+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?
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?
I take it someone else was watching Mean Girls today, because that was exactly what I thought.
"There's a thirty percent chance that it's already raining."
You truly are an idiot. You think every rich person got their money from inheritance? You're anti American
You think every poor person is poor because they're lazy?
No. Do you think every person is poor because of ridiculous situations like this?
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.)
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.
The government isnt responsible for paying for those who cannot work. If the government didnt, there'd be charities for that type of thing.
Please explain how the blame is placed solely on Obama.
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.
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.
But they didn't "give to those who would not [work]", did they?
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just pointing out that the whole "steal from the rich" idea predates Obama.
Oh yeah, and the constitution was written like two centuries ago in a completely different world, so that has no relevance either
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.
Actually that is a fair point, never mind my sarcastic comment.
The founding fathers ideas have no meaning in todays world? Are you being serious?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Tis a good point. But some times people just aren't willing. Which is sad indeed.
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
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
That's a nice way to look at it. Might end up being more like the fall of the Roman Empire though
You jumped straight to a drastic worst case scenario. The fact is, socialism decreases incentive, which hurts everybody.
Socialism increases incentive. My prime example is Linux and its development.
Would you mind explaining this example to me?
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
I don't think a few people getting together and having a nice time computer programming is evidence that socialism works
A few people? This is hundreds of thousands upon hundreds of thousands of programmers.
A fair point, however it's not really the same thing as Socialism as an ideology for running a country
I was arguing against the "socialism decreases incentive" point.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I still disagree however I have no response to this, so I bow to your superior arguments.
Friends?
Friends for sure
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.
And besides, how many times do you ever hear Ukraine do anything interesting or about how they are rising in power?
You are a single case and this argument is already over.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
And I'm just saying (not arguing) that socialism solves poverty.
But at what cost? I feel that there is another way to solving poverty without changing an entire system to work only for them.
Thats actually a very good point however. I never really thought on how that would affect poverty.
: 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.
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.
FUCK YOU. I don't argue with idiots.
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".
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.
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.
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.
agreed.
but I still think the cause of poverty is lack of jobs rather than pay.
I say let terry and his fucking mom suffer
life's tough
CLEARLY, life isn't too tough for you. Otherwise you'd be singing a different tune.
So do nothing to help, yeah that makes sense.
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."
I blame apathy. Less than 5% of people actually know what they're talking about when it comes to politics, when everyone else just hears "Obamacare will make teh deth panuls and they will hav 2 ration healthcare and kill yur grandma!" and many of them beleive it because they're too lazy to do 5 minutes of research.
**believe
Sorry, i don't mean to be grammar-Nazi-esque
I wasn't talking to you.
The health care bill did pass. It was just stripped of its potency and power by the Republicans
As a liberal and Democrat, I second your opinion and if it weren't for cold, I would definitely move back to Europe.
Well, I'm originally Russian (a Muscovite if you will), but as of now, I'm leaning to toward visiting Italy and Germany (Italy for its art and Germany for its history).
There's always Australia.
You can't seriously tell me you think republicans are a bunch of racist rednecks can you?
Its really just the media's way of making your opinion. Try not to listen to them their always biased. I'm not republican but I can tell you their good hearted people.. just people like Palin are mislead into thinking that they can run a nation based off of the spine beliefs of the church. Thats really the big thing that scares me about her, her lack of adaptability and that will never work with government. Democrats have Palins too you just never hear of them because the media is mostly dominated by democrats. Just for the the record by the way the Republican party was created to combat slavery just before the civil war which why I have to laugh every time some one tells me the Republican party is racist. But yeah really the media is pretty corrupt and expect something biased from a news show to a tv show every time your hear a political opinion.
America has generally had a history of conservatism. Sure, politically at times we've been progressive, but our economic policy has generally been conservative (the biggest exception being FDR's New Deal). I would say America has generally done pretty well for itself, wouldn't you? So saying nothing good has come from conservative thinking is asinine and illogical.
Also, of course public healthcare is the best system on paper, but the problems come with the execution.
When has conservatism been progressive? For every instance of progressive conservatism, I can name two progressive liberal instances.
Also, full and universal health care would have no problem in execution.
When did I say conservatism was progressive?
And it's complete ignorance to say other countries with universal healthcare have run everything completely smoothly.
Thereby, you concede that conservatism is not progressive.
