Obama couldn't govern himself out of a wet paper bag

[Magic Man]

Typical Liberal Elitism.

Do you have anything other than empty talking points to contribute? It's not elitism. It's acknowledging the fact that I say something, and you disagree with something I didn't even say, pretending that it is what I said. I know you're intelligent, but the fact that you just don't get what we're saying must then mean that you just choose not to. There's nothing elitist about that.

You act like a person can only reach one logical conclusion, your personal
opinion.

On some issues, yes, there is only one logical conclusion. Others, not necessarily. What I act like, though, is that there are facts, and they should be taken into account, along with the fact that you should at least understand the opposing argument before dismissing it.

I believe nothing short of socialism is your agenda, but you do give me hope that one day you will think differently.

Well, there's always the chance I'll get a concussion or something, and not be able to think rationally, but I'm hoping that doesn't happen. And you only believe socialism is my goal because you don't understand what I'm saying. If you actually understood what I'm saying, you'd understand that there are good aspects to socialism and good aspects to capitalism. We should do our best to incorporate the good aspects of both.

I understand what you are saying just fine

If that was the case, your whole post I just responded to wouldn't exist.

You are under the false assumption that I don't value each and every dollar the same. I have a problem with under performers paying 10% while others pay 40% IMHO it is draconian.

Actually, you just confirmed my point. I am actually under the impression that you do value each dollar the same, and you acknowledge that that assumption is true. What I have a problem with is the characterization of people making less as "underperformers". There are people making $40,000 who could be doing a lot better, if they put some effort in, but then there are people making $400,000 and millionaires who don't put any more effort in than that person making $40,000, but they just have had better circumstances. The problem here is you equating having more money with doing more work. That's false.

Now, your response completely missed the point. Your original point was "We don't deserve to have more than anyone else even if we make good life decisions and work harder or smarter. The government allows us to have what we have and we should be thankful they don't swoop in and confiscate our possessions for the greater good. ". I was pointing out that no one is saying you can't have more, just that the more you have, the higher percentage you should pay in income tax.

Cutting off someones unemployment gets them off their butts and makes them find a job. I support 6 months of unemployment, not several years.

How do you reconcile those two things? If cutting off the unemployment gets people to go get jobs, then why have any unemployment at all? If it's that easy to just go get a job, then we shouldn't give them any unemployment benefits.

No wonder we have high unemployment rates, no one has an incentive to go to work.

You do realize the most you can get from Unemployment is a little over $1,200 a month, right? I'd say the fact that that doesn't pay most people's bills would be enough incentive to find work. But then, I'm not interested in getting worked up because someone else told me some people are taking advantage of the system.

I'm ready to give folks a path to citizenship, just as soon as our borders are 100% secure.

Good luck with that. Being realistic never was your strong point.

When you wake up and smell the coffee, you will realise you hold the minority opinion and are not the great superior teacher your delusions of grandeur lead you to believe.

Of course I hold the minority opinion. It's much easier for the average American to not think for themselves, and just go by whatever they hear that makes their anger feel justified. Most people will just buy into the nonsense rich conservatives put out there. Now, I don't claim to be a great teacher, and I don't have delusions of grandeur. What I claim is that I can use logic and reason, along with the facts in a situation to get the most reasonable answer.

And the beauty of the progressive ideology is that, while it's always the minority one, it's one that eventually gets done. 60 years ago, people like me were fighting for equal rights for black people. At that point, that was probably a minority opinion, but it eventually got done. That's the problem with resisting change. You can only do it for so long. The best part is that once progressive ideas become standard, they become part of the conservative ideology, even though they were originally opposed by it. One day, we'll have a better economic system and better care for everyone, and it'll be such a normal part of society that it'll be a given for conservatives.

I help many folks who do not deserve help each week. I don't want their children to suffer because their parents are irresponsible.

You missed my point. My point was that I get responses that my claims are subjective and who's to decide what fair is, and such. But deciding who deserves help is just as subjective as anything I've suggested.

But I'm glad you at least understand the need to help people who might not deserve it. Now just apply that to economic policies, because regardless of what you think, giving to charities instead of having programs like welfare and unemployment is only going to making things worse.

I guess you have never heard of tough love, or being an enabler.

