Obama and the younger generation

^^^Who?^^^

Doc, could you elaborate, please.

Although Charlie Christ is the florida governer who was elected republican and is behaving as a democrat, I assume he meant Christ. I was picking on him for the misspelling.

Duke wrote:

Tell your boss that he doesn't need to spend any money making sure your workplace is safe and healthy to work in, and he can pay yo whatever he wants to, even .01/hour.

Why on earth would I tell him that? I have no reason to agree to those conditions as terms of my employment. And last I heard, I was the one who decided where and how I was willing to work, not the government, thank you very much.

Well for a "free market" approach to work in that sense, things would have to be very different from how they are now...if all regulations on working conditions etc. were to be suddenly removed tomorrow, employers would have the working class by the balls and things would get really bad really fast.

To make things nice and fair, everyone would have to know how much everyone else is making at interview time for starters. That way a deal could be properly negotiated. Noncompete agreements and such would have to be a thing of the past. Can you see where I'm going with this?

Workers vs. Employers in a free market cage-match, DING DING!

Point: Taking a free-market approach to absolutely everything is a survivalist's approach to economics.

ohh, the H button is screwy on my laptop

I find it funny how everyone is out to convince people not to vote for the other side by scaring them into thinking that the other side is going to destroy the country.

I like McCain, I like Obama. I'd be happy to see either as President. I'm not going to try and sway you from your opinion of either.

I like Obama because he's young, intelligent, motivating (at least to some), and because I think our enemies will pay attention to someone of his character, and our allies will accept him with open arms. I see his age as a big factor in why I like him. He's young, I'm young. He has less experience, but he also has less bias because of it.

Haha...could you imagine if Charlie Christ were President?

The way I read other countries' interest in Obama is, that he's young and they can manipulate and push him around. It remains to be seen whether this is true or not. I do believe he has an idealistic viewpoint towards foreign policy. Who he picks as a cabinet, should he win, is going to be VERY important.

ATTENTION EVERYONE WHO THINKS THE OUTSIDE WORLD WANTS SOMETHING FROM THE USA.

We do not want anything from you, most never did. We want you to stop berkeleying with us, nothing more. You could say we literally want NOTHING from you.

There are many valid points to argue in this thread, but this idea's been thrown around too many times, it's silly and downright insulting.

I find your claim hard to believe gameboy

I know it's a cheesy thing to do, but I'm quoting myself, as I still haven't gotten a response from someone who "gets it." Can someone help me out here?

poopshovel wrote:

Duke- yes I DO get it

Well then, maybe you can explain it to me. The US is $9,389,160,361,045.06 in debt. My FEDERAL INCOME TAX ALONE is 30 freaking percent of my income, and apparently, that's not enough. So what's a fair tax rate? 50% of my income? Would that be enough to let the lazy, incompetent, and fiscally retarded to live to 100, while I work my ass off and die at 65? - at which point, by the way, if I'm fortunate enough to accumulate $1 million or more worth of assets (house, cars, retirement money, etc.,) Obama wants to take HALF of my E36 M3. I don't berkeleying think so. So explain it to me. What's the maximum percentage anyone should pay in taxes?

Is there anything to suggest that the outside world wants anything from the US? Maybe due diligence, and ideally a little cooperation, but certainly not help or money in any form. I'm sure many countries would like the US to have a president who thinks before he acts and respects the sovereignty and privacy of other countries, but beyond that?

Maybe other countries would like the US to have a president who doesn't run roughshod over anything that gets in the way of his/her whims without any consideration to anyone else...I wouldn't call that manipulative or pushing anyone around.

If that's the case lets totally cancel every last dime of foreign aid, close every military base and embassy. Lets also start manufacturing and building things HERE and stop buying everything from the people that hate us.

GameboyRMH wrote: Well for a "free market" approach to work in that sense, things would have to be very different from how they are now...if all regulations on working conditions etc. were to be suddenly removed tomorrow, employers would have the working class by the balls and things would get really bad really fast.

I'm not willing to concede that point entirely. It might be that manufacturing jobs stopped being America's largest export.

To make things nice and fair, everyone would have to know how much everyone else is making at interview time for starters. That way a deal could be properly negotiated.

I don't see how that follows AT ALL. It's up to me to decide what my work is worth. It's up to my employer to decide if I'm worth it to them. That decision is made on an individual basis - I don't see your point here at all.

Noncompete agreements and such would have to be a thing of the past. Can you see where I'm going with this?

Why would non-competes be a thing of the past? Again, those are terms of an agreement that either party may choose to enforce or accept. I fail to see why these would be impossible? Besides, non-competes benefit the employer more than the employee, so why would you care?

