Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

[YSSMAN]

Yeah, except it's ok for Obama to wait for him to be seated because he's a Romney clone who will bend for the bill.

I pointed that out to my extreme Liberal friends the other day and they didn't get it. As much of a "Conservative" this guy may think he is, he isn't at all. As soon as I found out that he supported abortion rights my level of concern dipped to almost zero.

 

[FoolKiller]

I pointed that out to my extreme Liberal friends the other day and they didn't get it. As much of a "Conservative" this guy may think he is, he isn't at all. As soon as I found out that he supported abortion rights my level of concern dipped to almost zero.

He also supported the Massachusetts health care plan. You know, the one that would be undermined if a national plan were implemented. Guess what he is really concerned about.

 

[Duke]

Yeah **** social equity, those born into the middle and upper class have earned their right to healthcare by being born into money!

I had precisely the same chances of being born into my circumstances as you did, whatever they may be. You play the hand you're dealt. Whining for better cards doesn't mean you deserve them.

 

[Vasco]

Don't be silly. We all know the poor have a right to the products of another man's labor just because they were born poor.

They don't, but they definitely deserve access to a certain standard of health and education to at least give them a fighting chance of not being poor for their whole life.

 

[FoolKiller]

They don't, but they definitely deserve access to a certain standard of health and education to at least give them a fighting chance of not being poor for their whole life.

I don't recall saying a thing about preventing access.

 

[YSSMAN]

He also supported the Massachusetts health care plan. You know, the one that would be undermined if a national plan were implemented. Guess what he is really concerned about.

Word. I'm going to laugh when his election blows up in the face of the GOP.

 

[Danoff]

Yeah **** social equity, those born into the middle and upper class have earned their right to healthcare by being born into money!

Classic class warfare. If you earn a dollar, do you not have the right to hand it to your child or whoever you choose? What you are saying is that they do not. The question is not whether someone has the right to a gift - it's whether someone has the right to give a gift.... and they do.

 

[Omnis]

It has been my fear all along. Too bad Joe Kennedy was completely ignored.

Yeah well that's what happens when you don't run with an R in front of your name. And you're a Kennedy in a pissed-off Massachusetts.

 

[Vasco]

I don't recall saying a thing about preventing access.

How do you think that access is going to be provided? By people voluntarily providing enough funding out of the goodness of their hearts?

Classic class warfare. If you earn a dollar, do you not have the right to hand it to your child or whoever you choose? What you are saying is that they do not. The question is not whether someone has the right to a gift - it's whether someone has the right to give a gift.... and they do.

People have the right to 'give a gift' and use their salary as they choose, after an amount has been taken to ensure that the society they live in continues to function well and fairly.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Some interesting reading...

Obama Justice Department Decapitates Gun Industry: FBI Arrest 21 Gun Industry Executives in Las Vegas to Attend Gun Show
Text size
Illinois Gun
Infowars.com
January 22, 2010

What’s being touted as the largest single investigation and prosecution against individuals in the history of the Justice Department’s enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act occurred Monday in Las Vegas.

Since the election of Obama the main question for gun owners has been, “when will Obama come after the guns”?

The individuals arrested are executives and employees of military and law enforcement products companies that were in Las Vegas to attend the 2010 Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade Show (Shot show) and are charged with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

The indictments allege that the defendants engaged in a scheme to pay bribes to the minister of defense for a country in Africa but the alleged sales agent was in reality an undercover FBI agent.

Here is the link to the whole story.

http://www.infowars.com/obama-justic...tend-gun-show/

I only picked out the above part cause i thought it was interesting. Keep reading and you will see what else i think is interesting. I got this in a email so i just copied it. Two faces heh?



"Today, even though President Obama is against off shore drilling
for our country, he signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our
taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is the 8th
largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of
Brazil ! The oil that comes from this operation is exported solely to China !

Now here's the real clincher...the Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil
field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil".
We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever!
This gets even more interesting.

Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian
Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American
BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous
financial supporter during his campaign.

If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are
probably as upset as I am. Not a word of this transaction was broadcast on
any of the other news networks!

Forward this factual e-mail to others who care about this country and where it is going.

Also, let all of your Government representatives know how you feel about this.

