Jump to content

Thank God we don't have Bush, Obama is going to save the RIAA


Zimmer
 Share

Recommended Posts

This just piss me off!!

http://news.slashdot.org/news/09/03/22/184...shtml?art_pos=1 :angry::angry::angry::angry::angry:

Like to hear (read) your thoughts

Qoute of my reply on Slashdot

He has put out the word that he wants a dialogue with Iran.

Yay were talking with a leader who alows the DEATH PENALTY on NINE YEAR OLD GIRLS and FIFTEEN YEAR OLD BOYS. --- That was total sarcasm. So lets be friends with Iran and talk to them so we can get are damn oil. Instead of stopping these blatant human rights issues. I must say Obama is so much better then Bush, not. Wake Up!!

He made changes with Guantanamo.

Ok he this is ok.

He's made changes in the tax system - albeit not enough for my tastes.

What steal from the rich and give to the poor. So lets take money from those who work and hire people (we kinda need jobs!) so they can't hire more people and give it to those who don't good job Obama!!!

He's dealing with one of the worst economies in decades.

Yes yes that is true so what he is going to stop capitalism from working and bailout those who took risks. Oh and I get to pay for it thanks.

It looks like we're finally getting out of Iraq and maybe things in Afghanistan will improve too

What so we can get are oil but let dictators who don't exactly see eye to eye with us in power. Yay!!!

.

Maybe he is a tool of the RIAA. I don't know, but considering the other shit happening in this World, the RIAA and their actions are not exactly high on people's list.

Yes their are bigger things but someone needs to tell the RIAA that money isn't everything!!

I'm all for third parties myself - I voted for Barr - but I think Obama is getting much of his changes through. It's just not the "working in the system peaceful revolution" that I think many folks expected.

I couldn't vote I just missed it by about a month :(. Yet I'll be paying taxes so that AIG can take risks they shouldn't have boy I'm glad we have Obama he going to fix everything. --- Again Sarcasm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has put out the word that he wants a dialogue with Iran.

Yay were talking with a leader who alows the DEATH PENALTY on NINE YEAR OLD GIRLS and FIFTEEN YEAR OLD BOYS. --- That was total sarcasm. So lets be friends with Iran and talk to them so we can get are damn oil. Instead of stopping these blatant human rights issues. I must say Obama is so much better then Bush, not. Wake Up!!

Grow up. Firstly you need to actually talk to people you have differences with, because regardless of what you think Iran will keep doing what its doing unless a better alternative is presented to them. Working with the international community, while not exactly on the terms you want, is better than Iran forging ahead without any constructive dialog with the international community. 30 years of the diplomatic equivalent on sticking your fingers in year ears and shouting "nah nah nah nah!" has only furthered the cause of war. I for one applaud Obamas efforts to re-establish some form of diplomacy with Iran, however limited it is in these early stages. Also, [citation needed] re: the children they are killing. The Iranians are not monsters, they are people just like you.

He made changes with Guantanamo.

Ok he this is ok.

He's made changes in the tax system - albeit not enough for my tastes.

What steal from the rich and give to the poor. So lets take money from those who work and hire people (we kinda need jobs!) so they can't hire more people and give it to those who don't good job Obama!!!

Time and time again it has been shown that when taxes are higher for the rich the overall quality of life improves for everyone. Now you can either pay taxes for prisons, or you can pay taxes for better education and investment in infrastructure which improve social conditions for those at the bottom of the scale. Yes, private wealth is important for the creation of jobs and economic growth but the balance has tipped to far in recent years and tax cuts are now an art of diminishing returns.

He's dealing with one of the worst economies in decades.

Yes yes that is true so what he is going to stop capitalism from working and bailout those who took risks. Oh and I get to pay for it thanks.

Capitalism is just as discredited as communism or feudalism, what is needed is a balance, not sticking to one ideological dogma in hopes it will fix all your problems. In the last 2 decades there has been a huge tip towards the needs of businesses and the economy rather than actual peoples needs, this hasn't gotten us anywhere in the long run.

It looks like we're finally getting out of Iraq and maybe things in Afghanistan will improve too

What so we can get are oil but let dictators who don't exactly see eye to eye with us in power. Yay!!!

