# Fuck You Congress and Obama



## technomancer (Feb 1, 2009)

So, on the same day Obama is criticizing people in the financial industry for taking bonuses (which were down 44% from last year and which are taxed and provide a large chunk of revenue for NY city and state and the feds) Congress voted themselves a $93,000 per member increase in petty cash expense accounts. So I would just like take a moment to say Fuck You Congress, and Fuck You Obama for being MASSIVE hypocrites.

(ignore the bullshit Fox spin and just note the fact they're reporting on, as apparently nobody else thought this was news worthy)


----------



## silentrage (Feb 1, 2009)

Wow, you have a bunch of people who can vote tax money into their own pockets? 
How do I get that job?


----------



## technomancer (Feb 1, 2009)

silentrage said:


> Wow, you have a bunch of people who can vote tax money into their own pockets?
> How do I get that job?



Actually it was a little tricky this time around as you had to convince people that despite controlling the legislature for the past two years you had absolutely nothing to do with anything that was occurring in the country


----------



## silentrage (Feb 1, 2009)

Doesn't look hard to me, it looks like it was so easy they are TRYING to get caught, how else do you explain Faux News being the only channel reporting on this?


----------



## technomancer (Feb 1, 2009)

Yeah I love people implying Fox made this up on mg.org  Granted Fox spins the shit out of things, but I don't remember them ever just making shit up


----------



## ChrisPcritter (Feb 1, 2009)

This gives "Tax and Spend" a whole new twist. I wish I even made close to that.. I make about a third what they just got for nothing.. I wonder if my boss will let me vote myself a $93,000 raise...


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Feb 1, 2009)

technomancer said:


> Yeah I love people implying Fox made this up on mg.org  Granted Fox spins the shit out of things, but I don't remember them ever just making shit up



no one said they were making it up, but if its true why is it so hard to confirm from atleast 1 other reputable source


----------



## technomancer (Feb 1, 2009)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> no one said they were making it up, but if its true why is it so hard to confirm from atleast 1 other reputable source



Glad to see you know what "implying" means


----------



## mustang-monk (Feb 1, 2009)

I vote myself &#163;50,000 and 5 girlfriends.


----------



## AK DRAGON (Feb 1, 2009)

My thoughts on politicians. I never trust the bastards. They will tell the masses what they want us to hear then do what they want behind our backs thinking we are not paying attention. They resort to lying strait to our face and make secret deals with big business. they don't go to public office to help the people they do it to tell the people how it will be.

F politicians


----------



## Trespass (Feb 1, 2009)

I wouldn't mind just one other source here. There should be record of this somewhere?


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Feb 1, 2009)

technomancer said:


> Glad to see you know what "implying" means



no dude, your trying to say the everyone at mg.org is saying you made it up or fox made it up, but i'm not IMPLYING that its not true, all i'm saying is, is that if i believed everything i saw on the internet i'd be an idiot. Before i make my decision(like you did, with out too much proof, which i think everyone saw was short sided to only seem to want to bash obama for any little thing you can find) before i actually have it confirmed by a couple sources. I mean, it shouldnt be to hard to prove if its true, know what i mean?

if fox said "the world is going to blow up in 10 min" wouldnt you kinda wonder if no other news station said that?

i just think you took an aweful deep stance on the situation and no other news station is even reporting this(which would happen to be a decently big deal)

fox isnt the most reputable of sources, so i dont think we are trying to prove you wrong man, but the lack of other sources really seems to confirm that this is a bullshit article, untill we hear otherwise


----------



## BlindingLight7 (Feb 1, 2009)

well. you voted for him. we already told you this would happen but NOOOOOO we have to vote for the dude that promises the impossible uhuhuhuhuhhhm, now stop whining





p.s. fuck congress


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Feb 1, 2009)

^thats kind of a weird comment, so who is the "you" your refering to?


----------



## BlindingLight7 (Feb 1, 2009)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> ^thats kind of a weird comment, so who is the "you" your refering to?


anybody really, im just another angry republican


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Feb 1, 2009)

^cool, thats what i thought 
looking at your gear list i'd say your probably not rich(no offence) so i dont know why it would benefit you to be a republican. If i had tons of cash THEN i would be a republican, they dont give a flying fuck about you unless your pulling in the big bucks IMO


----------



## BlindingLight7 (Feb 1, 2009)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> ^cool, thats what i thought
> looking at your gear list i'd say your probably not rich(no offence) so i dont know why it would benefit you to be a republican. If i had tons of cash THEN i would be a republican, they dont give a flying fuck about you unless your pulling in the big bucks IMO


wtf dude


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Feb 1, 2009)

^i forgot!! opinions arnt welcome


----------



## ohio_eric (Feb 1, 2009)

Trespass said:


> I wouldn't mind just one other source here. There should be record of this somewhere?





There isn't anything else at all that I can find that doesn't reference the FOX News report. No government watchdog groups or anything is saying a word. Maybe it will pick up steam on Monday. If it doesn't this reeks of spin on FOX News' part.

*Also BlindingLight and 7 string of hate you both need to settle down. *


----------



## JBroll (Feb 1, 2009)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> ^cool, thats what i thought
> looking at your gear list i'd say your probably not rich(no offence) so i dont know why it would benefit you to be a republican. If i had tons of cash THEN i would be a republican, they dont give a flying fuck about you unless your pulling in the big bucks IMO



There's also that whole not-being-a-socialist thing, hopefully the last bitchslap to the neocons will push the party towards smaller government and individual responsibility like the movement 30 years ago was supposed to... there's a big difference between 'not giving a flying fuck about you' and 'not handing you welfare and medicine' - even though I make less than almost everyone on here with an actual job, I'm completely against the Democratic party because I don't want the government trying to provide for everyone's needs (and inevitably failing miserably) with my tax money.

