Not voting is the same as voting for both, or saying "neither".
But that said, I don't think everyone should vote. People that are uninformed on the issues, or don't have a real interest? Why the hell should they pollute the system.
McCain is a cocksucker
- Thread starter Unarmed Gunman
- Start date
- Status
But that said, I don't think everyone should vote. People that are uninformed on the issues, or don't have a real interest? Why the hell should they pollute the system.
Are you kidding? The republicans love a disillusioned "I'm not voting for anyone cause everyone sucks" populous. Not voting is not caring, because only action matters.
You do have a point in your final paragraph, but that would depend on your location. For me, I can get away with voting for whomever I actually want in Texas, as it would take away from the GOP that will still most likely win. However, if Texas happened to be a swing state I would have to vote for the one most likely to win against the Republicans.
<object width="425" height="344"><object width="425" height="344">
</object>
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0u6lCBnRoHQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>
</object>
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0u6lCBnRoHQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>
I agree with you 100%. We don't need the government to take from the rich to give to the poor. The rich can give to the poor on their own. When the government spends tax money on welfare programs, they're often handing it out to people who don't actually need it. However, when a charity or well-off individual gives money, they're so much more likely to spend their money on charities and causes that are in genuine need - because it's their money.
I don't know that I'd say they do more harm than good, but they are broken. What pisses me off is that if each person took the same amount they put into social security and put it into a private account, they'd have millions.
Bullshit.
What kind of account - a savings account at 1%? How does that translate to millions? Or do you expect all citizens to be stock picking geniuses? Stocks don't always go up...
The fact is, many people are functionally retarded. They would not/could not properly manage their own money, which would result in them being poor, sickly and dependent on taxpayers anyway, but without hope.
Having a majority of your citizens sick and begging in the streets would not work out well for anyone. For instance, if I mismanaged my own money and ended up penniless with no hope for the future, I would probably put a gun in your face and take your shit. But if I knew I had a small stipend coming every month I might behave considerably better.
I don't know if you know what the true face of crime looks like, but it isn't pretty. Come visit Detroit, I'll show you around....
Try telling that to the millions of people in the rest of the world who have universal health care, I'm sure they would agree with you.
Yup, if only that were true. Instead they give very little and put it in all the wrong places. Things like cancer and places like Africa get billions but poverty and hunger in our own country go unanswered.
Uhm, excuse me? The US leads the world in charity, and US charitable donations exceed government entitlement spending.
In fact, I bet Americans would give even more if they didn't have to compete with their own government in the charity game.
Again, I reference the Red Cross.
More than half the "charitable" organizations are ran by the same fucks taking your money for medication on the disease they are trying to cure.
The only reason most "rich people" donate is not because they care but because they get a tax break.
Also half the time they do they get something in return.
Don't even bring your toxic socialism near me. You apparently are a businessman who is anti-profit and anti-prosperity.
I on the other hand want to make a shit ton of money, own everything, and claim every MOTHERFUCKING tax break I can, while helping people out.
Whiny socialist bitches that can't make money have never done shit to help someone less fortunate, except endorse the state stealing from the producing class.
And you apparently are anti helping. I am all for making money but when large corporations are raping poor people with over priced drugs and then donating them to others it is bullshit. Why do we pay $100 for a prescription here that cost $1 everywhere else in the world.
It is because of your views of fuck everyone else and I wanna be rich. Money isn't everything. However, society as a whole has made it impossible to function without it.
If we are able to help everyone in our country before going off on some bullshit war we would be better off.
Yeah I know lets buy more vaccinations and circumcisions for people in Africa. Let's donate to programs that support helping 3rd world countries because we are so great. Yet the only industrialized country that does not have universal health-care,The lowest education rate and one of the highest mortality rates.
United States Has Higher Death Rate Than Most Other Countries - Excerpted from State of the WORLD’S MOTHERS 2007 Saving the Lives of Children Under 5 Report by Save The Children 1may2007
Medicaid, SS, and these other forms of what you call Socialism came about out of necessity. People were starving, couldn't afford healthcare in old age, and lost life savings in the Depression.
Prior to the 1930s, these things didn't exist. The government had to step in and solve these problems. That's why work programs like the WPA started (if that wasn't socialism or even communism, I don't know what is).
But my point is that these things came about out of necessity. Charity didn't exactly do the trick.
Prior to the 1930s, these things didn't exist. The government had to step in and solve these problems. That's why work programs like the WPA started (if that wasn't socialism or even communism, I don't know what is).
But my point is that these things came about out of necessity. Charity didn't exactly do the trick.
