The President Obama Thread

[Anita18]

Originally Posted by Paradoxium

That's her problem.

Not everyone is good at math or science or computer programming. People do what they can.

[Paradoxium]

Actually computer programming is not a worthwhile pursuit in terms of salary. Engineering is reaching that saturation point too.

Honestly who are we trying to kid, libarts = worthless nowadays.

Some idiot who barely passed a mechanics program in far less time than your sister studied, will make way more money.

The degree really serves a couple purposes:

- Status; this value is diminishing as more people get McDegrees at McColleges, it's almost a high school diploma at this point
- Not a complete dumbass
- You're likely up in debt, so employers can exploit this leverage
- preq. to get into some countries like Japan for gigs

[Paradoxium]

Lemme guess your sister is considering law school? Or considered it?

STAY AWAY FROM IT. They game their employment statistics. Unless it is a top 10 school, you're blowing your youth and money. And the last thing the country needs is more ****ing lawyers.

[Anita18]

Originally Posted by Paradoxium

Lemme guess your sister is considering law school? Or considered it?

STAY AWAY FROM IT. They game their employment statistics. Unless it is a top 10 school, you're blowing your youth and money. And the last thing the country needs is more ****ing lawyers.

She did consider it back in high school, but now, even my Asian mom is like, "LAW SCHOOL ARE YOU MORONIC?!?!?!" to her relatives who are all proud that their kids got into law school.

And my sister makes more money than even most of the scientists here. Certainly more than me. She just needed to get her foot in the door, then she could prove herself. And she's a great negotiator.

As for programming and/or engineering, knowing how to program for mobile applications is HUGE where we are. That's where the big money is. My fiance was even able to quit two well-paying jobs he didn't like and freelance. Well, he isn't making exactly a living wage right now (we share a tiny studio and I pay for the car which is mine), but he was able to save up thanks to his previous cushy well-paying jobs as an engineer and programmer. For highly intelligent, resourceful people like my sister and my fiance, I think they'll do fine in life. But it doesn't mean that it isn't a challenge. And they're probably in the top 10% of general job candidates compared to the rest of their age group nationally. I guess it's survival of the fittest, but I still think most people should be able to at least make a living and not starve.

[Paradoxium]

She in a gov't job?

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by Spider‐Man

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]

First let’s just get one thing out of the way. You can’t pay the debt down without raising taxes across the board. I have no problem with that. Just don’t tell me ‘there will be no increase on middle class taxes’ when there will have to be to get anything done. I would have a lot more respect for Obama if he said that. But then history shows not many who support him really care if he follows thru on his campaign promises anyway. I never said I wanted to cut taxes. Obama said he wouldn’t raise taxes on the middle class and that is just not feasible.

Second, I would have no problem gutting PBS. What else? How about all benefits to illegal aliens who don’t pay anything into the system but are still allowed to pour into the country unchecked for political reasons? How about cutting subsidies for stuff like sheepherders who raise mohair sheep or millions of dollars to learn why monkeys throw their poop? How about cutting Congress’s ability to vote themselves a payraise? How about their exorbitant health care, travel, personal spending and retirement plans? Do you feel this is something that only the republicans should be concerned about and take steps to fix? And that is just the tip of the iceberg. The problem is not getting more revenue in the form of higher taxes but making sure that that money is spent in a fiscally responsible way. That is something I have zero confidence in being done.

And how much money would gutting PBS get you? Almost nothing, not enough to even make the slightest dent in the debt. PBS is not a big ticket item, not even close, gutting it and putting that towards the debt is an almost futile effort. Cutting Congress Men pay and benefits is also not enough to make a real dent in the debt, its something that makes people feel better then something that will make any real effort. To really reduce the debt, you would have to gut all 3 big ticket items and raise taxes, which would be extremely unpopular, but that's what other countries to pay for their debt.

