THE REALLY BIG BARACK OBAMA THEARD

[RomanClock]

Listen Roman, who in this country do you think is hurting the most right now?

People who make 250k+ a year
or people who make less?

Remember when we didnt have to worry about gas, car loans, groceries, mortgages, college loans etc.  You know, THE 90S. Guess which party was in power then..

The Bush administration has bled the middle class of this country dry. People are sick of it and its showing. This whole redistribution of wealth argument is not only one sided but its simply shallow and annoying.

You wanna talk about wealth redistribution? Look at the last 8 years.

You really have no idea how things work which makes me sad.
Schools obviously doesn't teach kids about reality :'(

In America, the idea is to make your own life, not have the government pad you.

You see, when I make money, I'd like to KEEP IT because I EARNED it. I don't want an arbitrary power saying "Oh hey looks at that money, you must give me some and I'll give you a piece of this loaf of bread I bought with other peoples money, if you don't, you go to jail!"

[RomanClock]

I don't see what's so bad about people that have more money paying more taxes than those who have less.

There is a reason why some people have more money than others.

[Thor]

There is a reason why some people have more money than others.

People who have more money well still have more money after taxes. They still get rewarded for their hard work. The only difference is that people who didn't have rich daddies or didn't get one of the relatively few existing high paying jobs don't have to eat dirt and live in holes.

[Thor]

Yes I do eat dirt and live in a whole you got a problem with that?

[Slurpee]

In America, the idea is to make your own life, not have the government pad you.

Personally, when my father left my mother when she was pregnant with me, she was on welfare and living with my grandparents. She went back to college, and is now one of the most highly regarded computer techs at the college where she works, and she and my step-dad now pay the taxes associated with middle-income families.

Without the welfare reform offered under President Clinton, she never would have had those opportunities. She could have been a waitress, and I could still be living with my grandma in the middle of the ghetto.

In America, we help the less fortunate. If someone stumbles and falls, we help them back up.
If somebody quite simply gets fucked out of making his or her own life, that shouldn't be their only shot at it.

In moderation, of course, but... right? I'm not wrong, am I?

[RomanClock]

There are many reasons. But whatever the reason, I think it's only fair for those who have more to give more, since they can afford it.

That's what charity is for and
LIFE ISN'T FAIR

Governments have tried to solve this problem for centuries BUT GOVERNMENT CANT DO IT. Forcing people to give money to someone else for free solves no problem ever.

If you got $200 a week and you never have to do anything, will you do anything with your life?
One type person will be fine with that, they don't care where it comes from, how they get it or anything, they just like they get free money and don't have to do anything. This is the poor person.
Then there is the type of person who will want to do something with it or do something for themselves, whether use it as capital or invest in a market. This is the rich person.

Personally, when my father left my mother when she was pregnant with me, she was on welfare and living with my grandparents. She went back to college, and is now one of the most highly regarded computer techs at the college where she works, and she and my step-dad now pay the taxes associated with middle-income families.

Without the welfare reform offered under President Clinton, she never would have had those opportunities. She could have been a waitress, and I could still be living with my grandma in the middle of the ghetto.

In America, we help the less fortunate. If someone stumbles and falls, we help them back up.
If somebody quite simply gets fucked out of making his or her own life, that shouldn't be their only shot at it.

In moderation, of course, but... right? I'm not wrong, am I?

You see, your family DID something, they didn't settle with getting what the government gave, you moved on and benefited everyone.

The government is supposed to provide opportunity, not sustenance.

[RomanClock]

The government is supposed to provide opportunity, not sustenance.

I'm not for big government, I'm for government that's helpful, and does not hinder, whether it be by being too involved or not involved enough.

^

[RomanClock]

night guys B)

night!

[Thor]

Maybe if I keep saying the same thing over and over people well change to my opinion!

[RomanClock]

Maybe if I keep saying the same thing over and over people well change to my opinion!

I am merely here to educate.

[GreyClock]

Roman you should realize that tax cuts for lower incomes doesn't mean more free money for them, it means they have to pay less. What it also means is that the lower incomes have more money to spend. That means more goods sold. That means a stronger economy. That means the people on the other end of the scale, with high incomes, get more money from their stocks, profit sharing plans and whatever.

Not only that EVERY COUNTRY ON THE PLANET HAS DEBT. The reasons involve complex economic theory which I don't fully understand, but in a simplified (perhaps too simplified) statement: Debt is not always bad.