Basically it went down like this, America fucked up Afghanistan when the soviets invaded and it was flooded with weapons. You helped create all these dodgey terrorist organizations, trained them, funded them and armed them. Then Regan/Bush just kinda gave up on the place and these same organizations ran riot and created an Islamic dictatorship in the form of the Taliban. Years later you decided to go back in, took out the government and left the place in chaos once again when you again forgot about it and went on your Iraqi adventure. In this time the taliban shifted into Pakistan and are once again causing chaos in both countries. Iraq, while not exactly a good place seems to have gotten over the worst of its problems and while wobbly can probally stand up on its own. Afghanistan needs your attention now. Learn some history.

Maybe he is a tool of the RIAA. I don't know, but considering the other shit happening in this World, the RIAA and their actions are not exactly high on people's list.

Yes their are bigger things but someone needs to tell the RIAA that money isn't everything!!

I'm all for third parties myself - I voted for Barr - but I think Obama is getting much of his changes through. It's just not the "working in the system peaceful revolution" that I think many folks expected.

I couldn't vote I just missed it by about a month sad.gif. Yet I'll be paying taxes so that AIG can take risks they shouldn't have boy I'm glad we have Obama he going to fix everything. --- Again Sarcasm.

A lot of people with high hopes and low IQ's thought Obama being elected would herald some Utopian golden age in America with the repealing of everything the previous administration had done, an end to all its wars etc... This simply isn't the case, and never was either. Obama being elected was more about having a rational man in office, so while I disagree with his handling of the economy he can be debated with. Also, he has to work in a system, look at the stimulus bill, it wasn't Obama saying "X will happen", it was a case of everyone making sure they got a piece of the action and a compromise between many different groups with different agendas and goals.

This is the sad state of modern politics in western world, its not a case of people coming together to reach a conclusion for the good of the electorate, its a bunch of morons with stupid archaic views on the world in a desperate grab for there piece of the pie. In this world, Obama represents someone you can at least have a dialog with, which as we learned in point 1, is the first step to reaching a consensus with someone you disagree with without reaching for a gun.

(As for the RIAA, i don't disagree with the groups existence, purely with its tactics and style of operation. We all damn well know that downloading an album without paying for it is stealing, whatever fancy rhetoric we use to attempt to excuse ourselves. Admitting this is the first step to working towards a ideal solution where media is cheap and accessible enough to not be worth stealing.

And quite frankly, given the state of play we're faced with the RIAA is the last of my concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the RIAA, i don't disagree with the groups existence, purely with its tactics and style of operation. We all damn well know that downloading an album without paying for it is stealing, whatever fancy rhetoric we use to attempt to excuse ourselves. Admitting this is the first step to working towards a ideal solution where media is cheap and accessible enough to not be worth stealing.

And quite frankly, given the state of play we're faced with the RIAA is the last of my concerns.

Boom. Roasted.

I totally agree with this point. It's stealing, it shouldn't be free, the RIAA just can't go about it the right way.

As for everything else, very constructive work VaKo. I approve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the RIAA, i don't disagree with the groups existence, purely with its tactics and style of operation. We all damn well know that downloading an album without paying for it is stealing, whatever fancy rhetoric we use to attempt to excuse ourselves. Admitting this is the first step to working towards a ideal solution where media is cheap and accessible enough to not be worth stealing.

It is stealing I never said it wasn't and yes there are bigger things to deal with so instead of defending the RIAA deal with the bigger issues Obama doesn't have to support the RIAA yet he has or at least his DOJ has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I just sat down and read the entire 39 page document you linked to, and in short it says this:

The defense make numerous constitutional arguments, a: they need more time to work out if these apply to this case and b: if they do, this is a seperate case in its own right. Basically, "don't get side-tracked" is whats being said here.

Some of the arguments used about the claims for damages may have merit, but given the letter of the law (and not the spirit) they don't apply. They would only apply if he is found guilty of copyright infringement, but he hasn't yet as this is a civil damages recovery attempt and not a criminal case.

I suggest you read the documents before your retort. This isn't a black and white issue like the blogosphere says, but a complicated legal issue. If you read some of the court transcripts you will see they have been ignoring phone calls and contact from the lawyers, ignoring judgments etc. Unfortunately the "i don't know" defense doesn't work.

