Another Joe Biden Buffoon moment

[RIJIMMY]

"they dont get us, they dont get who we are"

They? I guess he is referring to the people who made it, vs. those that dream of making it. Those that made it didnt make it off the backs of taxpayers anf Joe, that is the only solution you and your boss have come up with, thats it buddy. Any BTW, its a #^&#^&#^&#^&ty plan. I get you.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

"they dont get us, they dont get who we are"

They? I guess he is referring to the people who made it, vs. those that dream of making it. Those that made it didnt make it off the backs of taxpayers anf Joe, that is the only solution you and your boss have come up with, thats it buddy. Any BTW, its a #^&#^&#^&#^&ty plan. I get you.

No, he's talking about the uber rich who believe they don't have to play by the same rules as everybody else.

Agree or not it's a strong line of attack against Romney.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

No, he's talking about the uber rich who believe they don't have to play by the same rules as everybody else.

Agree or not it's a strong line of attack against Romney.

-spence

There are many more free loaders that don't think they have to play by the rules. Just saying.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

There are many more free loaders that don't think they have to play by the rules. Just saying.

Agree, but they don't have the ability to rig the game in their favor...that's the difference and what Biden is talking about.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Agree, but they don't have the ability to rig the game in their favor...that's the difference and what Biden is talking about.

-spence

Obviously, SOMEBODY rigged the game in their favor. Probably politicians like Biden in order to get and keep their votes.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Obviously, SOMEBODY rigged the game in their favor. Probably politicians like Biden in order to get and keep their votes.

How unfortunate that starting with FDR and then Johnson with the Great Society welfare has become what it is.
The ones who need it the most don't get enough and the ones that don't get way too much.
There are those who truly can't work because of mental and physical disability and not nearly enough is done for them. The freeloaders rip the system off.
The churches and synaguges do the best job in admistering help for the needy as the
Priests, Rabbis and Ministers know what goes on in their communities and who the real needy are.
Politicians just throw money against the wall for political reasons and it just doesn't work.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Obviously, SOMEBODY rigged the game in their favor. Probably politicians like Biden in order to get and keep their votes.

A politician like Biden wouldn't extend the hand of government for freeloaders but might do it out of a perceived need by a group. Nobody is trying to rig the game so freeloaders can continue to exist.

The elite by contrast do have the ability to rig the game for specific and usually profit motivated interests...be it a company or industry...

I think there is a difference, but also, it's about the line of attack and if it will be successful against Romney.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

A politician like Biden wouldn't extend the hand of government for freeloaders but might do it out of a perceived need by a group.

When the government extends its hand full of cash and goodies, takers will gladly empty what becomes a fist to those who must pay. And the demand will outgrow the supply as the "group" (which the federal gvt. is not constitutionally authorized to "help" beyond what it is granted to do for everybody equally) grows as it naturally will. Throwing money out the window will attract a crowd. And politicians like Biden should know about such axiomatic behavior. The Founders were aware that if the citizens were entitled to the public largesse, the republic would be doomed.

Nobody is trying to rig the game so freeloaders can continue to exist.

A constituency is created through unconstitutional means, and that constituency can be maintained and expanded to help sway elections.

The elite by contrast do have the ability to rig the game for specific and usually profit motivated interests...be it a company or industry...

The game can be rigged only with the complicity of the government. It is the government that regulates at the behest of the elite or the "freeloaders". And politicians like Biden are glad to accept the money from the "elite" and the votes from the "freeloaders".

I think there is a difference, but also, it's about the line of attack and if it will be successful against Romney.

-spence

Not "also," but all. That is the whole point. Divide and conquer.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Nobody is trying to rig the game so freeloaders can continue to exist.



-spence

Spence, ya gotta be kiddin me.Not only do they try to rig the game with freeloaders but also allowing ilegals stay in the country. It's two of the cheapest ways, for them, to buy/get votes, imho.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Spence, ya gotta be kiddin me.Not only do they try to rig the game with freeloaders but also allowing ilegals stay in the country. It's two of the cheapest ways, for them, to buy/get votes, imho.

With any macro scale plan you're going to get waste. There will always be welfare cheats, Medicare fraud etc...while the majority are good people.

Same goes for business. Less regulation and responsible companies will benefit from the flexibility yet still do the right thing...and others will just pollute more or pass risk onto others to make a buck.

