Pali Posted April 14, 2011 Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 Anyone else watch the speech President Obama gave last night? Thoughts? Comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mali Posted April 14, 2011 Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 I voted for Obama but I think he is kind of lame. The budget speech he made is - to my understanding - a watering down of the recommendations made by his own fiscal committee. The way I see it, the conservative crowd wants to cut all the social programs and give breaks to big business. The liberal crowd wants to throw away money and gut the rich. I think there is a moderate ground here, and we need a politician willing to branch out of their comfort zone to get things done. We need to tax big business, but not to the point of putting them out of business. We need to support social programs, but we should not waste money on them and almost every program is in need of fiscal reforms. The Ryan budget has taken alot of criticism, but at least it has detail. The Obama plan is much like the man himself, full of pretty speech but lacking in substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRins Posted April 14, 2011 Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 I know how I'm going to be elected President... refuse to accept my salary until BIG issue X facing the country, should we still exist as a country at that time, is figured the hell out. I've lost all faith in the current administration and Congress... wake me up for the Apocalypse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted April 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 Did you actually listen to the speech, Mali, or are you going off of reactions to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mali Posted April 14, 2011 Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 I listened to it and read the transcript. He gives very few details. Thats what matters... detail. Enough rhetoric, Mr. President. More work. I have a way to save money. How about we stop bombing countries in North Africa and the Middle East? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jibber Posted April 14, 2011 Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 Budget Speech. Not Budget Plan. Speaks for itself. Especially when he had his campaign manager announce it, and not his budget administration. Ploy for a re-election speech by using tax-payer's money? Yeah. Not impressed with this dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samag08 Posted April 14, 2011 Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 Well stated Mali. The only basic difference I have is that I think we need to be careful regarding taxing big business. I, as well as many of they themselves, are perfectly fine with the wealthy paying more personal income taxes(although it is a shame that we ever even had to go down that road, I am a flat tax fan) but anything to hamper general employment makes me uncomfortable. I owned a small business for a long time and it is night and day difference from working for a corporation. Businesses get dinged in many aspects from insurance, to additional taxes(not to mention the ways in which personal and corporate figures are required to be reported and taxed), unemployment benefits, etc. There is a LOT of work that has to be done just to have a company, let alone run it effectively. Another problem I see with raising the age for benefits for young workers is that there will be many more people literally working until they die because they keep pushing back the age. I'd like to take some 65 year old congressman to a job site one day and have him haul around 70lb+ objects up and down scaffolds for 8-12 hours a day..........>end rant< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRins Posted April 14, 2011 Report Share Posted April 14, 2011 You'd be shelling out for the wrongful death suit... No way they could work any sort of manual labor with severe distress. The older ones would outright die I imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted April 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 I listened to it and read the transcript. He gives very few details. Thats what matters... detail. Enough rhetoric, Mr. President. More work. I have a way to save money. How about we stop bombing countries in North Africa and the Middle East? Your thoughts closely mirror my own... although I've found him rhetorically weak lately, so I appreciated him stepping up a bit at least there. I'm likewise fairly disappointed with the man... the main reason I'd vote for him in 2012 would be that the Republicans don't have a potential candidate that doesn't seem bat**** to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mali Posted April 15, 2011 Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 What we need to do is get the politicians out of politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted April 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 Term limits, man. Congress needs them badly, if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killalou Posted April 16, 2011 Report Share Posted April 16, 2011 Or more diversity instead of lawyers/business owners making the bulk. Would be nice to have other professions making the majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted April 16, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2011 Or more diversity instead of lawyers/business owners making the bulk. Would be nice to have other professions making the majority. Couldn't hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted April 17, 2011 Report Share Posted April 17, 2011 Its really pretty simple. The federal government only has the power to collect taxes in order to fund the powers given to it by the Constitution, i.e. the enumerated powers. Anything that isn't related to an enumerated power gets cut. Anything up on the chopping block would be much better handled by state/local governments or private entities, since the federal government is only capable of running programs in the most inefficient and ineffectual way possible. Also, while we are at it, term limits on all members of Congress, and across the board cuts on salary for both Congress members and the President and his office. People do not join the military to become rich, nor should they enter politics to become rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted April 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Anything that isn't related to an enumerated power gets cut. Anything up on the chopping block would be much better handled by state/local governments or private entities... And when it comes to all the people who depend on those programs, in the states that decide not to implement them or where the private sector charges too much for them? We just say "too bad, screw them"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 And when it comes to all the people who depend on those programs' date=' in the states that decide not to implement them or where the private sector charges too much for them? We just say "too bad, screw them"?