Associated Press Luncheon Speech - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: Where people dont cry nerf
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > General Forums > Political Debate Forum

 
Click here to go to the first VIP post in this thread.  
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 2012-04-04, 11:00 PM   [Ignore Me] #1
Sirisian
Colonel
 
Sirisian's Avatar
 
Associated Press Luncheon Speech


I didn't watch the video. I tend to read the transcripts instead which is here:
Transcript of Associated Press Luncheon Speech
It covers the speech he gave yesterday at the Associated Press Luncheon. I think he did an amazing job at breaking down the Republican budget plan for people. Though I don't think many people that needed to watch/read it have gotten a chance to.

The last responses were really spot on regarding his recent health-care changes (Obamacare):
Originally Posted by Obama
Health care, which is in the news right now -- there's a reason why there's a little bit of confusion in the Republican primary about health care and the individual mandate since it originated as a conservative idea to preserve the private marketplace in health care while still assuring that everybody got covered, in contrast to a single-payer plan. Now, suddenly, this is some socialist overreach.
Originally Posted by Obama
And the point I think that was made very ably before the Supreme Court, but I think most health care economists who have looked at this have acknowledged, is there are basically two ways to cover people with preexisting conditions or assure that people can always get coverage even when they had bad illnesses. One way is the single-payer plan -- everybody is under a single system, like Medicare. The other way is to set up a system in which you don’t have people who are healthy but don’t bother to get health insurance, and then we all have to pay for them in the emergency room.
Originally Posted by Obama
But I think what's more important is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to recognize that in a country like ours -- the wealthiest, most powerful country on Earth -- we shouldn’t have a system in which millions of people are at risk of bankruptcy because they get sick, or end up waiting until they do get sick and then go to the emergency room, which involves all of us paying for it.
Basically you have him laying out the truth.

I really feel these kind of talking points are softening up the republican side. They've been traditionally wary of saying what kind of healthcare system they prefer. I mean they can't say "let poor people die" so you end up with awesome responses to these kind of questions.

I especially liked Caldwell's response regarding Obamacare.
Originally Posted by Buddy Caldwell
The worst thing you can do is give it to an insurance company. I want to make my point. All insurance companies are controlled in their particular state. If you have a hurricane come up the east coast, the first one that’s going to leave you when they gotta pay too many claims is an insurance company. Insurance companies are the absolute worst people to handle this kind of business. I trust the government more than insurance companies. If the government wants to put forth a policy where they will pay for everything and you won’t have to go through an insurance policy, that’d be a whole lot better.
- Source
Basically advocating for a single-payer system without saying it directly. Too bad Obama hasn't been able to make any movement on such a system though because Republicans labeled single-payer systems as "socialist" and wouldn't compromise on such a system forcing this mandate that people must buy insurance to protect a system that allows people to abuse the ER systems in place artificially inflating the cost of health-care for everyone else.

I wish we could get more republicans to read and analyze these issues without writing them off as not problems. I mean you have candidates right now like Santorum who admitted his private insurance sucks after he spent $100,000 out of his pocket to cover medical expenses when his insurance didn't cover things which for less fortunate people is basically end-game. Then he attacks the bill that would end up saving his family possibly millions of dollars of healthcare in the future because he has to uphold a conservative viewpoint toward fighting against supporting the ability for children with pre-existing conditions to get insurance. (Just another battle between the private health market and ethics).

How are you guys dealing with current political discussions like this popping up? I'm hoping by posting this people will think hard about the repercussions of what is happening right now. (Could just be the older generation though. Seems like the younger generation basically understands the general problems and the possible solutions).

(Also if anyone missed the Cracking Your Genetic Code Nova episode on PBS a few days ago I recommend watching it here. The watch now link is on the right of the site. I think it does a good explanation of the problems we face with pre-existing conditions in the future, or even now).

//edit woah fixed formatting errors.

