Political Discussion thread (Possibly new forum?)

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

Oh no...it was political from the first as I could not hold back my anger towards the idiots in Washington. I did move that thread though and maybe it will bring people to this forum that use the home screen rather than the forum main page like I do. I am too frustrated right now to deal with all the crap in my life plus politics. I'll get back to it in another week when I am done with finals.

 

[patmckinneyracing]

Same here, I'm getting ready for the Calculus AP exams. I love discussing politics with intelligent people who are well informed about what goes on in this government instead of complaining about something they don't understand or looking for handouts from the government.

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

Yeah, I need to do well on this test as it will help determine if I can transfer to USF this fall.

 

[GP403]

Yeah, I set up the "Off Topic Stuff" forum since the political stuff was overshadowing the car-related stuff on the homepage, and folks were starting to gripe. Seeing as how the root of the Pontiac thread was related to Pontiac, and (ergo dim sum) cars I left it there.

The General Discussion forum was set up for this kind of thing originally, but the site's gotten a little bigger since then 😀 When I do the upgrade and redesign (probably sometime in 2025 or so 😳 ) I'll probably do some consolidation..... last post by me in this thread! 😀

 

[CaStylin]

To contine from page 5 of the "fair well ponitaic" tread that we have de-railed so badly

At 24 I believe my self to be self made

you claim that but yet you think it's right for Obama to take your money to give to others with you having no say in what he does with your money....you don't see a contradiction in there...do ya?...

funny how when I attack Obama's policies you take that as a personal attack....

you fail to consider any of the links and claim they are fiction and you think I should give your responses consideration?...you really need to inform yourself and open your eyes to the real world...

Contradiction - a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous. So I’m guessing you have the logic that if I could do it every one should be able to do it. You neglect to quote the “for the most part” comment that is mentioned because it does not suit your argumentative needs. I personally still do consider my self made (for the most part) and I don’t mind him putting more money (even if it’s my money) in to health care or schools... I grew up in a dirt poor school, 40 kids per teacher, no books, out dated CPU’s and a concrete playground. I was shocked when i moved to the suburbs how good they had it... I was lucky to be able to leave my area when I did but most aren’t and people shouldn’t have to uproot their families to get equal education so no, there is not contradiction in beliefs or in the definition of terms used.

And i don’t your attacks towards Obama personal (again he is just another politician to me) it’s when you out right direct them toward me in phases like "you are scared of the truth" or " you should read more" or “your savor” that I consider personal attacks… if they to be directed towards me then the term “you” has been used out of context

I read and or watched your links and posted my opinion, just as i said before a few are good reads but some have 0 to do with Obama but you have decided to post them as poof things Obama is currently doing :?, yet you stick to your guns an assist the he has a major role in it. What else would you like me to do with them? Take personal opinion as fact, that’s not sound judgment by any means, blame Obama of a single senator has proposed and never included Obamas name in?... Let’s get past the name calling and get to the meat of the issues... As a nation we should always hold people whither top politician or Joe Smo accountable for their direct actions, but tiring to tie anything that fits on the out most scale is ridicules in its most sensible form

 

[srercrcr]

From US New & World Report...

Keeping the government in deficit is exactly what Reagan did. Despite his years of lip service to balancing the budget, total spending had climbed almost 16 percent by the time he left office, dwarfing the Carter budgets he had once criticized. Revenues, limited by Reagan's tax cuts, were never able to keep pace. The result was a spiraling national debt that nearly tripled during his two terms, hitting $2.7 trillion.

there is a simple explanation for these growing deficits: Reagan's tax cuts simply did not do what supply-side economists said they would do. Because the cuts didn't substantively increase tax revenues, they didn't allow Reagan to shrink the deficit. And what about decreasing the size of government by choking off spending? "The 'starving the beast' hypothesis is understandably popular among politicians--that you can have tax cuts without a deficit increase--but it's just empirically wrong

Fiscal irresponsibility, many historians believe, may be Reagan's real legacy. "The combination of large military spending, large tax cuts, and ultimately a failure to control most domestic spending led to a fiscal straitjacket by the end of the decade.

 

[CaStylin]

^^^^^
Link please... It would be nice to see what point the artical is trying to make with the quote that have been taken :lol:

 

[KrisW]

US News and World Report is just another communist rag that is declining in circulation.

Reagan was RIGHT about his tax cuts. Let's talk deficit and then we'll take on the tax cuts real affect on the overall economy; a 20-year plus net boom.

