So that's it, right? It's clear that Obama's goal is to totally bankrupt middle class america.

I mean, I guess when you're uber-rich guy who will have everything handed to you for life, you don't give a fuck about the middle class. I wouldn't expect him to care/understand, as corporate shills have infinite supplies of cash.

But realistically, first a law that jacks up the price of health insurance, and you're required to buy it. Then an extra $100/month stolen from paychecks, and now a proposal to raise costs of labor (and goods) in an economy that's pretty much continuously un- or underemployed already.

What the fuck is this guys deal?

not like it matters he is gonna tax that extra cash right out anyways..

At 2/13/13 11:44 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: not like it matters he is gonna tax that extra cash right out anyways..

Well, not just that, minimum wage does two additional things that are bad for economies.

Raise prices of goods and services. Gas, food and commodity prices are already high enough. With so many unemployed, and not having money, we should be trying to make food, etc cheaper, not more expensive.

Makes certain types of employment illegal, because it prevents potential employees from negotiating a reasonable price with an employer. Which stilts everything, if you're an actual job creator (not a large conglomerate who can just absorb costs and cut quality, and then pass legislation for force people into buying your shit anyway), like a small business, high minimum wage FUCKS you. Let's say Mr. Harrison owns a shop making clocks. The clock business is doing quite well, and he needs more guys to help him make clocks due to increased demand. So, a kid comes in, with little experience and says he wants a job. It is law that this kid be payed $9. Which, maybe too much for Mr. Harrison to afford. So, he either makes the kid work part-time, and can't make as many clocks, hire him full time, and put all of his money into paying the new kid instead of materials or possible expansion. Either way, he'll have to raise the prices of his clocks to offset how much he's giving the kid. OR he could just not hire the kid at all, and his business won't expand anyway.

It also contributes to the illegal immigration problem because of the above. Employers seek illegals because they don't have to pay them minimum wage.

I do not understand why it's mandatory for employers. The federal govt should have no say in the employee/employer relationship. You mean to tell me, the government has the power, to keep me from naming my price to work? What if I want a job really bad, but potential employers can't pay $9. You're telling me it's ILLEGAL for me to say "Hey man, times are tough. I'll work for $6 instead." What the fuck is that?

I can understand the reason for raising minimum wage, but never really thought it to be a good idea to really help out the poor.

The idea is a noble one. Make it so that the least people can make is better. However, it often tends to just end up as a wash.

The places where minimum age is used the most is retail, which is the sector of the economy where changes in cost are passed onto the consumer the quickest. In the end, to both cover the extra cost of the wage workers, and to get more money out of now wealthier clients, the price of goods will scoot up accordingly.

At 2/13/13 12:00 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
Raise prices of goods and services. Gas, food and commodity prices are already high enough. With so many unemployed, and not having money, we should be trying to make food, etc cheaper, not more expensive.

Yeah, that will happen. Unless you're comfortable with the idea of people who create these products not being able to support themselves (and therefore must rely on welfare - which is costing our government bundles of money too, by the way, or the people die off, which is not sustainable, which affects you even if you don't care about the people) then there really aren't too many options, either. Minimum wage is supposed to reflect a bare minimum in order to live off of (or at least make it worth the gas/bus fare to get to work, in the first place), which for the past few years it hasn't been. Periodically minimum wage needs to be increased to reflect inflation/rise in the cost of living, if you want it to make sense anymore.

Makes certain types of employment illegal, because it prevents potential employees from negotiating a reasonable price with an employer. Which stilts everything, if you're an actual job creator (not a large conglomerate who can just absorb costs and cut quality, and then pass legislation for force people into buying your shit anyway), like a small business, high minimum wage FUCKS you. Let's say Mr. Harrison owns a shop making clocks. The clock business is doing quite well, and he needs more guys to help him make clocks due to increased demand. So, a kid comes in, with little experience and says he wants a job. It is law that this kid be payed $9. Which, maybe too much for Mr. Harrison to afford. So, he either makes the kid work part-time, and can't make as many clocks, hire him full time, and put all of his money into paying the new kid instead of materials or possible expansion. Either way, he'll have to raise the prices of his clocks to offset how much he's giving the kid. OR he could just not hire the kid at all, and his business won't expand anyway.