_______________________________________________________________________



AUGUST 18, 2009, 1:45 P.M. ET

Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling
Too bad it's not in U.S. waters.
You read that headline correctly. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil .
The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil 's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil 's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro . Brazil 's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.
The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas .
But look on the bright side. If President Obama has embraced offshore drilling in Brazil , why not in the old U.S.A. ? The land of the sorta free and the home of the heavily indebted has enormous offshore oil deposits, and last year ahead of the November elections, with gasoline at $4 a gallon, Congress let a ban on offshore drilling expire.
The Bush Administration's five-year plan (2007-2012) to open the outer continental shelf to oil exploration included new lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico . But in 2007 environmentalists went to court to block drilling in Alaska and in April a federal court ruled in their favor.. In May, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said his department was unsure whether that ruling applied only to Alaska or all offshore drilling. So it asked an appeals court for clarification. Late last month the court said the earlier decision applied only to Alaska , opening the way for the sale of leases in the Gulf. Mr. Salazar now says the sales will go forward on August 19.
This is progress, however slow. But it still doesn't allow the U.S. to explore in Alaska or along the East and West Coasts , which could be our equivalent of the Tupi oil fields, which are set to make Brazil a leading oil exporter. Americans are right to wonder why Mr. Obama is underwriting in Brazil what he won't allow at home.

Here’s the link to the Wall street Journal article to confirm this.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...120524166.html

___________________________________________________________________________________

This article as well as others confirm Soros’ stake.



Feb. 17, 2009, 9:20 p.m. EST

Soros reports 73.5% increase in Petrobras stake

By Tony Cooke

Billionaire investor George Soros on Tuesday reported that during the fourth quarter he increased his already considerable stakes in Brazilian state-controlled oil company Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (NYSEBR) and Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. (NYSEOT) .

Soros, through his Soros Fund Management LLC, reported holding 36.8 million American depositary receipts of the Brazilian oil company known as Petrobras as of Dec. 31 - a holding valued at about $900 million at the time. Soros held 21.2 million ADRs at Sept. 30, according to his disclosure filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Soros also reported holding $434 million in Potash shares as of Dec. 31 - a total of about 5.9 million shares. He reported holding 3.3 million Potash shares as of Sept. 30.

Petrobras and Potash were the two largest stakes reported by the Soros fund as of Dec. 30.

Soros also disclosed changes in stakes for companies in which he holds, or at one time held, more than 5% of the outstanding shares.

Soros reported cutting his stake in JetBlue Airways Corp. (NASDAQ:JBLU) to 6.7 million shares, or 2.46%, from 9 million shares, or 3.33%. He also reported raising his stake in Lattice Semiconductor Corp. (NASDAQ:LSCC) to 8.67 million shares, or 7.51%, from 8.21 million shares, or 7.11%, and raising his stake in RF Micro Devices Inc. (NASDAQ:RFMD) to 8.57% from 5.11%.

He reported no holdings in Navios Maritime Partners LP (NYSE:NMM) ; he had reported holding 600,000 shares, or 5.71%, in November 2007.

He also reported cutting his stake in Radware Ltd. (NASDAQ:RDWR) to 46,265 shares from 78,817 shares, and cutting his stake in Wind River Systems Inc. (WIND) to 166,666 shares, or 0.22%, from 3.22 million shares, or 4.13%.

 

[Dotini]

Very interesting.

A few things to remember:

The US is the world's foremost exporter of guns and armaments, and Obama is our salesman. Perhaps he enjoy his monopoly.

Oil is fungible and the production and sale of it anywhere improves the availability and price of it everywhere.

The strong do as they will and the weak suffer what they must.


Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[FoolKiller]

How do you think that access is going to be provided? By people voluntarily providing enough funding out of the goodness of their hearts?

This shows a complete and total lack of understanding of how a free market works. With the majority of the population not being rich it means that the lower incomes must be catered to for industry to survive. In fact, some of the most successful companies are the ones that cater to the low and middle classes. See Walmart.

Of course, if you cared about people's well-being you would be concerned about food and shelter first and foremost. But we don't because many churches and charitable organizations have shelters and soup kitchens. So, to answer your second question: Yes.

People have the right to 'give a gift' and use their salary as they choose, after an amount has been taken to ensure that the society they live in continues to function well and fairly.

