NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080821/pl_politico/12685;_ylt=AmPGdhzFaWTjBuPLoCARfTlh24cA

So, is he senile, or simply that filthy rich?

Well I have exactly two thousand four hundred and sixty eight wage slaves, so it quite possible to lose track of important things.

Yeah, I found that McCain sound-bite pretty sad.

The funny thing? He claims Obama's out of touch.

oh now come on. how is he supposed to answer that question off the cuff?

do the 3 or 4 condominium count as HOUSES?


does the guest house on the ranch count as a seperate house? its not like anyone lives there. what about the bunk house for the staff?

and he is changing houses on some island, does he count both or just the one he is moving to?

so he has somewhere between 4 and 10 houses. is it so ODD that he couldnt give a definitive answer?

"Well, residences, I have 7.".

Done.

In all fairness, I've heard a more flattering explanation for this story. Basically, some think he stumbled because he couldn't think of a humble way to say he has more than half a dozen residences.

Obama is no poor boy himself. Lives in a million plus dollar mansion.

Because there is nothing humble about 7 houses.

Obama is no poor boy himself. Lives in a million plus dollar mansion.

True, but that senile tumor named McCain has rapped on Obama for being "out of touch". What does he say now?

Obama is no poor boy himself. Lives in a million plus dollar mansion.

I only got 3 houses myself.

In all fairness, I've heard a more flattering explanation for this story. Basically, some think he stumbled because he couldn't think of a humble way to say he has more than half a dozen residences.
it happens kinda often though.

in new mexico yesterday he stopped listening to a woman's rambling question and ended up agreeing that we need military draft.

thats a bad thing.

it happens kinda often though.

in new mexico yesterday he stopped listening to a woman's rambling question and ended up agreeing that we need military draft.

thats a bad thing.

We should divulge it.

Because there is nothing humble about 7 houses.I own two manor houses, four mansions, one ranch, three apartment buildings, one condo building, two hundred rental homes, four golf courses, four yachts, one oil refinery, two hydroelectric dams, eight hundred thousand agriculture acres, five hundred thousand grazing acres, one million six hundred thousand acres of forest readily open to forestry, ten logging companies, a oil platform, three shoe factories in India, one textile factory in Thailand, twenty eight thousand head of cattle, two private jets, eight minor airports, and a vast amount of stock shares. So am I rich or am I am rich enough to make you look humble?

I own two manor houses, four mansions, one ranch, three apartment buildings, one condo building, two hundred rental homes, four golf courses, four yachts, one oil refinery, two hydroelectric dams, eight hundred thousand agriculture acres, five hundred thousand grazing acres, one million six hundred thousand acres of forest readily open to forestry, ten logging companies, a oil platform, three shoe factories in India, one textile factory in Thailand, twenty eight thousand head of cattle, two private jets, eight minor airports, and a vast amount of stock shares. So am I rich or am I am rich enough to make you look humble?
yes but did you have to consult someone to draw up that list or did you know what you own without having to research it?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Alan Keyes lives in one of McCaine's houses...so that one doesn't really count, does it?

I own two manor houses, four mansions, one ranch, three apartment buildings, one condo building, two hundred rental homes, four golf courses, four yachts, one oil refinery, two hydroelectric dams, eight hundred thousand agriculture acres, five hundred thousand grazing acres, one million six hundred thousand acres of forest readily open to forestry, ten logging companies, a oil platform, three shoe factories in India, one textile factory in Thailand, twenty eight thousand head of cattle, two private jets, eight minor airports, and a vast amount of stock shares. So am I rich or am I am rich enough to make you look humble?You're full of crap, is what.

Obama is no poor boy himself. Lives in a million plus dollar mansion.

A million dollars buys you 2,000 square feet here. Not exactly a mansion.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Alan Keyes lives in one of McCaine's houses...so that one doesn't really count, does it?
THATS why mccain couldnt give a flat answer. whos to say if it counts or not?

He's that filthy stinking rich. But since he's still so poor, he needs MORE TAX CUTS!

"Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion
WOW, Obama goes to mainstream resorts... and he has a million dollar mansion!
I bet there are people here who can top it. Not in BS, but actually.

Not that it means something (and I'm strongly against both - Ron Paul would be the only one to do the right things), especially considering total income, but as far as their "response" to Obama goes - it's hardly an opulent and conspicuous lifestyle. Having multiple houses is.

WOW, Obama goes to mainstream resorts... and he has a million dollar mansion!
I bet there are people here who can top it. Not in BS, but actually.

Not that it means something (and I'm strongly against both - Ron Paul would be the only one to do the right things), especially considering total income, but as far as their "response" to Obama goes - it's hardly an opulent and conspicuous lifestyle. Having multiple houses is.

Ron Paul? Seriously? Do you hate poor people?

and this is news, why....?

he's old. That's what old people do, they forget stuff. Like their name or where they are. Mark my words, if McCain is elected at least once he will wander out in the rose garden with no pants claiming he needs to talk to Johny Carson. Mark my words.

Ron Paul? Seriously? Do you hate poor people?
In a way. That way is that I want them to be well-off.
Which smaller government, low taxes, business stimulation, no war expenses - and they are tremendous, Iraq war has cost each typical American family ~$30,000 already - will provide.

he's old. That's what old people do, they forget stuff. Like their name or where they are. Mark my words, if McCain is elected at least once he will wander out in the rose garden with no pants claiming he needs to talk to Johny Carson. Mark my words.

