Obama won!

zoroarkmaster said:
You guys are all just hating on Romney because he's Mormon!
Click to expand...


Kid, I'm pretty sure that 99% of the people in this thread could care less about Romney's religious beliefs. It's the policies that matter.
 
zoroarkmaster said:
You guys are all just hating on Romney because he's Mormon!
Click to expand...

Pretty much. In retrospect, I regret voting for Romney. He would have been extremely counterproductive on all fronts. Obama isn't better by any standard either, but he means well. The problem is that US Government is at odds with itself because Democrats and Republicans refuse to find middle ground, and tangent groups like the Tea Party conservatives only demonstrate that there is so much tension between them.
 
Non Sequitur said:
Teal said:
Non Sequitur, you can't brush away "the greed thing" just by calling it "the greed card". It's not just a "card" when it's the truth.

The fact that you don't care that socialism works just shows how narrow minded you are being, this kind of socialism it's NOTHING like communism and contrary to your fantasies, it doesn't lead to communism (the most "communist" party in Finland has ZERO seats in the parliament and thus it has been disbanded again [2011] until the next election where it will obviously be disbanded again for the fourth time xP) and please show me how people are dying in Finland because they get the chance to live a life worth living no matter if they are from a wealthy family or not. And no, an unemployed person does not get as much money as someone with a job. I don't know what your fantasies about work are, but there are loads of easy jobs that are not stressing and which almost nobody who actually tries them would mind doing for the "big extra money". Also if you are unemployed you have to constantly search for a job or educate yourself in order to get that money. The only "problem" are those jobs which pay minimum wages, but apparently someone does these jobs too as these companies can afford to pay so little money so there!

Finland's unemployment rate was 7,8% in 2011 (USA: 8,9%).

This is a bad way to think... "pay for him". If I worked really hard and all I would get like 5 000€ a month and he gets like 700€, and even if he was stupid I do think that he deserves to live a humane life. Also, you can totally not generalize that unemployed people are "class clowns" or other people like that.

I hope you wake up one day, look in the mirror and say "good morning".
Click to expand...

Socialism works slightly better in Scandinavian countries like Finland, I admit (that is, if the debt doesn't slowly go over from too many government handouts). However, it is a known fact that it will not work in countries like the US and has not worked in the past in larger European countries. Why?

If an American has the choice to work and make $45,000 a year or not work and make $45,000 a year, they'll likely sit on their ass and not work. However, if a hardworking Swedish or Finnish person has that choice (in Euros, of course) then they will choose working. This is why socialist policies work somewhat well over in your part of the world.

So basically, depending on the country, slight socialist policies may work if correctly put into play.

For America (and countries similar), however, I believe the only things the government should do anything with are police/safety and food/air/water protection. Most anything else like mail services work better with private corporations. The government needs to stay out of everything.

Maybe that helped clear things up. You're still wrong about the greed thing, though. It is just a card because it's not the truth. Your definition of greed is wanting to get a reward for working. In America, without socialism, people can elect to lend each other money without being forced to hand over their earnings by the government. It's not like all rich business owners are evil, either. That's a horrible way to view this. Many of them donate to worthy causes and to the poor. They also HIRE people. They create JOBS. Look at Bill Gates. He's the philanthropist of the century and look at what he did and the global impact it had!
Click to expand...

What if some guy was laid off?

And he can't find another job?

And he's starving?

And eating out of dumpsters?

And all of a sudden, a socialist program grants him the money to survive untill he can get employed?

What then?
 
Charganium the Bold said:
Non Sequitur said:
Socialism works slightly better in Scandinavian countries like Finland, I admit (that is, if the debt doesn't slowly go over from too many government handouts). However, it is a known fact that it will not work in countries like the US and has not worked in the past in larger European countries. Why?

If an American has the choice to work and make $45,000 a year or not work and make $45,000 a year, they'll likely sit on their ass and not work. However, if a hardworking Swedish or Finnish person has that choice (in Euros, of course) then they will choose working. This is why socialist policies work somewhat well over in your part of the world.

So basically, depending on the country, slight socialist policies may work if correctly put into play.

For America (and countries similar), however, I believe the only things the government should do anything with are police/safety and food/air/water protection. Most anything else like mail services work better with private corporations. The government needs to stay out of everything.

Maybe that helped clear things up. You're still wrong about the greed thing, though. It is just a card because it's not the truth. Your definition of greed is wanting to get a reward for working. In America, without socialism, people can elect to lend each other money without being forced to hand over their earnings by the government. It's not like all rich business owners are evil, either. That's a horrible way to view this. Many of them donate to worthy causes and to the poor. They also HIRE people. They create JOBS. Look at Bill Gates. He's the philanthropist of the century and look at what he did and the global impact it had!
Click to expand...

What if some guy was laid off?

And he can't find another job?

And he's starving?

And eating out of dumpsters?

And all of a sudden, a socialist program grants him the money to survive untill he can get employed?

