Is Barack Obama qualified to be President of the U.S.? Natural Born Citizen? - Page 7
 
 

       The Horse Forum > Life Beyond Horses > General Off Topic Discussion

Is Barack Obama qualified to be President of the U.S.? Natural Born Citizen?

This is a discussion on Is Barack Obama qualified to be President of the U.S.? Natural Born Citizen? within the General Off Topic Discussion forums, part of the Life Beyond Horses category
  • Powered by vBulletin buffet food quantities for 100 people

Like Tree52Likes

 
LinkBack Thread Tools
    04-18-2012, 09:50 AM
  #61
Trained
By the way I enjoyed the reference about Shekels. Made me grin. Shalom
     
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
    04-18-2012, 11:23 AM
  #62
Super Moderator
There for a bit things seemed to get a little snippy, however, instead of turning ugly this thread has come around which has been nice to see.

Db and Faceman, I'm enjoing reading the responses back and fourth and seeing your views and thinking process.
Thank you both for being civil and presenting them in a digestable way.
     
    04-18-2012, 11:23 AM
  #63
Banned
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbarabians    
Faceman, I'm glad you think I'm inteligent I was beginning to wonder. LOL
I agree spending must be cut. Where do we start? How many people and or programs are we willing to eliminate from the federal dole?
That is a hard question and it cannot happen overnight.
No matter what happens some deserving individuals will go without.
Some programs that are worthy will be drastically cut or eliminated.
Faceman I work with a organization that provides assistance for the homeless.
Once we help you secure employment and housing we start to ease you into full independence. If you are physically and mentally able to enter the program.
For the first 3 months we pay 100% of you housing. Next 3 months 75%, then50% then 25% for 1 year.
That program was working well and transitioning people into full members of soceity. Our funding was cut drastically.
I think this program could be implemented for all individuals on assistance.
This is a program that was working and IMO deserved not only to be fully funded but increased. We now have a waiting list over a year.
Certain pr0grams WORK.
I do not think education nor healthcare should ever be cut.
The benefits of both are important to the long term health of our economy.
As for the Tea Party the rhetoric they have voiced here in Texas and nationally about defunding the entire government is absurd.
Let me remind you that here in Texas the republicans are far more conservative than most of those nationally. They cloud my judgement I will admit.
Good day Shalom
Well, you know very well we are intrinsically more intelligent than the other 50% of the population...

Some programs do work - no question. I worked for the SBA for 15 years, and the number of REAL new jobs created generated far more tax and social security revenues than the agency costs - one of the few government programs that actually makes money. Companies like Intel, Nike, Apple Computer and others that have received SBA assistance in their start-up phase, EACH generate more revenues from the company and its employees every year than SBA's annual budget. So yes, some programs do work. At the opposite end, "Welfare to Work" under the Clinton/Gore administration (but also pushed by Republicans)did not work...hired employees didn't show up, wouldn't work, couldn't work, didn't produce - you name it. It was a dismal failure.

In my experience the only programs that work are those that coerce independence. "Giveaway" programs not only don't work but are counterproductive. I've done a lot of work in the Mississippi Delta region, and the area and its people are no better off than they were billions of tax dollars ago. Also, If you have worked in the area of social and economic empowerment for long, you know very well that there is only a segment of that population that can be helped. Some go for the brass ring when it is made available, but it is very frustrating when some don't even reach out to grab it, and others grab it but then simply let go. I've been around the block enough to fullly understand the reasons some people feel so hopeless they don't put forth the effort, but that does not alter the facct that all too often we throw tax dollars at a population that squanders them. That is the intrinsic problem with giveaways - they are counterproductive because they foster and nuture an entitlement attitude and suppress ambition and motivation. There are always individual success stories with any program, of course, but I know of no giveaway program with no provisional and motivational strings attached that has achieved any degree of overall success.

