Obama

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=hZQ03kgB6Bg&feature=related

Any questions?

 

This is exactly why I am voting for McCain.

 

o.o hes an odd guy.

 

That is why I'm voting for him. I hate the rich people. They are too greedy.

 

And socialism is? I understand that he feels that the poor shouldn't have to pay the same amount of cash for taxes as rich people... I mean come on... Poor - money = more poor... Rich - money = Still rich/ middle class...

 

And?

What do you think the recent government bailout of failing financial institutions adds up to? Or public schooling? Universal healthcare isn't going to send us into a downward spiral into outright Communism.

Socialism already exists in America. It's needed to support society when the "invisible hand" fails to work efficiently. Obama's simply suggesting that, in the shadow of a very real financial crisis, a "shared burden" is better for our overall economy. It's an economically responsible decision, and if the economy weren't shit at the moment, he wouldn't be suggesting it.

That doesn't make him a Socialist.

 

i thank that there should be no super rich max u can have is 1billion or so no1 need more then a billion seriously i thank it good and he gonna help the economy but ye i don't like either of em this just want i think

 

90% of Americas wealth is controlled but 1% of Americans

 

It'll all come to the same thing in the end. Obama's just the more useful puppet, as he can rally the youth, be an effective poster boy, etc etc.

Why do the rich owe some of their wealth to you?

The issue is not whether or not the rich can afford it, but whether you have a right to some of their success.

The recent government bailouts are essentially a pretext for the government to seize private assets - and it's working out very well so far. They are succeeding in their campaign to own the means of production.

Public schooling is corrupt and useless. All you learn is how to get a depressing 9 to 5 job, and work as a wage slave. It's also compulsory, which is completely ridiculous. If I want to educate myself or my children, I will.

Universal health care will make it effectively impossible to get health care. Try going to a nation with this form of health care, and see how enjoyable the 3 month waiting lists are.

Yes, it does exist in America - and it shouldn't. I'm not responsible for those who can't support themselves.

This financial crisis was initiated by the government. They hired credit firms, guaranteed all of their bad debt, allowed them to keep all profits, slashed interest rates, and let them run wild.

I don't care about the rest of the economy. Again, I'm not responsible for others.

How presumptuous! On what basis do you decree how much wealth I am allowed to earn, your highness?

Actually, the top 1% own 35% of the wealth of the U.S.

 

Spread the wealth around? Bullshit i think he means give the wealth away to blacks, *not racist*; but everyone knows most black people are voting for him because
1. Hes black
and 2. they are too damn lazy to make there own money.
And the free services are going to put us all in debt i dont care what anyone says. Frankly, i'd rather have clinton back than this einstein.

 

I'm voting for Obama.

TBH...I don't HATE McCain...if you can't do a better job then the two that are running, then just shut your mouth and don't talk.

If you CAN do their job better, go try and run. Just my opinion.

 

I'm almost positive i could do a better job then obama.

sig, ect,

 

You do realize that most people, while wishing to be governed fairly, do not wish to devote their lives to governing?

 

I completely understand the bailout plan. I also understand that the government is responsible for this crisis in the first place, and that government takeover (nationalization) of private enterprises is exactly what happened in National Socialist Germany.

You were the one who brought it up.

Fantastic. I'm sure their intentions are noble.

But this is precisely what they are doing. There is nothing complex or outlandish about this: By buying the banks, they buy the means of production (tractors, concrete mix, factories, etc.).

Capitalism today is not pure capitalism. The 9 to 5 job is a direct result of a schooling system that does not train you to think outside the box, but rather along very linear lines: Work hard, get a job, work hard, work hard.

Literacy is great, but I'm perfectly capable of teaching my kids how to read/write.

They can decide what to do for themselves - it's no concern of mine.

Funny, because there's still a long wait for getting an abnormal lump checked, or for getting surgery to remove that lump because it's malignant cancer.

