Not at work, they have a rule at least in my workplace (Govt. Office) which any offensive materials toward the POTUS will be subject to punishment. You here some grumbling verbally but no one will send it electronically.David wrote:Hear any good Obama jokes lately?.....
Obama our new Hitler
There's no such policy here at my job. You've got to see the emails going back and forth around here. An internal email is where I got the Fried Chicken National Bird from.Lefty wrote:Not at work, they have a rule at least in my workplace (Govt. Office) which any offensive materials toward the POTUS will be subject to punishment. You here some grumbling verbally but no one will send it electronically.
owned by pac0z atm
It was meant to be tongue in cheek....
Hell_Yes
Luck is where preparation meets opportunity - Seneca
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book. - Friedrich Nietzsche
Personally, I am proud that the citizenry of the USA could put aside race long enough on select a man on his merit.
Hell_Yes
Luck is where preparation meets opportunity - Seneca
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book. - Friedrich Nietzsche
I am glad our country has finally overcome the race barrier, however this individual politican while embracing the great ideology of term limits and not setting in a paticular office for a career does not follow with America's best internal interests. I am not an expert on foreign affairs nor do I agree with "ALL" of Bush's actions in the "War on Terror", but diplomacy with countries actively pursuing nuclear programs and supporting the unstable nation of North Korea should not happen. The take from the rich and give to the poor is great in robin hood, but when the rich are small business owners trying to take their businesses to the next level it hurts us. This country is founded on the ability to become greater both financially and intellectually.
Furthermore the concept which I just recently heard on the news about taxing 401K plans sounds so crazy I can't put words to it. I have not heard much about it, but the basic premise that we should tax everyone with money whether it be through life savings for retirement or just take home income as an individual with a high paying job is disgusting. Sure we all have to pay taxes, but to take hard earned money and give it to non-taxpayers (un-employed) is BS. And by the way Obama's health care plan while not yet close to approaching congress is far from a universal system.
Diplomacy has its place and many tools at its disposal. Through dialog, we might understand the needs of our enemies and avert another painful and costly war.R0cke113 wrote:I am glad our country has finally overcome the race barrier, however this individual politican while embracing the great ideology of term limits and not setting in a paticular office for a career does not follow with America's best internal interests. I am not an expert on foreign affairs nor do I agree with "ALL" of Bush's actions in the "War on Terror", but diplomacy with countries actively pursuing nuclear programs and supporting the unstable nation of North Korea should not happen. The take from the rich and give to the poor is great in robin hood, but when the rich are small business owners trying to take their businesses to the next level it hurts us. This country is founded on the ability to become greater both financially and intellectually.
I ask you, if not talk, what would be your suggestion?
Hell_Yes
Luck is where preparation meets opportunity - Seneca
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book. - Friedrich Nietzsche
R0cke113 wrote:Furthermore the concept which I just recently heard on the news about taxing 401K plans sounds so crazy I can't put words to it. I have not heard much about it, but the basic premise that we should tax everyone with money whether it be through life savings for retirement or just take home income as an individual with a high paying job is disgusting. Sure we all have to pay taxes, but to take hard earned money and give it to non-taxpayers (un-employed) is BS. And by the way Obama's health care plan while not yet close to approaching congress is far from a universal system.
It's so funny hearing you spout off the RNC scare tactics AFTER the election lol.
Can you show us even 1 link, just 1 link, that quotes Obama or his campaign or the DNC national platform, as saying as much?
What news provided you with this information?
Here is a fact for you:
U.S. workers lost more than $2 trillion in retirement savings in the last 15 months.
The Democrats have in fact expressed concern that mutual fund managers need to fully disclose all of their fees to their fund investors.
In any case, all of this talk about Obama and 401k is false. What is NOT false is a plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, that is being considered. She testified the first week of October 2008 before House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller.
http://www.workforce.com/section/00/art ... /83/58.php
House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax BreaksPowerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.
[url=javascript: recommendReview('CMSID-58358')]Recommend 252[/url]
October 16, 2008
House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks
Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.