Jeff


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Feb 1, 2009)

ohio_eric said:


> *Also BlindingLight and 7 string of hate you both need to settle down. *



i'v been completely calm and cool,  not sure why that was needed, just a conversation man



JBroll said:


> There's also that whole not-being-a-socialist thing, hopefully the last bitchslap to the neocons will push the party towards smaller government and individual responsibility like the movement 30 years ago was supposed to... there's a big difference between 'not giving a flying fuck about you' and 'not handing you welfare and medicine' - even though I make less than almost everyone on here with an actual job, I'm completely against the Democratic party because I don't want the government trying to provide for everyone's needs (and inevitably failing miserably) with my tax money.
> 
> Jeff



i agree with alot of that, but i dont like the alternative of the republicans wanting to throw all of our tax dollars at a desert. at least this way we can at least get some back


----------



## HighGain510 (Feb 1, 2009)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> i'v been completely calm and cool,  not sure why that was needed, just a conversation man



I think it was because you were picking on that kid calling him poor, when your commentary was clearly not needed.


----------



## technomancer (Feb 1, 2009)

ohio_eric said:


> There isn't anything else at all that I can find that doesn't reference the FOX News report. No government watchdog groups or anything is saying a word. Maybe it will pick up steam on Monday. If it doesn't this reeks of spin on FOX News' part.



I've actually been looking, and I'm wondering if this wasn't tied in with the $4600 salary increase that was passed in December that just went into effect and Fox is just bitching about it now. I'm continuing to look, as while Fox spins like a top I don't see them just making something up.



JBroll said:


> There's also that whole not-being-a-socialist thing, hopefully the last bitchslap to the neocons will push the party towards smaller government and individual responsibility like the movement 30 years ago was supposed to... there's a big difference between 'not giving a flying fuck about you' and 'not handing you welfare and medicine' - even though I make less than almost everyone on here with an actual job, I'm completely against the Democratic party because I don't want the government trying to provide for everyone's needs (and inevitably failing miserably) with my tax money.
> 
> Jeff



Precisely... added to the fact that spending $1.2 trillion dollars we don't have over and above the normal budget is going to lead to MASSIVE inflation.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Feb 1, 2009)

HighGain510 said:


> I think it was because you were picking on that kid calling him poor, when your commentary was clearly not needed.



fuck dude, thats not at all what i said and you know it, reread what i said

the last i checked he was the one that mentioned something to the effect of "well, i didnt vote for a democrat". so hes allowed to comment on off topic stuff like that but i'm not allowed to? thats kind of short sided dont ya think?


----------



## Randy (Feb 1, 2009)

^
What he said.


----------



## renzoip (Feb 2, 2009)

JBroll said:


> There's also that whole not-being-a-socialist thing, hopefully the last bitchslap to the neocons will push the party towards smaller government and individual responsibility like the movement 30 years ago was supposed to... there's a big difference between 'not giving a flying fuck about you' and 'not handing you welfare and medicine' - even though I make less than almost everyone on here with an actual job, I'm completely against the Democratic party because I don't want the government trying to provide for everyone's needs (and inevitably failing miserably) with my tax money.
> 
> Jeff



I agree that you income level does not necessarily relate to your political views. I was just discussing that last night with some friends. Also, I find it interesting how many people think democrats = socialists/communists. I come from a country in South America where there is a thin middle class and a huge class differences. The socialist and communist groups there are really hardcore and propose some crazy stuff like armed revolution and abolition of the ruling class, private industry, electoral system, free market economy... nothing like what the democrats propose here. 

Boosting the middle class and destroying the ruling class to make everyone equally poor are completely different things IMO.

I'm not commenting on your positions. We all have the right to believe whatever we want. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 2, 2009)

Our Democrats aren't as extreme as your... whatever those parties are, but I'm pretty much exactly on the opposite end - any government with the power to interfere with individual rights (including taxation) is too big for my tastes.

Jeff


----------



## AK DRAGON (Feb 2, 2009)

JBroll said:


> There's also that whole not-being-a-socialist thing, hopefully the last bitchslap to the neocons will push the party towards smaller government and individual responsibility like the movement 30 years ago was supposed to... there's a big difference between 'not giving a flying fuck about you' and 'not handing you welfare and medicine' - even though I make less than almost everyone on here with an actual job, I'm completely against the Democratic party because I don't want the government trying to provide for everyone's needs (and inevitably failing miserably) with my tax money.
> 
> Jeff



^^ +1 AMEN!!! I don't work hard just so some lazy MOFO can have welfare/medical for FREE!!


----------



## silentrage (Feb 2, 2009)

renzoip said:


> I agree that you income level does not necessarily relate to your political views. I was just discussing that last night with some friends. Also, I find it interesting how many people think democrats = socialists/communists. I come from a country in South America where there is a thin middle class and a huge class differences. The socialist and communist groups there are really hardcore and propose some crazy stuff like armed revolution and abolition of the ruling class, private industry, electoral system, free market economy... nothing like what the democrats propose here.
> 
> Boosting the middle class and destroying the ruling class to make everyone equally poor are completely different things IMO.
> 
> I'm not commenting on your positions. We all have the right to believe whatever we want. Just my 2 cents.



You're right, in fact nothing really determines your political view it seems. 
I saw some black guy (or someone who claims to be black) bashing Obama on youtube like your typical trailer trash redneck. Apparently he didn't like the fact that Obama wanted to "spread the wealth around", he said he didn't wanna give charity for people who've done nothing to deserve it.

The irony was both painfully hilarious and infuriating.


----------



## HighGain510 (Feb 2, 2009)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> fuck dude, thats not at all what i said and you know it, reread what i said
> 
> the last i checked he was the one that mentioned something to the effect of "well, i didnt vote for a democrat". so hes allowed to comment on off topic stuff like that but i'm not allowed to? thats kind of short sided dont ya think?



Right, but he was not pointing anything directly at you with him comment regarding Obama, whereas your comment was an attempt at being clever while insulting him which had nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Bravo.

P.S. Since I've seen you use the term TWICE incorrectly in the same thread, I think what you're looking for is "short-SIGHTED" or myopic, but I get the feeling you don't understand what the word means since "short-sided" is not a word.


----------



## RenegadeDave (Feb 2, 2009)

I wouldn't be alarmed that Fox has reported this first. The media had such a hard on for Obama during the campaigning process, it wasn't even funny. It doesn't surprise me at all that Fox broke the story first. 

Prediction: Fox breaks the story, Talk radio is going to cover it and wear it out for a couple days, THEN the big media sources are going to report on it. 

Anything contrary to the Democrat/Obama agenda usually happens that way, at least it did with anything to do with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. In some cases, a talk radio host "broke" the story and wore it out until the media acknowledged it briefly. 

Don't think that all sides don't have their slant, it's just harder to see the slant when it leans toward your side. 

MSNBC the veil of objectivity they put on is razor thin. CNN isn't much thicker. Print media? Oh give me a break I don't even have to point that one out. 

But I wouldn't be surprised if it takes a couple days before the rest of the mainstream media picks up this and says about 2mins about it. You can bet your bottom dollar talk show hosts are going to wear it out today.

EDIT: and to address 7 Strings of Hate's "why are you a Republican if you aren't rich" comment, a lot of times it's due to ambition. I'm not rich, but I'm trying to be, and of the two major parties, the Republican party is a LOT more amenable to social mobility. Additionally, you don't have to be rich to disagree with this new "Stimulus" bill, it's a bunch of pork with a fancy name. Nobody knows whether it's going to immediately stimulate the economy (my prediction: it won't), but everyone knows it's going to lead to massive inflation and debt down the line. So if the outcome is uncertain but everyone agrees on the far sighted result, why do it in the first place?


----------



## Randy (Feb 2, 2009)

RenegadeDave said:


> Anything contrary to the Democrat/Obama agenda usually happens that way, at least it did with anything to do with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. In some cases, a talk radio host "broke" the story and wore it out until the media acknowledged it briefly.



Um, I watch CNN and MSNBC with regularity, and they were covering Reverend Wright ad nauseum for several weeks. 

Also, this characterization as every media outlet being part of some contrived liberal conspiracy, with Fox News and conservative talk radio being the beacon of clean reporting is utter garbage.


----------



## RenegadeDave (Feb 2, 2009)

I'm not claiming them as clean, talk radio identifies itself for what it is : political commentary, not a "news" outlet. 

Fox News is a "news" outlet, and they lean more to the right. CNN is a "news" outlet and they lean more to the left. 

You realize that Sean Hannity (who is an absolute pain to listen to) broke the Reverend Wright story months before CNN and MSNBC, right? 

I'm not saying their hands are clean, but Fox and the talkjocks will be the first to criticize lefties. Additionally, you can count on the remainder of the media being first in line to criticize righties of anything . 

Imagine if Bush's appointment for Secretary of the Treasury had evaded taxes for 4 years, and only paid 2 years of back taxes and penalties because that was all the statute of limitations could legally hold him to. Obviously, the House would be in more of an uproar, but the media would also probably cry foul. 

If you want any sort of "balanced" news coverage, you have to get your news from a variety of sources, left and right leaning. 

For my "inside the beltway stuff" I find no reporter more objective than Jamie Dupree with Cox Communications (their flagship radio station is based out of Atlanta), but his blog can be read here. 

Jamie Dupree on wsbradio.com


----------



## technomancer (Feb 2, 2009)

Randy said:


> Um, I watch CNN and MSNBC with regularity, and they were covering Reverend Wright ad nauseum for several weeks.
> 
> Also, this characterization as every media outlet being part of some contrived liberal conspiracy, with Fox News and conservative talk radio being the beacon of clean reporting is utter garbage.



It's not a conspiracy by any means, but if you haven't noticed the press fawning over Obama you haven't been paying attention. Hell the Washington Post even went back and analyzed their campaign coverage and admitted they were massively tilted in favor of Obama. 

Deborah Howell - An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage - washingtonpost.com

Actually it's really sad that in reading the news you have to consider the source and try to eliminate the spin to get a feeling for what the hell is really going on. The idea of objective journalism seems to have gone out the window at some point.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Feb 2, 2009)

AK DRAGON said:


> ^^ +1 AMEN!!! I don't work hard just so some lazy MOFO can have welfare/medical for FREE!!


A friend of mine got hit over the head on a night out, ever since then he's not been able to work, had to rehabilitate himself and it's taken him 6 months in a coma, 2 years of being in hospital in a brain trauma unit, followed by close to 4 years of assisted living before he 's now finally managed to get to a stage where he can start rebuilding his life.

Healthcare in any civilised country should not just be for the have's, but also those les well off, that do not earn massive amounts of money. 

I think everyone will bitch about free healthcare, untill that day when they lose their job, and then suddenly have no healthcare, and then suddenly have to deal with cancer, tumours etc. THis then bankrupts families, and drives up your insurance premium.

Seriously, how is that fair? You could work hard all your life, but then, due to a bad patch out of your control end up badly in debt, homless, or unable to pay and dead.

Taking care of citizens in a country is not a case of increasing the gap between have and have not, it's not about creating a gulf in equality.

Without the healthcare this country provides, I doubt my friend would have got to the stage he is now, and i don't think he'd have been able to pay for it, as he'd just been made redundant and was looking for another job (oh, and he wasn't doing mickey mouse work either, he still earnt then way more than the IT average and was very good at what he did).

