yikes... well hopefully no riots... or bad will will come. btw what policy would you like kuzi?
how about... no social health care, or social anything for that mater less tobacco tax living up to the no earmarks on bills (stimulus package has about 8000+) cutting capitol gains taxes not eliminating the welfare reform from the clinton era no regulation of the airwaves via fairness doctrine or anything that will act in the same way but isnt "the fairness doctrine" not making the hard working 90+% of people that arent in default on their mortgage (but could be if the slightest things go wrong) pay for the people that arent keeping up. (what ever happened to personal financial responsibility?) not bailing out second mortgages no carbon tax no cap and trade not nationalizing any bank or financial institution... or anything else for that matter
oh... you asked what policy would i like, not what i wouldnt like....
i am in favor or any policy that gives power to the people to run their lives, not the government. I want any policy that will put money in my pocket, not take it from me to give it to someone who isnt as productive as me. I want a policy that will let the US be a sovereign nation in and of itself and not letting outside forces (like the UN) rule us I want a policy that promotes personal responsibility, not dependency on the government to survive. I want any policy that will keep government as small as it can be and lets the people run the country and the economy.
it is not the governments job to give us anything. it is only their job to give us the means to go out and get things for ourselves.
Amen to all of that! There is a reason our founding fathers wrote "Of the People, for the People, and by the People." It did NOT say, of the People, for the Government, by the Government.
I agree with some of that. and though I hate helping people get out of their own trouble when I've had such a struggle, I also think that if we let them go to the streets and allow foreclosure than they will be getting govt money anyway, property values will go down in the areas which they are foreclosed in. that's just the top 2 things i can think of right now. Govt run health care I think is a good idea. As it is so damn expensive right now and it keeps going up. i also think that a national banking system is in order. As I've stated before, Govt is not as evil as a lot of people think. I don't think it should run our lives and be the only option but I do think it should be out there. I would use a govt bank over any other. The Govt is out to screw you and make a huge profit, US bank, Chase, Capital One, and all the other ones are, in fact a lot of these problems wouldn't be happening had greedy aholes not have mad massively bad greedy decisions. It is the role of a good govt to make sure that things run smoothly just like a parent looks after their children. you can disagree which I am sure you will but less regulation on these corporations is not the answer as that is what has been happening. A national health care would be much cheaper in the long run and allow all to have the option for care and regular treatment. Like I stated before kuzi, I whole-heartedly feel like you do, in that I don't want to pay for others' bad mistakes but in terms of a larger, much grander scale one has to look past the "me" factor. If you want to look back on when the "credit" think took over in the 80's, since it has become the only way one purchases things and most people have gotten so use to paying for things "later". That is and always has been a bad thing but hey it got corporations lots of money and very quickly but F'd up our culture and our lives. Though again some of us (me not in that) didn't get on that band wagon. But most did. The credit way of life was in part a big mistake and I do accredit it to part of the problems we have now. I'm not for govt interference or complete govt control, but I am for a govt that will fix problems and that is what I believe Obama is trying to do.
Like I stated before kuzi, I whole-heartedly feel like you do, in that I don't want to pay for others' bad mistakes
you don not feel like me. how do i know?:
phobicsquirrel:
but in terms of a larger, much grander scale one has to look past the "me" factor.
that statement alone proves it. the individual will not endlessly work for the benefit of the masses.
i understand that you feel bad for those people. here is the problem:
feelings dont mean ***, results do. and the fact remains that no social program anywhere has ever been a success.
phobicsquirrel:
If you want to look back on when the "credit" think took over in the 80's, since it has become the only way one purchases things and most people have gotten so use to paying for things "later". That is and always has been a bad thing but hey it got corporations lots of money and very quickly but F'd up our culture and our lives. Though again some of us (me not in that) didn't get on that band wagon. But most did. The credit way of life was in part a big mistake and I do accredit it to part of the problems we have now. I'm not for govt interference or complete govt control, but I am for a govt that will fix problems and that is what I believe Obama is trying to do.
yeah... those people made a mistake. i agree there. but it isnt the governments job to fix that. those people have learned from the mistake. that is the system at work. if the government comes in and fixes everything then nobody will learn. "oh i can go out and do whatever i want, spend irresponsibly, run up huge bills, and not have a job. it doesnt matter, i wont pay for it" I will never be in support of anything for "free."
the government cannot give anything to anyone without taking it from someone else first.
quit taking the money that i am working hard for and giving it to people that dont produce.
but in terms of a larger, much grander scale one has to look past the "me" factor.
ive been thinking about this line all day. it kinda stuck with me.
that is a grandiose idea. It is being the bigger person.