If he does that, he'd be the most awesome president ever!

I'd litterly would cum and pee at the same time from laughing so damn hard!

I own two manor houses, four mansions, one ranch, three apartment buildings, one condo building, two hundred rental homes, four golf courses, four yachts, one oil refinery, two hydroelectric dams, eight hundred thousand agriculture acres, five hundred thousand grazing acres, one million six hundred thousand acres of forest readily open to forestry, ten logging companies, a oil platform, three shoe factories in India, one textile factory in Thailand, twenty eight thousand head of cattle, two private jets, eight minor airports, and a vast amount of stock shares. So am I rich or am I am rich enough to make you look humble?

You're rich enough to incite proletarian revolution against.

*unionizes all the people that work for you*

Obama is no poor boy himself. Lives in a million plus dollar mansion.

I only got 3 houses myself.

All three owners of the company I work for (30 people) own houses over 2 million dollars a piece

Better then I own house wise but hardly crazy rich and I live in a very low income area, in some places that would be almost nothing

oh now come on. how is he supposed to answer that question off the cuff?

do the 3 or 4 condominium count as HOUSES?


does the guest house on the ranch count as a seperate house? its not like anyone lives there. what about the bunk house for the staff?

and he is changing houses on some island, does he count both or just the one he is moving to?

so he has somewhere between 4 and 10 houses. is it so ODD that he couldnt give a definitive answer?

and then there is the fact that the ranch was originally three separate properties and now has something like 6 separate houses on it, the main condo was two originally that they combined into one, and in another building near san diego on the beach they own two condos that aren't contiguous.

as matt yglesias said earlier, answering this question requires some serious thought about mereology. you can hardly expect mccain to spend his time in philosophical pursuits. not when he has all those houses to live in, anyways - that's a full time job in itself.

Ron Paul? Seriously? Do you hate poor people?

No, just non-white ones. At least if he's anything like his beloved Ron Paul . . .

Obama is no poor boy himself. Lives in a million plus dollar mansion.
You don't get a "mansion" for a mere million.
Also, there was a poster in the thread "Lincoln yes, Ford no" who apparently has a $550,000 house, but otherwise isn't even very well-off.

and then there is the fact that the ranch was originally three separate properties and now has something like 6 separate houses on it, the main condo was two originally that they combined into one, and in another building near san diego on the beach they own two condos that aren't contiguous.
Which is anyway a lot, and it's easy to see how he lost track of his houses.

But the point isn't that. Someone who has four $1,000,000 houses is living a more opulent lifestyle than someone with a single $5,000,000 house. Because he only really needs one (at a time), and the rest are standing uselessly.

No, just non-white ones. At least if he's anything like his beloved Ron Paul . . .
These usenet posts have been confirmed to be fake.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080821/pl_politico/12685;_ylt=AmPGdhzFaWTjBuPLoCARfTlh24cA

So, is he senile, or simply that filthy rich?Oh dear, I read that as penis... in the title that is.

I don't know if this is sort of thing is enough to turn voter's opinions. Clearly Obama comes from more humble beginnings than McCain but its not how they live that has shaped people's opinions of the candidates so far its what they have been saying.

Oh dear, I read that as penis... in the title that is.
cue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byDiILrNbM4

but clearly the richest are the most trustworthy with the nations interests?

These usenet posts have been confirmed to be fake.

I thought he was talking about the newsletters that he claimed to write and then turned around a few years later and claim were ghostwritten...

snip

Personally I'm not much concerned with number of properties people own. I've known average joe families that owned four almost-new cars (one mom, one dad, one son who didn't drive, and a 17 year old daughter) a house and a cabin (both completely paid off). Yet the mom worked an hourly wage job as a housekeeper for a clinic.

Whats more is that if I had money, I too, would probably do more than rent this one apartment, so it seems to make sense. What I did think funny was John Kerry (in the '04 election) calling down SUVs and their owners. When someone pointed out that he owned at least one (I think it might have been more) he commented that they were family vehicles, so naturally his ownership was minimal, and he didn't even count them as his. Oh well, he was caught being a dope, and had to say something to try to get out of it.

Ask me that question and I'm not sure how to answer either. I have one or two houses, depending on how you look at it. House 1, the house I live in. That one's solid. House two, I've purchased my parents house through a 20 year loan from them to give them a bit of extra cash each month to live on, with the agreement that they live in the house until they either can't live alone or aren't with us. So do I have two houses or one. Someone will find a way to spin it in the media one way or another and I think McCain was a bit worried about just that. I tell the media I own two and they come back and say, well, you're bragging because your parents actually own one. I say I own one and they come back and say, see, you're lying, you really own two. Have someone follow you around and parse every word you say and you'll get a bit neurotic about answering questions too.

Sounds like he's a rich twat who's out of touch with his electorate, to be frank.

You don't get a "mansion" for a mere million.
Also, there was a poster in the thread "Lincoln yes, Ford no" who apparently has a $550,000 house, but otherwise isn't even very well-off.


Which is anyway a lot, and it's easy to see how he lost track of his houses.

But the point isn't that. Someone who has four $1,000,000 houses is living a more opulent lifestyle than someone with a single $5,000,000 house. Because he only really needs one (at a time), and the rest are standing uselessly.

I love this. Opulent lifestyle... When did it become a crime in this country to be successful and rich?

I'm about sick to death about people attacking the rich in this nation as if they committed some sort of crime. Making money isn't evil and it damn sure isn't a reason to doubt someone's ability to lead.

