Obama Wealth Spread

[discojoe]

[discojoe]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuSMS17shAc[/ame]

[duality is cringe]

Scary.

[UDP]

SAVE US FROM THE COMMYS

SOCIALISM SOCIALISM COMMUNISM COMMUNISM COLD WAR 2 COLD WAR 2


edited out because of faith in DJ

PUTIN IS COMING AFTER US
PUTIN IS COMING AFTER US
PUTIN IS COMING AFTER US PUTIN IS COMING AFTER US
PUTIN IS COMING AFTER US

OH NOES OH NOES OH NOES OH NOES

COMMUNISM SOCIALISM COMMUNISM SOCIALISM

and

BARAQ IS A TERRORIST COMMUNIST

TERRORIST COMMUNIST

[UDP]

-- perhaps like me you're just making fun of the situation



PS: Not only is he a terrorist communist, Barrraq is a
black terrorist communist

A black terrorist communist who is also a fake christian

Baraq Sodom Hussein Communist Terrorist Communist Terrorist Negro Antichrist

There, that's the bumper sticker. It's been fully derived.

[hellothere]

I don't trust Obama. I has read about him. He's an Arab.

[discojoe]

-- perhaps like me you're just making fun of the situation



PS: Not only is he a terrorist communist, Barrraq is a
black terrorist communist

A black terrorist communist who is also a fake christian

Baraq Sodom Hussein Communist Terrorist Communist Terrorist Negro Antichrist

There, that's the bumper sticker. It's been fully derived.

He's a blatant socialist.

I'm sorry, but far left = big government socialism, and Barack Obama's actual record is literally 100% (that's one hundred percent) far left.

His comments to that plumber were scary, and many people are just refusing to see it.

[crazedrat]

it is time for a celebration. obama killed mccain in the debate. i just watched it and... wow. i was expecting obama to do well on matters of the economy, but his performance was nothing less than flawless. his ability to explain himself in both detail and simplicity, and his understanding of economics, is really commendable. before tonight he had a significant lead in the polls. now there is no doubt. he will be the next president. on every topic, obama put a good idea fourth. but more then that, he explained his ideas in detail, and these details actually made sense and were concretely plausible. recognize how rare that is for a presidential candidate. mccain had maybe 2 or 3 good ideas, but each of them were overshadowed by obamas. on the rest of the issues, he kept it very vague. there were a couple points in the debate where he reverted to full out appeal to emotion simply because he couldn't answer the question in light of obama overpowering him. the only point, of the 15 or so, which mccain won, was perhaps the most irrelevant one: the issue of vouchers, and charter schools, checks and balances placed on teaching staff, and generally how they may improve the educational system on an everyday, law by law level. and you know what happened there? Obama actually agreed with mccain, other then on the issue of vouchers, which i am not familiar with.
mccains primary focus, the entire debate, as he had very few ideas to put fourth, was in attacking obamas ideas. obama dealt with these attacks with simplicity and clarity. this is the man we need for president, and there is no doubt about it.

Justify raising his taxes. How will it benefit him?

he is morally obligated to assist those less fortunate than him. he should be honored he has the opportunity to do so. the bottom line is someone has to pay taxes, and you have to make a choice between who can pay them and who can't pay them. it's not a matter of complaining about freedom and equality in the name of selfishness and negligence, it's a matter of coming to grips with reality, and giving in to the need to harbor a sense of altruism. just as we are obligated, as the most powerful country on earth, to assist those countries around the world less fortunate than ourselves; to step in and stop ethnic cleansing in africa, or to assist in the fight against aids, in the same manner we are also obligated to help those less fortunate than ourselves in our own country. this is the moral burden of power, and it means living up to the highly celebrated but often times hollow ideal of being an american. imagine hearing someone say "justify the usa sending peacekeeping troops to africa. how will this benefit the usa?"

[duality is cringe]

he is morally obligated to assist those less fortunate than him.

Bull.