On a side note, Slashdot isn't what it used to be, pretty much every other comment is +5 insightful but when reading them, they most certainly are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I just sat down and read the entire 39 page document you linked to, and in short it says this:

The defense make numerous constitutional arguments, a: they need more time to work out if these apply to this case and b: if they do, this is a seperate case in its own right. Basically, "don't get side-tracked" is whats being said here.

Some of the arguments used about the claims for damages may have merit, but given the letter of the law (and not the spirit) they don't apply.

I suggest you read the documents before your retort.

On a side note, Slashdot isn't what it used to be, pretty much every other comment is +5 insightful but when reading them, they most certainly are not.

I haven't read the whole thing yet (given because it's long) but so far that seems to sum it up. Thanks VaKo!

cheers,

Destro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Time and time again it has been shown that when taxes are higher for the rich the overall quality of life improves for everyone." -Vako

I have to stop you there Vako it does not work like that because you are wrong. Increasing the taxes for the rich equals less jobs. Have you even looked at the taxes the rich have to pay?

Why should I be taxed more when I have worked my fingers to the bones to get a decent career that pays really well and now because people are jealous of my wealth I get taxed more. BS, if people are so jealous of the few that have worked hard to make the big bucks maybe they should make more of an effort. Anything worth doing takes Time, Effort, and Money if any of those three are missing you are not doing it right.

If you are so sure that higher taxes on the rich are justified for a better quality of life you are sorely mistaken.

Give me an example of when higher taxes made the quality of life better. To me it never has. Give the rich a break they have worked hard to get where they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, to be straight when I say rich, I am talking about people who can measure there discretionary spending in millions or tens of millions. I don't think this applies to you, and if anything what I'm saying should help you but if I'm wrong I stand corrected.

Higher taxes for people at this end of the scale mean the government has more money to invest in things like health care, infrastructure like fiber optic networks, roads, bridges, new airports, new power stations etc. The money used to pay for the raw materials and workers to build these projects mean that more people are gainfully employed and can afford to buy more things, meaning that still more people are employed to develop and make these things. These people will then also pay their fair share of taxes and contribute as well. And further to that more money can be invested in things like research which leads to advances in technology and medicine.

Health care is a perfect example, if you have invested in providing health care for your society that is accessible and cheap then illness will be less of an issue and will cause less problems for employers. People will get sick, but they will be able to access treatment if things like hospitals, procurement, treatment professionals and research have been invested in by the public. If you only seek private investment then the gains are likely to be privatized as well.

I don't think you have a problem with the people towards the Warren Buffet and Bill Gates end of the spectrum paying more taxes if it means there is more money spent on improving things like schools, giving more people in life better opportunity for advancement, or health care or the infrastructure that allows you to sell your hard earned skills. I don't think you would have a problem with the taxes you pay today if you could see you were getting more for it.

What you have a problem with is being asked to pay more and more taxes to support the problems produced by lack of investment in your society's basic needs. Its not a case of jealous people out to strip mine you because you worked hard and got a decent job, its about investing in your society to provide more people with the same, if not better opportunity than you had. After all, would you not like it if your kids had more chance of doing better than you did? If they got a better education, and if they had a better quality of life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok the rich can afford more but the rich also worked hard and saved up. They didn't buy a 15 story house WHEN they couldn't afford it. Then their is the other side of the government does need money but the government doesn't need so much if it tries to bail out AIG, when AIG took risks that they shouldn't have all that causes is higher taxes (for the bailout) AIG execs getting million dollar bonuses oh and what about the auto companies... well the UAW has golf courses that the auto workers can play on (http://www.blacklakegolf.com/) I thought that they were fighting for these poor auto workers, yet they have time to golf? Auto workers make $28 per hour (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/24/opinion/main4630103.shtml) Yet the minimum wage is The federal minimum wage is $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008 (http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/flsa/). For waiters its $2.13 an hour in direct wages (http://www.dol.gov/wb/faq26.htm), while they get tips it still points to the fact that auto workers are not so badly paid (their not rich either). America needs to learn to save money and live within their means. So in America their are rich and their are poor. So I don't know why the unions are need so much anymore. Unions used to be for child labor laws (now you have to be 16 to get a job on your own) and unreasonable work hours. America definetly does need some reform but it doesn't need Obama to be a Robin Hood if it wasn't an expected right for everyone in America to have a 5 bedroom house and 2 cars. 1 car and 3 bedrooms works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real problem with the credit bubble wasn't that people wanted huge expensive houses and massive flatscreen tv's, that was due to the nature of advertising and the amount that self worth has become wrapped up in material possesions (and lets face it, you do want a 100" plasma and a PS3 even if you know its a pipe dream), it was that banks were over leveraging themselves with loans. People who should have been turned down for credit were given far more than could possibly afford to payback because for some reason banks belived they could make money out of nothing. Housing was massively over valued and it led to the bottom dropping out of the market when people began to realize that these houses just were not worth there supposed value. We let accountants think they could make money grow by moving it around really really fast, and put all our collective eggs in the financial services industy. You know things are bad when you hear about people who thought it was a good idea to invest there entire £10000 in life savings into one company.

