Obama Or Romney?

[meganiwish]

In fairness, probalbly not the exact response I expected. 'Fair share' is quite easy to define. Enough to eat, drink, be sheltered, warm and able to function as a member of your society. It's nothing short of a disgrace that there are people in the world who don't have this minimum. While that situation still exists, anyone who has more than it has more than their fair share. In this sense, and thinkng globally, most of us in the West can consider ourselves culpable. Of course, it's prudent to put something aside against the future. Even a subsistance farmer would try to store some of an especially good harvest for use in a year of poor harvest. What's not fair is to secure one's own future at the expense of someone else's present. I would argue that this is exactly what people with millions in the bank are doing. Very hard to say how big a share is too big, because when people have enough they tend not to worry too much about those who have more. But throughout history you can see tipping points when resentment grew: France in the late 18th Century, Russia in 1917, Mexico in 1910. Most people don't expect everything to be completely equal, but they do know when the rich are taking the micky. I wonder if that's happening at the moment.

[johnr104]

'Fair share' is quite easy to define. Enough to eat, drink, be sheltered, warm and able to function as a member of your society.

... anyone who has more than it has more than their fair share.

What's not fair is to secure one's own future at the expense of someone else's present. I would argue that this is exactly what people with millions in the bank are doing.

Wow. That's quite a statement... If I understand you correctly, If I work my ass off for my entire life and as a result of that I accumulate more comforts than you describe, then I have more than my fair share. I understand where you are coming from. It sure would be nice if everybody had the things you described. Unfortunately it cannot happen. No matter how much you want it, no matter how nice it would be. The thing that would get in the way is something you didn't address and that is that pesky thing called reality. I could address each and every one of your points and patiently explain why it is simply unobtainable, but let me address just a few.

If the government taxed me everything I made which was above the threshold of "fair share" as you described then I really need you to explain to me why the heck I would work as hard as I do? Reality has the answer... I just wouldn't. It's human nature, if I don't have to work hard, I won't.

History is full of examples. Look back at the pilgrims as one example. Believing they were creating a city of God, under the leadership of Bradford and Standish, they organized the first collective farm. Land was held in common, and all land tilled for crops was owned by all and farmed by the collective efforts of the community. As they were building a religious community, free enterprise and self interest were secondary to the interest of the group (State). Sound familiar? Karl Marx was two hundred years away.

But here is the kicker... it was not working. The collective corn fields suffered from a meager crop year after year. The men of the community worked in the fields out of necessity but with little enthusiasm. It was a common excuse to be away hunting, fishing, or building a dwelling. The foundations of capitalism, with its rights of ownership and the powerful motivating force of economic incentive did not exist.

All this changed the day entrepreneurship was born on New England soil. The ruling elders after a debate over the usual lack of corn meal for winter storage and the lack of interest in working the fields relented to the idea of privatization. Out of disgust, it was suggested that the land be divided and each family raise its own corn. Thus lazy Pilgrims would go hungry and it would be their own fault. But the ambitious and selfish would eat. The idea was met with opposition as it was felt to be a harsh and selfish measure-not Christian in its approach to sharing and the group welfare. Luckily the opposition lost and private ownership of the “factors of production” became reality.

You know what happened- corn production soared. Within two years they had a surplus and began trading it with Indians and other small settlements for furs to export to England in exchange for supplies. Corn became currency as the whole family worked in their own patch of New England soil to better their lives. They were America’s first entrepreneurs. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

Finally, I'd like to ask you this. I have worked very hard all my life. I am very comfortable, and way above the "fair share" threshold you described. I employ people and treat them fairly. I have secured my future. So, please tell me, at whose expense did I succeed?

While I admire your altruistic motivations, you must temper your enthusiasm with the bigger picture. Can we really do what you would want us to do? Will it work? What are the unintended consequences? Can the society survive at the level we would want if we were to eliminate economic incentive? In other words what would the reality be? Life is like a game of chess. To anticipate what will happen you need to look not one move ahead, but many moves ahead. So while it is very easy as a first move to say "tax the rich of everything above their fair share" what would the consequences of that be over the next moves?

I have always looked at things logically. I have learned that reality rules no matter what, and it is in that vein that I have come to my conclusions. And it was not unnoticed that, other than your definition of "fair share", you didn't address any of my other points. You simply reverted to the old position of "the rich are exploiting the rest of us".

Edited August 22, 2012 by johnr104

[meganiwish]

I should have been more precise and said 'At least enough to eat, drink, have shelter and warmth'. I never meant to imply that a fair share meant an equal share. I'm happy to live frugally and work little. Not everyone is. That's their choice. It doesn't make me lazy, it just means I have different priorities. You chose to quote me missing out four important words: 'While this situation exists....' There's a global economy and we in the West live as well as we do at the expense of others who live worse. I was careful to include myself in that. I don't claim to be able to solve that, but at least I won't make excuses for it. It is morally repugnant that I should live reasonably well because people elsewhere starve. There's an exchange at the end of the film The Mission. Slave trader says, 'We must live in the world, the world is thus.' Bishop says, 'No, thus have we made the world.' Thank you for the History lesson, but please don't presume to know what I know and don't know. Also please don't assume I'm a Marxist. Marx believed in political solutions to what was essentially an economic problem. I see Marx as misguided at best, and probably worse. Actually, at no point did I say that the rich are exploiting the rest of us. But a money economy works by money moving, and rich people's money moves less, so they are affecting the rest of us. Reality. Well in the interests of reality, shall we knock on the head the idea that richer = harder working, which we all know to be less than the truth. I don't doubt that there are hard working rich folk, but do we honestly believe that all the richest people are the hardest working? And there are many people who work hard for no economic gain. Our own dear Tech is a fine example, but there are others across the board. I stand by what I said about not having a right to live or secure one's future at the expense of others' present Well done, that was the response I was expecting.

Edited August 24, 2012 by meganiwish

[Bubba136]

There is a line in one of founding documents: "All men are created equal.". Circumstances existing at their place of birth determine the quality of life they will enjoy while on this earth. Opportunities and political considerations, amongst others, really determine any one individuals fate. Some people are more fortunate than others. It has been my experience that mot people really desire to improve their situations through hard work and self reliance. Then, there are others that believe the world should provide there needs without any effort on their part. Those are not the people that I chose to help.

[meganiwish]

"I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill, but time and chance happeneth to them all." Ecclessiastes Ch 9: 11

I take this to mean we shouldn't judge people by their circumstances. I think that's me agreeing with you, Bubba136.

Edited August 29, 2012 by meganiwish

[benno]

Not Romney!

Romney quote: "My policy has always been not to discriminate based on race or anything else. Those are my fundamental core beliefs."

[SF]

Geezzzz......

[Sangue16]

I bet Obama would do it and put it on Youtube if he thought it could get him some votes. Gah, ObamaCare! I doubt any Pre-Med students or many medical professionals will vote for him...