Originally Posted by Spider‐Man

And SS will be broke in 20 years. I know every check I get that I’ll never see the benefits of the money that I have paid in all the years I’ve worked. My point was is it right that I and many more (you know, the old leeches) should pay into it all these years and get nothing yet some kid who doesn’t have time to work but somehow has time to do all other kinds of things votes someone into office in part because they promise him a ‘free’ education?

It doesn't matter if its fair or not, major cuts into Social Security is what you need to do to reduce debt. That is the choice, you choose between evils and decide which one is the lesser. There is no third option this time.

Originally Posted by Spider‐Man

I am not ONLY using personal experience to point to a trend. I said the education system was getting dumbed down more and more. Not just from my own experiences.

Doesn't that just prove that other countries have superior education systems to America. Finland has one of the best education systems in the world and they are social democracy, what does that say?

Originally Posted by Spider‐Man

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A45015-2004Apr26


There is a LOT more data out there to show this to the point that if you are unaware of it you essentially must have your head under a rock. I don’t mean that to be insulting, it is just a fact.
Next I said the number of teens starting work later in life is growing
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-01-09/markets/29974355_1_teen-participation-teen-unemployment-participation-rate

That in itself may not be so bad but let’s move on:

I don't think this relevant, if people wait till university to get jobs, I don't think it causes any long term damage to their psyche or drive to work. Everyone learns that working and making money is the way to go, what difference does it make if they do it high school or university?

Originally Posted by Spider‐Man

Read this (admittedly from Australia but I think it mirrors our own society pretty well) - http://jezebel.com/adulthood/#13529082021593&{"type":"iframeUpdated","height":2 136}

Kids are maturing at a slower rate. This is from a choice that they are allowed to make. I specifically pointed out that my oldest son lives with his mom. The reason he lives with her is because in my house, once he was out of high school, he was either going to be registered for college or working and paying rent or finding his own place to live. His mom allowed him to move in with her and now that he’s out of school he is neither registered for school nor paying rent. I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with expecting a kid to work. I think it builds character and teaches them much more that they will need to make it in life than endless hours spent on the internet. And I think it is ludicrous to suggest a kid should not be expected to work or make good grades but that it is perfectly ok for them to spend hours and hours playing video games.

What if a kid isn't spending all their time playing video games, what if they are in after school programs or sports leagues or something else? Why is the choice either teenagers have to get a job or they are just lazy parasites? Aren't there more options then just those two? That is why I think you are generalizing, you presenting only two types of people and ignoring everyone else in that group.

Originally Posted by Spider‐Man

Then add the entitlement mentality

http://www.empoweringparents.com/I-Want-It-Now-How-to-Challenge-a-False-Sense-of-Entitlement-in-Kids.php#
“People who have this mindset often hold a negative view of hard work—they put it down and ridicule it. They think they deserve things they haven't earned, and they can develop contempt for people who work to earn things.


I believe that a false sense of entitlement affects every strata of society today. Kids who grow up this way don't want the jobs that are available because they have the belief that they're entitled to something better without having to make an effort. So that false sense of entitlement prohibits them from getting the work skills and the social skills they need to start at the bottom and work their way up.”

I think you are missing a big point here, that attitude will quickly collapse under reality. When you are a teenager, having free time seems great, but you get older, having a bunch of free time and no source income sucks, you can't have a lot of fun, you can't make your life go forward, being dependent on others is humiliating and ultimately all that free time gets boring. Something that seems cool when you are 16 seems stupid when you hit for 20s. I think a lot of parents who complain about kids today have forgotten what they were like as kids.

Also when haven't teenagers when arrogant know it alls, that's part of growing up. I think suggesting that teenagers who don't get jobs in high school will be lazy parasites for the rest of their lives is silly, ever heard of the concept of a late bloomer. And frankly the economy doesn't provide as jobs now as it does in the past, so a lot of young people are unemployed not because they choose to, but because the jobs are not there, like they used to be.

