SuF do you even have a job? You're referring to your "very good education so far," but aren't speaking from the point of view of anyone who has ever had to fend for himself.
1) Government does not always spend all the money it brings in. The federal government might but local government may not. Baseless false claim.
You're just introducing local government into this issue as a red herring. The discussion is about Obama, and as far as I can tell he hasn't run for local office since the 80s.
Also, you're wrong. The federal government
DOES spend all of its money; it has for the past twelve years and counting. Not only that, but the federal government spends more money than it possibly can. And for that matter, the federal government actually orders the Fed to actually create
more for it to spend. China is no longer the biggest supplier of our excess budget; the fed is, thanks to September 2012's QE3 being issued.
2) Um. No. Rich people hoard their money. They invest some of it but that's just so that they gain more money which they can then hoard. You again have made a baseless false claim.
Here's where I wonder if you have a job. Where exactly do rich people "hoard" their money? I personally hoard my own money in a money market account, and my 401k is being hoarded in a retirement account that is tied to stocks, bonds, and other investments that are all aimed towards furthering someone else's dream. Have you have ever had student loans (before the government bought them out), a credit card, a car loan, a mortgage, or any other type of loan? Whatever money you borrowed, you got it because some rich person hoarded it.
Next you're going to say something even more ignorant like basketball players don't deserve to make millions of dollars a year.
3) Social Security isn't bankrupt. Please get your facts straight. It still has a surplus. Another ignorant baseless claim. And no. Private retirement does not work because it is not guaranteed. Social Security is. No matter what, you will get your money. This protects people from having nothing if the economy crashes and their savings are wiped out. Social Security won't generate as much money from the money it takes in but it will always be there and that's the point. I don't see how that is hard to understand.
Social security has a surplus now, but look at the facts. It
will be bankrupt, and the social security cliff is looming. How can you deny that social security needs reform? Roosevelt created it in 1935, and back then the life expectancy was 61.7 years old (
source), yet the retirement age was 65. On average, people were able to get SS benefits for -3.3 years. Now, the life expectancy is around 79, with an average benefits range of 14 years. At the
very least, something needs to be done about that. For the record, I'm lumping in other entitlements to this criticism as well. I understand SS works differently than other things like Medicaid, but the benefits age is generally the same.
The fact that social security is guaranteed is also scary, but that's more of an ideological thing than fact based.
4) I'm not watching your video but we have a lower level of care and higher costs of care than basically every socialized system. We are obviously doing something very wrong.
You've closed off your mind to any arguments, which tells me that you refuse to look at both sides of the issue. I find it hard to take criticisms from people who refuse to even look at evidence in order to refute it. Above anything else, all you're saying to me is you made up your mind out of impulse rather than a well-reasoned decision.
5) So you are saying we should let people starve and freeze to death if they have 5 children to feed and their minimum wage job doesn't bring in enough? Most of the entitlements have some sort of work requirement. We believe everyone deserves at least a certain standard of living and if they can not provide it themselves the government should help. If they are trying to game the system, they shouldn't be.
Where did he, or anyone else arguing against Obama, say that we want poor people to starve? What people never seem to realize is that the conservative vote is
FOR the lower class. The fact of the matter is, the bloated state of government is what causes a lot of the "desolation" that we see. Furthermore, as Joey remarked, the "lower class" is hella well off. I'm technically eligible for food stamps by a long shot, although I personally consider myself well off, all things considered. No, I can't eat out at restaurants every night, but I can definitely put food on my table.
In fact, the people who seem to be against the lower class are the liberal base. If you need any other proof than campaign spending records, please let me and I'll find some. Obama out-spent Romney by two-fold in this election. Where do you think the campaign money came from? From starving lower-class people, or from extremely rich corporations and businessmen who are paying for the candidate they believe will keep them in their elevated strata? Likewise, of the ten most wealthy counties in the United States, eight of them voted for Obama. Again, are they voting because they feel obligated to help the poor, or are they voting because they understand what it will take to keep themselves up there?