GameboyRMH wrote: ATTENTION EVERYONE WHO THINKS THE OUTSIDE WORLD WANTS SOMETHING FROM THE USA. We do not want anything from you, most never did. We want you to stop berkeleying with us, nothing more. You could say we literally want NOTHING from you. There are many valid points to argue in this thread, but this idea's been thrown around too many times, it's silly and downright insulting.

Then why are so many of you HERE, and more coming every day?

Duke wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: ATTENTION EVERYONE WHO THINKS THE OUTSIDE WORLD WANTS SOMETHING FROM THE USA. We do not want anything from you, most never did. We want you to stop berkeleying with us, nothing more. You could say we literally want NOTHING from you. There are many valid points to argue in this thread, but this idea's been thrown around too many times, it's silly and downright insulting.

Then why are so many of you HERE, and more coming every day?

Oh, Mexican illegal immigrants...I didn't realize you were making such a narrow argument. Yeah, they'd probably like a president who's not concerned about those damn dirty foreigners at the construction site, and they do want something out of America.

poopshovel wrote: I know it's a cheesy thing to do, but I'm quoting myself, as I still haven't gotten a response from someone who "gets it." Can someone help me out here?

poopshovel wrote:

Duke- yes I DO get it

Well then, maybe you can explain it to me. The US is $9,389,160,361,045.06 in debt. My FEDERAL INCOME TAX ALONE is 30 freaking percent of my income, and apparently, that's not enough. So what's a fair tax rate? 50% of my income? Would that be enough to let the lazy, incompetent, and fiscally retarded to live to 100, while I work my ass off and die at 65? - at which point, by the way, if I'm fortunate enough to accumulate $1 million or more worth of assets (house, cars, retirement money, etc.,) Obama wants to take HALF of my E36 M3. I don't berkeleying think so. So explain it to me. What's the maximum percentage anyone should pay in taxes?

You make half a million dollars a year(or more)?

triumph7 wrote: If that's the case lets totally cancel every last dime of foreign aid, close every military base and embassy. Lets also start manufacturing and building things HERE and stop buying everything from the people that hate us.

Foreign aid involves consent of both countries, am I wrong? I'm sure there are countries that would ask for help in the event of natural disasters, etc, but to say that they're all clamoring for a piece of the US is hogwash. Closing at least some military bases would probably be appreciated, but how many would exist if it weren't in America's best interest? Closing embassies wouldn't benefit anyone.

Lets also start manufacturing and building things HERE and stop buying everything from the people that hate us.

I think every country has at least a bit of a make-all-their-own-stuff attitude...although most countries don't quite hate America, they're just really fed up with America's behavior.

poopshovel wrote: I know it's a cheesy thing to do, but I'm quoting myself, as I still haven't gotten a response from someone who "gets it." Can someone help me out here?

Our government spends way more money than it takes in. There are two solutions, take in more or spend less. The people don't want to do A, and the gov't doesn't want to do B.

How much taxes is it alright to pay? That's a tough question. I can't give a solid %. I'd say, our government should collect enough in taxes to cover it's expenses. We should pay off our debts and then trim the fat. If we prompt our government to not spend money like a drunken mistress with a no-limit credit-card we can pay less than taxes and still have a healthy nation. If taxes got raised every time the government initiated a new program, the voters would be a lot more responsive to what their elected officials were doing and actually call for change. Congress can take actions that the voters don't feel and react to immediately.

I think our biggest problem with spending money goes kinda with Gameboy's point that, we feel an overwhelming need to stick out noses into everyone's business. Wars are expensive and it has become inappropriate to use them to generate revenue. Social services, while I'm not saying taxpayers should have to fund them, are insignificant compared to the cost of a war. I also don't think we can pull out of this now.

Actually, I favor raising taxes to pay for this war for the same reason I don't think a draft is a bad idea. It makes the event real and generates pressure to resolve the issue.

I'm not taking a pacifist stance here and saying "war is always bad". But it is incredibly significant, and if you're going to engage in one, you have to do so totally prepared to accept all consequences of your actions. If you can engage in war and then pass the bill to someone else, you have no accountability.

I hold the American people and the legislature and the executive branch all accountable for this war. Our elected officials would not have launched it if the people really raised hell. The voters wouldn't have been so ho-hum about it if they actually had to shoulder the economic burden.

I am more interested in holding our government accountable for botched foreign policy than botched domestic policy because our foreign policy costs more. Foreign policy also requires greater commitment and has greater consequences for failure. If we really decided we wanted to bail out of welfare, we would not be risking as much as bailing out of Iraq. Or maybe we would, maybe that would prompt people to domestic terrorism.

GameboyRMH wrote: Oh, Mexican illegal immigrants...I didn't realize you were making such a narrow argument. Yeah, they'd probably like a president who's not concerned about those damn dirty foreigners at the construction site, and they do want something out of America.

Who said anything about Mexican illegals? Let's see - I went out to dinner last night, followed by a trip to the grocery store:

My waitress was Russian, or East European of some sort. The people at the next table spoke French throughout the meal, except when they were ordering. Neither of those languages is native to the US.