And I guess you've never heard of trying to understand what someone else is saying. Yes, there is tough love and being an enabler. But tough love doesn't work for everyone, and being an enabler for one person might be doing just what another person needs. And regardless, you being a Christian, you should understand that neither of these things were a concern of Jesus's. He didn't say to help poor people unless they don't deserve it. He didn't say to give to them just enough to get back on their feet. He didn't say "Help them, but sometimes you have to use tough love". Besides, again you're missing the point. The point is a society needs to care for everyone. The system should be one that encourages working for what you get, but it also has to take into account circumstances beyond people's control.

This is a low blow even for you Matt.

I understand that most time Christians don't want to hear their hypocritical views pointed out.

You know that I believe in charity and practice what I preach. I just don't believe the federal government is the best at helping people. So let me get this straight, you now see yourself not only as the person who teaches conservatives the error of their ways but also believe you stand in judgement of who is worthy of following Jesus as well?

It doesn't matter that you give to charity. That's great and all, but it shouldn't matter how it's done. You should support helping people. You're not just arguing against the federal government. You're saying it's unfair to have a situation that Jesus would support.

All I'm doing is pointing of the hypocrisy of some Christians' views. I didn't mention who was worthy to be a follower of Jesus, just that some people say they are, but they hold beliefs that go directly against the teachings of Jesus.

 

[Magic Man]

My problem with Liberals are, they never have seen a dollar they did not want to spend on something. They often ask us why we need so much money? It is like they can't understand the peace of mind one has when they have money put back for a rainy day. They don't understand the importance of food storage or raising and canning your own food.

My problem with Rick is that he just refuses to understand what liberals are saying. If he took the time to do that, he'd realize the inaccuracy of his claims here.

It is not about income either. It has always been about living below your means and saving and investing. People often say they cannot afford to save and invest. I say you cannot afford not to.

What a great piece of empty rhetoric. You should send that one to Sarah Palin. It's certainly worthy of her. Let's see:

Fun play on words? Check.
Catchy so that even people who don't like to think get it stuck in their head? Check.
Completely meaningless? Check.

These same people go to the movies every weekend and have smart phones in their pocket. They wear designer clothes and go out to eat.

Yeah, try living in reality, Rick. I know it's easier to live in your fantasy world where you can pretend you're so much better than everyone, but reality's fun too.

 

[Magic Man]

Read this, you might find something of interest here.
Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News

Yeah, I figured I'd get some nonsense like that. Oh, my god! So, a Salvation Army bucket in Sioux Falls, SD got more money than one in San Francisco? You've convinced me. I mean, I can't argue with iron-clad facts like that.

By the way, wanting the government to do a better job of regulating the economy so that we don't have close to a third-world country doesn't mean you necessarily feel giving to charity is the way to go. I'd rather the government do a better job so that charities aren't necessary, or at least much less necessary.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I understand that most time Christians don't want to hear their hypocritical views pointed out.



It doesn't matter that you give to charity. That's great and all, but it shouldn't matter how it's done. You should support helping people. You're not just arguing against the federal government. You're saying it's unfair to have a situation that Jesus would support.

All I'm doing is pointing of the hypocrisy of some Christians' views. I didn't mention who was worthy to be a follower of Jesus, just that some people say they are, but they hold beliefs that go directly against the teachings of Jesus.

Do you really have a problem with multifaceted thinking? Do you really think that is hypocritical?

I have my religion which I keep separately from my politics. If I where hamstrung into keeping my political views in line with my religion, I would have to follow the moral majority on issues I disagree with.

I am assuming that you know when I first came to RF, I was against gay marriage. After debating with my friends here, I came to realise that my religion should not be imposed on others. I have always felt that abortion is wrong as well, but supported a woman's right to choose.

You may look at these things as hypocrisy, I look at them as being an American voter does not always equate to following my religion in political decisions.

I have a right to my religion, not a right to impose it on others.

Perhaps my involvement in charities is an atonement for my hard handed political thinking. Remember I said "perhaps". Actually, I believe private enterprise is more efficient than the government at helping people.

Lastly, I believe all men are sinners. Remember, you brought up religion in a political arguement not I. No man has ever been perfect except for one IMHO.

