Is it just me, or does anyone else find that the way 'kid' is used on this forum makes people appear to be rather condescending?

 

 

 

@Saruman: You're right just because you disagree with Obama doesn't make you a racist and the people who accuse you of it are just being daft. That being said, I don't think USA is totally over its issues with race but hopefully you're all on the right track (as a nation I mean). That being said, I can only comment as an outsider on that.

Meh, fity fity chance I'd say.

 

 

 

What the... -.-

Meh, fity fity chance I'd say, based on your posting style and the average age of this subforum. I'm turning twenty in October.

 

 

 

Based on my posting style? Oh please, go ahead and tell me what you meant by that.

Im saying you sound older than the average tipiter, but at the same time im inclines to think you aren't in your thirties.

 

 

 

Please don't tell me you thought it was an attack. Again, been there, done that. Flame wars, especially over politics, are boring, commonplace and repetitive. At a certain point they just become too uninteresting to initiate.

Okay, I apologize. I did misunderstand what you meant. I am 31 though.

 

 

 

I do understand where you are coming from as well. My father is a Libertarian, and I get tired of defending my beliefs against him. Neither one of us will ever convince the other he is right.

 

 

 

Again, I owe you an apology. Politics do often become a circular argument.

What's wrong with Fox? Fox is fair- they actually bring in people of opposing views and have debates, instead of just agreeing with themselves. It's not perfectly between the left and the right, but it's fair man.

 

 

 

Oh, man, now I know you're being sarcastic. Are you that damn deluded to actually call the circus that is Fox news...news? CNN and MSNBC are bad enough, but at least what they shell out somewhat resembles news, somewhat. They never really call anyone out, except on rare occasion, and they rarely report anything of actual worth, but they don't flat out lie to their audiences. I'd say NPR is someone's best bet for "fair and balanced" news, because it doesn't distort things. Although, they refused to call torture for what it is, and instead kept shilling that "enhanced interrogation technique" jargon.

 

 

 

Sure, it's fair and balanced. It's fair and balanced so much so that when Bill O'Reilly brings on an opposing guest and gets his [wagon] spanked, he yells, screams, hollers, and when that's not enough he cuts your mic.

 

 

 

What's the purpose of news? To be informed and educated. Why are Fox viewers so ill informed? Christ, 2/3 of their viewer ship, as of 2003, believed Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. The more you watch, the less informed and educated you become:

 

 

 

[yt]DzLdVNM9pQ8[/yt]

 

 

 

Yeah, a network where 80% of their viewers have one or more misconceptions about reality is soooo fair and balanced. That sounds like setting the middle as the virtue again (although Fox doesn't represent the middle whatsoever). When one side preaches peace and one side preaches genocide, the middle is not ideal. So even if you ARE fair and balanced, that doesn't mean you're doing your job, and that's to inform the public. They are a [cabbage] stain on our democratic republic because of how misinformed the populace is.

 

 

 

More on why they fail:

 

 

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/200907010013

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/200906250041

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So he's not socialist just because he wants to put all the tax burden on the rich to form UHC (which, mind you, isn't even what the general public is concerned about right now, since only 5 million American citizens of three hundred million even legitamitely need health care and can't afford it)?

 

 

 

Lol, oh jeez. Where to begin.

 

 

 

1.) Progressive taxation is not socialism. If you argue that the rich shouldn't pay a higher rate than the poor, and to otherwise do so amounts to socialism, then that's your problem. Not even the majority of Republicans assert such an asinine proposal, although a lot of them would just looove for that "fair" sales tax that would cripple the poor and be a huge gift to the wealthy.

 

 

 

Oh that Ronald Reagan who increased taxes later on to make up for the huge budget and trade deficits that he created, and is somehow a conservative icon despite increasing the government and implementing so many protectionist measures, he's just such a socialist. Him and his higher tax rates for the wealthy than are currently in place. It's just...awful. And George Bush Senior, that evil socialist commie bastard also increased taxes to make up for some of his budget deficits, what a socialist. And that tax and spend liberal, Bill Clinton, how dare he have higher tax rates during his tenure than are currently in place; he's such a socialist pinko hippie who happened to balance the budget, something no modern conservative can say they did.