[hoverfly]

Nader, I vote for someone who won't win. So should everyone else who don't like the top contenders.

[Shafted]

Nader, I vote for someone who won't win. So should everyone else who don't like the top contenders.

Amen to that. If enough of us do that, maybe someone will take notice.

[ilikekicks]

Nader, I vote for someone who won't win. So should everyone else who don't like the top contenders.

In 92 and 96, it was Perot. In 2000, it was Harry Browne ( Libertarian ). Gary Johnson has the spotlight right now from my perspective. I wish Ron Paul would run as an independent.

I just dont understand how anyone could vote for Romney. Sure, he has a few things going for him :

- Hes not presently in Office overlooking the absolute disaster we have in all aspects of government.

- He knows about money. His and that of others ( investors/businesses ) unlike who/what he would replace.

- Hes not G.W. Bush.

Outside of those few things, endless it was just a 2 choice race, I cant see any reason to vote for him except hes NOT ' Barack Obama ' .

[Heelster]

In 92 and 96, it was Perot. In 2000, it was Harry Browne ( Libertarian ). Gary Johnson has the spotlight right now from my perspective.

Gary's getting four votes from my household this year. Never liked Obama, but I can't bring myself to even consider Romney as a viable replacement.

[ilikekicks]

Gary's getting four votes from my household this year. Never liked Obama, but I can't bring myself to even consider Romney as a viable replacement.

I would take a Romney over an Obama for quite a few reasons. The problem I have is ' Would Romney have done the same thing as Obama? '.

Think about this ( everyone ) for just a few seconds and be HONEST with whats being asked.

- People dont like the ' Affordable Care Act ' The Democrats FORCED through the Process through whats called ' Reconciliation '. The Bill was never made public BEFORE it was even voted on. Shafted and Myself have both gone through it. Its one of the Reasons that helped me decide to close my business before government closed my well being.

The bill was modeled off of something Romney signed into law in M.A. .

People I know in M.A. whom have been going through financial struggles have stated that the forced implementation of their medical insurance or what people untruthfully call ' Health Care ' has hurt a lot of people. Insurance providers are struggling to break even in M.A. and from what I have been told and read ( but not subjugated to ) quality of care and hospitalization has dropped dramatically.

Take a look at the system :

https://www.mass-health-insurance.org/

With what Im presently going through, under the ' Affordable care act ', I would have to sell what I own and then be able to attain coverage. My private insurance is picking up my tab and I have choices *I* make for myself. Such are unavailable to everyone in the future. READ THE BILL FOR YOURSELVES.

Its a strike against both of them.

- Romney supposedly bankrupted companies in order to make the stockholders profits. Lets say ( for arguments sake ) its 100% true. Uncontested.

Real unemployment right now is at 16% using REAL U4, U5 and U6 reporting. Its gone from a REAL percentage of 8.1% to whatthey are claiming in less then 4 years.

Both are Job losers.

- Civil Rights? Romneys father marched with MLK, Obama sat in church with Rev. Wright soaking up his Anti-Semitic and racist remarks. Mitt Romney never walked with MLK and shouldnt get ANY credit for what his FATHER Accomplished. Then Again, Obamas people ( Eric Holder ) let the Black Panthers get away with walking the balloting ( voting ) Polls with nightsticks. Thats NOT ' voter intimidation '?

Obama still has Gitmo bay open where people are being tortured. The nation I live in is VERY much segregated in color/ethnic make-up towards their mindsets. Romney had nothing to do with either of them, but he sure could have TRIED to do something like publicly speak out! He has millions in the bank.. yet says nothing about wrong doings.. and now wants my vote..

Romney has no record to run on and Obamas is a complete failure or an albatross around his neck.

Financial or fiscal outlooks? I could care less about what Romney does with his money, I'm worried about how Obama plans to spend what little I have left!

Romneys tax records or Obamas college records.. One shouldnt complain about the other, they are on par.

I cannot see how ANYONE could vote for Obama over Romney or Romney over Obama as they are the exact SAME in all regards. There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in them.

The ONLY solution is to stop voting for Republicans and definitely forgetting about Democrats all together after their ' Affordable Care Act ' procedures totally went against what ' we the people ' have established over 200 years.

[Web_Jock]

Just curious.

I am not lookig for a heated debate.

It would have been better if you threw in someone from the Green Party or the Libertarian Party. I find both Mitt Romney and Presidential Obama to be crooks.

[ilikekicks]

I dont know if Obama snagged my weed or if he really doesnt know anything/is unfit.. But after last nights debate, it was quite clear Obama really is clueless.

The whole debate could be a comparison as if those of us on this site were trying to tell Christian Louboutin, Jimmy Choo or some other top end designer about how to make shoes/fashion.

I think Obama was clearly exposed for the empty suit he is.

Neither of the 2 people in the debate are worth voting for in my opinion, but its VERY clear whom the better candidate was between the 2.

It would have been better if you threw in someone from the Green Party or the Libertarian Party. I find both Mitt Romney and Presidential Obama to be crooks.

Agreed!

[sinkem]

I had Romney as my governor, not impressed. I'm also not impressed with Obama. So it's a choice between a rock and a hard place. How about none of the above? sinkem

[ilikekicks]

I was reading this article and it truly speaks to how I feel about ' Democrats ' in general as a ' political party '. After owning and running a business for a decade, and seeing recent times turn things very bad, this article explains why I can never again vote for anyone whom holds the title ' Democrat '. Im not saying I will consciously vote for a Republican, make no mistakes, but I look down upon the DNC as of being in the same mindset as some groups people really despise.

I hope those wanting Obama to win fully feel the effects of his reign. I hope ALL of Obamas dreams come to fruition and everyone casting support for him has to endure what is ' to come '.

By Michael Goodwin

Published October 10, 2012

New York Post

With so many reports coming out of the White House that President Obama views Mitt Romney with “disdain,” let’s assume they’re true. Now let’s ask why the president has such contempt for his opponent.

The first explanation came in a book in August, where Glenn Thrush wrote that as the 2012 campaign approached, Obama “quickly developed a genuine disdain” for Romney.

“There was a baseline of respect for John McCain. The president always thought he was an honorable man and a war hero,” an Obama adviser told Thrush. “That doesn’t hold true for Romney. He was no goddamned war hero.”

So Obama looks down on Romney because Mitt was never captured by the enemy and tortured? That’s weird, given that Obama himself never served in the military, though he did famously complain that working in a private business was like being “behind enemy lines.” I guess you had to be there to appreciate his pain.

Another explanation came the other day, when The New York Times included the president’s contempt for Romney in a litany of excuses for Obama’s debate flop.

“Mr. Obama does not like debates to begin with, aides have long said, viewing them as media-driven gamesmanship,” the Times wrote. “Mr. Obama made clear to advisers that he was not happy about debating Mr. Romney, whom he views with disdain.”