It's very easy to argue from one side - how about looking at the other? The clock maker sets up a job opening, and the only people who try to take him up on it are people who only need the money for a little spare cash, or just want to pass the time. Good for the clock maker, but for the rest of the people that really need a job in order to survive that clock making job is worthless, as it doesn't cover their basic needs. They need to turn it down and look for more substantive work, or live off of welfare (which would give them more money and support than a lower paying minimum wage job, to be honest - why would you work less than minimum wage at all?).

These jobs don't do anything to stimulate the economy, as the people taking the jobs can't afford to spend the money on anything else other than the bare essentials. That clock maker needs customers in order to stay afloat - who are these customers going to be? Unless he just so happens to be a very lucky clock maker and attracts the very rich, he's going to need people who can afford to purchase something outside of their bare essentials every once in a while. Raising minimum wage helps him out on that front.

It also contributes to the illegal immigration problem because of the above. Employers seek illegals because they don't have to pay them minimum wage.

True. I doubt it would exacerbate the problem any more than the current state, though - people who are going to avoid minimum wage will keep doing it regardless, while people willing to pay it will probably keep paying it, regardless, in order to keep their name clear. If you want to fix the immigration problem then it's better to focus on the immigration problem (which is a problem, and I'm not sure I'm on Obama's side with that one) - lowering minimum wage (or keeping it too low) to reduce the immigration problem is like ripping a hole in your gut in order to minimize weight gain. It might help avert that problem, but at what cost?

I do not understand why it's mandatory for employers. The federal govt should have no say in the employee/employer relationship. You mean to tell me, the government has the power, to keep me from naming my price to work? What if I want a job really bad, but potential employers can't pay $9. You're telling me it's ILLEGAL for me to say "Hey man, times are tough. I'll work for $6 instead." What the fuck is that?

It's probably perfectly legal to say that - it's not illegal for the worker to willingly donate part of his paycheck to the company, so you could make a workaround, if you really wanted to. If you can pay your bills, eat, travel and manage to make a meaningful contribution to the economy at less than a thousand dollars a month without benefits (assuming you're working 40 hour work weeks, which is a pretty big assumption nowadays), then go for it. I sure as shit can't, and I doubt most people who live alone couldn't do so, either, but if you can, power to you.

It's illegal for a company to say "Hey, we need workers, but we're going to pay you less than you need to survive, and there's nothing you can do about it.". That's very different than what you're proposing, as it protects the well being of those that work for a company. Just because you would be able to survive on 6$/hr doesn't mean most others could - raising minimum wage gives those that are employed a fighting chance to get back on their feet.

Look, raising minimum wage hurts businesses that rely on paying it's workers the lowest amount possible - it will drive costs up for everything accordingly. The reality, though, is that either option is going to fuck the same people over in one way or another. Would you like to increase minimum wage, hurting small business, or keep it low and have things like welfare and unemployment taxes eat the small business away internally (currently welfare takes about 35% away from the employee as well as another 35% of the employee's paycheck away from the employer, if memory serves me right)? Or the third option, which is to cut welfare drastically, which would lead to the starvation of the people that rely on it... which in turn would leave companies without the low wage work force in order to keep their prices low, anyway (leading to the raise in prices of food/gas/etc. due to the need to pay higher wages to attract workers again)?

Reality is a bitch - prices on things must go up in one way or another in order to survive as a state, as a country, and likely as a planet.

At 2/13/13 02:50 PM, Gario wrote: Yeah, that will happen. Unless you're comfortable with the idea of people who create these products not being able to support themselves (and therefore must rely on welfare - which is costing our government bundles of money too, by the way, or the people die off, which is not sustainable, which affects you even if you don't care about the people) then there really aren't too many options, either. Minimum wage is supposed to reflect a bare minimum in order to live off of (or at least make it worth the gas/bus fare to get to work, in the first place), which for the past few years it hasn't been. Periodically minimum wage needs to be increased to reflect inflation/rise in the cost of living, if you want it to make sense anymore.

So let me get this straight...we need to raise minimum wage to compensate for the inflation the government causes in the first place? How about the government DOESN'T inflate the currency, AND allows freedom of a business owner, and employee to pay/earn what they want.