The problem is not that the United States has a debt, it's that its debt is growing out of every proportion. The risk is that at some critical point, countries lose complete faith in your economy and the dollar. Resulting in mass withdrawal of investments and dumping of dollars. The United States would go bankrupt. Of course, as it would be a disaster not just for the United States, but also for the rest of the world, people are working very hard to convince investors that there's light at the end of the tunnel. I watched a documentary on this subject, and apparently China was already considering withdrawing (part of) its one trillion dollar investment in your economy.


I am merely here to educate.

[RomanClock]

Roman you should realize that tax cuts for lower incomes doesn't mean more free money for them, it means they have to pay less. What it also means is that the lower incomes have more money to spend. That means more goods sold. That means a stronger economy. That means the people on the other end of the scale, with high incomes, get more money from their stocks, profit sharing plans and whatever.

I don't know exactly what you're trying to say. If you're saying tax cuts are generally good, then I agree. But I wasn't discussing economic effects of a tax cut which would take another essay.

The problem is not that the United States has a debt, it's that debt is growing out of every proportion. The risk is that at some critical point, countries lose complete faith in your economy and the dollar. Resulting in withdrawal of investments and mass dumping of dollars. The United States would go bankrupt. Of course, as it would be a disaster not just for the United States, but also the rest of the world, people are working very hard to convince investors that there's light at the end of the tunnel. I watched a documentary on this subject, and apparently China was already considering withdrawing (part of) its one trillion dollar investment in your economy.

Massive debt is bad. However, debt is not JUST debt since its really a network of many different debts to many different things. And China actually has 500 billion in bonds. Investments are a different matter since that's really a network of hundreds of businesses which you can't just "pull out."
If the government does nothing, its a pretty good way to lower debt (as Clinton demonstrated).
Also, its kind of weird how this is but the US owes China and China owes the US but you can't just cancel it out because its so complicated.

[mauserclock]

this maltese/roman clock argument is going absolutely nowhere

[GreyClock]

I don't know exactly what you're trying to say. If you're saying tax cuts are generally good, then I agree. But I wasn't discussing economic effects of a tax cut which would take another essay.

It all goes hand in hand. You can't say something like, "It's unfair that the rich have to give their money to the poor FOR FREE" and conveniently disregard the economic effects. Especially considering the fact that most of that money will find its way back to the rich in one way or another. That's what I'm trying to say.

Massive debt is bad. However, debt is not JUST debt since its really a network of many different debts to many different things.

Doesn't matter on a global scale.
 

And China actually has 500 billion in bonds. Investments are a different matter since that's really a network of hundreds of businesses which you can't just "pull out."

Investments also include shares owned by foreign companies in United States companies, which can be dumped en masse. Foreign banks can deny loans to American banks, withdraw their money from American banks. Exporters (of whatever) to the United States can stop exporting out of fear of not getting paid. Should I go on?

Also, its kind of weird how this is but the US owes China and China owes the US but you can't just cancel it out because its so complicated.

It wouldn't be a very smart move on the part of the US to cancel out debts. Why? Because the Chinese economy is still growing, it's a big fat cash cow.

[CANNABISCLOCK]

The problem is not that the United States has a debt, it's that its debt is growing out of every proportion. The risk is that at some critical point, countries lose complete faith in your economy and the dollar. Resulting in mass withdrawal of investments and dumping of dollars. The United States would go bankrupt. Of course, as it would be a disaster not just for the United States, but also for the rest of the world, people are working very hard to convince investors that there's light at the end of the tunnel. I watched a documentary on this subject, and apparently China was already considering withdrawing (part of) its one trillion dollar investment in your economy.


I am merely here to educate.

gfb

[Thor]

lol, political debates. You guys would get more done yelling at your wall.

[Poltergeist]

I find it adorable how so many of the Roman/Flux posts contain "you don't understand ho this works" and they basically took that and made it more and more passive agressive.


I live in England, and yesterday in class we disscussed the importance of this eledtion and I was upset to find how many people saw it as unimportant.

I too was a huge fan of McCain, and was happy to find he was the Republican nominee as at that point I found the election pretty win/win, however as time went by I found myself slowly losing admiration for McCain. He regained it in the final few days before the election, however, when he pretty much told his campaign managers to take a hike.

I'm happy how this election turned out overall, and I really hope that Obama somehow does something to directly benefit Roman a lot, because that would be just dandy.

[PirateClock]

the best part about this is that all the douchebags in the clockcrew feel like shit and look like even bigger douchebags.

that's just about how much i care about this whole ordeal.

[CrustClock]

knowing you douchebags this is probably HIIIGHLY OFFENSIVE to non-americans
but lick my butt



superman owns

Hitman is such a shitty character. "I'm righteous because I only 'whack' 'bad guys' ", what kind of philosophy is that?

[Maltese]

The Republican Party: We help people who have more than enough ability to already help themselves