In short, there is a segment of society that cannot be helped, no matter how much money is thrown to them. Then there is a segment of society that can be helped temporarily, but never make the transition from dependency to being independent. Then there is a segnent that does make the transition, and lastly there are those that have always been, and always will be, independent. While the liberal philosophy to help everyone cross the bridge to self sufficiency is by all means noble, it is unrealistic. There always have been, and always will be, grasshoppers, and no matter how much the ants produce and give to them, they will remain grasshoppers. Our job should be as the Republicans believe - help those that can undergo the metamorphosis, and provide enough for the remainder to survive - our mission should not be to provide them with cell phones, big screen TV's, nice homes, nice cars, incomes, and everything else the ants work so hard to achieve. That is socialism, and socialism has never worked and never will. Economic production is essential to the survival of a civilization, and socialism is counterproductive to production - as has been proven over and over again, and as is currently being proven in Europe under their great socialism experiment...
NdAppy and FlyGap like this.
     
    04-18-2012, 11:55 AM
  #64
Trained
Thanks Lockwood. If I disagree with anyone it does not give me the right to attack them or their beliefs.
That only distracts from the issues and kills the debate. Debates are important to forming and implementing policy.
Faceman this might be scary but we agree on the problems. Most people do.
What do we do with those that cannot be independent or won't attempt to become a funtioning member of soceity?
Those that cannot will always be dependent on the rest of us for. They are worthy of the programs the rest of us fund.
This is the hard part. Removing others from the programs will leave many women and children vulnerable to homelessness and hunger.
There is no politician alive or in the future that wants to be known for allowing millions of hungry children to suffer.
Politicans may talk about reform but the reality may be a hard pill to swallow.
Faceman I must disagree with you on one point my children will swear that I am in the bottom 10%. That I can assure you. LOL Shalom
     
    04-18-2012, 12:14 PM
  #65
Trained
I feel pretty strongly about "welfare".
If it wasn't an option how could it become a problem?
My brother seems to be a grasshopper like guru Faceman put it, LOL!
He was living in a tent out in the woods with his wife. They managed to feed themselves and one or the other usually had some sort of employment. Guess what? They procreated. Guess what they have now? A house, food, healthcare, cellphones, and no job. "Welfare" supports the lazy, the incompetent, and those who would rather live in a tent than hold a steady job and become a contributing member of society. As for all the mothers with children... there are hundreds of thousands of single parents who make it work. We shouldn't have to support the ones who won't. I agree with programs that feed the children at school (paid for by local taxes) and there are THOUSANDS of community programs that send food home with poor children. Having the taxpayer pay for it is insanity.

Also... According to our income we actually QUALIFY for foodstamps!?!?!? Have you looked into the qualifications for receiving assistance? Of course we have assets and things set up in a way that we are doing really well, but we live off a fraction of what most people would consider poverty! It's all in the priorities.
We do not eat out, drive needless miles, go to the movies, shop high end stores, eat crap food and snacks, buy tons of meaningless items for the home, etc. We live within our means and quite comfortably. I can't say the same for those I know getting all the "handouts".
     
    04-18-2012, 02:09 PM
  #66
Banned
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbarabians    
Thanks Lockwood. If I disagree with anyone it does not give me the right to attack them or their beliefs.
That only distracts from the issues and kills the debate. Debates are important to forming and implementing policy.
Faceman this might be scary but we agree on the problems. Most people do.
What do we do with those that cannot be independent or won't attempt to become a funtioning member of soceity?
Those that cannot will always be dependent on the rest of us for. They are worthy of the programs the rest of us fund.
This is the hard part. Removing others from the programs will leave many women and children vulnerable to homelessness and hunger.
There is no politician alive or in the future that wants to be known for allowing millions of hungry children to suffer.
Politicans may talk about reform but the reality may be a hard pill to swallow.
Faceman I must disagree with you on one point my children will swear that I am in the bottom 10%. That I can assure you. LOL Shalom
Re-read what I posted. We have to take care of the segment that can't take cre of themselves...that goes without saying. I personally don't know of anyone that would just let them starve, although there may be some wacko out there somewhere that would. But here is the problem - because of liberals, we that work for a living are taking care of FAR more than that last segment. We are also taking care of the segment that WON'T be self sufficient - call them lazy, unmotivated or whatever - the entitlement society that seeks and is content with the government taking care of them. Let's be realistic here...we now have OVER 46 MILLION people on food stamps. If there were a country with 46 million people, it would rank 26th among the world's 266 countries. We have more people on food stamps than are in the entire countries of Poland, Ukraine, Spain, Argentina, Canada, or Australia, among the hundreds of others.

