John Stossel IS THE MAN!

[The-Nameless]

I would like to state also that I clearly understand I am able to get aid should I choose to get it. And even then it is ok I suppose. But the key factor is I am contributing to the system even if I get more out of it than I put in. What I have a problem with is people who are capable of work but elect not to simply because it is easier to not work. Sure it is easier to not work. I guess pride comes into play but in all reality I like to classify it as responsibility. I am responsible for me and mine. I will do all I can to provide for my circle.

[Celerity]

As for all the claims Kyzarius made in a previous post:

http://halttheassault.com/2012/04/26/the-road-we-really-traveled-president-obama/

[Imoutgoodbye]

As for all the claims Kyzarius made in a previous post:

http://halttheassault.com/2012/04/26/the-road-we-really-traveled-president-obama/

More right-wing skewered nonsense. I only watched half of it. I've seen that kind of number slinging before. Allow me to give some facts:

Fact 1: It's common knowledge that in the first four years of an administration it's almost impossible to reverse all damage done by a previous administration, whether it be 1 term or 2 terms.

Fact 2: Those statistics don't take into account Fact 1.

Fact 3: Bush had Republican majorities in House and Senate for at least one of his terms. This made it easy for him to create broad sweeping legislation that is difficult to overcome.

Fact 4: Come November, it's the Democrats turn.

Fact 5: That TRILLION dollar deficit from the stimulus includes long term interest accumulation and is years from reaching that amount...not to mention the stimulus program is the result of Bush beginning them prior to leaving office, being carried on by a Republican controlled House/Senate, and they are actually part of Reagonomics, a Republican idea of economics.

So, in conclusion, the video is not at all accurate, it just enjoys offering a small simulacra to create a better paradigm and attempts to create a metanarrative for the Republicans that's distant from the Republicans, but is actually part of their platform of attacks.

Shame on them.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html

The above link is an interesting article that Stephen King wrote for the Daily Beast.

Clarification: Obama brought in with him some Republicans, so, they had a Senate majority, but not a House majority (or vice versa), but not the huge majority that Bush had in both houses.

[Kyzarius]

Wow cel, I hope you dont really buy that misleading garbage.

[Imoutgoodbye]

An example of a Republican Number Slinger (countered by another favorite of mine, Rachel Maddow)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NYHWp31u40

EDIT: inscribed, I SWEAR I have not forgotten about John Stossel and will eventually come back around to him.

[Akoz]

Fact 1: It's common knowledge that in the first four years of an administration it's almost impossible to reverse all damage done by a previous administration, whether it be 1 term or 2 terms.

So what your saying was that bushes first term deficet % climb was clintons fault and his betterment in his second term was his doing? Man not what demecrats have been touting.

Democrats always use the "Fact 1" but forget about it when it goes against them.

[Pali]

What I have a problem with is people who are capable of work but elect not to simply because it is easier to not work.

To inject some facts here... 49% of food stamp recipients are under 18, while another 15% are over 60. That is two-thirds of recipients being in the groups that have the hardest time finding jobs that pay decently. 40% of people on food stamps live in a house where someone works. Yes, I'm aware there are other forms of govt. assistance than food stamps, but they are one of the most common forms and were the easiest to look up the statistics for.

We are also currently in an economic state where we have 4 unemployed people for every job opening. It is simply ridiculous to suggest that people should just get jobs when it is literally impossible for them all to find work.

For every story you guys post about some lazy person you know who just lives off of handouts, I could post a story about someone I know who isn't lazy but got screwed by the recession and now those "handouts" are all that are keeping them afloat while they keep trying and failing to get a new job because they can't find one. So let's leave anecdotes out of it, eh?

As for the idea that people should just settle for minimum wage jobs... try to look at it from a broader perspective. Say we have a guy named Bob, who is some form of engineer. He's gone through numerous years of schooling to attain specialized knowledge that he can use. Now, because of the recession and poor job availability, Bob finds that the only jobs he can find make absolutely no use of his specialized knowledge and pay him far less than he paid to attain that knowledge. Here is the question: is it better for society as a whole to support Bob for a while so that he can continue spending his time searching for a job where he can actually use his specialized knowledge for the betterment of the economy, or should we tell Bob to go work full-time at McDonald's and allow ourselves to lose the benefits Bob's specialized knowledge could have provided us in another field had he had more time to keep looking?