At work I recently have made a personal goal to not have unrealistic expectations of others. Mainly because i do; and when those others fall short of what I expect, conflict ensues. I still expect a lot out of people, but i have been trying to keep it realistic.
asking everyone in a society to look past the "me factor" is an unrealistic expectation. people, after all, are animals. we are driven to survive the best we can. we are driven to look out for number one. We have it in our DNA to try and get as much as we can while expending as little as we can just to survive - much like any other animal. Day to day survival may have been taken care of in a general sense in the western world, but the genes to look out for yourself have not changed at all. It is human nature to want more things and to do the least amount of work to do it. it is against human (and animal) nature to to work hard for anything that will not directly help yourself. what is your motivation? most people cannot or will not look at the larger picture.
this is where charity comes in though. When i look past the "me factor" i take part in the MS walk, or rehab old houses for low income housing, or give up a day to go work in a soup kitchen. I am all for charity, just not government mandated charity.
what is your motivation? most people cannot or will not look at the larger picture.
Just looking at the last line here, I look at it as a point to having mandated charity, like the government is moving toward. Is the government really in the business of moralizing? We have separation of church and state...kinda, but is there a realm beyond church/religion where values can be imparted on a people of a collective state? Honestly, I don't know, but that's where this seems to be heading for me.
I believe that I have a personal responsibility, kinda like Kuzi was alluding to about charity, to care for others. I believe it is an important part of a spiritual life that I choose to live today, not perfectly by any means. I don't know whether it is upon a government to choose such things for a people. If "most people CANNOT look at the larger picture", then I ask where is there hope in having a government that does not mandate such actions? If they WILL NOT, then how can we, as a people, help them to make that choice?
man I didn't want to get into this...makes my head hurt. Makes me grateful I'm not a politician.
what is your motivation? most people cannot or will not look at the larger picture.
Just looking at the last line here, I look at it as a point to having mandated charity, like the government is moving toward. Is the government really in the business of moralizing? We have separation of church and state...kinda, but is there a realm beyond church/religion where values can be imparted on a people of a collective state? Honestly, I don't know, but that's where this seems to be heading for me.
I believe that I have a personal responsibility, kinda like Kuzi was alluding to about charity, to care for others. I believe it is an important part of a spiritual life that I choose to live today, not perfectly by any means. I don't know whether it is upon a government to choose such things for a people. If "most people CANNOT look at the larger picture", then I ask where is there hope in having a government that does not mandate such actions? If they WILL NOT, then how can we, as a people, help them to make that choice?
man I didn't want to get into this...makes my head hurt. Makes me grateful I'm not a politician.
i think my point got a bit muddied with that.
how about : most people cannot or will not look at the larger picture... without first taking care of themselves.
kinda like, how can you care a about a sliver in another person's eye when you have a huge plank in your own? People DO think of others. both you (bbc) and I have stated that we give to charity. that is proof that at least some people care beyond themselves. however, do we not pay our own bills first? do we not put food on our table first? why would i give to charity if i am the one in desperate need of it? the more the government takes out of our paychecks in "forced charity" the less that people are willing to give to real charity because they are looking for survival themselves.
speaking of charity... anyone else hear that Obama has a plan to tax charitable donations more? under his new plan you will only be able to deduct 28%
Read the Constitution and remember why our founding fathers deemed it necessary to form new nation. Then ask yourself how much the government is overstepping and outgrown its own purpose. How often to the baboons on capital hill actually represent the people that voted them in office? We still have a representive democracy (Republic), no? One-in-ten supported another bailout for AIG, yet congress threw billions more on them (and other companies) and mortgaging our childrens future while doing so. The democrats don't want you to be accountable for your actions, and the GOP wants a select few to run the nation. It's a lose-lose.