So, basically, opinions on this are a matter of having seen both sides of the coin.


----------



## Naren (Feb 2, 2009)

Excellent post there, James. 

I personally like the way Japan carries healthcare, though. The government provides it, but you have to pay for it based on your income. For people who don't make much, it's insanely cheap (it was like $15 to $20 a month for me when I first got on it). For people who are rich, it's really expensive, but rich people would probably have healthcare from their company instead (since you don't have to take the government's health care). The government pays for 70&#37; of all medical bills and the individual pays for 30%. So, if somthing costs $300, the individual pays $90.


----------



## Sebastian (Feb 2, 2009)

Naren said:


> Excellent post there, James.
> 
> I personally like the way Japan carries healthcare, though. The government provides it, but you have to pay for it based on your income. For people who don't make much, it's insanely cheap (it was like $15 to $20 a month for me when I first got on it). For people who are rich, it's really expensive, but rich people would probably have healthcare from their company instead (since you don't have to take the government's health care). The government pays for 70&#37; of all medical bills and the individual pays for 30%. So, if somthing costs $300, the individual pays $90.



Thats a great thing 

"If you don't have to pay for it - you don't respect it"
From what I know in Germany there was free health care, and a lot of people just went to the doctor "to talk" ... the hospitals were overcrowded... then they changed it.. and you had to pay for the visit - a very small amount .. it was cheap.. but still you had to pay

and guess what... it wasn't overcrowded anymore...


----------



## renzoip (Feb 2, 2009)

7 Dying Trees said:


> A friend of mine got hit over the head on a night out, ever since then he's not been able to work, had to rehabilitate himself and it's taken him 6 months in a coma, 2 years of being in hospital in a brain trauma unit, followed by close to 4 years of assisted living before he 's now finally managed to get to a stage where he can start rebuilding his life.
> 
> Healthcare in any civilised country should not just be for the have's, but also those les well off, that do not earn massive amounts of money.
> 
> ...



Nice! 

Also, I understand in the US, citizens can only live of welfare for a period of 5 cumulative years through out their lifetimes. Keep that in mind when somebody gives you the whole "I don't want my hard work money being used to maintain lazy people living all their life in welfare" Living in welfare sucks. It is made that way so that people will want to get out of it. I am in no way for maintaining lazy people.


----------



## Eric (Feb 2, 2009)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> ^cool, thats what i thought
> looking at your gear list i'd say your probably not rich(no offence) so i dont know why it would benefit you to be a republican. If i had tons of cash THEN i would be a republican, they dont give a flying fuck about you unless your pulling in the big bucks IMO



Wow... what a ridiculous comment.

That would be like me saying "oh if I was a lazy ethnic minority or a Native American who just sat around collecting government checks and popping out more children to collect welfare, THEN I would be a Democrat!"


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Feb 2, 2009)

HighGain510 said:


> Right, but he was not pointing anything directly at you with him comment regarding Obama, whereas your comment was an attempt at being clever while insulting him which had nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Bravo.
> 
> P.S. Since I've seen you use the term TWICE incorrectly in the same thread, I think what you're looking for is "short-SIGHTED" or myopic, but I get the feeling you don't understand what the word means since "short-sided" is not a word.



dude, i dont care about grammer. and once again, i didnt insult him in ANY way.

if you want to talk about unnecessary comments, how about yours then?? is it necessary for you to continue on when i didnt even say a word to you? your just trying to be the nice guy and not let people get picked on i guess, but i wasnt picking on him. and you know what makes a situation like that better? you sticking your head in it, because that always helps



Eric said:


> Wow... what a ridiculous comment.
> 
> That would be like me saying "oh if I was a lazy ethnic minority or a Native American who just sat around collecting government checks and popping out more children to collect welfare, THEN I would be a Democrat!"



and as for this. so i guess saying that republicans only really care about the wealthy is equal to a racically bashing quote like you just put up? not quite the same thing dude.


and lastly, for the record, i dont understand why people think grammer=intelligence. i just dont think it matters if every single word is properly spelled or puncuated. i dont know if the people who freak out about it are hidious shut ins that cant get pussy and fawn over 8th grade english books because they think its cool to bash people on an online forum for grammer, i dont know , but as long as you get the jist of what i'm saying, then i'v conveyed my message. i just dont get why people even care??


----------



## technomancer (Feb 2, 2009)

renzoip said:


> Nice!
> 
> Also, I understand in the US, citizens can only live of welfare for a period of 5 cumulative years through out their lifetimes. Keep that in mind when somebody gives you the whole "I don't want my hard work money being used to maintain lazy people living all their life in welfare" Living in welfare sucks. It is made that way so that people will want to get out of it. I am in no way for maintaining lazy people.



That's true strictly for the federal welfare program. That limit doesn't apply to state programs (which are mostly funded by federal money), food stamps, subsidized housing, child subsidies (you have a kid you get $x money), etc etc etc. Also IIRC the current version of the "stimulus" bill removes that 5 year limit as well as the limit on what percentage of the total US budget can be spent on welfare.


----------



## Randy (Feb 2, 2009)

^
Meh. Overly gloom and doom. I'm not buying it. 

Citations?


----------



## Eric (Feb 2, 2009)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> and as for this. so i guess saying that republicans only really care about the wealthy is equal to a racically bashing quote like you just put up? not quite the same thing dude.



No, saying Republicans only care about the rich is like saying Democrats only care about the poor and "disadvantaged" according to your perspective on politics (which is ridiculous in itself because there is so much more involved on both sides).

Anyway, I'll remove myself from this debate as you seem to have the intellectual firepower of a twelve year old and that's just not worth my time. For the record, yes, typing like an idiot does make you sound like one. I am not a _"racicist"_!


