Who Else is Getting REAL Tired of the US Gov't?

LotsOfZeros said:
It's pretty bad when Obama the super-intelligent savior of the universe has a 6 month approval rating lower than what Bush had after bumbling through his first 6 months.
Click to expand...

Bush inherited the lowest unemployment in around 30 years. Clinton's approval rating was around 65% before Bush took over, while Bush's was around 35% before Obama took over. Obama got stuck with high unemployment just like Clinton did taking over for H.W. Bush.

clinton-og-bush-sto_196968c.jpg
 


subigo said:
How do you keep someone in the Senate who has never been a Senator?
Click to expand...


Sorry, policeman of government titles. I meant to say "congressman"

Thats what a bowl and a 12 pack will do to you.

Either way: keep your liberal, racist, marxist idealogy out of my fuckin life! If you continue to push your racist, marxist agenda upon me, you will find that you are wisked out of office on a rail.
 
popeye said:
Sorry, policeman of government titles. I meant to say "congressman"

Thats what a bowl and a 12 pack will do to you.

Either way: keep your liberal, racist, marxist idealogy out of my fuckin life! If you continue to push your racist, marxist agenda upon me, you will find that you are wisked out of office on a rail.
Click to expand...

He's not a congressman either.
 
stoxup said:
Donate to campaigns such as Rand Paul's Senate campaign and others.

Rand Paul 2010 | U.S. Senate|
Click to expand...
Maybe instead of wasting money on funding politicians' expensive campaigns, people actually donated money to causes that took care of actual problems? How many millions of dollars were donated to Obama, McCain, Paul, Kucininich (not much apparently), Palin, Clinton, Edwards, and other politicians during the past election cycle? What a waste of money! More than $1.5 Billion was donated to all presidential hopefuls, with $900 million of that eventually going to Obama or McCain. $1.5 Billion (Excluding PACs such as MoveOn, SwiftBoaters, etc.).

If the election system simply provided equal time to each candidate, and prohibited insane advertising expenditures, maybe there would be some money left over to tackle the real problems. I don't care if there are public matching funding laws or not - Candidates should be forced to abide by spending restrictions, and lobbyists should be banned. Return the power in politics to individuals.

There's no simple solution to the multitude of problems facing the USA right now. Both parties have major flaws, and the current system can not efficiently continue as is. Ron Paul is not the answer, Republcans are not the answer, Democrats are not the answer, health care reform on either side is not the answer. The system is so deeply flawed that nothing is effective.

How about instead of donating to campaigns, people here save their money for Affiliate Summit and hold some nice parties?
 
BigWill said:
You ALWAYS have a choice. You can do whatever you want, be whatever you want. They simply choose not to be something great, not to be a better person, or even a decent person. Its THEIR fault and nobody else's. They DO suck at life. Its their fault they did not acquire any extra skills/knowledge than the bare minimum to get by, its not anyone else's.
Nor should it be anyone else's problem. If this system didn't exist maybe they would make the effort. Instead of thinkimg "oh well, i'll just get on unemployement/welfare". "I can trade in my car that I got for 500 bucks and get 500k", "on top of that the gov is giving me $500 for free". All paid for by REAL americans, not mooching losers.
Click to expand...

Must suck to live in your small world, you don't know shit about life...get out sometime...

Arrogant bitch....
 
Clinton's was similar for that time period :
File:Clinton approval rating.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LotsOfZeros said:
Read it and weep.
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports
Notice a trend here?
Click to expand...

The already bad unemployment rate has gone up on a similar trend. If Jesus Christ took over a bad economy and it stayed bad or got worse, his approval ratings would go down also. Reagan's approval rating bottomed out a few years into his term when unemployment reached its highest point of his term.

Interestingly though, is this also from today on that site :
Consumer Confidence Reaches Highest Level in 11 Months
 
Everyone talks about how idiotic your average American is, and then they go to the dumbest thing ever created which are the inconsistent "popularity" polls. Who do you think they are asking this question? John HIGH IQ? No, they are asking Joe Schmoe who is a fucking moron.

I voted for Obama, however I have always been against the stimulus bill because first of all I know it would be wasted on some ridiculous things that would give the sheeple of the right more fodder than necessary.

The cash for clunkers program is ok, yet, then I realized I don't trust the credit industry, and they are probably giving credit to people who shouldn't really be driving at all.

I pay a shit-load of taxes. I live in the US AND I live in Washington, one of the most taxed states in the union for business. However, I guess I can't blame them, they give all the tax breaks to Boeing (who strikes every chance they get) and Microsoft (who imports any kind of well paid work) and they have to make it up with us "little" guys. Oh yes, I also live in Seattle which means that I pay a tax for breathing too much.