Look at the chart below - sorry the numbers are small, but the chart is by President for the number of people added or subtracted, from food stamp assistance. Obama is red, needless to say. Now we could talk about recessions but we have had them before, we could talk about "inheriting" problems, but if you do thatthen you have to look at how quickly Reagan turned things around after inheriting Jimmy Carter's disastrous legacy, but the bottom line is the Obama administration is an entitlement-happy administration. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone - his background is as a community planner, whose objective was to obtain as much welfare and aid for his community as possible. Everyone knew what his background was - it was no secret



I keep presenting both rhetoric and facts, but you are only presenting rhetoric. I try to be as open minded as possible, but am still awaiting some actual facts that support your contention that Obama has done a good job.

I know why, of course - because Obama has been a failure. That is why he CANNOT (and is not and will not) run on his record and CANNOT ask the question "are you better off than you were 4 years ago"?



TO LOCKWOOD: People can discuss political ideologies without slinging mud...you would never know it by watching TV election ads, though. All it takes is understanding that although you have your own opinions and beliefs, there are other valid opinions and beliefs. Most people, excepting the radical left and radical right, want the same things - they just disagree on how to attain them.

Also, neither db nor I are trying to change the other's mind, which is where the mud slinging comes in. The purpose of a debate is not to change the other person's mind, but to present your case in front of the audience and judges. In a venue like this, the hope is that people that don't see anything about political ideology beyond talking heads on TV, which are primarily just sound bites, or from around the water cooler, can actually read real issues and ideologies being presented and be better informed - no matter which side of the fence they are on. Or at least that is my hope. I would rather see 100 million people participate and vote and re-elect Obama than 50 million people participate and vote and elect my Republican candidate - whoever that will be. The majority should rule, but can't if a majority don't participate...
     
    04-18-2012, 02:46 PM
  #67
Super Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faceman    



TO LOCKWOOD: People can discuss political ideologies without slinging mud...you would never know it by watching TV election ads, though. I dunno about that. I don't take my political ideas from tv election ads or water cooler talk. I haven't always been CEO of my own business of 1. My employment has included the medical field and local and state government (of sorts) and I have been immersed on a different level than typical people have. My experiences with people in general who like "talking" politics is where I have been dissapointed. And the mudslinging... and of course the assinine behavior of election ads as well.
All it takes is understanding that although you have your own opinions and beliefs, there are other valid opinions and beliefs. Agree 100% and cannot cannot understand why most people aren't capable of presenting themselves with respect towards others. Most people, excepting the radical left and radical right, want the same things (Are you sure about that??) - they just disagree on how to attain them.

Also, neither db nor I are trying to change the other's mind, which is where the mud slinging comes in. The purpose of a debate is not to change the other person's mind, but to present your case in front of the audience and judges. Thanks, I debated in college and beyond and know what is supposed to be about, although I didn't and still don't much care for participating in it.
In a venue like this, the hope is that people that don't see anything about political ideology beyond talking heads on TV, which are primarily just sound bites, or from around the water cooler, can actually read real issues and ideologies being presented and be better informed - no matter which side of the fence they are on. Or at least that is my hope. I would rather see 100 million people participate and vote and re-elect Obama than 50 million people participate and vote and elect my Republican candidate - whoever that will be. The majority should rule, but can't if a majority don't participate....
Faceman- my replies are in bold.


Dbarabians wrote: "If I disagree with anyone it does not give me the right to attack them or their beliefs. That only distracts from the issues and kills the debate."
Agree with you 100%.
     
    04-18-2012, 07:32 PM
  #68
Trained
Faceman and Dbarabians,
The keystone pipeline was "derailed" by Obama due to the fact that there wasn't enough "time" to study the effects of it crossing Nebraska. Now there are several pipelines running through Nebraska already. Now they say that they want to run the oil on the rail system... with diesel engines, hmmm real environmental right?