Originally Posted by Spider‐Man

http://www.thenewiq.com/integritywatch-blog/who-picks-after-you

I am saying that the entitlement mindset is growing in this country and it is being taught to the kids. They are the future, remember? This is the mindset behinds the occupy movement. The majority of teens today have a computer, Iphone, new video game system but didn’t pay for them themselves

So you have education essentially becoming a joke, kids becoming less interested in working or basically growing up but still want everything handed to them for free and it is looked at as perfectly acceptable. And whether you admit it or not, it is a trend. So what’s next?

And in the past kids had gameboys and Nintendo systems without paying for them, how far do you want to go back. This seems more like nostalgia for a time that didn't really exist then a reasonable critique. Its more "in my day, I walked in the snow for 12 hours" kind of non sense.

Originally Posted by Spider‐Man

I never said you have to be ‘uber’ serious but in a time when the country is in such dire financial/employment situation, don’t you think it is a bit irresponsible to teach kids that its ok to not work and just play video games? And yes, yelling at the tv is immature. The difference is one usually yells at the tv for a few minutes. Video game addicts play video games to the point of exhaustion.

You don't think there are not sports fanatics who don't more then yell at their TVs for a couple minutes? How is video games different from alcohol, watching TV, sports or anything are not all those bad when dine in excess? Why is video games less mature then any of those other things?

Originally Posted by Spider‐Man

I think the onus is on each person to take personal responsibility for themselves and their kids. If a kid is allowed to behave any way they want, that is the fault of the parent who has failed in their responsibility.

The bottom line is I have shown support for my views. Where does the trend ultimately lead? One thing I know for sure – a trend in a society towards ever increasing dependence on someone else (government) leads to a different form of government (Marxism, socialism) where freedoms are lost. Is that the kind of country you want or do you disagree with my rationale?

I disagree with your rationale. Also no offense, but conservatives don't have any business telling others about personality responsibility, when many of them blame something or someone else for their problems. When something goes wrong for conservatives how often do they take responsibility and how often do they blame the liberal media or something else? Many modern conservatives seem to have a real victim complex and that contradictions they message of personal responsibly they like to spread. Personal Responsibility is a worthless concept if you don't apply it to yourself.

When a business fails who's fault is it, the customers who didn't want to shop or the people managed the business? That's what this comes off as, a business that is blaming the customers for not coming to their store, instead of looking hard at themselves and asking why more people are not coming. For a party that claims to be a pro business, they don't seem to see the similarities between a business that can't grow its customer base and a party that can't grow its supporter base. Its the duty of the GOP to attract young people, its not the duty of young people to support the GOP no matter what. That is where the onus is and to ignore that is to ignore reality.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by Spider‐Man

...First let’s just get one thing out of the way. You can’t pay the debt down without raising taxes across the board. I have no problem with that. Just don’t tell me ‘there will be no increase on middle class taxes’ when there will have to be to get anything done. I would have a lot more respect for Obama if he said that. But then history shows not many who support him really care if he follows thru on his campaign promises anyway. I never said I wanted to cut taxes. Obama said he wouldn’t raise taxes on the middle class and that is just not feasible...

Sure you can.



I got this data from the IRS. Based on 2009 data, If you look at the folks making more than $200,000, they pay less than 21% in taxes on their incomes. If you were to change the tax laws such that no one making more than $200,000 (just for talking purposes) paid less than 30% federal taxes, the government would take in an extra $155 billion or more in revenue each year. Over 10 years that would be around $1.6 trillion. Combine that with $4 trillion in cuts to government spending over the same period and you have over 5.5 trillion in deficit reductions over 10 years. That's pretty significant. Of course they probably aren't going to tax those making between $200,000 to $500,000 so heavily, so the numbers might be lower, but you could still effectively close the deficit by only raising taxes on the wealthy.