----------



## technomancer (Feb 2, 2009)

Randy said:


> ^
> Meh. Overly gloom and doom. I'm not buying it.
> 
> Citations?



H.R. 1 SEC. 2101. EMERGENCY FUND FOR TANF PROGRAM 

"Out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated such sums as are necessary for payment to the Emergency Fund"

That section, and the verbiage quoted specifically, removes any limit on money allocated to states for welfare payments up to the balance of the US Treasury. This money is to fund state programs, which are not restricted by the federal time limit. State assistance programs (welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc) are regulated by the individual state governments and regulations vary from state to state.

I was mistaken about the time cap for federal welfare assistance being removed and freely admit it (as per the IIRC in my original post, I didn't ).


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Feb 2, 2009)

Eric said:


> No, saying Republicans only care about the rich is like saying Democrats only care about the poor and "disadvantaged" according to your perspective on politics (which is ridiculous in itself because there is so much more involved on both sides).
> 
> Anyway, I'll remove myself from this debate as you seem to have the intellectual firepower of a twelve year old and that's just not worth my time. For the record, yes, typing like an idiot does make you sound like one. I am not a _"racicist"_!



ok, insult me whatever, no sweat off my sack. for me having the metality of a 12 year old, YOU sure have no problem slinging the 12 year old insults.

but while SOME democrats do talk about helping the disadvantaged, its not their main stance. Yet, everytime i hear about a republican running for office, they usually want to lower taxes for the wealthy and usually raise them for the working class and thats ok i guess, but in that format the rich get richer and richer untill 99.9 percent of the people dont have the dough to make a differance to the republicans, i mean, who will the republicans listen to, the common man, or the hand full of super wealthy people that pay for their campaigns? i didnt REALLY mean that republicans ONLY care about the rich, but overall, YEA, they do.


----------



## auxioluck (Feb 2, 2009)

Okay...so....on topic....James, I totally agree. This had me pretty heated earlier. Regardless of who reports it, it still happened, guys. 

It has nothing to do with a Democrat/Republican thing, it's solely a politician thing. They do these things because they can. 

Regardless of what side you stand on, a hypocrite is a hypocrite.


----------



## pailien (Feb 2, 2009)

I usually try to stay out of political debates whereas it's been my experience that people by nature are not prone to let cooler heads prevail and politics is a source of much frustration for most.

This is only my 2 cents so take it for what it's worth....please. If you feel as though your government has failed you then you should take a more active part in being part of the solution, just bitching about is part of the problem. You are in essence acepting defeat but creating greater unrest and internal striffe without the fortitude to see your issues put to bed, as it were. It does not take as much effort as you think to get involved in your own government and believe it or not, action does tend to foster more results than passive agressive behavior.

I came here from a third world country. I have lived the entire gambit from being dirt poor, to being well off and as fortune would have it I'm right back to being dirt poor again.......but I'm alive and where I come from I've beat the odds by about 2 decades. So if I have to suck it up for a little while and tighten my belt until I can put myself in a better financial situation then so be it, my fate is ultimately in my own hands as yours is in your own.

That being said, this is my take on the current political situation. I am an avid student of history and history paints a pretty clear picture.The government of this country, as in several other countries, is based largely on ancient Roman society. You have your established class system and the varying roles they play in each level of government. The problem is that so many countries lose something in the translation when it comes to emulating one of the most successful civilizations in history. Germany did it, America is doing it. Sure they set up similar political structures and expanded the empire through exhibitions of military might butthat is where the lesson was ceased apparently. During the final years of Gaius Julius Ceasar certain reforms were instututed to strengthen the infrastructure of the Republic. Mandates were passed requiring that 2/3 of all employed in the Republic be citizens or freedmen. This in turn created more jobs and established a steady flow of recycleable income for Rome's citizens. Something America might want to take note of after disposing of most of it's own income with cheaper outsourcing. These reforms were the begining of the Pax Romana as established after Ceasar's death through the reign of Augustus Octavian, who instituted another reform in the form of quelling all military aggressions and focusing again on strengthening the Roman infrastucture. Germany didn't get the hint on this one and look what happened there. Not saying America is anything like Nazi Germany by any means, however, both countries based their political and miltary structure off of Rome and both countries too much time and too many resources on military expansion and not on strengthening it's own country's ability to sustain itself. It's obviously too late for one let's hope it's not too late for another.

The government is supposed to be for the people by the people, so the sooner the people remind their government of that fact the sooner people like you or I can stop bitching about it on a message board..................


I'm not hatin'.....i'm just sayin'.


----------



## ChrisPcritter (Feb 2, 2009)

auxioluck said:


> Okay...so....on topic....James, I totally agree. This had me pretty heated earlier. Regardless of who reports it, it still happened, guys.
> 
> It has nothing to do with a Democrat/Republican thing, it's solely a politician thing. They do these things because they can.
> 
> Regardless of what side you stand on, a hypocrite is a hypocrite.



I agree, and I think the media tries there best to turn it into a democrat/republican thing. Gene Taylor (D) congress said the other day that we need to get rid of Nafta and favored nations status to china as well as curb spending (in response to the new stimulus package) and then this comes up. 

When a political party claims to be for the poor or working class and then votes to take jobs out of the hands of our people, who are they voting for?


----------



## Randy (Feb 2, 2009)

^
You can blame the 'Blue Dogs' (or contemporary Democrats in their image) for that shit, a la Diane Feinstein, Rohm Emanuel, Hillary, and I'd even argue Tom Daschle... It's obvious that Obama's been favoring NAFTA supporting Democrats for most of his positions, though I'm not really sure why (okay, well I might know why but I'm trying to give him a break first). FWIW, those are the far less savory components of the Democratic party, IMO.