It's very easy to argue from one side - how about looking at the other? The clock maker sets up a job opening, and the only people who try to take him up on it are people who only need the money for a little spare cash, or just want to pass the time. Good for the clock maker, but for the rest of the people that really need a job in order to survive that clock making job is worthless, as it doesn't cover their basic needs. They need to turn it down and look for more substantive work, or live off of welfare (which would give them more money and support than a lower paying minimum wage job, to be honest - why would you work less than minimum wage at all?).

Obviously the clock making job isn't for everyone. No job is meant to be "hey, everyone apply for this job". That's just ridiculous. You apply for jobs that match your skill set, and you pay people based on that (unless you have to deal with unions).

If the clock making job is worthless to someone, then don't fucking take it.

These jobs don't do anything to stimulate the economy, as the people taking the jobs can't afford to spend the money on anything else other than the bare essentials. That clock maker needs customers in order to stay afloat - who are these customers going to be? Unless he just so happens to be a very lucky clock maker and attracts the very rich, he's going to need people who can afford to purchase something outside of their bare essentials every once in a while. Raising minimum wage helps him out on that front.

EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR that changes hands in the private sector helps the economy. That's what the economy is.

True. I doubt it would exacerbate the problem any more than the current state, though - people who are going to avoid minimum wage will keep doing it regardless, while people willing to pay it will probably keep paying it, regardless, in order to keep their name clear. If you want to fix the immigration problem then it's better to focus on the immigration problem (which is a problem, and I'm not sure I'm on Obama's side with that one) - lowering minimum wage (or keeping it too low) to reduce the immigration problem is like ripping a hole in your gut in order to minimize weight gain. It might help avert that problem, but at what cost?

Well, if you can only afford $7 minimum, and it's raised to $9...

It's probably perfectly legal to say that - it's not illegal for the worker to willingly donate part of his paycheck to the company, so you could make a workaround, if you really wanted to. If you can pay your bills, eat, travel and manage to make a meaningful contribution to the economy at less than a thousand dollars a month without benefits (assuming you're working 40 hour work weeks, which is a pretty big assumption nowadays), then go for it. I sure as shit can't, and I doubt most people who live alone couldn't do so, either, but if you can, power to you.

Regardless of the reasoning, why the fuck can the government criminalize working for cheaper than what they say? That's social engineering, and it's bullshit.

I'm talking about young people, high school grads, fresh college grads who can't find jobs in their field/degree because the economy is frozen. These are kids who are willing to take any job they can find, even if it's $7/hr. Companies pay what they pay, because that's what they can afford. You cannot force people to dole out more money if they can't afford it. It makes no sense. Like forcing people who are poor to buy expensive insurance, or taking more money out of their paychecks.

It's illegal for a company to say "Hey, we need workers, but we're going to pay you less than you need to survive, and there's nothing you can do about it.". That's very different than what you're proposing, as it protects the well being of those that work for a company. Just because you would be able to survive on 6$/hr doesn't mean most others could - raising minimum wage gives those that are employed a fighting chance to get back on their feet.

So those that are employed can get back on their feet. Great. But it raises the cost of whatever they're making and therefore less potential for the company to make money. Meaning that business may not be around to much longer.

Look, raising minimum wage hurts businesses that rely on paying it's workers the lowest amount possible - it will drive costs up for everything accordingly. The reality, though, is that either option is going to fuck the same people over in one way or another. Would you like to increase minimum wage, hurting small business, or keep it low and have things like welfare and unemployment taxes eat the small business away internally (currently welfare takes about 35% away from the employee as well as another 35% of the employee's paycheck away from the employer, if memory serves me right)? Or the third option, which is to cut welfare drastically, which would lead to the starvation of the people that rely on it... which in turn would leave companies without the low wage work force in order to keep their prices low, anyway (leading to the raise in prices of food/gas/etc. due to the need to pay higher wages to attract workers again)?

No one can force the economy. Especially the government. They can't even get their bureaucracies paid for, let alone get the economy fixed.

At 2/13/13 02:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I can understand the reason for raising minimum wage, but never really thought it to be a good idea to really help out the poor.

The idea is a noble one. Make it so that the least people can make is better. However, it often tends to just end up as a wash.