Originally Posted by Spider‐Man

...Second, I would have no problem gutting PBS. What else? How about all benefits to illegal aliens who don’t pay anything into the system but are still allowed to pour into the country unchecked for political reasons? How about cutting subsidies for stuff like sheepherders who raise mohair sheep or millions of dollars to learn why monkeys throw their poop? How about cutting Congress’s ability to vote themselves a pay raise? How about their exorbitant health care, travel, personal spending and retirement plans? Do you feel this is something that only the republicans should be concerned about and take steps to fix? And that is just the tip of the iceberg. The problem is not getting more revenue in the form of higher taxes but making sure that that money is spent in a fiscally responsible way. That is something I have zero confidence in being done...

$445 million is hardly going to put a dent in the deficit.

Originally Posted by Spider‐Man

And SS will be broke in 20 years. I know every check I get that I’ll never see the benefits of the money that I have paid in all the years I’ve worked. My point was is it right that I and many more (you know, the old leeches) should pay into it all these years and get nothing yet some kid who doesn’t have time to work but somehow has time to do all other kinds of things votes someone into office in part because they promise him a ‘free’ education?

Don't belive the hype. Social Security will be there as long as we want it to be there. The only reason why it looks like it will go broke in 20 years is because they only fund the program (at 100% of benefits) for 20 years at a time. If we did something like lift the cap on FICA taxes (which is currently capped at $110,100), it would be there indefinitely.

[Bathead]

Originally Posted by Schlosser85

No. I think it varies from individual to individual. Old people aren't just wise by default.

Agreed. I've known plenty of very smart young people and as many really stupid older folks. Age is not necessarily and indication of wisdom as a lot of people seem to think.

[Darthphere]

Man, we're still dissecting posts in here?

[Paradoxium]

I don't see the point. No one reads it besides the two poster (and Kel). It's like a giant wall of text. I refuse to do it now.

[Thundercrack85]

Wasn't it in Alabama where they found out that illegal immigrants contributed more to the local economy than they hurt? But that might have been an unusual case, since sale tax is higher than usual in Alabama.

[Paradoxium]

Is it even possible to show the contrary?

[Thundercrack85]

Originally Posted by Paradoxium

Is it even possible to show the contrary?

Haven't really looked in to it. But you always hear people going on about how illegals take, without paying.

[Paradoxium]

My point is, it's almost impossible to show the contrary, in theory if true.

It's kinda like how a Hurricanes adds economic growth (GDP). It's hard to enumerate destruction; long term, like job losses or potential loss of capital formation etc... But we know it's more complicated than that.

[AndrewGilkison]

Originally Posted by Spider‐Man

I didn't try to baint you into anything. In case you missed it, which you obviously did, the last thing I am trying to do is start a flame war but congrats on your own, albeit unsuccessful, effort on that front. I simply stated a fact. You can choose not to address it but that doesn't make it any less true. What you said doesn't piss me off, just the attitude that the people on the democrat party are so above that type of behavior when it is obviously so far from the truth. But you'll prove me right next with the next republican president.

I'm glad you're such a brave soul. My friend.

And what if I did address it? What if I admitted that you were right about the Dems being guilty of doing the same thing? Would that make you feel better?

It still wouldn't change the fact that the GOP is in no position to piss on the voters that they need to win the Oval Office back, and as long as they continue to do so, it will be a long ass time before we get the "next republican president", which was my point all along.

Mitt Romney was a moron for arrogantly and ignorantly writing off the "47%", as he called them (and it was one of the things that cost him the election), just like Bill O'Riley, Rush Limbraugh, Ann Coulter and everyone else who indulges in this "the people who voted for Obama just 'want stuff'" mentality are morons. And with the things you've been posting about the young people and their video games, you seem to have a similar mindset about people who voted for Obama. You sure you want to continue this line of thinking, given how unsuccessful it's been thus far?

[Anita18]

Originally Posted by Paradoxium

She in a gov't job?