 

 

 

And John McCain? Here he is on video admitting to how red he is, through and through:

 

 

 

[yt]X2JPbQOHEkY[/yt]

 

 

 

He admits it!

 

 

 

2.) The general public isn't concerned about health care reform? I mean, it was only the second most important issue during the entire campaign, short of the economy (and had there not been an entire collapse because of a bubble built under George Bush's watch due to Hank Paulson and Alan Greenspan's incompetence, that probably wouldn't have been the case), but never mind those liberal facts. Let's talk about your 5 million lie for a second, discuss the 100+ million who are underinsured, and the 14,000 who lost their insurance today.

 

 

 

a.) 5 million who are not insured but can't pay for it. Well, for one, the 5 million number is a lie. I mean, how many provisions do you have to put in to even get that number? You say legitimately need, when who really defines who legitimately needs it? I'll give you a hint, everyone needs it, and without single payer, should be mandated to buy it. You are a risk to my tax dollars for not being insured, you cause my premiums to go up if you have an accident and go to the ER without insurance. You not having insurance results in a $1,000 tax per family because of medical bills not being paid, which either the hospital or the government pays. They can't afford it. Yeah, but the number who can't afford it is much higher than 5 million. The average health insurance plan for a family of four these days runs about $12,680 a year in premiums. The average house hold in America brings in what? Like $50,000? Oh, yeah, that's definitely only 5 million who can't afford it, genius. 1/4 of their wealth goes to health insurance PREMIUMS per year.

 

 

 

b.) This isn't just about "5 million" who aren't insured, this is about America going bankrupt because health care costs DOUBLING in 10 years, 2.5x faster than inflation and 3x faster than wages. Meanwhile, more people are losing their insurance because employers can't afford it; more people are going into poverty over it; and they cause 2/3 of bankruptcies in this country. Why should ANYONE go into bankruptcy over their health care bills, WHEN they HAVE insurance? It shouldn't happen, period. Nada, never, no. It happens nowhere else but here, your capitalist utopia.

 

 

 

c.) 18,000 people die a year in this country because they don't have access to medical treatment. How does that grab your conscious? Is that just reality to you? Because other countries spend less money, far less money, and that doesn't happen. We're ranked number one in this area (preventable deaths), so I guess you can say we're number one at something.

 

 

 

d.) People who have insurance are cut loose for things like preexisting conditions, even after spending money on premiums. Others aren't allowed in the pooling risk at all. 14,000 people are losing their insurance every day. More and more people are being dropped from their employer's insurance, and without government programs like Medicare and Medicaid, this health care situation would be far worse. So many elderly would be in poverty, and they were--prior to Medicare that is.

 

 

 

e.) The public option is dead, count on it. These corporate [bleep] and sellouts have given in, and Max Baucus has let a Well Point VP write his health care plan. You'd think they'd be better at hiding it, but they just don't care anymore. It's so obvious, but even if it wasn't, Liz Fowler's name was on the documents. I'd think they'd care more, but I guess it's so obvious that they're bought by the insurance companies that they don't care.

 

 

 

f.) Even if it wasn't dead, those taxes would be "priming the pump." Basically, setting it in place. Once it's in place, that "sur tax" would go away. Nonetheless, it's not even his proposal, that was the House's proposal. Anyway, the public option would be funded by premiums only. So where are you getting that he's paying for this with taxes, when it's selfsustaining? Too much Fox News?

 

 

 

I'm not saying it as an insult or some Red crazy [cabbage], I'm just stating it as a neutral opinion.

 

 

 

Opinions aren't neutral, sorry. You don't even know what the hell socialism is. If he's a socialist by your definitions, every president since the 16th amendment have been socialist.

 

 

 

He plans to greatly increase government control through increased spending and nationalization of various fields of the market ("Stimulus package", etc.)

 

 

 

Buahahahaha. Omg, you are a joke. Have you taken a single economics class? I know you're an engineer, so it might serve you well to take Econ 101 to know what you're talking about when discussing economics.

 

 

 

a.) Increased spending. Hmmm, what increased spending? All of those deficits? Those are George Bush's. Obama accounts for a tiny percentage of them:

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat ... e_republic

 

 

 

Thanks, Dean Baker, the economist who first called this housing bubble, for that handy chart.

