OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 5

[pk500]

Then if their "bad choices" aren't solely a result of choice, your whole argument goes up in smoke. It's not really a choice, if it's an environmental influence, is it?

Now I see RobV's frustration with your retorts. Of course their bad choices are strictly based on choice, and those choices can be influenced by societal and other effects. But there are those who feel the same effects and don't make the same decisions.

Bottom line: It's their choice. Society and other influences may affect that choice, but they ultimately have to make it.

Jesus, John, has there never been a time in your life that you were out with friends at a bar or a party and you were driving, and they said, "Hey, man, have another beer." You were tempted, but you realized that wasn't a good idea since you were close to the legal limit and were driving, so you said, "No, man, I have to drive." Or did you succumb to the societal influence EVERY time and pound down another draft?

And let's say that you did that and were pulled over and charged with DUI. Who's fault would that be? Yours, or your buddies who urged you to stay for one more beer?

If they go to school, as mandated by states up to a certain age. In school they don't do well. They see no future, and with bad grades don't go to college or pass high school. And we are asking kids to see the world in this light, not mature adults but children then teenagers.

And I guess it's never the student's fault when they do poorly in school, right? Every one of those kids is so damn eager to learn, wants to attend MIT, wants nothing to do with the gang culture, has two, loving, nurturing parents who want them to graduate from high school and college, etc.?

It's the school's fault. Or the teachers' fault. My neighbor taught in one of the worst schools in the inner city of Syracuse for 30 years. A friend of mine teaches in the same area now. He said it's amazing how many kids have ZERO desire to be in school, have no desire to learn, have no interest in the power that higher education can bring them. All they want is to reach 16 and leave for the streets.

But it's never the kid's fault. It's always someone else's fault. OK.

Take care,
PK

[XXXIV]

No one is for a redistribution of wealth. Obama's plan is not that.

Did you not hear Obama's exact words? He said "I want to spread the wealth around". Those words came out of his mouth.

He was only kidding...

[XXXIV]

But it's never the kid's fault. It's always someone else's fault. OK.

Take care,
PK

I always like to blame society.

This is the new America...the pass the buck America. Its never anyones fault.

[JRod]

You are trying to say but don't have the balls to say it, that the poor make bad choices on purpose.

Some do, some don't. Same goes for rich people.

I personally know people who have been on unemployment and have turned down or avoided jobs because it's easier to just get a check from the government while he/she plays on the 360 all day than to work for the money.

I'd rather our money get put into the economy the more "natural" way (i.e. without government intervention) than to have taken away and redistributed. If businesses are making money, they hire more people. I'd rather my money go to helping create a job for that poor unemployed person than for a refund check at the end of the year.

I'm not agasint ALL taxes. Unemployment benefits for example are a good thing, but they can be abused. I understand that not all of my tax money will be used for things I like. I've only had children for the psat eight years, but I was paying taxes for schools a lot ealier than that. What I do not like is the idea of penalizing someone for getting ahead and turning around and giving that same money to someone who did not contribute 1 cent in taxes.

If they want to spend my tax money on the poor, then put it good use. Find ways to use it to get people on their feet and working, not just handing out additional welfare.

See and I have zero problem with this. This is smart government. I believe a government to be dynamic but smart. Spend when it needs to help people, and contract in certain sectors and issues. But through oversight, it has to be proactive not just reactive. That doesn't mean spending just to spend but oversight and smart regulation.

[Naples39]

Naples did you receive you stimulus check?

I did receive a check, but I would like to make 2 points.
1) There is a big difference between a one-time payment to everybody and system of annual payments to few.

2) I think the economic stimulus legislation passed earlier, and the coming economic stimulus package the Dems are planning to be thoroughly ineffective policy. If you want to stimulate the economy you have to make policy changes that effect individual behavior going forward. A one-time check and consequent consumer purchase(s) does little to nothing to stimulate the economy, and is a waste of government money. If you want to stimulate consumer spending, get serious and do a real tax cut. Otherwise your just flushing a few hundred billion down the toilet on a program that is unlikely to create any real economic consequences.

No one is for a redistribution of wealth. Obama's plan is not that.

You can keep saying this until you are red-faced, but what do you call it when the government hands an unconditional check to a select group of people based on their income. This is the very definition of redistribution of wealth. It's indisputable.

While on the topic of Obama's plans; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1224202 ... inion_main

Before you say it, yes, it's a biased opinion piece, but there is some solid info in there.

[Jared]

Wow Rob, I expect crazy talk from some guys on this forum. I always thought you were better than that.

You think it's about personal choice. That's a pretty myopic view of the problems some people face.

