Re: Midterm Elections (Nov. 2)
An interesting take on Pres. Obama's post "shellacking" press conference:
Quote:
|
Re: Midterm Elections (Nov. 2)
I think the problem with the American people is that we see whoever is in power at the time as having created the 13 trillion dollar deficit.
I predict that the next series of elections will follow the same path this one did: voting out whoever is in office. I have a bad feeling that even if our new Republican house does some great things, they won't get a lot of credit for it since they weren't able to completely flip the recession around. People want to see sweeping change that balances the budget and pays off our debt. I don't think most people realize that there's not even enough money in the world right now to do that. Also we have a lot of people like this, who tend to actually turn out and vote: |
Re: Midterm Elections (Nov. 2)
Vamp, while I don't agree with the person you posted's socialism statement, I don't see any hypocrisy in his acceptance of unemployment benefits even though he is against spending. As the man said, if he refuses free money he is stupid, and his refusal would not change anything and potentially only hurt his family (if he has one). He would only be hypocritical if he lost his benefits, and then complained about the loss. If his situation is as he describes, he is simply making the best decisions for himself and his family and I can hardly fault him for that.
We also can't look at things like unemployment benefits, or entitlements in general, like they are disassociated from the rest of the economy. The wealth that pays for benefits comes from somewhere. Instead of the man working for the money, he is receives it for free, and the act of confiscating that wealth to pay for his non-work/benefits/etc might inhibit another individual or organization from employing him (in a macro-economic sense). |
Re: Midterm Elections (Nov. 2)
Vamp, that guy got owned on FB. lol
As for Prof. We've had the discussion before. Prof is all for unemployment because he had to get it before to keep his family afloat. But I'm sure he'd have rather worked at McDonalds and moved to a homeless shelter... don't expect anything more then the same hypocracy from him. (He still has me blocked, I assume.. so that's just info for everyone else who thinks Mr. Delusional makes any sense.) |
Re: Midterm Elections (Nov. 2)
Obama-Carter 2012!
|
Re: Midterm Elections (Nov. 2)
What is up with the hate?
EDIT: Actually, TheGame, that was highly rude of you to post something like that in a thread. I find that to be very personal. Damn man. |
Re: Midterm Elections (Nov. 2)
Just to be clear I'm not against unemployment benefits at all, I am very much for it.
I was judging him based on the fact he is against "socialism" in general, when some aspects of socialism are obviously beneficial (as in socialized unemployment benefits). I was also judging him based on his friends responses, indicating that he isn't even trying to find a new job, and instead sits around drinking. He's abusing a system just because it's abusable, and claiming that he has the right too since they didn't make it non-abusable (which would be virtually impossible). Systems like unemployment exist because people in bad situations deserve to be helped, and that help has to come from somewhere. People who immediately write it off as socialist and bad because it can be abused need to understand that sometimes you have to take the good with the bad. It can be abused, and it is, but I would still rather have it than not. |
Re: Midterm Elections (Nov. 2)
Quote:
People like to forget why things like unemployment payments were created in the first place. It's not because the government wanted more control over people's lives, it's because these corperations that Strangler has so much trust in could get rid of their employees at any time for any reason and bump them into an instant state of poverty. (People who have potential to get another job, but not nessicarily another job before rent is due next month...) The second we bring up any subject about the government helping people who are truely in need for different reasons, he's strongly against it since he never had to take it himself. |
Re: Midterm Elections (Nov. 2)
Quote:
Critiquing a system does not equal condemnation. I think people do need a bridge from one job to another, but our current unemployment system has serious flaws. Here are a two big ones: 1) 2 years is far too long. If you can't get a job in your chosen field for a year, its time to think about changing fields. 2) Currently, if you file as a small business in any way, you lose your benefits even if you show zero profit. This means if you become unemployed the government pays you to NOT be entrepreneurial. The benefits could be used to help fund a new, profitable business but instead are reserved for those who wait for another position and opportunity to work for someone else. Fixing these two obvious flaws would go a long way to correcting what used to be a reasonable system, but unfortunately politics tends to extend and exacerbate obvious flaws in entitlements, and not correct them. I tend to think that maybe private industry should be allowed to throw their hat in the ring. Mandate unemployment insurance, but allow private companies to compete for the business. I'm sure there would be a lot to work out to make this possible, but its worth a thought. It works with car insurance in PA, why not unemployment? |
Re: Midterm Elections (Nov. 2)
Quote:
|
Re: Midterm Elections (Nov. 2)
Game, I signed out so that I could see what you wrote.
When are you going to learn that you can't shoe horn me into what you think is the conservative opinion? The paragraphs of assumptions you wrote have proven themselves, yet again, to be incorrect. As I mentioned in my post above, criticism does not equal condemnation. My opinions tend to be nuanced, and even though you continually try to paint me one way, your fiction cannot overturn reality once I actually offer my true opinion. The part that probably bothers me the most is how cowardly it is to attack someone, and lie about their viewpoint, when you know they can't see what you are saying. It bothers me, but I'm not upset, mainly because it doesn't surprise me that you did it. In all, this is a perfect example of why I ignored you in the first place and will continue to ignore you. I can debate anyone on any topic as long at they are fair and honest. You are neither, and that makes any conversation on politics with you pointless. And with that, I will continue my policy of not feeding the trolls. |
Re: Midterm Elections (Nov. 2)
Quote:
So with that said, the real 'coward' is the one who runs from any viewpoint that is different from their own... aka you. So go ahead and put your earmuffs back on Mr. Republican. As I told you from the start, that's not going to stop me from sharing my opinion... Quote:
So what other entitlements are you for my delusional friend? Oh wait, we had this debate before... pretty much nothing right? Anything that you won't get and/or don't have potential to get. Including 'socialized' healthcare right? Or am I making a blind assumption again? Oh... wait... I know, I know! He won't answer this question because he has me blocked... which brings me back to my first point, about who's hiding from who. And he has the audacity to call me a coward. pssssssh |
Re: Midterm Elections (Nov. 2)
Quote:
Also, I in no way whatsoever feel that anything TheGame has posted in this thread as been anywhere near an "attack" |
Re: Midterm Elections (Nov. 2)
Quote:
Quote:
If he wants to debate my points and actual opinions while I hide his responses, he can feel free, but lying about someone's viewpoints, bringing their family into it, and insulting them behind their back is the act of an intellectual coward. In the end, it only further justifies my decision to ignore his posts. |
Re: Midterm Elections (Nov. 2)
Quote:
I did not "lie about (your) opinion on unemployment" at any point. I said you were in favor of it, which you were.. even though you're generally against entitlements.. which you are.. and the one you happened to recieve in your history, is the one you happen to be openly in favor of.. And just in case you don't understand, saying someone is in favor of something doesn't nessicarily mean they think it's perfect. It's an entitlement system that is important and should be in place, in your opinion.. am I wrong? Or do I need to quote topics from over a year ago? -EDIT- Oh, and all the "Coward" BS when you're hiding from direct comfrontation is pathetic lol. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:45 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GameTavern