House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.
A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal.
At that hearing, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, testified that some $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months.
Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.
The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.
“I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.”
Under the current 401(k) system, investors are charged relatively high retail fees, Ghilarducci said.
“I want to spend our nation’s dollar for retirement security better. Everybody would now be covered” if the plan were adopted, Ghilarducci said.
She has been in contact with Miller and McDermott about her plan, and they are interested in pursuing it, she said.
“This [plan] certainly is intriguing,” said Mike DeCesare, press secretary for McDermott.
“That is part of the discussion,” he said.
While Miller stopped short of calling for Ghilarducci’s plan at the hearing last week, he was clearly against continuing tax breaks as they currently exist.
Savings rate
“The savings rate isn’t going up for the investment of $80 billion,” he said. “We have to start to think about ... whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that’s not generating what we now say it should.”
“From where I sit that’s just crazy,” said John Belluardo, president of Stewardship Financial Services Inc. in Tarrytown, New York. “A lot of people contribute to their 401(k)s because of the match of the employer,” he said. Belluardo’s firm does not manage assets directly.
Higher-income employers provide matching funds to employee plans so that they can qualify for tax benefits for their own defined-contribution plans, he said.
“If the tax deferral goes away, the employers have no reason to do the matches, which primarily help people in the lower income brackets,” Belluardo said.
“This is a battle between liberalism and conservatism,” said Christopher Van Slyke, a partner in the La Jolla, California, advisory firm Trovena, which manages $400 million. “People are afraid because their accounts are seeing some volatility, so Democrats will seize on the opportunity to attack a program where investors control their own destiny,” he said.
The Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America in Chicago, which represents employers that sponsor defined-contribution plans, is “staunchly committed to keeping the employee benefit system in America voluntary,” said Ed Ferrigno, vice president in the Washington office.
“Some of the tenor [of the hearing last week] that the entire system should be based on the activities of the markets in the last 90 days is not the way to judge the system,” he said.
No legislative proposals have been introduced and Congress is out of session until next year.
However, most political observers believe that Democrats are poised to gain seats in both the House and the Senate, so comments made by the mostly Democratic members who attended the hearing could be a harbinger of things to come.
Advice at issue
In addition to tax breaks for 401(k)s, the issue of allowing investment advisors to provide advice for 401(k) plans was also addressed at the hearing. Rep. Robert Andrews, D-New Jersey, was critical of Department of Labor proposals made in August that would allow advisors to give individual advice if the advice was generated using a computer model.
Andrews characterized the proposals as “loopholes” and said that investment advice should not be given by advisors who have a direct interest in the sale of financial products.
The Pension Protection Act of 2006 contains provisions making it easier for investment advisors to give individualized counseling to 401(k) holders.
“In retrospect that doesn’t seem like such a good idea to me,” Andrews said. “This is an issue I think we have to revisit. I frankly think that the compromise we struck in 2006 is not terribly workable or wise,” he said.
On Thursday, October 9, the Department of Labor hastily scheduled a public hearing on the issue in Washington for Tuesday, October 21.
The agency does not frequently hold public hearings on its proposals.
House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax BreaksPowerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.
[url=javascript: recommendReview('CMSID-58358')]Recommend 252[/url]
October 16, 2008
House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks
Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.
House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.
A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal.
At that hearing, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, testified that some $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months.
Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.
The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.
“I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.”
Under the current 401(k) system, investors are charged relatively high retail fees, Ghilarducci said.
“I want to spend our nation’s dollar for retirement security better. Everybody would now be covered” if the plan were adopted, Ghilarducci said.
She has been in contact with Miller and McDermott about her plan, and they are interested in pursuing it, she said.
“This [plan] certainly is intriguing,” said Mike DeCesare, press secretary for McDermott.
“That is part of the discussion,” he said.
While Miller stopped short of calling for Ghilarducci’s plan at the hearing last week, he was clearly against continuing tax breaks as they currently exist.