Supporting people is good for you. Supporting people is good for the economy. Without your and my tax dollars going to support people who don't have jobs or who have jobs that pay far too little, you and I would be in a worse situation right now because of how much worse the economy's state would be if a huge portion of our population had even less money to spend in it than they do now.

Rational self-interest is the reason I'm in favor of govt. aid programs, despite the fact that I have never personally taken advantage of them.

[Imoutgoodbye]

So what your saying was that bushes first term deficet % climb was clintons fault and his betterment in his second term was his doing? Man not what demecrats have been touting.

Democrats always use the "Fact 1" but forget about it when it goes against them.

Clinton gave Bush a budget that was in good health, Clinton had TWO terms, which means Bush had it almost completely squandered midway through his second term.

Check again.

[Kyzarius]

Clinton gave Bush a budget that was in good health, Clinton had TWO terms, which means Bush had it almost completely squandered midway through his second term.

Check again.

I second this one.

Bush, and the GOP Majority ran congress, was handed a great growing economy by Clinton, and completly destroyed it.

[inscribed]

Its not hard, its pretty simple.

If you like your paycheck, vote Democrat.

Last I checked, the Democrats were the ones that want to raise taxes to increase spending on stuff I don't want to pay for nor should I have to pay for.

If you like womans rights' date=' vote democrat.[/quote']

Women have the same rights as men, and then some. What the issue is about now is special treatment. If you really want a government free of sexism and racism, then get rid of every single mention of sex and race in every law. That is the definition of equal rights. Like the ERA, though, any attempt at doing that will be shot down with a quickness. In the meantime, its just about who gets what special treatment.

If you like workers rights' date=' Democrat[/quote']

This is ironic, since it's been shown time and time again that the typically Democratic policies of minimum wage, high corporate taxes, and affirmative action, all raise unemployment levels.

If you like science' date=' democrat[/quote']

I have to laugh at this one. Obviously, giving large chunks of money to Congress will somehow equate to huge scientific breakthroughs, because congressmen know way more than any of us when it comes to the sciences. If only we threw enough money at someone in a lab coat, we'd have flying cars and cancer would be cured! No scientific breakthrough has ever succeeded without the kind hand of government granting it!

If you like care for Veterans' date=' democrat[/quote']

As a staff sergeant currently in the military (for one more year, anyways!), I can say this is about the most ridiculous thing you've listed here. Obama has gone after our pay raises, our health care, our retirement, and just about every other benefit veterans have. He wants to increase spending on every other department, but defense is the one area he's willing to cut. To top it off, Obama has engaged in more military conflicts in 3.5 years than Bush did in 8 (none with congressional approval). Where's the outrage?

If you like the environment' date=' democrat[/quote']

Just because some congressman decides to name something a 'Clean Water Act', doesn't mean its execution has anything to do with cleaning water. The EPA acts without any oversight and near unlimited power, while providing little to no real improvement to the environment it's supposed to protect. The entire agency is about keeping certain people rich at the expense of people who can and will pay, and screwing over/jailing the people who can't.

Case in point. (This case was mentioned in the video in the OP as well.)

If you like affordable education' date=' democrat[/quote']

Another bit of irony, here, since it's federal financial aid that forces the huge increase in education prices to begin with. Which is a crime, really, since a majority of degrees aren't even worth the paper they are printed on, but you still get all of these spoiled kids wasting thousands of dollars on them anyways.

If you're a christian' date=' and follow Jesus' teachings, Democrat[/quote']

I'm not religious.

If you have a pre-existing condition' date=' and dont want to die, vote Democrat[/quote']

Now this is just silly. Go to free clinics/emergency rooms or just budget for medical insurance like an adult, even if it means cutting back on your cable or cell phone bill. What, is medical insurance too expensive? You can thank your over-extending, over-regulating government for that too.

Let's see how many tangents this will spawn!

[inscribed]

It's always going to Bush's fault, for ever and ever!

[inscribed]

Rational self-interest is the reason I'm in favor of govt. aid programs, despite the fact that I have never personally taken advantage of them.

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/american-welfare-state-how-we-spend-nearly-$1-trillion-year-fighting-poverty-fail

That one is for you, Pali. Rational self-interest is the essence of free market solutions to problems. Government solutions are only about making politicians rich and powerful.

[Akoz]

I second this one.

Bush, and the GOP Majority ran congress, was handed a great growing economy by Clinton, and completly destroyed it.

