Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election


  • Please log in to reply
502 replies to this topic

#501 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 December 2011 - 02:41 PM

gvg:
ref teh petition:
I disagree I just think it will skew it in another direction, Sometimes doing somethign, anything is worse than nothing. though it is irrelevant as this has 0% chance of actually going anywhere both dems and reps rely too much on corporate money to ever do anything about it.

Yeah, i know they count it differently. They used full non-working numbers during the depression, then at some point stopped, i dunno when. Which is why I'm skeptical of any 'drops' in unemployment. But then, think of it this way: if it looks like unemployment is going down, that gives people more confidence, giving the economy more confidence, and ultimately improving it. it's not like the government is hiding these numbers, otherwise no one would know about them without a leak. So slightly misleading, yes, but i think with good intention.

Umm they are hiding the true numbers. They are burying them real deep and spoon feeding the press the message they want to get out. Most of the press is too lazy to actually do any research on their own to see the real stat of affairs, far easier to just regurgitate what someone else tells them (works for both reps and dems btw) As to them doing it on purpose to "stimulate" the economy by fooling people into thinking it is better than it is, come on get real.
ok so the govt is actually "conspiring" to fool the peopel into a better economy? You dont for 1 second think that perhaps it could have more to do with slowly dropping unemplyment numbers to get them down before the 2012 elections? I have looked but cannot find any definitive answer on how or why they removed the 300k+ people it seems to be an arbitrary number, perhaps not but if not why cant i find a decent explanation of how they calculated the number? Well i suppose if by good intnentions you mean trying to get re-elected then i guess i agree with you :dry:
http://data.bls.gov/...ies/LNS11300000 doesnt explain why drops just shows it.

3. Tax cuts:
cant watch video from Canada :(

I think he says it best. Think: the rich got there with help from his or her countrymen

Nope I disagree with this. The rich got their through one or more of hard work/luck/birth. The country provides an environment that makes this easier but does not MAKE it happen. Even in Somalia there are rich people and ther eis no functioning govt! that is the same left wing war class warfare gargage spouted by Elizabeth Warren. Fact is as i have stated repeatedly the "rich" pay more in both % and total amount than the middle or lower class. Any increase (give up the rhetoric about letting the bush rates expire, its a tax INCREASE) will do vitually nada for the deficit/debt your increases in spending are so far outstripping gdp growth that it is insane. Your problem is 90% spending 10% income not the other way around.
http://www.usgovernm...92_2016&units=p

Why is it wrong in a time of crisis to ask them to give back and help?

First off i dislike the term give back, it implies their money is not theirs and 2nd off they altready are giving more! Pissed at the small minority that avoid taxes through loopholes then kill the loopholes (something i completely agree with) but dont punish those that pay "their fair share" I use the word punishement expressly because this is a punative more to increase taxes on the rich as it will not help the deficit/debt and only affect those who pay their full taxes already.

4. Not sure what this is refering to

5. Obama care

These are estimates. Obamacare hasnt even taken effect yet. It will right around the time these issues will be more then just intellectual talking points for me (i think it goes into effect 2013-14, ill be 17-18 by then).

yes because Govt estimates are never below the actual cost! Lets face it if it is only 2X the cost then as govt spending goes it is a bargain 3X and up is the norm.
Worst part of it is in my opinion by passing this monstrosity it will make it even harder for you to get an actual helth care program that doesnt punish the poor for being the poor (ie govt suppied health care not govt run insurance program).

6. Ok glad you and Dawh both agree that culturally you are moving left now i just gotta make ya see that financially you are as well. Lets see deficit spending has been rising exponentially even under republican andminsitations that is the opposite of a conservative economic policy! id go on but that pretty much sums it up!

Yes Newt was leader of the House when they forced Bill Clinton into passing a balanced budget so kudos on him. Every politician gets somethign right from time to time. I would like at this time to point out that the dems never made a budget in 2010 when they had super majorities. could this have been to not give any ammunition to the reps before the 2010 elections? hmmm makes ya wonder, how many times has congress not passed a budget? ill have to look but it seems to me this is just one more case of politics at the expense of both the electorate and jsut plain honesty and decency!

As to Unions the large ones such as UAW are just corporations with a different business model. They dont give a crap about their members. unions are usefull and necessary but the big ones are monstrosities, that care only about the "UNION" not the memebers, when the 2 objectives coincide that great when they differ too bad on the worker! Full disclosure i am a member of one of these huge unions, used to be small but then we merged (got taken over) by a corporate union with NO positive effects for us as workers excet that our previous union money was taken by the large one and we will hav eless $ if ever we go on strike (we wont).
  • 0

#502 Hidden G

Hidden G

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 783 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 May 2012 - 06:03 PM

i think it is : Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election .
in OTHERS

  • 0

#503 TheCube

TheCube

    Newbie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2157 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:That Place

Posted 28 May 2012 - 10:27 PM

Simple answer for the question of the title: No
Why?: I am TOOOOO YOUNG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • 0
Jack and Jill went up the hill
to fetch a pail of water.
Jack fell down and broke his crown
And Jill just laughed at Jack as he sat there unconscious.

Jack should've known that Jill was a baddie . . .




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users