Nope, nonprofit. But she easily does the work of 2-3 people AND she has a master's. Hence the higher salary.

Originally Posted by AndrewGilkison

Mitt Romney was a moron for arrogantly and ignorantly writing off the "47%", as he called them (and it was one of the things that cost him the election), just like Bill O'Riley, Rush Limbraugh, Ann Coulter and everyone else who indulges in this "the people who voted for Obama just 'want stuff'" mentality are morons. And with the things you've been posting about the young people and their video games, you seem to have a similar mindset about people who voted for Obama. You sure you want to continue this line of thinking, given how unsuccessful it's been thus far?

I don't know if they've noticed, but 47% of the entire US population is....kind of a lot.

[Thundercrack85]

Gotta love how that 47% includes old people, the disabled and veterans.

Buncha moochers.

[Paradoxium]

Originally Posted by Anita18

Nope, nonprofit. But she easily does the work of 2-3 people AND she has a master's. Hence the higher salary.

Non-profit government funded

[Anita18]

Originally Posted by Paradoxium

Non-profit government funded

So is mine. Most cancer research is funded by grants from the NIH.

[Spider‐Man]

Originally Posted by AndrewGilkison

And what if I did address it? What if I admitted that you were right about the Dems being guilty of doing the same thing? Would that make you feel better?

Nope just make your statements not look so hypocritical. To say something against the opposing party as being exclusive to that party in a disdainful way that actually reflects the image of your own party while doing so is pretty much disparaging your own party and makes you look silly in the process.

Originally Posted by AndrewGilkison

It still wouldn't change the fact that the GOP is in no position to piss on the voters that they need to win the Oval Office back, and as long as they continue to do so, it will be a long ass time before we get the "next republican president", which was my point all along.

Mitt Romney was a moron for arrogantly and ignorantly writing off the "47%", as he called them (and it was one of the things that cost him the election), just like Bill O'Riley, Rush Limbraugh, Ann Coulter and everyone else who indulges in this "the people who voted for Obama just 'want stuff'" mentality are morons. And with the things you've been posting about the young people and their video games, you seem to have a similar mindset about people who voted for Obama. You sure you want to continue this line of thinking, given how unsuccessful it's been thus far?

Funny how upset you get over this remark when you probably didn't make a peep when obama made his 'special olympics' crack on Leno. How many people should that have alienated?

I'm more than happy to continue my line of thinking and let history show what it will. If I am wrong, I will gladly say so. If I am proven right, I will gladly vocalize my thoughts about your disagreement.

I am wondering why what I said seems to upset you so much? Do you resemble some of it too closely? I'm betting you fit the age group (late teen/early 20s). Anything else hit too close to home? I was just trying to point out observations and back them up with sources. I wasn't trying to get personal. Too bad you took it that way.

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by Spider‐Man

Nope just make your statements not look so hypocritical. To say something against the opposing party as being exclusive to that party in a disdainful way that actually reflects the image of your own party while doing so is pretty much disparaging your own party and makes you look silly in the process.



Funny how upset you get over this remark when you probably didn't make a peep when obama made his 'special olympics' crack on Leno. How many people should that have alienated?

I'm more than happy to continue my line of thinking and let history show what it will. If I am wrong, I will gladly say so. If I am proven right, I will gladly vocalize my thoughts about your disagreement.

I am wondering why what I said seems to upset you so much? Do you resemble some of it too closely? I'm betting you fit the age group (late teen/early 20s). Anything else hit too close to home? I was just trying to point out observations and back them up with sources. I wasn't trying to get personal. Too bad you took it that way.