Sounds like he's a rich twat who's out of touch with his electorate, to be frank.

Jealous much?

I love this. Opulent lifestyle... When did it become a crime in this country to be successful and rich?

I'm about sick to death about people attacking the rich in this nation as if they committed some sort of crime. Making money isn't evil and it damn sure isn't a reason to doubt someone's ability to lead.
The chances are that the person will then want to whack in a load of tax cuts for themselves and their cronies in big business and the like.

Jealous much?
Not particularly, no. I don't want seven houses or anything like that. I'll be happy enough with getting a job as a field archaeologist, which has shite pay.

The chances are that the person will then want to whack in a load of tax cuts for themselves and their cronies in big business and the like.

Well, if you paid 40% of the taxes because you were in the top 1% of income earners, at the same time as making 23% of the income, you would be looking for a fair shake too.

I just love the whole tax cuts for the rich debate. It makes people look ignorant of the facts. The top 50% of income earners pay 97.3% of the total taxes. Who else do you want to give tax cuts to... the POOR? The bottom 30% already have a NEGATIVE tax liability. Can't cut what they don't pay. I have no issues with tax cuts for upper income, they put their money to use hiring people and raising the standard of life for all around them so they can../gasp.. make more money!

What I have a problem with is SPENDING at the Federal level. Allowing people to keep more of the money that they EARNED isn't an issue to me.

Not particularly, no. I don't want seven houses or anything like that. I'll be happy enough with getting a job as a field archaeologist, which has shite pay.

That's the beauty of America. You do what makes you happy. McCain likes houses and can afford them. More power to him. My goal... I want to have several houses and as expensive as I can afford. #1. I like houses. #2. It's a great investment. #3. It ticks people off.

That's the beauty of America. You do what makes you happy. McCain likes houses and can afford them. More power to him. My goal... I want to have several houses and as expensive as I can afford. #1. I like houses. #2. It's a great investment. #3. It ticks people off.
May I point out that you could "do what makes you happy" in most countries in the Western World, the US doesn't have a monopoly on that.

Fair enough for liking houses. I similarly like them, as a tent or a cardboard box really doesn't hold up to the elements quite the same.

I can't really get my head around the idea of buying houses purely as an investment - although I do understand it - , and I personally think it's probably superflous to have more than a handful, especially as the housing market in general appears to be making a downward turn. Plus, there are a lot of people in villages in the UK who can't afford houses in the villages they and their families have lived all their lives as rich city-types are buying them up as second or even third homes, something I personally find disagreeable.

I certainly wouldn't buy a house just to piss someone off, and I think that any politician who claims to represent the interests of the common man really ought not to have that many houses, as it does look kind of suspect, presenting their interests as one and the same.

Once again, why is this news?

Once again, why is this news?
Slow news day?

Or more likely, someone is attempting to besmirch the guy's name.

First off, never once did I make the inference that ONLY in America could you do these things, I simply stated that IN America you can do what makes you happy. I've been to plenty of other nations and I know what freedoms they have and what freedoms we have. I would like to protect the freedoms we have and couldn't give a rats ass about protecting your right to own 7 houses in the UK. Do what makes you happy. HERE, however, since we ARE talking about McCain and all, owning 7 houses is perfectly reasonable. Now is the best time to buy with the market the way it is and I find it comical that you think one has to be "poor" to represent the interests of the "common man". I find it comical that you think there is something more to representing the common man beyond leaving him alone so he can make his own living and trying to spend as little as possible so he isn't burdened with unnecessary taxes. The best way to "Serve the common man" is to get the hell out of his way so he too can rise to the level of owning 7 houses... or do you accept the notion that these rich folk are just smarter than everyone else and no one else can possibly get rich? Keep in mind, handouts are not serving the common interest. Hand up? Sure, hand out? Nope.

Once again, why is this news?
He wants to be the leader of the free world, or something.

I love this. Opulent lifestyle... When did it become a crime in this country to be successful and rich?
There's nothing wrong with being successful and rich.

But I disagree with the idea that if you have earned the money, it doesn't make a difference how you spend it. Because it does. Normally, as devised in the capitalist system, the rich spend the money on industries. Yes, building more factories to earn more money, have 99% of your money invested to make more, 1% spent. That's the whole reason capitalism works.
If the rich throw their income away on needless things, like a daddy's money kid, the economy doesn't grow, and the system stagnates. Not that it's criminally bad... you've earned it, you can spend it - but it's hardly exemplary behavior, and we want our leaders to be good examples.


The best way to "Serve the common man" is to get the hell out of his way so he too can rise to the level of owning 7 houses... True, but Ron Paul is out, and there's no other candidate sharing these ideas.


I'm about sick to death about people attacking the rich in this nation as if they committed some sort of crime. Making money isn't evil and it damn sure isn't a reason to doubt someone's ability to lead.
Well, McCain is too senile to lead anyone anywhere anyway. Not that Obama is any better, since he can lead, but his target is a commie country.
Still, if someone can't manage his own finances properly, it's a damn good sign he can't manage a country.

its not that he is rich or that he has a bunch of homes.

its that he is SO rich that he cant begin to tell you how many homes he has. he has to ask someone else then get back to you on it.

i bet donald trump knows how many homes he owns.

Once again, why is this news?

did I mention that one of the houses is made of candy?

The best way to "Serve the common man" is to get the hell out of his way so he too can rise to the level of owning 7 houses

isn't it odd that all those bums on the street don't get jobs!

