OBAMA clinches Democratic Presidential Nomination.

[PuffnScruff]

^^(To Puff)

Because politics is a dirty game (that pretty much everyone plays) you have to read between the lines.

yes it is. look at obama. he says he will not take money from lobbyists. that is partially true but is also deceptive.
"his fundraising team includes 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government, records show."
Obama tied to lobbyists, but boasts of not taking money - USATODAY.com

the article goes much deeper into it as well as two other articles linked inside of it.

The money is within the country, it's just being divided in the wrong way. Regardless of whether he has to Bill Gates could provide just about the entire country with food, water and a roof above their heads.

i don't really see how you can say money is being divided up the wrong way. money is not divided up in this country. it is earned. bill gates could do that but if he makes the choice not to that is his choice. he earned that money on his own and it is his to do what he wishes with it. who is the govt to say he must do with it the way the see it? regardless bill gates actually does do great things with his wealth.

govt handouts make people weak and rely on their country to do things for them. people need to be self reliant.

i will never understand why people think the govt should distribute wealth among the people. the govt does not have some vast amounts of money. they get it from the people. why not just let the people keep their money?

it is not the goverments responsibility to give its people money, homes, healthcare, or a college education. what is with people that think they deserve things they have never earned? people that think things should just be handed over to them these days, that it is some how their right to be given these things and it is the governments job to give it to them. why?

What happened in the beginning of New Orleans was a sign of Bush's incompetence as a president on paper but what happened after the floods showed his flaws in real life. To me Bush just didn't fucking care to fix things afterwards and I have more faith in Obama than McCain that he'd at least try to do the right things. Ultimately money only goes so far, people actually getting off their ass is what matters. That's why I want Obama for president. I think he'll make the right decisions as a human being and even though he might not make much change (I ignore his slogan as political sleaze) while he's a president he might start a movement that changes things. It's not the state of the economy (although it did have huge effects that can't be written off) that took black people from slaves to citizens, it was a change in the way people behaved and acted. Depicting Bush as Hitler is laughable I found him very depressing as a human being and I feel in the end that's what made him such a terrible president, not his dyslexia.

katrina is a perfect example of people being dependent on their govt. look how that worked out.

we could get into the whole issue of new orleans and how lack of communication on all levels of govt, from the city, state and federal failed, but i guess there is no point.

 

[PuffnScruff]

McCain is not equipped to lead. He has already alienated so many of the foreign powers by his rigidity of thought, by his lack of scholarship, his lack of even knowing who runs countries. Tell us, John, the history of Kosovo, tell us of Albania, of Yugoslavia, and why did the countries want to secede, and why did we want them to secede? What was gained and what was lost? He couldn’t tell you. If you asked him to tell you who the head Sunni and head Shia in Iraq were, he’d be clueless. Explain the Arab League, how many members are there, and why would they be essential to solving the problems in Iraq and in Israel? He could not tell you. What he would say in each case is, “bomb ‘em.” Someone should do a cartoon caricature of him running naked into battle.

you claim that mccain is not equipped to lead because he does not know who runs other countries. so would you agree that obama is not equipped to lead since he gets the names of u.s. cities wrong (which he has, i don't have to time find the link at the moment)? of course you wouldn't

 

[S O F I]

katrina is a perfect example of people being dependent on their govt. look how that worked out.

American democracy is founded on a social contract, and we as a people conceded our powers to the government in return for the protection of our life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (right to own property, really).

And what were the people supposed to do, if not depend on the government? Were they supposed to have life rafts in their closet and an unlimited supply of canned food? Maybe a chopper per family in the backyard?

 

[PuffnScruff]

American democracy is founded on a social contract, and we as a people conceded our powers to the government in return for the protection of our life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (right to own property, really).

And what were the people supposed to do, if not depend on the government? Were they supposed to have life rafts in their closet and an unlimited supply of canned food? Maybe a chopper per family in the backyard?

have some commen sense? leave? walk if they have to? when shit hits the fan you have to do what is needed to survive. putting your faith in the government to save your or be there for you is just plain dumb.

if you know you live in a hurricane prone area why wouldn't you have a hurricane emergency supply sitting around in case you needed it? i did. i had a few weeks for of water, food, small propane grills and various other things that i had in my closet when i lived in florida. it's called being prepared.