To compare me to Jesus is not only unfair, but unethical.

Unless I have misunderstood your religious beliefs, you are comparing me to someone you do not even believe in yourself. How do you square that in your mind?

In the future, if you want to debate religion, we should do that seperate from political debates.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Influences acting upon a cyclic phenomenon actually lead the results. Delayed response is called phase lag.
Example:
The more sunlight falling on Revoltistan, the warmer it gets. But temperature reaches its maximum a month or so after the longest day.
This is because even as the days begin to shorten, we're still accumulating heat after a winter of cooler temperatures. Other systems (eg,
politics, economics, mechanical & electrical systems) behave similarly, so one must be careful about establishing cause & effect correlations.

OK that makes sense--a phase shift, like in alternating current.

So, where's this mechanism of phase lag coming from, and where's the evidence that it completely neutralizes the fact that ever since Carter, the debt/GDP ratio has fallen with every Democratic president and risen with every Republican?

Or a lack of a sufficient number of data points.

Post proof or retract. Ever heard of grouping?

 

[Revoltingest]

So, where's this mechanism of phase lag coming from, and where's the evidence that it completely neutralizes the fact that ever since Carter, the debt/GDP ratio has fallen with every Democratic president and risen with every Republican?

I don't understand economics well enuf to thoroughly analyze it...only enuf to see that
various economic policies & their results have a complex relationship with time.

 

[Troublemane]

Yeah, I figured I'd get some nonsense like that. Oh, my god! So, a Salvation Army bucket in Sioux Falls, SD got more money than one in San Francisco? You've convinced me. I mean, I can't argue with iron-clad facts like that.

Looks like you just glanced at the article and saw the experiment with the buckets, but didn't pay attention to anything else.

By the way, wanting the government to do a better job of regulating the economy so that we don't have close to a third-world country doesn't mean you necessarily feel giving to charity is the way to go. I'd rather the government do a better job so that charities aren't necessary, or at least much less necessary.

FYI, the government is not supposed to regulate the economy. The government is only supposed to act as a referee. Anytime the government gets involved it just screws things up.

What the study said is that if you agree with the statement, "Government should not be involved in operations of charity", are four times more likely to be giving to charity. Not just at their own church, but to charities outside their own church.

People who think that it is government's purpose to redistribute wealth are less likely to give to charity, because they think it is someone else's job. If you really think the government would do a better job at charity than the private sector, then you are really proving the point of the study I linked to.

 

[Reverend Rick]

People who think that it is government's purpose to redistribute wealth are less likely to give to charity, because they think it is someone else's job. If you really think the government would do a better job at charity than the private sector, then you are really proving the point of the study I linked to.

That is it in a nut shell. Some folks don't believe in charity. They think that is the function of government. I call it the Robin Hood mentality.

They might romanticise Robin Hood, but the reality of the situation was, he still was a thief. :yes:

 

[LuisDantas]

FYI, the government is not supposed to regulate the economy. The government is only supposed to act as a referee. Anytime the government gets involved it just screws things up.

Some elaboration would be welcome. It seems to me that at least some ideologies to indeed claim that governments are supposed to regulate the economy. At the very least, I would appreciate some context about this referee function.

 

[Troublemane]

Some elaboration would be welcome. It seems to me that at least some ideologies to indeed claim that governments are supposed to regulate the economy. At the very least, I would appreciate some context about this referee function.

Government should be only allowed to grow at the same rate as the economy. Thus ensuring it will only serve as a referee (keeping the peace and enforcing laws), not meddling in the free market (such as bailing out banks which engage in risky investments). If government grows faster than the economy, then we get the situation we have now...total stagflation. The government cannot create jobs. 800 billion on a stimulus bill, at the cost of $400,000 per job and guess what...no net jobs were created. Its as if it never happened. It would have been cheaper to just give those people hired 100k each, they would at least still have money in the bank.

The fact is, government cannot produce anything. It can only take away from what other people produce. So, if the government becomes over-regulatory, in order to maintain its same rate of growth despite a downturn in the economy, then it winds up diminishing the part of the economy which is actually turning a profit.