You are trying to say but don't have the balls to say it, that the poor make bad choices on purpose.

Personal attacks?

Agreed. Both you and PK will be taking a break for the weekend.

(Although, of course, security measures that I set up previously have now prevented me from banning from work, lol. So anyways, the ban will go into effect sometime this evening.)

[Jackdog]

Then if their "bad choices" aren't solely a result of choice, your whole argument goes up in smoke. It's not really a choice, if it's an environmental influence, is it?

If they go to school, as mandated by states up to a certain age. In school they don't do well. They see no future, and with bad grades don't go to college or pass high school. And we are asking kids to see the world in this light, not mature adults but children then teenagers.

No. We're asking their parents to give a s***. They need to take interest in how their chidren do in school and break the cycle. The welfare plantation hasn't encouraged that at all. I worked at Considine Community Center on the eastside of Detroit for 4 years. We offered free programs and tutors to help high risk kids get an education. In 4 years we had 7 kids take advantage of the program. PK is right. The drug trade is the way these kids make their spending money and the goverment provides them with housing and food. That ain't changing anytime soon.

[Brando70]

Seriously, people, we are adults. Can we talk about big-people issues without getting into flamewars? I would hate to see political discussions get banned from DSP because we can't conduct ourselves better than the OS crowd.

[pk500]

Agreed. Both you and PK will be taking a break for the weekend.

Fair enough, dude. A just punishment, yet I don't regret a thing I wrote.

See you cats next week. Have a good weekend.

Take care,
PK

[Jackdog]

Seriously, people, we are adults. Can we talk about big-people issues without getting into flamewars? I would hate to see political discussions get banned from DSP because we can't conduct ourselves better than the OS crowd.

I agree man. I have been damn good at biting my tongue in this thread. Sometimes it seems people are trolling for a negitive response. Backhanded comments need to stop. Make your point and debate it. If you don't agree and the post pisses you off,ignore it.

That being said. Someone goes after my balls,all bets are off!

[Jackdog]

Agreed. Both you and PK will be taking a break for the weekend.

Fair enough, dude. A just punishment, yet I don't regret a thing I wrote.

See you cats next week. Have a good weekend.

Take care,
PK

See ya lover!! Enjoy the fight!!!!

[JRod]

Then if their "bad choices" aren't solely a result of choice, your whole argument goes up in smoke. It's not really a choice, if it's an environmental influence, is it?

Now I see RobV's frustration with your retorts. Of course their bad choices are strictly based on choice, and those choices can be influenced by societal and other effects. But there are those who feel the same effects and don't make the same decisions.

Bottom line: It's their choice. Society and other influences may affect that choice, but they ultimately have to make it.

Jesus, John, has there never been a time in your life that you were out with friends at a bar or a party and you were driving, and they said, "Hey, man, have another beer." You were tempted, but you realized that wasn't a good idea since you were close to the legal limit and were driving, so you said, "No, man, I have to drive." Or did you succumb to the societal influence EVERY time and pound down another draft?

And let's say that you did that and were pulled over and charged with DUI. Who's fault would that be? Yours, or your buddies who urged you to stay for one more beer?

If they go to school, as mandated by states up to a certain age. In school they don't do well. They see no future, and with bad grades don't go to college or pass high school. And we are asking kids to see the world in this light, not mature adults but children then teenagers.

And I guess it's never the student's fault when they do poorly in school, right? Every one of those kids is so damn eager to learn, wants to attend MIT, wants nothing to do with the gang culture, has two, loving, nurturing parents who want them to graduate from high school and college, etc.?

It's the school's fault. Or the teachers' fault. My neighbor taught in one of the worst schools in the inner city of Syracuse for 30 years. A friend of mine teaches in the same area now. He said it's amazing how many kids have ZERO desire to be in school, have no desire to learn, have no interest in the power that higher education can bring them. All they want is to reach 16 and leave for the streets.

But it's never the kid's fault. It's always someone else's fault. OK.

Take care,
PK

You are asking children mostly brought up under poor circumstances to make decisions based on middle-class rationale. How is that going to happen?

Going to college or at least being a productive member of society isn't something you learn when you are 17. It's ingrained from when you are a child. If you have no support structure at home, if you are surrounded in a non-supportive environment, where are these values going to be learned. Is work-ethic, righteousness, community stewardship, a god-given birth right. No these are learned traits.

Our schools don't care about these things directly. Mostly it's about funding and doing well on mandated tests to keep funding. Good teachers do want to teach them these values because they know it will pay off. The problem is it's often difficult to overcome years of a poor support structure to change certain habits.

