• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Thanks, Obama.

lESvZ.gif
 
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Deacfreak07 again."

Thanks, Obama.
 
PhDeac said:
It's always funny to me that conservatives who want to raise taxes on the poor don't realize they're taking money out of the private sector and giving it to the government.
Click to expand...

It's funny that taking money out of the economy isn't an issue for liberals as long as it's from the wealthy. Even though wealthy people create more jobs than poor people ever will.

PhDeac said:
The skin in the game argument is ridiculous. The idea that people whose livelihood depends on the social safety net care less than the people who don't need it makes no sense.

The second counter is Wake athletics.
Click to expand...

Relating to the other post, I still don't understand what this phrase means. I have no problem with a safety net, or backstop, or whatever, and if one's livelihood only depends on it for the short term and until a person can get back on his feet, and we're not talking about generational welfare, then fine, I'm sorry I misunderstood what you were saying.
 
It's pretty much guaranteed that increasing taxes on the poor takes away from money they have to spend in the economy. The wealthy have money stored away who knows where. Taxes could prevent domestic spending or it could come at the expense of spending abroad. Who knows? All I'm saying is you know the poor are spending what they make close to home and money that goes to government isn't trickling up the latter to the wealthy.

I'm talking about any way that someone finds themselves short. You seem to think "generational welfare" is something people do on purpose and getting out of welfare is an easy thing people choose not to do.
 
" Even though wealthy people create more jobs than poor people ever will. "

A RW myth and total misunderstanding of a capitalistic market.

If the rich create so many jobs, why haven't they in an era of historically low taxes? Your RW talking point is total crap.

The way jobs are created is to create demand. If a large segment of society cannot participate in demand, the market will not expand, create jobs or create optimum wealth.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
I know what you meant with this, but this is actually great. It would pretty much take the Son of God creating things out of thin air for socialism to work.
Click to expand...

Its a good thing then that there is no meaningful socialist party in the us and no major candidate espouses anything resembling socialism. Unless what you mean by socialism is "government".

Most of the economic policies recommended by the current president would have been considered center right in the first bush administration.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
PhDeac said:
It's always funny to me that conservatives who want to raise taxes on the poor don't realize they're taking money out of the private sector and giving it to the government.
Click to expand...

PhDeac said:
Turd, for a newcomer to the Tunnels, you're using some classic tactics. You're building an impressive strawman so you can debate a bunch of things I didn't say. This is what you have a problem with:

"The idea that people whose livelihood depends on the social safety net care less than the people who don't need it makes no sense."

You responded by saying: "Did you just refer to government welfare as a "livelihood"? Seriously?"

The simple answer to that is no. I said livelihood depends on the social safety net, not livelihood is welfare.

I was talking about people whose means to securing the necessities of life depend on government programs as a backstop. You're working from the myth that the only people who use the social safety net are people who do not work at all. That's not true.

You also seem to ignore the fact that the amount of money that it takes to secure the necessities of life continues to increase while wages are not. A person in a low wage job providing for a family of 4 isn't going to get out of poverty without some radical change in their circumstances, something so radical that we can't expect everybody in that situation to do it as well.

I'm a little confused by your second paragraph because you're using the old disagree, then agree tactic. I'm not sure who you're trying to impress there. You could have just said, "I agree that Bush's education policy was big government education bureaucracy that is destroying public education".
Click to expand...

PH, I appreciate your using the old "my condescending tone will prove I'm smarter than you" tactic. I'm not operating from any myth. In my series of posts I have said that, while I don't see any constitutional mandate for a safety net or whatever you want to call it, I'm fine with short term help. Call it what it is, charity, not entitlements. I am not okay with long-term redistributing of wealth to people who could work but do not. If you don't think that is a huge problem then you have your head in the sand.

And yes, Bush's education policies added needless bureaucracy that negatively affected education. Would you agree that any policy that adds bureaucracy which negatively affects education is a bad thing? Or is it only bad when a Republican does it? I could not tell from your post.
 
Deacon923 said:
Its a good thing then that there is no meaningful socialist party in the us and no major candidate espouses anything resembling socialism. Unless what you mean by socialism is "government".