Did a government stimulus program create the iPad?...Nope. The iPad was created by innovation and demand, it sells so well because people just love the durn thing. They dont have to use tax credits, or gov incentives to buy it. People will stand in long lines to get it! Now thats real economic growth!

But don't worry. Give it time, and the government will find a way to pass legislation which will make people not want to buy the iPad, and will make it more fair to Apple's competitors, making everyone equally miserable.

 

[Magic Man]

Do you really have a problem with multifaceted thinking? Do you really think that is hypocritical?

I don't have a problem with multifacted thinking, but I do have a problem with hypocritical thinking, which is what claiming to follow Jesus, but then supporting no safety nets or very little safety nets for people amounts to.

I have my religion which I keep separately from my politics. If I where hamstrung into keeping my political views in line with my religion, I would have to follow the moral majority on issues I disagree with.

That's doesn't even make sense. All you're telling me here is that you justify having two opposing views on something by proclaiming them separate. That's not how it works. Your religious views conflict with your political views. That makes your views hypocritical.

I am assuming that you know when I first came to RF, I was against gay marriage. After debating with my friends here, I came to realise that my religion should not be imposed on others. I have always felt that abortion is wrong as well, but supported a woman's right to choose.

You may look at these things as hypocrisy, I look at them as being an American voter does not always equate to following my religion in political decisions.

I have a right to my religion, not a right to impose it on others.

This is a great example of how you get off on tangents presumably thinking you're actually responding to what I said. This has nothing to do with the fact that your views about the economy conflict with Jesus's teachings.

Perhaps my involvement in charities is an atonement for my hard handed political thinking. Remember I said "perhaps". Actually, I believe private enterprise is more efficient than the government at helping people.

No, it's weird considering your views, but you proclaim your charity work so often, I already know about it. If private enterprise is so much better than the government for this, then why hasn't private enterprise done a very good job of helping those who need it? I do understand that you think private charities are the way to go over government programs like welfare, food stamps and unemployment, but that's a very misguided view of things.

To compare me to Jesus is not only unfair, but unethical.

You either misunderstand intentionally or unintentionally. I didn't compare you to Jesus. I said you claim to follow his teachings, and yet your political and economic views go against his teachings. It's like claiming to follow Gandhi but thinking it's OK to go to war sometimes.

Unless I have misunderstood your religious beliefs, you are comparing me to someone you do not even believe in yourself. How do you square that in your mind?

You certainly have misunderstood my beliefs. I believe there was a man named Jesus. I believe he might even have said some of the things he's given credit for. I just don't believe he's anything more than a regular man. But that's beside the point. I'm not comparing you to him, nor does whether or not I believe he existed or was the son of God matter for what I'm saying. I'm saying your economic views are opposed to the teachings expressed by Jesus in the Bible. That's fine, but then you claim to be a follower of his teachings.

In the future, if you want to debate religion, we should do that seperate from political debates.

I don't want to debate religion. I just want to point out how funny it is when conservatives like you espouse these crazy economic and political views. I just want to point out how you have you claim to follow Jesus, but then go against what he taught when it comes to real-world applicability.

 

[Magic Man]

Looks like you just glanced at the article and saw the experiment with the buckets, but didn't pay attention to anything else.

Nope, I read most of it. But anything that uses that as an example in their conclusion is silly. There was nothing else in the article that was any better than that.

FYI, the government is not supposed to regulate the economy. The government is only supposed to act as a referee. Anytime the government gets involved it just screws things up.

I see, so you don't oppose the government doing what it has to so much; you just oppose calling it by a certain term. "Regulating the economy" is the same as "acting as a referee". You institute rules, make sure the rules are known, and make sure the competitors abide by them. And I know it's cool and fun to think that anytime the government gets involved in something, it gets screwed up, but that's just some nonsense sold by those who want to turn you against the government when it's convenient for them. The government does plenty of stuff right. And the recession we're in is precisely because the government stopped "refereeing" and didn't get involved, or rather, got itself uninvolved by deregulating things.

What the study said is that if you agree with the statement, "Government should not be involved in operations of charity", are four times more likely to be giving to charity. Not just at their own church, but to charities outside their own church.

Well, wouldn't that make sense? "I don't want government doing charity because people like me already give to charity." The other side is "Private charities are awesome, but some things are better handled by a government body".