Last edited by Sirisian; 2012-04-04 at 11:05 PM.
Sirisian is offline  
Click here to go to the next VIP post in this thread.   Old 2012-04-05, 02:05 AM   [Ignore Me] #2
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: Associated Press Luncheon Speech


Meh.
__________________

Last edited by Malorn; 2012-09-11 at 04:50 AM.
Malorn is offline  
Old 2012-04-05, 04:03 AM   [Ignore Me] #3
Sirisian
Colonel
 
Sirisian's Avatar
 
Re: Associated Press Luncheon Speech


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
That's Obama doing damage control for the inevitable strikedown of the most ridiculous bill in our nation's history.
It's really not that ridiculous. Massachusetts has had a similar system in place for a while. The big disagreement seems to be should it be a state or a federal initiative. You have some people that prefer state laws as they are perceived to be more local and customizable. The whole concept of the current health system is that you want people to pay for their own health, however not everyone can pay. Then you have to decide what level of health people that can't pay get. Currently in most states non-emergency health is often denied except through loopholes. (Quitting your job to fall within certain criteria for aid among other things). The whole requiring people above a certain income to purchase insurance is a novel idea, but coming from the federal level it's sometimes viewed as going too far. Either way if you have the money to buy insurance and choose not to then you are taking a calculated risk. It is then argued that you shouldn't then be able to buy insurance when you are sick since it breaks the insurance system thus no pre-existing conditions. The system is idealized sadly for healthy people. If you want insurance but can't get it then you need extra systems in place. Which Massachusetts was forced to create when it realized a lot of people didn't have insurance, not because they didn't want to get it, but because they were denied coverage for previous illnesses. (I believe according to a conservative website I read they listed Massachusetts as already having 94% insured before the bill was passed so the system was really only designed to affect 6% of the population). On a national scale you're looking at 16.4% not having insurance which is a huge difference. (That's assuming everyone has insurance that would meet the requirements, which they might not).

Why we're messing around with this compromised solution seems a waste of time. I along with most of my friends are waiting for the Republicans to crack and allow a federal single-payer system. Both the Republicans and Democrats agree that healthcare in the US is too expensive and needs more oversight to control prices. (Currently insurance companies deal with hospitals on a one on one basis to decide costs. It's a fairly insane system which has been broken a lot). However, both parties seem to disagree with how to fix the price in healthcare or to even agree on what a single-payer system would look like for the US and how it would affect the current medical system. The Republicans have a pessimistic view that it would lower our quality of care severely leading to long lines. The Democrats are usually optimistic stating that early screening and actually allowing people to not delay problems, because of fear of costs, would lower costs. I think this is also where the separation between state and federal is distinguished. I'm not sure if the Republican state idea comes into this. There's always the tendency for them to say that states can manage things better at the state level. Which could be true. Though they might want to control how the system would be implemented which would be a disagreement.

I digress. I think I went into that too far.

Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
Obama - "I'm still digging us out of Bush's mess, it was so bad it took me 4 years to turn it around! Republicans dont' care about people! they want old people to die and children to go uneducated, while they line the rich's pockets (with the money they earned themselves) and Romney is an out of touch rich guy who can't relate to the american people!"
And yet he extended the Bush Tax Cuts for another two years. It does make one question his decisions about undoing what Bush did. Not sure where the children going uneducated comes from. I must missed that article. As far as not taxing the rich it's a problem that goes hand in hand with the Bush tax cuts. The Buffet Rule is a very very small step in the right direction. (Still have capital gain taxes to deal with since that system has been exploited to death by now).

Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
Romney - "Obama is a reckless spender that will drown our children and grandchildren in debt that will lead to financial collapse, and an incompetent president full of broken promises"
There's a fun site for tracking that stuff here. Generally it's been fairly easy to track some of his broken promises back to congress's inability to compromise. There are some promises he should have never made since it was obvious he couldn't do them. Like closing Guantanamo Bay among other topics.

Regarding debt I hope the Romney doesn't keep lying. That stuff is getting pretty tired. I talk to a tea party member sometimes (60 year old guy really into politics) and he's getting pretty mad at that kind of stuff since and I quote "anyone can go online and verify this stuff. He's just making Republicans look bad".