The places where minimum age is used the most is retail, which is the sector of the economy where changes in cost are passed onto the consumer the quickest. In the end, to both cover the extra cost of the wage workers, and to get more money out of now wealthier clients, the price of goods will scoot up accordingly.

Everything the government has done in this century has been a "noble idea". We're gonna bring freedom to these people. We're gonna take money to do this. It ALWAYS ends badly for someone in the equation. Sure, a sugar quota/importation ban help american sugar growers. Unfortunately, this allows them to set their own prices, because there's no outside competition...so they price gouge because there is little alternative.

Point being, every time the government tries to "help" they usually break something. So I say to them "Just leave people the fuck alone, and don't touch anything".

It's not obama's fault that the US of A is falling.

At 2/13/13 04:06 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: It's not obama's fault that the US of A is falling.

He's more at fault than Bush is

I thought there really wasn't a middle class in the United States, I thought everybody was either rich (above 100,000$ or something like that) or everybody was in poverty (under somewhere in 50,000)

I don't see what's so bad about Obama, he helped passed Obama care, and the United States is pratically the only country in the world that's developed and doesn't have free health care.

At 2/13/13 04:34 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 2/13/13 04:06 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: It's not obama's fault that the US of A is falling.

He's more at fault than Bush is

I would suggest that he is more of a pawn along for the ride with the rest of us. Politics have never historically solved issues but it has created many often times just to be the one to come up with a solution and look like the night in shining armor. I must express that Obama is no more effective at stopping corruption than an Oath keeper is at refusing to fight illegitimate wars and the killing of innocent civilians. The business of War is a dirt one in where nobody comes out victorious and make no mistake the USA is a War country. Remember what the word Government means to "govern", which means to Oppress, limit, Subjugate, hold back, retard progress etc. No president is a friend of the country he leads based on the fundamentals of what Government is.

At 2/13/13 04:41 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: I don't see what's so bad about Obama, he helped passed Obama care, and the United States is pratically the only country in the world that's developed and doesn't have free health care.

A) Nothing is free
B) Countries that have "free healthcare" can only afford it because we give them money. If they had to pay their own way, and pay for their own infrastructure and military, they wouldn't be able to afford it.
C) Obamacare is not "free healthcare", it's a bill that eliminates cheap healthcare plans, leaving only expensive premium ones, so insurance companies can make more money, and criminalizes choosing to not have insurance.

At 2/13/13 03:12 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Everything the government has done in this century has been a "noble idea".

;;;;
Perhaps its time to replace the phrase "the road to Hell has been paved with good intentions"

To the Road to Hell is being repaved with nobel ideas !
~;)

At 2/13/13 04:51 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 2/13/13 04:41 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: I don't see what's so bad about Obama, he helped passed Obama care, and the United States is pratically the only country in the world that's developed and doesn't have free health care.

A) Nothing is free

Who said anything about free LOL.

B) Countries that have "free healthcare" can only afford it because we give them money.

Wrong the US take more than they give. If the US gives a Country something it means the US is taking something away from that country. If a country does not want devalued US Fiat currency and petrodollars then the US sends in the War machine and takes what they want enter the Mid east.

If they had to pay their own way, and pay for their own infrastructure and military, they wouldn't be able to afford it.

False as the EU has better social systems and infrastructure than the US.

At 2/13/13 05:11 PM, morefngdbs wrote: To the Road to Hell is being repaved with nobel ideas !
~;)

;;;;;
Oh & by the way minimum wage in this Province is going up to $10.30 per hour, April 1 2013

(its presently $10.15)

At 2/13/13 05:15 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 2/13/13 05:11 PM, morefngdbs wrote: To the Road to Hell is being repaved with nobel ideas !
~;)

;;;;;
Oh & by the way minimum wage in this Province is going up to $10.30 per hour, April 1 2013

(its presently $10.15)

You mean Subjugation payments are going up !

At 2/13/13 05:14 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Who said anything about free LOL.

Uhh...the guy I was responding to?

Wrong the US take more than they give. If the US gives a Country something it means the US is taking something away from that country. If a country does not want devalued US Fiat currency and petrodollars then the US sends in the War machine and takes what they want enter the Mid east.

