comment listing type:
Top New Politics Videos by Vote
Subscribe
Top 15 Sifters of All Time
Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week
VideoSift Links
comment listing type: Top New Politics Videos by Vote Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week VideoSift Links |
NetRunner
I agree with you that wealthy people have different concerns than do poor people, but my point is that they aren't as far removed from the rest of us as you make them out to be. Again, I didn't vote for John McCain, nor do I want him to be our next President. That doesn't make Barack Obama qualified. If you present me with a rotten peach and a rotten apple, I'll tell you that neither of them is appetizing.
I don't believe in fundamental capitalism. I'm happy to pay taxes to fund roads and education and defense, among other things. All of those things are good. I just feel that this country already collects more than enough money from it's citizens. We need to concentrate our energy on being more efficient and effective, not on collecting more money from the rich or from anybody. Not adding new programs, but streamlining the programs that we already have in place. Does all the money collecting from the gas tax go to maintain our transportation infrastructure? It was supposed to. Speaking of roads, is our long term expenditure on our roads efficient? No. We focus too much on getting them done quickly on not enough on building them to last. We work over and over on the same problems when we could have done it right the first time for a little more money up front.
I also feel that those who have succeeded have a greater responsibility to support our common good. I just don't believe that they should be forced to shoulder the cost of the common good more than anybody else does.
When corporations receive monetary benefits resulting from legislation, it's not always a bad thing. It's always a bad thing when lawmakers make it harder for large corporations (don't get me started on military contractors like Lockheed. You and I will probably agree a lot on that issue). Too many people in this county have a negative attitude toward Exxon and other oil companies. I think we've done a VERY good job keeping fuel inexpensive. Even with all the recent price increases, fuel is still cheaper here than in most other countries, including Japan and the UK. As soon as you increase taxes on corporations like Exxon, or increase restrictions that cause their profits to be reduced, their responsibilities to their shareholders dictate that they must increase their margins. In other words, picking on big oil only hurts the lower and middle classes in this country. ...or picking on any big business for that matter.
Fox News Gets Reefer Madness Over So-Called Killer Marijuana
If it doesn't kill you, it will most certainly make you as dumb as a bag of nails.
From Wikipedia: "...a recent study by the Canadian government found cannabis contained more toxic substances than tobacco smoke. It contained 20 times more ammonia, (a carcinogen), five times more hydrogen cyanide (which can cause heart disease) and nitrous oxides, (which can cause lung damage) than tobacco smoke.
Cannabis use has been linked to exacerbating the effects of psychosis, schizophrenia, bronchitis, and emphysema by several peer-reviewed studies for those who are vulnerable to such illnesses based on personal or family history.
n July 2007, British medical journal The Lancet published a study that indicates that cannabis users have, on average, a 41% greater risk of developing psychosis than non-users. The risk was most pronounced in cases with an existing risk of psychotic disorder, and was said to grow up to 200% for the most-frequent users.
While the long term and heavy use of cannabis is not linked to the severe or grossly debilitating cerebral effects associated with chronic heavy alcohol abuse, it has been LINKED to more subtle IMPAIRMENT associated with MEMORY, ATTENTION, AND COGNITIVE FUNCTION.
Ted Kennedy surprise speech at 2008 DNC
Nancy Pelosi, on the other hand. What a joke of a speech!
NetRunner
Lemme tell you a little about Deedub81: I was raised with 5 siblings plus a foster sister. We lived in a 4 bedroom condominium in San Jose, CA. My parents got one room, my foster sister had another, my other two sisters had the third room, and us four boys shared the fourth. My mother and father both worked two jobs while I was in my elementary and middle school years, both of them have a BA from ASU. We ate oatmeal for breakfast, PB&J for lunch, and veggies from the garden with beans and rice for dinner. My mom would pick me up from school, when I was just 10 years old, and I would sit on the tailgate of our station wagon and throw the newspapers my mom had just rolled. I know "poor."
