About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Sunday, October 10, 2010 - 11:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How about dividing people between the Wall Street and the Main Street?

Post 1

Monday, October 11, 2010 - 5:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hmmm. Me too Mr. President.

You have clearly articulated (as you do so well) precisely why I am suspicious of you.

Post 2

Sunday, May 1, 2011 - 6:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Obama strengthened this sentiment into an explicit personal position statement here, but directly contradicts himself here and here.

More is most assuredly to come ...

Ed


Post 3

Sunday, May 1, 2011 - 6:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
...

Pitting "us" (individualists; economic conservatives) against "them" (seniors and children; the old, the young, and the disabled):
This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone's grandparents who wouldn't be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down's syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we'd be telling to fend for themselves.

... and ...

Pitting "us" (individualists; economic conservatives) against students and environmentalists:
Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can't afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can't afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. Think about it. In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working Americans actually declined. The top 1% saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. And that's who needs to pay less taxes?
http://www.whatisworking.com/2011/04/obama-can-we-afford-1-trillion-in-new.html

Ed


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Monday, May 2, 2011 - 5:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Concerning above:

In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working Americans actually declined. The top 1% saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. And that's who needs to pay less taxes?
What Obama doesn't tell you is that it was the statist policies of GW Bush, further propogated by Obama himself, which led to most Americans losing income in the first place. Obama chides Bush for the unfunded mandates of war and the statist increase in Medicare drug policy. Bush increased federal spending by 60%, spending on things that don't have any kind of general return-on-investment for most of us.

Presidents shouldn't ever be allowed to spend money which doesn't automatically benefit every citizen in this country (the General Welfare of this country). They should not ever be allowed to pick and choose what they want to spend money on -- benefitting one group of citizens, no matter how large, over any other (or all other) groups of citizens.

The only kinds of spending that benefit every last one of us (leaving no one out) are things like national defense against immediate threats, the cops, and the courts.

Ed


Post 5

Wednesday, May 11, 2011 - 11:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No end in sight:

http://rebirthofreason.com/inc/Galleries/Quotes/1772_t.shtml

Ed


Post 6

Wednesday, May 11, 2011 - 3:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The candidacy of Obama as we move toward the 2012 election will be one where his ability to win will depend more than anything on the voter's rejecting clever rhetoric based upon lies in favor of truths presented with much less polish and charm.

When candidates first became TV stars, it changed elections. No more ugly presidents (unless their predecessor was assassinated). It will have to be part of our political evolution that we learn to look past the looks and charm and find the integrity and knowledge.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.