So the president doesn’t like debates, and especially doesn’t like debating Romney because of Obama’s “disdain.” This is more circular than enlightening, and begs the question of why.

Why does Obama hate Romney?

Here’s my view: the president has been totally corrupted by power. His already excessive self-regard has grown out of control thanks to an entourage of yes men, a fawning press and the presidential bubble. He actually believes in the messianic cult of the “black Jesus” that surrounds him, and has a Nobel Prize to authenticate his personal exceptionalism.

The result is that Obama is no longer capable of dealing with ordinary disagreement and difference. He can only demonize it as unworthy and illegitimate. Honest disagreements are beneath him. Thus, Romney is a “liar.”

We the people disappoint him, too. His desire for “more flexibility” reflects a desire to be freed from our messy democracy, as did his comment that it would be easier to be president of China. The Constitution, he complained, is too limiting, signaling he doesn’t like the Founders’ whole point of limited government.

Another sign of irritation is his constant boasting and use of the word “I.” This is more than a bad habit. Whether from deep insecurity or narcissism, or both, he views his election as a blank check for power that he constantly tries to cash. Think czars and end runs around Congress, along with a public scolding of the Supreme Court.

Tellingly, he rejected Republican suggestions over the stimulus with a conversation-stopper: “I won.” And his decision to leak the details of how he personally decides who will live and die during drone attacks reeks of madness. The program put him as close to absolute power as a man can get, but instead of humility, he pounds his chest.

These are not stray episodes. His politics are intensely psychological and the key to his governing. People who have met with him report that he doesn’t listen or engage in substantive conversations. His ideas are immutable to facts or fresh thinking. “A stubborn worldview” is how one Democrat described it.

Romney, in so many ways, embodies Obama’s worst nightmare. His life story explodes Obama’s crude assumptions of the wealthy, which is essentially that behind every great fortune lies a great crime. Romney did build his fortune.

Romney also has the nerve to challenge the president’s statist philosophy. By attacking dependency and government power, and promoting individual opportunity and capitalism, Romney might as well be arguing that the world is flat.

Even more offensive, the election is close, and the would-be usurper thrashed him one-on-one. This means war.

Therein rests the truth of Obama’s disdain. It’s not really personal, it’s business. It is the business of a king clinging to power, for the simplest, most human reason of all.

As Mel Brooks said, “It’s good to be the king.”

Gary Johnson, 2012!

[Shafted]

If things continue on with either of these men, the american people are going to get one hellacious smackdown. 90% of them will be too stupid to even realize what happened.

[ilikekicks]

Shafted.. I truly and sincerely feel things are ' too late '. The U.S. Economy will look like Greece by mid year 2013. My thoughts and theories on ' who and what ' caused this problem arent ' politically correct ' as Im one whom is against ' multiculturalism ' and ' globalism '. Where the problems came about were long before you and I were born. Europeans are quite ' correct ' when they speak of empire building and the U.S. . As a nation, our ' leaders ' (sic) decided to toss around the check-book and make very bad investments. We bailed out the Europeans in WW2. Understandable, it was something that had to be done. Speaking in all honesty, lend/lease act made the U.S. industrial sector what it USED to be.. powerful and very dominant. Now? Not at all. After WW2, what did we do? Korea? Why? Wasnt out problem. Vietnam? That was Frances failure. Their mess. Yet we went in there as well. Not to knock on the Euros whom might post here, but it seems theres a resentment towards anything the U.S. does. My solution is simple. Romney has a 5 part plan, so do I ! 1.) Defund the U.N. and kill off ALL foreign aid. Every last cent. Let China and Europe pay their fair share. Theres 192 nations in the U.N., why does the U.S. foot a clear third of the bill on its own? Its NOT ' Property of the U.S. ' so why should we pay for it and give everyone else a pass.. 16 trillion dollars of debt and growing! 2.) Ditch HALF our military forces. What do we need 12 carrier groups for when we can maintain and use a cheaper method of strike capabilities. B2's and F-22 Raptors. Nothing can really stop them. A smaller Navy/Marine Corps can easily work if our airpower is overwhelming. 3.) Ditch the FED. Go back to a gold standard. Make a ' Dollar ' worth something. This thought alone scares the shit out of the IMF and all others playing the international currency exchange. It would force ' Currency Manipulators ' ( as Romney pointed out.. it was about the only thing he said that I thought wasnt a blatant lie ) to put a REAL value on their monies. A lot of trade imbalances would stop the next day. 4.) Ditch all LEGAL discrimination laws. Our laws prohibit Racial Profiling and Protect ' minorities '. Yet there were so many contracts I wasnt allowed to LEGALLY bid on because I never filed as a ' minority ' as a business owner. There were other contractors I have worked with whom do superb work.. yet werent allowed to ' bid ' on a job, even if it would have saved the taxpayers MILLIONS and brought local jobs/workers into the mix. Instead, out of state contractors came in, charged TWICE to THREE TIMES the amount someone locally would have done the job for.. but they were a ' minority ' so, its all ' legal '? WTF? Its discrimination and its wrong. It divides out citizenry and makes me feel like the only reason I could have won those contracts was because I was a ' spic ' or a ' jew '. Not because I had the ability to exceed expectations and actually be a ' minority ' that actually has a clue and isnt some cotton picker.. Seriously! 5.) Follow the 10th Amendment. Its there for a reason. Its so we as local communities can govern ourselves. You didnt hear ANY of those 5 points from EITHER of those candidates. Why? Because they are too afraid to just tell people what we all know is obvious. A REAL leader will speak up and clearly even if they know people arent going to like what they are going to say. They dont have to lie or just tell ' one side ' of it ( their view obviously ). Most of the people whom will vote for Obama or Romney are doing such in FEAR of the ' other guy '. It shows how divisive we have become that we have to worry about our neighbors and fellow citizens trying to push their beliefs onto each other. Very sad. Liberty? Freedom? Yes, in a heavily diminished capacity as of present. -ILK

[LarWhe78]

Most of the people whom will vote for Obama or Romney are doing such in FEAR of the ' other guy '. It shows how divisive we have become that we have to worry about our neighbors and fellow citizens trying to push their beliefs onto each other. Very sad.

From a European perspective, and based the media coverage which finds its way over here, your election seems to be little more than a personality contest played out on TV where each side simply demonises the other. The whole thing is a play on fear. There's very little constructive output or any real reliance on policies, it's just hammer the other guy. It's quite clear Obama has been a disappointment but is four years long enough to undo what is little more than bankruptcy? It's also clear Romney is getting a huge push from big business which, let's be frank, seldom does anything for the greater good. That, were I voting, would be quite disturbing and have a big influence on where I would cast my vote. When I think of Romney, I can't help but get that Greg Stillson kind of feeling.