Simply writing off large groups of people is not sound political tactics. Suggesting that young people are lazy or that immigrants just want stuff for free, as some conservatives have, is a great way to lose future elections. Really this attitude hurts no one, but conservatives and the GOP themselves. How is the GOP supposed to win elections if they have no desire to appeal to several large groups? If conservatives want to sit back and let history judge their assumptions, then perhaps soon the GOP itself will be history. These assumptions are based on hubris and keeping them is luxury the conservative movement cannot afford if it wishes to survive. Evolve or die, that is the choice before the GOP, because the demographics are not getting any better for them. If GOP is unwilling to change, then perhaps it deserves to die and be replaced with a new right wing party that will fit these new times, like the Libertarian party.

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by The Overlord

Simply writing off large groups of people is not sound political tactics. Suggesting that young people are lazy or that immigrants just want stuff for free, as some conservatives have, is a great way to lose future elections.

You forget implying people who don't vote for you that they don't have "traditional" American values to the list

[Spider‐Man]

Originally Posted by The Overlord

And how much money would gutting PBS get you? Almost nothing, not enough to even make the slightest dent in the debt. PBS is not a big ticket item, not even close, gutting it and putting that towards the debt is an almost futile effort. Cutting Congress Men pay and benefits is also not enough to make a real dent in the debt, its something that makes people feel better then something that will make any real effort. To really reduce the debt, you would have to gut all 3 big ticket items and raise taxes, which would be extremely unpopular, but that's what other countries to pay for their debt.

Some people say the government should be run like a business. I disagree. I think it should be run like a household on a budget. When times get tough you trim the fat anywhere you can. Just like everyone wants to focus so much on how raising taxes on the rich will be so effective when someone already pointed out that that alone would not increase revenue but that coupled with other measures would. Likewise, cutting PBS alone would not do much but a lot of little cuts like that combined would.

Originally Posted by The Overlord

It doesn't matter if its fair or not, major cuts into Social Security is what you need to do to reduce debt. That is the choice, you choose between evils and decide which one is the lesser. There is no third option this time.

I have no problem with that. As I said, it is headed downhill anyway. Let’s see if Obama does that.

Originally Posted by The Overlord

Doesn't that just prove that other countries have superior education systems to America. Finland has one of the best education systems in the world and they are social democracy, what does that say?

When did I say other countries don’t have a better education system? On the contrary I’m sure plenty of countries have a better education system with more caring teachers and for less money.

Originally Posted by The Overlord

I don't think this relevant, if people wait till university to get jobs, I don't think it causes any long term damage to their psyche or drive to work. Everyone learns that working and making money is the way to go, what difference does it make if they do it high school or university?

You are entitled to your opinion. As I’ve said, I think working builds character and if you believe that everything in moderation is the way to go, how does that work if they spend a disproportionate amount of time doing things that are not productive or contributing to their future? The statement that ‘everyone learns that working is the way to go’ is completely erroneous.

Originally Posted by The Overlord

What if a kid isn't spending all their time playing video games, what if they are in after school programs or sports leagues or something else? Why is the choice either teenagers have to get a job or they are just lazy parasites? Aren't there more options then just those two? That is why I think you are generalizing, you presenting only two types of people and ignoring everyone else in that group.

Let’s put it this way – if a teen’s activities/behavior leads them to act at 25 or 30 like they do at 16, I think the activities that led them there are detrimental. The fact that we have grown men (further research shows 25% of people playing video games are over 50!) playing video games to the extent that the incidence of addiction has grown to the point that they’re going to list it as a mental disorder shows that this is happening/has happened. My point is that the INCIDENCE is growing. If it continues to grow, we are going to have a problem. Video games are just the outlet for that behavior. What it represents is doing too much of something that is not productive at the detriment of more productive things to the extent that people are maturing more slowly. There are developmental stages everyone should go thru and the behavior I speak of stunts the movement thru those stages. I think I have shown correlation between all the things if not cause and effect. I simply don’t have the time to research. I barely have time to address these posts! Again history will show what is what.

