Obama Won!!!

NiteKrawler wrote:

Fix? No. Help? Yes. There is not merely one thing that will fix this economy. But cutting aid where it is needed, lowering taxes, and cutting state and local programs down to a nub does not a great nation make.

First thing that needs to be done is to cut government spending as much as possible, because recent history has proven that the economy boomed when government spending was at its lowest. Obama claims he'll do this, but considering how in his first six months of office last time he tried to spend us out of recession and ended up driving the deficit higher than it ever had been in US history, I don't believe he'll follow through. I'd love to be wrong, but I just don't think it will happen.

And even speaking as a Republican, if I felt Obama's policies were for the best of the nation, I would openly support him. The thing is, I don't. Romney, like Bush in 2004, was just the lesser of two evils. Remember that episode of South Park about having to choose between a giant douche and a big turd? Well, in my view, Romney was the giant douche and Obama the big turd.

Mercy wrote:

Ghost Leader wrote:

Known_Hero wrote:

@Ghost Leader

LMAO, looks like some repubs are butthurt. Now, I'm happy I didn't vote for any of those clowns.

Fixed. I'm a Republican, but I'm not really what one would define as "butthurt". Just disappointed.

Here's to another 10 trillion on the deficit by May!

I would describe that as my feelings as well. Obama wants to tax people who make over $250,000 annually, that won't fix anything. Taxing the rich wont make others rich; if you give a man a fish, he'll live for a day.

So, taxing the middle and lower class would be the better option?

Ghost Leader wrote:

NiteKrawler wrote:

Fix? No. Help? Yes. There is not merely one thing that will fix this economy. But cutting aid where it is needed, lowering taxes, and cutting state and local programs down to a nub does not a great nation make.

First thing that needs to be done is to cut government spending as much as possible, because recent history has proven that the economy boomed when government spending was at its lowest. Obama claims he'll do this, but considering how in his first six months of office last time he tried to spend us out of recession and ended up driving the deficit higher than it ever had been in US history, I don't believe he'll follow through. I'd love to be wrong, but I just don't think it will happen.

And even speaking as a Republican, if I felt Obama's policies were for the best of the nation, I would openly support him. The thing is, I don't. Romney, like Bush in 2004, was just the lesser of two evils. Remember that episode of South Park about having to choose between a giant douche and a big turd? Well, in my view, Romney was the giant douche and Obama the big turd.

I just can't stand for the social policies that Romney was for. Nor his economic policies. He was blatant in his condemnation of women's and minorities' rights. I'm all for the middle and lower class paying more taxes (I'm included in there obviously), because I know if we want a great nation, we need to pay for it. But I won't support the fact that the top 1% owns 80% of our wealth. That's ridiculous and I don't care how hard they worked for it, we need to have some socialist policies to help even this out a bit. But with Romney wanting to do away with FEMA, medicare/aid/WIC, and cutting government spending in the worst possible places like our safety and educational departments while still allowing for big business to run rampant and send jobs overseas, I fail to see how he was a lesser evil. Most people I talk to about this say that they don't like the medicare/aid and WIC, etc. programs. Okay, that's fine. But you know how many people and how many babies would starve to death without that? Obviously people take advantage of these programs, but we can't punish those who truly need it to stop the lazy losers.

Known_Hero wrote:

Mercy wrote:

Ghost Leader wrote:

Known_Hero wrote:

@Ghost Leader

LMAO, looks like some repubs are butthurt. Now, I'm happy I didn't vote for any of those clowns.

Fixed. I'm a Republican, but I'm not really what one would define as "butthurt". Just disappointed.

Here's to another 10 trillion on the deficit by May!

I would describe that as my feelings as well. Obama wants to tax people who make over $250,000 annually, that won't fix anything. Taxing the rich wont make others rich; if you give a man a fish, he'll live for a day.

So, taxing the middle and lower class would be the better option?

Uh, no. Who said anythig about taxing the middle and lower class? If you tax the rich and give it to the poor, the people who make money lose incentive to work: why work more if my money is being taken from the government? The poor lose incentive to work as well: why work when you're getting handouts? The problem we have is not taxing enough, the problem is spending too much.

