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.
No,thats not what I said Kaine, I said I take issue with a unequal tax rate.

And when it comes down to it, all these single mothers made choices. They can't go to school cause they can't afford it? News flash, they made the choice to spread their legs before they were financially stable. It may sound insensitive, but I do not expect my tax dollars to clean up someone elses' mess.
 
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.

But we have that in this country. We have multiple welfare programs which already pay mothers or fathers or full families to take care of themselves and their children. We do not need any more programs; what we need is comprehensive welfare reform which will give recipients an incentive to work and find an education/ advance in their careers. We do not need a perpetual welfare ATM which gives people money for sitting on their asses, even as their children advance into their teen years. All of this needs to be done instead of taking money from the wealthy and putting it into another program which will be abused or one which is already being abused thoroughly.

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

Then they apply for financial aid. And in addition to that, they don't have to go to Harvard. They can go to a community college, or a state university, and receive a quality education at very little expense.

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.

I'm sorry, but that is an excuse.

If my boyfriend and I got married and we adopted kids, and then he left me to pursue some sort of modeling career in France, I would have to get over it. I would be upset; I would have less income to support my children; but I would have to make due with what I have and try to make up the difference which has left me. And if my kids are young and I have to juggle the time I spend in my career with the time I spend with them, so be it. If they are wise, they will thank me when they're older for putting in extra hours so they could have a future.

All it takes for these people to apply for a job is a pen and a job application. All it takes for them to stay at a job is to work hard and put in some sort of effort. Bosses are understandable in most circumstances. If you have a child and you need to be with them a certain number of hours, these people will usually understand. And guess what-- if you aren't making enough money, you can apply for welfare benefits. That's how the system should work. I've known people who have beat considerable odds involving the same circumstances you describe, and if they can do it, anyone can. And if they can't, then they are simply making up excuses.

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

You're taking money away from people who spent the duration of their lives working their asses off. I've put in three years at a major university and I will be six figures in debt by the time I finish my master's degree. If I work hard enough, I will be successful in whatever career path I'm in. If I end up making six figures a year, after overcoming considerable odds and putting every single fruit of my labor into building a life for myself, why should the government take money away from me and give it to people who don't deserve it? A single mother who got pregnant at 15 and decided she would be better off having the baby and raising it without a father or a career does not deserve to have my tax dollars, as far as I'm concerned.


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.

Really, I don't care about this stupid Bill Gates example. The man already hands out more than what should be expected of his income to combat poverty, AIDS and other social problems in this country and around the world.

What I care about is the idea that people who don't make good decisions should be handed money from my tax dollars because I became a success. That is bizarro logic-- rewarding those who don't deserve it while punishing those who never did anything wrong.
 
No,thats not what I said Kaine, I said I take issue with a unequal tax rate.

And when it comes down to it, all these single mothers made choices. They can't go to school cause they can't afford it? News flash, they made the choice to spread their legs before they were financially stable. It may sound insensitive, but I do not expect my tax dollars to clean up someone elses' mess.

Aren't teenage pregnancies higher in the US than in most other western countries? Hmm.

Anyway, your position relies on a single judgement on all single mothers. Yes, some may have made a mistake when they were young and ended up pregnant before they were in a position to look after themselves and their child. Others may have not made a mistake. In either case, if they want to better their lives and need a hand doing it I've no issue with programs that help them, and if these programs need tax money then so be it.

Okay, let's get off single mothers...

Do you have a problem with taxes going towards programs that help the physically or mentally disabled?
 
Of course not, and no one is criticizing our current social programs. This entire discussion stems from Obama's proposal to stop taxing senior citizens all together and up the tax rate on a certain group of citizens (who already pay more than most) to compensate.

And in regards to your edit, it does all hinge on a single choice. If they are not financially secure when they have children, then it is by choice. The entire "What if the husband runs off," argument is moot, as they put their financial security in his hands by choice. They could've gone to school while married and pregnant (my mother did so). They could've been employed while married. Instead they made the choice to be entirely dependent. Same with a dead husband only they chose not to insure themselves.

Things happen in life, unexpected things. Some people are prepared for these things. Others are not. If you are not, you shouldn't expect to be bailed out when things get bad.
 
Aren't teenage pregnancies higher in the US than in most other western countries? Hmm.

Anyway, your position relies on a single judgement on all single mothers. Yes, some may have made a mistake when they were young and ended up pregnant before they were in a position to look after themselves and their child. Others may have not made a mistake. In either case, if they want to better their lives and need a hand doing it I've no issue with programs that help them, and if these programs need tax money then so be it.

Okay, let's get off single mothers...

Do you have a problem with taxes going towards programs that help the physically or mentally disabled?

yes....because someone needs to....:yay:
 
If I can go back to single mothers for a moment.

Your position, Matt, seems so illogical to me. When I asked, do you have problems with tax money going towards programs to help single mothers get on their feet, you answered - Yes, we have several.

So, do you not want them to get good jobs? I know you want them to get jobs, despite your personal feelings towards all single mothers. I suspect you'd say you want them to do it on their own steam. That's fine. But if a single mother wants to better her life, what's wrong with giving her a hand to that end?

If at the end of it, she has a good job, what do your personal feelings about her being "unable to close her legs" in the first place matter?

Of course you'd want them to have a job. That's why your position seems so illogical to me.
 
If I can go back to single mothers for a moment.

Your position, Matt, seems so illogical to me. When I asked, do you have problems with tax money going towards programs to help single mothers get on their feet, you answered - Yes, we have several.