But you said the first term is from prior president.... the first term of bush SUCKED. But like I said when its in a democrats favor they will ignore their Fact 1. Guess its only FACT sometimes?

Just like when gass rose to 2.50 a gallon everyone said it was bushes fault, but now that its 3.70 a gallon its NOT obamas fault. Not that im a bush supporter, I how ever liked alot of what he tried to accomplish. We can talk all day long about how stupid he sounded when talking but I wouldnt want to get into what a golden tongue can get you into.

49% Eh?

"The group of unemployed persons aged between 15 and 24 is large because many young people are studying full-time and are therefore neither working nor looking for a job (so they are not part of the labour force which is used as the denominator for calculating the unemployment rate)."

The Rate of Unemployment over the age of 24 is 4.2 1/2 of what the 8.8 Is calculated. So technically speaking 1 out of every two people should get out and find a job. I dont care if your a nuclear engineer if your working @ Fast food you still got time to find a job outside of that, ALOT of time. Atleast your taking care of yourself. Taking care of someone who lost their job is called UNEMPLOYMENT. Taking care of someone who never had a job is called LAZY.

EDIT: I am all for AIDING people, Im not for AIDING people who refuse to AID themselves. If you wont take ANY job because your two proud? WAHH!! I have 2 degrees and cant find a job in either of my fields. The goverment now takes 12% of my paycheck to pay for the 2 degrees I can not use. It happens, guess its my fault. They sure as hell are not AIDING me with that. Maybe I should quit my job, get just as much on welfare, the fiance can do the same... we will actually get MORE $ and the goverment wont TAX it or Paycheck deduct that 12%. Then I can sit @ homea nd play games and get high. Hell sounds like a blast. Maybe even a little under the table work for more $$$. See how everyone likes paying for that.

[Imoutgoodbye]

I'm only going to say one more thing on this thread because it's just deteriorating into personal issues on philosophy and social contract or lack thereof.

[Pali]

Rational self-interest is the essence of free market solutions to problems.

And if human beings existed in a state of being properly educated/informed and usually acted rationally, it may even work.

However, I have to agree that this thread is getting a bit too personal/emotional, so I'm going to follow Valek's lead and bow out.

[inscribed]

EDIT: inscribed, I SWEAR I have not forgotten about John Stossel and will eventually come back around to him.

Here's another great video of his, to somewhat move the thread back on track:

However, I have to agree that this thread is getting a bit too personal/emotional, so I'm going to follow Valek's lead and bow out.

And we were so close to beating out the Jon Stewart thread...

[Celerity]

I disagree with the democrats, and I said earlier that I think that Obama=Romney, therefore I must disagree with Romney as well. Both men are about big government, keynesian (fail!) economics, and are generally corrupt. Both are also on the war bandwagon (Iran??), and in the case of Obama, has an awful record of human rights (as did Bush!--big surprise there!). Romney, if elected, would likely follow in those footsteps. A Romney administration simply wouldn't be very different from an Obama one.

Libertarians don't fit well into the left/right continuum (since they are fiscally the extreme right and socially extreme left), but they usually run under a Republican ticket in the US (Ron Paul anyone?) as their economic message gives greater voter traction.

And you guys talk (like the MSM) as if Romney were the candidate already. Trying running these issues by somebody like Paul and good luck winning an argument.

There is no better person to handle how your money is used than you. Even if you waste it all on something, it is exactly what you wanted to do.

[inscribed]

Libertarians don't fit well into the left/right continuum (since they are fiscally the extreme right and socially extreme left), but they usually run under a Republican ticket in the US (Ron Paul anyone?) as their economic message gives greater voter traction.

And you guys talk (like the MSM) as if Romney were the candidate already. Trying running these issues by somebody like Paul and good luck winning an argument.

There is no better person to handle how your money is used than you. Even if you waste it all on something, it is exactly what you wanted to do.

I'm glad to see there's a fellow libertarian on the forum. Speaking of Ron Paul, have you seen this recent 'Paul vs Paul' debate? It's a good watch.

[Pali]

And we were so close to beating out the Jon Stewart thread...

I didn't realize it was a competition. I've enjoyed these threads, but I feel that we're going in circles... and while I'm sometimes down for that, I prefer not to do so in political discussions when people are getting upset by it.

[Akoz]

Just tossing out, while passionate about some things, I dont get upsut by someones oppinions.

[Mali]

Ron Paul is a schmuck.