Lol. Rich people having "the money they work for taken away" causing them to not work is kind of asinine. They already don't work for it. They have corporations that generally take care of themselves. Just because they get taxed a lot does not mean they are going to give up and just shut everything down. That's just not how it works. Now the people getting handouts and so not working, that does happen. A lot. But that doesn't mean those programs should be taken down. Spending is a big issue. We need to cut costs where it will have the least effect. That is not the safety and educational departments. Can't make that more clear. The war is sapping us unnecessarily. We are doing nothing real there so let us just stop that nonsense of a modern crusade.

NiteKrawler wrote:

Lol. Rich people having "the money they work for taken away" causing them to not work is kind of asinine. They already don't work for it. They have corporations that generally take care of themselves. Just because they get taxed a lot does not mean they are going to give up and just shut everything down. That's just not how it works.

Punishing someone for success isn't exactly honest either. Does it suck that the owners of Wal-Mart are driving solid gold Ferraris and I'm not? Sure, but that's the American dream: To make something of yourself. Building a business up into a success shouldn't be penalized. Even those giant mega corporations started small like the "mom and pop" shops that everyone is keen on preaching the values of.

Exactly what Ghost said. Hard work shouldn't be punished, they stayed in their stores day in and day out. Dave Thomas worked so hard at Wendy's he didn't even know where his daughter's school was, and now it's a huge franchise; why would you tax them for the hard work they put in to get there? And look at how bad France has gotten, the rich have to give up 75% of their earnings to the government. America is headed in that direction. Everyone loses incentive. I'm not saying we should shut down programs like welfare, but it should only be given to those who actually need it, those who are looking for a job and have their families begging for coins to feed their two kids on the side of a Burger King. I'm sure they don't want to be there the rest of their lives and they're obviously looking for work to support their family.

I really find it funny how republicans think making 1 billion dollars a year instead of 3 billion is punishment. I make $10k a year doing a job that is just as important as what these billionaires are doing. The world needs plumbers and waitresses and school bus drivers just as much as any other job, so the people that do these jobs deserve to live near the poverty line? Just because they didn't hit the big time through undoubtedly hard work? They work very hard every day for their whole lives. And what if everyone was a rich billionaire? The world would be fucked. We'd have almost no regular jobs that keep the world going. Many of these richies that you are defending were just born into a legacy too. And almost all of them worked hard AND had a ton of luck. Even if we taxed the bejesus out of them (not what I'm calling for) they would still have a ton of money. More than anyone needs.

Mercy wrote:

I'm not saying we should shut down programs like welfare, but it should only be given to those who actually need it

You figure out just how to do that and you'll be one of these rich people.

@Mercy

My mistake, I assumed you were in favor of Willard Romney.

Please, let's stop pretending that CEOs are the quintessential hard workers of this country. It makes my stomach hurt.

You paint this pretty picture of these guys with dirt on their jeans and sleeves rolled up, battling in the trenches with the grunts, working their way to the top. The truth is the only thing that separates them from is us isn't work ethic, but opportunity. Do you think Bush Jr or Romney shot up to the top because they worked harder than any of us? I still can't believe Bush went to Yale; this guy can barely put a sentence together.

It's not about giving handouts, it's about leveling the playing field.

Known_Hero wrote:

Please, let's stop pretending that CEOs are the quintessential hard workers of this country. It makes my stomach hurt.

You paint this pretty picture of these guys with dirt on their jeans and sleeves rolled up, battling in the trenches with the grunts, working their way to the top. The truth is the only thing that separates them from is us isn't work ethic, but opportunity. Do you think Bush Jr or Romney shot up to the top because they worked harder than any of us? I still can't believe Bush went to Yale; this guy can barely put a sentence together.

It's not about giving handouts, it's about leveling the playing field.