No, we subsidize the militaries and "social" programs of our allies...and some that aren't even our allies, like Pakistan.

False as the EU has better social systems and infrastructure than the US.

And is also completely bankrupt

At 2/13/13 06:05 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 2/13/13 05:14 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Who said anything about free LOL.

Uhh...the guy I was responding to?

Wrong the US take more than they give. If the US gives a Country something it means the US is taking something away from that country. If a country does not want devalued US Fiat currency and petrodollars then the US sends in the War machine and takes what they want enter the Mid east.

No, we subsidize the militaries and "social" programs of our allies...and some that aren't even our allies, like Pakistan.

False as the EU has better social systems and infrastructure than the US.

And is also completely bankrupt

Yup and to expand on your comment Lemon
The US maintains an expensive Nuclear and Military umbrella that we pay for so they don't have to. Many of our current allies don't feel the need to build up their military or acquire nuclear weapons because the US will protect them instead. SO before people bitch about various welfare why don't we stop providing everything else for the rest of the world?

The US maintains an expensive Nuclear and Military umbrella that we pay for so they don't have to. Many of our current allies don't feel the need to build up their military or acquire nuclear weapons because the US will protect them instead. SO before people bitch about various welfare why don't we stop providing everything else for the rest of the world?

china does that already

At 2/13/13 06:05 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 2/13/13 05:14 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Who said anything about free LOL.

Uhh...the guy I was responding to?

Perhaps you should tell that to the assholes that are letting the fiat currency printing press run rampant while the debt and responsibilities are put onto the peoples backs. The only westernized country that health care sucks in is the US point blank and period so perhaps the US needs to take heed on how to run a country.

Wrong the US take more than they give. If the US gives a Country something it means the US is taking something away from that country. If a country does not want devalued US Fiat currency and petrodollars then the US sends in the War machine and takes what they want enter the Mid east.

No, we subsidize the militaries and "social" programs of our allies...and some that aren't even our allies, like Pakistan.

No the USA extends debt in exchange for subservience.

False as the EU has better social systems and infrastructure than the US.

And is also completely bankrupt

Every Country is bankrupt and living on debased FIAT currency. The problem with the USA is that they choose to bully other countries instead of offer any real services to them in exchange for services which is called an economy.

At 2/13/13 06:17 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

At 2/13/13 06:05 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 2/13/13 05:14 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Who said anything about free LOL.

Uhh...the guy I was responding to?

Wrong the US take more than they give. If the US gives a Country something it means the US is taking something away from that country. If a country does not want devalued US Fiat currency and petrodollars then the US sends in the War machine and takes what they want enter the Mid east.

No, we subsidize the militaries and "social" programs of our allies...and some that aren't even our allies, like Pakistan.

False as the EU has better social systems and infrastructure than the US.

And is also completely bankrupt

Yup and to expand on your comment Lemon
Many of our current allies don't feel the need to build up their military or acquire nuclear weapons because the US will protect them instead.

The Mob also used to do this as well and it's called a protection racket.

SO before people bitch about various welfare why don't we stop providing everything else for the rest of the world?

Name something that the USA has provided that they did not receive back in ten fold. See the problem is that the US is trying to make other countries "an offer they cant refuse" and China and Russia are getting sick of it as are many other countries. Stop trying to make is seem like the USA is offering the world some charities when they are doing the opposite.

At 2/13/13 06:26 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote:

The US maintains an expensive Nuclear and Military umbrella that we pay for so they don't have to. Many of our current allies don't feel the need to build up their military or acquire nuclear weapons because the US will protect them instead. SO before people bitch about various welfare why don't we stop providing everything else for the rest of the world?

china does that already

Um no China does not provide a military and Nuclear umbrella for close US allies like most of NATO and Japan. Nor would China use military action to protect US allies.

At 2/13/13 11:41 AM, LemonCrush wrote: So that's it, right? It's clear that Obama's goal is to totally bankrupt middle class america.

I mean, I guess when you're uber-rich guy who will have everything handed to you for life, you don't give a fuck about the middle class. I wouldn't expect him to care/understand, as corporate shills have infinite supplies of cash.

