[quote:ccbeefb42b="litlbrownkid32"][url]http://i.imgur.com/FmdQY.jpg[/url]
Thoughts on this picture? I don't want to tell you the meaning of it yet. You might already know[/quote:ccbeefb42b]
Its a glorification of totalitarianism, politics of buracracy, a society living under martial law, and the world controlled by plutocracy disguised as liberty and democracy.
Excellent illustration, dont know why it bothers people, we really arent too far off
[quote:89c901961e="Sonny_G"]^^^I believe it...politics seems to bring that out in people...I actually just changed my registration to independent...I cant belong to either of the main parties anymore, they're both just too backwards for me, neither the repubs or the dems seem to give a crap about our best interests any more, they're too concerned with fighting with each other...[/quote:89c901961e]
I'm still a Democrat. As flawed as it is, I still can't see myself in another party
[quote:56510c9b53="litlbrownkid32"][quote:56510c9b53="Sonny_G"]^^^I believe it...politics seems to bring that out in people...I actually just changed my registration to independent...I cant belong to either of the main parties anymore, they're both just too backwards for me, neither the repubs or the dems seem to give a crap about our best interests any more, they're too concerned with fighting with each other...[/quote:56510c9b53]
I'm still a Democrat. As flawed as it is, I still can't see myself in another party[/quote:56510c9b53]
thats cool...I was a republican (I know, almost a dirty word to our generation)...my reasoning was that I believe in the principles of the GOP (smaller central govt., lower taxes, free enterprize, etc), so I figured that regardless of what the party does, I can at least say that I believe in their fundamental elements...but with all this teabagger bullshit, and the fact that they are seriously considering giving that retard sara palin the nomination for president in 2012...I honestly became embarassed to admit that I belonged to that party...I was considering switching to democrat, but I feel like they've gotten just as off track (probably not quite as bad tho)...plus, like I said, I just cant get down with how these guys are more willing to fight amongst each other than work on doing any good for the American people (In fact, all this partisan bickering is very detrimental to the American people), so I figured my only answer was independant...I was also considering Libertarian, but I would like to research them more before I register, but most people tell me that I sound like a Libertarian when I talk politics (whatever that means lol)...
^ I never liked the republican party much, but as of late the bickering amounts parties has really frustrated me, no one can give a straight answer to a question no more, and the republican are still pitching lower taxes = job creation when that have been proven not to work, its the same rhetoric from both parties though i do learn towards the democrats more, at least they don't want to cut peoples hands off by denying them unemployment benefits
[quote:b27b9fb7d1="get em gurl"]^ I never liked the republican party much, but as of late the bickering amounts parties has really frustrated me, no one can give a straight answer to a question no more, and the republican are still pitching lower taxes = job creation when that have been proven not to work, its the same rhetoric from both parties though i do learn towards the democrats more, at least they don't want to cut peoples hands off by denying them unemployment benefits[/quote:b27b9fb7d1]
True, but at this particular juncture, I see lower taxes equaling more money in my pocket, and all I can do is worry about me and my own (because, politicians from both sides surely dont)...as far as the unemployment...well...that's a little bit tougher, In this current economic climate, we definitely cant be cutting back on unemployment benefits, way too many Americans are out of work, this is what deregulation and outsourcing has gotten us as a country (and most of the blame for that lies squarely on the shoulders of the republicans), but at the same time, there does have to be a line drawn somewhere, I think the reason so many people have so many problems with social programs in general is that they are subject to so much abuse...why should I work hard and pay higher taxes just so that lazy people dont have to go to work??? So I can see the logic behind the republican's argument, but there's just no way given how precarious the US economy is that we as a country can afford to have more people losing their homes and living out on the streets, I mean the current crop on unemployment (and taking advantage of most social programs) arent just lazy bums, they are people who are out of work thanks to one of the worst recessions in our country's history (besides, when people spend their unemployment checks it does stimulate the economy just the same as when people spend their paychecks)...I dunno, I guess I just try to look at both sides of the coin and formulate my own opinion from there...