After I graduated high school, I took a job at the Grill on the golf course of a private resort in the Silicon Valley of California. The entry fee for membership in this club was $250,000. I was on a first name basis with many of the members -some of the wealthiest men in the world: John Chambers, Thomas Siebel, Ronnie Lott, and many others. Some of them would golf 7 or 8 times a month, often with only their caddy as a companion. One of the highlights of my job was the time I spent with these men as I served them their lunch on the terrace overlooking the golf course. My favorite thing to do was to ask them how they got to be where they were. How did they start? What made them successful?
Now I'm self-employed. I supply factory direct construction materials and arrange labor for large, custom built homes owned by some of the wealthiest men in Colorado. Today, for example, I spent all day working with a developer on his 15,000sf home. I've been working with him for the past 3 months and we're not done yet. In short, I know "wealthy."
The wealthy and the poor have more in common than you give them credit for. Many modern millionaires live in middle-class neighborhoods, work full-time and shop in discount stores like the rest of us. I tend to believe that millionaires are more average than most other people think.
In an article in the Reader's Digest, Kristyn Kusek Lewis writes, "The reality is that 80 percent of Americans worth at least $5 million grew up in middle-class or lesser households."
T. Harv Eker, author of Secrets of the Millionaire Mind says,“For the rich, it’s not about getting more stuff. It’s about having the freedom to make almost any decision you want.”
Being a self-made millionaire is the "American Dream" realized, isn't it? I'm not saying they don't have a responsibility to use their success for good. I do believe, however, that they should have the freedoms that we're all entitled to. They already pay a higher dollar amount than the rest of the country. Why isn't that good enough?
Back to McCain and his wealth: How could you possibly say that McCain led a life free of hardship? His family wasn't wealthy, he married into wealth. Also, consider the time he served in the military. Do you consider that "ease?"
Does the fact that Obama had, in your opinion, a tougher life than McCain make him a better candidate for President? Not at all. That has nothing to do with qualifications. When has Obama ever stood up to his party's leadership when he knows something isn't right? I can tell you when McCain has. What has Obama done to extinguish Pork Barrel spending? I can tell you what McCain's done. When has Obama reached across the isle to get legislation passed? Not very often.
Don't get me started (and I don't even like McCain)! I didn't choose John McCain to represent the republican party. It's just so hard to keep my mouth shut when the other option, at this point, is clearly a lesser candidate. All this talk of Obama's lack of experience is getting old, but they have a really good point. Of course, that's just my opinion.
I didn't mean for you to believe that I think the only cause of homelessness is laziness. What I mean to say is, thanks to the many social programs already in place, there is no reason for anyone to sleep without a roof over their head, warm clothes, and a full belly.
Not being wealthy" isn't a disease. All people need is food, shelter, and opportunities.
Don't Americans already have these things?
Some do. Some don't. I had great opportunities being born to a well-off family, and sent to private school. Most of my neighbors didn't have much opportunity, while many of my classmates wasted the opportunities that they'd been given.
I wholeheartedly agree that a lot of us waste opportunities. I'm curious, what opportunities did most of your neighbors not have?
This question remains unanswered: I still don't understand how republicans are taking my money and giving it to corporations.
Commentary on the more stable economy in other countries: I was in Japan this summer with my chamber choir. This was our second tour in Japan. I look up to the Japanese people for many different reasons. Americans could learn a lot from their attitudes, philosophies; not to mention their economy. One thing in particular stood out to me on this last trip. I couldn't ignore it. Everywhere I turned it was staring me in the face. "Made in Japan"
We have strayed too far from that kind of patriotism, haven't we?
I agree that there are many countries with great programs funded by the government. I just wouldn't want to live there. I don't want to pay higher taxes. I want the freedom to spend my money how I see fit. Let me give you an example: I donate a substantial portion of my income to non-profit organizations every year, almost 12% in 2007. I hand picked where I wanted to donate based on my personal research and opinions. Some of my donations go to assist the poor. 100% of my donated money goes straight to where it's needed because it's handled by unpaid volunteers, not salaried government workers and politicians.
I don't pay very much for my health care because I don't need much. I maintain a policy for emergency health care, and I pay my doctor in cash when I get an ear ache.
Tell me how my lifestyle (and the life of the families that benefit from my donations) would improve if my money was paid in taxes rather than donations?