I bet it was the government who ruined them and made them do stupid things :mad:

isn't it odd that all those bums on the street don't get jobs!
I bet it was the government who ruined them and made them do stupid things
I see you're trying to put it as sarcasm, but think a bit deeper.

There actually is some government's fault involved - it supported them when they were jobless but not yet homeless, letting them to get used to not working.

Although there are cases with other reasons.

I love this. Opulent lifestyle... When did it become a crime in this country to be successful and rich?

when you start running attack ads claiming your opponent is an out of touch elitist, and when you also wish to 'cut taxes' in a way that gives your family an extra $300,000 and leaves 95% of americans paying more taxes than under obama's proposal, and when you and your advisers keep saying that the economy is fucking awesome and that poor people need to stop whining about it, and when you think that americans wouldn't work farm jobs at $50/hr, and when you think you need to have $5 million per year to be rich, etc.

Not that Obama is any better, since he can lead, but his target is a commie country.

you seriously believe that?

when you start running attack ads claiming your opponent is an out of touch elitist, and when you also wish to 'cut taxes' in a way that gives your family an extra $300,000 and leaves 95% of americans paying more taxes than under obama's proposal, and when you and your advisers keep saying that the economy is fucking awesome and that poor people need to stop whining about it, and when you think that americans wouldn't work farm jobs at $50/hr, and when you think you need to have $5 million per year to be rich, etc.
when mccain wrote the federal election finance rules he added one that specifically exempts family owned airplanes.

guess whose family has its own airplane?

when mccain wrote the federal election finance rules he added one that specifically exempts family owned airplanes.

guess whose family has its own airplane?

well, according to cindy mccain, it's the only way to get around arizona. so presumably everyone out there has one as well.

I see you're trying to put it as sarcasm, but think a bit deeper.

this should be good

There actually is some government's fault involved - it supported them when they were jobless but not yet homeless, letting them to get used to not working.

isn't it odd that (in this instance) the US government seems to be giving so much more support to black Americans?

you should march on capitol hill and demand the benefits that get you on crack!

guess whose family has its own airplane?

obviously they represent those hit hardest by fuel prices

well, according to cindy mccain, it's the only way to get around arizona. so presumably everyone out there has one as well.
ya but if youre only going from phoenix to sedona wouldnt a helicopter be more practical?

well, according to cindy mccain, it's the only way to get around arizona. so presumably everyone out there has one as well.
Well, in Australia everyone owns at least 100 acres, drives a Toyota, but only for fun, because they only get around on helicopters.

I heard this on TV.

After reading that article, a lot of things came to mind.

Seven houses is not necessarily too many. I know plenty of ordinary guys that own a lot of rental properties. I myself have some. Having 7 houses is not extravagant for an older man who has had time to collect a few. Now six "second homes" is quite a few but so what? If the guy owns some property and is wealthy enough to enjoy them, why shouldn't he? I think that honestly won wealth is a sign of good moral character and intellect. Even if his wife inherited the money, chances are that she has the intellect gene from her parents who built the company.

Although I am not an Obama fan (although there are some things I like about him) I just discovered from this article that he is an arugula man. I too like arugula it has a pleasantly bitter and nutty flavor. I prefer it to lettuce in salads.

Obama seems to have a slimy side that I would not call elitist but I would call slimy. He seems to have some awful buddies. Terrorists and criminals and racist preachers. McCain like his positions or not seems to be the most respectable and classy guy in national politics. The guy is a hero and it is shameful for Obama to stray from the issues and go against the man instead of the issues.

I wish that the Dems had gone for Bradley again or some other decent guy instead of the bozo (Obama) and the bitch (Clinton). I guess I would rather have Obama than Clinton on personality and the slimyness factor but oh well I will stop ranting.

First off, never once did I make the inference that ONLY in America could you do these things, I simply stated that IN America you can do what makes you happy. I've been to plenty of other nations and I know what freedoms they have and what freedoms we have. I would like to protect the freedoms we have and couldn't give a rats ass about protecting your right to own 7 houses in the UK. Do what makes you happy. HERE, however, since we ARE talking about McCain and all, owning 7 houses is perfectly reasonable. Now is the best time to buy with the market the way it is and I find it comical that you think one has to be "poor" to represent the interests of the "common man". I find it comical that you think there is something more to representing the common man beyond leaving him alone so he can make his own living and trying to spend as little as possible so he isn't burdened with unnecessary taxes. The best way to "Serve the common man" is to get the hell out of his way so he too can rise to the level of owning 7 houses... or do you accept the notion that these rich folk are just smarter than everyone else and no one else can possibly get rich? Keep in mind, handouts are not serving the common interest. Hand up? Sure, hand out? Nope.

Often posters with so few posts are trolls. However, this post is excellent. I look forward to reading more of your posts in the future.

Having 7 houses is not extravagant for an older man who has had time to collect a few. Now six "second homes" is quite a few but so what? If the guy owns some property and is wealthy enough to enjoy them, why shouldn't he?
These 6 homes stay uninhabited, while they could be inhabited, thus denying their use to the people and reducing the common good.
And they require maintenance despite that, thus wasting labor.

There's a difference between "I need a big house and a good car to enjoy life, so I buy a big house and a good car", and "I have the money, so why not buy some houses I might visit once in a year and cars I might once drive".
While you have all the right in the world to do the latter, it doesn't speak well of you.


McCain like his positions or not seems to be the most respectable and classy guy in national politics. The guy is a hero and it is shameful for Obama to stray from the issues and go against the man instead of the issues.

What's heroic about him?

What's heroic about him?

he was a lousy pilot a couple decades back

I think that honestly won wealth is a sign of good moral character and intellect. Even if his wife inherited the money, chances are that she has the intellect gene from her parents who built the company.


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/1237/Mccain_7_houses.jpg

Well, it's not that unusual for someone McCain's age to own additional properties (especially condos) for the purposes of investment (and use). The fact that McCain is wealthier than the average American his age (like many politicians are, both Republican and Democrat) results in his choice to own seven residences.

It seems as if this now makes it unacceptable for a presidential candidate to support and succeed in the capitalistic economic system that exists in the United States. I have to disagree with that. In fact, economic success in support of capitalism is one of my personal requirements of a president.

These 6 homes stay uninhabited, while they could be inhabited, thus denying their use to the people and reducing the common good.
And they require maintenance despite that, thus wasting labor.

There's a difference between "I need a big house and a good car to enjoy life, so I buy a big house and a good car", and "I have the money, so why not buy some houses I might visit once in a year and cars I might once drive".
While you have all the right in the world to do the latter, it doesn't speak well of you.



What's heroic about him?

How do you know whetehr his homes are uninhabited? I have a second home and I occassionally rent it out and I am willing to let friends use it. Second homes are often in vacation areas. Vacationers need a place to vacation, there is nothing wrong with this. There is also no wasted labor. Buildings need to be maintained. It is good to maintain one's real estate and it is good for the economy because it provides employment. I know that my real estate has been good for the economy because I have spent a lot of money on improving and maintaining it.

He is heroic because he served out country and is a war hero. He fought for his country and our ideals against a viscious enemy who had the sort of failed commie beliefs that people like you seem to have as evidenced by your contempt for people with substantial property.

Well, it's not that unusual for someone McCain's age to own additional properties (especially condos) for the purposes of investment (and use). The fact that McCain is wealthier than the average American his age (like many politicians are, both Republican and Democrat) results in his choice to own seven residences.

It seems as if this now makes it unacceptable for a presidential candidate to support and succeed in the capitalistic economic system that exists in the United States. I have to disagree with that. In fact, economic success in support of capitalism is one of my personal requirements of a president.

I agree. In fact, I think that wealth is a prerequisite for full time political involvement. As a wise man once told me, "If you want to make the world a better place, first you must become wealthy because until you do, you are merely part of the problem".

I think that honestly won wealth is a sign of good moral character and intellect. Even if his wife inherited the money, chances are that she has the intellect gene from her parents who built the company.
Wow, that last bit sounds a bit iffy. So the rich must be inherently better, eh?

Wow, that last bit sounds a bit iffy. So the rich must be inherently better, eh?

No, but they probably are better. It takes good values to become wealthy. Although it is easier to preserve wealth won by others it is shocking how many people waste inheritances and lottery winnings and such because of poor values.

To become wealthy is not impossible for anyone. Nor is it particluarly hard. However, it takes good values.

Maybe I am being vague. The following values are needed to build wealth:
honesty, compassion, foresight, discipline, reason, thrift, planning, and the ability to defer gratification of desires. It also helps to be calm and sober.

Our situations all result to a large extent from our own choices. Decisions that we make in education, work, investing, family planning, saving, and spending have huge impacts upon our financial well being.

Sure there are things beyond our control that have nothing to do with our choices such as disabilities, illnesses, and injuries. Please do not misunderstand me on that point.

No, but they probably are better. It takes good values to become wealthy. Although it is easier to preserve wealth won by others it is shocking how many people waste inheritances and lottery winnings and such because of poor values.

To become wealthy is not impossible for anyone. Nor is it particluarly hard. However, it takes good values.

Maybe I am being vague. The following values are needed to build wealth:
honesty, compassion, foresight, discipline, reason, thrift, planning, and the ability to defer gratification of desires. It also helps to be calm and sober.

Our situations all result to a large extent from our own choices. Decisions that we make in education, work, investing, family planning, saving, and spending have huge impacts upon our financial well being.

Sure there are things beyond our control that have nothing to do with our choices such as disabilities, illnesses, and injuries. Please do not misunderstand me on that point.

Oops planning and foresignt are the same things. I was going to edit this but I have learned that people around here are suspiscious of editted posts and I am trying not to edit them anymore.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080821/pl_politico/12685;_ylt=AmPGdhzFaWTjBuPLoCARfTlh24cA

So, is he senile, or simply that filthy rich?

He's both. I just don't get it though. I have multiple couches but I know how many I have. I'm taking multiple courses this semester, but I do know how many classes I have.

It just doesn't make sense.

How do you know whetehr his homes are uninhabited? I have a second home and I occassionally rent it out and I am willing to let friends use it.
McCain isn't as cheap as to do that, so I guess they are.


Second homes are often in vacation areas. Vacationers need a place to vacation, there is nothing wrong with this.
OR they can rent that place for when they're vacationing.


There is also no wasted labor. Buildings need to be maintained. It is good to maintain one's real estate and it is good for the economy because it provides employment.
It's not good for the economy at all. It's good for the economy when it provides useful employment - people doing a job which creates a useful good or service.
Buildings need to be maintained, but they are only useful when inhabited or otherwise used.


I know that my real estate has been good for the economy because I have spent a lot of money on improving and maintaining it.
Spending your dollars per se doesn't benefit the economy. It's earning them which creates the benefit.
And in some cases, say when these are tax dollars, saying "I spend the money, so I benefit the economy" would be outright hypocritical.


He is heroic because he served out country and is a war hero.
And his heroic deed was, specifically?


who had the sort of failed commie beliefs that people like you seem to have as evidenced by your contempt for people with substantial property.
If you read a few of my posts, you'll see I'm strongly libertarian, bordering on anarchism. I believe in a small government which would have its size and capabilities strictly constitutionally limited, and minimal taxation or none at all. Preferably just collecting rent on land and resources, and not poking its nose into your accounts. It should only perform the roles that can't be performed otherwise (such as issuing the currency), and keep an eye on things to see they run smoothly; and itself be kept an eye on by the public.
Basically, I believe that government is evil; note the lack of word "necessary".

I have nothing against people with a lot of property, and it's everyone's right to spend his money as he pleases, but my respect is reserved for those who invest it into property that actually produces goods and services, working for the economy.

No, but they probably are better. It takes good values to become wealthy. Although it is easier to preserve wealth won by others it is shocking how many people waste inheritances and lottery winnings and such because of poor values.

To become wealthy is not impossible for anyone. Nor is it particluarly hard. However, it takes good values.

Maybe I am being vague. The following values are needed to build wealth:
honesty, compassion, foresight, discipline, reason, thrift, planning, and the ability to defer gratification of desires. It also helps to be calm and sober.

Our situations all result to a large extent from our own choices. Decisions that we make in education, work, investing, family planning, saving, and spending have huge impacts upon our financial well being.

Sure there are things beyond our control that have nothing to do with our choices such as disabilities, illnesses, and injuries. Please do not misunderstand me on that point.
I agree with you on some points, but I don't think that being rich necessarily means that one has good values. There's probably a fair few shites out there that have accumulated their with by stabbing a hell of a lot of people in the back, and would be more than happy to do so again.

I personally don't agree with the idea that rich people are "probably" better, primarily because it seems ridiculously élitist. Making the right choices at the right time can be more luck than judgement (although it probably isn't if they do it consistently), and they could still have a kid which pisses away the money, even though that kid could have inherited the "intellect gene" from their wealthy parent.
I have nothing against people with a lot of property, and it's everyone's right to spend his money as he pleases, but my respect is reserved for those who invest it into property that actually produces goods and services, working for the economy.
Right on the money, as it were, with that.

The following values are needed to build wealth:
honesty, compassion, foresight, discipline, reason, thrift, planning, and the ability to defer gratification of desires.


This is a serious contender for "most utterly ridiculous statement I have ever seen on NSG."

After reading that article, a lot of things came to mind.

Seven houses is not necessarily too many. I know plenty of ordinary guys that own a lot of rental properties. I myself have some. Having 7 houses is not extravagant for an older man who has had time to collect a few. Now six "second homes" is quite a few but so what? If the guy owns some property and is wealthy enough to enjoy them, why shouldn't he? I think that honestly won wealth is a sign of good moral character and intellect. Even if his wife inherited the money, chances are that she has the intellect gene from her parents who built the company.

Although I am not an Obama fan (although there are some things I like about him) I just discovered from this article that he is an arugula man. I too like arugula it has a pleasantly bitter and nutty flavor. I prefer it to lettuce in salads.

Obama seems to have a slimy side that I would not call elitist but I would call slimy. He seems to have some awful buddies. Terrorists and criminals and racist preachers. McCain like his positions or not seems to be the most respectable and classy guy in national politics. The guy is a hero and it is shameful for Obama to stray from the issues and go against the man instead of the issues.

I wish that the Dems had gone for Bradley again or some other decent guy instead of the bozo (Obama) and the bitch (Clinton). I guess I would rather have Obama than Clinton on personality and the slimyness factor but oh well I will stop ranting.

Haha, you really amuse me. Seems to have some bad buddies? I would agree with that statement, but McCain is equally culpable. John Hagee (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/john-hagees-mccain-endor_n_89189.html), anybody? I hardly call that classy. As for Obama's refusal to completely disavow Reverend Wright, I myself have some family members who occasionally say things I don't like or agree with. Would I disavow them? Also, comparing one's opponent to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears is hardly classy. (If it is, I'm a fish named Ernie)

No, but they probably are better. It takes good values to become wealthy. Although it is easier to preserve wealth won by others it is shocking how many people waste inheritances and lottery winnings and such because of poor values.

To become wealthy is not impossible for anyone. Nor is it particluarly hard. However, it takes good values.

Maybe I am being vague. The following values are needed to build wealth:
honesty, compassion, foresight, discipline, reason, thrift, planning, and the ability to defer gratification of desires. It also helps to be calm and sober.

Our situations all result to a large extent from our own choices. Decisions that we make in education, work, investing, family planning, saving, and spending have huge impacts upon our financial well being.

Sure there are things beyond our control that have nothing to do with our choices such as disabilities, illnesses, and injuries. Please do not misunderstand me on that point.

Absolute nonsense. Honesty and compassion are massive obstacles to the accumulation of wealth on a grand scale. Foresight, thrift, planning, the ability to defer gratification are all riffs on the same theme. So what we've got is: the ability to plan to the future/ be given money. And it'd seem unlikely that the entire income spectrum can be explained away with "some people are good planners"

If "our situtations all result to a large extent from our own choices" then what is America's low social mobility due to? Why do poor people choose to have worse lives? Or is it some big coincidence? Why don't poor kids just choose to go to fancy private schools?