Once again, a teenager can't wake up one day at the age of 17 and say, I think I'll go to college next year.

It starts at a pre-school age.

So to go back to your question, take out that I was a teenager and the fact drinking as a child is wrong. Imagine a 6 year-old trying to make the right choices that will place him in college.

That's what I'm driving at. It's myopic to think with a middle-class value set for all children.

[Jared]

I would hate for them to get banned to. But honestly, I am getting sick and tired of this bull. I am ALL FOR discussion. I am totally against personal attacks. And they seem to happen all the damn time in the political threads. It's not like people are telling other people to f*** off because they like FIFA vs. PES, or that they don't have the balls to understand the genius that is NBA Live.

I understand that there are posters here that enjoy this thread, and the last thing I want to do is lock it. However, I've received PMs from people that think that the politics thread is ruining the community here at DSP. I didn't think that before, but every time people start thinking that the politics thread is an excuse to be a dick, it starts to change my mind. I've already had to lock this thread multiple times, and ban four users this week alone. I hate that, because everyone on the ban list (Matt, FatP, PK, JRod) are posters that I like to read, hear from, and are good people. But I can't tolerate that kind of behavior in the politics, or any other thread.

So please, people. Follow Jackdog's advice. Otherwise, if people keep behaving like this, politics threads will be gone for the foreseeable future on these forums.

[Brando70]

Seriously, people, we are adults. Can we talk about big-people issues without getting into flamewars? I would hate to see political discussions get banned from DSP because we can't conduct ourselves better than the OS crowd.

I agree man. I have been damn good at biting my tongue in this thread. Sometimes it seems people are trolling for a negitive response. Backhanded comments need to stop. Make your point and debate it. If you don't agree and the post pisses you off,ignore it.

I agree on not posting angry. I have had many comments I've written out because of a reaction to something, then thought better of it and decided to cool off first. At the end of the day, I like and respect the members of this forum, even those I disagree with on political issues. I wouldn't want to damage that.

[GameSeven]

I didn't think that before, but every time people start thinking that the politics thread is an excuse to be a dick, it starts to change my mind.

Well put

[Jackdog]

I agree on not posting angry. I have had many comments I've written out because of a reaction to something, then thought better of it and decided to cool off first. At the end of the day, I like and respect the members of this forum, even those I disagree with on political issues. I wouldn't want to damage that.

No doubt. I can't tell you how many times I've written a response and thought twice about it and didn't hit "Submit". For me,it's a very hard thing too do. I am getting much better with my anger management these days.

[webdanzer]

Personal attacks?

Agreed. Both you and PK will be taking a break for the weekend.

(Although, of course, security measures that I set up previously have now prevented me from banning from work, lol. So anyways, the ban will go into effect sometime this evening.)

'Just wait until your father comes home!' heh. I was worried for a moment there that your 'you' meant me, and I was in trouble for tattling.

I don't like the bans either, but once the personal attacks start I think they do tend to avalanche...as was the case today, I think. IMO if they start they should be stopped ASAP.

Hopefully folks won't allow this discussion to carry over to other parts of the board. I like hearing varying opinions from all of you guys.

[Jackdog]

Back to politics...............I got this email from the church that asked us to leave because we weren't in the Obama camp.. This is some bullshit. It can't be true. What a sham.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: 10/15/2008 11:14:16 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: FW: Voting Infotmation
fyi ... Just Passing this on...

For those who normally vote 'Straight Democratic', please pay close attention!!!!! I was informed this weekend by a group of Obama volunteers that when voting for the presidential candidate this November, you have to make sure you punch Barack's name first, then proceed to punch 'Straight Democratic' or else the vote for the president won't count. I'm not sure if any of you are aware of this, but we know they won't tell us this at the poles. Please make sure you inform others.

PLEASE PRAY AND PLEASE VOTE!

Love you, Pastor Rorer.

[wco81]

In the last year, Visa had the biggest IPO ever. The CEO at the time of the IPO had been put in place a few months before the IPO. IOW, he didn't build the Visa business but was going to walk away with at least ten of millions for a few months of work.

Or what about the CEO of WaMu or Wachovia. Again a short-termer brought in when the bank was on the brink of failure. The bank gets taken over and he walks away with a $20 million golden parachute.

Do the guys who get promotions at the office always turn out to be the best workers? Or sometimes, are we talking about who schmoozes the bosses the best?

These anecdotes are no more convincing than a story about lifetime criminals who collect welfare and other government handouts as a justification for ending all government spending for the poor. Using anecdotes is appealing but entirely inappropriate for crafting policy.