The reason that the deficit got worse; SPENDING GOT WORSE. You can blame the right for defense spending or the left for communist entitlement spending but it all equals the same thing. Spending increased. It needed to be cut. If we would have cut all of the social entitlement spending that was meant to rival the Soviets we could have done much better with the deficit.

As it turns out, the deficit didn't hurt our economy one bit during Reagan's term. What DID happen was that as a result of his tax cuts the economy got stimulated and moving again. Jobs were created and Americans had more money to spend.

I know every single member of my family did better under Reagan than Carter. Every single one. Even the cry babies who support the commie democrats.

Under Clinton the only reason we got a balanced budget was because of Newt Gingrich and John Kasich. Clinton got credit but in reality he only signed it because he was over a barrel. The government shutdown would have continued until he signed the republican budget.

Oh, and I'm sorry that you had to move away from the inner city to the suburbs to find out that the schools are better and the grass is greener. The fact that you did it shows that you are willing to do what it takes to succeed. Until the inner cities are centers of peace and productivity, this is what is required to succeed. Taking away my money to give it to people in the inner city will not make them successful. Getting them out of a bad situation will. Moving is the answer. They need to move away and go somewhere else where there are values on display and in use daily.

 

[CaStylin]

I agreed with most of what you said until this

Oh, and I'm sorry that you had to move away from the inner city to the suburbs to find out that the schools are better and the grass is greener. The fact that you did it shows that you are willing to do what it takes to succeed. Until the inner cities are centers of peace and productivity, this is what is required to succeed. Taking away my money to give it to people in the inner city will not make them successful. Getting them out of a bad situation will. Moving is the answer. They need to move away and go somewhere else where there are values on display and in use daily.

There was no change in the values of those around me, actully the commitment to people to regulary attend chuch decreased a lot. Over all the children where the same as many of those in Oakland (completing the F-A grade spectrum in school and the deviance sprectrum in the area), it was the education that was received in the new school that allowed for greater enrichment. In my school in Oakland I was a top student, moving to the suburbs I was of average knowledge... no fault of mine but the lacking of the educational establishment due the lack of proper educational supplies and funding for teachers. The opportunity to move was an opportunity I believe truly based in luck, a company restructure which gave funding to move to keep employment with the company… even with all the hard work from my parents it not one that was accomplished in one, two, or even three generations... it should not take uprooting to obtain equal opportunity because it is not the Childs fault for their circumstances... you can not build a skyscraper on pebbles no matter how you stack them... pebbles is what I was getting in Oakland… cement is what the suburbs handed out on a golden platter. I would rather every one got concrete then some with pebbles and some with concrete even if it cost me more or gave the highest schools less

 

[KrisW]

Well, your argument does have an end, it seems.

We will have to disagree about this to the end of time. You feel it is better to go with communism and I am absolutely against it.

You feel that it is better to "spread the wealth" and I don't.

All I can do is give you the facts. If you choose to ignore them, or hope or wish for something better to happen when the same failed policies are applied, then so be it. There is nothing else I can do. Except fight you for my right to keep my money.

I will fight to the end for that.

The truth is that I don't care about "fair" or "equality" in the way that you think they mean. Your version of "fair" is Vladimir Lenin's version. It failed with him. I don't like that version at all. Taking from those that have and giving to those that have not has failed every place it has been done.

The fairness that America gives is the right of every American to be allowed to try as hard as they can to move up the ladder. That is the only fairness I am interested in.

Is it my fault that 3 generations of your family stayed poor in Oakland? No. Is it my fault that you were able to overcome it? No, again. It doesn't have anything to do with ME at all. So why does MY money need to be used to fix these situations?

I was poor growing up. I decided not to be poor when I was older. I joined the military and then I got out with absolutely nothing. I was homeless. I found people to help and I went with them for a while. I climbed up the ladder a little at a time. Will I be a millionaire before I am done on earth? Probably not. How much public assistance did I use? NONE.

Not unless you count military slavery as public assistance.

I'm sorry the world is not fair. Instead of trying to force everyone into communist "fairness," how about suggesting to people how they can move someplace else and change their lives?

Concrete and pebbles? I don't buy it. How about this one; If your boat is sinking and you have the chance to grab a rope and go to a better boat that is not sinking, do you go? Is it fair that your crappy boat is sinking? No. Can you fix it without tools and parts? No. Is it better to force the people in the good boat to fix yours so that it won't sink just to be "fair?" I don't think so. Take the help they are offering and go into their boat. When you reach land, work and get yourself your own boat and try again.

Sometimes you have to abandon ship and let the old boat sink.