What is fair about taking one man's production and giving it to another? You do realize that US (as well as other capitalism based systems) society has seen many people go from being poor to being rich? People write books and make movies about it. But the key to it is that those individuals had to try and had to work for it, and they had to find something they could do to become that valuable to society as a whole.



And now for some Obama stuff. I'm not sure if anyone watches John Stossel, but his episode on Crony Capitalism was very telling, particularly the part about the Stimulus. They don't just point out Obama though. Later he goes into many other issues, including similar Bush deals with the steel industry.

 

[Joey D]

Relying on charity seems like wishful thinking, especially since just about all charities now have seen a downturn in their donations and an upturn in the amount of people they are helping. I'm not necessarily saying government funding is the answer, but saying charities will pick up the pieces from a mess that a lot of people helped create is a bit of a perfect world scenario.

 

[FoolKiller]

Relying on charity seems like wishful thinking, especially since just about all charities now have seen a downturn in their donations and an upturn in the amount of people they are helping. I'm not necessarily saying government funding is the answer, but saying charities will pick up the pieces from a mess that a lot of people helped create is a bit of a perfect world scenario.

An economic downturn will unbalance any system. Nothing can fix that. You must avoid relying heavily on a government system as it can only increase funding by harming even more people. Charity can adjust who they contact in order to seek aid from and any boost in aid they receive would be what individuals can afford to spend.

If people were so concerned about sick and starving US citizens I have to ask where my text to donate for them is. Looking at what has been donated from private donations to Haiti I wonder if these people Vasco mentions would ever suffer under were their needs addressed with the proper media attention. What if, instead of a ton of people saying, "government fix it" they said, "please help these people in need."

 

[Joey D]

An economic downturn will unbalance any system. Nothing can fix that. You must avoid relying heavily on a government system as it can only increase funding by harming even more people. Charity can adjust who they contact in order to seek aid from and any boost in aid they receive would be what individuals can afford to spend.

I still think it's wishful thinking and I don't understand why it's bad for the government to step in and help its people. Honestly I'd rather my tax dollars go towards helping US citizens rather then helping people in say, Africa or Haiti. It's not that I want to shun these people, it's just providing international relief seems a be pointless when it would be better spent here at home.

Allow charities to do the work outside the country and let them help out with people here to help offset the money the government would give. It's charity and they should be allowed to give the money where they see fit.

 

[FoolKiller]

I still think it's wishful thinking

Ignoring my second paragraph. We don't even try.

and I don't understand why it's bad for the government to step in and help its people.

Because it is an unpredictable, thus unbudgetable expense, and so the very nature means that you must assume it is at least partially deficit spending. This means that you pass the cost of that aid on to future generations.

Your tax dollars today are already budgeted for something, so in the event of something like an economic collapse or local disaster they aren't going toward any of it.

Allow charities to do the work outside the country

That sounds like wishful thinking.

 

[Joey D]

Because it is an unpredictable, thus unbudgetable expense, and so the very nature means that you must assume it is at least partially deficit spending. This means that you pass the cost of that aid on to future generations.

Your tax dollars today are already budgeted for something, so in the event of something like an economic collapse or local disaster they aren't going toward any of it.

My tax dollars are going to help people over seas, what's the difference? I'm suggesting we stop that and give aid to our own people. Wishful thinking, yes, but it makes more sense then giving our money away internationally.

That sounds like wishful thinking.

Allow != Force, it's a private charity, they can do what they like with the money. If they chose to spend it outside the country more power to them.

 

[YSSMAN]

My tax dollars are going to help people over seas, what's the difference? I'm suggesting we stop that and give aid to our own people. Wishful thinking, yes, but it makes more sense then giving our money away internationally.

Joe, I think you and I exist in a special, magical place called "Michigan" where the normal laws of politics and ideology don't apply.

 

[FoolKiller]

My tax dollars are going to help people over seas, what's the difference? I'm suggesting we stop that and give aid to our own people. Wishful thinking, yes, but it makes more sense then giving our money away internationally.

I prefer not being forced to give my money away to anyone.

Allow != Force, it's a private charity, they can do what they like with the money. If they chose to spend it outside the country more power to them.

I was simply trying to humorously point out that you are suggesting that expecting charity to support a fraction of the population of a relatively very well off country is wishful thinking, but then suggested we only use charity when giving aid to multiple third-world countries where a huge majority of the population struggles with malnutrition.