As for resentment, US foreign policy is what it is. What are your kids doing getting killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why is the US destabilising the middle East? These kind of things have negative consequences for all us. The "terrorist" tag is great for headlines but it's low on substance. Why is the US such an object of hate for so many cultures? It can't just be because you love freedom so much, you know what I mean? Does freedom really exist in a country where the word "liberal" is practically spat out with disgust from many mouths?

Controversial one here, but would stopping all foreign aid include Israel too?

[ilikekicks]

From a European perspective, and based the media coverage which finds its way over here, your election seems to be little more than a personality contest played out on TV where each side simply demonises the other. The whole thing is a play on fear. There's very little constructive output or any real reliance on policies, it's just hammer the other guy.

Sad but true. Whats really disconcerting and also very obvious is Obamas record speaks for itself. My countries wealth has diminished and the Government is bankrupt. There are more people relying on Government and not doing their part for themselves. Self dependency has been extinguished under this guy.

It's quite clear Obama has been a disappointment but is four years long enough to undo what is little more than bankruptcy?

' Little more then a bankruptcy '. Let me make some insinuations in whats involved in that ' bankruptcy '.

50+million people whom rely on ' government ' for their well being or ' retirement '.

*IF* there was a bankruptcy, and all spending for military, foreign aid AND investments was put out of the question, there would only be a 200billion dollar surplus AFTER paying off those dependent on government.

All those ' green ' programs would be gone. all the investments into infrastructure would be gone.. Military and all the jobs/contracts would be gone.. Unemployment would skyrocket to over 100million people ( thats 1/3rd of the country ) in less then a year.

That ' bankruptcy ' becomes a question of ' Do we starve those dependent on us now OR do we have no future as a nation '.

Theres no ' Quantitive easing ' as has been implemented over the last few years. It doesnt work. It helped keep inflation low but thats ' artificial ' and could rise up to ' real ' numbers at ANY time.

The US National Debt isnt really ' 16 trillion dollars ', its well over 20 when all the interest payments and future projections are looked at. I dont know what the total amount of GDP of the entire E.U. is, but Im betting the US debt would be bigger.

Could Obama have done better? HELLS YES! We could have walked out of Iraq and Afghanistan moments after he took office. We could have cut the expenditures of Guantanamo bay ( IE: Torture chambers ) by having the trial processes and releasing people that week. We could have cut off a LOT of Aid to other countries whom harbor those we were looking for ( Pakistan! ). Thats a TRILLION in spending right there!

We could have let GM go through a normal bankruptcy ( Chapter 11 ) and they would have needed less assistance. I just went through the process of liquidating a business ( outside of bankruptcy ) and its not that hard at all to see the numbers and do the math. Obama has NEVER had to do anything of the sorts and really wouldnt know where to start. Yet he can spend trillions of dollars a year? His record proves you cant let a 2 year old that cant say ' 1 + 2 = 3 ' have the checkbook.

It's also clear Romney is getting a huge push from big business which, let's be frank, seldom does anything for the greater good.

I understand thats what your lead to believe, but 30% ( or more ) of the U.S. populace receives compensation or a paycheck from those entities you speak of. Its EASY to talk bad about ' big businesses ' or ' big oil ' till they close their doors and people then done have jobs or the taxes generated by those entities isnt available for ' social spending ' for the greater good.

Im sure NewYork will miss the 120,000$ I had to put in their hands over the last 2 years. Thats 2 paychecks for some ' State Workers '.

An interesting read : http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2012/10/28/state-taxes-states-highest-lowest/1654071/

Im in the HIGHEST taxed state in the Union. Im very much considering and have looked into moving a few states over to Ohio where things arent so ' blue '.

That, were I voting, would be quite disturbing and have a big influence on where I would cast my vote. When I think of Romney, I can't help but get that Greg Stillson kind of feeling.

As for resentment, US foreign policy is what it is. What are your kids doing getting killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why is the US destabilising the middle East? These kind of things have negative consequences for all us. The "terrorist" tag is great for headlines but it's low on substance.

Low on substance? I would agree if such were true. The woman whom kick-started my heeling lost both parents on 9/11.

We all believe we have ' the view ' into things till that reality check bounces. Foreign policy should be ' lets trade goods! ', not bombs. It shouldnt be invasions or dictating to any other country.

Why is the US such an object of hate for so many cultures? It can't just be because you love freedom so much, you know what I mean? Does freedom really exist in a country where the word "liberal" is practically spat out with disgust from many mouths?

Ive left quite a few websites over the last 5 years. Im using my perspective as an example and this doesnt cover ' everyone in europe ' nor everyone on this side of the pond.

Europeans for the most part believe they have this superior ' critical thinking ' aspect to them. They believe they are better educated and have the most to offer the planet.

There have been more then 1 website where I have stood up to someone from Europe for their ' U.S. Bashing ' and was asked to sit back and just ' shut up '.

The bashing was about EVERYTHING from how we ' dont pay our fair share to the world ', how we ' rape the resources ' of other nations.. It was VERY bad and some of the comments if repeated would have me in the dog-house on THIS site.

What I think a LOT of it falls to is ' multiculturalism ' and being ' global '.

Europe and many other nations have been the historical equivalent to a box of lego-blocks. Taken apart and built into something else for 2500+ years. Someone doing historical work cannot find a consistent map of Europe without some countries boarders changing every 100 years.

Europeans have fought and killed one another off for how long?

On the surface, ' multiculturalism ' looks great. ' Globalism ' looks great..

The U.S. had one civil war. Outside of that, not much action has really happened besides kicking out the English and forming our own Constitutional Republic. Sure, war of 1812, cuba/florida, Texas/Alamo ( Spanish American War ).. but basically the ' States ' have gotten along.

Europe? Carnage since its inception. The Huns, The Roman Empire, How many wars have the French, English and Spanish had with one another from the 1400's-1800's?

Thats the History of ' multiculturalism ' in a nutshell. Its all great.. till they start killing one another off. But Europeans are Taught/told to believe otherwise. Right or wrong, it doesnt matter, Its just how things are. I wont say its right or wrong to teach such, but it happens.

Im not saying one nation is better then any other, but just because a group of people believes they are better and can demonize some other group more, doesnt always make it fact. Thats something not taught to kids these days anywhere and some are even ENCOURAGED to stand up for things they dont know anything about.

I do believe there is a lot of resentment due to envy. You asked if freedom could really exist in a country where the term ' liberal ' was frowned upon? Yes, and heres why.

A ' Liberal ' in the United States is NOT for ' Liberty '. The term ' Liberal ' was actually stolen from what are now called ' Libertarians '. Theres a LOT of people whom label themselves as ' Liberals ' when in actuality they are Federalists, Communists or Socialists. They are for ' Liberty so long as the government permits it '. They are NOT for ' Individual liberty from birth to grave ' types of mindsets.

A ' Liberal ' means someone whom wants liberty. They want such not only for themselves, but for others. People should have the freedoms to choose for themselves the life they wish and should be allowed to pursue such a life so long as they harm nobody else. They believe in both economic AND social liberties.