No, they're the devil incarnate because they found success. Tell me, how exactly did they build these companies into successful ventures if they've never put their hands down in the dirt, then? Did all the money just fall out of the air? Is there a money tree growing somewhere around here where they picked their millions off a tree and hired people to build them a successful business? Every business starts small, and how much each one grows is based on how much the owner puts into it and whether or not they have the chops to succeed.

Leveling the playing field means everyone paying the same amount, regardless of what they earn. If a CEO has to pay out 2/3 of his 3 billion a year, as Nite put it, then so should everyone else should have to pay the same 2/3 regardless of their income level. Making someone pay more because they earn more is unfair.

Ghost Leader wrote:

No, they're the devil incarnate because they found success.

I never said they were evil but I'll use this opportunity to quote my good friend Kayne West...

"the prettiest people do the ugliest things on the road to riches and diamond rings"

Ghost Leader wrote:

Tell me, how exactly did they build these companies into successful ventures if they've never put their hands down in the dirt, then? Did all the money just fall out of the air? Is there a money tree growing somewhere around here where they picked their millions off a tree and hired people to build them a successful business?

Yeah, it's called having already successful parents. Being born with a gold plated spoon shoved in their mouths while the rest of us are sucking on plastic ones. Already having a leg up on the competition. Being able to make mistakes with little consequences. It's easy to become successful when the odds are vastly in your favor. The movie Trading Places provided a great iteration of this point. Work ethic has little to do with becoming apart of the top 1%.

The truth is the self made CEOs that you're referring to are the minority.

Ghost Leader wrote:

Every business starts small, and how much each one grows is based on how much the owner puts into it and whether or not they have the chops to succeed.

And how much money a rich yuppie can buy it for, so he can turn it into a lifeless franchise

Ghost Leader wrote:

Leveling the playing field means everyone paying the same amount, regardless of what they earn. If a CEO has to pay out 2/3 of his 3 billion a year, as Nite put it, then so should everyone else should have to pay the same 2/3 regardless of their income level. Making someone pay more because they earn more is unfair.

Because they are the only ones who can afford it. You want to raise taxes for a mother who has to work multiple jobs in order to provide for her children or a middle class family who depends on each paycheck?

I'd like a legitimate response to my post. I still can't fathom how the waitress down the road who has to work 2 jobs and gets 4 hours a sleep at night just to survive is fair. Republicans often seem to have a skewed sense of justice. Is it survival of the fittest? Because if that law of nature still applied to humans, I think we'd all be dead.

Life ain't fair. I'm sure your parents told you. Everyone's parents told them that. And it's true, a tall black man with more stamina probably has more of a chance of succeeding at basketball than me, a short 5'5" Asian who has asthma. Is it fair that he gets to go onto college basketball and play all his life and get millions and I have to work hard and study to get a fraction of what he does as a nurse? No, but does it mean that he should give me his money? No. Even as a basketball player he still had to practice his craft.

Janitors and garbage men are important to the clean and functional society, but a janitor can't do a doctor's job. There's more risk, skill, and effort on the doctor's job than a janitor, it's why they get paid more. Anyone can be a janitor, but it doesn't mean they deserve the doctor's money just because they don't have equal wages. A CEO of a big company worked hard to get there, he creates more jobs for those who need it, and if you tax them for their hard work, they lose incentive to work harder. Lets look at a communist country, everyone gets paid equally, so why would you want to work harder if no one else does? You each get the same wage, there's no incentive.

I worked with a 40 year old single parent, who was stuck in a dead end fast food place, she had two kids she had to pay bills for an she had 4 day weeks with 16 hour days. She had some nursing and could go back to school any time she wanted, but she's fine getting extra help from the government. She could advance any time she wants, but she lost the incentive to because she gets hand outs from the government. Tell me how her getting money from people who actually advanced to succeed in life is fair when she doesn't feel the need to?

NiteKrawler wrote:

I'd like a legitimate response to my post. I still can't fathom how the waitress down the road who has to work 2 jobs and gets 4 hours a sleep at night just to survive is fair. Republicans often seem to have a skewed sense of justice. Is it survival of the fittest? Because if that law of nature still applied to humans, I think we'd all be dead.