What most people don't realize is that our economic system has been broken for years and well before Bush. It started with Reagan, and Clinton didn't do anything to stop it. We had changed the system after the great depression to insure that there would be no repeat. Yes, our economy goes in cycles, but only lately has it been going in ridiculous swings.

Yes, we are in a depression. Bush didn't know what to do about it. Obama is trying the only way that makes sense to him. I don't mind it. I'm going to pay a fuck load of taxes, and to be honest, if it's not going in my pocket, I don't like what it's being spent on. So, I don't watch FOX News where they show every possible negative thing about this president.

Do I think Obama is doing a good job? Tell you the truth, I don't give a fuck. No nuclear bombs have gone off, we aren't in a war with Iran or N. Korea, and no one has burned a cross in my front lawn.

My bank account will still be better off than most, and I'll pay to make sure it stays that way.
 
I like have everyone bitches about how the Cash for Clunkers program is terrible... until they go out and buy a new car. My dad bitched about it for the past month and then this weekend he decides to go get a new card (and trade in one of his 12 others)...

When I asked him if he took part in that "evil liberal clunkers program", he replied: "Of course, I'd be stupid not to."

lol
 
subigo said:
I like have everyone bitches about how the Cash for Clunkers program is terrible... until they go out and buy a new car. My dad bitched about it for the past month and then this weekend he decides to go get a new card (and trade in one of his 12 others)...

When I asked him if he took part in that "evil liberal clunkers program", he replied: "Of course, I'd be stupid not to."

lol
Click to expand...
...doing things in your self-interest, even if they're stupid and near-criminal in the case of "cash for clunkers" is hardly a justification for NOT thinking its terrible. It is terrible. If I were to buy a new car in the US, I'd take advantage of it too.
 
Moxie said:
Interestingly though, is this also from today on that site :
Consumer Confidence Reaches Highest Level in 11 Months
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. I agree, polls are questionable, but I read to the bottom of the page you linked, and found this:

The Rasmussen Consumer Index reached its highest level ever at 127.0 on January 6, 2004. The all-time low was reached on March 10, 2009 at 54.7.

The Rasmussen Investor Index reached its highest level ever at 150.9 on January 7, 2004. The lowest level ever measured was 52.5 on March 9, 2009.


As the saying goes, "there are lairs, damn lairs and statisticians". That being said, Rasmussen has a solid rep for their polling.
 
ChrisAplin said:
I pay a shit-load of taxes. I live in the US AND I live in Washington, one of the most taxed states in the union for business.
Click to expand...

Washington has no state income tax...

subigo said:
I like have everyone bitches about how the Cash for Clunkers program is terrible... until they go out and buy a new car. My dad bitched about it for the past month and then this weekend he decides to go get a new card (and trade in one of his 12 others)...

When I asked him if he took part in that "evil liberal clunkers program", he replied: "Of course, I'd be stupid not to."

lol
Click to expand...

Just because the government makes a stupid ass move doesn't mean you shouldn't take advantage of it if you can.

If I had a piece of shit car I'd trade it in for cash, I help fund the damn program anyway.
 
Refrozen said:
...doing things in your self-interest, even if they're stupid and near-criminal in the case of "cash for clunkers" is hardly a justification for NOT thinking its terrible. It is terrible. If I were to buy a new car in the US, I'd take advantage of it too.
Click to expand...

SUP3RNOVA said:
Washington has no state income tax...


Just because the government makes a stupid ass move doesn't mean you shouldn't take advantage of it if you can.

If I had a piece of shit car I'd trade it in for cash, I help fund the damn program anyway.
Click to expand...

And these statements are where your arguments against social programs and higher taxes become just words.

There's no difference between taking money from the government for a "clunker" or for food stamps. And I'm willing to bet both of you would complain if you saw a woman buy steak with food stamps, even though it would be her doing it in her own "self-interest" and taking advantage of a "stupid government mistake". Did you know that the average food stamp recipient gets $100 a month? So by accepting money for a clunker you are accepting the same amount of money from the government as someone who has "taken advantage" of the food stamp program for four years.

In the end you are taking money from the government, and in doing so, you are voting with that act that you agree with the program, because it serves you well. So who are you to agree with one program and then disagree with another? Where is the line drawn? Perhaps with your acceptance into said program?

You can bitch about higher taxes and social programs all you want, but your obvious statements for these programs if they are self-serving make you nothing more than an empty voice. If you truly want lower taxes, get off this forum and do something about it. Realize that you are actually the reason for your higher taxes and figure out what you can do about it.