[crazedrat]

the accumulation of excessive and irrelevant power is not without a price. it is from the lower class which the upper class draws their wealth; and the lower class is a servant of the upper class. when the spread between the lower and upper class extends too far, as it has in america, it is your duty to your fellow man, and to those who put you into your place of favor to begin with, to return to that which has granted you so much benefit. the idea of the accumulation of power and wealth is intrsically flawed to begin with, and is the driving force behind global destruction. In the strictest logic, he is morally obligated to sell all his unnecessary possessions, as are every one of us.


Capitalism has not brought peace to the world. It has driven the world to the brink of collapse, no different than a petri dish of bacteria polluting its environment and wiping out the entire colony- a natural cycle which can be observed again and again, and is occuring on a global economic scale. This is apparent to anyone who opens their eyes. The united states has the greatest wealth spread of any nation. Capitalism actually creates a further potential for poverty. With higher standard of living comes the implied maintenance of this standard of living, which actually ends up complicating and making life more top heavy and maintenance oriented than before. The benefits of capitalism are an illusion which can't be understood by someone stuck within its grips. If you moved to new zealand or some desert island you might come to understand

[Khola aka Bee]

Meanwhile, here in Australia, beer, sunshine and well........no that's about it. Love this place ^.^

[Drommel]

the accumulation of excessive and irrelevant power is not without a price. it is from the lower class which the upper class draws their wealth; and the lower class is a servant of the upper class. when the spread between the lower and upper class extends too far, as it has in america, it is your duty to your fellow man, and to those who put you into your place of favor to begin with, to return to that which has granted you so much benefit. the idea of the accumulation of power and wealth is intrsically flawed to begin with, and is the driving force behind global destruction. In the strictest logic, he is morally obligated to sell all his unnecessary possessions, as are every one of us.

Neither class is servant to the other. It's symbiotic: All of their exchanges are mutually benefitial, otherwise they wouldn't be making them. Your understanding of the world is fundamentally wrong.

People are, in no way, obligated to sacrifice for one another.

Capitalism has not brought peace to the world. It has driven the world to the bring of collapse, no different than a pool of bacteria polluting its environment and wiping out the entire colony- a natural cycle which can be observed in nature, and observed on a global scale by anyone who opens their eyes. The united states has the greatest wealth spread of any nation. With higher standard of living comes the implied maintenance of this standard of living, which actually ends up complicating and making life more top heavy and maintenance oriented than before.

You're very wrong. Nations that used to hate each other now tolerate each other, because their economies are interconnected. You need to explore history a little more. The world used to be a much more violent place before global trade came about.

Stop updating your post

[crazedrat]

global economics have been the underlying driving force behind every war since the french revolution. i think it is you who need to study history more, my friend. google a fellow named rothschild, learn about the banks of england, and the business cycle. all facts, and all stuff you need to learn before we continue talking

[duality is cringe]

it is from the lower class which the upper class draws their wealth;

And it is from the upper class which the lower class draws their salary.

and the lower class is a servant of the upper class.

Employer/employee.

In the strictest logic, he is morally obligated to sell all his unnecessary possessions, as are every one of us.

Who's logic? Who has the right to "morally obligate" one individual into doing something against his will when no laws have been broken nor rights of others violated?

[crazedrat]

employee/employer is another word for slave/master. My argument is not as extremist as it could be. I am only arguing it is the duty of the master to treat the slave with civility. The Master has benefited from this slaves productivity. From what you are arguing, if the slave gets sick, he can die. The slave only exists for the benefit of the master, and the master picks and chooses when to take responsibility for its slaves. This is a one sided and stunted relationship. The master is a parasite. The relationship is not symbiotic.