This is a land of life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness
not life, liberty and entilements
not life, liberty and bailouts-if-you-make-bad-decisions
not life, liberty and right to digital TV
And whomever it was asking about us breaking any laws.....no, not even close. But I would be willing to bet that there are going to be a lot of people ready to break some laws if the Fed implements a bank holiday like FDR did back in the day. It very well may happen, the FDIC already said they can't cover everybody account and it just borrowed $500,000,000,000 to help cover them. Things aren't getting any better. So how well would that sit with you if it did happen, where your government tells you that you are not allowed to withdrawl your own money from the bank. Think about that for a minute.....
I have a pretty good idea where the government can help out with charity but NOT make it mandetory.
President Obama raised record amounts of money out on the campaign trail to fund his bid for the White House, so why would it be a bad thing for him, and other political figures to go out on the road raising money for their social projects? I think that would solves many many problems. Anything that ANYONE wants to put in as an earmark on a Bill is fine, but they have to provide the funding for it privately through donations and NOT through our tax dollars. There are so many people out there and even on this board that think Obama and the Democrats are on the right track so they should be glad to give more of their paycheck... Why would this be a bad solution?
We voted to put Obama in office so that he wouldn't have to spend his time doing something like that. As it is now, he can sit at the White House, and suck money out of your pockets whether you like it or not, then throw it around as he wishes. I don't see where your solution is any better
We voted to put Obama in office so that he wouldn't have to spend his time doing something like that. As it is now, he can sit at the White House, and suck money out of your pockets whether you like it or not, then throw it around as he wishes. I don't see where your solution is any better
Haha Smartass. Actually, MOST of the people who voted for him thought they were voting for a middle of the road guy who would do exactly as he said he would. He has done very very little of what he claimed in his campaign.
If I was a supporter of his and had voted for him, I would be seriously offended and angry that he has gone against MOST of his major campaign promises.
That is another example of the fact that "Celebrity" is what matter most to people. The Majority of the country was against the Bailouts, the Stimulous Package, and this Spending Bill he is about to sign. But in the last week or so her has been speaking more positively and it has helped his ratings. If you look at the first 40 days of his campaign they were dropping. Mostly due to his negative tone everytime he would speak somewhere. His handlers found out pretty quick that the American people did not respond well to that.
Why do you think he is totally 100% scripted now when he speaks? He does not speak without a tele-prompter at all. A week or so ago all he was doing is introducing a speaker and even had to use one... When he speaks his own mind people don't respond well.
Its also my understanding some of his supporters and backers (I will try to find the article) are beginning to raise their eyebrows at his perceived lack of ABILITY to run the country. Drawing critisism as a pretty boy articulate speaker but no substance.....possibly because he is starting to lean so far left. The insiders always have a better understanding of what strenghts and weaknesses are way before it trickles down into some rating poll.....
If "celebrity" is what matters most, why is A-Rod's approval rating so low?
everybody loves to hate him.
I was gonna say because he is a whiney biotch! haha
But seriously, look at the poll trends of President Obama and his speaches around the times of said ratings. Also look at the approval ratings of the legislation he has passed and you will see that this rings true.
Its also my understanding some of his supporters and backers (I will try to find the article) are beginning to raise their eyebrows at his perceived lack of ABILITY to run the country. Drawing critisism as a pretty boy articulate speaker but no substance.....possibly because he is starting to lean so far left. The insiders always have a better understanding of what strenghts and weaknesses are way before it trickles down into some rating poll.....
come election time, how many votes do those insiders get?
Its also my understanding some of his supporters and backers (I will try to find the article) are beginning to raise their eyebrows at his perceived lack of ABILITY to run the country. Drawing critisism as a pretty boy articulate speaker but no substance.....possibly because he is starting to lean so far left. The insiders always have a better understanding of what strenghts and weaknesses are way before it trickles down into some rating poll.....
come election time, how many votes do those insiders get?