Obama is kinda screwed on this one, after running on the hope ticket he can't turn around and say "no, you can't". But he's in a tight situation, if he doesn't bail out the banks then the whole system fails, china pulls its investments and he is remember as the person who broke the country in months. He could start nationalising banks that fail, create a bad bank with all the crap assets and allow people to disentangle from it before was shut down, but nationalising anything in the US brings charges of being a communist/socalist. Congress and the Senate would never allow it, and in all likelyhood he would be removed from office or be blocked on anything he tried to do. So, his only real option is keep things ticking over until the bulk of the problems go away and hope to hell it doesn't get any worse. Investment in infrastructure would be a far better use of the money.

As for unions, I agree with them in principle, it does stop things like secratarys being forced to sleep with there bosses to keep there jobs or bosses forcing people to work unpaid overtime. But my first tech job was in a BT call center doing tech support for DSL lines, december 12th the head office people arrive backed up by ex-army security types (badly fitted suits, huge knuckles, built like brick shithouses etc). Each team was searched, had our phones removed and were ordered into a room where we were told not to turn up after our christmas break as operations were being moved to India. Most of the rank and file like myself were on temp contracts, but the managers and long term workers were perm staff and many union members. So a few phone calls later a union rep pulled up in a BMW 5 series, flashy suit etc, greated the head office people like long term friends and said "nothing we can do". Hated them ever since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, to be straight when I say rich, I am talking about people who can measure there discretionary spending in millions or tens of millions. I don't think this applies to you, and if anything what I'm saying should help you but if I'm wrong I stand corrected.

Higher taxes for people at this end of the scale mean the government has more money to invest in things like health care, infrastructure like fiber optic networks, roads, bridges, new airports, new power stations etc. The money used to pay for the raw materials and workers to build these projects mean that more people are gainfully employed and can afford to buy more things, meaning that still more people are employed to develop and make these things. These people will then also pay their fair share of taxes and contribute as well. And further to that more money can be invested in things like research which leads to advances in technology and medicine.

Health care is a perfect example, if you have invested in providing health care for your society that is accessible and cheap then illness will be less of an issue and will cause less problems for employers. People will get sick, but they will be able to access treatment if things like hospitals, procurement, treatment professionals and research have been invested in by the public. If you only seek private investment then the gains are likely to be privatized as well.

I don't think you have a problem with the people towards the Warren Buffet and Bill Gates end of the spectrum paying more taxes if it means there is more money spent on improving things like schools, giving more people in life better opportunity for advancement, or health care or the infrastructure that allows you to sell your hard earned skills. I don't think you would have a problem with the taxes you pay today if you could see you were getting more for it.

What you have a problem with is being asked to pay more and more taxes to support the problems produced by lack of investment in your society's basic needs. Its not a case of jealous people out to strip mine you because you worked hard and got a decent job, its about investing in your society to provide more people with the same, if not better opportunity than you had. After all, would you not like it if your kids had more chance of doing better than you did? If they got a better education, and if they had a better quality of life?

Oh, so what you are saying is lets tax the wealthy because we can with no reason other than they can afford it. taxing people just because they can afford it is wrong. You are also forgetting the fact that people can have a lot of income and very little wealth and vice versa. Besides when you borrow money from someone you don't tell them to lend you more money because they can afford it.

