Obama Admits He Carefully Chose Marxist Professors as Friends

[repiV]

not being from the UK but having extensive experience working with not for profit charities I have to say poppycocks to your idea that charities can pick up the slack ..I worked at a school for the mentally handicapped that had a budget of about $7000/month for each student ..there is absolutely no way we'd ever operate without government money..we would fund raise on a continual basis but still needed the government to provide at the very least 60% of operating budget ..the overwelming majority of parents could not afford this ..and it's much worse as they get older: many sustain themselves SOLELY from government disability and welfare. to do away with government support of these programs would mean complete collapse of the entire system pretty much overnight ..now you have thousands of mentally handicapped hmeless (on top of those that are already homeless) ..yay way to **** people over because of a personal pov that doesnt in the least bit affect you

Irrelevant because people would give a lot more money to charity if the government didn't assume that responsibility. As it stands, 20% of my income is taken straight out of my paycheque and donated to charity. Money that I might otherwise have spare. It's alsot quite true that, generally speaking, conservatives donate a lot more to charity than liberals.

If there wasn't a welfare state, people would also be much more responsible with their finances - putting aside money for things they may need instead of getting into debt for things they want.

In any case, government funding for charity is again not part of the social security budget. The figure I quoted is all for benefit payments. In the north of England there are entire towns that are almost entirely unemployed with whole generations who have never had a job, and whose parents have never had a job. This would not be the case if they couldn't get free money at our expense.

 

[The Monkey]

Irrelevant because people would give a lot more money to charity if the government didn't assume that responsibility. As it stands, 20% of my income is taken straight out of my paycheque and donated to charity. Money that I might otherwise have spare. It's alsot quite true that, generally speaking, conservatives donate a lot more to charity than liberals.

If there wasn't a welfare state, people would also be much more responsible with their finances - putting aside money for things they may need instead of getting into debt for things they want.

In any case, government funding for charity is again not part of the social security budget. The figure I quoted is all for benefit payments. In the north of England there are entire towns that are almost entirely unemployed with whole generations who have never had a job, and whose parents have never had a job. This would not be the case if they couldn't get free money at our expense.

Charity is a far too unsure institution to be the sole provider of relief for the poor. We can't have the very lives of people depend on the occasional good-will of the rich. And that the reason conservatives donate more than liberals (in which country, btw?) might be that they are richer.

 

[repiV]

Charity is a far too unsure institution to be the sole provider of relief for the poor. We can't have the very lives of people depend on the occasional good-will of the rich.

Yet right now millions of hard-working poor people are suffering for the sake of beer money for those who have never held down a job in their lives. The welfare system as it exists today doesn't do what it was designed to do - provide a safety net. It's a lifestyle choice for wastes of space and a very nice financial package which enables families with long-term difficulties to live wealthier lives than most working families. It doesn't provide a safety net because people with something to lose who fall on hard times have to lose everything before they get anything.

I don't know if I could really be termed "poor", because I do get by, but after I've paid my rent, essential bills and the minimum payments on my credit cards etc. I have very little money left. The day before payday last month I had 67p in my account, today I have ?3.76 and tomorrow is payday. I don't spend much, and I'm riding a half-working bike because I can't afford to get it fixed (and no, public transport isn't an option where I live). This is the reality of life for most working people in this country - I earn slightly more than the average for this region of the country (not much down here, granted). In the world's fourth richest country, why should ordinary people struggle in this way whilst those who don't work spend their days down the pub? Why should 200-odd quid a month of money that I've earned go on supporting these people?

And the reason conservatives donate more than liberals (in which country, btw?) might be that they are richer.

That might be the case. I can't remember if the figures were adjusted for income or not - this was from the USA. On the other hand, I'm also more inclined to believe that people with conservative values are far more likely to be wealthy, rather than them being conservative because of their wealth. People's political beliefs are usually pretty fixed long before they are old enough to start accumulating any real wealth.