Actually I'd say the insiders and lobbyists will control quite a few votes....reality and perception become blurred and its all about the money....do you have enough to get elected ...do I still have any left when its time for me to decide who to vote for...always follow the dollar, it does not dilute and deceive it carrries the promise of hope and dispair evenly depending on who has it ....Duty I'm not disagreeing or arguing just merely observing ...
Its scary for all Americans when the people with access to our leaders who get to see them make decisions and govern begin to doubt their ability and thats regardless of who that leader is and regardless of race, ethenicity(sp?) etc etc ...I'm just sayin' ....
Its also my understanding some of his supporters and backers (I will try to find the article) are beginning to raise their eyebrows at his perceived lack of ABILITY to run the country. Drawing critisism as a pretty boy articulate speaker but no substance.....possibly because he is starting to lean so far left. The insiders always have a better understanding of what strenghts and weaknesses are way before it trickles down into some rating poll.....
come election time, how many votes do those insiders get?
I'm not sure what you mean by that? If you mean how many votes do they get to cast, then they each get one just like anyone else. If you are asking how many votes to they get cast for them, then it depends if they are running for office or not. Most are not.
If you look at President Obama's voting record before he was elected, he was the most far left leaning official in the Senate, during his campaign he spoke as a moderate, and now as President, he is back to his usual ways. He is not reaching across the isle, he is not representing the majority of our country. He is signing Bills and passing legislation to promote the Democratic Party.
Its also my understanding some of his supporters and backers (I will try to find the article) are beginning to raise their eyebrows at his perceived lack of ABILITY to run the country. Drawing critisism as a pretty boy articulate speaker but no substance.....possibly because he is starting to lean so far left. The insiders always have a better understanding of what strenghts and weaknesses are way before it trickles down into some rating poll.....
come election time, how many votes do those insiders get?
Actually I'd say the insiders and lobbyists will control quite a few votes....reality and perception become blurred and its all about the money....do you have enough to get elected ...do I still have any left when its time for me to decide who to vote for...always follow the dollar, it does not dilute and deceive it carrries the promise of hope and dispair evenly depending on who has it ....Duty I'm not disagreeing or arguing just merely observing ...
Its scary for all Americans when the people with access to our leaders who get to see them make decisions and govern begin to doubt their ability and thats regardless of who that leader is and regardless of race, ethenicity(sp?) etc etc ...I'm just sayin' ....
If it simply comes down to money, how did he win in the first place? IIRC, he didn't have nearly the money that Hillary had, until he got support. So are we going to say he bought support with his money, or are we going to say he got money from his support?
If his voting record was so far out of touch with the insiders, how did he find so much support?
You are arguing in circles... That was my whole point. He was elected because he speaks well and ran his campaign as a middle of the road kind of guy. Most people just bought into that because he spoke well and sounded like the kinda guy they wanted in office regaurdless of his record. Even Jim Cramer admited he supported Obama because he seemed like a middle of the road candidate, but now regrets that choice because he is not sticking to what he said in his campaign. He hasn't stuck to his campaign promises at all either. He has broken SEVERAL of the key points of his campaign already and he is only about 50 days into his term...
Wouldn't it be irresponsible, as a voter, to elect someone on a speech rather than their voting record? Were the insiders swayed by his speeches despite his voting record?
If it simply comes down to money, how did he win in the first place? IIRC, he didn't have nearly the money that Hillary had, until he got support. So are we going to say he bought support with his money, or are we going to say he got money from his support?
Doesn't matter ....what matters is where are we headed? We can debate how or why he got elected till doomsday but thats looking back, lets look forward and where are we going and who really stears the presidential ship ...and does he have the ability to read the radar ....
If it simply comes down to money, how did he win in the first place? IIRC, he didn't have nearly the money that Hillary had, until he got support. So are we going to say he bought support with his money, or are we going to say he got money from his support?
Doesn't matter ....what matters is where are we headed? We can debate how or why he got elected till doomsday but thats looking back, lets look forward and where are we going and who really stears the presidential ship ...and does he have the ability to read the radar ....
Given our gross inability to predict the future, as evidenced the the performance of our investment portfolios, how is anyone here qualified to make projections in the infancy of a new presidency?