About the better education. Yes, there are schools in America that are terrible, however that's the local governments fault not a problem due to financial constraints. For example, I grew up in a town called Bridge Creek.

This school did not get much in the way of money, but we had some of the best teachers around. It's not about how much money it's about how it is spent. We give millions and millions to schools every year so the notion of the schools needing more money is a red herring.

Also quality of life is up to the individual not the government. If someone is have an issue with quality of life then that is there problem to deal with because there is all sorts of ways of helping yourself. I don't want the government to help me every step of the way . I mad it to where I am because I got fed up being paid $6 an hour so I paid my way through school (Effort) and worked my ass off doing it. Now I am still in college (Time) and started a career to support it even more (Money). Which goes to show that when you put your mind to it you don't a whole lot of help from the government.

As far as kids having a better chance at life than I did is entirely up to them. You could have them go to the best schools and to the best colleges all you want. However, if they are happy working as a garbage collector (for example) and they can pay for all their needs then who am I to judge their quality of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not about giving people handouts, its about building the infrastructure that allows people to have opertunitys to work themselves up from minimum wage jobs. For instance your teachers in your underfunded school were doing something right, so spend money on taking there ideas and teaching styles and propergating them to schools that are doing it wrong. You can be the most skilled, driven person there is, but without an enviroment to support this you will find it much harder to do anything with that talent. We celebrate the suceseses of poor people who work themselves out of poverty because its not the normal situation, for every person who makes it, lots more people won't. I'm not saying we should use blanket tax increases, what I am saying is that we need to have a smarter tax system that shares the burden between people fairly and stops people shirking their responsibility to their society. If your earning millions you can afford a higher tax rate than a middleclass family with decent average paying jobs, end of story. We need to invest in our future rather than short term profits, part of this is making people more responsible for their own choices, the other is providing the support for people who want to make their lives better by increasing there chances that the hard work will pay off.

(note: I've been poor, I've lived in places where the power runs out and the lights turn off, i've had ice cold showers because there was no hot water and the food has run out on wenesday, but i've work my way out of that. All I want to do is make the basic standards better for everyone, and give people who want better more of a chance to get it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Time and time again it has been shown that when taxes are higher for the rich the overall quality of life improves for everyone." -Vako

I have to stop you there Vako it does not work like that because you are wrong. Increasing the taxes for the rich equals less jobs. Have you even looked at the taxes the rich have to pay?

That's just stupidity talking. The rich get richer because they know how to make money, not because they like to hire people when they are not taxed as much. By having higher taxes it does mean it's harder to become rich, but it doesn't mean there will be less jobs--the harder it is to get rich, the more that rich people need help to get rich, so they hire more people.

Just because you can say something doesn't make it true. You need statistics or examples to back up your claims, not whines that you don't like to help other people by paying your taxes. Taxes pay for roads, schools, law enforcement, defense, all of which contribute to the well-being of individuals and businesses. If you think you're getting richer because your paying 5% less tax, your a fool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have noticed a curious tendany amongst some people who while not rich, and often not close, will see any attempt to tax the wealthy as some form of assualt against themselves personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These arguments are interesting. I agree with both sides (odd as it may seem but please read on). Here is my issue:

You can tax the richer and kind of blanket the poorer to make things easier for them but there is two sides to both of those ideas and this also creates a third issue.

1. This is IF people want to do better (i.e. how many people have you seen driving around in cars that cost $250 with rims and badass systems that cost around $2500. this is just an example but you can put that wherever you want it and it still says the same thing)

2. You can tax the rich but the thing that has everyone aggrivated about this is the fact that rich people do not care about other people in the lower to middle ranks in the company. How many times (especially lately) have you seen medium to large sized companies that either laid off people in the lower ranks (or found a way to fire them) just because they did not do so well in the last quarter? At the same time you can also see the owner buying that 3rd/4th/5th/20th new house that he just SOOOOO had to have. I have seen it numerous times from numerous job sites (and with my own eyes, not listening to the idiots at workplaces) and I can tell you it would work but it would get a whole lot worse before it got any better because these people would try their best to stay as rich as they are before giving in to just hiring more people.

