4 MORE YEARS OF CRAP, CASH FOR CLUNKERS IS BACK

[derbydummy]

According to poll data, president Obama became president tuesday due largely to college students and the unemployed... So basically Obama became president the same way budwiser became the "KING OF BEER".. ;D

[jeremybailey13]

[76yorker]

Let's just look at the main point here...... He can't find the time to prove his place of birth. WTF is he too busy, can't remember what shelf he put it on, having trouble faxing it from Africa, fucking dog ate it, rolled it up and smoked it in Colorado, or just slips his mind. I mean how hard is it to be like " Good morning America we have just cut taxes and killed Osama Bin Laden Oh heres my birth certificate. I mean come the heck on.

I do not claim to be a Liberal or Concervative I am the party of red blooded Americans who work their butt off and shake their head at the Goverment.

Sorry I am off my rant hope that didn't offend anyone

[hitmhard]

Nov 10, 2012 10:49:34 GMT -5 democrat said:

I did notice on your list of deadbeats you left out Farmers.

WOW!!! I'm a farmer.... I get a subsidy.. Am I a deadbeat??? I vote straight ticket Republican every election... Now here's the fact, you fuckin dumbass.... Farmers who vote pro-subsidy are Democrats who want to "spread the wealth." They would rather take a government handout than go out and make it on their own.. Sound familiar?? Maybe the government will start handing out clues, so you can get one..

[democrat]

Im confused. You vote Republican which is fine. The party of cutting subsidies to the poor, needy, old and so forth but you gladly take your Govermnent handout? Seems a little odd. 31% of farmers in OK take subsidies. So this means 69% are doing fine without them. And I hesitate to personally call you a deadbeat. I dont even know you, and I usually wait to personally know someone before calling them "fuckin dumbass". And if your collecting subsidies from tax payers arent you the one that is actually spreading the wealth around? Your using other peoples money for your personal gain arent you? Im not subsidized. The guy who is building a house down the road from me is not subsidized. The mail man is not subsidized. The bar owner is not subsidized. So what makes farmers "entitled" to tax payers money? Every business is expensive so that arguments out. I am not personally against subsidizing farmers. My point was to the other guy who posted everyone he could think of that he thinks is taking government money and are deadbeats. I was pointing out a segment of society that is heavy with government payments. So to decide if your a "deadbeat" I would need a few more anwers. Do you actually need those subsidies to survive or do you sign up for them simply because they are offered. There is a huge difference.

[mkvien]

Nov 12, 2012 19:48:42 GMT -5 democrat said:

The mail man is not subsidized. quote]

Really, a public sector union member is not subsidized? That's a bit of a stretch.

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day...teach a man to fish, and he'll stop voting democrat...?

[76yorker]

Democrat was the reason the douchbag was coined.

[hitmhard]

1) I don't use agricultural programs to their fullest potential..
2) As said before, I don't care if they do away with them entirely... A statement that is reaffirmed by the way I vote...
3) I pay far more state and federal taxes each year than what I receive in subsidized payments..

Without showing you my yearly spreadsheets, I hope this is enough information for you to deduce whether or not I'm a deadbeat farmer, or JUST a farmer...

[David Bryan]

Hello. "The farm program". What percenatge of the farm program is farm subsities? What percentage is food stamps? In a way, hard to have one without the other. Farming is a business now. It was a way of life. Some people, it is still both. I write, fine, let the farm subsites dry up. Let the food stamp program dry up. But then, at the same time, allow farmers to set THEIR price for what they produce. Do you REALLY want that? You must realize farmers can not, do not, set their price for what they produce. Corn, beans, wheat, pigs, cattle...etc... They get a price, not of what they can set. It is set for them. The farm program is to maintain cheap food in America. It works, for the most part. Be careful of what you want. David Bryan

[catscratch]

Wouldn't that be nice; to be able to make a product AND decide how much you want to sell it for.