Savings rate
“The savings rate isn’t going up for the investment of $80 billion,” he said. “We have to start to think about ... whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that’s not generating what we now say it should.”
“From where I sit that’s just crazy,” said John Belluardo, president of Stewardship Financial Services Inc. in Tarrytown, New York. “A lot of people contribute to their 401(k)s because of the match of the employer,” he said. Belluardo’s firm does not manage assets directly.
Higher-income employers provide matching funds to employee plans so that they can qualify for tax benefits for their own defined-contribution plans, he said.
“If the tax deferral goes away, the employers have no reason to do the matches, which primarily help people in the lower income brackets,” Belluardo said.
“This is a battle between liberalism and conservatism,” said Christopher Van Slyke, a partner in the La Jolla, California, advisory firm Trovena, which manages $400 million. “People are afraid because their accounts are seeing some volatility, so Democrats will seize on the opportunity to attack a program where investors control their own destiny,” he said.
The Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America in Chicago, which represents employers that sponsor defined-contribution plans, is “staunchly committed to keeping the employee benefit system in America voluntary,” said Ed Ferrigno, vice president in the Washington office.
“Some of the tenor [of the hearing last week] that the entire system should be based on the activities of the markets in the last 90 days is not the way to judge the system,” he said.
No legislative proposals have been introduced and Congress is out of session until next year.
However, most political observers believe that Democrats are poised to gain seats in both the House and the Senate, so comments made by the mostly Democratic members who attended the hearing could be a harbinger of things to come.
Advice at issue
In addition to tax breaks for 401(k)s, the issue of allowing investment advisors to provide advice for 401(k) plans was also addressed at the hearing. Rep. Robert Andrews, D-New Jersey, was critical of Department of Labor proposals made in August that would allow advisors to give individual advice if the advice was generated using a computer model.
Andrews characterized the proposals as “loopholes” and said that investment advice should not be given by advisors who have a direct interest in the sale of financial products.
The Pension Protection Act of 2006 contains provisions making it easier for investment advisors to give individualized counseling to 401(k) holders.
“In retrospect that doesn’t seem like such a good idea to me,” Andrews said. “This is an issue I think we have to revisit. I frankly think that the compromise we struck in 2006 is not terribly workable or wise,” he said.
On Thursday, October 9, the Department of Labor hastily scheduled a public hearing on the issue in Washington for Tuesday, October 21.
The agency does not frequently hold public hearings on its proposals.
a.k.a. GSXR 750
*edit*Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.
disappointed
People will forget what you said... and people will forget what you did... but people will never forget how you made them feel.
Gixxer wrote:http://www.workforce.com/section/00/art ... /83/58.php
House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax BreaksPowerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.
[url=javascript: recommendReview('CMSID-58358')]Recommend 252[/url]
October 16, 2008
House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks
Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.
House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.
A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal.
At that hearing, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, testified that some $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months.
Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.
The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.
“I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.”
Under the current 401(k) system, investors are charged relatively high retail fees, Ghilarducci said.
“I want to spend our nation’s dollar for retirement security better. Everybody would now be covered” if the plan were adopted, Ghilarducci said.
She has been in contact with Miller and McDermott about her plan, and they are interested in pursuing it, she said.
“This [plan] certainly is intriguing,” said Mike DeCesare, press secretary for McDermott.
“That is part of the discussion,” he said.
While Miller stopped short of calling for Ghilarducci’s plan at the hearing last week, he was clearly against continuing tax breaks as they currently exist.
Savings rate
“The savings rate isn’t going up for the investment of $80 billion,” he said. “We have to start to think about ... whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that’s not generating what we now say it should.”
“From where I sit that’s just crazy,” said John Belluardo, president of Stewardship Financial Services Inc. in Tarrytown, New York. “A lot of people contribute to their 401(k)s because of the match of the employer,” he said. Belluardo’s firm does not manage assets directly.
Higher-income employers provide matching funds to employee plans so that they can qualify for tax benefits for their own defined-contribution plans, he said.
