Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Benny B on February 20, 2009, 10:45:00 AM
-
February 20, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Money for Idiots
By DAVID BROOKS
Our moral and economic system is based on individual responsibility. It’s based on the idea that people have to live with the consequences of their decisions. This makes them more careful deciders. This means that society tends toward justice — people get what they deserve as much as possible
Over the last few months, we’ve made a hash of all that. The Bush and Obama administrations have compensated foolishness and irresponsibility. The financial bailouts reward bankers who took insane risks. The auto bailouts subsidize companies and unions that made self-indulgent decisions a few decades ago that drove their industry into the ground.
The stimulus package handed tens of billions of dollars to states that spent profligately during the prosperity years. The Obama housing plan will force people who bought sensible homes to subsidize the mortgages of people who bought houses they could not afford. It will almost certainly force people who were honest on their loan forms to subsidize people who were dishonest on theirs.
These injustices are stoking anger across the country, lustily expressed by Rick Santelli on CNBC Thursday morning. “The government is promoting bad behavior!” Santelli cried as Chicago traders cheered him on. “The president ... should put up a Web site ... to have people vote ... to see if they want to subsidize losers’ mortgages!”
Well, in some cases we probably do. That’s because government isn’t fundamentally in the Last Judgment business, making sure everybody serves penance for their sins. In times like these, government is fundamentally in the business of stabilizing the economic system as a whole.
Let me put it this way: Psychologists have a saying that when a couple comes in for marriage therapy, there are three patients in the room — the husband, the wife and the marriage itself. The marriage is the living history of all the things that have happened between husband and wife. Once the patterns are set, the marriage itself begins to shape their individual behavior. Though it exists in the space between them, it has an influence all its own.
In the same way, an economy has an economic culture. Out of billions of individual decisions, a common economic landscape emerges, which frames and influences the decisions everybody makes.
Right now, the economic landscape looks like that movie of the swaying Tacoma Narrows Bridge you might have seen in a high school science class. It started swinging in small ways and then the oscillations built on one another until the whole thing was freakishly alive and the pavement looked like liquid.
A few years ago, the global economic culture began swaying. The government enabled people to buy homes they couldn’t afford. The Fed provided easy money. The Chinese sloshed in oceans of capital. The giddy upward sway produced a crushing ride down.
These oscillations are the real moral hazard. Individual responsibility doesn’t mean much in an economy like this one. We all know people who have been laid off through no fault of their own. The responsible have been punished along with the profligate.
It makes sense for the government to intervene to try to reduce the oscillation. It makes sense for government to try to restore some communal order. And the sad reality is that in these circumstances government has to spend money on precisely those sectors that have been swinging most wildly — housing, finance, etc. It has to help stabilize people who have been idiots.
Actually executing this is a near-impossible task. Looking at the auto, housing and banking bailouts, we’re getting a sense of how the propeller heads around Obama operate. They try to put together programs that are bold, but without the huge interventions in the market implied by, say, nationalization. They’re balancing so many cross-pressures, they often come up with technocratic Rube Goldberg schemes that alter incentives in lots of medium and small ways. Some economists argue that the plans are too ineffectual, others that they are too opaque (estimates for the mortgage plan range from $75 billion to $275 billion and up). Personally, I hate the idea of 10 guys sitting around in the White House trying to redesign huge swaths of the U.S. economy on legal pads.
But at least they seem to be driven by a spirit of moderation and restraint. They seem to be trying to keep as many market structures in place as possible so things can return to normal relatively smoothly.
And they seem to understand the big thing. The nation’s economy is not just the sum of its individuals. It is an interwoven context that we all share. To stabilize that communal landscape, sometimes you have to shower money upon those who have been foolish or self-indulgent. The greedy idiots may be greedy idiots, but they are our countrymen. And at some level, we’re all in this together. If their lives don’t stabilize, then our lives don’t stabilize.
-
BULLSHIT!!!!!Let them fail!!!!If they would just leave the economy alone it would work.The community reinvestment act,Freddy Mac,Fannie Mae,bailouts,people taking mortgages they couldnt pay.Now Im expected to pay for them?BULLSHIT!!!
-
That’s because government isn’t fundamentally in the Last Judgment business, making sure everybody serves penance for their sins. In times like these, government is fundamentally in the business of stabilizing the economic system as a whole.
Individual responsibility doesn’t mean much in an economy like this one. We all know people who have been laid off through no fault of their own. The responsible have been punished along with the profligate.
It makes sense for the government to intervene to try to reduce the oscillation. It makes sense for government to try to restore some communal order. And the sad reality is that in these circumstances government has to spend money on precisely those sectors that have been swinging most wildly — housing, finance, etc. It has to help stabilize people who have been idiots.
Again--BULLSHIT! Losing a home because you couldn't afford it in the first place isn't "judgement" or any sort of punitive measure--it's fuckin natural consequences in action! ...Something this crybaby whiney author doesn't seem to understand or be willing to acknowledge.
Grow up dude. This isn't kindergarten... you fuck up, you take your lumps, you don't go running to mommy and daddy to bail you out. What is this nation coming to?
-
Again--BULLSHIT! Losing a home because you couldn't afford it in the first place isn't "judgement" or any sort of punitive measure--it's fuckin natural consequences in action! ...Something this crybaby whiney author doesn't seem to understand or be willing to acknowledge.
Grow up dude. This isn't kindergarten... you fuck up, you take your lumps, you don't go running to mommy and daddy to bail you out. What is this nation coming to?
You are welcome to leave. ;) The money is coming...
-
BULLSHIT!!!!!Let them fail!!!!If they would just leave the economy alone it would work.The community reinvestment act,Freddy Mac,Fannie Mae,bailouts,people taking mortgages they couldnt pay.Now Im expected to pay for them?BULLSHIT!!!
willl you be mailing back the 671 bucks, or whatever it is, that obama sends you?
-
willl you be mailing back the 671 bucks, or whatever it is, that obama sends you?
You mean the $671 (or whatever it is) of HIS OWN MONEY? What do you think?
The point is, that Brooks dude is a pussy lib who puts no stock in individual accountability. Apparently he thinks "it takes a village to buy a house." Whatever. He uses the word "communal" more than once in his milquetoast diatribe. Make up your own mind what's the logical conclusion of that line of thinking and has it ever worked in the past?
-
I did a little reading on David Brooks which was kind of interesting--he says he was a "liberal" until sometime in 1983 when a run-in with economist Milton Friedman (whom I revere as an economic genius) changed his way of thinking.
Although to me it would appear he could use another talk with Friedman, because Milton would surely disapprove of Brooks' stance in the article quoted by BB.
Brooks, who some consider a conservative, describes himself as being originally a liberal. In 1983, for example, he wrote a parody of conservative pundit William F. Buckley, Jr.:
In the afternoons he is in the habit of going into crowded rooms and making everybody else feel inferior. The evenings are reserved for extended bouts of name-dropping. (University of Chicago Maroon, April 5, 1983.)
Buckley admired the parody and offered Brooks a job with National Review. A turning point in Brooks's thinking came later that year in a televised debate with Milton Friedman, which, as Brooks describes it, "was essentially me making a point, and he making a two-sentence rebuttal which totally devastated my point."[4]
On August 10, 2006, Brooks wrote a column for the New York Times titled "Party No. 3". The column proposed the idea of the McCain-Lieberman Party, or the fictional representation of the moderate majority in America.[5]
Many in the "conservative movement" such as Rush Limbaugh denounce him as he frequently runs to the left. He has long been a McCain supporter; however, Brooks did not show a liking for Governor Sarah Palin, who ran with McCain on the 2008 republican presidential ticket, calling her a "cancer" on the Republican Party.
-
willl you be mailing back the 671 bucks, or whatever it is, that obama sends you?
"Dan-O" never answers this question, because the answer is he will be keeping the money.
-
Read your own article fool. It clearly says this plan is solely to bailout irresponsible people.
-
"Dan-O" never answers this question, because the answer is he will be keeping the money.
I did answer the question (even though it was posed to Billy Mimnaugh and not me)--it's just a little miniscule drop in the bucket of MY MONEY that I paid in payroll taxes over the course of the year that Obama is so graciously letting me have BACK, so yes, I'll be keeping it, DUH.
And like 333386 mentioned, the article you cited isn't even talking about the refund that 240 brought up. As usual 240 is kind of all over the place.
-
I did answer the question (even though it was posed to Billy Mimnaugh and not me)--it's just a little miniscule drop in the bucket of MY MONEY that I paid in payroll taxes over the course of the year that Obama is so graciously letting me have BACK, so yes, I'll be keeping it, DUH.
And like 333386 mentioned, the article you cited isn't even talking about the refund that 240 brought up. As usual 240 is kind of all over the place.
The article clearly says Obama is rewarding irresponsible people at the expense of frugal prudent people like ourselves.
________________________ ____
WTC
-
so yes, I'll be keeping it, DUH.
'Nuff said, hypocrite!
-
'Nuff said, hypocrite!
Did you mail the money you got back from Bush's tax cuts?
-
'Nuff said, hypocrite!
Read your own stupid article moron. The author clearly describes that Obama is rewarding irresponsible people.
Thst is ok right???
-
Read your own stupid article moron. The author clearly describes that Obama is rewarding irresponsible people.
Thst is ok right???
Can you just imagine all the hillbillies and minorities that bought these houses with nothing down, leveraged against them to buy Sea Doos, Escalades, boats, etc and then were able to walk away from it because Barry wants to bail them out?
If you were a responsible home owner that was current on your payments and actually deserved your home then you should be helped but not the above mentioned idiots who helped cause a MAJOR problem in the US.
-
Can you just imagine all the hillbillies and minorities that bought these houses with nothing down, leveraged against them to buy Sea Doos, Escalades, boats, etc and then were able to walk away from it because Barry wants to bail them out?
If you were a responsible home owner that was current on your payments and actually deserved your home then you should be helped but not the above mentioned idiots who helped cause a MAJOR problem in the US.
Over the last few years I saved a ton of cash and put it on the side knowing that RE prices would drop. Everyone thought I was crazy for not getting in the game. Now, when it drops another 30% I will be able to get the house I want and have a small loan.
These people knew the deal. They gambled on the home prices going up forever the same way the banks did.
-
Over the last few years I saved a ton of cash and put it on the side knowing that RE prices would drop. Everyone thought I was crazy for not getting in the game. Now, when it drops another 30% I will be able to get the house I want and have a small loan.
These people knew the deal. They gambled on the home prices going up forever the same way the banks did.
BINGO.
-
That is why I dont feel bad for these people or the banks.
Let me ask you this, when they flipped their home in three years for 500k more than they bought it for, where they going to share the earnings with me?????
No. I should not be their partner in the gain, and not their partner in the loss.
-
That is why I dont feel bad for these people or the banks.
Let me ask you this, when they flipped their home in three years for 500k more than they bought it for, where they going to share the earnings with me?????
No. I should not be their partner in the gain, and not their partner in the loss.
Correct.
Housing is an investment like any other. Is the federal government going to bail me out for the 60% loss I took in the stock market?
Obama bailed out the auto manufacturers, is he going to cover my GM bonds that took a 94% loss?!?
-
That is why I dont feel bad for these people or the banks.
Let me ask you this, when they flipped their home in three years for 500k more than they bought it for, where they going to share the earnings with me?????
No. I should not be their partner in the gain, and not their partner in the loss.
You don't feel bad about a family of four who is on the verge of being thrown out of his home because both parents were laid off? Or some poor schmuck got into a mortgage without reading the fine print and now the payments have gone WAY up to where he can no longer afford the mortgage? You and "Cap" believe that these people should be thrown out on the street. I say no, this is America, and we help each other in times of economic crisis. In helping your neighbor get back on his feet, the bankers sit down and restructure the loan so that your neighbors can stay in their homes and, more importantly for you, YOUR home maintains its value by not being in a neighborhood blighted with foreclosed homes.
If you want to live in a country where those who "have" step on the "have nots" living in boxes on the side of the street as you stride off to your job...well, that's not the America I want to live in, and neither do most Americans. Most Americans support the President's plan, so I'm afraid you'll have to suck it up and swallow one for the team.
-
Save me the campaign speech and sob story.
Look, most these people were gambling and KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DOING!
They saw people making big money and wanted in on the game. No problem with that, but lets call it what it is, GAMBLING!
The only way the market will correct to what its real value is, is to allow these homes to go to foreclosure and let the market set the actual price.
You are not doing these people any favors by allowing them to stay in these over priced homes and just delaying the inevitable collapse.
-
If you want to live in a country where those who "have" step on the "have nots" living in boxes on the side of the street as you stride off to your job...well, that's not the America I want to live in, and neither do most Americans.
Excuse me, many of these gamblers in foreclosure who took on loans they knew they never could afford are equally guilty in the mess we are in.
The banks are to blame, of course, and why do you think they are not renegotiating these loans right now at a lower interest rate????
I will tell you - they know the govt is going to bail them out at the higher rate to what the paper is written on and dont feel any need to re-write the loan.
-
I would not put people who were laid off in the same category as people who bought houses they could not afford and then bought tons of toys by borrowing against their houses. If THEY didn't read the fine print that is THEIR fault. If you don't understand something then you ask, if not then tough shit. I don't want to pay for it and my kids and grandchildren shouldn't have to pay for the mistakes of people who were not responsible with their homes.
-
You don't feel bad about a family of four who is on the verge of being thrown out of his home because both parents were laid off? Or some poor schmuck got into a mortgage without reading the fine print and now the payments have gone WAY up to where he can no longer afford the mortgage? You and "Cap" believe that these people should be thrown out on the street. I say no, this is America, and we help each other in times of economic crisis. In helping your neighbor get back on his feet, the bankers sit down and restructure the loan so that your neighbors can stay in their homes and, more importantly for you, YOUR home maintains its value by not being in a neighborhood blighted with foreclosed homes.
If you want to live in a country where those who "have" step on the "have nots" living in boxes on the side of the street as you stride off to your job...well, that's not the America I want to live in, and neither do most Americans. Most Americans support the President's plan, so I'm afraid you'll have to suck it up and swallow one for the team.
Wahhh wahhh wahhh. What a drama queen. ::)
Stepping on people living in boxes on the side of the street as you stride off to work? Honestly... you've got talent, you should write for a soap opera or something. Or maybe Air America.
-
Wahhh wahhh wahhh. What a drama queen. ::)
Stepping on people living in boxes on the side of the street as you stride off to work? Honestly... you've got talent, you should write for a soap opera or something. Or maybe Air America.
"Wahhh wahhh wahhh", my balls. ::) There are people all over America on the verge of losing their homes because of layoffs, not just some hidden welfare queens that largely live in your imagination out their gaming the system. Try reading what is actually going on on, shithead.
-
Obama is doing what he said he would do. bail out poor folks and stick the fork into rich people. "They are who we thought they were" to quote some angry coach.
54% of Americans supported this cause, because at least 54% of them were broke.
Maybe the republicans can come up with a financial solution that at least 51% of Americans will agree with. Sadly, it seems like Bush only hooked up the top 5 or 10%, and that wasn't enough to win an election.
-
There are many fraud cases that deserve to be put on the street who lied to the bank in order to induce them to write the loan in the first place.
Those people should be prosecuted for fraud along with the banks who knowingly passed on fraudulent loans to other banks.
-
You don't feel bad about a family of four who is on the verge of being thrown out of his home because both parents were laid off? Or some poor schmuck got into a mortgage without reading the fine print and now the payments have gone WAY up to where he can no longer afford the mortgage? You and "Cap" believe that these people should be thrown out on the street. I say no, this is America, and we help each other in times of economic crisis. In helping your neighbor get back on his feet, the bankers sit down and restructure the loan so that your neighbors can stay in their homes and, more importantly for you, YOUR home maintains its value by not being in a neighborhood blighted with foreclosed homes.
If you want to live in a country where those who "have" step on the "have nots" living in boxes on the side of the street as you stride off to your job...well, that's not the America I want to live in, and neither do most Americans. Most Americans support the President's plan, so I'm afraid you'll have to suck it up and swallow one for the team.
Yes, Americans help each other out in times of need. But, that because WE WANT TO DO SO, not because the government forces us to do so (hence the reason it's called CHARITY).
I know it's not Obama's intention to bail out irresponsible homeowners. But, separating the proverbial wheat from the chaff is easier said than done. It's the potential for abuse that concerns many Americans.
And, unfortunately, some of the "have nots" step on themselves, with foolish decisions, borrowing what they cannot repay and living beyond their means.
-
Responsible owners who were laid off should have some help, whether it's a tax cut to afford payments or allowing their loan to be spaced over a longer period of time. People who bought with nothing down, leveraged against their homes to buy toys, or simply could not afford their home because they put nothing down do not deserve help; that is their own doing. There is a difference between the two categories and I don't see how anyone can feel sorry for someone in the latter category.
We are creating more debt for 2-3 generations (at least) to pay for to help people who were irresponsible. Cut taxes, cut spending and let the market readjust and things should get better. Don't raise taxes, give us pennies back (which I understand is taxable), and guarantee it will help. I can shit in a box, slap guarantee on it, and sell it to you. Same thing.
-
Look, many of us, myself included, did not enter the RE casino and acted prudently.
I am ready to buy a house as soon as the prices are at a market value based on reality.
I will not buy a house yet because the GVT has not yet indicated which way things are going yet.
If my hunch is right, prices still have another 30 - 40% to go.
Then I will jump in.
-
Here is a truism (and I say this for the benefit of bleeding heart nutcases like Benny): You can "redistribute the wealth" all you want according to your utopian delusions. Guess what? In a matter of time it will end up more or less right where it was to begin with. You figure out why if you don't know the answer already.
-
Here is a truism (and I say this for the benefit of bleeding heart nutcases like Benny): You can "redistribute the wealth" all you want according to your utopian delusions. Guess what? In a matter of time it will end up more or less right where it was to begin with. You figure out why if you don't know the answer already.
Redistribution always fails because those that get free stuff always squander it. Those who get their stuff redistributed no longer produce anything.
The end result is shared poverty and misery like in the USSR or communistic countries.
-
Here is a truism (and I say this for the benefit of bleeding heart nutcases like Benny): You can "redistribute the wealth" all you want according to your utopian delusions. Guess what? In a matter of time it will end up more or less right where it was to begin with. You figure out why if you don't know the answer already.
it's a pendulum, baby.
repugs are going to snatch as much for the rich as possible, screwing the middle and poor.
libbies are gonna snatch as much for the poor, which grows the middle class.
The middle class decides elections. when they're ballin or scared, they vote repub. When fear fatigue or being broke sets in, they vote dem.
it's that simple. EITHER party in charge for 20 straight years would destroy america. Most people don't realize that. they want THEIR team to win every time. There's a reason it keeps going back and forth here.
-
Here is a truism (and I say this for the benefit of bleeding heart nutcases like Benny): You can "redistribute the wealth" all you want according to your utopian delusions. Guess what? In a matter of time it will end up more or less right where it was to begin with. You figure out why if you don't know the answer already.
Yes, but when you 'redistribute the wealth' the money is forced to move around, and this movement of money is where the government can make taxes and fees and take their cut.
'Rich people' haveing money does little for the government, because they will invest it into stock market, business, whatever... The lower end of society will almost always spend every penny they have on discresionary consumer products (Plasma TVs, new cars, Red Lobster dinners, the GAP, etc.)
High mark-up items being purchased is what the gvt needs to get tax fundage.
-
The end result is shared poverty and misery like in the USSR or communistic countries.
no, the end result is that 10% of poor folks become middle class, and they start voting republican ;)
Steele, jindal, or some governor wins in 2016 becuase the ecnomy is healed. Then, they spend 8 years giving tax cuts to teh wealthy and starting wars.... and a dem for change and hope wins in 2024.
Don't ya get it yet? pendulum baby.
-
Yes, but when you 'redistribute the wealth' the money is forced to move around, and this movement of money is where the government can make taxes and fees and take their cut.
'Rich people' haveing money does little for the government, because they will invest it into stock market, business, whatever... The lower end of society will almost always spend every penny they have on discresionary consumer products (Plasma TVs, new cars, Red Lobster dinners, the GAP, etc.)
High mark-up items being purchased is what the gvt needs to get tax fundage.
That is a valid point. When you redistribute the wealth, the gov't wins.
-
it's a pendulum, baby.
repugs are going to snatch as much for the rich as possible, screwing the middle and poor.
libbies are gonna snatch as much for the poor, which grows the middle class.
The middle class decides elections. when they're ballin or scared, they vote repub. When fear fatigue or being broke sets in, they vote dem.
it's that simple. EITHER party in charge for 20 straight years would destroy america. Most people don't realize that. they want THEIR team to win every time. There's a reason it keeps going back and forth here.
Yes, because giving to poor people makes them middle class ::)
Giving $$$ to a poor person makes nothing other than a poor person with a new tv.
-
The reality is that many people are poor due to their own fault and refusal to make good decisions. I dont feel bad for lazy people who refuse to work, stay sober, or clean themselves up.
Tough for them.
-
Yes, because giving to poor people makes them middle class ::)
Giving $$$ to a poor person makes nothing other than a poor person with a new tv.
I gotta disagree.
Where is obama's money going? Schools, Pell grants, jobs for people that don't have them.
Right now, I'm defending Obama's positions because I see a lot of family and friends that are BROKE. Now, if they get some of the 206,000 jobs that obama is brining to FL, then money won't be their primary concern anymore. And they won't be blindly voting for anything called anti-republican.
I didn't say "giving $ to poor ppl makes them middle class". I'm saying that giving them jobs, student loans, and creating an environment where they're more likely to succeed means they at a % of them WILL get out of the broke ass lifestyle (to say NON will is ignorant, please don't be ignorant - of course you'll always have 80% of the welfare asshole still being lazy - but that 5 or 10% that does improve will make the difference).
They'll finish college and start businesses during the 8 years that obama's in office. THEN they'll feel the pain of his tax policies, and they'll vote republican.
look at history. Everyone broke in 1991, and Clinton won. He restored middle class, who voted in Bush because they loved his tax plan, right?
Now, it's 2008, everyone's broke again, and they vote in Clinton Part deux. Economy will get better, and they'll vote repub in 4 or 8 years when they're on top and tired of paying taxes for the shrinking poor class.
-
The reality is that many people are poor due to their own fault and refusal to make good decisions. I dont feel bad for lazy people who refuse to work, stay sober, or clean themselves up.
Tough for them.
of course. those 80% of the poor will always be pieces of shit who don't contriubute
BUT
the 20% of poor people who DO use obama's opportunities to improve their lives will be voting Repub in 4 or 8 years. That's my point. I'm not defending lazy shit. I'm saying obama won because the repubs got greedy, and a repub will win in 8 years because obama will get greedy.
-
Yes, because giving to poor people makes them middle class ::)
Giving $$$ to a poor person makes nothing other than a poor person with a new tv.
QFT.
Ever see the movie "Barbershop"? They said all reparations would do is make Cadillac the best selling car company in the nation. The same thing applies to these and other handouts that Obama wants.
It's wasteful spending of tax dollars to people who should be working.
As for jobs, Obama first said he is going to create 4 mil, then create or save 4 mil, then create or save 3 mil, and so on. How do you measure what jobs are created or saved? Why is it that illegal Mexicans will work at McD's to earn a living and American citizens sit on welfare waiting for Uncle Barry to give them their check?
-
of course. those 80% of the poor will always be pieces of shit who don't contriubute
BUT
the 20% of poor people who DO use obama's opportunities to improve their lives will be voting Repub in 4 or 8 years. That's my point. I'm not defending lazy shit. I'm saying obama won because the repubs got greedy, and a repub will win in 8 years because obama will get greedy.
Where are you getting your 80/20 figures from? Get real, don't kid yourself. It's more like 99/1. And Obama's "shotgun approach" is a pretty damned expensive way to give that 1% a "leg up."
It's a colossal waste of money is what it is. As history will show.
-
Where are you getting your 80/20 figures from? Get real, don't kid yourself. It's more like 99/1. And Obama's "shotgun approach" is a pretty damned expensive way to give that 1% a "leg up."
It's a colossal waste of money is what it is. As history will show.
Okay. You believe that 99% of the people offered jobs, college, and health insurance benefits from Obama will not improve their situation.
I believe the number is higher.
-
Heck, for some illegal aliens, McDonalds is a STEP UP, from the jobs they're willing to do.
-
I didn't say "giving $ to poor ppl makes them middle class".
yes, you did.
libbies are gonna snatch as much for the poor, which grows the middle class.
Tell your family and friends to conduct a little personal finance and learn to save for a rainy day. They they wouldn't be broke and have to vote lib.
-
Tell your family and friends to conduct a little personal finance and learn to save for a rainy day. They they wouldn't be broke and have to vote lib.
your closemindedness is exactly why Obama got 54% of the vote. keep it up. he'll get 60% next time.
-
your closemindedness is exactly why Obama got 54% of the vote. keep it up. he'll get 60% next time.
Spoken like a true liberal.
I hope Obama uses that line in 2012.
Idiocy, lunacy, and bankruptcy are the hallmarks of the typical Obama voter.
-
As far as I'm concerned, McDonald's and Taco Bell are always hiring people with little or no education. These people who voted for Obama, many of whom have little education, should start there and get off welfare. They are waiting for a magic job that they are not qualified to do. I really wonder how many jobs Barry is going to create out of thin air. His support of billions in welfare will not provide relief from our current plight and will keep the poor poor, like other Democrats.
What jobs are these people going to be qualified for?
-
As far as I'm concerned, McDonald's and Taco Bell are always hiring people with little or no education. These people who voted for Obama, many of whom have little education, should start there and get off welfare. They are waiting for a magic job that they are not qualified to do. I really wonder how many jobs Barry is going to create out of thin air. His support of billions in welfare will not provide relief from our current plight and will keep the poor poor, like other Democrats.
What jobs are these people going to be qualified for?
There jobs are:
1. Walking to the mailbox and getting an envelope with "US Treasury" written on it.
2. Taking the contents of that envelope to the bank
-
There jobs are:
1. Walking to the mailbox and getting an envelope with "US Treasury" written on it.
2. Taking the contents of that envelope to the bank Money Corner
Obama voters dont have bank accounts dude
-
Obama voters dont have bank accounts dude
That's true....I bet the check cashing places will love their cut of the welfare money increase that Barry is planning.
-
Obama voters dont have bank accounts dude
A bank account would be better than paying 10% to the 'Check into Cash' folks.
Maybe this is another example of democrat voter personal finance skills?
-
A bank account would be better than paying 10% to the 'Check into Cash' folks.
correct and obvious to all. i was pointing out the belief that all obama voters are irreseponsible losers without jobs and any financial responsibility.
-
correct and obvious to all. i was pointing out the belief that all obama voters are irreseponsible losers without jobs and any financial responsibility.
Not all but many.
-
Not all but many.
What %, in your estimation?