6) I can tell by what you are saying that you are disillusioned young person that has absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are brainwashed by some stupid Youtube videos. I have had a very good education so far and I will not tolerate personal attacks. Also... Fun fact: The more education you have the more likely you are to vote Democratic. You're very wrong again. Please try to use facts next time, ok?
I was going to ignore your post until you said this heinous, blatant lie. It reminded me of some bullshit CNN guest that they had on election night, who said the majority of Obama's support came from urban areas. He intimated that these urban areas have a higher percent of college-educated voters, and this educated base is what won the election. In fact, Romney took 51 percent of college graduates, compared to 47 percent for Obama. I don't know about you, but when someone has a four-point lead or higher in politics I generally call it a much decided victory. It's seeming more and more likely every day that they analyze the exit poll data that Sanct's video of Obama voters is actually more representative than we had thought. Obama had the ignorant and the government-dependent vote, and that is why he won.
I'm referring to facts in my post rather than attacks and vague statements, but let me point out that being a "disillusioned young person that has absolutely no idea what [he] is talking about"
actually means he will vote for Obama. He thrashed Romney with the youth vote. In terms of statistics, the youth vote is a liberal vote, yet you are alluding to the fact that being young means being rash and misinformed. Therefore, one can only conclude that you think the liberal vote is the rash and misinformed vote?
It is clear that you seem to believe that you are rooting for the poor, but don't let your emotions overtake the issue. Politics is not about emotions. Why do liberals really believe that, by trying to redistribute wealth through entitlement programs and welfare programs, they are actually helping people? Jobs are being exported out of the United States in droves, and at the same time the minimum wage is exploding. I live in Alaska where we never had a $5 footlong, but it's my understanding that Subway can no longer afford to have that catchy campaign anymore because it is simply too expensive to employ Americans to make a sandwich for $5. That's terrifying. Additionally, as the federal government balloons to the point of exploding, the dollar is becoming even more and more shaky and people are investing in tangible commodities. The infamous gold explosion is one example, but let's look at more close-to-home stuff... hamburger, wheat, rice, chicken, pork, corn, soybeans. These have all exploded nearing the rate of gold's inflation over the last four years. Liberal economists never seem to take this "economy tax" into consideration when they talk about the government spending helping out the poor. For your starving family of five, do you think it helps to increase their effective cost of groceries by 50%? Now instead of having to spend $300 a week to feed five families, they have to spend $450.
Also, let's consider all the other rising costs. People are having to spend $30 more a week to fill up their tanks than they did before Obama was elected, and this is only considering the domestic use of gasoline. Crude oil can be refined into a large number of goods and is truly a mainstay in our economy: it can be used to transport goods to shops, service providers and restaurants; crude oil can be converted into heating oil; it even ends up producing plastic and wax. With higher transportation costs, a higher cost to heat warehouses and shops, this drives up prices of literally everything you can purchase. In the end, on top of the 50% food tax people are now paying thanks to the $17 trillion debt, they are paying countless other dollars for other economy taxes. To a rich guy who makes all the liberal decisions, this is penny change and it is understandable why nobody talks about it; to the family of five, this really could mean the difference between dinner and no dinner. That $150/month economy tax is growing more and more every day, as we trickle down the effects of high base costs.
Finally, let me just bring up Benghazi again. I know that you liberals think we're beating a dead horse, and that anything over 2 weeks old is ancient history, but this is an immensely serious issue that can't be swept under the rug. These people didn't need to die; there should have been military support, and there was not. That makes it a serious issue in national defense and foreign policy, and either it is because Obama didn't want to make a decision, or he thought the better decision was to do nothing. I don't know about you, but anyone who is willing to condemn four people "for the greater good" sounds an awful lot like Stalinism. For that reason alone I hope to God that Obama was merely apathetic and inept, rather than a neo-Stalinism who will put four lives beneath his own agenda. I mean, come on, this guy was utterly convinced that it was Youtube video for 10 days... truly, the only two options are incompetence or treason.