3. The new issue that would arise is this. Our government blows so much money it is WELL beyond anyone's means and if they just made the slightest changes in government spending they could use that money to help blanket the lower class without EVER taxing anyone anything else than the norm. To top this off the gov. always looks (or should i say crooked politicians) for a means to draw in even more money, so now it's the rich person, next it's the close to rich person, next its the upper/middle class, and then it's me and you.

Now I am not really arguing with any of you, I am just stating how I feel about it and I feel that it is a logical idea that I have about this whole thing. Really what I think we need is more spending checks on everything in government right down to the brand new car for each new president. Because fact of the matter is, no matter how you slice it, ANY person who has more money on a ranking scale is spending much more money in taxes than the lower rank. Got a house? more taxes. Got a boat? Taxes Got a new car? more taxes. Got lots of money coming in each month? more taxes. If the government would put more effort to find and take down all the people who are avoiding paying taxes instead of penalizing everyone who does pay taxes then this would not even be an issue.

Oh and btw, I am not rich or even have money. I make around $27,000 a year, go to college (which I am paying for with loans), My wife is in college, we now have a 2007 year vehicle (a need, not a want... long story) but we are doing fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Obama isn't what people hoped he will be, Or that he could even be. They made them self's believe he will save them when he can't. People will soon realize. He is defiantly a different type of president then others in the past (not because he's black) witch I think could be good for the country. This whole market problem the US is having could of never of happened if they had laws other country's did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Obama isn't what people hoped he will be, Or that he could even be. They made them self's believe he will save them when he can't. People will soon realize. He is defiantly a different type of president then others in the past (not because he's black) witch I think could be good for the country. This whole market problem the US is having could of never of happened if they had laws other country's did.

I have to say that I do agree with you Seshan, but then I highly disagree with you. The set of policies and laws that this nation has, has made it for what great opportunities it holds, but at the same time, people with extremely big pockets have ended up having extremely big egos and at the same rate have extremely tightened their wallets when it comes to the business side of things, and to make matters worse for them to have either found or created loopholes for themselves within the system that are very hard to close up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Americas current status as a super power has a lot to do with most of europe being flatterned by 2 world wars in the early 20th centrury, forcing it to rebuild twice while the US was expanding on previous programs. The big infrastructure programs put into place during and after the depression were also helpful as it provided a platform to support further growth, which funded yet more growth. This needs to be maintained however.

A lot of it also comes down to attitude, in the old world we've seen more things and have a lot more history, America is a country which is self made, doesn't have the history and is far more open to people just having a stab at new ideas. However, this doesn't last forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Americas current status as a super power has a lot to do with most of europe being flatterned by 2 world wars in the early 20th centrury, forcing it to rebuild twice while the US was expanding on previous programs. The big infrastructure programs put into place during and after the depression were also helpful as it provided a platform to support further growth, which funded yet more growth. This needs to be maintained however.

A lot of it also comes down to attitude, in the old world we've seen more things and have a lot more history, America is a country which is self made, doesn't have the history and is far more open to people just having a stab at new ideas. However, this doesn't last forever.

I think it really is just a matter of size and GDP. At the end of the day, there is no single European country that has a GDP like America does. However the EU as a whole is larger and is starting to act more and more like a single nation.

Another interesting thing to watch with GDP is China's rapid growth. In the past 5 years they have surpassed France, UK, and Germany and now they are 3rd behind only Japan and US and growing at a much faster clip then either of those nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...y_GDP_(nominal)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Obama isn't what people hoped he will be, Or that he could even be. They made them self's believe he will save them when he can't. People will soon realize. He is defiantly a different type of president then others in the past (not because he's black) witch I think could be good for the country. This whole market problem the US is having could of never of happened if they had laws other country's did.

"what people hoped he will be"

Well if they hoped he would be then I have one question did they think their vote through or just go with their diluted hope? I believe this was a record turn out of votes but has America just become a country where the citizens are so follow others and the main stream media or do they question things for themselves and not except what others tell them?

