Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Modern Poverty Includes A.C. and an Xbox

page: 32
54
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by haarvik
 

Since the parties control who we get to choose from, how is that going to work?

I've tried voting Libertarian, Green, hell, even Peace & Freedom to no avail.

So long as the two party system has a lock on who we get to choose from, nothing changes.

Oh, for a "none of the above" choice.

That would have my vote until someone with an actual idea born in the 21st century showed up. I'm pretty tired of 19th century solutions.




posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


No, actually Carter started it with the Community Reinvestment Act. It was this little gem of legislation that opened the door for the rest top pour through.

But facts remain...WE elected the people. In some case many, many times. WE are at fault for not removing them from office. When a legislator has spent over 20 years in either the house or senate, the people have failed. You cannot serve that long and still be in tough with the common man who elected you to represent HIM, not bankers or lobbyists. WE have failed the system. WE have allowed it to happen. PERIOD!!!



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


VC activity isn't a good measure of anything, since by their nature they don't invest in the kinds of things we need: small mom & pop type businesses that are content to serve their community and provide a few jobs without aspiring to be a global conglomerate.

VCs are aimed at the next Facebook-type ventures that returns tens and hundreds of millions to a few people.

The focus is too much on the economic sharks, when it's the dire state of the economic plankton that is really the problem.

Without the plankton the sharks eventually starve.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Once again, it is the masses feeding on the fear mongering those running for office play to. If people took a few minutes to learn about the history of a candidate, there would be no need for a two party system. Isn't it amazing what the Tea Party did in just a few short years? If people TRULY want change, they will gather together and learn about the candidates, not listen to them. You may not be able to judge a book by it's cover, but you certainly can after you read it.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by haarvik
 


I'm going to tell you the same thing I tell my kids. Jumping up and down while kicking and screaming (or using multiple exclamation marks) doesn't make a thing any more true then it was before.

There is no democracy where both parties candidates are bought and paid for by ruling corporitist interests. What you are looking at here is a puppet show, and both puppets are being held up by the same guy.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Mom and pop shops are becoming extinct thanks to the healthcare reform the minority of citizens wanted. Y'all just look in the mirror if you voted for Nobama and you will see who is to blame.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by 0zzymand0s
 


Exactly, two parties. You do have a choice. There are other candidates besides the two. You can choose an unknown. Chances are they are more likely to represent main street American than the well known one.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Right now I'm in the Phoenix area. Tell that to the folks at GoDaddy, Lifelock, First Solar, Lumension and a host of other firms employing thousands of folks that are doing so because of VC cash



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by apacheman
 


No, actually Carter started it with the Community Reinvestment Act. !


Ya and the economy grew tremendously as a result; not to mention that the loans of that era were paid off by the time the economy tanked.

It worked for 25 years because the market framework prevented systemic fraud...
Once politicians created the "space" for a massive fraud, many things became a liability.

You have a problem with people taking out a mortgage and claiming a peice?



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I do if they can't afford it. I don't buy things I can't afford, and neither should anyone else. The fact that the government intervened and forced banks to lower their lending standards is what started this ball rolling. All you have to do in this country to get what you want is to start yelling racism. Everyone is so scared of being labeled one they give in without a fight.

It's a disgusting shame.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by haarvik
 


I agree with that...have you seen my concrete proposals for change?

Like establishing secure, hack-proof voting/taxpaying centers that would allow the taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes among the programs they approve of?

And using those same centers to provide a check on things like TARP, by giving a means for the voters to override the votes of their congresscritters and senators if they felt strongly enough in sufficient numbers?

Like expanding the size of the House to its proper Constitutional size? He or she who "represents" a few hundred thousand voters actually represents no one but himself and answers only to his money handlers. The problem isn't that our government is too large, it is that it is too small: small enough to be easily and cheaply bought.

Like capping wealth at some outrageously high figure so that the results of increased productivity and hard work accumulate to those who provide it?

We can change things for the better, but the two-party system has a stranglehold on our government and panders to the internationalist corporatist agendas.

It has to go.

Tell you what:

I propose we all pledge to NOT vote either Democrat or Republican in the next available elections. Only by not voting for either will we get genuine change.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by haarvik
 


They are becoming extinct because of Walmart and other big-box chains, not healthcare.

All the mom & pops I know in my town who've gone out of business blame the big chains, not regulations.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Yes I have, I agree and I propose even further. Any representative who votes against the wishes of his/her constituents should be immediately removed from office and tried for treason. I also agree everyone should vote next election for an unknown. An unconnected, unaffiliated political party candidate. No votes for either democrat or republican. As you said, that is the only way we are going to take back our country.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


once again, I WORK in the insurance business. We represent businesses and help them negotiate a plan for their employees. If your employer provides healthcare, chances are either my company, or one like it helped the owners/board get your coverage. We hear constantly from businesses who want to know what their exposure is going to be when it hits full force. We even get asked how far in advance they need to trim down employees without getting penalized. It is a reality whether you want to admit to it or not.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


Those aren't mom & pop type businesses: they are exactly the sort of thing I described, all aspiring to be the next Facebook.