[quote:287a607d9c="Sonny_G"][quote:287a607d9c="get em gurl"]^ I never liked the republican party much, but as of late the bickering amounts parties has really frustrated me, no one can give a straight answer to a question no more, and the republican are still pitching lower taxes = job creation when that have been proven not to work, its the same rhetoric from both parties though i do learn towards the democrats more, at least they don't want to cut peoples hands off by denying them unemployment benefits[/quote:287a607d9c]
True, but at this particular juncture, I see lower taxes equaling more money in my pocket, and all I can do is worry about me and my own (because, politicians from both sides surely dont)...as far as the unemployment...well...that's a little bit tougher, In this current economic climate, we definitely cant be cutting back on unemployment benefits, way too many Americans are out of work, this is what deregulation and outsourcing has gotten us as a country (and most of the blame for that lies squarely on the shoulders of the republicans), but at the same time, there does have to be a line drawn somewhere, I think the reason so many people have so many problems with social programs in general is that they are subject to so much abuse...why should I work hard and pay higher taxes just so that lazy people dont have to go to work??? So I can see the logic behind the republican's argument, but there's just no way given how precarious the US economy is that we as a country can afford to have more people losing their homes and living out on the streets, I mean the current crop on unemployment (and taking advantage of most social programs) arent just lazy bums, they are people who are out of work thanks to one of the worst recessions in our country's history (besides, when people spend their unemployment checks it does stimulate the economy just the same as when people spend their paychecks)...I dunno, I guess I just try to look at both sides of the coin and formulate my own opinion from there...[/quote:287a607d9c]
Dont get me wrong both parties are to blame for not listening to the needs of the people years ago, it is a shame that the benefits were not extended, how will people pay for bills, food, and rent/mortage? Like you said it surely won't stimulate the economy or promote job growth but this "controlled" spending or "capping" the deficit pitch has gotten out of control at the expense of everyday folks. I think one of the BIGGEST misconceptions in this country is that people who receive such benefits and whom are out of work for more than the standard time WANT to be unemployed and barely making it. I don't believe it no one wants to scrape by and barely make it month to month and that included people of all social and economic classes, I think. Both parties were proponents of deregulation and "free enterprise" although the pitch from the democrats was that they were less so but the voting told that tale. As we both can see over the years of companies specifically global conglomerates thriving with profits unchecked in their practices has not produced a climate where small business can flourish and drive the economy once again, the funny thing is in my opinion I agree with republicans in their argument to boost small business but they present this with one hand and with the other they would continue to let big business thrive and cheat and then call it "free enterprise"
It just makes me so upset when I see dichotomy like that within both parties the democrats play a slipery role in this themselves not wanting to appear too extreme to anyone with makes their ability to conform and address the political talking points of the time easy, really makes me question their principles as a whole in the first place, though I do lean towards their advocation for social programs.
[quote:58972231f5="get em gurl"]
Dont get me wrong both parties are to blame for not listening to the needs of the people years ago, it is a shame that the benefits were not extended, how will people pay for bills, food, and rent/mortage? Like you said it surely won't stimulate the economy or promote job growth but this "controlled" spending or "capping" the deficit pitch has gotten out of control at the expense of everyday folks. I think one of the BIGGEST misconceptions in this country is that people who receive such benefits and whom are out of work for more than the standard time WANT to be unemployed and barely making it. I don't believe it no one wants to scrape by and barely make it month to month and that included people of all social and economic classes, I think. Both parties were proponents of deregulation and "free enterprise" although the pitch from the democrats was that they were less so but the voting told that tale. As we both can see over the years of companies specifically global conglomerates thriving with profits unchecked in their practices has not produced a climate where small business can flourish and drive the economy once again, the funny thing is in my opinion I agree with republicans in their argument to boost small business but they present this with one hand and with the other they would continue to let big business thrive and cheat and then call it "free enterprise"
It just makes me so upset when I see dichotomy like that within both parties the democrats play a slipery role in this themselves not wanting to appear too extreme to anyone with makes their ability to conform and address the political talking points of the time easy, really makes me question their principles as a whole in the first place, though I do lean towards their advocation for social programs.[/quote:58972231f5]
Oh without question...I mean, I couldnt have said it better myself...the funny thing is, the concept of "free enterprise" is actually a really great thing, but it has been so abused and manipulated that there really is no such thing any more.