[derbythis]

Nov 12, 2012 19:48:42 GMT -5 democrat said:

Im confused. You vote Republican which is fine. The party of cutting subsidies to the poor, needy, old and so forth but you gladly take your Govermnent handout? Seems a little odd. 31% of farmers in OK take subsidies. So this means 69% are doing fine without them. And I hesitate to personally call you a deadbeat. I dont even know you, and I usually wait to personally know someone before calling them "fuckin dumbass". And if your collecting subsidies from tax payers arent you the one that is actually spreading the wealth around? Your using other peoples money for your personal gain arent you? Im not subsidized. The guy who is building a house down the road from me is not subsidized. The mail man is not subsidized. The bar owner is not subsidized. So what makes farmers "entitled" to tax payers money? Every business is expensive so that arguments out. I am not personally against subsidizing farmers. My point was to the other guy who posted everyone he could think of that he thinks is taking government money and are deadbeats. I was pointing out a segment of society that is heavy with government payments. So to decide if your a "deadbeat" I would need a few more anwers. Do you actually need those subsidies to survive or do you sign up for them simply because they are offered. There is a huge difference.

Thank you for looking at some liberal propaganda website and bringing it here. Now let's look at the actual facts. Yes farmers do receive subsidies. They receive them to keep the costs of food down. Without the subsidies you can expect all of your food prices to rise. These subsidies go to farmers to pay for them to raise certain crops. There is no other relevance to your comparisons as the others you mentioned are free to do as they wish. Farmers who do not receive subsidies may also grow what they wish. In this case government is dictating to them what they can grow and in some cases that they not grow anything. In return they are given the difference to grow a certain crop. It may be more profitable to grow for example corn but if every farmer grows corn what do you do for wheat when no one grows it. These subsidies are given to those who grow wheat at a loss so that we have wheat. The cost of food is kept down because we stay ahead of the demand with our supply. Yes some farmers are making good money but look at the entire picture. The average yearly salary of a farmer receiving subsidies is around $70,000. Now take into account the percentage of those who farm for a living which is about 35%. This means that there are about 65% who are farming on the side. Now compare the 65% at $70,000 to those who are working 2 full time jobs and see what the difference is. When compared to the national average of a person at $56,000 working a single job that figure looks like the subsidies could go away as they are making roughly $14,000 more than the average American. I can tell you I would not work the days and put the effort these guys are putting into farming to make the $14,000 more they make subsidies or not. Especially when you take into account they are already working in most cases a 40+ hour a week job and are raising crops on the side. I live on a small cattle farm where we raise hay to feed our cattle throughout the winter. I can tell you working full time and farming on the side is not a whole lot of fun. Getting up at midnight to take your water turn, working the full day to come home and cut, bale, haul hay, and spending your weekends fixing fences, vaccinating cattle, etc. is not fun. If that number was compared to those working 2 full time jobs I bet they would be somewhere around $25,000 less than the guy working 2 jobs. On top of this you have to purchase or lease equipment. I just happened to be in South Dakota last week hunting pheasants and for each farm there you are probably looking at close to $1,000,000+ in equipment sitting there with 3 large tractors, 3 Harveters, a couple of semis, and many had some heavy equipment such as a front end loader. One other thing to check into if you happen to be just looking at general figures is government subsidized housing falls under the Department of Agriculture which is the same place subsidies for farmers come from. This will be post number one with 2 other posts to come on the topics of abortion (choices) and one on economics. Please stay tuned for further enlightenment from one who is educated by the standards you proposed as being educated which is someone with a Bachelors Degree from the uneducated small western state of Utah.

[wessvobodas6]

My dad farms on the side. Not much. Runs a plumbing business and farms. The criticism of farm subsidies is oober ridiculous.

yeah, tax the rich. Why not.

Rich write the paychecks folks. female dog all you want, but that's how it is. You dont like working for rich? Invent something. Open something. Build something. Get rich yourself. Taxing rich will make it worse. Far worse. You take away their incentive to grow, and they'll just quit writing paychecks and close the doors. This poop is so assbackwards right now that it will be our demise.

[derbythis]