That and assuming Romney will win is a bit early. The few republicans I've talked to want a brokered convention.

Last edited by Sirisian; 2012-04-05 at 04:05 AM.
Sirisian is offline  
Click here to go to the next VIP post in this thread.   Old 2012-04-05, 04:39 AM   [Ignore Me] #4
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: Associated Press Luncheon Speech


Meh.
__________________

Last edited by Malorn; 2012-09-11 at 04:49 AM.
Malorn is offline  
Old 2012-04-05, 04:44 AM   [Ignore Me] #5
TheSHiFT
Staff Sergeant
 
Re: Associated Press Luncheon Speech


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
That's Obama doing damage control for the inevitable strikedown of the most ridiculous bill in our nation's history.


Allow me to sum up the campaign this year

Obama - "I'm still digging us out of Bush's mess, it was so bad it took me 4 years to turn it around! Republicans dont' care about people! they want old people to die and children to go uneducated, while they line the rich's pockets (with the money they earned themselves) and Romney is an out of touch rich guy who can't relate to the american people!"

Romney - "Obama is a reckless spender that will drown our children and grandchildren in debt that will lead to financial collapse, and an incompetent president full of broken promises"


There, just saved you seven months of drivel and campaign speeches.

The really interesting stuff won't be playing in ads until October. Gotta cook the grenades so they have no time to respond before election day and they're fresh in people's minds.
Rich people like Romney are really out earning money themselves through lower capital gains taxes.
TheSHiFT is offline  
Old 2012-04-05, 05:11 AM   [Ignore Me] #6
TheSHiFT
Staff Sergeant
 
Re: Associated Press Luncheon Speech


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
Congress's inability to compromise? Dems had a majority in both houses. They could have passed whatever legislation they wanted to.
Between Frankin's delayed seating and Kennedy's death Dems had 58 votes in the Senate for about 3 months. Of the 2 independents, one is one of the few socialist in federal government, the other is Lieberman, who campaigned for McCain in 2008.

The individual mandate is a conservative free-market idea dated as far back as Nixon. It was part of the GOP plan against Hillarycare in the early 90s.
He vowed to cut the debt in half in his first term. Instead he's doubled it. He's ignored all the recommendations from the debt committee he commissioned. His irresponsible handling of the debt lowered the country's credit rating. The republicans elected into congress in 2010 to actually start being fiscally responsible wanted to turn that round and he opposed them too.
You understand that not raising the debt ceiling would have put us into default, lowering credit rating even more? That S&P specifically stated it was "political brinkmanship" that caused them to downgrade. The increase in debt as been about 50%, not 100%.
Then he added health care at the worst possible time to add it and made insurance premiums go even higher and employers hesitate to hire. Then he wants to tax those employers to pay for more entitlement programs for his own social justice crusade in an attempt to buy votes with handouts.
What? Most of Obamacare doesnt go into affect until 2014, which would lower premiums.
He vowed to close guantamamo within the first year - and nothing stopped him from doing so. He's the commander in chief. It's a military base. It is 100% in his power to close it.
It isnt that simple actually. Where is he going to put them?
He vowed to end "dont' ask don't tell" and took his sweet time, backing off the issue and it took Libertarian pressure on gay voters to get him to finally do it. He tries to tiptoe around everyone and avoid rocking the boat and he has succeeded in doing nothing but halting economic progress in this country. He has nothing to stand on, and instead of campaigning on a 4-year record of being President he's going to spend most of his time blaming others and demonizing Romney. That wont' be received nearly as well as his "hope" and "change" message of 2008.
You mean he is a moderate? Why, yes he is! The economy hasn't halted

Like this woman. It still blows my mind that anyone in congress would say something like this.
Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It" - YouTube
The whole quote:
You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.
The House then passes the bill onto the Senate. Not the brightest thing for a Speaker to say, but hardly as damning as some people seem to think.
TheSHiFT is offline  
Click here to go to the next VIP post in this thread.   Old 2012-04-05, 05:31 AM   [Ignore Me] #7
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: Associated Press Luncheon Speech