My point is that if the Lexington, KY region alone can raise over $525,000 for Haiti in just a few hours during a telethon because John Wall might answer the phone, that same tactic could easily be used to fund the charities that aid US citizens. But when you look at Coach Calipari's Calipari Family Foundation For Children (scroll down and click on Cal's charities) you can see that in the time he has been at UK (since last spring) he has barely broken $100,000. What if he had a telethon with his players answer the phone for that?

Don't think it would be the same? So, what about another regional charity that holds an annual telethon, trotting out local celebrities, WHAS Crusade for Children. And when they say local celebrities, they refer more to people like firefighters and TV news anchors than future NBA stars. In 2009 they raised $5,289,841. Their own Web site estimates that they alone fund 1 out of 3 children needing their help. Just imagine if Coach Calipari brought his players in the way he did for Haiti. Better yet, imagine if we were a rich state.

 

[Joey D]

Joe, I think you and I exist in a special, magical place called "Michigan" where the normal laws of politics and ideology don't apply.

Ya I suppose you are right.

I prefer not being forced to give my money away to anyone.

I don't want to be forced to give my money to anything either. When I look at where my tax dollars go it boggles my mind. I don't want to pay for space exploration, I don't want to pay to be buddy's with Israel, I don't want to pay for a lot of things. But I have to and it's not going to change. Like I said it's wishful thinking to think this will somehow change. So instead of fighting to get rid of it, it might be better to try to curve the spending to favour our own country instead of others.

This is where Libertarian ideals fall short with me and why I can no longer endorse or support a candidate from that party.

I was simply trying to humorously point out that you are suggesting that expecting charity to support a fraction of the population of a relatively very well off country is wishful thinking, but then suggested we only use charity when giving aid to multiple third-world countries where a huge majority of the population struggles with malnutrition.

This is going to make me sound like a dick, but why is it the US government's problem that other countries aren't well off? If the US government is going to spend money on those who are having a rough go of it, and they are, you and I both know it, I'd prefer them to focus on our own citizens.

I'm a bit two sided with the thing in Haiti. I don't like human suffering but on the same token I don't want to donate to the relief effort for a bunch of reasons. The only reason I think Haiti relief has raised so much money is because it's the flavour of the week. It's the cool thing to do right now to make yourself feel like you aren't a d-bag. Combine that with the media attention and celebrity attention and you have an instant whambangboozal.

Get Bono and Jay-Z to sing about the hungry in America or whatever and then have the media sensationalize it and you'll see money pour in.

This is where I get tripped up on our economic system though, America is one of, if not the, richest country in the world. We shouldn't have hungry, homeless, whatever. To me the distribution of wealth in America is screwy and I just see things getting further and further apart leaving middle class people screwed and glued. Not much we can do about that though and that's possibly another conversation for another day.

 

[FoolKiller]

This is where Libertarian ideals fall short with me and why I can no longer endorse or support a candidate from that party.

So, because you don't see change as possible you don't want your vote to show you support change? Want to guess why it is not possible?

This is going to make me sound like a dick, but why is it the US government's problem that other countries aren't well off?

Sounds reasonable to me, which is why I also ask why I am responsible when someone in the US isn't well off.

If the US government is going to spend money on those who are having a rough go of it, and they are, you and I both know it, I'd prefer them to focus on our own citizens.

I know it, but I won't sit idly by and take the lesser of two evils option. If I call it evil, even a lesser evil, I still don't like it and refuse to support it.

The only reason I think Haiti relief has raised so much money is because it's the flavour of the week.

So the example I gave of the local Kentucky charity that raises over $5 million a year from one telethon is what?

This is where I get tripped up on our economic system though, America is one of, if not the, richest country in the world. We shouldn't have hungry, homeless, whatever.

Why? I could lay out raw ingredients in a kitchen and bring in the poor and tell them to cook their own meal. Some of them won't know how, nor want to try. Some will be unable to work the utensils due to some misfortune. At the end of it, despite having everything they need to eat right in front of them some will leave hungry. No amount of fairness and wealth will end poverty. To think any system can is wishful thinking.

To me the distribution of wealth in America is screwy and I just see things getting further and further apart leaving middle class people screwed and glued. Not much we can do about that though and that's possibly another conversation for another day.