----------



## 777timesgod (Feb 3, 2009)

You know i was wondering when people in the states were going to be pissed off about Obama's work but so soon? This story is great for me beause i can shut some people up here in Europe and maybe we can finally put an end to this ridiculous mass hysteria about Obama saving the world. 

Just to set things straight -beacuse everyone who critizises Obama "must be a member of the Kou Kloux Klan or something..."- politicians don't have colour-race-gender-beliefs they are all one and the same. Trust me on this i've seen the underbelly of European politics and its as ugly as the top, if they were any good why would the richer people support them? So they can bring them down? D'OH!!!


----------



## RenegadeDave (Feb 3, 2009)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> ok, insult me whatever, no sweat off my sack. for me having the metality of a 12 year old, YOU sure have no problem slinging the 12 year old insults.
> 
> but while SOME democrats do talk about helping the disadvantaged, its not their main stance. Yet, everytime i hear about a republican running for office, they usually want to lower taxes for the wealthy and usually raise them for the working class and thats ok i guess, but in that format the rich get richer and richer untill 99.9 percent of the people dont have the dough to make a differance to the republicans, i mean, who will the republicans listen to, the common man, or the hand full of super wealthy people that pay for their campaigns? i didnt REALLY mean that republicans ONLY care about the rich, but overall, YEA, they do.



Rarely do Republicans want to raise taxes on anyone. Recent waves of republicans have been "tax cut and spend" (albeit tax revenues being at all time highs), but typically when they cut taxes, there is not as much to cut at the bottom since anyone making below 32k/yr effectively does not pay taxes thanks to earned income tax credits. Your perception of Republicans is somewhat ignorant and largely inaccurate. 

As for the "super wealthy" that pay for campaigns, Obama spent literally 5x as much money on his campaign in 08 than did John McCain. If you buy in to the typical 80/20 rule (which is someone inaccurate in this instance but closer to being true than you woudl think) that 80 percent of the wealth is held by 20% of the people, then who is donating all of that money to the democrats? The answer is the very same people you're attempting to demonize.


----------



## Randy (Feb 3, 2009)

RenegadeDave said:


> anyone making below 32k/yr effectively does not pay taxes thanks to earned income tax credits.



I've never made over $32,000 a year in my life, and I've been paying taxes for 5 years with little to no return. I claimed just $2,000-$3,000 those first two years and I paid out significantly. 



RenegadeDave said:


> As for the "super wealthy" that pay for campaigns, Obama spent literally 5x as much money on his campaign in 08 than did John McCain.



Super wealthy, eh?



FactCheck.org said:


> For Obama, 47 percent of money raised has come from individuals who have donated $200 or less, while 27 percent has come from persons who have donated $2,300 or more.


----------



## RenegadeDave (Feb 3, 2009)

Earned income tax credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was inaccurate in my understanding somewhat, you have to have at least one child living with you. The IRS says the same thing, but you have to click thru a boatload of questions to find that out.

Randy, how much of those contributions do you think were legit? 

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403


----------



## Randy (Feb 3, 2009)

Can't say I know, although, at least a dozen of them were. 

EDIT: Also, if you're making under $32,000 and you have a child or two, $2,917 or $4,824 would be a lifesaver in caring for them.


----------



## RenegadeDave (Feb 3, 2009)

Incredible how these topics stay on subject for about 1.5 pages


----------



## Randy (Feb 3, 2009)

I have my display set to 40 post per page, so it's more like 1/10th of one page for me. 

FWIW, the MG.org manifestation of this thread stayed on topic a little better. Worth a read anyway, though there's not really anything Earth shatteringly informative that came of it either.


----------



## Daemoniac (Feb 7, 2009)

JBroll said:


> There's also that whole not-being-a-socialist thing, hopefully the last bitchslap to the neocons will push the party towards smaller government and individual responsibility like the movement 30 years ago was supposed to... there's a big difference between 'not giving a flying fuck about you' and 'not handing you welfare and medicine' - even though I make less than almost everyone on here with an actual job, I'm completely against the Democratic party because I don't want the government trying to provide for everyone's needs (and inevitably failing miserably) with my tax money.
> 
> Jeff


 
I both agree with this, and disagree with it. I can understand that it's a shame what happens to a large/majority percentage of anyone's tax money, but by the same token, what happens if you lose your job? WHat happens if you get really sick? In Aus, our healthcare system is (largely) free through MediCare, and as such any visits to a bulk-billing doctor, or if you have to go into the hospital through the emergency room, any treatment is free. There is also a Medicare Offset on most other treatments, like going to a Psychologist/certain specialists etc.. so you can claim back a majority (generally) of the money spent.

Whilst there needs to be something done about the wait times in the Hospital, it works really well in general, and at least affords those less well off a chance to check themselves out.

Also, having recently lost my job and being on the equivalent of "welfare" at the moment, i can speak for the _massive_ thanks i have to be able to sustain myself at bare basics until i get a new job, and i also broke my ankle in 3 places last year and as such got free medical over the time i was in hospital... so, insofar as im concerned, its a good thing... as long as you can weed out the cheats and general assholes.



AK DRAGON said:


> ^^ +1 AMEN!!! I don't work hard just so some lazy MOFO can have welfare/medical for FREE!!


 
Again, have a look at what i just wrote. You may not have the same opinion were your job to make you redundant, or being horribly injured somehow.

And if it was a joke (which it _kind _of sounds like) then my apologies. Its hard to read things like taht over the internet.



7 Dying Trees said:


> A friend of mine got hit over the head on a night out, ever since then he's not been able to work, had to rehabilitate himself and it's taken him 6 months in a coma, 2 years of being in hospital in a brain trauma unit, followed by close to 4 years of assisted living before he 's now finally managed to get to a stage where he can start rebuilding his life.
> 
> Healthcare in any civilised country should not just be for the have's, but also those les well off, that do not earn massive amounts of money.
> 
> ...