Originally Posted by The Overlord

I think you are missing a big point here, that attitude will quickly collapse under reality. When you are a teenager, having free time seems great, but you get older, having a bunch of free time and no source income sucks, you can't have a lot of fun, you can't make your life go forward, being dependent on others is humiliating and ultimately all that free time gets boring. Something that seems cool when you are 16 seems stupid when you hit for 20s. I think a lot of parents who complain about kids today have forgotten what they were like as kids.

I have provided sources to show that your comments are not true in all cases. And I think I have also shown that the incidence of those cases is growing.

Originally Posted by The Overlord

Also when haven't teenagers when arrogant know it alls, that's part of growing up. I think suggesting that teenagers who don't get jobs in high school will be lazy parasites for the rest of their lives is silly, ever heard of the concept of a late bloomer. And frankly the economy doesn't provide as jobs now as it does in the past, so a lot of young people are unemployed not because they choose to, but because the jobs are not there, like they used to be.

When I was in school, we walked the straight and narrow. I had a teacher in 4th grade who had a paddle called ‘Big Bertha’ that was 2 feet long with holes drilled in it to make it seem more deadly. The teacher had the authority and the inclination to use it. If I got spanked in school, I knew to be prepared to get another when I got home. Nowadays, if a teacher looks wrong at a kid, they might get sued. Moreso, look on youtube at all the ‘student attacks teacher’ videos. This is not a change in teens being more arrogant. This is because they don’t have the discipline (enforced on them) nor the consequences they had when I was a kid. That is a trend and the trend is still going. Where will it be in another 20 years? I have heard of late bloomers. If it helps to speak a language that you understand: the number of late bloomers is increasing and they’re blooming later and later in life if at all.

Originally Posted by The Overlord

And in the past kids had gameboys and Nintendo systems without paying for them, how far do you want to go back. This seems more like nostalgia for a time that didn't really exist then a reasonable critique. Its more "in my day, I walked in the snow for 12 hours" kind of non sense.

Again if you want to ‘walked 12 miles in the snow’ me, that’s fine. As I pointed out, a trend in the increasing lack of discipline kids get today has led to an increase in behavior that is detrimental whether it is being allowed to engage in activities way outside the realm of moderation to directing physical violence against teachers to simply sitting in their room staring at the tv for hours on end instead of working a part-time job. If you find this behavior acceptable and believe it is not a continuum of behavior that will lead to a more bleak future, be my guest.

Originally Posted by The Overlord

You don't think there are not sports fanatics who don't more then yell at their TVs for a couple minutes? How is video games different from alcohol, watching TV, sports or anything are not all those bad when dine in excess? Why is video games less mature then any of those other things?

Playing video games is an activity one begins as a kid/teenager. As of now drinking alcohol is not, unless you know differently. A lot of what’s wrong with grown men playing video games in excess is the example it sets for kids. Just for a minute juxtapose a kid looking at a man in a shirt and tie or coveralls, whatever, getting ready to go to work beside a man playing a video game all day. Which will he aspire to be more like?

And yes, they’re all bad. What’s your point?

Originally Posted by The Overlord

I disagree with your rationale. Also no offense, but conservatives don't have any business telling others about personality responsibility, when many of them blame something or someone else for their problems. When something goes wrong for conservatives how often do they take responsibility and how often do they blame the liberal media or something else? Many modern conservatives seem to have a real victim complex and that contradictions they message of personal responsibly they like to spread. Personal Responsibility is a worthless concept if you don't apply it to yourself.

I’d say espousing a society that emphasizes less government and more personal responsibility for your own welfare is more of a conservative trait. I completely believe that there are people who should be helped with my tax money but I also know that there are way too many who receive services and benefits who should not. It pisses me off when I pay my taxes knowing that I probably won’t have any SS when I retire but that there are people benefitting from my tax money right now who should not be. Am I responsible for that? What should I do, refuse to pay taxes? Conservatives don’t blame liberal media for their problems. They blame liberal media for playing one-sided politics and for being drunk on the power they realize they wield in helping determine the outcome of elections. I would like to think if it is revealed that obama is directly responsible for denying aid to the people who were killed in Benghazi, that had the press actually pressed for the truth before the election that people might have actually considered that a legitimate reason to not re-elect him. But as I’ve said before, Romney makes the 47% remark and it’s all you hear about, Obama makes his ‘special Olympics’ crack and…nothing.