I don't see much difference.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

...while the majority are good people.

spence

I couldn't disagree more.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

With any macro scale plan you're going to get waste. There will always be welfare cheats, Medicare fraud etc...while the majority are good people.

Same goes for business. Less regulation and responsible companies will benefit from the flexibility yet still do the right thing...and others will just pollute more or pass risk onto others to make a buck.

I don't see much difference.

-spence

You can do away with most of the freeloading by restricting participants to
show proof every 2 weeks where they have looked for a job by listing the companies and telephone #s of where they looked as they go to pick up their checks at a govenmrnt office, not walk down to their mailboxes and collect a check.
Then there should be proof of citizenship to vote.
Those would be big steps forward, but what politcian would go along with either
of these? Not many, as liberal regulations produce the nanny state and along
with it the votes for free stuff.

Whatever the regulations, business must adhere to them or pay fines.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

No, he's talking about the uber rich who believe they don't have to play by the same rules as everybody else.

Agree or not it's a strong line of attack against Romney.

-spence

BTW, how does having $$$ take away from not being qualified for
being a good canidate or President?

Remember Kerry, Kennedy, Roosevelt, George Washington?
I don't remember the fact they were wealthy detracted from them running or being elected.

Just another example by the left to try and divide, playing on jealousey and entitlement thinking.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by justplugit

BTW, how does having $$$ take away from not being qualified for
being a good canidate or President?

Remember Kerry, Kennedy, Roosevelt, George Washington?
I don't remember the fact they were wealthy detracted from them running or being elected.

Just another example by the left to try and divide, playing on jealousey and entitlement thinking.

It isn't about wealth. Or jealousy or entitlement. It remains about opportunity. Case in point re: opportunity.
I heard an interesting take on the Facebook IPO. lots of people made lots of money yesterday, BUT (with the Painter and other exceptions) MOST who made a lot of money already HAD a lot of money to invest in the first place (i.e. Bono). Kudos to them for taking the risk, but unless you had 10's of millions to invest in the first place, the opportunity for, say me, to have invested a few 10's of K in it as a start up and then make a lot of money isn't there. It is tough to feel like the game isn't rigged to those who already have a lot of money to begin with....


JFK, Roosevelt etc.. at least had the ability to (or appear to) connect with the middle class, to understand the plight. I don't think Romney appears that way. Even Regan had the ability to connect with blue-collar workers.

I don't think Obama does either. He connects well with the so-called the liberal elite.

I think Biden does connect, very well, which makes him valuable to the election cycle and image of the whitehouse

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

It isn't about wealth. Or jealousy or entitlement. It remains about opportunity. Case in point re: opportunity.
I heard an interesting take on the Facebook IPO. lots of people made lots of money yesterday, BUT (with the Painter and other exceptions) MOST who made a lot of money already HAD a lot of money to invest in the first place (i.e. Bono). Kudos to them for taking the risk, but unless you had 10's of millions to invest in the first place, the opportunity for, say me, to have invested a few 10's of K in it as a start up and then make a lot of money isn't there. It is tough to feel like the game isn't rigged to those who already have a lot of money to begin with....

This is like saying that existence is rigged. There is nothing you or the government can do about what species you were born into. The game seems to be rigged for humans. There is nothing you or the government can do about Jupiter's unpropitious distance from the sun. There is no way to have less fortunately endowed people be reborn with the genes necessary to play professional sports, or be mathematical wizards, or possess the drive and desire to accumulate wealth, or even to be reborn into a family that had accumulated wealth. So, what should be done? Give everybody 10's of K so they can invest more easily? Not feasible, and even if it were, would most invest it or spend it, and of those that did invest, would they succeed? Or should we just make it more difficult for those that have the 10's of K to invest to make it more fair? If life were "fair," life as we know it would not exist. I can imagine a bland total equality of all things so boring as not to be worth existing. No adventure, no diversity, no wonder, no striving, no reason for anything else except your inconsequential solipsistic self mirrored by the rest of existence. What is so evil about INVITING those that have wealth to invest it? Isn't that a good way to redistribute it, a more creative, diverse way than disincentivising such investment by taxing it at the same rates as income? We keep talking about investing--in education, in health, in opportunity--but somehow investing in wealth, which makes all the other nice investments possible, is not so important?