 

[Devious]

have some commen sense? leave? walk if they have to? when shit hits the fan you have to do what is needed to survive. putting your faith in the government to save your or be there for you is just plain dumb.

if you know you live in a hurricane prone area why wouldn't you have a hurricane emergency supply sitting around in case you needed it? i did. i had a few weeks for of water, food, small propane grills and various other things that i had in my closet when i lived in florida. it's called being prepared.

and when your closet, along with your house, is destroyed by the hurricane? what then? you make it sound so simple, as if everyone in the ninth ward over there had enough money to pack up and move somewhere else. do you not realize that many of those affected by Katrina were some of the poorest people in the country? how do you pack up and leave when you don't have a car, or money to stay in a hotel, or relatives who can afford to put you up? you don't. i agree that people can't expect to be given everything instead of earning it like some people seem to think, but expecting your government to help out and "save" one of its cities in a time of crisis shouldn't be unreasonable at all. it SHOULD be expected, especially when your government is so eager to "save" citizens of other countries from their tyrannical leaders. why is it more important to save the Iraqis from the rule of Saddam Hussein than it is to help your own citizens who can't help themselves in times of crisis?

 

[PuffnScruff]

and when your closet, along with your house, is destroyed by the hurricane? what then? you make it sound so simple, as if everyone in the ninth ward over there had enough money to pack up and move somewhere else. do you not realize that many of those affected by Katrina were some of the poorest people in the country? how do you pack up and leave when you don't have a car, or money to stay in a hotel, or relatives who can afford to put you up? you don't. i agree that people can't expect to be given everything instead of earning it like some people seem to think, but expecting your government to help out and "save" one of its cities in a time of crisis shouldn't be unreasonable at all. it SHOULD be expected, especially when your government is so eager to "save" citizens of other countries from their tyrannical leaders. why is it more important to save the Iraqis from the rule of Saddam Hussein than it is to help your own citizens who can't help themselves in times of crisis?

my point was more about being prepared and being aware of your surrounds, where you live etc, even if you are poor you can take steps to be prepared. it wont cost you a lot of money to do so.

yes there were people that lived well below the poverty line (even though being in poverty today includes owning two cars and many televisions in your home), but i can't help but wonder how many of those people spend money on things that are not neccessary. i see poor people all the time that spend money of crap they don't need but they still wonder why they are poor.

 

[Jokerman]

you claim that mccain is not equipped to lead because he does not know who runs other countries. so would you agree that obama is not equipped to lead since he gets the names of u.s. cities wrong (which he has, i don't have to time find the link at the moment)? of course you wouldn't

You know there's a big difference between not knowing much about important countries and mis-naming a few American cities because you've been campaigning day and night in countless cities and towns with similar names. Sunshine, FL for Sunrise, FL. Big deal, you probably never heard of either. Or Sioux City for Sioux Falls. It's not like he called Boston "Philadelphia."

 

[AmerikazMost]

i don't really see how you can say money is being divided up the wrong way. money is not divided up in this country. it is earned. bill gates could do that but if he makes the choice not to that is his choice. he earned that money on his own and it is his to do what he wishes with it. who is the govt to say he must do with it the way the see it? regardless bill gates actually does do great things with his wealth.

govt handouts make people weak and rely on their country to do things for them. people need to be self reliant.

i will never understand why people think the govt should distribute wealth among the people. the govt does not have some vast amounts of money. they get it from the people. why not just let the people keep their money?

it is not the goverments responsibility to give its people money, homes, healthcare, or a college education. what is with people that think they deserve things they have never earned? people that think things should just be handed over to them these days, that it is some how their right to be given these things and it is the governments job to give it to them. why?



katrina is a perfect example of people being dependent on their govt. look how that worked out.

we could get into the whole issue of new orleans and how lack of communication on all levels of govt, from the city, state and federal failed, but i guess there is no point.

Puff, here's a conversation my economics professor had with a student who holds similar views to you:

Prof: So you think people should have to earn their livings?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Oh, so you believe in a 100% estate tax as well?


Your beliefs are contradictory. You believe in a person's right to reap the fruits of his own labor, but you fail to acknowledge the imbalances and limitations that a social structure places on individual's abilities to succeed. There is not necessarily a causality between being smart and hardworking and improving your economic status. Being born into an inner-city slum is a matter of luck--not failure on the infant's part to choose a better mother--and that child's progress is therefore impeded to a certain extent by his environment. That child, who may falter under the pressures of environment in this case, may have thrived in an upperclass, suburban home.

The economic and social structures that we have been placed under do not account properly for matters of chance such as these--one should one individual have better opportunities than another because somewhere down the line his ancestors made better choices? To me, such beliefs are derived in the patriarchal systems that America revolted against in the 1770's.

