The Obama Thread (Merged x6)

Who should Obama pick as his VP?

  • Edwards

  • Clinton

  • Richardson

  • Bieden

  • Kucinich

  • Dean

  • Kerry

  • somebody else


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
well maybe if poor single women would get off their backs...they wouldn't be poor single mothers....


BL, you are a friend, and I respect you greatly......but that is the biggest pile of ******** I have ever read......how the **** do you know that all poor single women are just sitting at home doing nothing?




I'm pissed now......I gotta go plant some tomatoes.........and chill out.
 
BL, you are a friend, and I respect you greatly......but that is the biggest pile of ******** I have ever read......how the **** do you know that all poor single women are just sitting at home doing nothing?




I'm pissed now......I gotta go plant some tomatoes.........and chill out.

joking....joking

Ill put the /sarcasm thing there next time
 
Well, they are single mothers, sooooo...

Where is the money going to come from for a babysitter to mind the child while the mother is off either working or getting an education?
How about when she gets paid from her job?
 
But why is it Bill Gates' (since that is the name we are throwing around) responsibility to pay for her babysitter? He did not make the mistake, she did. Why should he have to be taxed extra to clean up her mess?

You're doing what you've accused others of doing - you're using an emotional argument. You're trying to make us feel bad for Bill Gates.

What mistake did the single mother make, exactly? Maybe her boyfriend/husband died or left her.

Take emotional arguments out of it. The fact is, the mother will be better able to look after herself and her child if she has financial help. Financial help can come in the form of money for child care, or a grant to go to college.
 
But why is it Bill Gates' (since that is the name we are throwing around) responsibility to pay for her babysitter? He did not make the mistake, she did. Why should he have to be taxed extra to clean up her mess?

You're right, and while we're at it why should I pay taxes that go to other people at all. Welfare? I don't need it, that's for ****ups, it has to go. And social security? It's not my fault people got old, they should have had the good sense to die. Hey what about those hurricane victims in new orleans, it's not my fault they were stupid enough to live somewhere below the water line. I think about what you're saying and I'm paying way too much for other people's mistakes or circumstances that I've had nothing to do with. Just because I make enough to be taxed for those programs (unfairly I might add, cause that single mother gets to write her kids off the lucky *****) doesn't mean I should help out. That's good drinking money right there!

Come on, Matt, we pay extra taxes to help those less fortunate because that's what a decent society does. It's not like Gates paying extra means he has to go without, he can still buy anything he wants many times over. Fair doesn't always mean the same treatment, fair has to take in the result and circumstances as well or it can't be really fair.
 
How about when she gets paid from her job?

That's like a chicken/egg argument there. How can she go to the job in the first place if she doesn't have money for someone to look after her child? How is she going to get the education to get a good enough job to pay for child care, and pay for herself and her child?
 
You're right, and while we're at it why should I pay taxes that go to other people at all. Welfare? I don't need it, that's for ****ups, it has to go. And social security? It's not my fault people got old, they should have had the good sense to die. Hey what about those hurricane victims in new orleans, it's not my fault they were stupid enough to live somewhere below the water line. I think about what you're saying and I'm paying way too much for other people's mistakes or circumstances that I've had nothing to do with. Just because I make enough to be taxed for those programs (unfairly I might add, cause that single mother gets to write her kids off the lucky *****) doesn't mean I should help out. That's good drinking money right there!

Come on, Matt, we pay extra taxes to help those less fortunate because that's what a decent society does. It's not like Gates paying extra means he has to go without, he can still buy anything he wants many times over. Fair doesn't always mean the same treatment, fair has to take in the result and circumstances as well or it can't be really fair.


But Gates is already putting hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars into our tax system. Why should he be expected to pay even MORE, simply on the grounds that he is successful? If he pays his 8 % like everyone else, why should we tack on an additiona 10 % just because he is in a higher bracket (which means his 8 % is already far more).
 
That's like a chicken/egg argument there. How can she go to the job in the first place if she doesn't have money for someone to look after her child? How is she going to get the education to get a good enough job to pay for child care, and pay for herself and her child?

