Thread: Obama 2012?

meh thats just how I see him :P

yep that depicts it exactly... He thinks he was the one that did it, not the over priced military and the CIA intelligence. Not the new tech helicopter, not the elite soldiers that go into foreign countries risking there lives. Nope it was "I"

Just stirring the pot... I was actually impressed that he agreed to go into pakistan and complete it.

pfft, lol I forget sometimes, that I come here to game, not argue.


Carry on

Originally Posted by Bubbasam

Well on average your statement is complete bullshit. Actually it is complete bullshit is my business -a restaurant. My labor costs are about 27-29% on average. Your statement above says that I will be making more from each employee than I pay them. Man...I wish I had a 27-29% profit margin. And I guarantee MOST small business only dream of a profit margin like that. Do me a favor and list me some people you know that own businesses that make more than their employees (labor costs).

Food service has uniquely low profit margins. After food, labor, depreciation and overhead, most restarauntiers make just a few percent in profit (if they profit at all). As someone who has been doing food for nearly 20 years, I have run a few kitchens and worked in a lot more. Cooks don't get paid squat compared to even mundane office jobs. What wicked says is more often then not true; but almost never in food service. They can't pay cooks enough because the market simply won't pay enough for food.

Sucks too, because I do love me some food; and I really wish I could make a good business on my own out of it. Currently I work for a management company because only corporations can offer benefits and higher wages. I have been the exec at enough ma & pa joints I never wanna do that shit again! In 1999, I was working 72 hours a week in the busy season for 32k a year. Fuck that.

The original topic: First off, privatization of Federal student loans under the bush administration led to predatory lending, high interest rates, and reduced understanding of what exactly is happening with their money by recipients. Thanks to Direct Loan, under the new administration, I can consolidate my loans with the federal government. My interest rates are reasonable, it is easier to manage. The infrastructure between me and my money as well as what I owe is far more transparent. Originally student loans were to help less monied Americans have access to the same resources as those who came from wealth. But under the bush administration, that system of helping the future of America turned into a business. And the business is only there to get as much as it can while providing as little as possible. That is not in keeping with the original reasoning behind federal loans. I am really glad we got back on track with the student loans.

Since you want to know what I like about big government... could you define that vague talking point? What specifically should I not like that he did that increased the size of our government. Likewise, what have other parties elected leaders done to reduce the still vague size of government. I have never seen government shrink substantially, under any president. But I have seen it grow for each. I support regulations that actually work because they receive the funding and direction they need. I like to see enforcement with teeth, so we don't have hollow and useless laws. if by big government you mean I want to see regulations enforced that protect the welfare of all Americans equally but also allow us our freedom of choice and thought; by gods yes that is a damn good big government.

My taxes are unchanged. Could you define and demonstrate these higher taxes that elude almost everyone I know personally.


Finally, I believe people should have choices. The very nature of the conservative movement, hence the GOP, is to restrict my choice not based on anything measureably logical, but based on their moral judgements. And that is a big deal to me. People's religious ideology should not drive government decision making in my opinion. And in the conservative party, in the very document they use to describe their platform, is a directive to place certain religiously associated beliefs into law, thus restricting my choice.

Democrats represent the party of choice. Things are not black and white. Any party that wants to restrict my choices, whether based on their religious objections or through facilitating monopolies that reduce the diversity of goods, is not a party I will choose while I still have the option.


So instead of talking points and lame cartoons: What specific adjuncts to the federal government did Obama attach that are excessive? What did our last GOP leader extricate? You asked a question, I gave many specific answers, I have a lot more also if you want a discussion to facilitate understanding. Or perhaps we can just keep slapping up meaningless vague talking points.

So you support choice, but you also support regulation? Isn't that a little bit of an oxymoron as regulation would limit the choices of someone? So do you support my choice to own firearms, including "assault rifles", or do you support the regulations proposed by many Democrats?


Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by CivilWars

So you support choice, but you also support regulation? Isn't that a little bit of an oxymoron as regulation would limit the choices of someone?

Regulation and choice are not mutually exclusive. Certain government regulations actually give more people more choice; anti-monopoly laws, for instance.