You don't get a legit response to your post. Sorry.

That's politicis bitch!

Damn, guess Nite's thread has finally got some real political argumentments!

That's just it. CEOs really don't work all that hard to get there. Have you never seen the shows where some posh rich person tries to do a layman's work? They all nearly die. I understand the capitalist idea behind more lucrative jobs. The more scarce the employee, the higher paid it is. But capitalism, while great, needs socialism to plug in its holes. And the unequal distribution of wealth in this nation is a big hole. And don't you dare tell me for a second that these rich CEOs would give up their jobs even if they went down to 100k a year. Yeah. Right. They'd give that up so they could work in a factory breaking their back everyday for 9k a year because that's easier. Please. What you are proposing is a world where the lower class has to pander to the higher class and let them have every luxury in the world just so the higher class will keep throwing them table scraps to let them barely survive. That is disgraceful.

LMAO!!

Ghost Leader wrote:

NiteKrawler wrote:

Lol. Rich people having "the money they work for taken away" causing them to not work is kind of asinine. They already don't work for it. They have corporations that generally take care of themselves. Just because they get taxed a lot does not mean they are going to give up and just shut everything down. That's just not how it works.

Punishing someone for success isn't exactly honest either. Does it suck that the owners of Wal-Mart are driving solid gold Ferraris and I'm not? Sure, but that's the American dream: To make something of yourself. Building a business up into a success shouldn't be penalized. Even those giant mega corporations started small like the "mom and pop" shops that everyone is keen on preaching the values of.

Mercy wrote:

Exactly what Ghost said. Hard work shouldn't be punished,
they stayed in their stores day in and day out. Dave Thomas worked so
hard at Wendy's he didn't even know where his daughter's school was, and
now it's a huge franchise; why would you tax them for the hard work
they put in to get there? And look at how bad France has gotten, the
rich have to give up 75% of their earnings to the government. America is
headed in that direction. Everyone loses incentive. I'm not saying we
should shut down programs like welfare, but it should only be given to
those who actually need it, those who are looking for a job and have
their families begging for coins to feed their two kids on the side of a
Burger King. I'm sure they don't want to be there the rest of their
lives and they're obviously looking for work to support their family.

This is pretty much my view on the subject. I'm not the most politically savvy person in the world, but I do know that I'm a republican.

Republicans believe that the gross inequality of wealth and the caste system currently in place in our nation is justice. Sad.

NiteKrawler wrote:

That's just it. CEOs really don't work all that hard to get there. Have you never seen the shows where some posh rich person tries to do a layman's work? They all nearly die. I understand the capitalist idea behind more lucrative jobs. The more scarce the employee, the higher paid it is. But capitalism, while great, needs socialism to plug in its holes. And the unequal distribution of wealth in this nation is a big hole. And don't you dare tell me for a second that these rich CEOs would give up their jobs even if they went down to 100k a year. Yeah. Right. They'd give that up so they could work in a factory breaking their back everyday for 9k a year because that's easier. Please. What you are proposing is a world where the lower class has to pander to the higher class and let them have every luxury in the world just so the higher class will keep throwing them table scraps to let them barely survive. That is disgraceful.

I agree with NiteKrawler's views on the subject.

00biohazard wrote:

NiteKrawler wrote:

That's just it. CEOs really don't work all that hard to get there. Have you never seen the shows where some posh rich person tries to do a layman's work? They all nearly die. I understand the capitalist idea behind more lucrative jobs. The more scarce the employee, the higher paid it is. But capitalism, while great, needs socialism to plug in its holes. And the unequal distribution of wealth in this nation is a big hole. And don't you dare tell me for a second that these rich CEOs would give up their jobs even if they went down to 100k a year. Yeah. Right. They'd give that up so they could work in a factory breaking their back everyday for 9k a year because that's easier. Please. What you are proposing is a world where the lower class has to pander to the higher class and let them have every luxury in the world just so the higher class will keep throwing them table scraps to let them barely survive. That is disgraceful.

I agree with NiteKrawler's views on the subject.

I concur with Bio's views on the subject.