The more successful an economy the larger the divide between top and bottom. But that is because you will always have someone with zero and a growing economy just means the guy at the top (the actual guy changes frequently) will continue to have more. There is nothing screwy about it.

It is like saying the difference in the height between the top of a tree and the roots keeps growing and it is screwy. But that is just how growth works. Anything else and it isn't growth.

 

[Joey D]

So, because you don't see change as possible you don't want your vote to show you support change? Want to guess why it is not possible?

Someone who is more focused on what isn't possible seems like a dreamer. To me Libertarians want this idealistic, utopian society and that's not possible. It's good to dream but even if a Libertarian were elected there would be so much stonewalling from Democrats and Republicans they wouldn't get anywhere.

I suppose I'm a realist, I see how things are and I know they aren't going to change so I'll just support whoever in the established way of things can attempt to make a small difference...which is no one. I'm seriously considering giving up voting because I no longer care.

Sounds reasonable to me, which is why I also ask why I am responsible when someone in the US isn't well off.

It makes the country as a whole better. An attitude of just looking out for oneself got us into this whole economic mess with heads of corporations being greedy and no one was able to stop them and those that could didn't care because they were making gobs of money too.

So the example I gave of the local Kentucky charity that raises over $5 million a year from one telethon is what?

$5 million a year isn't much and it's probably the same major group of people every year donating. I don't know how much has been raised for Haiti but $9.4 million was raised just by Bono and Jay-Z rocking/rapping out.

Why? I could lay out raw ingredients in a kitchen and bring in the poor and tell them to cook their own meal. Some of them won't know how, nor want to try. Some will be unable to work the utensils due to some misfortune. At the end of it, despite having everything they need to eat right in front of them some will leave hungry. No amount of fairness and wealth will end poverty. To think any system can is wishful thinking.

If our economic system ran like it should, everyone should be able to provide for themselves. Granted some don't wish to, and that is there problem, they shouldn't be a drain on society. What I'm talking about though is the people who attempt to contribute to society but still can't make it. There is no way to change it I know, and I agree it isn't realistic. I'm more just wondering out loud...as much as one can be loud through text.

Greed is the major kink in capitalism, just like it's a kink in socialism. They are both screwed up in my opinion and only work under ideal conditions.

The more successful an economy the larger the divide between top and bottom. But that is because you will always have someone with zero and a growing economy just means the guy at the top (the actual guy changes frequently) will continue to have more. There is nothing screwy about it.

It is like saying the difference in the height between the top of a tree and the roots keeps growing and it is screwy. But that is just how growth works. Anything else and it isn't growth.

So we should just say 🤬 the people who have zero? That's what I don't get. To me everyone should have the basics, obviously those who work harder and smart deserve luxuries. If I was born to a poor family in the middle of the sticks I have pretty much a zero chance of ever raising my class level without a huge stroke of luck. That's my issue with the whole thing. Like I said though, it's not possible to change, just thinking out loud.

 

[FoolKiller]

It makes the country as a whole better. An attitude of just looking out for oneself got us into this whole economic mess with heads of corporations being greedy and no one was able to stop them and those that could didn't care because they were making gobs of money too.

Global economy. Helping struggling nations makes the globe as a whole better. Anything you can say about the US economy applies globally in this day and age of globalization. I don't support handouts. I'm just pointing out the flaw in your argument.

And comparing what kind of crony policies led to the banking situation to what I am looking for is completely off the mark.

$5 million a year isn't much and it's probably the same major group of people every year donating. I don't know how much has been raised for Haiti but $9.4 million was raised just by Bono and Jay-Z rocking/rapping out.

$5 million for one state on a telethon held in one market, vs a nationally televised telethon featuring world famous superstars sounds like a lot to me. Especially when that one alone handles 1/3 of the necessary children' cases in said state.

If our economic system ran like it should, everyone should be able to provide for themselves. Granted some don't wish to, and that is there problem, they shouldn't be a drain on society. What I'm talking about though is the people who attempt to contribute to society but still can't make it.

Not all men have equal ability and skills. It is a harsh lesson of life. If I make a wing ding, but it sucks I should fail. To say I should succeed simply because I tried is a quick way to lead to a world that looks like Idiocracy. On the other hand, if I make the best Wing ding there is then I should become Wing Ding King, unless I do something to anger my customers, like charge too much.