 
Yes. Excellent post.



Naren said:


> Excellent post there, James.
> 
> I personally like the way Japan carries healthcare, though. The government provides it, but you have to pay for it based on your income. For people who don't make much, it's insanely cheap (it was like $15 to $20 a month for me when I first got on it). For people who are rich, it's really expensive, but rich people would probably have healthcare from their company instead (since you don't have to take the government's health care). The government pays for 70% of all medical bills and the individual pays for 30%. So, if somthing costs $300, the individual pays $90.


 
Sounds largely similar to our system, though with a little better service, and having to pay a little more too. 


As for an OT note; I saw a story on our news the other night about what Obama is doing with capping bonuses, and from what i could tell (i believe) he is not just randomly capping exec's bonuses, but rather the CEO's etc. of the companies the government has only recently bailed out.

I could be wrong though, i only managed to catch a bit of the story.


----------



## Panterica (Feb 7, 2009)

i luv it, change in action, progress alright :rollseyes:


----------



## JBroll (Feb 7, 2009)

Demoniac, that's why responsible people save a large chunk of their income and get health insurance - your system may be tolerable for you, but any time spent in the States will show quite clearly that the government is the last institution you should go to if you want something done well.

Jeff


----------



## Daemoniac (Feb 8, 2009)

^ Thats a good call. I think i sometimes forget just how massive the US is...  Just out of curiosity, how much is it to get health insurance? Over here the actual application to Medicare is free, _and_ it makes stuff cheaper etc.. but we also have _Privat_ehealth insurance which covers MASSIVE amounts and there are levies for just about everything.

Still, i understand why it would be hard/impossible/stupid with such a massive country.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 8, 2009)

I get free healthcare through my employer as a 'part-time' (my ass!) teaching assistant. (The trick is, of course, to be in-demand.) We do have federal... well, 'attempts' at insuring, and you could try reading about them if you find amusement in watching blind children helplessly walk into walls and furniture for hours at a time, but government itself has so much to do with the reason private insurance can walk all over people that I don't buy any of their bullshit about pretending to want to help anyone.

Jeff


----------



## Daemoniac (Feb 8, 2009)

Ah, well it's good that you at least get health insurance through your employer  Im pretty sure that only really happens here with majorly high-paying jobs.


----------



## Randy (Feb 8, 2009)

Demoniac said:


> Just out of curiosity, how much is it to get health insurance?



^
Question



JBroll said:


> I get free healthcare through my employer as a 'part-time' (my ass!) teaching assistant. (The trick is, of course, to be in-demand.) We do have federal... well, 'attempts' at insuring, and you could try reading about them if you find amusement in watching blind children helplessly walk into walls and furniture for hours at a time, but government itself has so much to do with the reason private insurance can walk all over people that I don't buy any of their bullshit about pretending to want to help anyone.
> 
> Jeff



^
Not an answer.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 8, 2009)

Actually, considering how frequently people just take health benefits from their employer it *is* an answer. My family got health benefits from my dad's employer (and they still do, even after his retirement - what an evil, soulless insurance corporation, huh?), and I (and everyone I work with) currently get health benefits from the university I work at. As far as I know, employer-provided health insurance is the way to go - and even as a 'part-time' employee working for under six grand a semester I have access to that.

If you need health insurance, and you don't get it through your employer, I'd guess it would probably wind up costing between $70-$300 (depending on who else you're insuring and what benefits you need) a month.

Jeff


----------



## hirah (Feb 8, 2009)

> If you need health insurance, and you don't get it through your employer, I'd guess it would probably wind up costing between $70-$300 (depending on who else you're insuring and what benefits you need) a month.


i wish i could get health insurance that cheap.
when my wife got laid off, we would have had no health insurance for 2 months until i got it at my new job. the cobra payment to keep the 2 of us insured was $1,970 for 2 months. my plan now, thru work is $300 per month. and it isnt the best plan out there. most family plans that aren't tiered have been between $100-150 per week. this is what i found from looking for jobs a few months ago. it sucks that the out of pocket expenses keep going up, while employers still use the high rate of health insurance as part of your wage in benefits.
1 company i applied to, said they would pay between $30-35 per hour. but a good deal of the hourly wage was taken up by benefits. by the time all was said and done , the hourly wage was something like $22.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 8, 2009)

Those are the Blue Cross Blue Shield rates around here for two 21-year-old smokers, I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the rates changing for different areas.

Jeff


----------



## silentrage (Feb 8, 2009)

Is it true that private healthcare providers will just get an investigator to not cover you if the cost of covering you outweights their lawyer fees? 
Keep in mind my knowledge of the US medical system comes mostly from Michael Moore, lol.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 8, 2009)

Count on it being largely exaggerated or wrong, then - some providers may do that, but the beauty of being *citizens* and not *government dick-puppets* is the ability to choose between providers that don't do that. Nobody in my extended family has, to my knowledge, ever had a problem like that - and we've had some pretty serious issues that would probably cost more than lawyer fees.

Jeff


----------



## Randy (Feb 9, 2009)

FWIW, the fees I'm used to paying are closer to hirah's numbers. Perhaps it's a Northeastern/New England thing?

EDIT: Case in point, of my close family and friends, only one of them gets "free healthcare from their employer" and he also happens to be my only friend with a union job.