Buildings need to be maintained. It is good to maintain one's real estate and it is good for the economy because it provides employment.

indeed, mccain's household servants cost him like 5 times the average family's income each year.

fuck all you elitists, unfairly mocking st. john. pow, pow, pow!

indeed, mccain's household servants cost him like 5 times the average family's income each year.

fuck all you elitists, unfairly mocking st. john. pow, pow, pow!
HEY! watch out! he is a war hero and former POW!

Dear Vault 10,
I too have libertarian leanings. I apologize for my earlier comment. I too respect investors and have little appreciation for those who squander wealth. For example, I think it is really cool that Sam Walton drove a beat up pickup truck and Warren Buffet lives in the same house he bought in the 1950s or so.

However, I think that spending on frills is a matter of proportion. There is nothing wrong with a guy having a beach house and a cabin and a home, but there is something odd about a guy having 6 second homes that he does not rent out or let buddies use for vacations or use for some other constructive purpose. At some point things get too wasteful and extravagant. I am not sure that we know what uses McCain puts his homes to and it is unfair to speculate and probably none of our business anyway. If the guy has a few too many frills in the housing department, but that is his only spending vice and he has enough income generating assets to support himself, it really does not matter. However, and I suspect that this is not the case, he has a lot of debt and expenses because of his lifestyle, and these costs put him heavily into the red, I think we have a problem. If the guy cannot run his own finances how can he be expected to wield foreign trade powers and veto powers over financial laws?

You have only posted ten times or so, I did not know enough about you to do anymore than make a guess based off of your post. Please do not be mad at me for suspecting that you were anti-rich people.

I think that spending money generally helps the economy. As long as it is lawful I think it is beneficial. We all have to make a living and we do that by people buying what we are selling.

McCain's military record speaks for itself. He is a war hero. There is another thread here on General that examines that in detail.

Absolute nonsense. Honesty and compassion are massive obstacles to the accumulation of wealth on a grand scale. Foresight, thrift, planning, the ability to defer gratification are all riffs on the same theme. So what we've got is: the ability to plan to the future/ be given money. And it'd seem unlikely that the entire income spectrum can be explained away with "some people are good planners"

If "our situtations all result to a large extent from our own choices" then what is America's low social mobility due to? Why do poor people choose to have worse lives? Or is it some big coincidence? Why don't poor kids just choose to go to fancy private schools?

The problem with social mobility is primarily one of values. Unfortunately, a lot of those values are instilled at an early age by parents and there is not enough adoption going on. So if we have some dumbass with poor values instilling those poor values on his children, we have children that typically "inherit" those poor values and make lousy decisions and the cycle repeats until someone down the line starts getting it right for a change.

Teen pregnancy is an excellent example of this. So is dropping out of high school and drug abuse.

I do not know what world you live in but honesty and compassion are essential to establishing great business relationships. If someone is honorable and sees where the other guys is coming from he is the most effective at reaching a deal and develloping a good long term relationship. There are plenty of poor businessmen that are in for the short push instead of the long haul. There are plenty of successful businessmen who are trustworthy and their reputation precede them and help them to get more business.

It is not vital that someone be given money in order to become wealthy. However, at some point it is usually vital that someone have access to credit and this is where again good values are helpful. Responsible behavior is rewarded by good credit scores and by due dillegence searches prior to investment.

This is a serious contender for "most utterly ridiculous statement I have ever seen on NSG."

Do you care to explain how these values do not tend to promote wealth?

indeed, mccain's household servants cost him like 5 times the average family's income each year.

fuck all you elitists, unfairly mocking st. john. pow, pow, pow!

mocking st. john?

I agree with you on some points, but I don't think that being rich necessarily means that one has good values. There's probably a fair few shites out there that have accumulated their with by stabbing a hell of a lot of people in the back, and would be more than happy to do so again.

I personally don't agree with the idea that rich people are "probably" better, primarily because it seems ridiculously élitist. Making the right choices at the right time can be more luck than judgement (although it probably isn't if they do it consistently), and they could still have a kid which pisses away the money, even though that kid could have inherited the "intellect gene" from their wealthy parent.

There are plenty of choices that do not involve luck. Here is a sample: family planning, graduating high school, spending less than you earn, investing appropriately for your age and situation, lifelong dedication to education and self improvement, following the law, abstaining from drugs, and hard work.

Just because your parents are hard working decent people does not mean that their child necessarily will be. Parenting is tough work. Wealthy people have a tough time of it too because they have to avoid raising a child to become a spoiled brat who does not know the value of a dollar. Sure there are advanteges to being a wealthy parent but it has its own unique challenges as well.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080821/pl_politico/12685;_ylt=AmPGdhzFaWTjBuPLoCARfTlh24cA

So, is he senile, or simply that filthy rich?

I thought how many houses, SUVs, and properties your heiress wife owned were not important? Oh, that's only if you are John Kerry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjC2AlWy6CI

Is Obama a crook? Or just too reliant on the media to cover it up?

Haha, you really amuse me. Seems to have some bad buddies? I would agree with that statement, but McCain is equally culpable. John Hagee (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/john-hagees-mccain-endor_n_89189.html), anybody? I hardly call that classy. As for Obama's refusal to completely disavow Reverend Wright, I myself have some family members who occasionally say things I don't like or agree with. Would I disavow them? Also, comparing one's opponent to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears is hardly classy. (If it is, I'm a fish named Ernie)

So McCain was married by Hagee? Sat in Hagee's church for 20 years? Had his children baptized by Hagee? Wright was not family, Obama chose him as his mentor. And if you were Obama you WOULD disavow them, as Obama has done, but only after they dare to call you a typical politician.

