Gore/blumberg In 08

[dcrooksjr]

I have no problem paying for welfare, the only thing I can't stand is people who take advantage of the system. Only those who really need it should get it and those who just want to sit around all day and collect a check from the other tax payers should get it revoked.

[Sonthert]

Why? Government spending is one of the key components for the health of the economy. The item that drives the economy are the basic necessities. They keep a majority of the workers employed. Welfare is just a way of pushing money into the economy. As F.D. Roosevelt said, If it takes getting a line of men digging a ditch and another line of men following them to fill in the ditch to get out of the depression, it needs doing. Increasing government spending strengthens the basic industries of our country and pushes production. The only unforgivable things for welfare recipients is for them to save money. It defeats the basic purpose of welfare. It the government replaced the system with a cheese welfare system, that would be fine, too. The government just buys directly and distributes it.

[nestormakhno]

I'm kind of with the Ron Paul endorser way off yonder. I think the welfare system needs to be substantially overhauled. Too many people are taking advantage of it. There was a show on MTV a few years back where it was Redman, I think (or maybe Method Man, I don't remember), who walked into the welfare office and picked up a check. I'm pretty sure it's not supposed to work like that, where a multi-millionaire can collect welfare.

[ghostofdavid]

I'm kind of with the Ron Paul endorser way off yonder. I think the welfare system needs to be substantially overhauled. Too many people are taking advantage of it. There was a show on MTV a few years back where it was Redman, I think (or maybe Method Man, I don't remember), who walked into the welfare office and picked up a check. I'm pretty sure it's not supposed to work like that, where a multi-millionaire can collect welfare.

Old Dirty Bastard.

[Sonthert]

I'm kind of with the Ron Paul endorser way off yonder. I think the welfare system needs to be substantially overhauled. Too many people are taking advantage of it. There was a show on MTV a few years back where it was Redman, I think (or maybe Method Man, I don't remember), who walked into the welfare office and picked up a check. I'm pretty sure it's not supposed to work like that, where a multi-millionaire can collect welfare.

I agree it needs some repair, but if anything, we're using the welfare recipients for our own good. It doesn't seem like that, I know. It seems weird, in fact. Its from the multiplier effect in economics. Each dollar creates 7 new dollars of spending or something like that. Its the same logic that the pundits of tax cuts offer. Whether the government gives away money or takes less of your money, the effect in the economy is relatively similar. When the government gives money for welfare (or tax cuts) those people take it and buy things. The stores bring in more money which means more hours for workers to deal with the increased business, which means they spend more money and so on and so forth.

The welfare department tends to take people's word and give them money because some people that are in a position of needing welfare might be in some jeopardy without it. If somebody receives welfare that shouldn't be getting it, they will be prosecuted for welfare fraud. Sure they can pick up a check, but can they avoid prosecution for it? People are trusted to do the right thing, when they aren't, they are punished. If that means we should overhaul the system to prevent them from doing the wrong thing in the first place, we can apply that to lots of things. Speed limits:cars will have devices installed to prevent them from exceeding the speed limit. DUI:each person will have a device to measure their BAC before they can start their car. Babies: people will be prohibited from having babies until they can prove they will be good parents. Computers will be sold with filters to prevent people from accessing illegal websites. People with children won't be allowed to buy alcohol, pornography or tobacco products, because we can't trust that they won't give them to their children. People who are overweight or underweight will be prescribed a specific diet that they have to adhere to, because we can't trust that they will do the right thing and eat appropriately. Of course, how would we enforce it? We would obviously have to institutionalize them, we can't regulate what they're eating unless we start standardizing food and food rations at the grocery store. Using incandescent light bulbs wastes electricity and contributes to carbon dioxide emissions, so we should ban incandescent light bulbs. Driving automobiles creates carbon dioxide, too, so we should ban all non-alternative fuel cars, or prohibit people from using their cars in certain situations, like trips that aren't to get to work or work related. We trust that people are going to act responsibly...whether we do or not...

Some of the examples may apply or not apply more or less than other examples, but think of how much of the US is made up of people being taken at their word and the possibility of prosecution or penalty if that trust is broken. Its easy to be hypocritical and insist that things that apply to other people need to change, but how many people are ready to have their lives impacted by the same logic, should it twist around to them? Very few.

[nestormakhno]

I'm kind of with the Ron Paul endorser way off yonder. I think the welfare system needs to be substantially overhauled. Too many people are taking advantage of it. There was a show on MTV a few years back where it was Redman, I think (or maybe Method Man, I don't remember), who walked into the welfare office and picked up a check. I'm pretty sure it's not supposed to work like that, where a multi-millionaire can collect welfare.

Old Dirty Bastard.