To me, opportunity is much of a factor in success as natural ability. People with more opportunity--which is a function of luck--get to go to better schools, better colleges, have better mentors to guide them, can afford health care to keep them sustained, know other influential people by virtue of their luck-given status. Without adjusting these imbalances, we perpetuate and sustain a structure that is socioeconomically biased, with only anomalies breaking the mold.

This is where your beliefs become contradictory. People should be able to earn and keep their livings, but what their earnings are is a function of the risk discussed before--mechanisms over which they have no control and could not have foreseen. If our government's function is to allow people to reap what they sew without intervention, then, in our reality, our government is choosing to designate which segments of society deserve to be dominant and which deserve to struggle. Thus, instead of choosing to help some people, it is choosing to support their suffering.

The free market is not a mechanism that can solve these problems. The inter-war period is proof of that, and even now in America it is showing again. Laissez-faire policies can work only in an environment devoid of prejudiced circumstance. With all apologies to Milton Friedman, it's simply not realistic to expect economic mechanisms to solve the problems of reality.

You criticize the government over Katrina, but would individual donors and private organizations have done any better? Would they have been willing to spend money levees that probably would not have affected them and did not show damning and obvious signs of disaster? I say that it is unlikely.

 

[PuffnScruff]

Your beliefs are contradictory. You believe in a person's right to reap the fruits of his own labor, but you fail to acknowledge the imbalances and limitations that a social structure places on individual's abilities to succeed. There is not necessarily a causality between being smart and hardworking and improving your economic status. Being born into an inner-city slum is a matter of luck--not failure on the infant's part to choose a better mother--and that child's progress is therefore impeded to a certain extent by his environment. That child, who may falter under the pressures of environment in this case, may have thrived in an upperclass, suburban home.

so it is society that keeps people from being successful in life? well then if society is going to keep me down i guess i shouldn't even bother to try.

i realize that people can't help who their parents are or what conditions they are born in. but they can make the choice if they are going to continue down that same path in life or rise above it. i have seen it happen. i know people that have done it. hell, my own mom grew up in poverty conditions nobody would even want to imagine.

being born in an upperclass home isn't going to somehow guarntee that you are going to be a successful in life.

should one individual have better opportunities than another

isn't that the same arguement against affirmative action?

To me, opportunity is much of a factor in success as natural ability. People with more opportunity--which is a function of luck--get to go to better schools, better colleges, have better mentors to guide them, can afford health care to keep them sustained, know other influential people by virtue of their luck-given status. Without adjusting these imbalances, we perpetuate and sustain a structure that is socioeconomically biased, with only anomalies breaking the mold.

i agree, opportunity can be a big factor in a persons success and can help boost a person to a great level. but it doesn't have to be. everyone is going to have a different view of what success is. but their are plenty of people throughout history that have become very successful that did not have any opportunities handed there way. they worked hard to get where they are.

You criticize the government over Katrina, but would individual donors and private organizations have done any better? Would they have been willing to spend money levees that probably would not have affected them and did not show damning and obvious signs of disaster? I say that it is unlikely.

actually, a private organization might have done better (i'm not saying that is the way situations like that should be handled). it probably have been more structured, better organization skills, and better communication

so what are you saying? people shouldn't have to earn their money? they shouldn't have to work for it and it should just be distrubted out by the government?

when your prof said "So you think people should have to earn their livings?"
well isn't that what people that work do? i mean, my money comes from state tax payers, but i still work for my salary. am i not earning it?

what i was originally saying is that chronics idea that the government is not distributing the wealth accordingly doesn't make sense because they do not distribute wealth at all. unless food stamps are considered wealth.

 

[AmerikazMost]

so it is society that keeps people from being successful in life? well then if society is going to keep me down i guess i shouldn't even bother to try.

i realize that people can't help who their parents are or what conditions they are born in. but they can make the choice if they are going to continue down that same path in life or rise above it. i have seen it happen. i know people that have done it. hell, my own mom grew up in poverty conditions nobody would even want to imagine.

being born in an upperclass home isn't going to somehow guarntee that you are going to be a successful in life.

You speak in such concrete terms. It's all gray--not black and white. I believe people's work ethic gives them a range of levels of success that they can achieve given their environment and circumstances. People born into better situations have larger and higher ranges than others. I think that is less fair than most forms wealth redistribution.

isn't that the same arguement against affirmative action?