Its not about giving people handouts, its about building the infrastructure that allows people to have opertunitys to work themselves up from minimum wage jobs. For instance your teachers in your underfunded school were doing something right, so spend money on taking there ideas and teaching styles and propergating them to schools that are doing it wrong. You can be the most skilled, driven person there is, but without an enviroment to support this you will find it much harder to do anything with that talent. We celebrate the suceseses of poor people who work themselves out of poverty because its not the normal situation, for every person who makes it, lots more people won't. I'm not saying we should use blanket tax increases, what I am saying is that we need to have a smarter tax system that shares the burden between people fairly and stops people shirking their responsibility to their society. If your earning millions you can afford a higher tax rate than a middleclass family with decent average paying jobs, end of story. We need to invest in our future rather than short term profits, part of this is making people more responsible for their own choices, the other is providing the support for people who want to make their lives better by increasing there chances that the hard work will pay off.

(note: I've been poor, I've lived in places where the power runs out and the lights turn off, i've had ice cold showers because there was no hot water and the food has run out on wenesday, but i've work my way out of that. All I want to do is make the basic standards better for everyone, and give people who want better more of a chance to get it.)

Americans can get better than minimum wage. By working hard and not expecting the government to give them everything spoon fed, you got out of it.

As I see it this is what it comes down to

1. Government Tax Regulation (so they can't tax the shit out of you) and the regulation is not done by the government or someone who would benefit from higher taxes.

2. Responsibility. AIG CEOs not getting 1 mil bonuses. Not buying five houses. Living within your means (better life go to college and work to get money).

3. Education. Teachers who love teaching. Good teachers. I've noticed that those that can afford it send their kids to private school. Why? I think its because the teachers get payed less, their not there to get rich, their there to teach and they enjoy it.

4. Special Interest Groups and Unions (could they be considered special interest group????) we once needed them but know they do more harm then good their corrupt. Unions are wealthy they aren't at the same level as the people they represent, there not for the true interest of those they represent but themselves (which may seem like the same thing).

5. America use to be made up of the immigrants who were hard working and 'the outcasts' (religious persecuted, oppressed, etc) they worked to get ahead. But know we expect to much from the government and not from are selves. You can get out of poverty, you may have not been dealt a fair hand but America is still the land of opportunity and with minimum wage and saving (not blowing it all) you can go to college and get a better life (and job).

Also

it was that banks were over leveraging themselves with loans. People who should have been turned down for credit were given far more than could possibly afford to payback because for some reason banks belived they could make money out of nothing.

IF they can't afford it they shouldn't get the loan either, so its both the banks fault (not rechecking them) and their fault (getting a loan they can't afford).

On a side note.

Look at US currency it says "one nation under God" and the Pledge of Allegiance but know America is going away from religion, now whether that could have something to do with it I don't know but its something to think about...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a side note.

Look at US currency it says "one nation under God" and the Pledge of Allegiance but know America is going away from religion, now whether that could have something to do with it I don't know but its something to think about...

"Under God" was added in 1952 and America is definitely not going away form religion when abortion, gay marriage, and sexual education are "issues." It's fake controversy that only exists because the religious right wants it to. If religion played no role, like it was intended to, those matters would have been cleared up forever ago.

Not saying the I necessarily disagree with the religious right, but just throwing this out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"what people hoped he will be"

Well if they hoped he would be then I have one question did they think their vote through or just go with their diluted hope? I believe this was a record turn out of votes but has America just become a country where the citizens are so follow others and the main stream media or do they question things for themselves and not except what others tell them?

Because the alternative was yet more of the same Roveian shit. By the end of it even McCain was going "no, thats not true" when met with his supporters "concerns" about Obama. When the guy your being asked to vote for is sick of his campaign you know its over. Obama does represent real change in the way politics is done, but its not the huge sweeping change some people want. Look at Ron Paul, he had some interesting ideas but he would never cut it as the guy in charge. You have to be realistic about the operational reality's of the situation, not cling to black and white ideological answers.

Americans can get better than minimum wage. By working hard and not expecting the government to give them everything spoon fed, you got out of it.

I got out of it because I had an education, I had parents who filled in the gaps and cared, parents who gave me computers and training videos and helped support me when I was learning skills I could later sell. Without that I would still be waiting tables for minimum wage. Hard work will only get you so far, you need to have the opportunity to apply that drive and your skills otherwise your kicking a brick wall. Again, its not about spoon feeding people, its about providing avenues for people to explore, training and opportunity, they still have to be the ones to take that and make something of it.