The ' Liberals ' of today dont believe in such at all. They believe that wealth needs to be re-distributed to EVERYONE. That ' Everyone ' deserves something even if they make no effort into earning/achieving it.

Im sure saying such will ruffle a few peoples feathers, but lets title/call things for what they truly are here.

*I* would be whats known as a ' Classic Liberal ' or whats now called a ' Libertarian '. I believe I have no rights at all to tell you how to live YOUR life. I shouldnt be allowed to cast a vote telling you how you need to do anything if it doesnt harm me. I believe I need to respect YOUR privacy and properties as you will then in return respect mine.

A ' Liberal ' of today tends to be a loud mouthed Hollywood type that wants a glamourous world.. while rushing a stage of a speaker of opposition to ' drown them out '. Others voices and opinions cannot be heard as they are just ' lying, being racist/sexist/a homophobe/ a 1%'er '.. or whatever title they dream up this weak to try and make someone else look bad.

REAL Liberals arent frowned upon nor is the word. The Idiots whom CLAIM to be liberals but truly arent.. They disgrace the title.

Your in Ireland. Are you allowed to ( or can you really afford ) to go out and buy a big ' petrol ' guzzling car? What do you pay for 3.8 liters of petrol? Do you have much of any say in how your going to be treated for medical conditions? How many of those around you have the ' liberty ' to pick up where they are and just move on without any questions? Can you choose which schools your kids are going to attend?

These are some of the liberties I have that are presently being taken from me.. when all I have done is followed the law and bothered nobody else.

Controversial one here, but would stopping all foreign aid include Israel too?

Why not? They arent an entity of the United States. If they bought products made here at a market rate, great! But!! No handing over dollars for nothing. I also say we shouldnt ' advise ' Israel on anything either. If they wish to bomb or do something as a nation, thats their problem, not the U.S. policies problem.

Arabs and Jews have been killing each other for 2-3 centuries. as a kid, my mother used to send me to the Temple to learn all about this ' Jewish History '. I later realized I lived in N.Y. , not some country elsewhere and all that ' history ' I was being instructed on didnt mean a thing to me. ' Half Jew ' or ' Half Spic ' doesnt matter to me. I was born in the U.S. where a doctor had my mother push me out, he slapped me, I screamed.. then he should have done the planet a favor and slapped my mother for having me in the first place! .

Seriously though, why be delusional and believe some magic day is going to happen in our lifetimes where they will wake up and stop killing each other? Both sides are horrible ( it could be compared to the choice of Romney/Obama ). Imagine : a negotiations table for a ' peace accord '. One would come with papers of foreclosure on your country and the other side would send a representative wearing a bomb vest. Is that far off from reality considering modern times and the past centuries of history to back such?

Im sure Ive ruffled feathers in this post but Im speaking the truth. We all need to see things for what reality ' is '. Its why I cannot vote for Obama/Democrats and Romney isnt a choice of good-faith either. Gary Johnson is the ONLY Candidate that makes any sense in the distortion we call ' reality '.

Peace to you!

-ILK

Even Oliver Stone, a Super-left-leaning film director doesnt like what Obama has done..

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2012/10/29/obama-oliver-stone-book/1665707/

"The country Obama inherited was indeed in shambles, but Obama took a bad situation and, in certain ways, made it worse," write Stone and Kuznick, reportsPolitico. "Rather than repudiating the policies of Bush and his predecessors, Obama has perpetuated them."

On health care: "Obama's failure to articulate a progressive vision was also apparent in the fight over health reform, which was to have been his signature initiative…Obama's health care reform effort, marked by the inability to even refute Republican charges of death panels, was so unpopular that it became an albatross around the necks of Democrats in the 2010 election."

On civil liberties: "Among the greatest disappointments to his followers was Obama's refusal to roll back the expanding national security state that so egregiously encroached on American civil liberties."

On 'imperialism': "[He] was not offering a decisive break with over a century of imperial conquest. His was a centrist approach to better managing the American empire rather than advancing a positive role for the United States in a rapidly evolving world."

On defense spending: "While cutting defense spending, pulling combat forces out of Iraq and beginning the drawdown in Afghanistan represented a welcome retreat from they hypermilitarism of the Bush-Cheney years, they did not represent the sharp and definitive break with empire that the world needed to see from the United States."

Kind of sad when Obamas record is THAT bad!

Whats even more sad is people will line up and vote for Obama again after believing he was going to fix all of GW Bush'es messes and he just continued them or added to them. People absolutely refuse to see the truth and even when they know this guy is an abysmal failure, they vote for him again.

If you know walking in front of a bus will get you mashed into mush from experiencing it once, why intentionally do it again?

[Heelster]

One of the things that this election will not solve, and will barely affect is our current Fiscal policy and it's associated debt load. If you noticed, what discussion that has occured through the debate process really hasn't been of any real substance. As for our economy, the reality of it's failure due to debt will not only affect the US, but will have a devastating affect on virtually every major economy of any size. The Greece and Spain debacles will be nothing as compared to what will happen to the rest of the world if ours really begins to implode. As for myself, I'm one of the few registered Libertarians in a territory full of Neocons. We still have a large population of full tilt Democrates, but this time, they really don't seem to have the drive to re-elect Obama.

[ilikekicks]

One of the things that this election will not solve, and will barely affect is our current Fiscal policy and it's associated debt load. If you noticed, what discussion that has occured through the debate process really hasn't been of any real substance.

As for our economy, the reality of it's failure due to debt will not only affect the US, but will have a devastating affect on virtually every major economy of any size. The Greece and Spain debacles will be nothing as compared to what will happen to the rest of the world if ours really begins to implode.

It should start happening by next spring. Heres why :

*IF* Romney makes it into the WhiteHouse, theres not much he can do in his first 6 months that will stop the tax-hogg known-as/Called ' Obamacare '. A year down the road, Im sure they can uproot everything and start from scratch but with all the movement thats taken place, its implementation will HAVE to start.

Heres a clue to what some people wont ever see about ' ACA ' or ' Obamacare '.

As an employer, my contributions towards costs would have DOUBLED. They said this wouldnt effect businesses with less then 50 people. What the Majority of voters forger or have never even heard of is that Employers match Medicade/SSI/DUI contributions of their employees.

How is Medicade going to survive the 700+ Billion dollar money shift that was scored by teh CBO?

Some say ' Thats not true! '. I'll let them believe such but ask a question of this :

I was sent a package from NewYork States Medicade department in regards to Employer contributions. For EVERY Employee and myself, I had to submit a Birth Certificate or N-550/N-570 ( Immigration papers ). Theres a processing fee for this ( Tax ).

For EACH person registered to the business, there was a payroll deduction of a specific percentage for all with myself being double for SSI and Medicade as I employed myself.