I am technically an unaffiliated voter. I tend to vote more to the republican side but I vote for who I feel is the best person for the job. In this election I did vote for Mitt Romney. I feel it is my civic duty to actually look at the candidates and what they stand for, watch the debates, and become an informed voter. I tend to look at what the media puts out as facts and read into them as much as possible as what the media outlets from both sides put out as facts any more are probably 25% fact and the other 75% is spun towards their candidate garbage. I was a little disappointed in the last 2 debates as I felt the moderators were both useless and both showed there disdain for Mitt and support for Obama. After the first debate Mitt hit it out of the park so the moderator had to try and hold him back the next 2 so they could give Obama a fighting chance. I am 100% pro-choice. I am however not pro dispose of the consequences. In my mind Roe v. Wade did 2 things to start our country into a downward spiral. First it changed the role of judges in our country. Our constitution was designed so that congress makes laws and the judicial side upholds and decides the constitutionality of these laws. If the law is deemed unconstitutional it is to go back to congress to rewrite the law to word it in a way it is constitutional. To me this was the first case of the judicial side making laws and they have since continued down that road. A great example is gay marriage in numerous states the people have voted to say we do not want it only to have a liberal judge say that it is unconstitutional and say it is legal or make a decision in a case that rewrites or redefines laws. I thought government was supposed to work for the people not what they personally feel. If the people turned out and voted against it that should be the end of it. The second part is it started us down the road of not having consequences for our actions. If you look at the generation from the 1920s-1950s they understood that for every choice you make there are consequences. I hate the word consequences as there are good consequences of our actions and the word seems very negative. On the issue of Abortion we know what causes pregnancy. Now based on the choice you make decides whether or not someone becomes pregnant. Pregnancy is the consequence of an action. The choice should not be Abortion or not Abortion it should be keep the baby or put it up for adoption or even before that have sex or not have sex. The case when I see Abortion being okay are when the following occur: rape, incest, child 16 and younger(one time only), and when carrying the baby or delivering the baby puts the mother in jeopardy of losing her own life. The child under 16 I have my qualms about as some kids understand at a younger age and some do not. By 17 and older they should be able to comprehend the full seriousness of the situation. Pregnancy tends to define a persons life from that point forward. Due to in my opinion a complete lack of parenting more teens are becoming pregnant. My opinion is we should give them one chance to turn their life around due to a momentary lack of judgement. If it happens again then the lesson was not learned and you now need to deal with your actions. We now have a generation that thinks everything should be handed to them on a silver platter without dealing with any consequences. I happen to be 31 but feel I would fit in much better with the older generation. I look to my father as a great example. He made the decision to serve in Vietnam over going to college. This single decision affected him for the rest of his career. After military service he worked at many different places before finally settling on a job with our local phone company. He never went on to pursue a higher education degree. Because of this he was overlooked for many promotions internal to the company to guys who had a degree even though in many cases his experience should have given him a leg up over the others. This one decision brought him consequences for the 32 years he worked for them. He did not complain and gripe about the situation he just dealt with it in the best way he knew how. That was to get up every morning and go into work and do the best job he could. He could have sat around and griped and complained and did as little as possible to keep his job but he didn't. He made the most out of the situation due to the consequences of his decision. Everyone asks how we can grow derbying. The only way you are going to do it with the younger generation is pay everyone the same for just showing up and give everyone a participation trophy. Never have a winner just run the show. This is because we don't want to teach children there are consequences. When I played little league baseball we had 3 strikes you are out, keep score, and one team wins. Now we have stay at bat until you hit the ball, no score, and everyone wins. The same is true with Abortion. We do not want people to deal with the consequences. We want to give them an easy way out as if there were no consequences. As I said before I am 100% pro-choice. The choice you are making is whether or not to have casual sex without the intent of having a child. The consequence is when pregnancy occurs and we need to start living up to our choices and dealing with the consequences in a humane way. Killing an unborn child for the fact of it may ruin your body with stretch marks, etc or because of the simple fact you don't want to be accountable for your actions is not justification or humane. This is premeditated murder as it is a life as I will explain below. In many states when a homicide occurs the count goes up to 2 counts if it is known the woman who is murdered is pregnant. How can we have one law that says if the mother is killed with an unborn child then it is a human being but if the mother and father kills the unborn child it is not a human being. You can't have it both ways. If someone kills someone driving drunk in most states they will be charged with Vehicular Homicide. If they are not drunk in many cases it is just an accident. What is the difference? In one case someone has made a decision to stimulate their body with a substance that impairs their judgement. The argument is they knew what they were doing when they got behind the wheel of the car drunk. It was a decision they made and they have to deal with the consequences. The same is true with casual sex. You know what the potential consequences are so if/when the consequence happens you should have to deal with it in a responsible manner. If you are not ready for the consequences then the decision is easy. Do not have sex and you will not be the cause of life.

