+164 Thomas Jefferson once said, “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” So technically, thanks to Obama, we are not a democracy anymore, according to our 3rd president. amirite?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Please explain how the blame is placed solely on Obama.

by Anonymous 15 years ago

Because apparently, the OP is too retarded to realize that FDR started the first social programs. He is also apparently too retarded to understand that the founding fathers lived more than 200 years ago in a completley different world, so most of their quotes have no relevency today.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Congress in 1862 was the first to "take away from those who are willing to work" by initiating income tax to help fund the Civil War.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

But they didn't "give to those who would not [work]", did they?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just pointing out that the whole "steal from the rich" idea predates Obama.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Oh yeah, and the constitution was written like two centuries ago in a completely different world, so that has no relevance either

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Many parts of it don't. Washington himself said that he only expected it to last 20 years, but it's nearly been twelve times that long. Besides, we can amend the constitution, but we can't amend quotes.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Actually that is a fair point, never mind my sarcastic comment.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The founding fathers ideas have no meaning in todays world? Are you being serious?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

he is taking money out of the paychecks of those who work & is providing it to the ones who choose not to work. therefore it is Obama's fault we are not a democracy.

by Anonymous 15 years ago

(kaayla.): I eat because of the government...

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You also use the internet, which is a luxury.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No, Obama is taking the money out of the paychecks of those who work and providing it to the ones who can't find work. Quite frankly, the good act aimed towards those with families who are trying to find work out-weighs the small percentage of people who are too lazy to find it. Besides, there are laws that state that one can't receive unemployment payment unless they show a mentality towards getting a job; if lazy people are getting free money now,they won't get it for long. Obama IS working on improving the unemployment rates; some idiots are complaining that he is doing nothing, but actions like this TAKE TIME. Nobody can completely shift the US economy in just one year.

by Anonymous 15 years ago

he@53159 (Anonymous): the health care plan he is pushing will actually add to the unemployment rate and what he is doing to small businesses will make them fire more people, because they are forced to provide healthcare for their employees, again, adding to the unemployment rate.

by Anonymous 15 years ago

How retarded can you get?! The plan will create 300,000 new jobs. But you're right, the unemployment rate is predicted to go up. Do you know why? Because millions of people will feel confident enough in their new health care plans that they will feel safe enough to retire earlier. And don't worry it's cool that you just ignored the fact that like half of the bill's spending is is tax cuts for small businesses so they can buy insurance for employees.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You have got your facts mixed up. People who are retired, don't add to the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate only counts people who are actively seeking jobs. I'm surprised you would mess up something that simple.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yeah I noticed that after I wrote it and I hoped no one would catch it. What I meant was that the overall number of employed people would go down.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

We are a republic, genius.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

(Samantha Jane): Democratic republic. Genius.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Federal republic with democratic tradition. Genius.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

@989602 (Anonymous): It's the same thing. You just added more words.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I disagree, but only because this didn't start with Obama. This started a LONG time ago. Believe me, I don't like the President, but as I said, this didn't start with him.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Many of people don't work not because they don't want to, but because no one will hire them because corporate greed is way too high. The Republicans preach trickle down economics, but it doesn't work. Corporate greed is too big, they don't hire more people, they give the extra money to the execs.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

This post is so true.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Do you have elected representatives that the people voted for? Then you are a democracy.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

republic*

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Well being a democracy and a republic aren't mutually exclusive. America is a democratic republic, so it's still a democracy.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

because anyone who's unemployed is a lazy bastard mooching off the money you worked hard to earn because your deceased grandfather invented toaster strudles. it's just so obvious isn't it?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You truly are an idiot. You think every rich person got their money from inheritance? You're anti American

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You think every poor person is poor because they're lazy?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No. Do you think every person is poor because of ridiculous situations like this?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No but the percentage of people who are just in unfair situations greatly outweighs those who just don't work. You can probably find the concentration of those who refuse to work in Upper Michigan. But other than that, it's stuff like, your ex-husband was fucking horrible with money, or there being so much snow that it caves in a part of your roof (true story; Upper Michigan; took us a while to find someone who'd fix it.)