Wow I'd assume for a guy you hate so much you would have done your research on him. Obama was nothing like this at all, he grew up in a single parent household to some I guess middle class parents. His dad died in a car crash and he spent much of his time rotating schools in Hawaii and Indonesia (her mom had divorced Obama sr. and married an Indonesian guy who worked for an international school) having to get a scholarship from a private institute apparently to graduate high school. The guy was not born into wealth at all, he earned what he got, he worked to get into Harvard, which is a school you'll probably never go too because you're simply not smart enough.

But realistically, first a law that jacks up the price of health insurance, and you're required to buy it. Then an extra $100/month stolen from paychecks, and now a proposal to raise costs of labor (and goods) in an economy that's pretty much continuously un- or underemployed already.

What the fuck is this guys deal?

Raising the minimum wage could get people to get off welfare programs. Otherwise it's probably just a nice little fantasy.

At 2/13/13 07:01 PM, Warforger wrote: Wow I'd assume for a guy you hate so much you would have done your research on him. Obama was nothing like this at all, he grew up in a single parent household to some I guess middle class parents. His dad died in a car crash and he spent much of his time rotating schools in Hawaii and Indonesia (her mom had divorced Obama sr. and married an Indonesian guy who worked for an international school) having to get a scholarship from a private institute apparently to graduate high school. The guy was not born into wealth at all, he earned what he got, he worked to get into Harvard, which is a school you'll probably never go too because you're simply not smart enough.

L. O. L. Dude, he's a fucking millionaire. Earned what he got by playing political favors, and having rich backs. The guy has been groomed for this since fucking college. Oh wait...everyone knows good grades are enough to get into Harvard. That's why everyone goes, righT?

Raising the minimum wage could get people to get off welfare programs. Otherwise it's probably just a nice little fantasy.

How will it get them off welfare?

At 2/13/13 06:26 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Perhaps you should tell that to the assholes that are letting the fiat currency printing press run rampant while the debt and responsibilities are put onto the peoples backs. The only westernized country that health care sucks in is the US point blank and period so perhaps the US needs to take heed on how to run a country.

Tell what to them? The US can't afford good healthcare. We're too busy giving billions of dollars to other countries.

No the USA extends debt in exchange for subservience.

Dude, we've been giving 2 BILLION dollars to EGYPT, since 1979. That's 2 BILLION dollars, per year, to ONE COUNTRY alone.

Every Country is bankrupt and living on debased FIAT currency. The problem with the USA is that they choose to bully other countries instead of offer any real services to them in exchange for services which is called an economy.

I also wanted to say, that the EU has "Better things" because we pay for it.

At 2/13/13 07:14 PM, LemonCrush wrote: L. O. L. Dude, he's a fucking millionaire.

He could be, but that doesn't change my point. You said he was always rich, I said you have no idea what you're talking about, and you don't.

Earned what he got by playing political favors, and having rich backs.

*sigh* I guess nothing will ever convince you otherwise. Politicians garner money from interest groups for campaigns, they don't garner it for personal gain or else that would probably be illegal.

The guy has been groomed for this since fucking college. Oh wait...everyone knows good grades are enough to get into Harvard. That's why everyone goes, righT?

Oh it's above and beyond. To get into schools like Harvard you need to have above 4.0 GPA, tons of extra curricular activities 100% on your SAT and ACT along with several other programs like the SAT II. I've met people who go to schools like that, Obama was certainly one of those people who go into a really good school but didn't come from a rich background and had to subsist on scholarships. To put this in perspective, the acceptance rate at Harvard is roughly 5%. Obama wasn't rich, just get that through your head, he got to where he was through hard work, not by just buying his way through. It doesn't matter how much you hate him, the fact is that he came from a middle class family and excelled his way into one of the most prestigious schools in the world through hard work; not by money.

How will it get them off welfare?

They have more money and they don't need welfare payments. Part of the problem actually is that stores such as Walmart take advantage of Government programs like that and take in people on welfare because they can pay them less.

At 2/13/13 08:50 PM, Warforger wrote: He could be, but that doesn't change my point. You said he was always rich, I said you have no idea what you're talking about, and you don't.

He's been rich for a good percentage of his lifetime. Better?