[Drommel]

he is morally obligated to assist those less fortunate than him. he should be honored he has the opportunity to do so. the bottom line is someone has to pay taxes, and you have to make a choice between who can pay them and who can't pay them. it's not a matter of complaining about freedom and equality in the name of selfishness and negligence, it's a matter of coming to grips with reality, and giving in to the need to harbor a sense of altruism. just as we are obligated, as the most powerful country on earth, to assist those countries around the world less fortunate than ourselves; to step in and stop ethnic cleansing in africa, or to assist in the fight against aids, in the same manner we are also obligated to help those less fortunate than ourselves in our own country. this is the moral burden of power, and it means living up to the highly celebrated but often times hollow ideal of being an american. imagine hearing someone say "justify the usa sending peacekeeping troops to africa. how will this benefit the usa?"

He's not morally obligated to assist anyone, and neither is the U.S. morally obligated to assist the rest of the world.

Taxes are about where money ends up being put to the best use: In the hands of the government or the hands of those who earn it. The government has increasingly spent more compared to GDP and done increasingly little. What has benefitted the entire nation and the world, specifically those in most of need, has been cold, hard capitalism. Capitalism has made living standards much higher for everyone, lifted millions out of poverty, and brought peace to much of the world.

The Federal government is not suppose to the nations keeper. It's role is suppose to be that of protecting the nation so that citizens can pursue their own needs.

[Drommel]

Disease rates among the handicapped, the young, and the old can vary greatly with the coverage of the welfare state. Consider the former USSR, after state-funded immunization programs were cut or eliminated. Similarly, USA infant mortality fell significantly after the Great Society and the New Deal.

Surely elsewhere the record has proven painfully that there comes a point where equality comes at too great a cost of efficiency. But surely there is a point of vice versa, and whose side is it best to err on? What does it matter if a CEO has a few less cylinders in his luxury car?

There are physical limits to the additional well-being one may gain from an additional dollar earned. There are only so much positive feedback that can happen in the brain and only so much one can do to reduce the risk of negative feedback, less they isolate themselves entirely.

Increasingly, money may reflect well-being less, becoming a hollow scoreboard. And the less a desperate man has to lose the less he may effectively be obligated to follow the rulebook. Even if you are strong and neither afraid of becoming desperate or of the desperate themselves (though I suspect many too hastily rule both out), still this is something to consider if you have loved ones who do not have gated communities or the middle of nowhere to hide within.

Infant mortality rates were falling then anyways due to medical advancements. Linking it to the the welfare state is simply wrong.

There's the obvious moral argument that not you, nor the government, nor anyone else has the ability to decide how many cylinders the C.E.O.'s luxury car has. Deciding someone else has too much infringes on innate liberty.

The question is, does the government taking more benefit society? The answer remains no.

[discojoe]

Infant mortality rates were falling then anyways due to medical advancements. Linking it to the the welfare state is simply wrong.

Correct, though this is a fallacy commonly employed by unintelligent people.

[force my hand]

Infant mortality rates were falling then anyways due to medical advancements. Linking it to the the welfare state is simply wrong.

There's the obvious moral argument that not you, nor the government, nor anyone else has the ability to decide how many cylinders the C.E.O.'s luxury car has. Deciding someone else has too much infringes on innate liberty.

The question is, does the government taking more benefit society? The answer remains no.

You could only make this argument if the US were the nation with the best standard of living, which it is not. Infant mortality rates are lower in developed nations with 'socialized medicine', so while correlation may not indicate causation, something is going on. If Americans actually want to fix some of their problems, they're going to have to stop hiding behind ideology.

[Drommel]

You could only make this argument if the US were the nation with the best standard of living, which it is not. Infant mortality rates are lower in developed nations with 'socialized medicine', so while correlation may not indicate causation, something is going on. If Americans actually want to fix some of their problems, they're going to have to stop hiding behind ideology.

Fertility rates and infant mortality rates have correlation. The higher the fertility rate, the higher the mortality rate. Likewise, socialized countries have lower fertility rates, resulting in lower mortality rates.

Your attempt to link socialized medicine with lower infant mortality results is simply wrong. Worse yet, you're trying to pass it off as an informed opinion.