You can either pay taxes for benefits, food stamps and prisons, or you can pay taxes to get people who aren't working the skills they need to be in a position to get a job.

As I see it this is what it comes down to

1. Government Tax Regulation (so they can't tax the shit out of you) and the regulation is not done by the government or someone who would benefit from higher taxes.

Taxes are regulated, its called voting. If they get pushed to high then someone stands up and goes "enough of this crap, if i was in charge things would be different". If enough people think this sounds like a good idea they will be elected and be given the chance to do things a different way.

2. Responsibility. AIG CEOs not getting 1 mil bonuses. Not buying five houses. Living within your means (better life go to college and work to get money).

Living within your means for a lot of people means doing without a hell of a lot of things you probally take for granted. Like 24/7 power or hot water. Mainly because people like you don't want to invest in your society, you would rather keep your gains to your self and to hell with the rest of them. AIG is just a result of this attitude on steroids and HGH.

3. Education. Teachers who love teaching. Good teachers. I've noticed that those that can afford it send their kids to private school. Why? I think its because the teachers get payed less, their not there to get rich, their there to teach and they enjoy it.

LOL, no one every decided to be a teacher to get rich, they all wanted to do it because they thought there was value in education. Its never been a high paying job, so please give me an example of people going into the public education system for the bling. Private schools do better because they usually have more choice over who they teach, so they can choose to ignore the slow kids, the special needs, the kids who need more attention etc.

4. Special Interest Groups and Unions (could they be considered special interest group????) we once needed them but know they do more harm then good their corrupt. Unions are wealthy they aren't at the same level as the people they represent, there not for the true interest of those they represent but themselves (which may seem like the same thing).

Read Animal Farm and get back to me.

5. America use to be made up of the immigrants who were hard working and 'the outcasts' (religious persecuted, oppressed, etc) they worked to get ahead. But know we expect to much from the government and not from are selves. You can get out of poverty, you may have not been dealt a fair hand but America is still the land of opportunity and with minimum wage and saving (not blowing it all) you can go to college and get a better life (and job).

Tell me how the average person on minimum wage can afford to go to collage and support themselves at the same time. It costs $20-30K on average for a year, so not only would you have to do a full time college schedule you would have to earn this much each year by working. What minimum wage job will provide this and give you enough time to study? The only realistic way would be taking out a loan.

IF they can't afford it they shouldn't get the loan either, so its both the banks fault (not rechecking them) and their fault (getting a loan they can't afford).

Should have, would have, could have... Fact is it didn't happen like this, credit was flowing like a river. They were advertised and sold to people who were suckered in by a dream of a better life. The worst part was the purveyors started to believe there own spiel.

On a side note.

Look at US currency it says "one nation under God" and the Pledge of Allegiance but know America is going away from religion, now whether that could have something to do with it I don't know but its something to think about...

"One Nation under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954, and "In God We Trust" was added to money in 1957. Both were a McCarthist response to the godless Soviets during the Cold War and were not part of the orgional money or pledge of allegiance. America was setup as a direct response to thousands of years of religious wars that plagued the old world and the first colonists came because they were tired of being told they didn't believe in the right god, or worshiped in the wrong way. The founding fathers were of the attitude that religion wise it really didn't matter what you believed as long as you didn't try and force it down peoples throats. The recent Christian revival in the US is the same as the rise of Islamic or Hindu extremists elsewhere, people trying to deal with the modern world by back pedaling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the college and those who can't afford such maybe a government loan with a lower interest rate could be implemented, just like habitat for humanity building a house for people with low interest rates.

To "Read Animal Farm":

I have they needed a union, maybe the union we have now does not need to be abolished but rethought out so that the unions represent the workers only and not have a side agenda (maybe the workers able to vote on decisions).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order for the government to provide those loans they need to tax people who have done well and made enough money to be able to afford to give a little more back to the community and society that provided them with their opportunity.

As for unions, they need to go back to basics, I agree with you on this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First OMFG we agree on something! (I believe that's a sign of the apocalypse ;))

They need to tax people but also for the loans once they get it established they can then get the tax lowered again because the people paying back loans would pay for new ones. At least in theory of course what happens if they are not payed back, more taxes or by by to the program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...