 

 

 

b.) Nationalization. What's he nationalizing? If you were to take a quiz right now on misconceptions due to watching too much Fox News, you would fail, really hard. GM? Please. It's not nationalized, and it's not going to stay the way that it currently is. Had we not done what we did, millions more would be out of work. Do you know why GM sucks so hard, as do most motor companies in America? No, it's not unions; Scandinavia has an 80% union rate among their entire workforce, try again. It's health care costs. Burdening employers with skyrocketing health care costs, when it should be a single payer system just like every other civilized nation.

 

 

 

c.) Stimulus package. Here's where basic economics would help you out. You're arguing against a stimulus package, something practically every economist supports barring the Austrian school wing nuts? Warren Buffet is such a socialist, him and his arguing for a second stimulus package and everything...

 

 

 

Our GDP is expected to have grown 3% due to that stimulus package this quarter. Do you know how much money would have been LOST if the economy shrank and contracted? I know you conservatives and your knee jerking reject thinking outside the box, but when an economy contracts, the government loses a [cabbage] ton of money, investors back off, people go unemployed, and the economy sucks. By sitting back and doing nothing, we would have lost a hell of a lot more than $787 billion dollars.

 

 

 

John Keynes understood the danger of allowing the economy to go under, which is why he was a close advisor to FDR. He was no socialist, he belonged to the conservative party in Europe. As an idea capitalism wasn't dead, but had things gotten worse, we certainly wouldn't be capitalist. People are emotional, not rational. The Great Depression almost brought about socialism, because capitalism's "failure" was being blamed. It's why he argued against punished Germany after World War I; and he was vindicated by the rise of the Nazi Party. Too bad Churchill didn't heed his advice. Thanks to Keynes, we are still a capitalist nation, just like most of Europe (barring Portugal).

 

 

 

mimicing much of Europe

 

 

 

How are we mimicking much of Europe? If anything, we still haven't learned our god damned lesson. As Winston Churchill once said, You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else. We still haven't learned. This health care bill, as it currently stands, is going to be one gigantic failure. In some ways I support doing nothing, because it seems it takes an entire economic collapse for this damned country to wake up and smell the coffee; it's what got us social security. We don't believe in evolution. We don't believe in climate change. We are still dropping bombs for peace and "democracy." To say we're mimicking Europe would be an insult, and if I were European, I would take it as one.

 

 

 

to do that he plans to further equalize the control of wealth by taxing higher income earners and giving their money to the poor.

 

 

 

I showed you that wealth gap chart before, but allow me to refresh your memory:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, they currently control more of the wealth than they did before an income tax. Giving it to them how? By educating them? By keeping them healthy? By keeping crime lower? By giving them retirement (which is capped at 107,000 or so anyway)?

 

 

 

The rich benefit from the poor being educated, healthy, and from lower crime rates. All of these things are combated or encouraged by public education, should be encouraged by a national health plan, and crime is combated by keeping people out of poverty. The wealthy get way more out of the government, so why shouldn't they pay more of their fair share? It's called living in a society, and a society can't be healthy when the wealth gaps are approaching Mexico's.

 

 

 

That seems socialist, or at least in my opinion it crosses the blurred line into socialism.

 

 

 

Yeah, to someone who doesn't know what the [bleep] socialism even is. Buy a dictionary, I assume you and your parents are rich enough. No hand outs for you.

 

 

 

I'm not those conservatives you angrly debate all day in your politics club.

 

 

 

yes you are, you make the same arguments. You said I try and hide straw men in intellectualism (which isn't true in the first place, seeing as I almost never build straw men to knock down). You're just someone who tries to appear to be independent and non-biased as a front to make your arguments seem appealing.

 

 

 

The whole Sotomayor debacle taught me an important lesson, and I think it's the true difference between conservatives and liberals; that's empathy. You clearly have none, you can't for one second put yourself in someone else's shoes. It's not even sympathy or pity, it's empathy. Trying to understand why they're in the place that they're in. It's obvious you have never experienced anything that the majority of this populace experiences. I would never wish upon you harm or for you to lose your own health insurance, but maybe if you do, then you'll wake up and grow up.

 

 

 

edit: oh, and look what I found:

 

 

 

The U.S. Census Bureau has just announced that the poverty rate for 2008 was 13.2%. This means the number of people in poverty has increased by about 2.5 million, to 39.8 million. To give you some perspective, 2.5 million is more than the number of people who live in Detroit and San Francisco combined.