JFK, Roosevelt etc.. at least had the ability to (or appear to) connect with the middle class, to understand the plight. I don't think Romney appears that way. Even Regan had the ability to connect with blue-collar workers.

I don't think Obama does either. He connects well with the so-called the liberal elite.

I think Biden does connect, very well, which makes him valuable to the election cycle and image of the whitehouse

The problem with perception being reality is that it often is not. This business of image that is fostered by media spin is a pernicious method of giving us leaders who appear to "connect" with us, but neither do they really, nor does it matter if they do. The job of running the Federal Government is not to connect with a sector of the population, but to allow all sectors to function as freely as possible from the coercion of government. That is, if we truly believe in freedom.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

I couldn't disagree more.

Were you talking about businesses?

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

When the government extends its hand full of cash and goodies, takers will gladly empty what becomes a fist to those who must pay. And the demand will outgrow the supply as the "group" (which the federal gvt. is not constitutionally authorized to "help" beyond what it is granted to do for everybody equally) grows as it naturally will.

You could say the same about manufacturing or power generation. Nobody should have the right to pollute, but if given the opportunity history has proven that they will...and a lot. The people subsidize the business behavior with their health.

The game can be rigged only with the complicity of the government. It is the government that regulates at the behest of the elite or the "freeloaders". And politicians like Biden are glad to accept the money from the "elite" and the votes from the "freeloaders". "also," but all.

I think the difference is that the elite seek to rig for profit while the non-elite seek to maintain a minimum threshold. The freeloaders are a bi-product of both systems...

That is the whole point. Divide and conquer.

It is an election.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

You can do away with most of the freeloading by restricting participants to show proof every 2 weeks where they have looked for a job by listing the companies and telephone #s of where they looked as they go to pick up their checks at a govenmrnt office, not walk down to their mailboxes and collect a check. Then there should be proof of citizenship to vote.
Those would be big steps forward, but what politcian would go along with either of these?

I'm not sure either would produce a significant benefit.

Whatever the regulations, business must adhere to them or pay fines.

But that's exactly Biden's point. The elite can use their incredible leverage to trump the public interest.

Take the recent JP Morgan 2 Billion dollar debacle. We have a global credit crisis and the response is regulation to help reign in risky behavior. The elite (in this case JP Morgan who's banking business is insured by taxpayers mind you) use their influence to delay the implementation of new rules so they can continue risky behavior without penalties.

Fortunately it's a big company that can absorb the loss, otherwise the taxpayer could have been held liable...Wait, didn't the taxpayer just loan the banks hundreds of billions of taxpayer money a few years ago because of banks taking massive risks allowed under law because they used their influence to shape regulation?

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

BTW, how does having $$$ take away from not being qualified for
being a good canidate or President?

Remember Kerry, Kennedy, Roosevelt, George Washington?
I don't remember the fact they were wealthy detracted from them running or being elected.

Just another example by the left to try and divide, playing on jealousey and entitlement thinking.

Nobody is asserting that wealth alone would invalidate a candidacy.

It's a targeted attack because Romney's own personality portrays him as an elite and out of touch. It's an attack that wouldn't work say against a Mike Bloomberg because he comes across as more grounded with real world issues.

If anything it's a much less nasty version of the effort to portray Obama as a Kenyan and out of touch with American values.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You could say the same about manufacturing or power generation. Nobody should have the right to pollute, but if given the opportunity history has proven that they will...and a lot.

What's that got to do with your saying that freeloaders don't have the ability to rig the game? What is their freeloading a product of if not some rigging? And if they don't have that ability, then somebody is rigging for them. And "history has proven" that politicians promise and give goodies for votes, so "groups" of voters have the power to rig by holding their vote as ransome for goodies. Besides, the "right" to pollute, as far as I know, was not considered an unalienable one by the founders, so could only be a right if it was granted by government. Unalienable rights, such as life, liberty and pursuit of happiness were considered unalienable if they did not impinge on others right to the same. Government can giveth or taketh away the "right," to pollute, and it does. Nor is freeloading an unalienable "right." But government can provide legislation that provides it.

The people subsidize the business behavior with their health.