I think affirmative action, though well-intentioned, is not implemented in a way to achieve its ultimate goal. Being based on race, its success at evening out opportunities worked better decades ago when there was a higher correlation between race and socioeconomic status. As that correlation fades, racial affirmative action becomes increasingly unfair. Any such programs should be based on socioeconomic standing, in my opinion.

actually, a private organization might have done better (i'm not saying that is the way situations like that should be handled). it probably have been more structured, better organization skills, and better communication

That's assuming it was even created to being with. Who exactly is going to fund an organization that could handle such a disaster when such a disaster seemed near impossible beforehand?

so what are you saying? people shouldn't have to earn their money? they shouldn't have to work for it and it should just be distrubted out by the government?

when your prof said "So you think people should have to earn their livings?"
well isn't that what people that work do? i mean, my money comes from state tax payers, but i still work for my salary. am i not earning it?

what i was originally saying is that chronics idea that the government is not distributing the wealth accordingly doesn't make sense because they do not distribute wealth at all. unless food stamps are considered wealth.

All my professor is doing is showing a contradiction in many conservative beliefs--they believe a person should get what they earn, but then they scoff at the idea of taxing estates, which give wealth to people that did not earn it. Thus, in order to believe in both, you have to believe in that people are genetically ordained or entitled to certain benefits, which frankly goes against any contemporary Western value.


And anybody who doesn't think we redistribute wealth in this country is sorely misguided. Anytime taxes exist, there is wealth redistribution. Wealthy people give up money to help fund national defense. They give up more money for equal security for all. That is an economic redistribution.

If you're against all forms of wealth redistribution, then you're in favor of zero taxes, and in which case the government can cease to function.


Are you an anarchist, Puff?

 

[PuffnScruff]

That's assuming it was even created to being with. Who exactly is going to fund an organization that could handle such a disaster when such a disaster seemed near impossible beforehand?

it was mostly hypothetical to begin with.

i don't think it is hard to believe an organization could be funded to do such things. look at what a private military company does (blackwater and iraq incidents aside).

like i said, i don't believe any group or organization should have to do handle such things, but if they were it might work more smoothly than the government handling it.

And anybody who doesn't think we redistribute wealth in this country is sorely misguided. Anytime taxes exist, there is wealth redistribution. Wealthy people give up money to help fund national defense. They give up more money for equal security for all. That is an economic redistribution.

If you're against all forms of wealth redistribution, then you're in favor of zero taxes, and in which case the government can cease to function.


Are you an anarchist, Puff?

the way i took what chronic said, and maybe i just misunderstood, was that the government should some how distripute wages or money to the people more fairly. unless you work for the government they don't do that.

i don't have anything against taxes, i do have something against too much taxes, but you are correct. the top two or three percent of wage earners in the country pay the majority of the taxes.

i can't say i am for zero taxes. i have become more interested in the fair tax idea lately. i don't believe in no government at all, i do believe in small government and don't like the federal government becoming bigger and bigger.

although, anarchy would be fun

 

[Chronic]

You think you did misunderstand my point but that's my fault, I should've explained better.
To me it's no longer a question of what's fair but of what needs to be done. It's well within everyone's right to work (hard) and get insanely rich, buy 10 cars, spend thousands of dollars in a month on champagne alone and only associate with people of the same 'stature' but to me it's a problem that this is able to happen. We were hunter-gatherers for about 2 million years. The first civilization came up about 5500 years ago. We made incredible strides forward in those relatively few years in things like technology and I'm very happy to live in today's age but the worrying thing is that the problems have also increased dramatically. And not just the whole technology doomsday theory. I'm confident that we will eventually either fuck up the planet to the extent that it will kill us or we will self-destruct (partially based on looking at civilizations that weren't conquered but still ended).
Few people will share my opinion on this but if I had the choice of growing up in a hunter-gatherer society and today's society I'd pick the former. But since we won't be going back to that we have to deal with society. You cannot provide people with the perfect society because they will find a way to fuck it up. Either you have to keep things in check with a fair dictatorship (which would be very hard to achieve) or you try to change the way people think. Again I'm probably far more extreme in my ways but I think we can all agree that people are fucked up. The only good solution I see is picking the best human being to be the leader and my money is on Obama. When speaking of money being divided I kind of had things in mind like the amount of money put into the space program. I think it's every bit amazing but fuck space right now, seriously. What the fuck?

I guess it comes down to how you view things though. To me rich people looking down on poor people is exactly the same as noblemen looking down on the plebs, we haven't come very far and the more power we create the bigger the chances are for disaster.