“If the tax deferral goes away, the employers have no reason to do the matches, which primarily help people in the lower income brackets,” Belluardo said.
“This is a battle between liberalism and conservatism,” said Christopher Van Slyke, a partner in the La Jolla, California, advisory firm Trovena, which manages $400 million. “People are afraid because their accounts are seeing some volatility, so Democrats will seize on the opportunity to attack a program where investors control their own destiny,” he said.
The Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America in Chicago, which represents employers that sponsor defined-contribution plans, is “staunchly committed to keeping the employee benefit system in America voluntary,” said Ed Ferrigno, vice president in the Washington office.
“Some of the tenor [of the hearing last week] that the entire system should be based on the activities of the markets in the last 90 days is not the way to judge the system,” he said.
No legislative proposals have been introduced and Congress is out of session until next year.
However, most political observers believe that Democrats are poised to gain seats in both the House and the Senate, so comments made by the mostly Democratic members who attended the hearing could be a harbinger of things to come.
Advice at issue
In addition to tax breaks for 401(k)s, the issue of allowing investment advisors to provide advice for 401(k) plans was also addressed at the hearing. Rep. Robert Andrews, D-New Jersey, was critical of Department of Labor proposals made in August that would allow advisors to give individual advice if the advice was generated using a computer model.
Andrews characterized the proposals as “loopholes” and said that investment advice should not be given by advisors who have a direct interest in the sale of financial products.
The Pension Protection Act of 2006 contains provisions making it easier for investment advisors to give individualized counseling to 401(k) holders.
“In retrospect that doesn’t seem like such a good idea to me,” Andrews said. “This is an issue I think we have to revisit. I frankly think that the compromise we struck in 2006 is not terribly workable or wise,” he said.
On Thursday, October 9, the Department of Labor hastily scheduled a public hearing on the issue in Washington for Tuesday, October 21.
The agency does not frequently hold public hearings on its proposals.
So again, Gixxer...what does this have to do with Obama? This was testimony given up on the hill. It is not a proposed piece of legislation.
Do you understand what testimony is when given before Congress/Senate?
And besides, I already said that it was a fact that the testimony was given....
Also, please learn how to repost articles, this was a mess, it hurts the eyes and looks terrible in contrast to the rest of the posts. What's with your choice of all these rainbow colors?
We have talked to you about this before.
UOD wrote:So again, Gixxer...what does this have to do with Obama? This was testimony given up on the hill. It is not a proposed piece of legislation.
Do you understand what testimony is when given before Congress/Senate?
And besides, I already said that it was a fact that the testimony was given....
Also, please learn how to repost articles, this was a mess, it hurts the eyes and looks terrible in contrast to the rest of the posts. What's with your choice of all these rainbow colors?
We have talked to you about this before.
it was a c&p, so go complain to the people who wrote it.
won't obama have the final say?
a.k.a. GSXR 750
It would have to start in Congress....he's not a king Gixxer.Gixxer wrote:it was a c&p, so go complain to the people who wrote it.
won't obama have the final say?
Also, what does this have to do with Obama? The title of this thread was Obama our new Hitler. Trying to associate current congressional ideas with a President elect is a bit of a stretch. But I can see why you'd want to smear him.
UOD wrote:It would have to start in Congress....he's not a king Gixxer.
Also, what does this have to do with Obama? The title of this thread was Obama our new Hitler. Trying to associate current congressional ideas with a President elect is a bit of a stretch. But I can see why you'd want to smear him.
missed the edit.
1) why would i want to smear him when i voted for him?
2) depending on how he wants to try to take care of this financial mess, it may be appealing to him as it would lower the deficit quicker than if he did not tax the 401k. (imo they should leave it alone.)
a.k.a. GSXR 750
Gixxer wrote:missed the edit.
1) why would i want to smear him when i voted for him?
2) depending on how he wants to try to take care of this financial mess, it may be appealing to him as it would lower the deficit quicker than if he did not tax the 401k. (imo they should leave it alone.)