Originally Posted by The Overlord

When a business fails who's fault is it, the customers who didn't want to shop or the people managed the business? That's what this comes off as, a business that is blaming the customers for not coming to their store, instead of looking hard at themselves and asking why more people are not coming. For a party that claims to be a pro business, they don't seem to see the similarities between a business that can't grow its customer base and a party that can't grow its supporter base. Its the duty of the GOP to attract young people, its not the duty of young people to support the GOP no matter what. That is where the onus is and to ignore that is to ignore reality.

I think it’s funny that you use a business failing and whose fault it is as some kind of analogy to take personal responsibility when in this country a business fails, they just get millions in stimulus money. Yay personal responsibility!

Here’s some reality. Are you aware how conservative your party was 40+ years ago? JFK said ‘Ask not what your country can do for you but rather ask what you can do for your country.’ Today, 67% of democrats want the government to do MORE for them! How much more can the government give? Or more precisely, how much ore can the taxpayers give? If the liberals in the 60s looked like the conservatives do today, what will the liberals look like in another 40 years? What will this country look like in another 40 years? The fact is there is a point where the system will fail because at some point the ever-increasing number of people getting tax-funded benefits will be too many for the tax money to support.

[Spider‐Man]

Originally Posted by dnno1

Sure you can.

Originally Posted by dnno1

I got this data from the IRS. Based on 2009 data, If you look at the folks making more than $200,000, they pay less than 21% in taxes on their incomes. If you were to change the tax laws such that no one making more than $200,000 (just for talking purposes) paid less than 30% federal taxes, the government would take in an extra $155 billion or more in revenue each year. Over 10 years that would be around $1.6 trillion. Combine that with $4 trillion in cuts to government spending over the same period and you have over 5.5 trillion in deficit reductions over 10 years. That's pretty significant. Of course they probably aren't going to tax those making between $200,000 to $500,000 so heavily, so the numbers might be lower, but you could still effectively close the deficit by only raising taxes on the wealthy.

Hey why stop there? Why not 50%? 75%? I mean they’re rich right? They can afford it! Just as long as it doesn’t affect you or me. As long as WE don’t have to pay.

Originally Posted by dnno1

$445 million is hardly going to put a dent in the deficit.

You can read my response to overlord.

Originally Posted by dnno1

Don't belive the hype. Social Security will be there as long as we want it to be there. The only reason why it looks like it will go broke in 20 years is because they only fund the program (at 100% of benefits) for 20 years at a time. If we did something like lift the cap on FICA taxes (which is currently capped at $110,100), it would be there indefinitely.

http://www.jec.senate.gov/republicans/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=0edfdbbe-6f48-4007-a429-6ef64fda10cb

Guys, I don't have time to continue the dissectaquote conversation. Reply if you want but ultimately we each have our own opinions and we'll see how things pan out.

[TheBat812]

I don't understand people who don't want taxes raised on the rich. Absolutely ridiculous. it's completely fair, has historical precedent, will not affect their ability to still be well off, is necessary to help reduce the deficit, etc. Is it just the 'principle' of the thing in this distorted American Way? Maybe 200,000 is to low, but 500,000 or 1,000,000 is more than justified IMO. Those who claim they want to lower the debt but won't raise taxes on those it won't even hurt seems like pure stubborness in a distorted view of what American capitalism is about. You're missing the EASIEST way to cut into our debt.... Everybody has to make sacrifices to get our economy back, why aren't the rich more willing to give back to help their country, and more confusingly, why are those not even in that class not more upset about their unwillingness to help our country?