Meh.
__________________

Last edited by Malorn; 2012-09-11 at 04:49 AM.
Malorn is offline  
Click here to go to the next VIP post in this thread.   Old 2012-04-05, 05:59 AM   [Ignore Me] #8
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: Associated Press Luncheon Speech


Meh.
__________________

Last edited by Malorn; 2012-09-11 at 04:48 AM.
Malorn is offline  
Old 2012-04-05, 06:55 AM   [Ignore Me] #9
TheSHiFT
Staff Sergeant
 
Re: Associated Press Luncheon Speech


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
They could have passed anything they wanted with that majority. They didn't even try. Why? Because anything they passed would be squarely blamed on them. They wanted Republican votes so they can claim it was bipartisan and avoid having it blowback on them.
No they couldnt. They would need 60 votes to override a filibuster. Obamacare ended up pass w/o a single GOP vote (after reconciliation).

You realize that Obama & Congress had MONTHs to get a budget passed, which it is required by law to have been done. They intentionally delayed it so they could force the ceiling raise.

They had plenty of options - cut the f'ing spending. And balance the f'ing budget. They had many months to do it. They refused.

I dunno about you, but I don't live beyond my means, and nor should the government. It's a wound left to fester and get far worse than it needs to be.
The 2011 United States federal budget is the United States federal budget to fund government operations for the fiscal year 2011, which is October 2010 – September 2011. The budget is the subject of a spending request by President Barack Obama.[3][4] The actual appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011 had to be authorized by the full Congress before it could take effect, according to the United States budget process.
The budget did not pass by the September 30 deadline, and the government was funded by a series of seven continuing resolutions continuing funding at or near 2010 levels. The budget negotiations culminated in early April 2011, with a tense legislative standoff leading to speculation that the nation would face its first government shutdown since 1995. However, a deal containing $38.5 billion in cuts from 2010 funding levels was reached with just hours remaining before the deadline. The 2011 budget was enacted on April 15, 2011, as Public Law 112-10, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011


So they voted for the budget, but when it was time to fund it the GOP pulls a bullshit stunt that lowers the US credit rating.

lol, they've gone UP since the law passed. There's nothing in that law that lowers them. But thankfully it's going to get struck down by the high court and we will see premiums go down because of it.
Yet the law doesnt go into full effect until 2014.

You understand that by requiring everyone to have insurance, you increase the pool and lower premiums? Right now, if someone w/o insurance gets treatment (such as expensive ER treatment) the provider has to raise costs on everyone else to cover it, thus raising premiums. Not to mention that if everyone has insurance, they're more likely to go to the doctor more regularly, which is much cheaper than going to the ER when a problem is major.

t IS that simple. According to liberals all of those prisoners are being held illegally.

Return them to their country. Oh wait, that would destroy career and legacy if even one of them were to go on to commit another terrorist act against the US.

And putting them in US prisons would piss off every state. So what is he to do? The smart thing for him to do is nothing because every outcome is bad for him. He's a smart politician, so he's doing nothing and he'll weather the storm of criticism over it. That is the path of least political damage.
And why would putting them in a US prison be such a bad idea? Why are my fellow Americans such pussies that they cant handle a supposed terrorist locked up in a US prison? Why is public opinion such against this move that no state will take them?
Encouraging people to pass legislation without reading it? Just how retarded do you have to be to say something like that? What's more stunning is that she got re-elected. Her voters are even stupider than she is.
Re-read the quote. She was explaining that the bill was being so obfuscated, that by passing it people would be able to read exactly what was being proposed. Tell me, what happens after the house approves a bill?
TheSHiFT is offline  
Old 2012-04-05, 07:21 AM   [Ignore Me] #10
TheSHiFT
Staff Sergeant
 
Re: Associated Press Luncheon Speech


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
1) Short-term capital gains are taxed at the normal tax rate. That means investments that you hold onto less than 1 year. Long term gains cap out at 15% because they are riskier investments. Democrats love to misrepresent capital gains by only referring to long term investment and leaving out the high short term tax rate. Learn more about the actual rates here.
Oh I understand. Romney also paid <15% in taxes last year thanks to capital gains. He also thinks he pays too much. I paid a higher rate than a multi-millionaire