Why are you participating in a thread titled Obama our new Hitler and posting content that is clearly trying to associate him with Congressional testimony that was brought up before the election as an RNC sponsored scare tactic?
Wow!!! UOD you are paranoid. There seemed to be no problem destroying the image of our president yet since the new one is non-white so we dare not talk bad about his ideas. Just because Bush made a few bad decisions in his 8 years among all the tragedies and difficulties that fell on his lap he is somehow a monster. No matter the political stance or color or creed of the president that individuals decisions effect everyone, which that in itself I disagree with, however that means they are open to all discussion and criticism good or bad.
Also it is not good practice to make any subject of debate too narrow because you will alienate some audience and not leave enough talking room for the rest. On the other side making too broad of a topic gets too much chatter. Being the random comments we get already can anything be off topic for the thread. Have you read the overly controversial title to it? Anything political could go here.
A few mistakes? Really? A few?R0cke113 wrote:Wow!!! UOD you are paranoid. There seemed to be no problem destroying the image of our president yet since the new one is non-white so we dare not talk bad about his ideas. Just because Bush made a few bad decisions in his 8 years among all the tragedies and difficulties that fell on his lap he is somehow a monster. No matter the political stance or color or creed of the president that individuals decisions effect everyone, which that in itself I disagree with, however that means they are open to all discussion and criticism good or bad.
By the way, can I suggest paragraphs? It would make your posts a lot easier to read.
Here. Let me help:downhill wrote:A few mistakes? Really? A few?
100 mistakes by the Bush Administration:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ ... 64326.html
People will forget what you said... and people will forget what you did... but people will never forget how you made them feel.
The rabbit hole goes significantly deeper than any of us could possibly know especially on the 09/11 issue, so to call the Bush Admin's decisions mistakes is ridicule at the least. For us as civilians to bash on an ADMINISTRATION's decisions is crazy.
We as American citizens see the effects of bad econmic policy because we are living the negative effects of it. I do consider my own rantings against talks with Iran because I do not have the knowledge or Intel to make those decisions. I do strongly believe that once President elect Obama gets his briefings his mind will definitely change on the diplomacy stance with these unstable nuclear countries.
Another issue UOD seems to favor is socialism. We have tried that before. That was Russia and Nazi Germany. The socialist ideology has not become any less theoretically appetizing we have just put lipstick on the pig. What we now call liberalism is flooding into socialist territory. When a country like Venezuela refuses to talk to us unless Obama takes office! That should tell us something with the nature of their leader. Why do we want to hold any diplomacy with them again? It sure isn't for their ethanol or Obama's #1 campaign contributor would not be making that money.
We as American citizens see the effects of bad econmic policy because we are living the negative effects of it. I do consider my own rantings against talks with Iran because I do not have the knowledge or Intel to make those decisions. I do strongly believe that once President elect Obama gets his briefings his mind will definitely change on the diplomacy stance with these unstable nuclear countries.
Another issue UOD seems to favor is socialism. We have tried that before. That was Russia and Nazi Germany. The socialist ideology has not become any less theoretically appetizing we have just put lipstick on the pig. What we now call liberalism is flooding into socialist territory. When a country like Venezuela refuses to talk to us unless Obama takes office! That should tell us something with the nature of their leader. Why do we want to hold any diplomacy with them again? It sure isn't for their ethanol or Obama's #1 campaign contributor would not be making that money.
Umm...Nazi Germany isn't a very good example of socialism and neither was the USSR.
As to ridicule? Youbetcha......and deservedly so. As to your 9/11 comment. That too might deserve a bit of ridicule depending on where your headed with it.
That said if you don't know the difference between socialism and liberalism, then you might think of suing your high school for lack of a decent education as that's taught in Government class in every high school in the U.S. I'm assuming of course that you were paying attention.
As to the Venezuela comment, so what? What are we going to do if they don't want to talk to us? Bomb them? *shrug*
As to ridicule? Youbetcha......and deservedly so. As to your 9/11 comment. That too might deserve a bit of ridicule depending on where your headed with it.
That said if you don't know the difference between socialism and liberalism, then you might think of suing your high school for lack of a decent education as that's taught in Government class in every high school in the U.S. I'm assuming of course that you were paying attention.
As to the Venezuela comment, so what? What are we going to do if they don't want to talk to us? Bomb them? *shrug*
Also the concept of paying unemployed is wonderful and I am in full support of helping those who want to work and are trying to gain employment. I just had a conversation with a Finish student the other week and we discussed these new liberal issues. The number one thing we both agreed on was financial assistance for an individual while seeking employment, however we also agreed that the primary difference between American culture and European culture is the desire Americans hold to get out of working. He says when a Fin loses their job they immediately seek new employment. That is not the case with Americans. We for some reason don't want to work at all.
While all Americans are not like that there is a vast majority who are. They are the group abusing the system, ruining their childrens lives for SSI money, on welfare, faking injuries, and to top it off are stealing to support there drug use. Don't believe me go into the hood for a day and actually look into peoples homes. I would like to reiterate not everyone. Another example take a look through any low income rural area or any trailer park.
This is not a race issue or a political issue as much as it is being made into one. This is a cultural issue. Honestly I don't feel Obama understands these things any more than McCain. Neither of them have been in my shoes or the shoes of anyone who has ever needed. McCain is the closest only because he was a POW. The TV has corrupted our society and now we want to throw money at our poor ideology. Obama is correct in saying that we need to improve our parenting as it is the root of our problems, but that doesn't mean anything will change.
In conclusion this economic ideology of throwing money at non-working programs such as Social Security and un-employment is ridicule and will not fix our problems. Any program like this will only continue the governments failure to truly protect the people and will not solve any problems, but the light wallets of the bureaucratic fat cats.
BTW UOD I get the majority of my info from the well balanced National Public Radio.
While all Americans are not like that there is a vast majority who are. They are the group abusing the system, ruining their childrens lives for SSI money, on welfare, faking injuries, and to top it off are stealing to support there drug use. Don't believe me go into the hood for a day and actually look into peoples homes. I would like to reiterate not everyone. Another example take a look through any low income rural area or any trailer park.
This is not a race issue or a political issue as much as it is being made into one. This is a cultural issue. Honestly I don't feel Obama understands these things any more than McCain. Neither of them have been in my shoes or the shoes of anyone who has ever needed. McCain is the closest only because he was a POW. The TV has corrupted our society and now we want to throw money at our poor ideology. Obama is correct in saying that we need to improve our parenting as it is the root of our problems, but that doesn't mean anything will change.
In conclusion this economic ideology of throwing money at non-working programs such as Social Security and un-employment is ridicule and will not fix our problems. Any program like this will only continue the governments failure to truly protect the people and will not solve any problems, but the light wallets of the bureaucratic fat cats.
BTW UOD I get the majority of my info from the well balanced National Public Radio.
BTW i was referring to American liberalism not real liberalism. American politics in general are all about hiding the real reasoning of anything politicians decide. True liberalism is about freedom to private property, visible government in their actions and reasoning, as well as freedom of speech, which the dems are attempting to destroy with this talk of requiring equal talking time on the radio for liberals and conservatives. I'm sure they will conveniently forget all about he third parties too. American liberalism is about the struggle of bureaucrats taking control while maintaining the image of the working class struggling to make it in life. It is nothing more than a bridge between the capitalism we used to stand for en route to the communism we are heading toward. Obama's concept of "Spreading the Wealth" is very communist.
Obama's thoughts of spreading the wealth are the same as communism with the desire for the working class to take over the upper-class and basically take all their money because since their rich they don't deserve it right? Or their so rich that they should be forced to give all their hard earned money to those who don't have it right?
Obama's thoughts of spreading the wealth are the same as communism with the desire for the working class to take over the upper-class and basically take all their money because since their rich they don't deserve it right? Or their so rich that they should be forced to give all their hard earned money to those who don't have it right?