Most of the economic policies recommended by the current president would have been considered center right in the first bush administration.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

There's a huge socialist undertone in American political policy and has been for a century. And once again, I'm not a republican and not a fan of Bush so to continue to bring him up doesn't really accomplish anything. Bush spent way too much money and did not govern like a conservative at all.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
PH, I appreciate your using the old "my condescending tone will prove I'm smarter than you" tactic. I'm not operating from any myth. In my series of posts I have said that, while I don't see any constitutional mandate for a safety net or whatever you want to call it, I'm fine with short term help. Call it what it is, charity, not entitlements. I am not okay with long-term redistributing of wealth to people who could work but do not. If you don't think that is a huge problem then you have your head in the sand.

And yes, Bush's education policies added needless bureaucracy that negatively affected education. Would you agree that any policy that adds bureaucracy which negatively affects education is a bad thing? Or is it only bad when a Republican does it? I could not tell from your post.
Click to expand...

Yes. You're new, but I've made this clear many times. The fact is Republicans at the federal and state level have greatly increased bureaucracy in education far beyond Democrats, so your question doesn't make much sense in context.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
PH, I appreciate your using the old "my condescending tone will prove I'm smarter than you" tactic. I'm not operating from any myth. In my series of posts I have said that, while I don't see any constitutional mandate for a safety net or whatever you want to call it, I'm fine with short term help. Call it what it is, charity, not entitlements. I am not okay with long-term redistributing of wealth to people who could work but do not. If you don't think that is a huge problem then you have your head in the sand.

And yes, Bush's education policies added needless bureaucracy that negatively affected education. Would you agree that any policy that adds bureaucracy which negatively affects education is a bad thing? Or is it only bad when a Republican does it? I could not tell from your post.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, what evidence do you have that there is a "huge problem" with people who could work but do not? Other than some email you got about a person with expensive tattoos in the ER?


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
Turd's premise about people in welfare is simply not the case. Here are the facts:

Welfare Statistics
Total number of Americans on welfare 4,300,000
Total number of Americans on food stamps 46,700,000
Total number of Americans on unemployment insurance 5,600,000
Percent of the US population on welfare 4.1 %

Total government spending on welfare annually (not including food stamps or unemployment) $131.9 billion
Welfare Demographics
Percent of recipients who are white 38.8 %
Percent of recipients who are black 39.8 %
Percent of recipients who are Hispanic 15.7 %
Percent of recipients who are Asian 2.4 %
Percent of recipients who are Other 3.3 %

Welfare Statistics
Total amount of money you can make monthly and still receive Welfare $1000
Total Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than an $8 per hour job 40
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than a $12 per hour job 7
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than the average salary of a U.S. Teacher 9

Average Time on AFCD (Aid to Families with Dependent Children)
Time on AFDC Percent of Recipients
Less than 7 months 19%
7 to 12 months 15.2%
1 to 2 years 19.3%
2 to 5 years 26.9%
Over 5 years 19.6%
 
Turd Ferguson said:
It's funny that taking money out of the economy isn't an issue for liberals as long as it's from the wealthy. Even though wealthy people create more jobs than poor people ever will.
Click to expand...

Dude, read that statement. Then read it again.

Who the fuck are you gonna take the money from? How do you get money from people who have no money? I really want to hear this.

Also, how have America's wealthy done in the past few years? Ask the Forbes 400 - by your and jhmd's logic the hardest-working and most risk-taking and job-creating of us all:


They do much better outsourcing jobs, keeping wages flat on remaining jobs, squashing collective bargaining to be as profitable as ever - and just paying it on the back-end in the form of welfare and food stamps and medicaid - than they would paying a solid wage and offering good bennies to their employees. Shit, their not even paying much in taxes, the government has borrowed a lot of it. The wealth of the top 10% has grown more rapidly in the past 30 years than ever before. You should be celebrating. This is neo-conservative economics doing what you want it to.

So, what the hell are you and jhmd complaining about? This is the best time in history to be a wealthy American. I can't really follow how you and jhmd are all outraged over the woman in the OP. There is less money taken out of your check to care for her than in your father's and grandfather's generations.

You guys should be celebrating, but instead you are complaining about it. head-scratcher, that
 
Last edited:
Here is what Obama should do

1. Forcefully take all guns from U.S. citizens.
2. Sell guns to Al-Qaeda and North Korea
3. Use profits for gay marriage, welfare, food stamps, Planned Parenthood, illegal immigrant amnesty, and building mosques

#changeIcanbelievein
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top