In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Wow, quite a straw man argument you started off with. I'm more thinking places like Germany and Sweeden, or even Japan as countries who manage their economies more wisely than we do.
Scandinavia is particularly highly ranked in schooling and health care statistics, and all of the countries involved use a mix publicly funded schooling (even at the university level), and a mix of nationally sponsored free healthcare, and privately available healthcare.
Only in their mix, they've made the public half so good that there's not a lot of demand for the private arms for each.
I strongly disagree with laziness being the only cause of homelessness. Many have mental health issues, or physical health issues...and government programs don't help as much as you're thinking, because no one's choosing to be poor or homeless.
"Not being wealthy" isn't a disease. All people need is food, shelter, and opportunities.
Don't Americans already have these things?
Some do. Some don't. I had great opportunities being born to a well-off family, and sent to private school. Most of my neighbors didn't have much opportunity, while many of my classmates wasted the opportunities that they'd been given.
I don't think there's any inherent superiority to people with money, nor inferiority (or laziness) in the poor. I buy my lunch from a deli across the street from where I work every day, and I guarantee you every one of those people work harder than I do. My education lets me earn more with less effort, and I see no reason why we couldn't make the same (or at least better) education available to everyone, because what I do isn't that much harder than making a sandwich (programming), it just takes longer to learn.
As for your comparisons, I get that it's part of your ideology to assume that all government programs suck, but in my opinion that's a self-fulfilling prophecy brought about by the conservatives who've wormed their way into government. Other countries make government solutions work, why can't we?
I don't know what's wrong with public schools, but the conservative argument that private schools have some magic power that public schools don't is simply silly. My private school was nice because a) they had a tremendous budget b) they had a high bar for acceptance, and c) only families with tons of resources could afford it, which all by themselves self-selects against having lots of kids from troubled homes, or mental/social disorders, underpaid/overworked teachers, and large classes.
In short, when you only let fairly gifted students in, it's going to have a better than average performance. I don't know what would happen if you pumped the same kind of money into an inner-city public school, but I imagine it would improve, but not to the degree where it could compete with my snooty upper-crust school.
As for saying the difference between rich/poor isn't a problem, how many top 1% income earners do you know personally? They're in a bubble, and most have no idea what life is like for the rest of us, because they were born to a life of privilege.
McCain was born into it to a certain degree (Dad and Grandad were both Admirals), and Cindy was born to it.
Obama wasn't. He had a decent enough situation, and his talent brought him good opportunities, but it wasn't like the life free of hardship the two McCains grew up in (and stayed in for the most part).
As someone with firsthand experience with the kind of people that grow out of a family with lots of money, I can say that their personal situation is very relevant to the kinds of policies they will try to enact.
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I still don't understand how republicans are taking my money and giving it to corporations.
Communism is great on paper. It makes you feel all warm inside, doesn't it? If we want a smaller gap between the rich and the poor, we need not change our economy and government. We could move to Cuba or North Korea; I hear they're great places to live. None of those evil corporations.
The rich already pay a larger tax than the poor. They are already punished for their success. The poor already have numerous social programs available to them in this country. There are also thousands of private and religious, non-profit organizations. The problem with governmentally run social problems (taxing the rich to support the poor): when the government is left in charge of an organization, they don't work as well as they should.
As for messing with the tax code to win elections, you've got to have noticed that both parties do that, right? Hell, even Libertarians and Greens do that (when people notice they exist at all).
Both parties have also generally moved the tax plan in their advertised direction (if not always right away, or to the degree they originally promised). Republicans generally flatten taxes (mostly by reducing the high end), while Democrats widen the differences at each end (often by raising taxes at the high end).
Have you ever been to a DMV? Why isn't the USPS as fast as FedEx? Is Public Education getting better or worse? If money and/or time was no option, would you send your children to public, private, or home school to get them the best education available? Most Americans would say private, and yet they vote to give the government more money for social programs. Why? Because they spend our money so well?
The wealthiest 1% of the country donate millions to charities so that they can get tax breaks. I'm not saying they're saints, I'm well aware that they are just working the system. BUT - I'd rather have their money going into the private sector where those charities can fund research, give scholarships, and provide assistance to the poor and unfortunate more effectively and efficiently than the government does.