Don't know the last two outfits, but Lifelock doesn't produce squat, just the illusion of safety without the reality. You do know the founder got his id stolen whenhe put his ssn out there, right? GoDaddy might actually provide a useful service that might be worthwhile...don't know cause I haven't used it or noticed anyone else using it.

You've got a strange idea of what constitutes a mom & pop business.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by macman
My neighbor looses freedom because now they are at the whim of the Govt and rely on it to live.


Here is where your argument becomes an exaggeration

You make it sound as if everyone will be assisted for perpetuity, that people like being dependent.

I don't think that is the common case, abusers of the system exist, but you are distorting the
entire concept and intent of welfare.

I mea,n when the government fed you, housed you, gave medical care and potential grant for college
you were 'at the whim of the Govt and rely on it to live', are still at their whim? Did you survive?

Were you free to break free? did you?


My point is, you are bad mouthing something that you benefited from and ascribing attributes that probably
didn't apply to you or the majority of people.


Any handout, if even once is still placing the Govt in control.

And yes, I was at the whim while I was in the Military. What is your point? I choose that path and excepted it as such. I still worked for my paycheck.

There was no break free as I signed a contract, knew my obligations and what was expected of me. When the contract ran it's course, I was released from the obligation.

Comparing welfare to Military service is a stretch, even for you.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by macman
 


So no combat experience.

Fine.

Pencil pushers still serve. Paperwork does help protect the country.

But you still get paid by the taxpayers.

The military doesn't create wealth, it uses it.

You say you served. My bet is you were a sunshine soldier who was in it strictly for the bennies, and stayed just long enough to qualify for the freebies. Chances are you use the military on your resume. Were you an officer perhaps? Your attitudes mirror the ones I knew who passed through combat zones just long enough to get their ticket punched for political purposes, but avoided combat like the plague, and didn't know what "service" actually meant, even though they were surrounded by it.

You served all right, but only yourself, not your country.

Guys with attitudes like yours seldom survived much combat because they were recognized as liabilities to the team, and the quicker they got themselves killed the safer the team was.

The money military people get is purely tax money, a lot of it taken from people who detest the military and would do without it if they could. So you are in the same camp with those folks I suppose...they don't want their hard-earned money wasted on people who use it to buy booze, cigarettes, and fancy electronics at steep taxpayer-supported discounts in the PX.

Me, I don't begrudge the military their privileges and perks. But then neither do I begrudge welfare for those who need it, they earned it while working most of their lives, while paying the taxes that provided your pay and bennies.


Do you and Janky share the same crystal ball? I never said I was in combat, nor did I say I was not.
Either way, it is really none of your business and the only reason it is brought up is to compensate for your lack of abilities to argue against my point.

In addition, you sure do look down your nose at the office end of the Military. My oh my, how very big of you. With such high standards taught to you, I thought you would resolve to the same Military idea as to defend fellow service members. You are a typing contradiction on a Conspiracy Forum.
You have twisted the idea of comradery between service members into being financial responsible for the masses.
Where did you get your talking points from? Daily Kos? Huffington Post?
What you regurgitate over the internet is not Military taught nor Military learned. I think, hippie re-tread maybe?
Or, too many times watching Full metal Jacket??

edit on 22-7-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
I am for the individual helping. But not the Govt taking and giving.


Maybe I'm wrong here but I think the point some are trying to make about serving in the military isn't that you don't work for your pay but that it's still the government taking and spending however they want. At least that's the way I read it.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I do if they can't afford it. I don't buy things I can't afford, and neither should anyone else. The fact that the government intervened and forced banks to lower their lending standards is what started this ball rolling.


No... you are taking a component and trying to point to it as the causitive event. Carters legistlation occured
over three decades ago, plenty of people paid off their mortgages in that time who benefitted from the government intervention. Home ownership is directly correlated to finacial prosperity in an economy, it is a huge factor in fact.

You are ignoring is that the structures of risk in the financial/insurance industry were dismantled by politicians.

LAW was effectively changed

Was there widespread racism in America, YES... Has is gotten a lot better, YES

Is affirmitive action healthy for America now? I say NO, its time has passed IMO

Making home ownership more atainable is hardly on par with intentionally creating loopholes and laws which allowed for institutional, INTERNATIONAL fraud. You are looking at the headache and ignoring the Brain Tumor.

Those irresponsible people would have never gotten loans if lenders retained a sense of risk. Unfortunately
American politicians stripped away sound laws that served this nation for decades upon decade just fine.
As far as I can tell, all those irresponsible borrowers are eating ass now, just as nature intended.

On a side note; I don't understand why conservatives very often go to bat for the big guy, the corporations,
the billionaires and the elite... Example is; you choose to take a very complex institutional problem and
lay the blame on the doorstep of the little guy, completely ignoring the elite's culpability. Can you explain
why this always seems to be the M.O. I actually want to understand this pattern



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by macman
I am for the individual helping. But not the Govt taking and giving.


Maybe I'm wrong here but I think the point some are trying to make about serving in the military isn't that you don't work for your pay but that it's still the government taking and spending however they want. At least that's the way I read it.

Sure, I will buy that.
But, as opposed to tax dollars going to Military members, where the member is paying taxes as well, the tax dollars going to people not working is what I have a problem with.
I, as an individual can and do provide better for my neighbor then the Govt can or does.





new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join