[derbythis]

Economy

This one should be common sense to those with common sense. A simple economics lesson will teach you that any free market system is a trickle down approach. Here is a fictitious example of how it works. Someone most likely from the middle class develops a new product. In the beginning this individual is manufacturing the product themselves. Just for fun we will say they manufacture everything and don't buy pre-manufactured parts from anyone. As they sell more the demands become too much for this one man to handle. Also as he sells more his profits and therefore his income increases. To keep up with the demand he hires on a couple of people to help him out. He now turns out more product which equivocate to more sales which in turn brings in more profit and his income grows at a faster rate. Now to keep up he hires more people. This process keeps going and his income increasing to the point he is considered wealthy. As his wealth increases and demand for his product increases he now looks at hiring more manufacturing people as well as now it makes sense to branch off of his original business with a distribution portion as paying fedex and UPS is now costing as much as hiring his own drivers and delivery people. This means new manufacturing jobs and now truck driving jobs. As profits continue to increase so do wages of the employees. At some point investors were brought in that only care about the bottom line of the company as there money is tied to the company turning a profit. This process continues for a few more years until a certain Barrack Obama enters office and says you are now going to be required to provide health insurance for all of your employees and you are also going to pay more in taxes because you make too much money and I just can't stop spending. At this point to appease the investors we now have to lay off 1/3 of our work force to pay for health insurance for our employees as profits have to remain where they are to be a viable company to our investors. We also lay off a few more so we are down to a bare bones company to pay for the increased taxes as Number one is going to be looked out for before anyone else. The other option is to start looking at moving our business out of the country as we still will have the increased taxes but with non union workers and no mandates to provide health insurance the same product can be manufactured elsewhere cheaper. This can cause a complete loss of jobs and not just a downsizing. This leads to the more people out of work which leads to more government assistance which leads to more taxes being paid by someone. Being as we have already taxed the wealthy to the extent we have and if we tax them more it will lead to more lost jobs we will have to turn to the working middle class to pay for our mistakes. Now for the trickle down theory. The wealthy man is the one really creating jobs as without his money flowing down the employees don't have any money. These middle class employees do to some extent create jobs. The middle class workers need to live so we pay for utilities, food, fuel, homes, automobiles, etc. All of these things create jobs. However without a steady paycheck from the wealthy guy who started the business the middle class person now has no money and is living in poverty. In terms many can understand the game of monopoly is very close to the way our free market system works. To win the game you generally have to own the expensive colored properties with houses or hotels. The wealthy can afford to land on the middle class properties with houses and hotels a couple of times. Generally though the owner of those middle class properties cannot take the financial hit from landing on your wealthy properties.

Now to discuss the situation we are in. The current market situation we are in is not a direct result of President Bush as you keep hearing. In case you have forgotten there was a day in September I believe it was the 11th that terrorists crashed commercial airlines into the heart of our financial district. Part of the problem that came after that was policies from Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. These two both felt it was every Americans right to own a home. Since many could not qualify for a loan due to their risk factors they eased up the qualifications banks had to make before a loan was approved. This not only affected those who originally couldn't qualify but also affected those who could qualify to qualify for more than they could afford. When September 11th happened this crippled the stock market. This left many without the means to pay for the debt they had accumulated. The payment to Fannie May and Freddy Mac in my opinion was nothing more than our policies were screwed up and we forced you into buying out these subprime loans due to our policies of giving loans to unqualified individuals. We were living on a bubble that sooner or later was going to pop. It may have not popped at this time if the attack had not happened but it would have eventually. To go back to the monopoly analogy these people were sitting on Boardwalk and Park Place with Hotels with all other properties mortgaged waiting for that big break and eventually everything came crashing down around them as you have to diversify your investments to win. What investors are waiting for is for some stability within the US Economy and then you would see the free market approach take off again with our trickle down theory. I will concede that what Bush did was not the start to get us back on the right course. What investors want to see is the US government helping business to grow not by trying to fund it but by putting manageable regulations in place, removing the red tape and hoops to get something up and running, and by balancing the budget. This leads to an environment in which businesses can thrive. No investor is going to put up large chunks of money to get business going when they don't know what the next years tax rate is going to be, find it too expensive to get a business off the ground, or cannot function due to some ridiculous regulations. Balancing a budget is not that hard to do. All you have to do is bring in more money than you spend. It is a very easy concept but you have to be willing to cut as well as raise taxes. All I keep hearing is congress needs to compromise with the president. What they really mean is bow down to as compromise requires both sides to give a little. Maybe if we put get rid of Obamacare on the table for an increase on the wealthy it may be seen as a fair deal. This would be a win win as it would cut out a huge burden on the budget as well as increase the income. We also need to cut down on the money we are spending for all of these subsidy programs. There are probably places that we can cut more than others but it needs to happen if the budget is going to be balanced. Spending your way out of debt has never worked. Go ahead and try it if you don't believe me. Max out all of your credit cards, mortgage everything you own, get the maximum amount of loans you can and then spend it all. When the bank asks you for payment just tell them you were following the president's example. You will probably get a good laugh out of the banker but at the end of the day you will lose everything. We are headed down the same road as a country and unless we do an about face and fix the problem we will fail. I do think President Obama is going to get us out of this mess in the same way we got out of the great depression. After he cuts our military down to bare bones as is the plan we will be attacked. It was WWII that got us out of the great depression and I believe it will be another war that gets us out of the great recession. My guess is it will be an Iran nuclear threat either towards us or Israel which will start WWIII but will kick start our economy as we are building back up our military after it is cut down.