Well guess who owns the rail system? In Nebraska? The great American Warren Buffet. Who is funding the environmental groups that do not support the pipelines, Mr. Buffet. "Business as usual?"

I've been going over the polls and seen some pretty tight %'s. Most of the polls are a joke, the only one with any merit would be the gallup poll taken recently. All the others I've gone over have had overwhelmingly larger margins of one particular group or another. Thing is NO presidential race in history has been won by an incumbent who is trailing in the polls especially at this time. Unless something incredible happens this slightly trailing incumbent could be in trouble. Or else again we will be witnessing "history".
Not exactly stoked about Romney, we shall see.

Faceman: I'm curious with that food stamp graph the age demographics and how many are disabled, or families with major medical issues? I support some of it, I'm just curious how many 20-40 something able bodied citizens are utilizing. Hmmm?
     
    04-18-2012, 08:19 PM
  #69
Banned
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyGap    
Faceman and Dbarabians,
The keystone pipeline was "derailed" by Obama due to the fact that there wasn't enough "time" to study the effects of it crossing Nebraska. Now there are several pipelines running through Nebraska already. Now they say that they want to run the oil on the rail system... with diesel engines, hmmm real environmental right?

Well guess who owns the rail system? In Nebraska? The great American Warren Buffet. Who is funding the environmental groups that do not support the pipelines, Mr. Buffet. "Business as usual?"

I've been going over the polls and seen some pretty tight %'s. Most of the polls are a joke, the only one with any merit would be the gallup poll taken recently. All the others I've gone over have had overwhelmingly larger margins of one particular group or another. Thing is NO presidential race in history has been won by an incumbent who is trailing in the polls especially at this time. Unless something incredible happens this slightly trailing incumbent could be in trouble. Or else again we will be witnessing "history".
Not exactly stoked about Romney, we shall see.

Faceman: I'm curious with that food stamp graph the age demographics and how many are disabled, or families with major medical issues? I support some of it, I'm just curious how many 20-40 something able bodied citizens are utilizing. Hmmm?
Don't know about the 20-40 something "able bodied" ones, although the age, gender, race, and ethnicity demographics are probably out there somewhere.

It's funny - I was reading a Capitol Hill article just this aftennoon, and the House Republicans are working on a budget bill that includes a cut in the food stamp program. I knew the program carried a big price tag, but honestly didn't know just how big it is...46 million people and $80 billion a year now. The other thing that jumped out at me was the amount they get - the average benefit for a family of 4 is an incredible $500/month. I thought it was a supplement - not paying the whole food bill. I've had kids and know how expensive it is to feed them, but holy criminy - Mrs. Face and I spend about $300/month on food alone at the grocery without the household items.

Anyway, the Republican proposal cuts the recipients from 46 million to 43 million (only 6 1/2%) just by tweaking the eligibility rules, and reduce the average benefit from $500 to $440. It would save a whopping $8 billion a year. Of course the Dems are screaming bloody heck...they just don't want to cut government spending a single bit. There are those, although I can't bring myself to count myself among them, that believe the huge increase in welfare recipients is an effort to buy liberal Democrat votes. That is of course possible, but my rose colored glasses just don't permit me to believe they would stoop that low. The article also mentioned that the 46 million foodstamp recipients is up from 33 million just 2 1/2 years ago...

As to the Keystone Pipeline, I honestly can't even talk about that without getting a bit nasty...it is perhaps the most absurd self serving political blunder I can remember - maybe with the exception of Bush's personal holy crusade against Sadaam, bearing the cross before him...
     
    04-18-2012, 08:26 PM
  #70
Trained
Heck face that would cover our food bill... six people... three kids and three adults. With household necessities we spend about 600 a month.
     

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Barack Obama study- Agree or Disagree? Vogue24 General Off Topic Discussion 220 04-04-2012 09:54 PM
Could you be a citizen of the USA? Spastic_Dove Games 6 08-23-2009 10:56 AM
President Obama Kills Fly During Interview Jehanzeb Jokes and Funnies 12 06-26-2009 02:09 PM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0