2) Capital gains is money earned on investment, not wages. When you earn wages and then turn around and invest that money and get taxed on the investment, you were taxed twice.
How absurd!
3) Investment is not limited to the rich. Anyone can do it. Rich or poor. The lower income brackets have lower capital gains taxes to try to encourage investment, at least under the Bush cuts.
It is effectively limited when cost of living prevents you from having enough money to invest in the first place. If you can't afford rent, you arent investing.

4) If you had ever done investment, you'd know that it is a lot of work to find good investments, and there's always risk you can lose money, unlike employment. You can invest a lot of money and lose all of it, and if you do make gains that's taxed. It's a lot of risk, and a lot of work.
You know what else even more work? Actual work. You know what is risky to your health and well being? Many jobs. So why are they taxed at a higher rate?

5) Adding taxes to capital gains adds risk to investment. Lowering or removing the tax lessens the risk and thus encourages investment. Lower taxes encourage investment in our market and lead to economic growth.
You know what else adds to economic growth? A middle class with lots of disposable income. The economy is dynamic. If there is demand investment wont need to be encouraged.

If more people were educated on how to make smart investments we'd see more investing and more economic growth. Instead liberals want to ignorantly demonize capitalism so they can press their socialist agenda and get votes by taking from the rich and giving to the poor while simultaneously keeping the poor down so they retain those votes.
What money are you investing if you live in poverty?
As the old proverb goes...

Give a man a fish and he will not go hungry today.
Teach a man to fish and he will not go hungry for his lifetime.
Okay. But where does the man get his fishing gear?


Liberals want to give out lots of fish instead of teaching those who are hungry how to fish. The former perpetuates poverty and allows them to continue pointing fingers at the rich. The latter actually solves the problem, but would rob them of their platform. Liberals are not the friends of the poor; they're actually the ones holding the poor back with economic slavery and welfare chains. It's brilliant because the poor actually thank them for it and believe they are helping.
Yea those blasted pell grants and food stamps I received really held me back... Oh wait, they gave me the opportunity to succeed.

It also goes back to individualism, a fundamental difference between modern liberals and classic liberals (aka modern conservatives). The former believes in income redistribution, which is a belief in the society not the individual. The other believes in individual ability to excel and thrive, which is the classic American self-made-man story, such as Abraham Lincoln's story.
No individual is independent of society. Without society, an individual would not thrive.
Bush lowered long-term capital gains to 5% on the lowest tax bracket individuals (this is spun by liberals as the "bush tax cuts that only affect the wealthiest americans" - which is untrue because lower class and middle class investors also benefited). Short term gains were unaffected by the cuts, but short-term gains will be increasing next year, which is not good for the economy. Thanks to Obama long term gains for the lower tax brackets will be double what it is today in 2013. That's right, Mr. Hope and Change made it harder for the middle-class Americans to invest and accumulate wealth, not only hurting one's ability to overcome economic barriers but also discouraging investment into the market. Screwing both working class and the entire economy simultaneously. And yet some of them still have this illusion that he's working for them because they remain ignorant of how investment actually works. As long as people are ignorant on how to make the most of capitalism they will continue to be abused.
Again, poor and middle class do not have nearly as much money to invest. So yes it DOES mostly only affect the wealthiest Americans.
Only through embracing capitalism will the poor rise in wealth and our economy improve.