Nobody in this country should go hungry. Nobody should ever have to sleep with no roof over their head, or not have access to a college education. Thanks to the many federally and privately funded social programs they don't have to. ...unless they're lazy. In that case, what do we do? Support them for life on food stamps?
The gap between the rich and the poor in this country isn't the cause. It's the result. The result of poor education, low expectations, over-medication, and constant distractions. We could talk about taxes.... but they're fine where they are. When somebody promises to lower taxes here, and raise taxes there simply to get elected, I just shake my head.
Why don't we debate more substantial and longer term solutions? "Not being wealthy" isn't a disease. All people need is food, shelter, and opportunities.
Don't Americans already have these things?
Inside Edition Tours the Home the McCains Sold in 2006
NetRunner
Communism is great on paper. It makes you feel all warm inside, doesn't it? If we want a smaller gap between the rich and the poor, we need not change our economy and government. We could move to Cuba or North Korea; I hear they're great places to live. None of those evil corporations.
The rich already pay a larger tax than the poor. They are already punished for their success. The poor already have numerous social programs available to them in this country. There are also thousands of private and religious, non-profit organizations. The problem with governmentally run social problems (taxing the rich to support the poor): when the government is left in charge of an organization, they don't work as well as they should.
Have you ever been to a DMV? Why isn't the USPS as fast as FedEx? Is Public Education getting better or worse? If money and/or time was no option, would you send your children to public, private, or home school to get them the best education available? Most Americans would say private, and yet they vote to give the government more money for social programs. Why? Because they spend our money so well?
The wealthiest 1% of the country donate millions to charities so that they can get tax breaks. I'm not saying they're saints, I'm well aware that they are just working the system. BUT - I'd rather have their money going into the private sector where those charities can fund research, give scholarships, and provide assistance to the poor and unfortunate more effectively and efficiently than the government does.
Nobody in this country should go hungry. Nobody should ever have to sleep with no roof over their head, or not have access to a college education. Thanks to the many federally and privately funded social programs they don't have to. ...unless they're lazy. In that case, what do we do? Support them for life on food stamps?
The gap between the rich and the poor in this country isn't the cause. It's the result. The result of poor education, low expectations, over-medication, and constant distractions. We could talk about taxes.... but they're fine where they are. When somebody promises to lower taxes here, and raise taxes there simply to get elected, I just shake my head.
Why don't we debate more substantial and longer term solutions? "Not being wealthy" isn't a disease. All people need is food, shelter, and opportunities.
Don't Americans already have these things?
In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Yeah, straw men are everywhere already.
Mostly I'm referring to McCain's plan to keep tax breaks for oil companies, and other corporate subsidies in place, while promising a shallower tax cut for the middle class than Obama, but a huge one for the top 1%, while Obama raises taxes in that range.
As for taking from the rich to give to the poor...not directly. I think the rich should be responsible for subsidizing better public education, universal healthcare, and unemployment protections, among other things.
What was it Karl Marx said, "from each according to ability, to each according to need"? I think a little of that is a good idea for everyone, rich included (not that they need help).
I think government programs should most benefit those who have the least, and find the revenue primarily from those who're producing the most.
I'm not in favor of some absolute socialist setup, but I think there needs to be a "compressing" pressure on income disparity, and in the last 8 years the Bush policies have been aimed at removing that pressure, and it's driven income disparity to near record highs in less than a decade.
I think there should be a bottom limit to how low we allow people to sink in terms of poverty. I think children born into poverty should have the opportunity to reach their full potential, despite whatever failings their parents had.
I think there's more than enough money in the country, and more than enough money passing through government to do all that, likely without even raising taxes a dime, just by shifting what we use government for.
I think tax cuts aimed at the rich are redistributionary -- in the wrong direction, and that supply-side economics in a nutshell is to say "in order to best help the poor, give more money to the rich" which is on its face insane, and only gets worse as the explanation goes on. It's a policy invented by the rich for the rich, of the rich. The "take more of my money, and give it to big corporations, because they'll spend it better than me!" is what I think 90% of the people voting for Republicans are unknowingly saying with their vote.
That's more than you asked for, and more than I originally intended to write, but I go on a tear sometimes.
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Which corporations does McCain propose to give your money to after he takes it away?
Do you believe that the government should increase taxes on the wealthy and redistribute wealth to the poor?
P.S. Just so we're clear, I dislike McCain. I just like to focus on the facts instead of propagating straw man arguements.
In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
^ It's a metaphor for the other problems with John McCain, such as thinking the economy is just fine, that tax cuts should be largely skewed to the highest income individuals, and that generally speaking we're better off than we were 8 years ago.
If we must boil everything down to money, shouldn't everyone vote for who will give them the biggest tax cut?
For 90% of the country, that's Obama.
A vote for McCain is to say "take more of my money, and give it to big corporations, because they'll spend it better than me!"
NetRunner
Do you believe that the government should increase taxes on the wealthy and redistribute wealth to the poor?
P.S. Just so we're clear, I dislike McCain. I just like to focus on the facts instead of propagating straw man arguements.
In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
^ It's a metaphor for the other problems with John McCain, such as thinking the economy is just fine, that tax cuts should be largely skewed to the highest income individuals, and that generally speaking we're better off than we were 8 years ago.
If we must boil everything down to money, shouldn't everyone vote for who will give them the biggest tax cut?
For 90% of the country, that's Obama.
A vote for McCain is to say "take more of my money, and give it to big corporations, because they'll spend it better than me!"
Inside Edition Tours the Home the McCains Sold in 2006
So, what's the average size home for millionaires in Washington? Is it okay as long as it's average for your net worth?
...a largish residential house. Nothing overtly spectacular at all.
Who gets to decide what is or isn't overtly spectacular? Lower class liberals?
It's more than they need, that's my point. I'm not knocking Obama, I merely made a poor attempt at pointing out that most wealthy politicians in the country have huge homes that are much bigger than their needs dictate.
Who cares? We aren't socialists! They can spend their money however they'd like.
Plus, McCain sold the place after completing numerous renovations. Isn't that just good business?
The Obamas have an estimated net worth of under 2 million dollars. Does that fact coupled with the knowledge that his house is worth $1.65 million make him a better candidate for President?
This video is a waste of time. I'm much more interested in such endeavors as figuring out why Obama didn't publish any papers during his time as a constitutional law professor.
Senator Biden doesn't believe that Senator Obama is ready to serve as president. When asked about Senator Obama's lack of experience he said, 'The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.'
Top 20 Olympics Gymnastics Falls
It's pure propaganda to attract additional viewers.
Hannity Must be taken off the Air
Inside Edition Tours the Home the McCains Sold in 2006
http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/42182/view/?service=1
Senator Joe Biden at the 30 Oct 07 debate in Philadelphia
Let's ask the Chinese people how it feels to be forced into being the best.
Little girl deemed not cute enough to represent China
Why don't we report on how the Chinese athletes (cough*slaves*cough) are torn away from their families when they're 3 and forced to practice and compete and only get to see their families once a year?
Fox news cut off a 12 year old girl!
A major problem we have in this country: Close mindedness.
"They probably invited those two women on their show because they wanted to hear some dirt about Russia. Fox News is disgustingly one-sided and any instance of the truth or impartiality leaking from its airwaves is purely coincidental and in all likelihood completely unintentional."
Just because you don't like FOX News, doesn't mean they did anything wrong in this situation. I think Fox is a joke and I'm a hardcore conservative. It's obvious what they do; They attempt to "balance" the news by reporting with obvious conservative overtones. It's the opposite of most news organizations and a lot less subtle. Still doesn't mean he was cutting them off.
...and he definitely didn't cut off a twelve year old like the title claims. She was done speaking long before.
Who's making stuff up now?
>> ^MarineGunrock:
As much as I dislike Fox, they did nothing horrible here. They did not cut anyone off. They have a schedule to keep, and they told the girl and her aunt that. He then respectfully told them he had no more time.
So downvote for painting a situation.
I fucking hate it when people do that.
Georgian Reporter Shot on Live TV
Just ask the Russian gov't: http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/08/report-russians.html