So we should just say 🤬 the people who have zero? That's what I don't get. To me everyone should have the basics, obviously those who work harder and smart deserve luxuries.

But no one talks about the basics: food, water, shelter.

If I was born to a poor family in the middle of the sticks I have pretty much a zero chance of ever raising my class level without a huge stroke of luck. That's my issue with the whole thing. Like I said though, it's not possible to change, just thinking out loud.

I know from personal experience that this is wrong. I seriously believe that anyone that thinks no one can move out of poverty hasn't really seen someone try to get out of poverty. Granted, there is a local expectation of failure to overcome, but that has nothing to do with the overall society.

But if someone will be bullied into not trying and has no desire to leave where they grew up to find an area with better prospects then I cannot help them.

 

[Joey D]

It's obvious that our difference in opinion isn't going to change, so I'm prepared to leave it instead of just going back and forth on it. I understand what you are saying and to a degree I can even agree with it. It's just something I have an issue with, this alienating a specific group. I suppose its just human nature though, to look out for ones self.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not a libertarian out of self interest. I was a libertarian when i was making near minimum wage and barely covering rent and food. I'm a libertarian because I recognize what is broken in our current system and how to fix it.

 

[Tornado]

I know that this thread is serious business:

On the other hand, if I make the best Wing ding there is then I should become Wing Ding King

But I just found that statement to be hilarious for some reason.

 

[Dotini]

I'm a libertarian because I recognize what is broken in our current system and how to fix it.

I live in an overwhelmingly liberal city and I vote Libertarian because my vote makes no difference and I'm free to vote my conscience. But I'm under no illusion that Libertarians will ever be voted into office at any level and will therefore never be in a position to fix anything. Sad, but true.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Keef]

I suppose I'm a realist...

You're not a realist. You simply don't care. You refuse to support an idea and chalk it up to "wishful thinking" despite your belief that it's a great idea. If you didn't think it was a great idea you wouldn't call it wishful thinking. Funny thing is, if everyone like you actually supported this wish it wouldn't be far out there at all. It would become the mainstream.

But you wake up, go to work, and come home too exhausted to give a crap. It's okay, I do it too. I haven't even laid out my clean sheets yet tonight. But at least I care on the weekends, man. Gotta start somewhere.

*Michigan stereotype warning*

Maybe this crazy situation your state has gotten itself into will make all those lazy union workers realize that the free ride is over. Bitch and complain all you want, but at least make sure somebody is listening when you do it. The word will eventually spread to somebody who cares. They'll do something about it, and probably become rich in the process.

 

[Famine]

So. Our news channels are reporting a statement from Obama where he says he'd rather be "a really good president" than re-elected for a second term.


I wonder if he's aware that these aren't the only two options.

 

[Vasco]

This shows a complete and total lack of understanding of how a free market works. With the majority of the population not being rich it means that the lower incomes must be catered to for industry to survive. In fact, some of the most successful companies are the ones that cater to the low and middle classes. See Walmart.

Of course, if you cared about people's well-being you would be concerned about food and shelter first and foremost. But we don't because many churches and charitable organizations have shelters and soup kitchens. So, to answer your second question: Yes.

Are you serious? Do you think that if there is a huge gap between rich and poor that businesses will give a **** about the poor? When you are a business, what are you aiming to do? Answer: Make a profit. If target 1% of the population can make you more (off less sales) than targeting the other 99%, what would you do as a business owner? And what makes you such an authoritative figure on the free market and how the economy works? I assume you have some sort of degree in business or economics at the least.

Lower income earners won't need to be catered to, they can just be ignored because they simply aren't profitable (e.g. what happens at the moment).

There exists opportunities for certain companies (Wal-Mart) which focus on low margins and high sales, but if people start having lower disposable incomes their margins become even smaller and potentially negative.

What is fair about taking one man's production and giving it to another? You do realize that US (as well as other capitalism based systems) society has seen many people go from being poor to being rich? People write books and make movies about it. But the key to it is that those individuals had to try and had to work for it, and they had to find something they could do to become that valuable to society as a whole.

What is your definition of many? I would argue the vast majority of poor people would tend to stay poor under a regime without access to certain standards of free education and healthcare, which are believe it or not provided by the totally evil government. I appreciate that people (including me) are greedy, but do you not feel an ounce of social responsibility in your body? A responsibility to give back to the country that has given you so much?