that dems can support the troops without growing the military.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       09-07-2012, 2:09 PM Reply   
Cory said " If they had been allowed to keep that money in the first place they could have invested it at a much greater rate of return and been far better off."
and where please tell me are you going to put your money and be better off? You cannot even buy a house today and expect the value to increase!
I sure am glad I'm not a part of that SS system! .Never paid into it, never will pay into it.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       09-10-2012, 9:16 AM Reply   
Jeremy. Don't listen to Rush or Beck. Cliff said exactly what the issue is. Democrats jump all over Bush or any other Republican and start posts on it and go on for weeks if they use the military. Hell, they are starting to jump on Romney and he is not even president. Have not seen one post or protest from you democrats regarding Gitmo, the wars, or all the promises that you democrats hold so dear. That tells me you guys really did not give one crap about what you were bitching about. It tells me you guys are dishonest peaces of crap that only try to destroy the country to get your people elected. Why? Because the vested people need you to so they can continue to move the wealth out of the country. Again, look at the body of work and look at the results. Can not lie about facts.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-10-2012, 9:18 AM Reply   
wow, that's one way to have a rational discussion about what we all can agree on.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       09-10-2012, 12:33 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
Jeremy. Don't listen to Rush or Beck. Cliff said exactly what the issue is. Democrats jump all over Bush or any other Republican and start posts on it and go on for weeks if they use the military. Hell, they are starting to jump on Romney and he is not even president. Have not seen one post or protest from you democrats regarding Gitmo, the wars, or all the promises that you democrats hold so dear. That tells me you guys really did not give one crap about what you were bitching about. It tells me you guys are dishonest peaces of crap that only try to destroy the country to get your people elected. Why? Because the vested people need you to so they can continue to move the wealth out of the country. Again, look at the body of work and look at the results. Can not lie about facts.
I have told you on several occasions that I served this country for six years in the US Navy and was honorably discharged, all-the-while proudly serving to give guys like you the right to call me "a dishonest piece of crap". However, I hardly think that classifies me as "trying to destroy the country".

You also can not lie that Romney "has moved much of his wealth out of the country", voluntarily, yet you'll cast your vote for a guy that does something you despise. You can't lie about that fact either.

Again, something is either right or wrong. Just because one party did it, does not mean the other party can do it and not be criticized if what they are doing is still wrong. I have said on several occasions that Obama has made a mistake by not closing Gitmo. That didn't change just because the GOP thought it was best to keep it open (as said by McCain).
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       09-10-2012, 6:14 PM Reply   
I did not mean to frame the insult with you specifically. I had moved to a general thought process so sorry for the personal feeling to it. I know you have said it, but, all you democrats can not deny your people were out protesting in the streets, calling Bush every name in the book, posting nearly every day about crap. Actually the same crap that Obama is doing right now. Regarding Romney moving wealth. I do not blame him one bit. This is where I can not stand the willfully ignorant. MONEY HAS NO LOYALTY. That is why all the democrats (you know the wealthiest people in the world) are doing it in their business dealings too. Everyone who runs any sort of business or deals in making money by investing money knows that you move it to a place that allows them to do so. If they don't, someone else will. That is like starving a dog and putting a bag of food out and saying he is bad for eating it. It is what happens. Believe it or not, there is a moral obligation for them to move the money to where they can make more because ALL our retirement money is vested in their companies. Business people even tell you how you stop it but democrats just dig in and say they are trying to ruin the environment, steal your safety nets and all this other crap. I call bull crap. The democrats are stealing your stuff by the laws they pass and making the middle class pay more and more of the taxes while they pass more and more laws to move more of our wealth to the UN and other places like china and mexico.

All I have to say is watch out. Democrats love to talk about crony capitalism but people do not realize they have the market bracketed. In california they passed Cap and Trade in order to not have to address the billions being given to mexico and it has a nice tie in because the large land owners get a handout because they can now use the land as a free income stream in the form of carbon credits. This is just like the gas can spouts they mandated in california. They do not work for crap but someone was able to get them passed as manditory in the name of the "environment". Crony capitalism is alive and will in the environmental game.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       09-10-2012, 6:29 PM Reply   
well said Delta
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       09-11-2012, 3:38 AM Reply   
"The democrats are stealing your stuff by the laws they pass and making the middle class pay more and more of the taxes"

I have to call BS on that one. One question, Has your federal income tax increased under Obama? Yes or No. Again, Romney's tax plan is estimated to save him about 5 million a year in taxes. Now unless you consider Romney middle class, how exactly is his tax plan going to help the middle class?

"I know you have said it, but, all you democrats can not deny your people were out protesting in the streets"

This is what I don't get about you. To act as because one or some democrats are protesting something means that all democrats must be protesting is mind-boggling. I mean do you take every stance of the Republican party? Believe it or not, I have a mind of my own and I will stand up for what causes I believe in and I will not fight for causes I do not. It's called being an individual. I did not agree with the Iraq war, but I certainly was not in the streets protesting against it. My brother-in-law is a major in the US Army and he served twice in Iraq. I stand behind the troops probably more than anyone, mainly because I know what it is like to be in their shoes. Despite your beliefs, you can be against a war and still for the troops.

And it seems that the crux of most of your arguments is, "Obama does it, so Romney should be able to do it". As I posted earlier, either something is right or wrong. You cannot have it both ways.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 5:51 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us