While at the grocery store I heard Indian and Pakistani being spoken. I heard another woman speaking to her husband in German-accented English, and another man with French-accented English. None of THOSE is native to the US, either.

And that's discounting the Mexican busboys and the Puerto Rican landscape crew outside.

So much for your scathing generalizations (and misunderstanding of world politics).

And, on the subject of NOT WANTING ANYTHING FROM US, do you remember the Malaysian tsunami? Even though we gave more total money than any other nation in the world, America got criticized for not giving enough.

How can we not give enough of something that supposedly nobody wants?!

belteshazzar wrote:

poopshovel wrote: I know it's a cheesy thing to do, but I'm quoting myself, as I still haven't gotten a response from someone who "gets it." Can someone help me out here?

poopshovel wrote:

Duke- yes I DO get it

Well then, maybe you can explain it to me. The US is $9,389,160,361,045.06 in debt. My FEDERAL INCOME TAX ALONE is 30 freaking percent of my income, and apparently, that's not enough. So what's a fair tax rate? 50% of my income? Would that be enough to let the lazy, incompetent, and fiscally retarded to live to 100, while I work my ass off and die at 65? - at which point, by the way, if I'm fortunate enough to accumulate $1 million or more worth of assets (house, cars, retirement money, etc.,) Obama wants to take HALF of my E36 M3. I don't berkeleying think so. So explain it to me. What's the maximum percentage anyone should pay in taxes?

You make half a million dollars a year(or more)?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA That's berkeleying cute. No, but I am technically "President and CEO" of a corporation. I probably make a little less than your average landscaper. Keep in mind, I also match Federal Withholdings on our employees, AS WELL AS MYSELF, as I'm technically an "employee" of our business. The 30% doesn't include State income tax or sales tax.

So you can take your berkeleying sarcasm and stick it up your ass. I've said it before: The same dip-E36 M3s that complain about $4/gallon gas, a product that gets them to and from work (where money comes from,) have no berkeleying clue how much they paid in federal income tax (if anything,) or what those tax dollars pay for.

If we didn't feel the need to step in and fix everyone's problems, people would stop asking us to do it.

I guess that goes for both foreign and domestic policy.

Salanis wrote: If we didn't feel the need to step in and fix everyone's problems, people would stop asking us to do it.

If only that were true.

Poopshovel, I totally understand your complaint about hating how Democrats want to take half of your money. You should be outraged that they want to do that. I'm glad they're proposing it though. It makes the people feel the pain of what the government is doing. I don't like the concept of "we can help everyone and you won't feel any pain." That's dangerous.

Similarly, I'm proud of Schwarzenegger for saying "10% cut across the board; yes even to the vital things people care about, like education." That move sucked. It hurt. I don't want education to take that hit. But if got people's attention and forced people to think about the effects of carrying on business-as-usual.

Duke wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: Oh, Mexican illegal immigrants...I didn't realize you were making such a narrow argument. Yeah, they'd probably like a president who's not concerned about those damn dirty foreigners at the construction site, and they do want something out of America.

Who said anything about Mexican illegals? Let's see - I went out to dinner last night, followed by a trip to the grocery store: My waitress was Russian, or East European of some sort. The people at the next table spoke French throughout the meal, except when they were ordering. Neither of those languages is native to the US. While at the grocery store I heard Indian and Pakistani being spoken. I heard another woman speaking to her husband in German-accented English, and another man with French-accented English. None of THOSE is native to the US, either. And that's discounting the Mexican busboys and the Puerto Rican landscape crew outside.

Chances are they're all good tax-paying American citizens (or possibly good money-spewing tourists), that want the same thing as all the other good tax-paying American citizens (or tourists). If you have a problem with good tax-paying American citizens (or tourists) who speak different languages to each other, or have funny accents, that's just xenophobia. You could even place some blame on them if they were unable to speak the official language of the country (if they're citizens), but from what you've told me, you just heard some people speaking different languages to each other. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

Duke wrote: And, on the subject of NOT WANTING ANYTHING FROM US, do you remember the Malaysian tsunami? Even though we gave more total money than any other nation in the world, America got criticized for not giving enough. How can we not give enough of something that supposedly nobody wants?!

See my earlier points on voluntary aid vs. other things...I agree that criticizing the US for not giving enough was uncalled for.

Duke wrote:

Salanis wrote: If we didn't feel the need to step in and fix everyone's problems, people would stop asking us to do it.

If only that were true.

It is, but it won't happen quickly. We'd have to occasionally say, "we won't step in this time." People would be shocked and outraged that we didn't. But if we kept not-stepping-in, eventually people would get used to it and not be shocked and outraged every time.

I think it would be healthy if we didn't feel the need to always be the cowboy hero.