 

[CptStern]

Irrelevant because people would give a lot more money to charity if the government didn't assume that responsibility.

nonsense ..children with autism are only covered (therapy, special programs etc) till age 6 ...citizens do not throw money at charities that provide support for these groups despite not having government funding ..you could probably look to every single charity and see they're just barely scraping by (except the cancer society, heart and all the other big players but they're usually funded in part by government) ..homeless shelters are at capacity, food banks run shortages all the freakin time even during christmas when everyone donates ..without government subsidies most of these programs would cease to exist

As it stands, 20% of my income is taken straight out of my paycheque and donated to charity.

which charity? and none of that pays for education or infrastructure or your little excursions in iraq and afghanistan ..but hey I dont hear you complain about your money being funneled into a hopeless and losing war

Money that I might otherwise have spare. It's alsot quite true that, generally speaking, conservatives donate a lot more to charity than liberals.

I'm going to have to call you on that because I cant even begin to see how anyone could quantify that ..do they ask what viewpoint you subscribe to everytime you drop a quarter in a salvation army box?

If there wasn't a welfare state, people would also be much more responsible with their finances - putting aside money for things they may need instead of getting into debt for things they want.

yes, they can pick up pennies from the group and hope they'll have the $7000 that's needed to give BASIC care to their children ..if only people would be more financially wise

In any case, government funding for charity is again not part of the social security budget. The figure I quoted is all for benefit payments. In the north of England there are entire towns that are almost entirely unemployed with whole generations who have never had a job, and whose parents have never had a job. This would not be the case if they couldn't get free money at our expense.

if that's true why would anyone work? are you saying it's their choice not to work? for their entire town to run on nothing than government subsidies? I'd say you're overgeneralising but that would beunderstateing the obvious

 

[repiV]

nonsense ..children with autism are only covered (therapy, special programs etc) till age 6 ...citizens do not throw money at charities that provide support for these groups despite not having government funding ..you could probably look to every single charity and see they're just barely scraping by (except the cancer society, heart and all the other big players but they're usually funded in part by government) ..homeless shelters are at capacity, food banks run shortages all the freakin time even during christmas when everyone donates ..without government subsidies most of these programs would cease to exist

It's got bugger all to do with whether the government funds specific causes or not. It's to do with the fact that the government has taken over the role of the community in our society. People all look out for themselves and **** anybody else, it's the government's job to help others.

which charity?

The benefits fund.

and none of that pays for education or infrastructure or your little excursions in iraq and afghanistan

Correct. As I said before, takings from income tax only just cover expenditure on benefits.

..but hey I dont hear you complain about your money being funneled into a hopeless and losing war

Your point being what?

I'm going to have to call you on that because I cant even begin to see how anyone could quantify that ..do they ask what viewpoint you subscribe to everytime you drop a quarter in a salvation army box?

There have been studies. Look it up.

if that's true why would anyone work?

Good question. Working people in the UK ask themselves that on a daily basis.

are you saying it's their choice not to work? for their entire town to run on nothing than government subsidies?

Yes. The government was there to provide handouts when the old mining industries collapsed, and decades later nothing has changed. It's cultural. If you want to find work, there's plenty out there.

I'd say you're overgeneralising but that would beunderstateing the obvious

I'd say you see the world through rose-tinted glasses.

 

[VirusType2]

who paid for Steven Hawkings awesome wheel chair that will save the world from impeding meteor strikes the size of mars? Hmmm?

 

[CptStern]

It's got bugger all to do with whether the government funds specific causes or not. It's to do with the fact that the government has taken over the role of the community in our society. People all look out for themselves and **** anybody else, it's the government's job to help others.

the community doesnt have the will, desire, education experience or the necessary cash flow to ever provide care for the mentally handicapped. Would you be willing to give a sizeable chunk of your income to cover the mentally ahndicapped? people like you would never give a dime to social programs so where is this magical money going to come from if people like you dont believe in handouts? really you havent thought this through past your own nose

The benefits fund.

you're saying the entire 20% is taken up by welfare ..how do you pay for everything else ..surely not property tax, surely not tax on goods so how is this all paid for if income tax is spoken for?

Correct. As I said before, takings from income tax only just cover expenditure on benefits.

please provide source

Your point being what?

obviously that you dont care if your money is wasted on running a country to the ground that benefits you in no discernable way instead of supporting social programs that help you and your community directly

There have been studies. Look it up.

the burden of proof is yours. YOU look it up

Good question. Working people in the UK ask themselves that on a daily basis.

then why dont they just quit? if it's as lucrative as you seem to think the majority of people would just up and quit ..I know I would, ehll I dont like working for living and if I can get a free ride why the hell not? ever seen what a welfare check looks like? I've made more in a single day then most of them make in a month ..not anywhere near a living wage

Yes. The government was there to provide handouts when the old mining industries collapsed, and decades later nothing has changed. It's cultural. If you want to find work, there's plenty out there.

their ****ing fault. instead they should have built infracture to help those who are unemplyed find work within their own home towns ..this is no different then when the canadian government gave subsidy cheques to fishermen off our atlantic coast due to the cod fish ban ..cheques run out and if there's no work people move meaning whole communities die right out ..so instead of sending cheques and telling them they're shit out of luck and then wondering why communities are dying in the easy coast they could have easily developed jobs and industry by making it enticing to do business in that part of the world ..you adapt or you die out ..you wouldnt even give them a chance to adapt

I'd say you see the world through rose-tinted glasses.

funny I'd say the same about you except mines more grounded in reality because I've had to fend for myself probably almost as long as you've been alive ..your pov seems like it was lifted straight from a neo-conservative handbook rather than real world experiences ..everything you say is textbook conservatism

 

[repiV]

the community doesnt have the will, desire, education experience or the necessary cash flow to ever provide care for the mentally handicapped. Would you be willing to give a sizeable chunk of your income to cover the mentally ahndicapped? people like you would never give a dime to social programs so where is this magical money going to come from if people like you dont believe in handouts? really you havent thought this through past your own nose

"People like you"? **** you.

you're saying the entire 20% is taken up by welfare ..how do you pay for everything else ..surely not property tax, surely not tax on goods so how is this all paid for if income tax is spoken for?

Yes, that's correct. We have so many stealth taxes it's just impossible to keep track of them.

please provide source

UK Government expenditure

I can't find the figures for income tax take, but it's about 171 billion or so.

obviously that you dont care if your money is wasted on running a country to the ground that benefits you in no discernable way instead of supporting social programs that help you and your community directly

We're not ****ing talking about Iraq or Afghanistan. Both utterly irrelevant to this thread. Jesus wept. Also, these social programs to which you refer do not help me because they cost me a lot of money for very little return, and they don't help my community because my community is in pretty much the same situation as I am. What would help me directly is having more money in my pocket.

the burden of proof is yours. YOU look it up

No, because I can't be bothered to try and find something I read several months ago, and I don't really care either way because you won't care or listen anyway so why should I waste my time. You're free to research it yourself if you want to.

then why dont they just quit? if it's as lucrative as you seem to think the majority of people would just up and quit ..I know I would, ehll I dont like working for living and if I can get a free ride why the hell not?

So you have no morals - yet you take the high ground.

ever seen what a welfare check looks like? I've made more in a single day then most of them make in a month ..not anywhere near a living wage

Yes, I'm well aware of what a welfare cheque looks like. It pays for my dad to have the full digital TV package, rent a 50" plasma TV and DVD player, to buy top of the range PC parts, to stock the fridge full of luxury foods, feed a 20-a-day smoking habit (VERY expensive in the UK), and spend on takeaways on top of the free housing he gets.

their ****ing fault. instead they should have built infracture to help those who are unemplyed find work within their own home towns ..this is no different then when the canadian government gave subsidy cheques to fishermen off our atlantic coast due to the cod fish ban ..cheques run out and if there's no work people move meaning whole communities die right out ..so instead of sending cheques and telling them they're shit out of luck and then wondering why communities are dying in the easy coast they could have easily developed jobs and industry by making it enticing to do business in that part of the world ..you adapt or you die out ..you wouldnt even give them a chance to adapt

Yes, they could have done that - but they didn't. The UK economy revolves around London, the rest of the country tends to get forgotten about. That doesn't absolve people from these towns of the responsibility to stand on their own two feet. If they have to move big ****ing deal, that's life. One of the reasons I moved away from London is so that I could actually afford the rent.

funny I'd say the same about you except mines more grounded in reality because I've had to fend for myself probably almost as long as you've been alive ..your pov seems like it was lifted straight from a neo-conservative handbook rather than real world experiences ..everything you say is textbook conservatism

Either you know nothing about me or you know nothing about neo-conservativism. That's also laughable because you consantly post the same old shit about America, gun control, republicans and Christianity. No independent thought whatsoever.