I also have to say, it is really amazing to me that America has become the worlds most powerful economy when we keep giving high salaries and promotions to destructive ass-kissers and not talented and productive people on the whole.

No anecdotes shouldn't be used to craft policy and I wasn't advocating such.

I was merely pointing out that this is not the perfect meritocracy. Plenty of cases of people reaching high places without hard work or talent. Or to amend that, talent as in brains. You could certainly characterize the ability to climb the ladder as a talent.

We don't have a royalty but there are Americans who born into or land into great situations.

[Naples39]

You could certainly characterize the ability to climb the ladder as a talent.

True. Barack Obama himself is a fantastic example of this, as he continues to climb from position to position without doing anything of worthy of recognition while holding the previous position.

We don't have a royalty but there are Americans who born into or land into great situations.

I'm not sure why everyone sees this as an automatic negative. What better reward is there then after leading a successful career than to be able to provide your children and your grandchildren with a better situation.

[wco81]

You believe in maximum government, which requires maximum funding. I believe in minimum government, which requires minimum funding. Fundamental difference there.

I don't believe in any specific type of govt.

But here are the facts: We have a $14 trillion economy.

According to Mort Zuckerman, the federal govt. is 21% of GDP or about $3 trillion. These bank bailouts we're doing, he said there's no choice, there's no private capital to do what govts. are doing -- the EU has committed about $3 trillion and their GDP is about $16 trillion.

Forget about the bailouts for a second. The US became a $14 trillion economy with the massive govt. we have. It would be one thing if you're arguing that chopping federal spending by 1/3 or even 1/2 would make the economy even more prosperous.

But it doesn't seem you're making that argument. Instead, you just want it smaller for the sake of it being smaller. Or for the sake of getting rid of income taxes or whatever, never mind the effect such a drastic downsizing would have on the economy.

[Brando70]

You lost some of McCain there, Jack:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Goaj5V4tZoc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrqoSyKsAPw

Oops, and Obama was cut off too:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXKaAQ-6BiU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkBQf4FJi-o



And yes, this was great to see and hear.

Those were hilarious. McCain was on fire and had me laughing almost the whole time.

[Feanor]

2) I think the economic stimulus legislation passed earlier, and the coming economic stimulus package the Dems are planning to be thoroughly ineffective policy. If you want to stimulate the economy you have to make policy changes that effect individual behavior going forward. A one-time check and consequent consumer purchase(s) does little to nothing to stimulate the economy, and is a waste of government money. If you want to stimulate consumer spending, get serious and do a real tax cut. Otherwise your just flushing a few hundred billion down the toilet on a program that is unlikely to create any real economic consequences.

If an economy needs to be fiscally stimulated to avoid a bad recession or even a depression setting in, then tax cuts for everyone are not the most effective way of doing it as a significant percentage of the money will be saved.

In general people increasing theirs savings is good, but if you just need to stimulate consumer spending in an emergency situation then there are more effective and less expensive ways of doing it that across the board tax cuts and rebate cheques.

[Naples39]

If an economy needs to be fiscally stimulated to avoid a bad recession or even a depression setting in, then tax cuts for everyone are not the most effective way of doing it as a significant percentage of the money will be saved.

What? Tax cut money will be saved but stimulus money won't be saved? I don't follow.

In which circumstances are you more likely to go on a spending spree--
a) You get a one time check.
b) You know you will have more money in your pocket every year for an indefinite period.

Personally, I would be far more likely to change my spending in situation b.

[wco81]

If an economy needs to be fiscally stimulated to avoid a bad recession or even a depression setting in, then tax cuts for everyone are not the most effective way of doing it as a significant percentage of the money will be saved.

What? Tax cut money will be saved but stimulus money won't be saved? I don't follow.

In which circumstances are you more likely to go on a spending spree--
a) You get a one time check.
b) You know you will have more money in your pocket every year for an indefinite period.

Personally, I would be far more likely to change my spending in situation b.

If you go back to the early years of this decade. Bush campaigned on tax cuts because there was a surplus and years of surpluses were forecasted. The argument was ideological, that govt. shouldn't have any excess money and it should be given back to the people. Greenspan signed onto this as well.

But then by the time they were deliberating, there was a brief economic slowdown and then 9/11 and the argument was to use the tax cuts as stimulus. We've seen how the administration likes to push the same policy, regardless of the conditions on the ground (WMD, democracy).

They rushed forward a payment as kind of an advance against the tax cuts, to stimulate the economy. And economists say that people did spend enough of those checks to make a difference.

But the one that they passed last year, when gas prices were at their highest, may have been used to pay off bills.