...maybe she should think twice about getting pregnant? :huh:
 
...maybe she should think twice about getting pregnant? :huh:

Yes, because all single mothers got that way from being irresponsible and having a bunch of promiscuous sex with random guys. None of them were in stable relationships or marriages where the guy bailed out and left them to fend for themselves.

jag
 
...maybe she should think twice about getting pregnant? :huh:

Apparently you missed my response to Matt, where I said maybe her boyfriend/husband died or left her. I love this mentallity that single mothers made a mistake. It's very judgemental.
 
There are programs everywhere that take care of children while the mother goes out to find a job. Most mother's day out programs in churchs have free programs for just that, and the mother does not have to be a member of that church to use this program.

My school, has a day care program so that these girls can stay in school, get her education and move on with her life along with her child. Many colleges, especially the smaller community colleges have the same programs as the high school.

These programs are actually run very efficiently......there are stores throughout cities where these women can go in, get a suit, get help in finding a job, get pointers and help with resumes and filling out applications.


The problem lies in the fact that many of these young women, are part of a cycle within their family where the young mother, is the product of a young mother, who was a product of a young mother.

I actually think Obama has an eye on this problem, and if he becomes president I hope that he keeps his eye on that cycle, and makes reforms within our welfare system that will discourage that cycle rather than encourage it.

BUT, there are plenty of young women out there that have gotten pregnant, the father is no where to be found, BUT they are getting an education and are part of a program that moves them forward, QUICKLY, toward getting a job, while at the same time helping them with their children, and then helping them find a job during and after their education. I have no problem with my tax money going to these programs, you can even raise my taxes for this purpose. But, you want to raise my taxes to keep that young mother, AT HOME, because she is able to (survive) on a check? hell no.
 
Yes, because all single mothers got that way from being irresponsible and having a bunch of promiscuous sex with random guys. None of them were in stable relationships or marriages where the guy bailed out and left them to fend for themselves.

jag

That's not what I said at all. I agree with the idea that the government should help single mothers, in some way, shape, or form. And I am especially aware that certain circumstances cause mothers to to become single or unable to provide for their children on their own.

However, for those who do go around having promiscuous sex and not putting any thought into the consequences of their actions, I have very little pity. I know a woman, in her early thirties, who had two children in her teens (one was simply the result of casual sex, the other the result of a rape) who managed to go to a top university and secure a job in a high-paying career field. She simultaneously raised her children and worked her ass off to get where she is today. And while I am also aware that certain circumstances may prevent all mothers from doing what she did, the fact that it is possible to have children at a young age and be successful shows me that nothing is out of the realm of reach for these people. If they tried hard, instead of looking for excuses and sympathy from everyone in the world, they might make a living for themselves and not need government assistance.
 
J. Manspice hates single mothers everywhere! You heard it here first! :eek:

jag
 
The question is simply this - do you have a problem with your tax dollars going towards programs that do help single mothers get on their feet?
 
But Gates is already putting hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars into our tax system. Why should he be expected to pay even MORE, simply on the grounds that he is successful? If he pays his 8 % like everyone else, why should we tack on an additiona 10 % just because he is in a higher bracket (which means his 8 % is already far more).

Why should I pay for a welfare system I've never and will never use?

Because he's a decent person (I laugh a little saying that) that wants the society that he profitted off of though no innovation of his own and has manipulated ever since to be a better place. Long run it's better for him if these people have some money to buy his expensive monopoly controlled ****. They should tack on the extra 10% because unlike most of us, it would have ZERO effect on him. There would be nothing, NOTHING, he couldn't do after the taxes that he couldn't do before. Sometimes you have to weigh the benefit of society over the how unfairly (ha!) you're treating one trillionaire. Or if you don't want to do that, why not just take away his lobbiests and his monopoly on almost everything and he'd lose far more money than a mere tax increase, that works for me too.

We're talking about someone that has every advantage possible, who would be untouched by paying extra taxes, and who's already benefitted by using the system unfairly to force others under him. I'm not going to cry cause he's paying more in taxes. **** when did it become a thing to pity the poor rich guy, that stole and abused and bought his way to the top?