 

[CptStern]

NOOOOOOOOOOO ..I just typed this huge response to repiv post and I accidentily closed the window before hitting the submit button ..I had just finished typing!!! oh well I'm going home now, may have time at some point to repost

 

[repiV]

The brief version is preferable. I haven't posted anything at all for two weeks, I rarely get around to replying to long posts.

 

[Eejit]

I still think you shouldn't be objecting to welfare state on principle just because it isn't implemented very well in the UK. There are other countries (and have been other times) when it worked as intended rather than having the unemplyed living the life of riley.

 

[repiV]

I still think you shouldn't be objecting to welfare state on principle just because it isn't implemented very well in the UK. There are other countries (and have been other times) when it worked as intended rather than having the unemplyed living the life of riley.

Although I maintain that the country would run just fine without any kind of benefits system whatsoever, I would have absolutely no problem with a welfare state that really was a safety net and nothing else. A safety net that also helped out people with homes and savings when they need it as well as people who have lived a life of fiscal irresponsibility. You should never be punished by the system for being a good citizen.

The sheer amount of money that's sunk into the black hole of the UK benefits system is also utterly unacceptable. I would prefer to see defence and welfare spending figures reversed. On another note, NHS spending has more than doubled in recent years and yet the NHS seems to have gotten worse in that time? Government waste is utterly astronomical and such inefficient use of public money makes EVERYONE suffer. Suffering isn't just confined to "downtrodden minorities"...

At the end of the day, while people ideally deserve to have a decent standard of living, it's impossible to justify providing that to people through handouts when a massive amount of working people are in poverty or living on very tight budgets. When the general public is rolling in cash, then maybe it will be more acceptable for people on benefits to afford luxuries. You should never be better off on benefits than you would be by working.

 

[Eejit]

Ah well, what you gonna do? Governments are often inefficient, while corporations are only concerned with their bottom line.
Maybe we should get Valve to run it.

 

[repiV]

I think we're all far too dependent these days - on government, on employment, on central heating and TV and fast food and credit (well, that's going to change).

Self-employment used to be the status quo. If things ****ed up you paid the price but if things went well you reaped the rewards (and the pride). We now have a nation of people who expect the government to take care of them, who are utterly dependent on their boss not saying "you're fired", who get their understanding of the world from a box in the front room, who have no conception of personal finance and who can't even take it when it's a bit chilly outside (I was the only biker on the road yesterday that I saw, hell it was only 0/1C out and it didn't even snow here...winters used to be -15 not that many years ago!).

We have a nation of soft, easily controlled people who are dependent on external factors out of their control to make their life run smoothly. No wonder people these days feel so frustrated and empty inside.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Ah well, what you gonna do? Governments are often inefficient, while corporations are only concerned with their bottom line.
Maybe we should get Valve to run it.

What about when what's best for the common good IS ALSO best for the bottom line. This is more common than you think and I'd rather have government programs to encourage such action rather than direct government programs facilitating it.

 

[VirusType2]

I don't support government THIEVERY.

It doesn't really makes sense that someone making about 26,000 a year (and who hardly has anything to eat in his fridge ) is so steadfast about defending the rich.

you know selling illegal drugs is tax free right?

I wish you would come out with your ulterior motives already. You're really not fooling anyone with your facade. McCain coming from your home state of Arizona have anything to do with it?

Lol. He's practically loosing his home state. Pitiful really.

Sen. John McCain's campaign is confident Arizona will remain a red state despite recent presidential election polls that indicate the Arizona senator is in a close race in his home state with Democratic Sen. Barack Obama.

source


Look, rich people are always voters. My father has been a millionaire for decades, and he has his vote. He has never failed to follow politics and vote. The rich will have their vote just the same; they don't need you to come to their rescue.

It's hilarious that you are so concerned about 'disastrous' financial consequences for the rich, but don't seem to give two shits about the people that - in many, if not most cases, made them rich - the minimum wage workers who built that empire on their broken backs, who aren't getting their fair share of the American pie.


And many rich voters are voting for Obama, despite the tax hike. They are even donating to his campaign in record smashing numbers.

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre49d8w2-us-wealth-summit-politics/

The billionaires and others in the wealthiest strata of U.S. society traditionally vote Republican, but that's changing this year, say advisers to the wealthy.