[/quote'] Yes. People need to learn to take care of themselves and take responsibility for their actions. 99.99% of the time, any situation you end up in, is a direct response to decisions you have made. How many people choose to not pay for medical insurance, but also have smart phones, unlimited cellular plans, cable tv, etc. Also, its a lot easier to hold state governments accountable, than a federal government. If you dislike how your state runs itself, move to a different state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted April 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 How many people choose to pay for medical insurance, and then get screwed by unregulated insurance companies who suddenly withdraw coverage? How many people choose where they were born, into what economic and social conditions, into what family conditions, the education they have access to growing up? You make it sound like everyone starts on a level playing field - that is not the case. You also make it sound a lot easier to just pack up and move to another state than it usually is for a lot of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Life isn't fair. Just because some people have a harder time climbing the chain than others doesn't mean we should be dumping trillions of dollars into programs that not only violates the written word of our Constitution, but also amounts to legalized theft. Yes, people don't start off at the same starting point. We all, however, have the means to advance ourselves as far in life as we want. Stop making excuses people! Its in your responsibility to improve your life, not the federal government's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted April 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Frankly, I view the way our economic system plays out to qualify as "legalized theft" far more than I view our social security programs as such. The top 400 people in this country having more wealth than the bottom 150 million... their income has gone up about 400% over the last decade, while for the bottom 90% wages have dropped... more and more money is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. That is the legalized theft that is going on here. Edit: "We all, however, have the means to advance ourselves as far in life as we want." - You missed my point completely if you think that I agree with this sentence. Where's your sense of empathy, of compassion? Life may not be fair, but we can try to make it fairer than it is now. Edit 2: Also, I'm curious what programs you're referring to that you consider to be in violation of the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Twendrist Posted April 19, 2011 Report Share Posted April 19, 2011 Well, a good chunk of them given that the federal government was never designed to be this big and the the founding fathers would probably be livid. Tytler cycle of democracy, when the people start voting for representatives who are going to vote them money you may as well start worrying about complete failure. Fact is social security, medicare, medicade, wellfare, they're all ****ed up. The government doesn't regulate any of these the way they ought to, and yes, that is theft. Some dude with 12 kids in a shack and a caddy parked in the front lawn? Yeah.. These programs need to be overhauled and need to be regulated. If it were done properly they might not be such a waste, but as it stands they are. Often good people get screwed and bad people win, and I don't think I or anyone else should have to pay for it. I firmly believe anyone on these programs should have to do something (except seniors and people that really are fully disabled like.. paralyzed from the neck down). Whether it be picking up trash, sending emails, whatever. FDR had it right, hand up not hand out. The hardcore liberals want to just dole it out to whoever so they can stay in office. Each handout is one new vote. And lets not fool ourselves, they will never ever cut taxes in a way that hurts them. Oh, and also Obama let general electric get away with not paying any taxes because of loopholes. FDR sent corporate ceo's to jail for that during WWII. He and his buddies want me to pay for other people but they won't make the millionaires who add to campaign funds pay their share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted April 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2011 Well' date=' a good chunk of them given that the federal government was never designed to be this big and the the founding fathers would probably be livid.[/quote'] Some would have, some wouldn't - it's not like the almighty Founding Fathers were all in agreement on the proper role of the federal government, and even if they were, I frankly don't care what their opinions would be. The "Founding Father" worship in this country is ridiculous... of the few things I think they'd agree unanimously on, that's the biggest. Tytler cycle of democracy, when the people start voting for representatives who are going to vote them money you may as well start worrying about complete failure. Yes, because businesses don't do this at all, only poor people who vote far less often and have far less power to influence people once they are in office... Some dude with 12 kids in a shack and a caddy parked in the front lawn? Is the dude a piece of crap? Yes. Do his kids deserve to suffer because they've had this misfortune of being spawned from this piece of crap? No, and without social programs in place to help them, they will... and in the long run, their suffering will cost society more than it would to help them