 

 

 

http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/poverty_day.aspx

 

 

 

Remember, increases in poverty = more crime and less economic growth.

 

 

 

But but but, tax cuts for the rich that aren't paid for will create jobs and "trickle down!"

 

 

 

edit2: More!

 

 

 

The Census Bureau just released its latest income, poverty, and health insurance numbers for 2008. As it reports, the number of uninsured rose by 680,000 between 2007 and 2008, from 45.66 million to about 46.34 million. Im only relieved things werent worse.

 

 

 

Things would have been worse but for one thing: continued expansion of government-provided health insurance coverage. Between 2007 and 2008, the proportion of Americans reporting any private coverage fell by 0.8 percentage points, from 67.5 percent to 66.7 percent. Meanwhile, the percentage reporting some form of government coverage rose by 1.2 points, from 27.8 percent to 29.0 percent.

 

 

 

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/m ... been-worse

Buahahahaha. Omg, you are a joke. Have you taken a single economics class? I know you're an engineer, so it might serve you well to take Econ 101 to know what you're talking about when discussing economics.

 

 

 

yes you are, you make the same arguments. You said I try and hide straw men in intellectualism (which isn't true in the first place, seeing as I almost never build straw men to knock down). You're just someone who tries to appear to be independent and non-biased as a front to make your arguments seem appealing.

 

 

 

The whole Sotomayor debacle taught me an important lesson, and I think it's the true difference between conservatives and liberals; that's empathy. You clearly have none, you can't for one second put yourself in someone else's shoes. It's not even sympathy or pity, it's empathy. Trying to understand why they're in the place that they're in. It's obvious you have never experienced anything that the majority of this populace experiences. I would never wish upon you harm or for you to lose your own health insurance, but maybe if you do, then you'll wake up and grow up.

 

 

 

Obviously you know what you're talking about when it comes to the actual debate... but when you talk like that, you end up slaughtering the chances of people taking you seriously. After reading that I can physically see the pretension emitting from my screen. Jeez. You owe me a new computer.

 

 

 

Keep up the good work with the political arguing. :thumbup: But for crying out loud, flaming is not your cup of tea. STOP =; Let's save that art for the more talented.

This is interesting and all, but I fail to see how this relates to Obama's speech.

Keep up the good work with the political arguing. :thumbup: But for crying out loud, flaming is not your cup of tea. STOP =; Let's save that art for the more talented.

 

Like me. Wahaha.

So what difference does it make if Obama tells it, or some junkie from the street ? I'll let you figure this one out. ;)

 

 

 

It was a waste of my time because it took up class periods where I could have actually been learning something.

 

Keep telling yourself that. :-w

 

 

 

 

 

thats exactly my point. it doesnt make any difference at all who said it, its the same thing. which is why it was a waste of my time.

 

 

 

Is it really that hard for you to understand?

 

 

 

Your mother sucks [bleep] for a living.

 

 

 

See, you didn't believe me, hell you would even go so far as to insult me. Imagine that !

 

 

 

But if your father told the same thing to you, you would have had a different reaction, and I'll take my chances that you might even believe him.

 

 

 

Pssst. It's true.

 

 

 

Even if I dont agree with Obama's policy, hell, I'm not even American, I can see what he is trying to do [for whatever reason] and why he's trying to do it.

 

 

 

Also, I meant no offence when I said what I said. Only used for educational purposes. :lol:

Ladies, ladies. Once you start arguing politics, you'll just keep spiralling out of control. No need for petty areguments. Believe what you believe, keep it to your damn self. It saves a lot of pain, fustration, and...*shudder*...debating :ohnoes:

This is interesting and all, but I fail to see how this relates to Obama's speech.

 

 

 

I quote myself again. Next is a lock.

This is interesting and all, but I fail to see how this relates to Obama's speech.

 

 

 

I quote myself again. Next is a lock.

 

The speech is over, I think everyone's had their opinions in on it. Now people are just having a healthy political debate. I don't see why that's so bad.

Lets just keep the conversation ON TOPIC and it won't be an issue. ;-)

 

 

 

Insulting each other with a mix of age and political beliefs kinda to prove your maturity seems a bit futile.