People who think that it is government's purpose to redistribute wealth are less likely to give to charity, because they think it is someone else's job. If you really think the government would do a better job at charity than the private sector, then you are really proving the point of the study I linked to.

OK, let's break this down. You used a crappy article to support your claim that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. Now let's just say this extremely unscientific and horribly unsupported claim is true.

In this discussion charity would then be irrelevant. There are some things that the government can do better than private enterprise. Welfare, food stamps and unemployment are some of those things. It's good to have charities to help out, of course, but whether or not conservatives give more to charities isn't really relevant.

 

[Magic Man]

Government should be only allowed to grow at the same rate as the economy. Thus ensuring it will only serve as a referee (keeping the peace and enforcing laws), not meddling in the free market (such as bailing out banks which engage in risky investments). If government grows faster than the economy, then we get the situation we have now...total stagflation. The government cannot create jobs. 800 billion on a stimulus bill, at the cost of $400,000 per job and guess what...no net jobs were created. Its as if it never happened. It would have been cheaper to just give those people hired 100k each, they would at least still have money in the bank.

The fact is, government cannot produce anything. It can only take away from what other people produce. So, if the government becomes over-regulatory, in order to maintain its same rate of growth despite a downturn in the economy, then it winds up diminishing the part of the economy which is actually turning a profit.

Did a government stimulus program create the iPad?...Nope. The iPad was created by innovation and demand, it sells so well because people just love the durn thing. They dont have to use tax credits, or gov incentives to buy it. People will stand in long lines to get it! Now thats real economic growth!

But don't worry. Give it time, and the government will find a way to pass legislation which will make people not want to buy the iPad, and will make it more fair to Apple's competitors, making everyone equally miserable.

Ummm.....:areyoucra

 

[Reverend Rick]

Your religious views conflict with your political views. That makes your views hypocritical.

No is doesn't. If I told you not to do something and then I did it, that would make me a hypocrite. At best you could make an arguement for an inconsistency. The thing is, if you did that then you would also expect me to be against same sex marriage or a woman's right to choose. Nice try Matt, you flunk.

Actually I would think that your superior mastery of the English language would have served you better than this. Do I need to quote you the definition of hypocrite?



P.S. How is the weather up your way? You staying warm?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Ummm.....:areyoucra

Troublemane is right Matt. If the government still ran AT&T, we would still be talking on black heavy phones with short wires attached to them. Gotta love that rotary dial phone!

 

[Magic Man]

No is doesn't. If I told you not to do something and then I did it, that would make me a hypocrite. At best you could make an arguement for an inconsistency. The thing is, if you did that then you would also expect me to be against same sex marriage or a woman's right to choose. Nice try Matt, you flunk.

Actually I would think that your superior mastery of the English language would have served you better than this. Do I need to quote you the definition of hypocrite?



P.S. How is the weather up your way? You staying warm?

I wish you had provided the definition so that you could see that you're wrong. I'll provide it for you, though, from dictionary.com:

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

Amazing how that fits exactly what I'm saying. You pretend to have moral or religious beliefs that you don't actually possess (you believe in Jesus's teachings supposedly, but your actions concerning the economy belie those beliefs). So, it seems you flunk, Rick, not me.

 

[Magic Man]

Troublemane is right Matt. If the government still ran AT&T, we would still be talking on black heavy phones with short wires attached to them. Gotta love that rotary dial phone!

Yes, government should not run all businesses or industries. I doubt you'll find many people even here who say they should. But that's not what Troublemane was saying. He was off on a tangent about some weird stuff with that point thrown in there, even though it didn't relate to anything that has been talked about.

 

[Reverend Rick]

No comment on the weather?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Yes, government should not run all businesses or industries. I doubt you'll find many people even here who say they should.

I feel the same way about helping people. I believe the Lord helps those who help themselves.

Actually, I believe the private sector does a better job than the government at just about everything, including helping people.

My attitude with our government does not stop me from being a good Christian.

 

[Apex]

Your religious views conflict with your political views. That makes your views hypocritical.

Then why do atheists on this site always say that theists should separate their religious beliefs when dealing with politics? Are they saying that theists must be hypocrites to participate in the political process?