Wouldn't it be irresponsible, as a voter, to elect someone on a speech rather than their voting record? Were the insiders swayed by his speeches despite his voting record?
Yes, it is VERy irresponsible, as a voter, to elect someone on the way he speaks, but our nation did just that. And I'm not sure what "insiders" you are refering to because some of them supported him and some of them didn't. My point is he is not and has not done what he has promised to do. He is going against most of the things he claimed to be in his campaign.
Can you give a specific example? I'm not asking for "because he said he wanted to bring all sides together but instead he's just promoting Democratic ideals!" He doesn't have the power to pass laws all by himself. It's also not fair to characterize the divide in Congressional voting as a failure on his part. Republicans have said repeatedly that their grip is with Nancy Pelosi.
i wouldnt go so far to say "most of the things he claimed in his campaign"
he didnt claim that much. there was very little substance to his speeches. he did say he would set a pull out date for Iraq, and close Guantanimo. he has made steps to do those.
he also has gone so far to the left that many people are second guessing their vote.
elections have consequences. we have to live with that.
when the mid terms come around, we will see. this last election is over. Obama is in office. there isnt much we can do about that. (just ask Liberals about that after the Bush elections)
the only thing we can do at this point is HOPE he doesnt CHANGE our entire way of life in the next two years.
i fear that he will. Between the higher taxes, insane spending, and mass government regulation that Obama is looking for i dont see how life will not change at a fundamental level.
Comments
i understand that you feel bad for those people. here is the problem:
feelings dont mean ***, results do. and the fact remains that no social program anywhere has ever been a success. yeah... those people made a mistake. i agree there. but it isnt the governments job to fix that. those people have learned from the mistake. that is the system at work. if the government comes in and fixes everything then nobody will learn. "oh i can go out and do whatever i want, spend irresponsibly, run up huge bills, and not have a job. it doesnt matter, i wont pay for it"
I will never be in support of anything for "free."
the government cannot give anything to anyone without taking it from someone else first.
quit taking the money that i am working hard for and giving it to people that dont produce.
that is a grandiose idea. It is being the bigger person.
At work I recently have made a personal goal to not have unrealistic expectations of others. Mainly because i do; and when those others fall short of what I expect, conflict ensues. I still expect a lot out of people, but i have been trying to keep it realistic.
asking everyone in a society to look past the "me factor" is an unrealistic expectation.
people, after all, are animals. we are driven to survive the best we can. we are driven to look out for number one. We have it in our DNA to try and get as much as we can while expending as little as we can just to survive - much like any other animal. Day to day survival may have been taken care of in a general sense in the western world, but the genes to look out for yourself have not changed at all. It is human nature to want more things and to do the least amount of work to do it. it is against human (and animal) nature to to work hard for anything that will not directly help yourself. what is your motivation? most people cannot or will not look at the larger picture.
this is where charity comes in though. When i look past the "me factor" i take part in the MS walk, or rehab old houses for low income housing, or give up a day to go work in a soup kitchen. I am all for charity, just not government mandated charity.
Just looking at the last line here, I look at it as a point to having mandated charity, like the government is moving toward. Is the government really in the business of moralizing? We have separation of church and state...kinda, but is there a realm beyond church/religion where values can be imparted on a people of a collective state? Honestly, I don't know, but that's where this seems to be heading for me.
I believe that I have a personal responsibility, kinda like Kuzi was alluding to about charity, to care for others. I believe it is an important part of a spiritual life that I choose to live today, not perfectly by any means. I don't know whether it is upon a government to choose such things for a people. If "most people CANNOT look at the larger picture", then I ask where is there hope in having a government that does not mandate such actions? If they WILL NOT, then how can we, as a people, help them to make that choice?
man I didn't want to get into this...makes my head hurt. Makes me grateful I'm not a politician.
how about :
most people cannot or will not look at the larger picture... without first taking care of themselves.
kinda like, how can you care a about a sliver in another person's eye when you have a huge plank in your own? People DO think of others. both you (bbc) and I have stated that we give to charity. that is proof that at least some people care beyond themselves. however, do we not pay our own bills first? do we not put food on our table first? why would i give to charity if i am the one in desperate need of it?
the more the government takes out of our paychecks in "forced charity" the less that people are willing to give to real charity because they are looking for survival themselves.
speaking of charity...
anyone else hear that Obama has a plan to tax charitable donations more? under his new plan you will only be able to deduct 28%
ah.... compassion at its best.