And when it comes to leading our country, I'd much rather have a man who knows how the capitalist system works and has personally thrived in it. He understands how to create wealth and jobs, which is precisely the skillset our country needs its leader to have. Hope doesn't pull people out of poverty; knowledge and work ethic do.
“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

Im pretty sure Adam Smith knew a thing or two about capitalism.
TheSHiFT is offline  
Old 2012-04-05, 08:49 AM   [Ignore Me] #11
CutterJohn
Colonel
 
Re: Associated Press Luncheon Speech


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
1) Short-term capital gains are taxed at the normal tax rate. That means investments that you hold onto less than 1 year. Long term gains cap out at 15% because they are riskier investments. Democrats love to misrepresent capital gains by only referring to long term investment and leaving out the high short term tax rate.
Indeed, but not many people actually keep investments less than a year. Mostly just speculators. If you receive stock options as part of your compensation package, anyone with a brain will simply not sell the stock for a year in order to avoid the extra taxes. People for whom this is a factor are not living paycheck to paycheck.

2) Capital gains is money earned on investment, not wages. When you earn wages and then turn around and invest that money and get taxed on the investment, you were taxed twice.
No, its not. The tax is on the gain, not the principle. If I make $20, I get taxed on it. Probably around $6-7, all told. So now we'll say I'm at $13. I buy a stock for $13. One year later, that stock has gained 10% in value, so now its worth $14.30. I sell it. I am NOT taxed on the $13, because that has already been taxed. I am taxed on the $1.30. Thats new money that I did not possess before, which has not been taxed.

3) Investment is not limited to the rich. Anyone can do it. Rich or poor. The lower income brackets have lower capital gains taxes to try to encourage investment, at least under the Bush cuts.
People aren't stuffing money into their mattresses anymore. Even if they aren't specifically investing, they are keeping their money in a bank, meaning the money is being invested anyway. People will always invest their spare cash because aside from the aforementioned mattress trick, there is nothing else to do with it.

And if capital gains were simply regarded as income its already on a progressive scale. No need for additional rules regarding it.

4) If you had ever done investment, you'd know that it is a lot of work to find good investments, and there's always risk you can lose money, unlike employment. You can invest a lot of money and lose all of it, and if you do make gains that's taxed. It's a lot of risk, and a lot of work.
Its not a lot of work at all. Put it in an index fund. Aaaand.. You're done. Historical %10 return. Just don't panic and sell when the market crashes for a bit. If you're trying to play the markets you're either a professional(and hence its your job) or you're a fool.

Whats the big deal with risk anyway? I risk my life and livelihood when I go to work. It doesn't entitle me to a 15% tax rate. With an investment I merely risk my money.

Only through embracing capitalism will the poor rise in wealth and our economy improve.
Oh please. Pure capitalism is as absurd a model as pure communism. Just as communism requires a perfectly selfless person, capitalism requires a perfectly rational and informed person free of any outside influence(such as, oh, marketing).

Both systems are equally broken because humans are human. A communist citizen will cheat and be lazy to gain an undeserved advantage(less work, same money). A capitalist person will cheat/lie/obscure the truth to gain an undeserved advantage(more money for same work).

The only thing that works and is stable is a middle ground between the two, because unmoderated capitalism is every bit as evil of an idea as rigid communism. In other words, it would be quite nice if people would stop worshiping it.

Liberals want to give out lots of fish instead of teaching those who are hungry how to fish.
Teach a man to fish and he will not go hungry for his lifetime.
And put a man in charge of a fishing hole and he will fish and fish and fish and fish and fish and fish and fish and fish, because he feels the only right thing to do is to fish as much as you possibly can through whatever means necessary, and then he'll trade fish so his kids never have to work through school(and ensure they get into the best school with the best fish connections), and trade more fish to help them get a really nice job or maybe just give them the fishing hole, and he'll give fish to an expensive expert to make sure he owes as few fish as possible, and he'll sit on the board of another mans fishing hole and each will convince the others stockholders that they need to be able to catch even more fish because all the other fishermen are catching that many fish, and he'll threaten his fish stockers with the prospect of no fish unless they stock the pond faster because he knows that without fish of their own they will be ruined, and he'll pay a man to make sure the fish stockers don't organize so they actually have a reasonable bargaining position, or just fire the fish stockers talking about it, and pay another man more fish so that he can lobby the government to ensure his little fish empire is secure from start up competitors or get the nice fish supplying contract, and he'll pay another man fish to make sure the government doesn't take more of his fish from him, and he'll pay a last man fish to make sure the people with no fish think that somehow its right and just that he have so many fish.

