I think a witch would be a more appropriate description, being Halloween and all.
I generally loath anyone who uses children for political gain, kissing babies, denying them candy, making them carry signs at rallies and protests. To me it symbolizes that you are unable to debate your point and you have to use children to hide behind or to pull at people's hearts rather than their minds. Both sides are guilty of this however, the Sing for Change kids come to mind on the other side.
...I disagree with Obama's cores beliefs and disagree with what he says he wants to do . Except claiming he will give tax break to most(I don't support the spread the wealth idea).
I don't really like the idea of spreading the wealth as much as I like the idea of everyone's basic needs being taken care of (just a quick thing to bring you up to speed, since I don't think I've debated with you much and don't know if you lurk: I think every American should receive at least what we give prisoners, i.e. food, clothing, shelter, and medical attention. Education to make them less likely to be a permanent leech off of the government would be a nice touch, too).
I am, however, a big fan of paying of our national debt and covering the costs of operating our government. This means we need to generate revenue. The government only really generates revenue through taxes, so it looks like the only way to go would be to either raise taxes to pay off our debt, or cut government so dramatically that we can start paying back what we owe. Of course, if you cut government services, people will probably not be fine with paying the same amount of taxes. Basically, the more taxes you pay, the easier it is for the government to ferret away funds for other purposes, like repaying our massive debt (a government program might cost $49 per person, so they charge you $50, and use the $1 to help pay off the debt. No government program means no justification for the payment, so you're out the program and the government couldn't skim $1 to help pay the national debt).
And just to make it clear, I'm a fan of the government taking more of my money (if I don't need it) if it means that the government won't have to take twice as much money from any offspring I might have.
I don't really like the idea of spreading the wealth as much as I like the idea of everyone's basic needs being taken care of (just a quick thing to bring you up to speed, since I don't think I've debated with you much and don't know if you lurk: I think every American should receive at least what we give prisoners, i.e. food, clothing, shelter, and medical attention. Education to make them less likely to be a permanent leech off of the government would be a nice touch, too).
I am, however, a big fan of paying of our national debt and covering the costs of operating our government. This means we need to generate revenue. The government only really generates revenue through taxes, so it looks like the only way to go would be to either raise taxes to pay off our debt, or cut government so dramatically that we can start paying back what we owe. Of course, if you cut government services, people will probably not be fine with paying the same amount of taxes. Basically, the more taxes you pay, the easier it is for the government to ferret away funds for other purposes, like repaying our massive debt (a government program might cost $49 per person, so they charge you $50, and use the $1 to help pay off the debt. No government program means no justification for the payment, so you're out the program and the government couldn't skim $1 to help pay the national debt).
And just to make it clear, I'm a fan of the government taking more of my money (if I don't need it) if it means that the government won't have to take twice as much money from any offspring I might have.
The problem with that is you are dealing with a bunch of idiots in congress who will say they want to pay of the debt with that, but turn around and use that money to fund their special interest groups, pay off unions, and create even more useless government funded programs.
I'm sure your higher taxes will be great for Obama's planned 1 Trillion dollar increase in government spending
What we need is smaller government, not more...
The Private sector can provide the same services at a much lower cost if the free market system is given the room to work and healthy competition is present.
I'm sure your higher taxes will be great for Obama's planned 1 Trillion dollar increase in government spending
...or we can stay in Iraq for decades and spend billions more. Sounds like a fiscally solid plan.
Quote:
What we need is smaller government, not more...
Then you needn't bother voting in this election. Neither candidate is really going to reduce the government to a suitable, traditional conservative level.
Quote:
The Private sector can provide the same services at a much lower cost if the free market system is given the room to work and healthy competition is present.
Of course you have the same chances of it becoming corrupt as do governmental services. I don't see how you can put more faith in private than you do in public.
...or we can stay in Iraq for decades and spend billions more. Sounds like a fiscally solid plan.
We are going to be there (in some aspect or another) regardless of who is elected, its if you want the additional spending on top of it
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffro
Then you needn't bother voting in this election. Neither candidate is really going to reduce the government to a suitable, traditional conservative level.
But I can vote for the one who's going to do reduce it more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffro
Of course you have the same chances of it becoming corrupt as do governmental services. I don't see how you can put more faith in private than you do in public.
When dealing with the private sector, if a company becomes corrupt then people stop using it, it goes under (unless the dumbass gov't bails them out). If the company wants to stay in business then they have to play fair or the consumers are just going to go somewhere else. That competition keeps prices down, keeps quality up, and usually keeps people playing fair ball.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R., people don't stop using a business just because it is corrupt if they can't afford to do anything else. Wal-Mart is generally not regarded as a very nice organization, what with the unfair treatment of employees, questionable hiring practices, employing of illegal aliens, etc. But it still is hugely successful commercially, since it is the only game in town. If a company tries to play fair in the current business environment, they'll probably be behind the companies that know how to cheat.
Concerning government vs. private sector control: I don't care where the food, clothing, shelter, and medical attention comes from, as long as it has been provided. If a government organization does it, or if the organization subcontracts a private firm, as long as the people are getting what they need. The government should handle this, since the government has a bigger operating budget. The government won't go bankrupt if one citizen working a minimum-wage job needs expensive surgery to survive. That citizen, however, might. It's like an insurance plan, spreading the costs(not the wealth, the expenses).
Concerning the free market: It is dead. Once the free market is shackled in any way, it becomes something else. If the government regulates the market, then it cannot be free. Whether this regulation is oversight (good), restrictions on false advertising (good), bailouts (probably not good), laws regarding which countries you can import or export from (this really depends on what you consider good), it destroys the "free" market. I'm glad that it is gone, frankly. The free market resulted in crooked people doing shitty things in order to make money. You know the Food and Drug Act of 1906? They didn't just make that law because it sounded like a nice thing to do, they needed to stop enterprising free-marketeers who would do things like mix water and chalk and sell it as milk, or stop the meatpackers who didn't let a small thing like a huge rat infestation slow business down any.
I'm sure I'm speaking from ignorance here and even if I'm not I'll have a few complaints, but it's just my observation from several years of interacting with Americans, and reading news from America, on the Internet. But I've never understood why some Americans can get so fanatical about their preferred political party. I'm not just talking about the insane sort of cases you read about, but just the attitudes many seem to have on forums such as this. I don't know of anybody here (i.e. in real life, locally) who can actually bring themselves to despise a supporter of another political party the way that so many Americans seem to do. Heck, I often have reasonably friendly debates about politics with friends from work at lunchtimes that never devolve into such turmoil. I get the feeling that such a debate wouldn't go so well in the land of gold-paved roads.
Disclaimer: FileTrekkers are opinion by personal endorsed.
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
The Pub 
Re: I think this women qualifies as a wench 
Linear Mode