Read the Constitution and remember why our founding fathers deemed it necessary to form new nation. Then ask yourself how much the government is overstepping and outgrown its own purpose. How often to the baboons on capital hill actually represent the people that voted them in office? We still have a representive democracy (Republic), no? One-in-ten supported another bailout for AIG, yet congress threw billions more on them (and other companies) and mortgaging our childrens future while doing so. The democrats don't want you to be accountable for your actions, and the GOP wants a select few to run the nation. It's a lose-lose.
This is a land of life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness
not life, liberty and entilements
not life, liberty and bailouts-if-you-make-bad-decisions
not life, liberty and right to digital TV
And whomever it was asking about us breaking any laws.....no, not even close. But I would be willing to bet that there are going to be a lot of people ready to break some laws if the Fed implements a bank holiday like FDR did back in the day. It very well may happen, the FDIC already said they can't cover everybody account and it just borrowed $500,000,000,000 to help cover them. Things aren't getting any better. So how well would that sit with you if it did happen, where your government tells you that you are not allowed to withdrawl your own money from the bank. Think about that for a minute.....
Here's a link....http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123630125365247061.html
President Obama raised record amounts of money out on the campaign trail to fund his bid for the White House, so why would it be a bad thing for him, and other political figures to go out on the road raising money for their social projects? I think that would solves many many problems. Anything that ANYONE wants to put in as an earmark on a Bill is fine, but they have to provide the funding for it privately through donations and NOT through our tax dollars. There are so many people out there and even on this board that think Obama and the Democrats are on the right track so they should be glad to give more of their paycheck... Why would this be a bad solution?
If I was a supporter of his and had voted for him, I would be seriously offended and angry that he has gone against MOST of his major campaign promises.
Why do you think he is totally 100% scripted now when he speaks? He does not speak without a tele-prompter at all. A week or so ago all he was doing is introducing a speaker and even had to use one... When he speaks his own mind people don't respond well.
But seriously, look at the poll trends of President Obama and his speaches around the times of said ratings. Also look at the approval ratings of the legislation he has passed and you will see that this rings true.
Actually I'd say the insiders and lobbyists will control quite a few votes....reality and perception become blurred and its all about the money....do you have enough to get elected ...do I still have any left when its time for me to decide who to vote for...always follow the dollar, it does not dilute and deceive it carrries the promise of hope and dispair evenly depending on who has it ....Duty I'm not disagreeing or arguing just merely observing ...
Its scary for all Americans when the people with access to our leaders who get to see them make decisions and govern begin to doubt their ability and thats regardless of who that leader is and regardless of race, ethenicity(sp?) etc etc ...I'm just sayin' ....
If you look at President Obama's voting record before he was elected, he was the most far left leaning official in the Senate, during his campaign he spoke as a moderate, and now as President, he is back to his usual ways. He is not reaching across the isle, he is not representing the majority of our country. He is signing Bills and passing legislation to promote the Democratic Party.
bump bump
Doesn't matter ....what matters is where are we headed? We can debate how or why he got elected till doomsday but thats looking back, lets look forward and where are we going and who really stears the presidential ship ...and does he have the ability to read the radar ....
he didnt claim that much. there was very little substance to his speeches. he did say he would set a pull out date for Iraq, and close Guantanimo. he has made steps to do those.
he also has gone so far to the left that many people are second guessing their vote.
elections have consequences. we have to live with that.
when the mid terms come around, we will see. this last election is over. Obama is in office. there isnt much we can do about that. (just ask Liberals about that after the Bush elections)
the only thing we can do at this point is HOPE he doesnt CHANGE our entire way of life in the next two years.
i fear that he will. Between the higher taxes, insane spending, and mass government regulation that Obama is looking for i dont see how life will not change at a fundamental level.
how Orwellian.