People do not subsidize business with their health. That's the type of "interpretation" of words and language that progressives have used to neutralize constitutional limitations on government and transform rights from being unalienable to being granted by government. People don't directly subsidize business, and only do so (when it's done) indirectly through government which uses their confiscated taxes. Or, more commonly, by lowering taxes on business, either as corrupt crony capitalism, or to motivate business. The people's health can be a benefit to business only if the people are healthy enough to earn an income and spend it on business products ,or if sick, gain a government subsidy (at the expense of business or other tax payers) to spend it on business products. But either is commerce, not a subsidy.

I think the difference is that the elite seek to rig for profit while the non-elite seek to maintain a minimum threshold. The freeloaders are a bi-product of both systems...

Nobody will dispute the obvious. By definition, there is a difference between elite and non-elite. BTW, the non-elite are comprised of the largest segment of our population, and the largest portion of that segment does not merely seek to maintain a minimum threshhold, but strives for and enjoys a much higher standard of comforts. And a difference between elites seeking profit and non-elites seeking to maintain a minimum threshold, is that profit seeking promotes business and the wealth that makes possible assistence to the poor. The poor don't contribute to the formation of wealth, but can only profit from wealth created by others. Which is not to excuse the collusion between powerful businesses and government, but that also doesn't mean that there is not a collusion between non-elites and other special interests and government via distribution and legislation for votes

It is an election.

-spence

Yes, and we know that it is more important to spin character traits that don't exist rather than discuss the character of the nation and what is becoming of it. That's the real ticket to fundamentally transforming this country.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

It isn't about wealth. Or jealousy or entitlement. It remains about opportunity. Case in point re: opportunity.
I heard an interesting take on the Facebook IPO. lots of people made lots of money yesterday, BUT (with the Painter and other exceptions) MOST who made a lot of money already HAD a lot of money to invest in the first place (i.e. Bono). Kudos to them for taking the risk, but unless you had 10's of millions to invest in the first place, the opportunity for, say me, to have invested a few 10's of K in it as a start up and then make a lot of money isn't there. It is tough to feel like the game isn't rigged to those who already have a lot of money to begin with....

So the liberal eletist says, take all the money from everyone, divide it up and let everybody share in the IPO, or anything else, so everyone has the same.
Forget about the sacrafices,hard work, 60 hour weeks, being away from home
and family and the toal it takes to become sucessful.
Anybody can succeed in this country as the opportunities are here if you want
to work and sacrafice. What gives the right of the lazy to ride the backs of those
who worked and sacraficed all their lives, and where is the fairness with that?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The problem with perception being reality is that it often is not. This business of image that is fostered by media spin is a pernicious method of giving us leaders who appear to "connect" with us, but neither do they really, nor does it matter if they do. The job of running the Federal Government is not to connect with a sector of the population, but to allow all sectors to function as freely as possible from the coercion of government. That is, if we truly believe in freedom.

Nail square on the head.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Were you talking about businesses?

-spence

No. The people that take more then they give.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

But that's exactly Biden's point. The elite can use their incredible leverage to trump the public interest.



-spence

But he doesn't have a problem along with Obama to take campaighn dollars from
the rich like Sorros, Hollywood, etc and etc to leverage their agenda.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

It's a targeted attack because Romney's own personality portrays him as an elite and out of touch.

-spence

It's a targeted attack against Romney,who I agree is not the most amiable guy,
but one of the few attacks they can make because they don't have a record to run on. Meantime a lot of Obama's personal history, including his Havad records are still under wrap.
Here's the way Obama's campaighn is shaping up, instead of policy, issues and record, blame Bush for the deep recession and knock Romney all the way back to his teen years.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

If anything it's a much less nasty version of the effort to portray Obama as a Kenyan and out of touch with American values.

-spence

such a crazy notion

1991-2007

Doug Ross of Director Blue used the wayback feature to investigate Obama's literary agency's website and it shows that there were a number of revisions to the literary agent-distributed Obama biography that said he was born in Kenya; these revisions reflected changes in Obama's life. But it wasn't until 2007 when he threw his hat in the ring for the presidency that the bio was changed to state he was born in Hawaii.

The Director Blue link shows that Obama or his literary agent did not change his biography (April 2007) until a couple of months after announcing he was running for president (February 2007).

probably just an "oversight"...for 16 years...I mean...who checks their own bio for accuracy anyways?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

probably just an "oversight"...for 16 years...I mean...who checks their own bio for accuracy anyways?

LOL, maybe he was just suffering from amnesia and his memory came back
to correct the record.