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Doesnt necessarily outweigh lazy ppl. I c what u mean, that there are people who are disabled and CANT work. And i believe they should be assisted. But theres also a ton of lazy people, and also people that, while they might not get to do the same job as before, or their options might be narrowed down, they could get a job. They just dont. The government shouldnt be taking people's money in order to pay for someone else, whether they can work or not. Thats not the governments responsibility. now, this sint all Obamas fault but its been going on since FDR. It just continues to get worse. And Obama's no exception. Hes also worsening it. The government is involved in too much. They get into things that are none of their business, and pay for things they shouldn't be. Even taxes were orignally against the Constitution. They were unconstitutional because they werent needed. The government didnt pay for everything. They didnt need all that much money at all.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The government isnt responsible for paying for those who cannot work. If the government didnt, there'd be charities for that type of thing.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Democracy is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" (Abraham Lincoln, our 16th president). Thereby, taking money from the working has nothing to do with electing officials or representing the people.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You're completely taking Lincoln's quote out of context. He never once said "democracy" or "democratic" in the Gettysburg Address.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I think everyone arguing this is retarded unless they have a degree in political science or other political degree.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

In a democracy, I should be allowed to voice my opinion. It is you who tries to disenfranchise our voices, not Obama.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Im just a sayin' most people are completely retarded and make blind assumptions because of what a news station reports.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Now who's making assumptions?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I said most, not all. Do not twist my words

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Do not call people "completely retarded."

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Okay, I apologize if that offended you.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Although the government does take money from people to fund others, Obama wasnt the first to do this. Income tax was created in the 1800s. And you're ingnorent for saying this considering Obama has very little power, he cant even write a law for it to pass, congress has to that and they also have to pass all the laws and plans he supports. ^^^and i dont need a degree to know this. Its just basic economics and government, sorry you dont know this.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Thank you!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Technically, it would be practically impossible to be a perfect democracy...unless you wanted to vote on every single bill that was passed...and that would take a loooooooong time!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yeah "Pure democracy" is different to "Representative democracy" which all but one democratic countries are. That just means that the people vote people they think would be best run the country, they still get a say, but if laws are passed that they don't like then the next time there is a vote they can vote someone different in to fix it.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I prefer pure democracy. Makes shit easier. Each person = one vote.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Okay kiddies, let me tell you a story, the story of Terry. Terry was born to a single mom, she made a poor decision her senior year, needless to say Terry was born, without a dad as he ran out before the birth. So, Terrys mom, lets call here Suzie is stuck with a kid. No job. Parents refusing to talk to her. So Suzie goes and gets a job. And she works hard and the pay checks start rolling in. Then Terry is born and things change. Late to bed early to rise. Late to work early to leave. Suzie's boss didnt like it. She gets laid off. This cycle will continue untill Terry is in his teens. His mom gets sick, really sick. Terry has to drop out to take care of her. No education, minimun wage, taking care of his sick mom with no money. But its cool guys, lets not help him. Thats not the right thing to do. Lets not give Suzie healthcare. Lets not give Terry foodstamps. Lets not give him a pell grant. Lets not help him at all

by Anonymous 14 years ago

life's tough

by Anonymous 14 years ago

So do nothing to help, yeah that makes sense.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You're a dick. I usually don't like stooping to insults, but that's the best way to put it. If you were in a situation like that I'm sure you wouldn't go around saying, "Life's tough."

by Anonymous 14 years ago

CLEARLY, life isn't too tough for you. Otherwise you'd be singing a different tune.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I say let terry and his fucking mom suffer

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You jumped straight to a drastic worst case scenario. The fact is, socialism decreases incentive, which hurts everybody.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Socialism increases incentive. My prime example is Linux and its development.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Would you mind explaining this example to me?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Linux is an Operating System that was created by multiple people working together on it for no money or compensation. It was socialism in practice through computer programming. People worked on it for the pure enjoyment of togetherness and progress. Socialism works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I don't think a few people getting together and having a nice time computer programming is evidence that socialism works

by Anonymous 14 years ago

A few people? This is hundreds of thousands upon hundreds of thousands of programmers.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

A fair point, however it's not really the same thing as Socialism as an ideology for running a country

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I was arguing against the "socialism decreases incentive" point.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I understand that, however people doing the Linux thing were doing it because they wanted to. You can't possibly expect everyone in a society to do their job because they want to.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

He's right. People made linux because they had nothing better to do and had fun with it and it differs from the real world because in the real world we do things out of thirst for power and happiness. In a socialistic society people will do what they want but that will consist of being janitors and employees at mcdonalds and not work their ass off to become something much greater like a scientist or a doctor and thus society will begin to decline along with our education because it takes away our reason to study.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