----------



## RenegadeDave (Feb 9, 2009)

When I was between jobs I had a health insurance policy that was $86 a month, but it had high deductibles ($500) and covered very little of routine visits, which aren't that hugely expensive. I can't for the life of me remember who it was with. At the time, i was a big partier and the honest side of me made me truthfully report the amount of alcoholic drinks I had in a typical week, they let me know that they couldn't insure me


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Feb 9, 2009)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> dude, i dont care about grammer.
> 
> and lastly, for the record, i dont understand why people think grammer=intelligence. i just dont think it matters if every single word is properly spelled or puncuated. i dont know if the people who freak out about it are hidious shut ins that cant get pussy and fawn over 8th grade english books because they think its cool to bash people on an online forum for grammer, i dont know , but as long as you get the jist of what i'm saying, then i'v conveyed my message. i just dont get why people even care??


*GRAMMAR.*

Maybe because it's hard to read? When I get a headache trying to mentally translate what someone has written into English, it tends to make me think less of the person's intelligence. That's just the way it is.



7 Strings of Hate said:


> but while SOME democrats do talk about helping the disadvantaged, its not their main stance. Yet, everytime i hear about a republican running for office, they usually want to lower taxes for the wealthy and usually raise them for the working class and thats ok i guess, but in that format the rich get richer and richer untill 99.9 percent of the people dont have the dough to make a differance to the republicans, i mean, who will the republicans listen to, the common man, or the hand full of super wealthy people that pay for their campaigns? i didnt REALLY mean that republicans ONLY care about the rich, but overall, YEA, they do.


I sure do wish somebody would lower the taxes on the wealthy, I really do. <- No sarcasm there.

Now here's the kicker. I am, "wealthy". I made $19k last year, single, no children. That makes me "wealthy", therefore I get taxed as if I'm wealthy. I sure feel wealthy. <- There's the sarcasm.

Now, bottom line? My tax rate was substantially lower in 2008 than in 2002 when I first began working. Not that I was particularly thrilled with Bush, but my tax rates did drop.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 9, 2009)

+1 on the grammar. If I can laugh at math and science books and then have to read a single, short post several times, something is horribly wrong.

Keep in mind that the Republicans want to lower taxes on *everyone* - saying they just want to lower taxes on the wealthy is like calling a misanthropist a dirty redneck racist because they hate black people.

Jeff


----------



## renzoip (Feb 9, 2009)

JBroll said:


> +1 on the grammar. If I can laugh at math and science books and then have to read a single, short post several times, something is horribly wrong.
> 
> Keep in mind that the Republicans want to lower taxes on *everyone* - saying they just want to lower taxes on the wealthy is like calling a misanthropist a dirty redneck racist because they hate black people.
> 
> Jeff



Grammar helps someone get a message across with clarity. I think it is very important to keep an eye on it when arguing. I don't think grammatical errors make a point valid or invalid if the message is understandable. However, a lot of times is not what you say but how you say it.

Also, keep in mind that what somebody *wants to do* and what somebody actually *does *(weather is intentionally or unintentionally) are two different things. Very often this is true when playing politics.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 9, 2009)

I was agreeing with The Atomic Ass for that exact reason.

Jeff


----------



## RenegadeDave (Feb 10, 2009)

If you expect to have any sort of intellectual discussion, proper grammar and spelling are pretty important (unless you're from the English as a second language crowd, that's when you get some slack). It seems somewhat ridiculous that you expect people to seriously consider a thought/statement that you yourself haven't fully considered before posting. 

Personally (and this is the only sub-forum I do it on), I reread each post before hitting submit to make sure that I'm communicating my idea as clearly as I can. The rest of the forum is for my word vomit


----------



## Daemoniac (Feb 10, 2009)

RenegadeDave said:


> my word vomit





On a slightly more OT note, has anyone actually heard any more on what he's doing with these caps?


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Feb 10, 2009)

RenegadeDave said:


> The rest of the forum is for my word vomit



I like that, word vomit.


----------



## Korngod (Feb 27, 2009)

I dont get it... supposedly America wanted a "change" and a good reason McCain didnt win was because it would supposedly be 4 more years of the "same". but...... i see no change.. so he has only been in office for a short time, i still cant see him "changing" anything for the better. i could care less who is in office, as long as whoever it is, gets the fuckin job done and get this country back on its feet. if congress and obama keep shit like this up and you will see more and more militia groups.


----------



## Vairocarnal (Feb 27, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Our Democrats aren't as extreme as your... whatever those parties are, but I'm pretty much exactly on the opposite end - any government with the power to interfere with individual rights (including taxation) is too big for my tastes.
> 
> Jeff



What he said.


----------



## cpnhowdy (Feb 27, 2009)

Korngod said:


> I dont get it... supposedly America wanted a "change" and a good reason McCain didnt win was because it would supposedly be 4 more years of the "same". but...... i see no change.. so he has only been in office for a short time, i still cant see him "changing" anything for the better. i could care less who is in office, as long as whoever it is, gets the fuckin job done and get this country back on its feet. if congress and obama keep shit like this up and you will see more and more militia groups.



I'm not seeing any change neither. We got Geithner and Benanke doing the same bullshit Paulson was pulling. We have more military spending  as opposed to pulling out troops. 
All I can see is some very very irresponsible spending going on by this admistration instead of doing what is needed.


----------



## Toshiro (Feb 27, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Demoniac, that's why responsible people save a large chunk of their income and get health insurance - your system may be tolerable for you, but any time spent in the States will show quite clearly that the government is the last institution you should go to if you want something done well.
> 
> Jeff



My girlfriend looked into health insurance for herself. $130 a month, and that was for shitty coverage.

Cheap health insurance doesn't pay for much, BTW, expect a nice bill if you ever have to go to the ER.

I know lots of people who don't go to doctors, even when they need to, because they can't afford to. That's fucked up, period.


----------



## RenegadeDave (Mar 2, 2009)

cpnhowdy said:


> what is needed.



This guy does a way better job of explaining why the "stimulus" will not do what it was designed to do. I highly recommend everyone who wishes to sound intelligent on the matter read this.


----------