And how much of that money isn't going to taxes cause his accountants can do magic we can't? How much of a percentage is he actually paying? I bet the single mother pays more proportunately when all is said and done.

Eventually you have to ask yourself is protecting a single person worth hurting society? Or better yet, what type of person would do this to society just for personal profit? Is that person worth defending? If I had gate's money, I can promise you I wouldn't care a bit by greater taxes to the rich, society and life have been good to them for the most part, they can give a little more back without it hurting. The fact that they ***** to high heaven about it, just shows what a waste of life most of them are.

When I was little my brothers and I got beat when we ****ed up. My sisters did not. That wasn't fair, they got talkings too and we got smacked. But you know what? We were bigger, tougher and we could take it so we did, like men should. We didn't complain to our father asking him to beat our sister's too, we looked after and protected them cause they were weaker and we were family. There are worse attitudes the rich could have.
 
Apparently you missed my response to Matt, where I said maybe her boyfriend/husband died or left her. I love this mentallity that single mothers made a mistake. It's very judgemental.

Again, I am aware that there are other circumstances which can contribute to a mother being single.

However, I do not believe that "my husband left me" or "my husband died" is a good enough excuse for us to redistribute our wealth to them.(and no, I'm not a heartless bastard; after a certain amount of time, people get on with their lives) I do believe that the government should help out single mothers, to an extent, through welfare. But at the same time, there is nothing which prevents them from finding a job or going back to school in order to start a career (sidenote: the government often supports those with children who go back to school). And, before you can say "but what about the babysitter?" That's not a good enough excuse-- that mother can surely find a good friend or use her parents to babysit her children while she works, for little to no monetary compensation.

Essentially, you want the government to punish people for being successful in order to reward some people for being unsuccessful or not putting enough thought into their decisions. I find that to be bizarro logic. Hard work and effort gets people places; making excuses doesn't.
 
Again, I am aware that there are other circumstances which can contribute to a mother being single.

However, I do not believe that "my husband left me" or "my husband died" is a good enough excuse for us to redistribute our wealth to them.


I have to stop you guys for a second, whenever you say "redistripute the wealth" you make it sound like we want single mothers to have the money to buy a house and big screen tv. That's not the case. I like my tax going to programs that help people get a lift up to better their lives.

(and no, I'm not a heartless bastard; after a certain amount of time, people get on with their lives) I do believe that the government should help out single mothers, to an extent, through welfare. But at the same time, there is nothing which prevents them from finding a job or going back to school in order to start a career (sidenote: the government often supports those with children who go back to school). And, before you can say "but what about the babysitter?" That's not a good enough excuse-- that mother can surely find a good friend or use her parents to babysit her children while she works, for little to no monetary compensation.

There is one thing stopping them going to college - money.

You can't call a genuine circumstance an "excuse" when, y'know, its real. "My dog ate my homework" is an excuse. "I'm a single mother whose boyfriend has left me, my mother helps sometimes but I need an extra hand, I just don't have the cash to cope" is a genuine circumstance.

Essentially, you want the government to punish people for being successful in order to reward some people for being unsuccessful or not putting enough thought into their decisions.


There is that word "punish" again. I talked about that a few pages ago. To call taxing the rich "punishment" is a fallacy.

I find that to be bizarro logic. Hard work and effort gets people places; making excuses doesn't.


What I find bizarro logic is the idea that I'm supposed to feel bad for Bill Gates :huh: From the arguments here, it seems like Matt and others have a problem with all taxes, and then they say they don't, so then their whole position becomes incredibly contradictory.
 
I also want to add that calling taxes "punishment" is an emotional argument.

It's not about "punishment". It's about doing what is practical to help the country, the economy, and the people.
 
I'm not rich, but I'm in a decent tax bracket and I have to pay more taxes then someone who works at Wal-Mart or the local supermarket....
 
I also want to add that calling taxes "punishment" is an emotional argument.

It's not about "punishment". It's about doing what is practical to help the country, the economy, and the people.

According to who..? if someone is successful is this country, I don't feel they should be penalized by having to pay more taxes...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"