I think it has stayed on topic. :wall: Might as well have locked it instead of making threats to. You're aiming to kill the discussion either way.

[hide=long quote]

What's wrong with Fox? Fox is fair- they actually bring in people of opposing views and have debates, instead of just agreeing with themselves. It's not perfectly between the left and the right, but it's fair man.

 

 

 

Oh, man, now I know you're being sarcastic. Are you that damn deluded to actually call the circus that is Fox news...news? CNN and MSNBC are bad enough, but at least what they shell out somewhat resembles news, somewhat. They never really call anyone out, except on rare occasion, and they rarely report anything of actual worth, but they don't flat out lie to their audiences. I'd say NPR is someone's best bet for "fair and balanced" news, because it doesn't distort things. Although, they refused to call torture for what it is, and instead kept shilling that "enhanced interrogation technique" jargon.

 

 

 

Sure, it's fair and balanced. It's fair and balanced so much so that when Bill O'Reilly brings on an opposing guest and gets his [wagon] spanked, he yells, screams, hollers, and when that's not enough he cuts your mic.

 

 

 

What's the purpose of news? To be informed and educated. Why are Fox viewers so ill informed? Christ, 2/3 of their viewer ship, as of 2003, believed Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. The more you watch, the less informed and educated you become:

 

 

 

[yt]DzLdVNM9pQ8[/yt]

 

 

 

Yeah, a network where 80% of their viewers have one or more misconceptions about reality is soooo fair and balanced. That sounds like setting the middle as the virtue again (although Fox doesn't represent the middle whatsoever). When one side preaches peace and one side preaches genocide, the middle is not ideal. So even if you ARE fair and balanced, that doesn't mean you're doing your job, and that's to inform the public. They are a [cabbage] stain on our democratic republic because of how misinformed the populace is.

 

 

 

More on why they fail:

 

 

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/200907010013

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/200906250041

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So he's not socialist just because he wants to put all the tax burden on the rich to form UHC (which, mind you, isn't even what the general public is concerned about right now, since only 5 million American citizens of three hundred million even legitamitely need health care and can't afford it)?

 

 

 

Lol, oh jeez. Where to begin.

 

 

 

1.) Progressive taxation is not socialism. If you argue that the rich shouldn't pay a higher rate than the poor, and to otherwise do so amounts to socialism, then that's your problem. Not even the majority of Republicans assert such an asinine proposal, although a lot of them would just looove for that "fair" sales tax that would cripple the poor and be a huge gift to the wealthy.

 

 

 

Oh that Ronald Reagan who increased taxes later on to make up for the huge budget and trade deficits that he created, and is somehow a conservative icon despite increasing the government and implementing so many protectionist measures, he's just such a socialist. Him and his higher tax rates for the wealthy than are currently in place. It's just...awful. And George Bush Senior, that evil socialist commie bastard also increased taxes to make up for some of his budget deficits, what a socialist. And that tax and spend liberal, Bill Clinton, how dare he have higher tax rates during his tenure than are currently in place; he's such a socialist pinko hippie who happened to balance the budget, something no modern conservative can say they did.

 

 

 

And John McCain? Here he is on video admitting to how red he is, through and through:

 

 

 

[yt]X2JPbQOHEkY[/yt]

 

 

 

He admits it!

 

 

 

2.) The general public isn't concerned about health care reform? I mean, it was only the second most important issue during the entire campaign, short of the economy (and had there not been an entire collapse because of a bubble built under George Bush's watch due to Hank Paulson and Alan Greenspan's incompetence, that probably wouldn't have been the case), but never mind those liberal facts. Let's talk about your 5 million lie for a second, discuss the 100+ million who are underinsured, and the 14,000 who lost their insurance today.

 

 

 

a.) 5 million who are not insured but can't pay for it. Well, for one, the 5 million number is a lie. I mean, how many provisions do you have to put in to even get that number? You say legitimately need, when who really defines who legitimately needs it? I'll give you a hint, everyone needs it, and without single payer, should be mandated to buy it. You are a risk to my tax dollars for not being insured, you cause my premiums to go up if you have an accident and go to the ER without insurance. You not having insurance results in a $1,000 tax per family because of medical bills not being paid, which either the hospital or the government pays. They can't afford it. Yeah, but the number who can't afford it is much higher than 5 million. The average health insurance plan for a family of four these days runs about $12,680 a year in premiums. The average house hold in America brings in what? Like $50,000? Oh, yeah, that's definitely only 5 million who can't afford it, genius. 1/4 of their wealth goes to health insurance PREMIUMS per year.

