gut;1158638 wrote:Actually, when PE outsources jobs they improve the lives of the TRULY suffering. But it's more an "honor badge" for the bleeding heart liberals than genuine passion to end REAL suffering.

there is real suffering here in America brought on by outsourcing by a bunch of traitors.

QuakerOats;1158773 wrote:Navy SEALS slam obama .........
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137636/SEALs-slam-Obama-using-ammunition-bid-credit-bin-Laden-killing-election-campaign.html


only about 8 more months of this imposter.

56 months unless we can get that 22nd Amendment repealed.

isadore;1158982 wrote:there is real suffering here in America brought on by outsourcing by a bunch of traitors.

Can we agree all these people with big screen tv's, cable, smartphones and who knows what else aren't remotely close to any objective definition of suffering.

Get a skill or a talent if you don't want to "suffer" sucking from the mighty gubmit teet. Like I said, if your concern for suffering was genuine you'd recognize outsourcing is doing far more good for people in true poverty.

Globalization is a reality. You just want to take from those that create value rather than focus on making American workers more competitive. Your approach is a lose-lose.

isadore;1158981 wrote: But Romney would have pushed more tax cuts for the rich further pushing our maldistribution of wealth.

And so now taking less money from tax payers is redistributing wealth? LMFAO

Should the President use it as a campaign ad or slogan, no.
Did he have a part of it? Yes, just read the story behind the operation. The President was deeply involved during the whole planning process.

One of my old bosses, who actually interviewed OBL back in the 90s, came out a new book on the story of hunting OBL.
http://peterbergen.com/manhunt/

I've read a few excerpts, and yeah, the President was involved.

gut;1159038 wrote:And so now taking less money from tax payers is redistributing wealth? LMFAO

yes providing a maldistribution.

I always marvel over the fact that there are people who believe that the government should step in, confiscate wealth earned by the producers in society, and redistribute it to others in the name of "fairness"...all the while conveniently ignoring the blatant unfairness in punishing the wealth producers for having the audacity of producing.

Ironically if the producers weren't producing wealth the "maldistrbutionists" would have nothing to confiscate.

believer;1159431 wrote:I always marvel over the fact that there are people who believe that the government should step in, confiscate wealth earned by the producers in society, and redistribute it to others in the name of "fairness"...all the while conveniently ignoring the blatant unfairness in punishing the wealth producers for having the audacity of producing.

Ironically if the producers weren't producing wealth the "maldistrbutionists" would have nothing to confiscate.

lol "the audacity of producing' these folks continuously used cronyism, loopholes and taxbreaks to enrich themselves.

stlouiedipalma;1158853 wrote:I sure am doing better than I was four years ago. Back then my IRA was taking on water because of the financial crisis. After four years of BHO, it has come all the way back (and then some), I am debt-free and my outlook is positive. Why would I give the Presidency back to the fools who drove the car into the ditch?

It's pretty obvious that you prospered on the backs of the poor and unfortunate who are still in the ditch.

^^^ no doubt; he's a 1%er and loving it. :laugh:

stlouiedipalma;1158853 wrote:I sure am doing better than I was four years ago. Back then my IRA was taking on water because of the financial crisis. After four years of BHO, it has come all the way back (and then some), I am debt-free and my outlook is positive. Why would I give the Presidency back to the fools who drove the car into the ditch?

I am also doing better than I was 4 years ago, not by a ton, but somewhat better. However, that has nothing to do with the government, it has all to do with career choices I made myself.

My 401k and other investments are booming, partially because the DJIA has come back, but also because when the market hit rock bottom I doubled down and upped my contributions in all areas to "buy low". I 'knew' that this natural cycle would come back up sometime.

All this doesn't mean I am doing better because BHO was in office, heck, I was doing betterin 2008 than I was in 2000 BY FAR, and it wasn't due to GWB.

believer;1159431 wrote: Ironically if the producers weren't producing wealth the "maldistrbutionists" would have nothing to confiscate.

For many of them, that's still a preferable scenario. If we all can't be rich (more directly, if I can't be rich), then no one should be rich. Misery loves company.

And this hypocritical mentality is well illustrated by their wailing about America's "poverty", and blasting outsourcing which is lifting the lives of the truly desperate far more than our "poor" have supposedly fallen.

The folks who are getting the free stuff, don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff, can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff, and the folks who are paying for the free stuff, want the free stuff to stop.
And the folks who are getting the free stuff, want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!
Now... the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff, have told the people who are receiving the free stuff, that the people who are paying for the free stuff, are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.
So... the people who are getting the free stuff, have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff, by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff, and giving them the free stuff in the first place.
We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.

the above explanation from those who begrudge the old, the handicapped, the poor and their children anything above a starvation existence.

isadore;1159813 wrote:the above explanation from those who begrudge the old, the handicapped, the poor and their children anything above a starvation existence.

Ah, the strawman argument. If you truly believe that the ~50% of American's that are now "takers" consist of mostly those that are old, handicapped, extremely poor, etc then you are out of touch with reality.

No one is saying to take away the safety net, there are most definitely people who NEED government help. But there are FAR MORE that take advantage of hand outs.

The entitlements need to be cut back and better monitoring of who is receiving them making sur those who TRULY need it are getting it.