This liberal wants to give out enough fish that people won't starve or be destitute, even if they aren't good or tasty fish. He'd also appreciate it if certain fishermen realized they've won after catching 1 or 2 lifetime supplies of fish from their super premium fishing holes and let others other fish from that spot, or maybe they could give the guys who stock those ponds for them more fish instead of taking as many fish as possible for themselves.

Last edited by CutterJohn; 2012-04-05 at 09:22 AM.
CutterJohn is offline  
Click here to go to the next VIP post in this thread.   Old 2012-04-05, 09:25 AM   [Ignore Me] #12
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: Associated Press Luncheon Speech


Meh.
__________________

Last edited by Malorn; 2012-09-11 at 04:48 AM.
Malorn is offline  
Old 2012-04-05, 10:00 AM   [Ignore Me] #13
TheSHiFT
Staff Sergeant
 
Re: Associated Press Luncheon Speech


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
The only fair point in two posts of liberal drivel is helping people get the tools for investing in their own future. However unlike the liberals I think that is a problem worth fixing. Educate and provide incentives such as no

The liberal fallacy of tax the rich/corporations and give to the poor neither incentivizes the poor nor does it encourage the rich or their wealth to remain in this country. The rich and small business owners and corporatio are the primary employers. Doesn't take too much brain power to figure out that heavier taxes on them leads to less employment, and lower tax revenues. Its lose lose.

Reform entitlements. The welfare state will drown us all as it is drowning countries like Greece.

Of course the liberals didnt believe a word I just wrote but whatever. Blindly vote your hearts. You'll come around in a few decades.
Yea! Dont try to refute anything that was posted and just blindly follow GOP talking points.

Last edited by TheSHiFT; 2012-04-05 at 10:02 AM.
TheSHiFT is offline  
Old 2012-04-05, 10:06 AM   [Ignore Me] #14
Hamma
PSU Admin
 
Hamma's Avatar
 
Re: Associated Press Luncheon Speech


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
Liberals want to give out lots of fish instead of teaching those who are hungry how to fish. The former perpetuates poverty and allows them to continue pointing fingers at the rich. The latter actually solves the problem, but would rob them of their platform. Liberals are not the friends of the poor; they're actually the ones holding the poor back with economic slavery and welfare chains. It's brilliant because the poor actually thank them for it and believe they are helping.
This probably couldn't have been said any better. As someone who lived in Massachusetts at the tail end of when they implemented their shitty health care reform.. it's a joke. People who are employed pay full price for health care while those who are low income get it at a cut rate. Best of all? If you don't get health care at all (which should be your choice) you pay a fine. How does this make sense? And when does it end? If the government can tell us to buy health care what is the next thing they will tell us to buy.

Originally Posted by TheSHiFT View Post
Yea! Dont try to refute anything that was posted and just blindly follow GOP talking points.
I for one don't affiliate with a political party. None of these idiots and neither party goes along fully with how I would like this country to be run.
__________________

PlanetSide Universe - Administrator / Site Owner - Contact @ PSU
Hamma Time - Evil Ranting Admin - DragonWolves - Commanding Officer

Last edited by Hamma; 2012-04-05 at 10:07 AM.
Hamma is offline  
Old 2012-04-05, 11:23 AM   [Ignore Me] #15
Warborn
Contributor
Major General
 
Warborn's Avatar
 
Re: Associated Press Luncheon Speech


"Trickle-down" economics was tried during Reagan's administration, wasn't it? And didn't produce the results people thought it would? Did Clinton slash social programs and give tax breaks to the wealthy/corporations in order to produce the surplus he did? People talk about how social programs need to be annihilated and taxes on the wealthy and corporations needs to be reduced as much as possible as if that's the only way nations have ever achieved prosperity. And yet, the facts don't support that as far as I can tell.
Warborn is offline  
 
  PlanetSide Universe > General Forums > Political Debate Forum

Bookmarks

Wiki Activity Read More >
Discord

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:12 PM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.