As far as the social program issue, I dunno, every time I think I have formed a solid opinion on the matter, my feelings change; We as a country need to help people out when they are having a tough time (like you said, I dont think anybody wants to struggle), but they are open to so much abuse that it isnt even funny, I remember a few years back when I was in high school, I worked at the grocery store, and even as a kid, it always pissed me off to see some person who obviously wasnt poor (nice clothes, expensive jewelry, etc) pay for their groceries with food stamps, then break out a wad of cash to pay for their alcohol and all the other stuff that wasnt covered, then have me help them take their groceries to their Mercedes or equally as expensive car...to me that's an insult to the American taxpayer. At the same time, I realize that not everybody recieving govt assistance is cheating the system, and those who really need it shouldnt be punished just because of the ones who abuse it...I just wish there was more checks and balances enforced when it comes to social programs.
I think the term free enterprise has become synonymous with big business interests, especially within the GOP, but certainly also within the Democratic Party as well. Part of the problem with small business growth is the big banks profits are all time highs and it's because they're trading credit default swaps, CDO's, stocks, stock futures, oil futures, corn futures, etc, and making more money than they ever could lending money to small businesses. I consider myself a liberal, although I will never register with either party, and I commend John McCain and others on trying to lead a campaign on the reenactment of Glass Steagel, that's exactly what we need, along with capital requirements. It really shows the deficiencies in our system that the banks that got us to this point haven't been broken up, when the government bailed out GM they got rid of their high ranking executives, the same should've been done with the banks.
The social programs are real tough, I'm not too knowledgeable on them, but the case Sonny gave is what most people think of when they think of people on social programs. However how about closing tax loopholes for corporations that ship jobs overseas, and then using that increase in revenue to allow for tax breaks for companies that open new factories here in the states or operate existing factories here, so we can shift our economy from a primarily service based one to a more balanced one with industry and production. Now would be a good time for that as the era of cheap Chinese labor may be coming to an end and companies are looking to move manufacturing.
Little side tracked there but Obama just called out the GOP for not extending unemployment because it would add to the deficit, but they also want to extend Bush tax cuts which would add $2.56 billion to the deficit between now and 2019.
Here's an interesting article from the Washington Post about the incredible amount of bureaucracy created in the intelligence world since 9/11, and the increase in Pentagon bureaucracy as well, Rumsfeld once said you could line up every person employed at the Pentagon fire every third person and the Pentagon would not be affected at all, and that was before all that's outlined in the article.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/
^^^ Without question corporate welfare is a way bigger drain on our economy than any social program going today...unfortunately, no big politicians ever even address the issue, let alone propose any solution to the problem...but I guess they wouldnt want to go after the people who helped them get to where they are...
[quote:cace62e903]
[b:cace62e903][size=18:cace62e903]Jobless benefits extension clears Senate hurdle[/size:cace62e903]
Will restore benefits to millions who have been out of work[/b:cace62e903]
WASHINGTON Legislation to restore unemployment benefits to millions who have been out of work for more than six months broke free of Senate Republican delaying tactics on Tuesday.
Senators voted 60-40, clearing the way for passage of the bill later on Tuesday. The measure would restore jobless checks for 2.5 million people whose benefits started running out seven weeks ago in a stubbornly jobless economic recovery.
The vote was a modest victory for President Barack Obama and Democrats, whose more ambitious hopes for a jobs agenda have mostly fizzled in the face of GOP opposition in the Senate. A battle has raged for months over whether jobless benefits should be financed with additional federal debt as Democrats want or through cuts to other government programs as most Republicans insist.