[derbythis]

I have decided to throw in one more short response on why Obama was elected. I think the second debate cost Mitt Romney the election. First I don't know how moderators are chosen or locations are chosen but the second debate seemed very fixed to me and would have been different if held in a more neutral/battlegrond state. I understand it being a town hall debate which leads to questions from the audience. My understanding is both candidates received all questions prior to the debate. The moderator seemed to pick the topics that were covered which seemed to play right into Obama's hand. She also always called Mitt Romney for time but often times allowed Obama to go on well over 4 minutes in some cases when the allotment was 2 minutes. Also on just about every topic Obama got the last word. My understanding was each candidate was to be given 2 minutes and the original speaker was given a 1 minute rebuttal after the the second candidate was finished. In this debate Obama was often given a second turn on the same question when Mitt went first and Mitt was not given the same opportunity when it was Obama who went first. It has been said many times throughout this election that someone misspoke and it has been pointed out that while it may not have come out the way you wanted it to sound it came out the way it was meant. Obama numerous times "misspoke" during this debate and every time Mitt was ready to go for the jugular the moderator stepped in and changed the topic so he didn't have a chance. There were 2 questions that cost Mitt the election and as a United States citizen these 2 questions were why I voted for him. The first was the question about illegal immigrants. Obama's response was just short of amnesty without saying it as that would have cost him the election. Romney's response was we will give you paths to citizenship for those already here illegally(military enlistment) and we will stop illegals from getting jobs which gives them no reason to be here. Basically you cut off the head of the snake and the body will die. This disenfranchised the entire Latino community. I think he was 100% correct and someone needs to do something about it but the democrats won't as that would upset a large portion of their voter base. The second was a direct question about closing tax deductions and loopholes for the middle class. Obama's response was no they will not be closed because I am going to tax the wealthy. Romney's response was kind of vague but eluded to the point that deductions and loopholes would be closed. To me this was a step in the right direction to creating jobs. If the tax law is simplified it makes it much easier for businesses to plan how much they will have to pay in taxes and gets us much closer to a flat tax which I am a huge fan of. Also these middle class deductions are across the board not just available to the middle class. This is the reason people who pay very little taxes get huge refunds. I know people who pay a $200 in taxes a year but due to deductions get almost $4000 back as a tax refund. How can it be a refund if you are getting back more than you paid. At most they should get back the $200 they put in not a profit. People in this situation realize that and are going to vote for their boy who keeps giving them handouts.

Probably the biggest problem I had with this debate was when the moderator started taking sides on the whole Benghazi incident and entered the debate and seemed to have the supposed proof in hand which seemed kind of strange. It came out a few days later where they retracted their statements after it was proved that Mitt was correct. The damage had already been done in discrediting Mitt on the national stage during a "captive" audience and the retraction did not get the media attention it deserved. It may have been wrong for Mitt to politicize the event but due to the moderator joining sides with Obama we never got to hear about his political rallies the next 2 days instead of acting in his role of president. This was what turned me against Obama as well as all the negativity and not owning up to one's own mistakes. It also scares me that in the event something happens to the president Joe Biden steps in as he is a very lose cannon.