Are you sure? I had a weird feeling he'd already died by then.

[nestormakhno]

I'm kind of with the Ron Paul endorser way off yonder. I think the welfare system needs to be substantially overhauled. Too many people are taking advantage of it. There was a show on MTV a few years back where it was Redman, I think (or maybe Method Man, I don't remember), who walked into the welfare office and picked up a check. I'm pretty sure it's not supposed to work like that, where a multi-millionaire can collect welfare.

I agree it needs some repair, but if anything, we're using the welfare recipients for our own good. It doesn't seem like that, I know. It seems weird, in fact. Its from the multiplier effect in economics. Each dollar creates 7 new dollars of spending or something like that. Its the same logic that the pundits of tax cuts offer. Whether the government gives away money or takes less of your money, the effect in the economy is relatively similar. When the government gives money for welfare (or tax cuts) those people take it and buy things. The stores bring in more money which means more hours for workers to deal with the increased business, which means they spend more money and so on and so forth.

The welfare department tends to take people's word and give them money because some people that are in a position of needing welfare might be in some jeopardy without it. If somebody receives welfare that shouldn't be getting it, they will be prosecuted for welfare fraud. Sure they can pick up a check, but can they avoid prosecution for it? People are trusted to do the right thing, when they aren't, they are punished. If that means we should overhaul the system to prevent them from doing the wrong thing in the first place, we can apply that to lots of things. Speed limits:cars will have devices installed to prevent them from exceeding the speed limit. DUI:each person will have a device to measure their BAC before they can start their car. Babies: people will be prohibited from having babies until they can prove they will be good parents. Computers will be sold with filters to prevent people from accessing illegal websites. People with children won't be allowed to buy alcohol, pornography or tobacco products, because we can't trust that they won't give them to their children. People who are overweight or underweight will be prescribed a specific diet that they have to adhere to, because we can't trust that they will do the right thing and eat appropriately. Of course, how would we enforce it? We would obviously have to institutionalize them, we can't regulate what they're eating unless we start standardizing food and food rations at the grocery store. Using incandescent light bulbs wastes electricity and contributes to carbon dioxide emissions, so we should ban incandescent light bulbs. Driving automobiles creates carbon dioxide, too, so we should ban all non-alternative fuel cars, or prohibit people from using their cars in certain situations, like trips that aren't to get to work or work related. We trust that people are going to act responsibly...whether we do or not...

Some of the examples may apply or not apply more or less than other examples, but think of how much of the US is made up of people being taken at their word and the possibility of prosecution or penalty if that trust is broken. Its easy to be hypocritical and insist that things that apply to other people need to change, but how many people are ready to have their lives impacted by the same logic, should it twist around to them? Very few.

You are right, of course, but there are other problems with welfare. A lot of insufficiency, especially in terms of people needing it most getting the least. Also, the most common complaint about welfare: those who have the capacity to work but choose not to. So, I'm pro-welfare, but mostly pro-employment.

[Sonthert]

Its the ultimate incentive. If people have the ability to go out and get jobs that pay them more than minimum wage/welfare, they will work. The reason there are so many people who can work that choose to collect welfare instead is that the economy/job market is fucked. Now, some people, might say "They should work anyways". (Not us as people, people with business interests). They want people to work at the current minimum wage to continue to drive down the equilibrium price of labor for themselves. Its not in your best interests, it devalues your labor too. Look at a new car. 20 years ago or so, average new cars were $7,000 dollars and minimum wage was $3.35 we'll say. Average new cars now are around $18,000, but minimum wage hasn't kept up...its like $7.50 in California, I think its like $5.85 federal. Are cars getting more expensive? Probably not in relation to the rest of the economy, we're getting poorer (at least in relation to the price of cars). People collecting welfare are an important counter-weight to protect us from an influx of labor. If they were to eliminate minimum wage and lower welfare (I'm not in favor of those ideas, mind you), the rest of us would profit in terms of wages, but suffer social costs. Additionally, the economy would suffer, in my opinion. Less goods and services would be purchased. People might stop living in a prepackaged, throw it away if it breaks reality. They might start doing things for themselves, being more frugal. Technological development would slow down considerably. Its an interesting thought process. You can't just shovel the flotsam under the carpet. Edited July 25, 2007 by Sonthert

[Brownman18]

I'd vote Ron Paul if i was an american.


he's got a bankroll of about 5 million which is all from american donations, all the other candidates are members of the CFR and have massive corporate interests pumping them with money.


Not to mention they are all idiots. (my 2cents)

[oolatec]

I wish there was a "None of the above" selection on the ballot.

[AlphaJuno]

Gore's "documentary" on Global Warming was more about showing how he is the only person who can save the world.

Your thoughts?

[[LB]]

Gore Bloomberg ticket? I'm already drooling all over the place. I'm afraid that Gore would not run though, hes owned by Bill and bill would be very unhappy if Al ran against his wife. and if Bloomberg did run (or Gore ran as an independent) Giuliani would win because the left would be so divided over the choices.

[[LB]]

Clinton and Osama, that right there means this country burns to the ground. Clinton has already stated that if she is in office she will pass a law to FORCE YOU TO GIVE UP a percent of YOUR INCOME because the poor want to stay on welfare.

you mean the federal income tax? wow you are not a smart person. You are just out of your mind my man putting Clinton and Osama together, you belong in the Anne Coulter thread. If you really think that anti terrorism is that important, and you still believe in your 2nd amendment rights than lets put it in perspective.

"- 8 children a day die in murders, suicides and accidents involving guns

- since John F. Kennedy was assinated more Americans have died from gunshot wounds at home than died in all the wars of the 20th century

- Osama bin Laden would need at least nine twin towers like attacks each year to equal what Americans do to themselves every year with guns.

- Murder rates in LA, NY and Chigago were approaching the hightest in the world (30 per 100,000) until moves were made in late 20th century to restrict access to guns to teenagers. (The NRA wants these moves reversed)"

Try using facts next time, otherwise we would rather not like to hear what you have to say.

[Skarredmind]

this shirt makes me happy.[attachment=631:a967_bm.gif]

[BrotherBuford]

and you still believe in your 2nd amendment rights than lets put it in perspective.

"- 8 children a day die in murders, suicides and accidents involving guns

- since John F. Kennedy was assinated more Americans have died from gunshot wounds at home than died in all the wars of the 20th century

- Osama bin Laden would need at least nine twin towers like attacks each year to equal what Americans do to themselves every year with guns.

- Murder rates in LA, NY and Chigago were approaching the hightest in the world (30 per 100,000) until moves were made in late 20th century to restrict access to guns to teenagers. (The NRA wants these moves reversed)"

Try using facts next time, otherwise we would rather not like to hear what you have to say.

Statistics are often trumpeted in these kind of discussions, but THEY DON'T MATTER. Weapon restrictions are in violation of the US's founding document, end of story. My rights are not up for negotiation.

[ghostofdavid]

Suicide is tragic, but why should it be considered for a firearms 'statistic'?

[[LB]]

this shirt makes me happy.[attachment=631:a967_bm.gif]

yes and you will be laughing when the ice caps melt entirely and our coastal cities are swallowed by the sea. Do you read any science journals? Do you ever read the news? Do you ever read anything? and if science doesent float your boat (your more of a sacred scriptual type) then watch this video and get back to me.
http://www.break.com/index/global-warming-guy-is-back.html

As for your second amendment rights, the right to bare arms was created to protect Americans from their government, to be able to arm themselves and possibly revolt if the government denied its constituents their inalienable rights. It was NOT intended, as we find today, to permit the widespread homicide and murder we find among each other today. It also did not take into case Gun company's creating tec-9's and plastic guns that can be smuggled through metal detectors. Nor did they anticipate gun company's marketing guns with 'fingerprint proof finishes' to African Americans in impoverished neighborhoods. Sure owning a rifle or a shotgun is one thing, but use reason, be rational, some of these weapons are designed for the sole purpose of murder.

[[LB]]

Suicide is tragic, but why should it be considered for a firearms 'statistic'?

because committing suicide is alot easier with a gun, its also more accessible- you can find a gun easily (a gun in every home, or a gun shop in your area), and its pain free (as far as we know). It reassures the suicidal person that their death will be a quick, painless way out. I'm sure its a lot easier to squeeze a trigger than it is to slash your wrists, and if you slash your wrists there is a much greater chance of survival.

[guyt]

Gore won't run, he finally transcended being a politician and is able to do what he thinks is important. After winning the Noble prize it pretty much showed he's right and he wants to keep on doing what he's doing. Not to be some greedy politician.

[Dr. Atkins]

You have to be kidding me. Anyone who thinks "An Inconvenient Truth" is grounded in science has some research to do. Loosely based, yes. Well supported? I think not. And this is coming from a very liberal mouth, and one that knows that global warming exists and is occurring today (albeit certainly not in the manner depicted by Gore's flick). It is good that the film increased general attention to, and research and debate on global warming, but to give a Nobel Peace Prize is a joke. That said, take a look at the winners for the past 20 or so years and you'll note that the prize is worthless anyways. Yasser Arafat? I am 100% for a Palestinian state and for withdrawal of Israelis from occupied territories, but come on...

[ghostofdavid]

There is no firearm made that will pass through metal detectors undetected. It is myth blown out of proportion from a diehard movie.