As the letter sent to me read ( I copied this from a link ):

"A Medicaid State Plan is an official document that describes the nature and scope of a state's Medicaid program. Each state develops its own Plan, as required under Section 1902 of the Social Security Act (Act), which is then approved by the federal Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS). Any changes or amendments to the Plan are similarly developed by the state and approved by DHHS. Each state administers its own Plan and, in doing so, agrees to conform to the requirements of the Act and all other applicable federal statutes and regulations related to the Medicaid program.

The Plan dictates the policies and procedures that a state will follow in administering the Medicaid program, including those related to the methods of administration, eligibility criteria, covered services, and reimbursement methodologies, to name a few.

In most cases, a state is required to issue a Public Notice prior to the effective date of any change to the Plan. The Public Notice, which appears in the New York State, Department of State's State Register, is intended to inform providers, stakeholders, and the general public of substantial proposed changes to the State's Medicaid Plan, as well as to offer the opportunity to comment on such changes.

This portion of the Department of Health's website will provide New York's Medicaid State Plan, presented in its entirety and in sections, which is updated no less frequently than quarterly. In addition, the site will provide proposed State Plan Amendments (SPAs) as of January 1, 2011, along with the approval status."

End letter.

The Notification looks ' same as normal ', but employers with over 50 persons are now mandated or they can pass this to their employees AFTER making their contributions.

What does this mean?

Your employer STILL has to pay ' Their fair share ' for someones medical insurance. Then the Employee has to pay THE SAME OR MORE if the employer leaves this to their employees.

If its mandated for companies with over 50, how can a smaller company ( under 50 ) compete or stay solvent with this added cost?

Small businesses with under 50 people will be laying off or not hiring at all for a VERY LONG TIME.

If a company with under 50 decided to let the employees pay for their own ( which by law, they can rightfully do ), they no longer foot anything into medicade/medicare. Federal law, over-rides states laws.

So.. why would I pay some increasingly burden when I can just say ' forget this ' and give everyone a buck an hour raise ( which still amounts to quite a bit less then paying medicade as an employer ) and tell them all ' go find your own ways '.

What are people going to do? " I cant afford.. so.. Ill pay the 2500$ a year and use the government plan... ".

Heres a clue for all involved. I paid about 5400$ a year per person on my companies plan. Your now going to have EVERYONE ' insured ' so they are all going to flock to hospitals for a blood-blister, ingrown hair or a hang-nail.. a simple brushburn.. Why wouldnt they? Their paying for it, right?

So.. where do the funds for all this glamourous ' Health Care ' ( sic! ) come from? Does it magically appear? Do they just print more and give it away like they have for 16trillion thus far?

The Unemployment rate right now isnt 8%. Some will tout its below 8% for the first time in almost 4 years.. Real figures ( U4/U5/U6 reports ) sown Unemployment is at 11-13%. Due to new taxation coming and the ending of whats being called ' Bush Tax Cuts for the rich ' ( Which Obama continued for 4 years! ), Layoff will have to happen in order to keep things running.

GDP will drop and deficits will grow but in the PRIVATE sector. People thought the housing market crash was bad.. They thought the bank bailouts were bad.. They thought the GM bailout was bad.. Its nothing to whats going to happen to a full 10-15% of the private sector after January 1.

As for myself, I'm one of the few registered Libertarians in a territory full of Neocons. We still have a large population of full tilt Democrates, but this time, they really don't seem to have the drive to re-elect Obama.

I come across a lot of die-hard supporters and when they tout whom they are for, I always accuse them of the blame. ' Its Bushes Fault! '. Really? Pelosi and Reid had nothing to do with any of it? ' Its Obamas Fault! ' really? Why didnt the house republicans force a budget issue by shutting the system down instead of going 3 years without a budget being signed in to law?

BOTH ' parties ' are of equal blame and neither are worth voting for.

Johnson 2012!

-Ilk

[Heelster]

I read somewhere that small business owners with a head count over 50 people might cut staff just to stay at or below 50. At the time, the article made sense.

[ilikekicks]

I think this video says it all.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VADp3-J4KCM&feature=player_embedded#!

[sinkem]

I don't like either candidate. We have the choice between a rock and a hard place. I think Obama is wrong about how to improve the economy,government spending is not the answer. I think Romney has his own interests in mind and will do more for his friends and donors than the citizens of the USA. What we need is a candidate that will put the people of the USA first, requiring businesses to want to employ in the USA before anywhere else. I also think it is ridiculous to have employers pay an employment tax. I'd rather see a business income tax, where the only deductible is USA employee payroll and USA sourced materials/components. I'd also like to see executive greed and benefits get heavily taxed (even at 100%). Show me a candidate that looks for the same things, and I'll vote for him.

[ilikekicks]

I don't like either candidate.

Theres more then 2! Gary Johnson, Randal Terry.. if you look out there..

http://2012-presidential-candidates.findthedata.org/

.. there is someone in-line with your views.

Instead of voting for the least you hold in contempt, vote with an honest conscious!

This is the biggest problem ' we the people ' have.

I can guarantee there are many people whom voted on the poll in this thread and did so KNOWING the selection they have chosen had some questions as to ' does this person really reflect my values and how things should be? '.

I'd also like to see executive greed and benefits get heavily taxed (even at 100%).

Wake up call for everyone : When you ( and others ) whom have made such a statement wind up paying MORE in taxes, you should be the first to silence yourself. Follow your own example. If you wish onto others something so unkind, expect it for yourself. The cry of ' those evil rich greedy 1%'ers.. ' are human beings, the same as you and I. Instead of being envious of someone else and their wealth, we should create our own. We should do for ourselves instead of crying foul about someone else.

Show me a candidate that looks for the same things, and I'll vote for him.

From what you have scribed in regards to companies and the rich and requiring US companies to stay here would follow an Isolationist type of system ( which I myself do support for the most part in ' theory ', not present thoughts of application though. ).

It sounds ( though I am unsure ) as if you would support Stewart Alexander. Heres a link to an interview with him.

http://www.examiner.com/article/stewart-alexander-socialist-party-usa-candidate-for-president

I LIKE what he has to say. Hes really ontop of things in regards to foreign aid, the military industry, nukes..

Unlike Obama or Romney, ' Third Party ' people tend to just say exactly how they are going to do things. Theres no ' talking points ', theres no billion dollar ' buy a seat in an elected position ' types of energy.

If you dont like the DNC/RNC candidates, its up to YOU ( Myself and others, all of us included ) to do something about it. Its still ' We the People! ' right?

-Ilk

[sinkem]

I don't like either candidate.

Theres more then 2! Gary Johnson, Randal Terry.. if you look out there..

http://2012-presiden...indthedata.org/

.. there is someone in-line with your views.

Instead of voting for the least you hold in contempt, vote with an honest conscious!

This is the biggest problem ' we the people ' have.