What does that tell you? That they think he would make a much better president, despite costing them more taxes.

Besides

"Everybody believes that taxes are going up ... no matter who gets elected," said Timothy Vaill, chairman and chief executive of the wealth management arm of Boston Private Financial Holdings, a money-management firm.

http://www.236.com/news/2008/10/06/obama_to_return_donations_from_9351.php

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I'm not posting "for the sake of the rich"

It's a matter of principle. The income tax in itself is wrong. This debate raged when it was enacted. The Fair Tax is the best system for this nation, and doesn't rob citizens of their income.

Poor people are hurt worst by FICA coming out of their checks, even if they dont pay Federal income tax.

 

[jet_porkins]

Isn't a national sales tax still taking away your income if you use your income to buy groceries - or ANYTHING for that matter?

 

[Azner]

Rakurai is RIIIICCCHHH and wants to keep his MONEYYY

 

[Cpt Tenacious]

So wait, i'm not sure what your implying. Becuase he hung out with these people he's going to wait untill he becomes president then be like "OLOL NOW I DA SECRET COMMUNIST!!! PREPARE TO BE COMMUNIST ALL OF AMERICA!!" that's the only thing I can think of that would scare you.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

So wait, i'm not sure what your implying. Becuase he hung out with these people he's going to wait untill he becomes president then be like "OLOL NOW I DA SECRET COMMUNIST!!! PREPARE TO BE COMMUNIST ALL OF AMERICA!!" that's the only thing I can think of that would scare you.

No, his policies already speak for themselves.

If you didn't know that he's the most liberal in the senate and ready to create a welfare state/socialist healthcare in America then you don't even know the candidate.


It's irritating that most people who are voting for him don't even know these things. I realize that most of you guys do, but a lot of people wouldn't support him if they did. The last thing this nation needs it more welfare and socialist health care.

 

[VirusType2]

The last thing this nation needs it more welfare and socialist health care.

It seems you don't have a clue what this nation needs.

You do know that Palin, in her own words, proudly touted her Alaskan budget as socialist, right?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

It seems you don't have a clue what this nation needs.

You do know that Palin, in her own words, proudly touted her Alaskan budget as socialist, right?

If a state wants to be socialist I have no problem with that. I support state's rights. California is socialist and it doesnt affect me in the least. States have similar culture, language, laws to each other so if one state is unsatisfactor an American can easily move to another.

The federal government should not impose its will on the people or the states, this is what libertarian philosophy is all about.

 

[Gray Fox]

On the subject of Marxism, what did everybody think of Bamarama's infomercial?
I haven't seen a thread about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtREqAmLsoA

 

[Laivasse]

If a state wants to be socialist I have no problem with that. I support state's rights. California is socialist and it doesnt affect me in the least. States have similar culture, language, laws to each other so if one state is unsatisfactor an American can easily move to another.

The difference is that Palin isn't running to be Governor of Alaska any more, she's running to be VP of the entire country. Whatever tenuous and irrational links you might dig up about Obama's past, unlike Palin his resume doesn't say that he's ever governed a state along 'socialist' principles as she has done. If we're going to be arguing along these lines, 'redistribution of wealth' - which is a matter of degree, and which occurs in any state that employs taxation - is a fundamentally less extreme concept than the 'collective ownership of resources' that Palin has promoted, which is an absolute. Yet I don't see a deluge of threads about the socialist menace of Sarah Palin, strange...

Frankly the idea that any of your candidates is 'socialist' anyway, when they're all so heavily indebted to big business supporters and lobbyists, is hilarious.

On the subject of Marxism, what did everybody think of Bamarama's infomercial?
I haven't seen a thread about it.

I was going to make a thread about it to see what people thought, but frankly I found it such a boring overdose of American saccharine schmaltz that I only got 15 minutes through it then forgot about making a thread. Feel free though...

 

[VirusType2]

I was going to make a thread about it to see what people thought, but frankly I found it such a boring overdose of American saccharine schmaltz that I only got 15 minutes through it then forgot about making a thread. Feel free though...

Oh man, you missed the part where he wrestles with a terrorist, throws him out of a plane, and exclaims, "I'm tired of all these evil snakes on this great plane!", to the cheers and applaud of passengers.