How so? Why would you make a claim like this when it not only contradicts what I posted previous, but we both know you don't know jack about me personally?
It is bullshit. But we have a fascist system, where government serves the special interests, not the people. How do you think that no one can come in and compete? The government makes it illegal to do so. How is it that natural remedies are hard to come by? Because the FDA limits them. How is it that prices are so high? Because the government socializes their cost for some of the people, which makes it impossibly difficult for anyone to to pay for those same drugs privately.
Where did I say fuck everyone else? I just want socialists to stop stealing from me as I try to get ahead, because they can't carry their own water. Because they think the way to help people is to get government to steal from the producers, instead of becoming charitable producers themselves. It's called being fucking lazy.
Government is the one who hands out billions in foreign aid to these countries every year. I agree with you. At the least, foreign aid should be stopped. Charity starts at home.
That said, foreign aid, foreign subsidies, foreign tax breaks, and a declining education rate all have to with the government. American education was kickass before it was federalized under the Dept. of ED. As you federalize shit, you make it impotent, wasteful and prone to corruption.
Nonsense. This is total bullshit. Grab a history book.
And you know what? It doesn't matter even if you actually believe this progressive New Deal tripe. Because the country is bankrupt on future entitlement spending for these programs (50+ trillion owed). They are going to disappear or the country will collapse into economic chaos.
Government doesn't solve problems. People solve problems.
Are you aware of,
Problem => Reaction => Solution?
You see, first the government creates a problem. Let's say, it inflates the housing market with cheap interest rates and policies that force lenders to lend to people who couldn't get credit otherwise.
Then there is a reaction. The housing market collapses, the economy goes into recession. Stock market falls, and banks start going tits up.
So then the government proposes a solution. It will socialize the losses of firms like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and others (which means taxpayers eat the losses), to "save" the market. But meanwhile, taxpayers don't pay more, the government takes out more debt, which debases the currency, which creates more inflation and VIOLA! Another problem which will cause a reaction and require a solution!
Charity couldn't do the trick during the Depression because between the Smoot-Hawley tariff and government cartelization of industry, the market couldn't correct, and the deep recession got worse and worse. The only way to save it was to confiscate everyone's gold, and start inflating the paper currency to facilitate soviet style infrastructure and work projects.
It's like when people complain now that the free market fails. What free market? There is so much taxation, regulation, licensing, government collision/corruption etc, there is nothing free about the market, so how could that ideal possibly fail?
You know, I live in the Netherlands but I follow the American election closely and this is the first time I see an American make sense in this regard. It seems that most of people are so self absorbed and could care less about one another.
The fact is, these so called socialism things DO work. America is not the only wealthy "free" country. Politicians like to tell you: "only in America", yeah right... The Netherlands is a good example of this. We have all this {put socialism label here} stuff, AND we have always done very well relatively compared to other wealthy nations. So to me all those, "it can't be done" and "it's bad for the economy" arguments are just empty excuses with a base in selfishness or fear.
P.S. I'm not saying the Netherlands is perfect, that's not what this is about. I'm just mentioning it for comparison purposes.
Socialism doesn't work because economically, it can't calculate.
Socialism may work in small nordic nations, although studies have been conducted which question at what expense, however I don't think many Americans are ready to give up their standard of living in order to give everyone insurance.
The real question here is, socialism is a government driven solution. It's a known fact I think we can all universally agree on, that American politicians and politics are totally corrupt. So given that you know that the people who would be creating and driving the system are corrupt, why would anyone endorse it?
Does everyone understand that the system as is, will collapse? No matter how much Obamatastic "yes we can" people chant, the reality is, "no we can't".
YouTube - US Government Immorality Will Lead to Bankruptcy
There is no more money. Socialism always leads to waste, fraud and eventual collapse. It is not sustainable for some people to provide for all people, with the government taking a cut along the way.
Do you even realize that the amount you pay in healthcare now would be less if it was "socialized"? People complain about allowing the govt to place a tax on you for health insurance but you are paying out the ass for it anyway. If the govt was allowed to regulate it they would be able to cut out all the bullshit going on. I mean then hospitals would not be charging $1,000.00 to give a dose of acetaminophen to a patient when they are there. Do you have health insurance that covers you and your family completely in a catostrphic incident. I bet you are capped around 250K if you do. The way these place charge that would get eaten up in like one month.
When I was 19 I went to the hospital and left with 65K in dr bills for less than a week of being there. There are people who deserve to be helped and that means in order to help and get to them you have to help the ones that you feel do not deserve it.
- Status