I can guarantee there are many people whom voted on the poll in this thread and did so KNOWING the selection they have chosen had some questions as to ' does this person really reflect my values and how things should be? '.

Go ahead and vote for those other people. When you do so, you actually give the advantage to the incumbent candidate. The last time we had a candidate that was not part of the Republican or Democratic parties was Ross Perot and he ended up imploding.

I'd also like to see executive greed and benefits get heavily taxed (even at 100%).

Wake up call for everyone : When you ( and others ) whom have made such a statement wind up paying MORE in taxes, you should be the first to silence yourself. Follow your own example. If you wish onto others something so unkind, expect it for yourself. The cry of ' those evil rich greedy 1%'ers.. ' are human beings, the same as you and I. Instead of being envious of someone else and their wealth, we should create our own. We should do for ourselves instead of crying foul about someone else.

How about a real wake-up call?

Executive salaries have been going up 25% per year for the last 25 years, where everyone else's has only gone up 2-4% per year. Percentage wise, I pay more in taxes than any millionaire/billionaire. We complain about raising taxes 2%, but have no problem telling teachers they have to take a 20% pay cut.

How about a one deduction tax? Take your total earnings, subtract the minimum national cost of living (for singles or a family of 3, depending upon whether you are married or not), then pay 20% tax on the remaining.

I can also fix social security by changing one item. Get rid of the earnings cap.

I have no problem paying my taxes. My problem has to do with how my tax dollars actually get used.

From what you have scribed in regards to companies and the rich and requiring US companies to stay here would follow an Isolationist type of system ( which I myself do support for the most part in ' theory ', not present thoughts of application though. ).

I'm not looking to be an isolationist. I have a problem with a company laying off people in the US, then hiring them in China or India, and then being able to take their salaries as a deduction on their taxes. Companies can still do this, just don't expect my tax dollars to help you at all. If it makes good business sense, then go ahead and do it. I'd also add that companies that do lay-offs cancel all bonuses for everyone for 3 years (and they cannot be deferred). If you have to do a layoff, then how can a bonus be justified.

Also, I would like to see military pay be tax free. These people are already putting their lives on the line for this country. In addition to this, military people, who come home with a life changing injury, have already paid enough. They shouldn't have to pay taxes anymore. And spouses that have lost a military loved one, have also paid the price, so no taxes for them either.

[Shafted]

Go ahead and vote for those other people. When you do so, you actually give the advantage to the incumbent candidate. The last time we had a candidate that was not part of the Republican or Democratic parties was Ross Perot and he ended up imploding.

If that's the attitude we take then nothing will ever change. Even if it is not enough to elect someone it may be enough to send a message. We're fed up!

[ilikekicks]

I read somewhere that small business owners with a head count over 50 people might cut staff just to stay at or below 50. At the time, the article made sense.

I dont blame them at all. It sounds like Im ' Being evil towards those poor workers! '.

Im not gloating here but.. In my filing for 2010, I did well over a million in total business. There was 4 of us, an accountant and a lawyer on retainer. All said and done, with hazmat certifications, lead certifications, paying the local coffers ( Cities of Buffalo and Niagara Falls just to be allowed to work within their limits ), Matching funds for SSO, State Workers Compensation/DUI.. There was less then 400,000 for wages, new equipment, Upkeep. Thats BEFORE the FEDS/IRS came in and snagged their ' Fair Share '.

One would think that doing a million dollars in business would yield a good return. Less then 50grand a year for 4 straight years is all the ' boasting ' I can do. Considering all the liabilities and the rising rates for Insurances..

Most ' Small Businesses ' that have 51-70 employees are considering a ' layoff ' or a means ( somehow coming up with reasons ) to fire/reduce their workforces. In order to survive, they really dont have much of a choice.

Of course, in turn, this will cause the Unemployment numbers to rise dramatically for the first 2 quarters of FY2013.

People whom cry about ' the rich ' or ' fair share ' havent ever run a business or had to manage much of anything in their lives. They have never had the RESPONSIBILITY of answering to a State/Federal Authority that would sick the IRS on them in a heartbeat and seize everything they owned over a small accounting error. They havent had the RESPONSIBILITY of having to go out chasing down work so their employees can provide for their families.

Go ahead and vote for those other people. When you do so, you actually give the advantage to the incumbent candidate. The last time we had a candidate that was not part of the Republican or Democratic parties was Ross Perot and he ended up imploding.

Do you know why he ' imploded '? Theres a book out by a woman named Monica Jensen-Stevenson called ' kiss the boys goodbye '. *IF* Perot would have won, he would have been impeached within his first 30 days in office and BOTH parties would have had him removed from office, tried and imprisoned by the Senate.

Said book was once unofficially removed from the shelves in the United States. Lucky me! I can see Canada from my back yard ( its about 1500 yards away, small swin across Lake Erie ).

How about a real wake-up call?

Executive salaries have been going up 25% per year for the last 25 years, where everyone else's has only gone up 2-4% per year. Percentage wise, I pay more in taxes than any millionaire/billionaire. We complain about raising taxes 2%, but have no problem telling teachers they have to take a 20% pay cut.

Hate the rich ( Yawn.. ).

OK, lets look at REAL numbers here, ok? Not delusional ' feel good ' math.

Those executives your crying foul about, Lets say they only pay at a rate of 5%. I think you and I agree they probably pay at a higher level then that ( Im low-balling the numbers here just to show you why *I* feel your stance is .. very self centered ). Just 5%, ok?

Lets say this uber-evil-greedy-rich-exec makes a million dollars in a year. At a 5% rate, they pay what? 50 grand. Easy math so far, right?

*IF* that teacher were to pay 50% of their whole years salary, would they even come close to that 50g's said Exec paid?

So, for 50G's a year, what does that Exec benefit from that the Teacher doesnt? For that matter, what do they benefit from that you and I dont?

Same roads to drive on.. Same lakes/ponds to swim /fish in.

So, someone pays 50 grand and ( odds are ) in a time of need, they are turned away whereas someone in a trailor park/ghetto is given a lifetime of benefits for not working a day in their lives. YES, I just said that. Call me a racist or whatever you want, all those titles lost their sting and really mean nothing to those of us whom have actually employed ' those kinds ' of people ( and would do so again *IF* they were WILLING to work ).

How does this proposal sound to you. In all fairness..

My car broke this past week. I think I need a ' teachers help '. You see, most of the teachers in my area make about 100g's a year. They are all Union types. I averaged about 50'gs till I medically retired this past spring ( for the time being ). SO.. I think some teacher out there owes me my fair share and should have to hand over 25g's to me so I can get my car fixed.

Your probably either laughing or getting angry. Most people whom make the claims as you have usually do. Ya know why?

They dont like when the same standards they preach for are applied to them. In some instances, I have acted in the same accord. The difference being, I know when I have done such and it was wrong.

What your failing to recognize ( and if you do, its bad that you dont believe its wrong ) is that all those rich-evil-greedy-exec pay over 60% of the countries total tax bill, yet they are less then 10% of the populous.

How about a one deduction tax? Take your total earnings, subtract the minimum national cost of living (for singles or a family of 3, depending upon whether you are married or not), then pay 20% tax on the remaining.

How about going one or fifty better! Lets eliminate some discrimination in this process to make it even more simple!

Seeing as Government isnt supposed to support any religion ( nor discriminate against it in the same process ), lets tax INDIVIDUALS. ' Marriage ' was a religious institution long before the U.S. Constitution was thought of. Long before Columbus hitched a ride with 3 ships and came to these lands.

This would also resolve the discrimination issue against ' gays ' ( I hate that term ). Put everyone on a level playing field or dont have a field at all is my opinion. If individual States want to have their own thing, fine by me, but at a federal level, there should be no difference to any of us, all equal, right?

Then go to Forbes Idea of a ' Flat Tax '. Not Cain-the-pizza-guys 9-9-9 plan which would absolutely devastate every small business in the U.S. , but make it a 6% across the board rate.

No deductions at all for anyone. No home write-offs, no kids ( tell me how gay men and lesbians can have kids? oh yeah, they need outside of marriage assistance.. just more discrimination in favor of heteros.. but.. Im a breeder so.. its not my business.. ), no nothing. Make it 100% fair or dont have it.

I can also fix social security by changing one item. Get rid of the earnings cap.

I can fix SSI just as easy, one step.. GET RID OF IT!

I have no problem paying my taxes. My problem has to do with how my tax dollars actually get used.

AGREED!

The federal system has only 3 constitutional purposes :

-Inner State disputes.

-Court Systems

-Foreign Policy/Military/Relations for the total of the Republic.

Thats all it was intended to be. NOW? Its a hindrance to everyone. Left/Right/Democrat/Republican.. EVERYONE has a major complaint. Lets cut it down to less to complain about, give it back to the States and lets make our decisions locally for ourselves.

I'm not looking to be an isolationist.

To a lesser extant.. I am.

I have a problem with a company laying off people in the US, then hiring them in China or India, and then being able to take their salaries as a deduction on their taxes.

OK, Listen to this. Im going to tell you, your not paying your fair share. Im going to say your evil, greedy and Im going to do what it takes to make you pay more!

Do you really want to invest or have a business in such a place? Its a HUGE factor in why my business is closed right now. Outside of the medical side of it, I was seriously considering folding shop and telling all those people whom claim to be the 99% ' Happy now? Find a new blood bank '.

Companies can still do this, just don't expect my tax dollars to help you at all. If it makes good business sense, then go ahead and do it. I'd also add that companies that do lay-offs cancel all bonuses for everyone for 3 years (and they cannot be deferred). If you have to do a layoff, then how can a bonus be justified.

ITS NOT YOUR COMPANY! ITS NOT YOUR BUSINESS! Its not mine either! Its NOT YOURS! ****YOU****(sinkem) didnt build that! ( I bet you hated hearing that, but its very applicable here! ). Its not yours, its not mine. Its not Shafteds or the Presidents or ' we the peoples '. Its someones property and they should be free to do with it as they choose. If a company earns a profit, THEY should be able to decide how to distribute it, re-invest it or donate it .. or even use it as toilet paper for all we should care. WE ( you and I ) shouldnt decide what THEY do with it.

Also, I would like to see military pay be tax free.

Impossible. From being there, I can explain why.

Like other ' Civil Service ' types, Military Service Members are paid BY tax dollars. If they are given a distinct ' shelter ', it discriminates against other ' classes ' of people. Think of that topic.. ' Classes of people '. Division.. its how society has become because its over-regulated.

If one WERE to find a way to do such ( let service members go tax-free ), how about those retiring from military service? It USED to be 50% of pay at 20 years and 65% at 30 years. Do they still get SSI when they turn 62? How? They would have never paid into it.

What about those Boarder Patrol Heros, and Firemen Heros and Police Officer Heros? Surely, they are all of the same ' hero ' level?

( As a side note, its my belief that Heros are dead. They are guys like Dan Dailey, Cheasty Puller, Archibald Henderson and the other 98% of all CMH awardees that were awarded such posthumously. The term ' hero ' is about as worn out as the term ' racist '. Over used and its really lost all its luster )

These people are already putting their lives on the line for this country.

No, they are not. Again, I say this from being there.

People serve to ' Protect and defend, the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America.. '. Its to preserve a system of Ideals that the US of A was founded upon in a first-and-foremost way. Its not to make sure the People of the Country are safe at night. That is a secondary function that is given by executive orders. On a delayed entry conscription, before signing the dotted line, its all in black and white.

In addition to this, military people, who come home with a life changing injury, have already paid enough. They shouldn't have to pay taxes anymore. And spouses that have lost a military loved one, have also paid the price, so no taxes for them either.

Your Ideals sound great.. till they have to be implemented. You can love Vets and hate the Rich, but you HAVE to put them on the same level as they are both ' human beings '. Thats where I draw my lines. They might not be ' correct ' enough for you, but as I have said before, I support equal liberty for all. If someone wishes to tax one person, the next should be treated in ' the same '. If someone is to be censored, censor all or censor none.

Only when people are put on the same playing field will they see how bad their ideals are ( I know I did! ) and really wouldnt wish the same for themselves. There are a few exceptions to the rule, but for the majority of most, its ' us against them ', and its absolutely wrong.

Peace to you,

-Ilk

If that's the attitude we take then nothing will ever change. Even if it is not enough to elect someone it may be enough to send a message. We're fed up!

A young colleague of mine was talking about voting tomorrow ( actually today ). I told him I didnt want to know who he was voting for and that I wouldnt tell him whom I am voting for.

He pulled up his facebook page and a LOT of his ' friends ' stated ' Im not voting '. By a ' lot ' I mean over 50%.

Ive stated exactly why I cannot vote for a ' modern ' Democrat. The stunt they pulled with ACA.. ' You have to pass the bill to see what it says '.. thats absolute madness! Anyone whom voted in that bill should be tried for treason! They HAD to have known what was in it before they voted on it, yet as a public record, it wasnt made available to ' we the people '. A total example of ' no accountability ', yet those same idiots hold office and people vote for them again.. and again.. and again..

So, from a perspective, I can see why these people dont want to bother voting. What they dont realize is that if there are that many people disenfranchised, why not put something totally new into the system. A 3rd voice!

One not bought off by the Unions ( AFL/CIO ) or Wall Street or the FED/Banks/Globalists ( Soros anyone? He did great things for the U.K.! ). Why not put a vote for someone whom has the best representation of your views instead of ' party lines ' or some other rubbish thats played over and over again on the ' non coverage news ' they feed us nightly?

All those ' Im not voting ' people should wake up and realize they are either part of the problem, or part of the solution. There really is no middle ground.

-Ilk