out in the short term. EDIT: And by the way... the idea that most people on welfare, or even a significant percentage, are gaming the system? That's a false one. Most welfare fraud is committed by vendors, not the people actually receiving welfare. The percentage of unemployment claims that can be tracked to fraud or abuse is about 2%. The average number of kids in a family that receives welfare is 2 - under 10% of families on welfare have more than 3 kids. Often good people get screwed and bad people win, and I don't think I or anyone else should have to pay for it. Do you really think that social programs are the part of society that this applies strongest to? I would say that the private-sector economy is where this applies the most. I agree fully with closing tax loopholes. I am not happy at all with how things played out with GE, or with how corporations and the rich pay far, far less in taxes through the use of such loopholes than they are supposed to, and I am not happy with Obama's handling of such issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Twendrist Posted April 19, 2011 Report Share Posted April 19, 2011 George Washington, the founding father, warned about foreign alliances and political parties. Both of these are destroying us. Everyone wants the social programs to either give out free money or cut them entirely, I say spend a little bit more to regulate, and cut back a lot on the people who don't deserve the help. Anyone can go to a Catholic Church (and I would assume other places of worship as well) and get at least something to eat, and maybe be pointed in the direction of shelter and work. And I never said most on welfare are, I said some are. And the some cause quite a huge hole. Fact of the matter is, if they want to recieve aid from the government, let them do something constructive that helps the country at the same time. Then it's merely like they are being given temporary work. Even if that work only requires an hour or two a day. The government is famous for not getting things to the places and people that need them, and simply throwing more money at it solves nothing. You make it sound as if cutting the bad out of these programs is atkin to kicking a baby. Yeah I support helping people who deserve it, I give money all the time and I don't have it to give myself, but I am lucky to not have to worry about my next meal or a roof. Some people DO flat out abuse it. Cut these suckers and the poor moms who can't work because it will literally cost more might get a better shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Twendrist Posted April 19, 2011 Report Share Posted April 19, 2011 Yes, because businesses don't do this at all, only poor people who vote far less often and have far less power to influence people once they are in office... Businesses, gov. officials, and the populace are all to blame for the failings of this country. We are all guilty. Maybe when we realize this we might work toward fixing things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted April 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2011 Apologies, I misunderstood your position. I have no objection whatsoever to eliminating inefficiencies and abuses of such programs - although as I pointed out in the last post, such abuses occur much less often than people tend to think... "huge hole" is a bit exaggerated, I think, as was the idea of people wanting the government to just hand out free money for the hell of it. I'm not aware of any politician or party arguing in favor of this. I also find it ironic that you bring up churches - if you want an example of undeserved government welfare, that's a massive one right there. Simply taxing religious houses the same way we tax any other property would grant a massive revenue boost. I think, also, that requiring people to work for welfare is self-defeating - for one, even an hour or two of work a day, depending on where this work is located compared to one's residence and mode of transportation, can mean far more than an hour or two of the day being used up. This could make it harder for people to do efficient job-searching to find real jobs in the private sector. Loss of a job often causes other problems, like loss of affordable child-care, which a few hours of barely-paid work a day would also complicate. I mean, in essence, you're saying have people work for food stamps or unemployment (I'm assuming you're not saying that people with disabilities should be subject to this) - the latter people already do pay for through taxes while they have a job, and the former is limited to $200 a month for a single person with no kids. Assuming this person works 2 hours a day for 20-24 days a month, you've in essence got this person working for $5 an hour or less that he's paid in food stamps rather than actual money. Also... honestly, working one or two hours at a time is hardly enough time to get anything constructive done of any real magnitude. There are reasons few jobs will give people shifts of that length. And if we have them working longer than that, then we may as well just be giving them minimum-wage government jobs. EDIT: My point through all of this can be summed up thusly: abuse of social programs is not causing serious financial problems. The overall size of social programs compared with revenue is causing a problem, but unless we want to massively shrink these programs and cause huge amounts of pain for decent, hard-working people across the country, tinkering with them is not going to produce the kinds of savings that are needed. I think it far more fair to raise taxes on the only income groups that have actually seen their wages rise over the last few decades: the top ten percent, and particularly the top 1%, which has seen a 400% increase in their wages over that time period. We should also cut truly unnecessary spending that does not directly benefit our citizens - such as our ridiculously bloated military budget, which gets more money than every other military on the planet combined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mali Posted April 19, 2011 Report Share Posted April 19, 2011 My point through all of this can be summed up thusly: abuse of social programs is not causing serious financial problems. A meaningless statement without some real sources and numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.