The problem with being a willing-participant in any government program, is someone has to pay for it. Sometimes these programs will benefit you, sometimes they won't. Welcome to a population of 300 million.
 
subigo said:
So by accepting money for a clunker you are accepting the same amount of money from the government as someone who has "taken advantage" of the food stamp program for four years.
Click to expand...

This statement is misleading. The food stamp recipient isn't someone who pays into the system they leach off of so you're comparing apples and oranges, or in this case, productive tax paying citizens vs. deadbeats.
 
LotsOfZeros said:
This statement is misleading. The food stamp recipient isn't someone who pays into the system they leach off of so you're comparing apples and oranges, or in this case, productive tax paying citizens vs. deadbeats.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of food stamp recipients have jobs and pay taxes just like you. They don't make as much money as you, but they pay their taxes on April 15th just like everyone else.

The "deadbeats" that you speak of on the food stamp program are less than 5%. In fact, people without jobs are only approved for a maximum of three months on the program, after three months they are denied if they haven't found a job.

Their taxes are also going towards your (not you specifically, but you know what I mean), $4,500 clunker credit. They are paying for something that you are taking advantage of, while at the same time they would never be able to take part in the program themselves. Because let's face it, anyone making under $1k a month and needing food stamps doesn't have the money to go out and buy a new car.
 
subigo said:
The vast majority of food stamp recipients have jobs and pay taxes just like you. They don't make as much money as you, but they pay their taxes on April 15th just like everyone else.
Click to expand...

Listen, if you pay less than the average amount of taxes, you're a leech. Period. Assuming our definition of leech is "takes more than they give." The entire system is built around this idea, so I'm not going to say its bad or good. Its theft, however, and I don't think anyone can disagree with that. Maybe you think theft is okay. I don't.

And driving on public roads because the government provides them doesn't make my argument for smaller government "just roads" why the heck would participating in a program that would make me better off? Even if its theft. The theft took place in the form of taxes. There's absolutely no reason not to take advantage of social programs while they're there, even if you abhorrently disagree with them, you'd have to be a self-hating moron to not use them

Their taxes are also going towards your (not you specifically, but you know what I mean), $4,500 clunker credit. They are paying for something that you are taking advantage of, while at the same time they would never be able to take part in the program themselves. Because let's face it, anyone making under $1k a month and needing food stamps doesn't have the money to go out and buy a new car.
Click to expand...
And this seems to fundamentally misunderstand allocation of resources... their tiny amount of taxes is nothing compared to what they get back. It makes no difference "where its going" in your mythical even distribution land, if they paid less in taxes than they received in food stamps / other benefits, we wouldn't be making the argument that taxes helped poor people... because they'd actually be hurting poor people, especially when you count overhead.

All that matters is net benefit in and net benefit out if we're talking efficiency, and not the morals of theft.
 
Refrozen said:
Listen, if you pay less than the average amount of taxes, you're a leech. Period. Assuming our definition of leech is "takes more than they give." The entire system is built around this idea, so I'm not going to say its bad or good. Its theft, however, and I don't think anyone can disagree with that. Maybe you think theft is okay. I don't.

And driving on public roads because the government provides them doesn't make my argument for smaller government "just roads" why the heck would participating in a program that would make me better off? Even if its theft. The theft took place in the form of taxes. There's absolutely no reason not to take advantage of social programs while they're there, even if you abhorrently disagree with them, you'd have to be a self-hating moron to not use them

And this seems to fundamentally misunderstand allocation of resources... their tiny amount of taxes is nothing compared to what they get back. It makes no difference "where its going" in your mythical even distribution land, if they paid less in taxes than they received in food stamps / other benefits, we wouldn't be making the argument that taxes helped poor people... because they'd actually be hurting poor people, especially when you count overhead.

All that matters is net benefit in and net benefit out if we're talking efficiency, and not the morals of theft.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that you're blaming the average U.S. citizen when you should be blaming your congressman, senator, etc... basically the entire system. Just because someone partakes in a program, even if they get back more than they pay, doesn't make it theft on their part or illegal. Just talk to the multi-million dollar corporations that get away with paying less than 10% in taxes every year due to loopholes.

By your logic, my brother who made around $28,000 last year (and paid around $2k in taxes), would be a thief if he went out and got a new car under the clunker program. I mean, the $4,500 credit is more than double what he paid last year and I doubt his "clunker" is worth more than $500.

Again, you just seem to be placing the blame in the wrong place. We have 300 million people in the U.S. and this isn't the 1950's anymore. We are a culture of "if you can get it for free, do it". And you seem to have an irrational fear that someone, somewhere, is getting a better deal on something than you are. Even if at the end of the day they go to bed in a broken down trailer and you sleep on silk sheets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom