I am with RufRT on this one, after it has taken tax, the state should never get itself involved in the private finances and wealth of individuals.
RufRTs Obama Windup
- Thread starter RufRT
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
- Status
I am with RufRT on this one, after it has taken tax, the state should never get itself involved in the private finances and wealth of individuals.
You make that sound so simple, small business can collapse as quickly as they rise, its just like life and death, most of them don't succeed or succeed for a short time - years to a decade, so no I don't think it necessarily means what you suggest, but its those who are trying to be innovative or stimulate creativity that matter, the small business man/woman provides 60% of Americas jobs, thats who I'm talking about, I'm talking about those like myself who create jobs, there are approximately 24 million of us
It is simple, it's virtually a mathematical banality.
Well if your earlier guess is correct, that means that only 240,000 - or even only 24,000 - Americans inherited the bulk of their wealth.
And that's the point.
As I said it was just a guess, and you seem so keen to disprove it...so fine have it... it just makes me wonder and maybe its to do with the circles I run in but the fact that I know literally dozens of business owners and not 1 single lottery winner or inheritance yuppy its really weird considering how disproportionately off that ratio is, surely I should have met 1 by now, clearly I must be living in some kind of alternate reality... I must be you've clearly proved that. I'm not sure how you so successfully led me off track because these points are not important to me, are you a lawyer per cahnce or just a Pedant
I'm a bit of pedant.
Maybe the reason you've not met any is because you're a self-made man who moves in self-made circles? Maybe you like the energy and vivacity of American dream types and unconsciously gravitate to them?
By the way, I'm not suggesting inheritors of wealth don't work hard. Most probably do, and end up with more than they started with. It's just that the system's skewed towards them.
Maybe the reason you've not met any is because you're a self-made man who moves in self-made circles? Maybe you like the energy and vivacity of American dream types and unconsciously gravitate to them?
By the way, I'm not suggesting inheritors of wealth don't work hard. Most probably do, and end up with more than they started with. It's just that the system's skewed towards them.
Well at least we are back on topic...thats prototypical obamaspeak
It's just socialism, nothing especially Obamaesque about it.
The German assessment of Obama post Massachusetts ;
Center-left daily Süddeutsche Zeitung writes on Thursday:
"Obama made a serious misjudgement. Right at the beginning of his first year in office, he saved the banks, rescued the automobile industry from collapse and passed a huge economic stimulus package. He had hoped that these enormous deeds would give him the space to address those issues which are dearest to him: health care reform, climate change and investment in education."
"Those issues, however, are clearly not priorities for people in the US at the moment. Scott Brown campaigned on two promises, both of which apparently struck a nerve with the electorate. He wants to block health care reform and he wants to find ways to reduce the enormous budget deficit. It is here where the roots of dissatisfaction with Obama are to be found. His reform agenda, in its current form, is highly suspect to Americans. And they have the impression that, if he continues piling up debt, he will be gambling away the country's future."
The Financial Times Deutschland writes:
"For Obama, the election in Massachusetts means that he will have to re-evaluate his political style. He could now focus his concentration on his political base and push through his policy agenda. After all, he still has a majority in Congress -- he could back away from his strategy of bipartisanship ... which would mean giving up much of what he spent his first year in office creating."
"More likely, however, is that Obama will interpret the Massachusetts loss as a signal that he should move further toward the middle and make more concessions to the conservatives -- even if this alienates his base even further, a base which had high expectations from the 'yes we can' candidate."
"For everyone else in the world, this means that they will have to bid farewell to a candidate for whom the hopes were so high. They will have to say goodbye to the charisma they fell in love with. Obama will be staying home after all."
The left-leaning daily Die Tageszeitung writes:
"In addition to health care reform, Obama's reputation has primarily been harmed by the high unemployment rate and the increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan. It will become even more difficult in the future for the president to push projects through successfully. Not just because Republicans now have a means of preventing it, but also because the Democratic camp is deeply divided. Some would like to see the party shift toward the center -- wherever that may be -- whereas others want the party to position itself to the left. Such a battle is hardly a good sign for the mid-term elections in November. Massachusetts could prove to be an omen."
The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:
"Of course the president rejects the interpretation that the Massachusetts election was a referendum on his first year in the White House. But he cannot ignore the fact that his health care reform package is not popular, the situation of the country's finances is seen as threatening and many voters blame the high unemployment rate on the party in power -- on the Democrats, led by Obama. The result is a second year in office full of very different challenges than the first. To save what there is to be saved, Obama will have to be prepared to fashion a bipartisan compromise on health care -- a compromise with a Republican Party which has tasted blood and can now dream once again about a return to power."
Center-left daily Süddeutsche Zeitung writes on Thursday:
"Obama made a serious misjudgement. Right at the beginning of his first year in office, he saved the banks, rescued the automobile industry from collapse and passed a huge economic stimulus package. He had hoped that these enormous deeds would give him the space to address those issues which are dearest to him: health care reform, climate change and investment in education."
"Those issues, however, are clearly not priorities for people in the US at the moment. Scott Brown campaigned on two promises, both of which apparently struck a nerve with the electorate. He wants to block health care reform and he wants to find ways to reduce the enormous budget deficit. It is here where the roots of dissatisfaction with Obama are to be found. His reform agenda, in its current form, is highly suspect to Americans. And they have the impression that, if he continues piling up debt, he will be gambling away the country's future."
The Financial Times Deutschland writes:
"For Obama, the election in Massachusetts means that he will have to re-evaluate his political style. He could now focus his concentration on his political base and push through his policy agenda. After all, he still has a majority in Congress -- he could back away from his strategy of bipartisanship ... which would mean giving up much of what he spent his first year in office creating."
"More likely, however, is that Obama will interpret the Massachusetts loss as a signal that he should move further toward the middle and make more concessions to the conservatives -- even if this alienates his base even further, a base which had high expectations from the 'yes we can' candidate."
"For everyone else in the world, this means that they will have to bid farewell to a candidate for whom the hopes were so high. They will have to say goodbye to the charisma they fell in love with. Obama will be staying home after all."
The left-leaning daily Die Tageszeitung writes:
"In addition to health care reform, Obama's reputation has primarily been harmed by the high unemployment rate and the increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan. It will become even more difficult in the future for the president to push projects through successfully. Not just because Republicans now have a means of preventing it, but also because the Democratic camp is deeply divided. Some would like to see the party shift toward the center -- wherever that may be -- whereas others want the party to position itself to the left. Such a battle is hardly a good sign for the mid-term elections in November. Massachusetts could prove to be an omen."
The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:
"Of course the president rejects the interpretation that the Massachusetts election was a referendum on his first year in the White House. But he cannot ignore the fact that his health care reform package is not popular, the situation of the country's finances is seen as threatening and many voters blame the high unemployment rate on the party in power -- on the Democrats, led by Obama. The result is a second year in office full of very different challenges than the first. To save what there is to be saved, Obama will have to be prepared to fashion a bipartisan compromise on health care -- a compromise with a Republican Party which has tasted blood and can now dream once again about a return to power."
Obama's plan to control spending and the deficit 
"The plan Obama will propose breaks down as follows:
- Freeze discretionary spending on non-security-related programs and government agencies whose budgets are set annually by Congress. Affected programs could include subsidies for farmers, child nutrition, and national parks.
- Exempt from the freeze would be budgets for federal entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, as well as the budgets for the Pentagon, the Veterans Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and foreign aid.
The administration claims this will save the country $250 billion over the next decade, or about 3% of the $9 trillion deficits the U.S. is expected to accumulate over that period.
Conservatives have mocked the freeze as not doing nearly enough to get to the root of the country's economic problems. The right-leaning blog RedState.com chided the effort, saying that it would have "virtually no impact on the financial standing of the United States of America." On her Twitter page, right-wing commentator Michelle Malkin compared the freeze to "promising to slow down from 250 mph to 249.9." House Minority Leader John Boehner likened the plan to "announcing you're going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest."
Liberals aren't happy either, arguing that less government spending will slow economic growth, and that cutting government services will harm those in need. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman labeled the freeze "a betrayal of everything Obama's supporters thought they were working for." Kevin Drum of Mother Jones echoed those sentiments, writing that "the liberal base has yet another reason to be disgusted with Obama." MSNBC host Rachel Maddow went even further, saying that the "counterintuitive" plan is a "completely insane" one that violates the basic principles taught in any "101 level college econ class."
"The plan Obama will propose breaks down as follows:
- Freeze discretionary spending on non-security-related programs and government agencies whose budgets are set annually by Congress. Affected programs could include subsidies for farmers, child nutrition, and national parks.
- Exempt from the freeze would be budgets for federal entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, as well as the budgets for the Pentagon, the Veterans Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and foreign aid.
The administration claims this will save the country $250 billion over the next decade, or about 3% of the $9 trillion deficits the U.S. is expected to accumulate over that period.
Conservatives have mocked the freeze as not doing nearly enough to get to the root of the country's economic problems. The right-leaning blog RedState.com chided the effort, saying that it would have "virtually no impact on the financial standing of the United States of America." On her Twitter page, right-wing commentator Michelle Malkin compared the freeze to "promising to slow down from 250 mph to 249.9." House Minority Leader John Boehner likened the plan to "announcing you're going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest."
Liberals aren't happy either, arguing that less government spending will slow economic growth, and that cutting government services will harm those in need. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman labeled the freeze "a betrayal of everything Obama's supporters thought they were working for." Kevin Drum of Mother Jones echoed those sentiments, writing that "the liberal base has yet another reason to be disgusted with Obama." MSNBC host Rachel Maddow went even further, saying that the "counterintuitive" plan is a "completely insane" one that violates the basic principles taught in any "101 level college econ class."
As predicted, centrist democrats begin to abandon the sinking ship
Democrats place new roadblock to health care bill - Yahoo! News
Dems lack workable plan and retreat on health care - Yahoo! News
I must be the new Karl Rove....
Democrats place new roadblock to health care bill - Yahoo! News
Dems lack workable plan and retreat on health care - Yahoo! News
I must be the new Karl Rove....
I'm waiting for Obama's speech tomorrow
More like the illegitimate lovechild of Karl Rove and Dick Morris.
I like the new thread's title 
Must have been Raoul
Yeah, I guess messing with people's profiles and thread titles is the new mantra of moderators now
Obsessed.
Erm...yep. Near a quarter of all his posts, in 5 years, have been in this thread
RufRT 225
Raoul 101
Red Dreams 49
Team Brian GB 34
I may not have the most popular thread in CE, but it has stimulated political discussion and it has been for the most part, civil.
Today, someone took it upon themselves to change the thread title and manipulate my sig.
Now, I can take a good ribbing just like anyone else, but I take exception to someone abusing their power of moderating to screw around with the thread title and my profile to reflect his opinion.
People may not agree with my viewpoints, but a free and frank discussion in CE should include all points of view, free of threats/moderator abuse.
Today, someone took it upon themselves to change the thread title and manipulate my sig.
Now, I can take a good ribbing just like anyone else, but I take exception to someone abusing their power of moderating to screw around with the thread title and my profile to reflect his opinion.
People may not agree with my viewpoints, but a free and frank discussion in CE should include all points of view, free of threats/moderator abuse.
Oh calm down you big girl. I had a "cockney liverpool fan who likes the cheese from Jan Molbys sweaty scrote" tag for 6 months...Everyone has a tag that takes the piss. Haven't you noticed?
Well now you know what you have to do to get rid of it
Well now you know what you have to do to get rid of it
nah, I'll leave the arse kissing to you
I guess Raoul got pissed off that the thread has over time, demonstrated some validity. In the end, he took the juvenile route and decided to feck with the title.
I suppose if you can't get everyone in line with the same viewpoint, you start imposing you viewpoint with petty crap like this Raoul
I suppose if you can't get everyone in line with the same viewpoint, you start imposing you viewpoint with petty crap like this Raoul
I suppose if you can't get everyone in line with the same viewpoint, you start imposing you viewpoint with petty crap like this Raoul
You know, you're right.
Back on topic....now Obama should copy Reagan....what a difference a year makes !
Ronald Reagan's Charm Could Teach Obama some Lessons - Yahoo! News
Ronald Reagan's Charm Could Teach Obama some Lessons - Yahoo! News
I suppose if you can't get everyone in line with the same viewpoint, you start imposing you viewpoint with petty crap like this Raoul
I think the main problem is you're the only one on this website with a particular viewpoint.
If this is a free and open website, with frank discussion, why should that be a problem ?
Or should we all be leftist sheep ?
No, that would make for one-sided and quite frankly..boring debates.
He is an excellent orator though. Rhetoric is a forgotten art nowadays. He's trying to back his speeches up with action, so I guess it's alright. In comparison I don't think I can remember any of Dubya's speeches.Yeah, I guess messing with people's profiles and thread titles is the new mantra of moderators now
It's just banter, that's it, you will need to show everyone that your tagline is false
Why do you push your agenda on an English football clubs forum?
Just curious
Just curious
Pay attention Anderson, its the Current Events forum....
You don't give a rat's ass about "free and frank discussion". You exist on this forum only to annoy people, with a deliberate strategy of irritation, mockery, and windup. Then you are delighted with the moments when your strategy is shown to be effective, and people take offense at your posts.
So don't feign self-righteousness about someone editing your precious thread, or giving you a delightful new tagline. You've more than earned them both.
Don't worry RufRT you're not the only one. I got the pakistan tagline because of my tirade against them.
The magic man speaks tonight. "Let's kill the banks" will be high on the agenda.
First post in 2 months on this thread, and its a pile on....nice Chris, but I would expect no less from you
- Status