A dual system, then? Can I opt out of the universal coverage if I wish? Or why am I responsible for paying for others?

If I'm directly responsible for their injuries/losses, fine. However, I'm not.

Fantastic. I'll choose to manage my own affairs just the same, though, thanks.

 

I though Obama refused to go on Fox News, and don't debate with Shredder, you're going to lose.

 

Let me spell this out: The government told Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go wild with loans, on the premise that they would be their guaranteur.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/
http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/18/fannie-freddie-regulation-oped-cx_yb_0718brook.html

The goal of these people was to increase home ownership. They sat in their conference rooms, trying to create a neat, pretty little society, and they thought the best idea was to order these corporations to run wild. They fucked up. They are to blame.

Oh, well in that case, Obama isn't pioneering socialism. It has been coming for a long time.

They bought/are buying ownership stakes in banks:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27101763/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/09/AR2008100901520.html

The schooling system trains everyone for such a job, and makes it mandatory for everyone to receive such training. I don't want my kids being taught such menial things. I'll take care of them myself.

Those people who run the schools certainly operate by this mantra, and they use the schooling system to reinforce it, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Now, were this system optional, I really wouldn't care. It would be a great supply of workaholics for me.

Jobs usually have job requirements. Incompetents are usually fired. I find it unreasonable to expect that there will be nobody to fill such job positions. Even if the number is very low, there will be a huge demand, which would skyrocket the pay, making people learn how to read/write of their own initiative.

Idiotic, incoherent responses are annoying, but I'll survive.

Literacy in society makes life less irritating for me - and that's great. However, don't make me pay for the literacy of others on the basis that it's good for me. I'll decide what's good for me myself.

If you have a lump that wasn't there two months ago, any waiting period is too long.

The private schools are generally good, except that the small numbers of students attending them allow the owners to drive prices up. Were there no such thing as public schooling, and all schools charged, schools would have to compete for the best students at the best pricing.

If you agree with an opt-out system, then I have no argument with you. An opt-out system (as long as you can also opt out of paying) would allow private businesses to compete directly with the government, something that history has demonstrated is a no-contest fight.

 

I think Obama is going to win, but McCain still has a good chance.

 

I am a complete anti-socialist.

It wasn't a command to "go wild", per se, but it was certainly a large increase in pressure to give out loans. The government at the time had a goal of "X citizens owning houses by date Y", and so they pressured the mortgage companies to give out loans to those who ordinarily would not be able to repay them.

"We want everybody in America to own their own home."
George W. Bush, October 15th, 2002.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021015-7.html#

They ignored the reality of the market, and used the Community Reinvestment Act to force banks to lend to riskier prospects. They justified this increased risk by guaranteeing any and all bad debt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

To quote the final paragraph of the Forbes article:

"We do not need more regulation or economic "steering"--laws or bureaucrats dictating to financiers and investors the kind of innovation they may or may not engage in. If that were the solution to economic problems, then Hugo Chavez would preside over the world's healthiest economy in Venezuela. What we need to do is remove the government's power to coerce, bribe, reward and bail out irrational decisions. The unfree market has failed. It's time for a truly free market."

Not much blame goes to the banks, actually. They were forced to increase their lending (or face penalties such as denial of mergers, expansions, etc.) by the CRA.

I don't know if they're brilliant masterminds or bumbling fools - but their actions are resulting in a lot of government takeover.

If the first bailout had been passed, I doubt they would have hesitated to begin buying shares. They seemed fairly comfortable buying $250 billion worth of bank shares.

 

But then again the rich people usually work harder and have jobs that take more knowledge working in an office with numbers or finding solutions.
While the lower class is more people who've slacked in school and it's working their way back at them. Anyone can get rich or poor, the person decides.
If you're rich by an heir, it usually means someone in there family backround made some money. It's all about how you take advantage of you're life to make the money. It's kind of a gamble to with job availibility but there are plenty of jobs so if you get the education it shouldn't be much of a problem.