 

 

 

b.) This isn't just about "5 million" who aren't insured, this is about America going bankrupt because health care costs DOUBLING in 10 years, 2.5x faster than inflation and 3x faster than wages. Meanwhile, more people are losing their insurance because employers can't afford it; more people are going into poverty over it; and they cause 2/3 of bankruptcies in this country. Why should ANYONE go into bankruptcy over their health care bills, WHEN they HAVE insurance? It shouldn't happen, period. Nada, never, no. It happens nowhere else but here, your capitalist utopia.

 

 

 

c.) 18,000 people die a year in this country because they don't have access to medical treatment. How does that grab your conscious? Is that just reality to you? Because other countries spend less money, far less money, and that doesn't happen. We're ranked number one in this area (preventable deaths), so I guess you can say we're number one at something.

 

 

 

d.) People who have insurance are cut loose for things like preexisting conditions, even after spending money on premiums. Others aren't allowed in the pooling risk at all. 14,000 people are losing their insurance every day. More and more people are being dropped from their employer's insurance, and without government programs like Medicare and Medicaid, this health care situation would be far worse. So many elderly would be in poverty, and they were--prior to Medicare that is.

 

 

 

e.) The public option is dead, count on it. These corporate [bleep] and sellouts have given in, and Max Baucus has let a Well Point VP write his health care plan. You'd think they'd be better at hiding it, but they just don't care anymore. It's so obvious, but even if it wasn't, Liz Fowler's name was on the documents. I'd think they'd care more, but I guess it's so obvious that they're bought by the insurance companies that they don't care.

 

 

 

f.) Even if it wasn't dead, those taxes would be "priming the pump." Basically, setting it in place. Once it's in place, that "sur tax" would go away. Nonetheless, it's not even his proposal, that was the House's proposal. Anyway, the public option would be funded by premiums only. So where are you getting that he's paying for this with taxes, when it's selfsustaining? Too much Fox News?

 

 

 

I'm not saying it as an insult or some Red crazy [cabbage], I'm just stating it as a neutral opinion.

 

 

 

Opinions aren't neutral, sorry. You don't even know what the hell socialism is. If he's a socialist by your definitions, every president since the 16th amendment have been socialist.

 

 

 

He plans to greatly increase government control through increased spending and nationalization of various fields of the market ("Stimulus package", etc.)

 

 

 

Buahahahaha. Omg, you are a joke. Have you taken a single economics class? I know you're an engineer, so it might serve you well to take Econ 101 to know what you're talking about when discussing economics.

 

 

 

a.) Increased spending. Hmmm, what increased spending? All of those deficits? Those are George Bush's. Obama accounts for a tiny percentage of them:

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat ... e_republic

 

 

 

Thanks, Dean Baker, the economist who first called this housing bubble, for that handy chart.

 

 

 

b.) Nationalization. What's he nationalizing? If you were to take a quiz right now on misconceptions due to watching too much Fox News, you would fail, really hard. GM? Please. It's not nationalized, and it's not going to stay the way that it currently is. Had we not done what we did, millions more would be out of work. Do you know why GM sucks so hard, as do most motor companies in America? No, it's not unions; Scandinavia has an 80% union rate among their entire workforce, try again. It's health care costs. Burdening employers with skyrocketing health care costs, when it should be a single payer system just like every other civilized nation.

 

 

 

c.) Stimulus package. Here's where basic economics would help you out. You're arguing against a stimulus package, something practically every economist supports barring the Austrian school wing nuts? Warren Buffet is such a socialist, him and his arguing for a second stimulus package and everything...

 

 

 

Our GDP is expected to have grown 3% due to that stimulus package this quarter. Do you know how much money would have been LOST if the economy shrank and contracted? I know you conservatives and your knee jerking reject thinking outside the box, but when an economy contracts, the government loses a [cabbage] ton of money, investors back off, people go unemployed, and the economy sucks. By sitting back and doing nothing, we would have lost a hell of a lot more than $787 billion dollars.