Name an instance where universal healthcare has not run relatively smoothly for I cannot think of one.
Uh, yes...?
http://www.mackinac.org/2748 Specifically look at the chart on the right
Thereby, conservatives do not promote progress.
Your report talks about the quality of medicine. However, quality can only improve whereas the cost will remain free.
facepalm There is a difference between progressive movements (aka progressivism) and promoting progress. I'm not going to continue to debate universal healthcare with someone who doesn't know something as simple as that.
You misinterpreted my meaning of progressive.
Well it looks like we have a trickster on our hands, very sneaky yet clever.
Either way, my point on your article stands.
So we're sacrificing quality for quantity. And quality will also improve in a paid healthcare system. We could argue forever on whether to go with quality or quantity, but I don't think either of us would budge and it's more or less a waste of time. And I don't feel like it right now.
I don't concede your healthcare argument, but I concede your argument about the pointlessness of this. It was nice arguing with you.
Universal healthcare is a step toward Socialism. We are a democracy, and the government doesnt run every private business. Right now, we tell everyone they MUST have healthcare and doctors HAVE to help those who show up, whether a payment or not. Why make the doctors pay and lose money for something thats not their fault? The government sure cant pay for it. we r trillions in debt. whats next, anyone hungry can show up at mcdonalds and force them to give them food, with or without payment? This is what we are approaching. Soon, no businesses are going to be profitable to run and there goes free enterprise.
Ok, I live in Australia, and we have free heathcare. We are by no means a Socialist country, we are still a Democracy (vote our leaders in) and we are still Capitalist. Having free health care just means that no one can be turned away because they can't afford insurance or can't pay the medical bills. Here everyone has the right to live/receive treatment no matter how poor they are.
Why can't the government pay for it? The governments of other countries are in debt and they're still managing to pay for everything. Why can't the U.S. dissolve into socialism? Democracy would still exist. In fact, democracy would be reinforced because all of the people who cannot vote now (because they are too focused on obtaining enough money for food) would be able to vote and thereby, socialism increases democracy.
So you're against universal healthcare. That's like saying "fuck the poor, if they need help and could die because they can't afford medication that they could with insurance, sucks for them!" and doctors losing money? Please. Say they lose 5k a year from this. They'll still get paid well over 175k! The loss of money may mean said doctor will take Rome off of his European vacation that year.
yeah ur right. they dont deserve to make as much as they could. They make a lot, so why don't we just take all their money away?
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.
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.
You're completely taking Lincoln's quote out of context. He never once said "democracy" or "democratic" in the Gettysburg Address.
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.
Thank you!
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!
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.
I prefer pure democracy. Makes shit easier. Each person = one vote.
Do you have elected representatives that the people voted for? Then you are a democracy.
republic*
Well being a democracy and a republic aren't mutually exclusive. America is a democratic republic, so it's still a democracy.
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.
Um, no, fucktard I think you're confusing people who won't work with people who CAN'T work
It makes me sad that this has a positive rating :(
Well hello, Republican. Study up on your government.
Nice assumption jack-ass.
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.
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
not sure if op and followers are trolls or just incredibly stupid....
This made my day
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.
Maybe we just shouldn't have government at all, amirite?
I think what jefferson was trying to say that when you "take from the rich to give to the poor" that's communism
Its not really communism because communism is complete lack of classes and equal wealth
How exactly is that communism?
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.
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.
Touché, but, there would still have to be scientist and doctors or else the society would crumble
Communism is total economic and social equality.
*spreading wealth equally"
Yet that does not destroy the class system which is the social equality part of communism.
How can there be a class system if the wealth of a country is spread amongst everyone?
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.
(kaayla.): I eat because of the government...
You also use the internet, which is a luxury.
I think everyone arguing this is retarded unless they have a degree in political science or other political degree.
In a democracy, I should be allowed to voice my opinion. It is you who tries to disenfranchise our voices, not Obama.
Im just a sayin' most people are completely retarded and make blind assumptions because of what a news station reports.
Now who's making assumptions?
I said most, not all. Do not twist my words
Do not call people "completely retarded."
Okay, I apologize if that offended you.
We are a republic, genius.
(Samantha Jane): Democratic republic. Genius.
Federal republic with democratic tradition. Genius.
@989602 (Anonymous): It's the same thing. You just added more words.
This post is so true.