And you can't expect everyone to NOT do their job. I'm just proving that there are people who are motivated to learn and innovate and make the world better and that even under socialist conditions, innovation can and will exist even if it's not from all people. And to further destroy your point, do you think that ALL people now (under a capitalist system) do their job? Some people work as janitors even now.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yes of course, and there's no need to be aggressive dude, let's keep it friendly. Now you're obviously correct in saying some people work as janitors, but removing the main motivator to work hard to do something like be a doctor or scientist (the motivator being money) will just remove the reason for a large portion of people. You say innovation can and will exist and you're right, but it will not be to the same extent simply because a lot of people work to make money. I think you're being a bit idealistic about assuming people will work for the sake of accomplishing something because the fact of the matter is most people want to be lazy. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that people get payed for the work that they do.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Who's to say the main motivator is money? Most (if not all) scientists are underpaid. Where do you get their money from? Grants. And if they have no grants? Then they must work out of the pure enjoyment of work and discovery. And the Linux development team that I mentioned and use as my prime example, that is a team of scientists who get paid nada, nothing, not a cent and they work because they love to work. Teachers are underpaid, many doctors are underpaid. The only people who are not underpaid are those who do little to none actual, helpful work. Lawyers, stock brokers, CEO's. And under a socialist system, their jobs will be useless and they will be forced to either start loving to work or become janitors.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I still disagree however I have no response to this, so I bow to your superior arguments.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Friends?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I like science. I have been building computers, modding cars, and programming since I was around 15, I am forced to go into much higher science classes because I become frusterated when I am not being told exactly how everything works in a subject and being left with questions (i.e. cells, physics, etc) so needless to say science will have something to do with my career choice and why I want to have it as my career is because I know you can make alot of money off of it. I need that amount of money to do fund my own projects instead of having a goal to accomplish something everyone in the bizziness agreed upon. If i was in a socialistic society I wouldn't really care about having science as a career choice because I know I could just be lazy and get the same amount of pay and use that to fund my ideas and then i would not have nearly enough money and thus I am left handicapped. I doubt you want your career to have a sudden income drop either.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

And besides, how many times do you ever hear Ukraine do anything interesting or about how they are rising in power?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You are a single case and this argument is already over.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'm sorry I didn't realize that there was a due-date for my response to occur. Explain what you mean by "single case".

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You are a single person, a single case. I, for one, am also involved heavily in science. Although I am not motivated by money but by curiosity. But I am also a single case. That is why I use the Linux development team as a team of educated scientists who are motivated by the love of learning and the love of working to improve the world.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I may be a single case in that spectrum, but I doubt I am the not the only one who has money as a helping reason to do better. Really all that Socialism would do is take down big corporations and promote more Americans to do simple things rather than be big. Linux is good but IMO its not as good as something that Microsoft or Apple can offer mostly because its allot simpler and more reliable for people that are not familiar to computers and theres not allot of us who know so much about computers to the point where they can start screwing with their OS.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You yourself agreed that socialism simplifies things which you argued is a good thing. Furthermore, your lack of Linux knowledge is appalling. All your points on Linux being "not as good" are voided by the fact that you have never used Linux nor have you ever seen the simplicity of Linux.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'm saying (not arguing) that theres really no point to have Socialism as a form of government here because all it will do is give more to people who want to be lazy. Linux would be better if for the fact that it is what it is, a community created program and with community creations causes problems with compatibility and very rare troubleshooting to fix the issue. Its really just my opinion but I like making progress when I'm on the computer but I get stuck and have to fix issues with Linux, so I stayed with Windows.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

And I'm just saying (not arguing) that socialism solves poverty.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

But at what cost? I feel that there is another way to solving poverty without changing an entire system to work only for them.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Thats actually a very good point however. I never really thought on how that would affect poverty.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

: But I think people who are in poverty have more of an issue staying with or having a job other than not getting payed much. Minimum wage will probably at least take them out of the situation their currently in. It depends however (how many kids, if theres a husband, etc) even then welfare should be able to help.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I think what I am trying to say about Linux is that being able to be a scientist there is as simple as downloading Linux, putting on a disk, and changing the OS. In the real world becoming a scientist here is going through hell with studying (counting grade school and everything) is a 18+ years of school easily and thats if you just want to get out of school quick and start your job then for the sacrifice of not getting a higher position. Its tough and a lot harder than just getting out of high school (or dropping out) and just getting a job at McDonalds (although I'm not sure how well it would stand in a socialistic government) and at the least people should be rewarded for their hard work. Sorry for the quadruple post btw.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

FUCK YOU. I don't argue with idiots.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Oh, ok i suddenly understand your point because you told me to go fuck myself and that im an idiot. My bad I'll should remember next time that you are completely correct and totally unbiased because you think the opposing side is and idiot, Brilliant. I've been trying to keep my patentince with you and your consistant insulting comments but I'm done so I'll just explain it to you like this. Assuming you have the better idea in an conversation is completely biased first off so if your going to enter an conversation with someone opposing your idea carrying that idea prepare to get your ass handed to you and labeled and ass. Evidence: you hate conservatives and think every single one is a complete retard (your bio) and you feel that it is your duty with random people you met on the internet to destroy someone who has a different idea because your under that false delusion that you have "the right idea".

