Thread: Obamas first bad decision.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Probably unfair. The auto companies have been screwing up for a very long time. She's been in office for 22 months.


j

Try again, she's had a term and a half at her job now. In fact 6 years, or 72 months.

Though you are right she isn't responsible for the big threes problems, but she isn't responsible for anything to help them out either. The next positive thing she does for the economy of this state will be the first.

So yes I would have been quite pleased to see ALL of those associated with the mess around here left out of Obamas council. It would give me a faint ray of hope that he might get the wise council he needs to make an intelligent decision.

But as it is, Poop in, POOP out. That how it will go.

Originally Posted by sidneykidney

I like and agree with the sentiment of national unity. However, 1)Not everyone is American. I accept that your point is not that everyone should be American but that everyone should back their nation. But point 2) If people gave Obama such a hard time trying to prove he is American, what hope does anyone else have? Why should you have to PROVE how much of a citizen of your country you are?!

I think that is a Republican characteristic since 9/11. After 9/11 you saw all these flags and yellow ribbons, all these comfortable insulated W.A.S.Ps thinking they were showing how American they were. It was amusing to me. The thing is, after a couple years, their sons began demanding to go into the service when they turned 18. It was amazing to see these numbers of young men who could have easily went to college on their parent's dime enlisting and eating crap with the grunts. A lot of those boys re-renlisted after their tours, or had the Army send them to college and became officers, on their own, not taking anything from Mommy and Daddy. This made their parents feel even more patriotic, and it became a middle age competition to see who was more American. I loved seeing those young men transform themselves from sniveling, entitled cowards to men who took responsibility for their actions, and for the safety of their brothers standing next to them. They are going to grow up to represent America as great ambassadors. Their parents? Not so much. Sometimes I think America needs war to mold our young. Isn't that a horrible thought? Since I was discharged, I haven't met any 18-25 year old children that hold a candle to those men I served with.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Try again, she's had a term and a half at her job now. In fact 6 years, or 72 months.

Though you are right she isn't responsible for the big threes problems, but she isn't responsible for anything to help them out either. The next positive thing she does for the economy of this state will be the first.

So yes I would have been quite pleased to see ALL of those associated with the mess around here left out of Obamas council. It would give me a faint ray of hope that he might get the wise council he needs to make an intelligent decision.

But as it is, Poop in, POOP out. That how it will go.

Oops, you're right. Sorry.

Still, I don't think she created the whole mess, politician though she be.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Well, maybe. She leans to the right quite a bit.

j

Oh yeah!!! and just to be difficult I do believe most kickstands lean left

Simple solution: Get her to bend over and insert front wheel

I completely agree. Totally bad choice with the current economy of Michigan and the history of the economy under her leadership.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Yes, well, Belgium has socialized health care.
And guess what. It actually works.

Our country is a bit larger than yours. Anything socialized would be expensive as not everybody would put into it. Yes, the lawsuits go away as you can't sue the government, but that's logic I save for a different discussion - tort reform. Anyway, the money's gotta come from somewhere, and there are other more pressing issues that take priority for me.

Originally Posted by crazycliff200843

Our country is a bit larger than yours. Anything socialized would be expensive as not everybody would put into it. Yes, the lawsuits go away as you can't sue the government, but that's logic I save for a different discussion - tort reform. Anyway, the money's gotta come from somewhere, and there are other more pressing issues that take priority for me.

I wouldnt think size matters when it comes to this paricular topic, methodolgy, I think would be key.

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

I wouldnt think size matters when it comes to this paricular topic, methodolgy, I think would be key.

Exactly.
The number of people participating is not relevant because adding more people also adds more money.
As long as the average income of the participants remains the same, the number of participants doesn't change anything.
And since our systems includes both the rich and the poor, it will scale up easily to US population size, assuming that the rich and the poor all participate, and that roughly the same relative distribution of wealth exists.

Originally Posted by Bruno

assuming that the rich and the poor all participate, and that roughly the same relative distribution of wealth exists.

And herein lies a big problem. I think the payee to payer ration in the American tax structure is currently quite out of wack.

Until a greater proportion of the population actually pays anything in I think you would be putting a undue burden on those who actually pay.