Obama's ideology really embraces quite a variety of views. It goes from communism with his spreading of wealth to Social democracy with his tax funded programs.Libertarian Marxism with the requirement of unionization. His ideas truly embrace those of Karl Marx with the thought that mankind will eventually end in pure socialism as it is "Perfect" everyone is equal.
While that will never happen due to the amount of greed our politicians and their friends have. We will most likely move to state controlled society where all our money goes to the government and we the people get whats left. Quality of work drops because there is not incentive to do a better job because your boss makes the same as you.
I am all for true liberalism where the government control is limited and people are permitted to live free with out "The Man" in every aspect of their life.
While that will never happen due to the amount of greed our politicians and their friends have. We will most likely move to state controlled society where all our money goes to the government and we the people get whats left. Quality of work drops because there is not incentive to do a better job because your boss makes the same as you.
I am all for true liberalism where the government control is limited and people are permitted to live free with out "The Man" in every aspect of their life.
Let's address this spreading the wealth propaganda. You're aware of what McCain and the RNC were talking about is progressive taxes, right?
That said, nobody is taxing the rich and giving to the poor. Monies collected are used to run the government and since Reagan, they aren't doing very well at collecting enough or cutting spending.
Guess what? McCains plans were the same type of taxation. The difference is in how it's to be implemented. Obama's plan for someone making a million dollars would add around 3 to 4 thousand more dollars to your tax burden. It's the same rate that existed under Clinton and around the same rate under the end of the Reagan era and the first Bush term. Big deal...
The highest rate under the progressive scheme was implicated under Eisenhower. A Republican and I'm sure you've heard of him. He rasised the rate to 91 percent for the top 5 percent to help curb our debt and pay for the beginnings if the interstate system.
Of course there were tons of loopholes for the wealthy at that time but still.
The biggest cut for the rich? It happened under the Kennedy admin when it was cut to 71 percent I think. Not sure on that exact figure but you can find it on Wilki of you're interested.
Progressive taxes have been around for a very long time. It's one way that our first congress thought of raising money for the new goverment but I don't belive that a progressive tax was actually implemented till the civil war.
The very first Republican president implemented them. Yep, Lincoln.
So if Obama is a socialist for his tax plan, so is McCain, Bush Jr. Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford and so on.
All that said, where are you getting your information? FreeRepubic?
That said, nobody is taxing the rich and giving to the poor. Monies collected are used to run the government and since Reagan, they aren't doing very well at collecting enough or cutting spending.
Guess what? McCains plans were the same type of taxation. The difference is in how it's to be implemented. Obama's plan for someone making a million dollars would add around 3 to 4 thousand more dollars to your tax burden. It's the same rate that existed under Clinton and around the same rate under the end of the Reagan era and the first Bush term. Big deal...
The highest rate under the progressive scheme was implicated under Eisenhower. A Republican and I'm sure you've heard of him. He rasised the rate to 91 percent for the top 5 percent to help curb our debt and pay for the beginnings if the interstate system.
Of course there were tons of loopholes for the wealthy at that time but still.
The biggest cut for the rich? It happened under the Kennedy admin when it was cut to 71 percent I think. Not sure on that exact figure but you can find it on Wilki of you're interested.
Progressive taxes have been around for a very long time. It's one way that our first congress thought of raising money for the new goverment but I don't belive that a progressive tax was actually implemented till the civil war.
The very first Republican president implemented them. Yep, Lincoln.
So if Obama is a socialist for his tax plan, so is McCain, Bush Jr. Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford and so on.
All that said, where are you getting your information? FreeRepubic?
This is the 2nd elction the country has been split in half. I personally see a revolution or a split in the country sooner rather than later. As was seen in this last election the entire mid-west was conservative. Meaning they don't want "The Man" in their lives. While our government has turned into a similar beast on both sides our country is clearly split.
In our severely confused political system other than a separation of our country we need major reform to get back to basics.
In our severely confused political system other than a separation of our country we need major reform to get back to basics.