*sigh* I guess nothing will ever convince you otherwise. Politicians garner money from interest groups for campaigns, they don't garner it for personal gain or else that would probably be illegal.

Of course they don't on paper. It's just a fringe benefit, eh?

Oh it's above and beyond. To get into schools like Harvard you need to have above 4.0 GPA, tons of extra curricular activities 100% on your SAT and ACT along with several other programs like the SAT II. I've met people who go to schools like that, Obama was certainly one of those people who go into a really good school but didn't come from a rich background and had to subsist on scholarships. To put this in perspective, the acceptance rate at Harvard is roughly 5%. Obama wasn't rich, just get that through your head, he got to where he was through hard work, not by just buying his way through. It doesn't matter how much you hate him, the fact is that he came from a middle class family and excelled his way into one of the most prestigious schools in the world through hard work; not by money.

Hard work doesn't pay for Harvard. Hard work also doesn't pay for Senate and Presidential campaigns.

They have more money and they don't need welfare payments. Part of the problem actually is that stores such as Walmart take advantage of Government programs like that and take in people on welfare because they can pay them less.

But in reality, they don't have more money, because the price of goods rises.

At 2/13/13 07:17 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 2/13/13 06:26 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Perhaps you should tell that to the assholes that are letting the fiat currency printing press run rampant while the debt and responsibilities are put onto the peoples backs. The only westernized country that health care sucks in is the US point blank and period so perhaps the US needs to take heed on how to run a country.

Tell what to them? The US can't afford good healthcare. We're too busy giving billions of dollars to other countries.

The US can as you say "afford" what ever they want as they can just put the debt onto the next generations backs like they have been doing for years. It's cute how your nationalism runs so deep that you actually believe that the US is keeping the EU afloat. Nobody wants US Dollars anymore as it = to much DEBT and subservience to American banksters whom are outta control.

No the USA extends debt in exchange for subservience.

Dude, we've been giving 2 BILLION dollars to EGYPT, since 1979. That's 2 BILLION dollars, per year, to ONE COUNTRY alone.

In exchange to Militarize Egypt with American forces and to take their Oil and other resources. That's also called coercion "here take this money under these conditions or else !"

Every Country is bankrupt and living on debased FIAT currency. The problem with the USA is that they choose to bully other countries instead of offer any real services to them in exchange for services which is called an economy.

I also wanted to say, that the EU has "Better things" because we pay for it.

Cite your sources.

At 2/13/13 09:01 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: The US can as you say "afford" what ever they want as they can just put the debt onto the next generations backs like they have been doing for years. It's cute how your nationalism runs so deep that you actually believe that the US is keeping the EU afloat. Nobody wants US Dollars anymore as it = to much DEBT and subservience to American banksters whom are outta control.

It's really odd, the way you respond. You say things as if you just have a text file somewhere and just copy/paste them into responses. Nothing you said there applies to anything I said, nor to me (nationalist?)

In exchange to Militarize Egypt with American forces and to take their Oil and other resources. That's also called coercion "here take this money under these conditions or else !"

But you just said the US doesn't do that.

Cite your sources.

You just said it your fucking self. We subsidize almost every nation on the planet, as I just posted a second, and as you agreed with.

At 2/13/13 09:07 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 2/13/13 09:01 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: The US can as you say "afford" what ever they want as they can just put the debt onto the next generations backs like they have been doing for years. It's cute how your nationalism runs so deep that you actually believe that the US is keeping the EU afloat. Nobody wants US Dollars anymore as it = to much DEBT and subservience to American banksters whom are outta control.

It's really odd, the way you respond. You say things as if you just have a text file somewhere and just copy/paste them into responses. Nothing you said there applies to anything I said, nor to me (nationalist?)

Point is if America is inflating then they might as well do it for the right and noble reasons but see the problem is they for the most part or not.

In exchange to Militarize Egypt with American forces and to take their Oil and other resources. That's also called coercion "here take this money under these conditions or else !"

But you just said the US doesn't do that.

Where ? I stated the US only gives when they receive back in 10 fold also known as coercion.

Cite your sources.

You just said it your fucking self. We subsidize almost every nation on the planet, as I just posted a second, and as you agreed with.

No I didn't and now your playing games. Cut the crap and cite you sources.