So, do you not want them to get good jobs? I know you want them to get jobs, despite your personal feelings towards all single mothers. I suspect you'd say you want them to do it on their own steam. That's fine. But if a single mother wants to better her life, what's wrong with giving her a hand to that end?

If at the end of it, she has a good job, what do your personal feelings about her being "unable to close her legs" in the first place matter?

Of course you'd want them to have a job. That's why your position seems so illogical to me.

I'm all for her having a job. I do not think we should reward her poor decisions. Both my wife and I are still thousands of dollars in debt from student loans...but you're telling me the government and tax payers should pay a single mother's tuition on the grounds that she made poor decisions? That doesn't fly with me. You are punishing the people who make the good decisions and rewarding those who make bad ones.

If she wants to go to school, she should do it on her own steam. Take loans, work in the day while the child is at school, go to class for a couple hours each night.Use the money she earns for a baby sitter. And the government will give her some help (food stamps, financial aid for school, etc)...but she shoud not get better than people who have done it the right way We shoudn't reward someone for mooching off the system.
 
If I can go back to single mothers for a moment.

Your position, Matt, seems so illogical to me. When I asked, do you have problems with tax money going towards programs to help single mothers get on their feet, you answered - Yes, we have several.

So, do you not want them to get good jobs? I know you want them to get jobs, despite your personal feelings towards all single mothers. I suspect you'd say you want them to do it on their own steam. That's fine. But if a single mother wants to better her life, what's wrong with giving her a hand to that end?

If at the end of it, she has a good job, what do your personal feelings about her being "unable to close her legs" in the first place matter?

Of course you'd want them to have a job. That's why your position seems so illogical to me.

But your problem is that you want us to take money from those who are successful and give it to people who may or may not use it wisely. We have programs in this country which help people find work and which give out monetary rewards to mothers who make below a certain income. Since we already have these programs and they have not worked, what we don't need is to keep putting money into an already broken system. We need to fix it, so that we reward effort instead of status.

Also, if the woman has a good job and can't keep her legs closed, she doesn't need assistance from the government. That should be self explanatory.

Again, all it takes for a single mother to get a job is to get off of her ass, pick up several job applications, and fill them out. And if that doesn't work, she can go to her local welfare agency and they will help her find employment.
 
If Obama's is one of the best and McCains is dead, then why doesn't Obama have at least,.................at least......................a 20 pt lead?


He (Obama) holds a 5% lead in the CNN poll which includes an average of different polls, with 13% unsure. If Obama is one of the best, then why isn't he in a landslide right now?

That's a very good question.
 
Who here wants the every American Taxpayer to pay $857 Billion more in Taxes? That's $2,833.33 more per every Man, Woman and Child in this country.
 
If true, I'm not sure who it would hurt more...McCain or Obama? Having an endorsement from a high ranking Bush cronie (no matter how much he has since repented) won't please the far left.
 
If true, I'm not sure who it would hurt more...McCain or Obama? Having an endorsement from a high ranking Bush cronie (no matter how much he has since repented) won't please the far left.

I dont see it. I'd say Powell is one of the few people in the Bush administration that managed to escape with his reputation intact. I can't stand the Bush White House and even I have respect for Colin Powell.
 
I'm not convinced that's a good idea. Powell is the one who lied on national tv about the case for the Iraq war...
I'm not saying that they Lied about the War, but a lie isn't a lie if it is told with information you believe to be true. A "Lie" has intent.
 
I'm not convinced that's a good idea. Powell is the one who lied on national tv about the case for the Iraq war...

Yet the majority of Americans still respect Colin Powell immensely, which is why his endorsement will be huge.
 
I dont see it. I'd say Powell is one of the few people in the Bush administration that managed to escape with his reputation intact. I can't stand the Bush White House and even I have respect for Colin Powell.

Colin Powell destroyed his reputation when he presented the "case" for war against Iraq. He hardly left with it in tact.
 
I'm not saying that they Lied about the War, but a lie isn't a lie if it is told with information you believe to be true. A "Lie" has intent.

He knowlingly presented a case for war that was misleading and inaccurate.

Yet the majority of Americans still respect Colin Powell immensely, which is why his endorsement will be huge.

I'm not so sure that's true Jman.
 
He knowlingly presented a case for war that was misleading and inaccurate.

If I told you that I think a BigMac sells for $1.99, and tell you up and down that I have bought it before, and know I spent $1.99 for a BigMac, but it really cost $2.50, did I lie, or did I just not know the whole truth?
 
If I told you that I think a BigMac sells for $1.99, and tell you up and down that I have bought it before, and know I spent $1.99 for a BigMac, but it really cost $2.50, did I lie, or did I just not know the whole truth?

Hamburgers and war are quite different SB.
 
I'm not so sure that's true Jman.

Which is why when he left office, he had an approval rating in the high sixties :huh:

Which is why, even after he has left office, he hasn't received nearly as much scrutiny as those who drafted the war, such as Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush?

I mean, Powell told the UN what he was told. He wasn't the head of the operation or anything close-- he was Secretary of State. His job was to relay the information that was given to him, and nothing more. He didn't help orchestrate the policy, and in the years following his departure from the Bush administration, Powell has publicly questioned the Iraq war. If Rumsfeld endorsed Obama, he would have a serious problem. But Powell isn't Rumsfeld and he is regarded highly by many, many people, which means that his endorsement would be well received.
 
See, I'm not convinced at all, in the slightest, that Bush and co didn't know the whole truth. I suspect they had an agenda, and used information towards that agenda and ignored information that contradicted their position.

Was Colin Powell in on this? I don't know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"