 

 

 

John Keynes understood the danger of allowing the economy to go under, which is why he was a close advisor to FDR. He was no socialist, he belonged to the conservative party in Europe. As an idea capitalism wasn't dead, but had things gotten worse, we certainly wouldn't be capitalist. People are emotional, not rational. The Great Depression almost brought about socialism, because capitalism's "failure" was being blamed. It's why he argued against punished Germany after World War I; and he was vindicated by the rise of the Nazi Party. Too bad Churchill didn't heed his advice. Thanks to Keynes, we are still a capitalist nation, just like most of Europe (barring Portugal).

 

 

 

mimicing much of Europe

 

 

 

How are we mimicking much of Europe? If anything, we still haven't learned our god damned lesson. As Winston Churchill once said, You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else. We still haven't learned. This health care bill, as it currently stands, is going to be one gigantic failure. In some ways I support doing nothing, because it seems it takes an entire economic collapse for this damned country to wake up and smell the coffee; it's what got us social security. We don't believe in evolution. We don't believe in climate change. We are still dropping bombs for peace and "democracy." To say we're mimicking Europe would be an insult, and if I were European, I would take it as one.

 

 

 

to do that he plans to further equalize the control of wealth by taxing higher income earners and giving their money to the poor.

 

 

 

I showed you that wealth gap chart before, but allow me to refresh your memory:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, they currently control more of the wealth than they did before an income tax. Giving it to them how? By educating them? By keeping them healthy? By keeping crime lower? By giving them retirement (which is capped at 107,000 or so anyway)?

 

 

 

The rich benefit from the poor being educated, healthy, and from lower crime rates. All of these things are combated or encouraged by public education, should be encouraged by a national health plan, and crime is combated by keeping people out of poverty. The wealthy get way more out of the government, so why shouldn't they pay more of their fair share? It's called living in a society, and a society can't be healthy when the wealth gaps are approaching Mexico's.

 

 

 

That seems socialist, or at least in my opinion it crosses the blurred line into socialism.

 

 

 

Yeah, to someone who doesn't know what the [bleep] socialism even is. Buy a dictionary, I assume you and your parents are rich enough. No hand outs for you.

 

 

 

I'm not those conservatives you angrly debate all day in your politics club.

 

 

 

yes you are, you make the same arguments. You said I try and hide straw men in intellectualism (which isn't true in the first place, seeing as I almost never build straw men to knock down). You're just someone who tries to appear to be independent and non-biased as a front to make your arguments seem appealing.

 

 

 

The whole Sotomayor debacle taught me an important lesson, and I think it's the true difference between conservatives and liberals; that's empathy. You clearly have none, you can't for one second put yourself in someone else's shoes. It's not even sympathy or pity, it's empathy. Trying to understand why they're in the place that they're in. It's obvious you have never experienced anything that the majority of this populace experiences. I would never wish upon you harm or for you to lose your own health insurance, but maybe if you do, then you'll wake up and grow up.

 

 

 

edit: oh, and look what I found:

 

 

 

The U.S. Census Bureau has just announced that the poverty rate for 2008 was 13.2%. This means the number of people in poverty has increased by about 2.5 million, to 39.8 million. To give you some perspective, 2.5 million is more than the number of people who live in Detroit and San Francisco combined.

 

 

 

http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/poverty_day.aspx

 

 

 

Remember, increases in poverty = more crime and less economic growth.

 

 

 

But but but, tax cuts for the rich that aren't paid for will create jobs and "trickle down!"

 

 

 

edit2: More!

 

 

 

The Census Bureau just released its latest income, poverty, and health insurance numbers for 2008. As it reports, the number of uninsured rose by 680,000 between 2007 and 2008, from 45.66 million to about 46.34 million. Im only relieved things werent worse.

 

 

 

Things would have been worse but for one thing: continued expansion of government-provided health insurance coverage. Between 2007 and 2008, the proportion of Americans reporting any private coverage fell by 0.8 percentage points, from 67.5 percent to 66.7 percent. Meanwhile, the percentage reporting some form of government coverage rose by 1.2 points, from 27.8 percent to 29.0 percent.

 

 

 

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/m ... been-worse[/hide]

 

 

 

Actually I found this REALLY cool website, it's so balanced omg. I go there every day for my info :thumbsup:

 

 

 

Www.TheOnion.Com