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Second, thanks for even trying to take in the thoughts that I may have that don't seem to agree with your views. Adaptability is key to have when trying to obtain the right place to stand on a issue and being smart and saying "FUCK YOU" to an opposing side is claims that your severely challenged and no better the Sarah Palin. Third assumptions are for idiots. I told you that I have been building computers for a while and telling me that I have no clue how Linux works even though I BUILD computers is complete idiocy. Once again if you have valid point for why I am an idoit, please elaborate. saying "FUCK YOU" says wonders about your intelligence and points and leaving no counter arguements only shows that you've completely lost and your so unwilling change your mind on a issue that you've stooped down to "FUCK YOU" and claiming I am an idiot to present your ideas because you have none left.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You make me sick. You are another example of why I completely hate the human race as a whole, A bunch of dumb-asses trying to convince a bunch of other dumb-asses why their right because their enslaved by their own mind that they are right. You understand why I said I'm not arguing right? Its because an argument is two people trying to explain why their right. I prefer discussions where people can explain why their right but are still willing to to take into consideration the opponents side of the story which obviously you don't have a single care of what I think so this has turned to an arguement thanks to the power of stupidity (you). Stop trying to act like your some kind of rightious white knight charging into the battle of the pure evil enemies that is someone else's opinion you clearly lack the requirements to present any kind of opinion due to you bias. Let the big boys play with that stuff and run along and wait untill you have some maturity.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Socialism, while it does prevent poverty, it also punishes people who are willing to work harder and more than other. Say John works extremely hard in America. He owns his own business. Makes quite a bit of money. Bill, while he's not lazy, cant find a job. Why would we punish John by making him pay for Bill, or taking his money and giving it to Bill? It's not his fault Bill isnt working. Socialism causes more problems than it answers. We need less government involvement in our daily lives, not more.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

agreed.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

but I still think the cause of poverty is lack of jobs rather than pay.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Friends for sure

by Anonymous 14 years ago

rarely has any one ever given a fuck when I'm in a bad situation even when its life threatening. Why should he get any different? People are never there for you and the faster you learn that everyone cares about you is bullshit the faster you can move on and worry about your self.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

And people wonder why our world is so fucked up. The term "treat other how you would like to be treatedd" sounds good right now.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Let's help by our own choice though and because we're genuinely concerned for the well being of these people, not because the government makes us

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Tis a good point. But some times people just aren't willing. Which is sad indeed.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yeah that's really what it amounts to. Socialism and Communism's main failing is that people can get by pretty well being lazy, so a lot of people end up not working (or at least not working very hard) because they can live just as well either way

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Which is why i dont believe in any of our systems! Things need to change. Capitalism didnt spring up till Feudalism died. I dont see why something better wont spring up from these systems dying

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That's a nice way to look at it. Might end up being more like the fall of the Roman Empire though

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I think what jefferson was trying to say that when you "take from the rich to give to the poor" that's communism

by Anonymous 14 years ago

How exactly is that communism?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It's communism, because as an ideal, communism is spreading wealth equally among everyone under the power of the government. To me, that means that the wealthy have more resources/money taken from them than the poor.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Communism is total economic and social equality.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

*spreading wealth equally"

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yet that does not destroy the class system which is the social equality part of communism.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

How can there be a class system if the wealth of a country is spread amongst everyone?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Which is where it is flawed. Hell why would i want to become a scientist when i can do something as simple as clean floors for the rest of my life and make just as much.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Touché, but, there would still have to be scientist and doctors or else the society would crumble

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Its not really communism because communism is complete lack of classes and equal wealth

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It makes me sad that this has a positive rating :(

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Well hello, Republican. Study up on your government.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Nice assumption jack-ass.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Maybe we just shouldn't have government at all, amirite?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Poor people are willing to work. They just can't find jobs. Totally different thing than people who are not willing to work. I'm not saying that people don't scam the system, but not everyone is a scammer so it's worth it to help the people who aren't scamming.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

see ur point, but no, its not worth it. The government is TRILLIONS of dollars in debt. We REALLY cant afford that anymore. Let the charities do the charitable work. Let the government, do government work

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Um, no, fucktard I think you're confusing people who won't work with people who CAN'T work

by Anonymous 14 years ago

its not ALL Obama's fault. Like a previous comment said, FDR started these. But Obama is vastly continuing them. and They NEED to stop, NOW. Charities are for providing for people who need money and cant work. Not the governments responsibility.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

not sure if op and followers are trolls or just incredibly stupid....

by Anonymous 13 years ago