I don’t think that 50% Is correct, do you have a link
Here are some major programs and their recipients and someof the largest portions of those receiving benefits
Social security
http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/basicfact.htm
The number of poor Americans seeking food stamps hasrisen sharply to nearly 15 percent, according to a Wall Street Journal reportproduced with data from the Department of Agriculture.
Households that received food stamps in had a medianhousehold income of $17,912, compared with the national median of $50,046,according to the Carsey Instituteat the University
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2011/11/nearly-15-percent-of-u-s-receives-food-stamps/
Nearly15 million childrenin the United States – 21% of all children – live in families with incomesbelow the federalpoverty level – $22,050 a year for a family of four.
http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html

isadore;1159939 wrote:I don’t think that 50% Is correct, do you have a link
Here are some major programs and their recipients and someof the largest portions of those receiving benefits
Social security

Retired workers	[RIGHT][RIGHT]36 million[/RIGHT] [/RIGHT]	[RIGHT][RIGHT]$43.7 billion[/RIGHT] [/RIGHT]	[RIGHT][RIGHT]$1,229 average monthly benefit [/RIGHT] [/RIGHT]
dependents	[RIGHT][RIGHT]2.9 million[/RIGHT] [/RIGHT]	[RIGHT][RIGHT]$ 1.8 billion[/RIGHT] [/RIGHT]
Disabled workers	[RIGHT][RIGHT]8.6 million[/RIGHT] [/RIGHT]	[RIGHT][RIGHT]$ 9.5 billion[/RIGHT] [/RIGHT]	[RIGHT][RIGHT]$1,111 average monthly benefit [/RIGHT] [/RIGHT]
dependents	[RIGHT][RIGHT]2 million[/RIGHT] [/RIGHT]	[RIGHT][RIGHT]$ .67 billion[/RIGHT] [/RIGHT]
Survivors	[RIGHT][RIGHT]6.3 million[/RIGHT] [/RIGHT]	[RIGHT][RIGHT]$ 6.5 billion[/RIGHT] [/RIGHT]	[RIGHT][RIGHT]$1,185 average monthly benefit [/RIGHT] [/RIGHT]

http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/basicfact.htm
The number of poor Americans seeking food stamps hasrisen sharply to nearly 15 percent, according to a Wall Street Journal reportproduced with data from the Department of Agriculture.
Households that received food stamps in had a medianhousehold income of $17,912, compared with the national median of $50,046,according to the Carsey Instituteat the University
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2011/11/nearly-15-percent-of-u-s-receives-food-stamps/
Nearly15 million childrenin the United States – 21% of all children – live in families with incomesbelow the federalpoverty level – $22,050 a year for a family of four.
http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html

1. I am not counting SS, I believe the system needs major reform, but I don't count it as a hand out as MOST of those people paid into it.
2. Food stamps is a system so widely abused it isn't even funny. Households making WELL above what is claimed and still getting FS's. I know of many cases where a couple does not get married and the woman does not list the father on the BC. They live in the same house, he has a great job, and she is a stay at home mom claiming near zero income. She can then get welfare and food stamps.

At what income level should people get no assisstance in your opinion? I'd say below about $20,000 (~20 percentile) you should get assistance. Anything above that you should be out on your own.

Also, if you are below that due to job loss only your benefits should NOT be 2 years, but a more realistic 6 months to find a job.

Those two ideas alone would cut some entitlement spending.

of course it will produce untold suffering, but what the hell you will save a few bucks on your taxes.

isadore;1160175 wrote:of course it will produce untold suffering, but what the hell you will save a few bucks on your taxes.

Proof of untold suffering?

It may just force people to go get a job instead of living on unemployment.

It also wouldn't save a dime on my taxes as I am not for any more tax cuts RIGHT NOW.

Leave taxes where they are, lower spending to balance the budget, THEN raise my taxes to pay off the debt.

In a perfect world that is what politicians would do.

jmog;1160211 wrote: It may just force people to go get a job instead of living on unemployment.

The problem isn't getting better, so it's that tried-and-true Washington fix to solve problems by throwing more money at it. If you want MORE poverty, then by all means continue to increase the handouts.

isadore;1160175 wrote:of course it will produce untold suffering, but what the hell you will save a few bucks on your taxes.

An example of untold suffering:

[IMG]http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/infographics/2011/07/special-amenities-and-poor-chart-ICONS_1095.jpg[/IMG]

^^^^ Our poor lives better than most of the world's upper class

I had literally $0 to my name in college and had a refrigerator, microwave, and AC. Most rented apartments come with a refrigerator, a microwave costs $40, and AC is pretty essential in summer months.

How is that picture at all surprising or indicative of whether poor people "have it good?"

Al Bundy;1160300 wrote:^^^^ Our poor lives better than most of the world's upper class

Our "poor" are definitely far better off than the world's truly poor.

But ultra-leftists like Isadore love to toss out phrases like "untold suffering" and other complete nonsensical hyperbole to make it seem that Amerika's "downtrodden" need more of their fair share.

2kool4skool;1160327 wrote:I had literally $0 to my name in college and had a refrigerator, microwave, and AC. Most rented apartments come with a refrigerator, a microwave costs $40, and AC is pretty essential in summer months.

How is that picture at all surprising or indicative of whether poor people "have it good?"

Do they come with a computer, cell phone, 2 TVs and cable TV too?