The vote came moments after Carte Goodiwn was sworn in as a successor to West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd, who died last month at the age of 92. Goodwin was the crucial 60th senator to defeat a Republican filibuster that has led to a lapse in benefits for 2.5 million people.
The Senate gallery was packed with Goodwin supporters, who broke into applause as he cast his "aye" vote.
Two Republicans, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, voted to end the filibuster. Ben Nelson of Nebraska was the lone Democrat to break with his party and vote to sustain it.
After a final Senate vote, the House is expected to approve it and send it to President Barack Obama on Wednesday.
Story continues below More below
Advertisement | ad info
Sponsored links
Marketplace
"This bill is about jobs because unemployment insurance goes to people who will spend it immediately," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. "That would increase economic demand. And that would help support our fragile economic recovery."
But Republicans say that while they support the benefits extension it should be paid for with cuts elsewhere in the $3.7 trillion federal budget.
"We've repeatedly voted for similar bills in the past. And we are ready to support one now," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "What we do not support and we make no apologies for is borrowing tens of billions of dollars to pass this bill at a time when the national debt is spinning completely out of control."
Under the bill, millions of people stuck on the jobless rolls would receive an extension of unemployment benefits averaging $309 a week.
Democrats had stripped the unemployment insurance measure down to the bare essentials for Tuesday's vote, which is a do-over of a tally taken late last month.
"I can't tell you how relieved we will be when Congress passes this. We have in Pennsylvania about 200,000 people who have lost their unemployment compensation coverage because of their inaction," said Pennsylvania Secretary of Labor and Industry Sandi Vito. "Folks need this money for their mortgages, for food, and so our goal is to get them their payments as quickly as possible."
If all goes as expected, about 2.5 million people will receive jobless benefits retroactively, injecting almost $3 billion into the economy once they're paid out. Instead of being dropped from a federal program that extends benefits for those whose six months of state-paid benefits have run out, millions of others will continue to receive payments that would help prop up consumer demand to the tune of about $30 billion more over the coming year.
Democrats tout the economy-boosting effect of unemployment checks since most beneficiaries spend them immediately. But the numbers amount to less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the size of the $14.6 trillion economy, and are far smaller than last year's $862 billion stimulus legislation. Republicans have blocked Democratic add-ons, such as aid to state governments, that could have meant a greater economic boost.
"It's too small to have any noticeable impact on the economy's growth rate," said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors. "But the benefits do provide an important safety net for people during these difficult economic times."
Obama and his Democratic allies are pressing the issue for maximum political advantage, blaming Republicans for the impasse that halted unemployment checks for people unable to find work as the jobless rate remains close to 10 percent.
Obama launched a fresh salvo Monday, demanding the Senate act on the legislation after a vote already had been scheduled and criticizing Republicans for the holdup.
"The same people who didn't have any problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans are now saying we shouldn't offer relief to middle-class Americans," Obama said.
Story continues below More below
Advertisement | ad info
Sponsored links
Marketplace
Republicans say they do favor the benefits but insist they be paid for with spending cuts elsewhere in the government's $3.7 trillion budget. After initially feeling heat this winter when a lone GOP senator, Jim Bunning of Kentucky, briefly blocked a benefits extension in February, the GOP has grown increasingly comfortable opposing the legislation.
The providing of additional weeks of jobless benefits in the midst of bad times has been regarded as routine, and the latest cycle of additional benefits began in 2008, the last year of George W. Bush's administration.
"For a long time, there has been a tradition under both Democratic and Republican presidents to offer relief to the unemployed," Obama said. "That was certainly the case under my predecessor, when Republicans several times voted to extend emergency unemployment benefits."
But with conservative voters and tea party activists up in arms about the deficit, conservative Republicans have adopted a harder line that has caused three interruptions of jobless benefits.
"We've repeatedly voted for similar bills in the past. And we are ready to support one now," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Tuesday. "What we do not support and we make no apologies for is borrowing tens of billions of dollars to pass this bill at a time when the national debt is spinning completely out of control."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38325301/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/?GT1=43001[/quote:cace62e903]
Long overdue.