What then?
Click to expand...

before we get to the whole starving part how about this:

he gets off his a** and TRIES to find a job, we all know that the effort they put forth to find a new job is slim to none. Granted there are exceptions to this and several people DO get back in there. It is not the governments job to help out some guy on his couch eating chips from food stamps. He has his own effort that he chooses to use or not use. This is the bottom line either you do something or you dont its your choice not the governments job.
 
PolarJace, your argument is based entirely on ethics. Yes, people always have and always will take advantage of aid programs/welfare. But I actually vote to help people that are less fortunate that I am, and if you don't believe there are people like the ones Charganium described in this country, you need to get your head out of the mud.
 
PolarJace said:
Charganium the Bold said:
What if some guy was laid off?

And he can't find another job?

And he's starving?

And eating out of dumpsters?

And all of a sudden, a socialist program grants him the money to survive untill he can get employed?

What then?
Click to expand...
before we get to the whole starving part how about this:

he gets off his a** and TRIES to find a job, we all know that the effort they put forth to find a new job is slim to none. Granted there are exceptions to this and several people DO get back in there. It is not the governments job to help out some guy on his couch eating chips from food stamps. He has his own effort that he chooses to use or not use. This is the bottom line either you do something or you dont its your choice not the governments job.
Click to expand...
If you've elected someone to run the country, don't you think they should look out for you as well? If you are unable to work due to an injury, illness and/or layoff, then why can't the government get involved and help you out? What's wrong with helping people who need it? If you broke your leg and can't work, I'm sure you'd appreciate some government money to help you out until you're able to work, especially if you're looking out for a family of your own. The world doesn't stop wanting your money even if you can't provide it.
 
zoroarkmaster said:
You guys are all just hating on Romney because he's Mormon!
Click to expand...
DOWN WITH WHITE PEOPLE

ONCE YOU GO BLACK YOU NEVER GO BACK
 
Non Sequitur said:
If an American has the choice to work and make $45,000 a year or not work and make $45,000 a year, they'll likely sit on their ass and not work. However, if a hardworking Swedish or Finnish person has that choice (in Euros, of course) then they will choose working. This is why socialist policies work somewhat well over in your part of the world.
Click to expand...
Hold on hold on hold on. $45000 a year? Ok, where did you get that number from? That's $3750 a month. NO unemployed person would get that much. Except if living in America costs four times as much as in Finland. Which it does not.
Hey, I'm not a communist, ok? I'm not saying everyone is supposed to get an equal amount of money. TOTALLY not.

PS: If I got 45000 freaking $ a year for doing nothing I would retire from any work forever.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure unemployment benefits in European countries just add up to what's basically needed to keep going. It's not an extravagant figure. It could probably be considered analogous to minimum wage or something.

...probably going to write a bigger and better post later.
 
Teal said:
Non Sequitur said:
If an American has the choice to work and make $45,000 a year or not work and make $45,000 a year, they'll likely sit on their ass and not work. However, if a hardworking Swedish or Finnish person has that choice (in Euros, of course) then they will choose working. This is why socialist policies work somewhat well over in your part of the world.
Click to expand...
Hold on hold on hold on. $45000 a year? Ok, where did you get that number from? That's $3750 a month. NO unemployed person would get that much. Except if living in America costs four times as much as in Finland. Which it does not.
Hey, I'm not a communist, ok? I'm not saying everyone is supposed to get an equal amount of money. TOTALLY not.

PS: If I got 45000 freaking $ a year for doing nothing I would retire from any work forever.
Click to expand...

Sadly, we don't live in a Star Trek-like world, wherein everyone is treated equally and money isn't valued more than people's livelihoods. Instead, we're constantly at odds with each other. Part of problem is that, while socialist policies would work in some facets of government or organizations in the US, a lot of people are strongly convinced that it would destroy our democracy as a whole. The scare tactics never end...
 
PolarJace said:
Charganium the Bold said:
What if some guy was laid off?

And he can't find another job?

And he's starving?

And eating out of dumpsters?

And all of a sudden, a socialist program grants him the money to survive untill he can get employed?

What then?
Click to expand...

before we get to the whole starving part how about this:

he gets off his a** and TRIES to find a job, we all know that the effort they put forth to find a new job is slim to none. Granted there are exceptions to this and several people DO get back in there. It is not the governments job to help out some guy on his couch eating chips from food stamps. He has his own effort that he chooses to use or not use. This is the bottom line either you do something or you dont its your choice not the governments job.
Click to expand...

What if there are no jobs available within a 20-mile radius?

Or if no one wants him because he can't buy a good suit?

What then?

/thread
 
hurraaaay

surely now the world is a nice place....wait no, its still the same idiocracy.
 
In all honesty I really don't care who's president. IMO if I have a decent job, have a decent home, and have food in my fridge I couldn't care less about who sits in the Oval Office. Hell, I didn't even vote this year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top