Oh dear, I read that as penis... in the title that is.

I nearly peeed myself laughing.

I love this. Opulent lifestyle... When did it become a crime in this country to be successful and rich?

I'm about sick to death about people attacking the rich in this nation as if they committed some sort of crime. Making money isn't evil and it damn sure isn't a reason to doubt someone's ability to lead.

I assume you're in a third world country in which case the answer would be the '80's

Once again, why is this news?

no thread on it already?

its not that he is rich or that he has a bunch of homes.

its that he is SO rich that he cant begin to tell you how many homes he has. he has to ask someone else then get back to you on it.

i bet donald trump knows how many homes he owns.

1. He is old too. Old people are more forgetful
2. I'll hunt down and ask Donald Trump.

did I mention that one of the houses is made of candy?



isn't it odd that all those bums on the street don't get jobs!

I bet it was the government who ruined them and made them do stupid things :mad:

mmmm... Candy home
Probably right on poor people.

ya but if youre only going from phoenix to sedona wouldnt a helicopter be more practical?

Too true.

After reading that article, a lot of things came to mind.

Seven houses is not necessarily too many. I know plenty of ordinary guys that own a lot of rental properties. I myself have some. Having 7 houses is not extravagant for an older man who has had time to collect a few. Now six "second homes" is quite a few but so what? If the guy owns some property and is wealthy enough to enjoy them, why shouldn't he? I think that honestly won wealth is a sign of good moral character and intellect. Even if his wife inherited the money, chances are that she has the intellect gene from her parents who built the company.

I will stop ranting.

True, true. And thanks for stopping the rant.

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/1237/Mccain_7_houses.jpg

.....
Communist

I agree. In fact, I think that wealth is a prerequisite for full time political involvement. As a wise man once told me, "If you want to make the world a better place, first you must become wealthy because until you do, you are merely part of the problem".

>.>

Wow, that last bit sounds a bit iffy. So the rich must be inherently better, eh?

In a land of equal oppurtunity, yes.

McCain isn't as cheap as to do that, so I guess they are.



OR they can rent that place for when they're vacationing.



It's not good for the economy at all. It's good for the economy when it provides useful employment - people doing a job which creates a useful good or service.
Buildings need to be maintained, but they are only useful when inhabited or otherwise used.



Spending your dollars per se doesn't benefit the economy. It's earning them which creates the benefit.
And in some cases, say when these are tax dollars, saying "I spend the money, so I benefit the economy" would be outright hypocritical.



And his heroic deed was, specifically?



If you read a few of my posts, you'll see I'm strongly libertarian, bordering on anarchism. I believe in a small government which would have its size and capabilities strictly constitutionally limited, and minimal taxation or none at all. Preferably just collecting rent on land and resources, and not poking its nose into your accounts. It should only perform the roles that can't be performed otherwise (such as issuing the currency), and keep an eye on things to see they run smoothly; and itself be kept an eye on by the public.
Basically, I believe that government is evil; note the lack of word "necessary".

I have nothing against people with a lot of property, and it's everyone's right to spend his money as he pleases, but my respect is reserved for those who invest it into property that actually produces goods and services, working for the economy.

I agree.

Absolute nonsense. Honesty and compassion are massive obstacles to the accumulation of wealth on a grand scale. Foresight, thrift, planning, the ability to defer gratification are all riffs on the same theme. So what we've got is: the ability to plan to the future/ be given money. And it'd seem unlikely that the entire income spectrum can be explained away with "some people are good planners"

If "our situtations all result to a large extent from our own choices" then what is America's low social mobility due to? Why do poor people choose to have worse lives? Or is it some big coincidence? Why don't poor kids just choose to go to fancy private schools?

Err...actually the guy who answered you earlier said it best.

People are a lot like their parents.

The problem with social mobility is primarily one of values. Unfortunately, a lot of those values are instilled at an early age by parents and there is not enough adoption going on. So if we have some dumbass with poor values instilling those poor values on his children, we have children that typically "inherit" those poor values and make lousy decisions and the cycle repeats until someone down the line starts getting it right for a change.

Teen pregnancy is an excellent example of this. So is dropping out of high school and drug abuse.


So it actually does seem to be luck then? It seems like poor people are poor because they have bad values instilled in them by the parents they were born to. You said: "There are plenty of choices that do not involve luck. Here is a sample: family planning, graduating high school" but now you claim that these values are ones instilled by parents. Which is it? Are you claiming that people have a choice over who their parents are?

I do not know what world you live in but honesty and compassion are essential to establishing great business relationships.

That must be why you see so many banks pull out of deals they deem ethically wrong. Oh wait, they go ahead and do them anyway. Hedge fund managers invest in anything that turns a buck and people who want to invoke morality fall behind. I deal with a lot of rich and powerful people and all they are interested in is seeming honest and compassionate but they'll stab anybody in the back and they would stab their grandma if they thought her blood was worth a buck.

If someone is honorable and sees where the other guys is coming from he is the most effective at reaching a deal and develloping a good long term relationship. There are plenty of poor businessmen that are in for the short push instead of the long haul. There are plenty of successful businessmen who are trustworthy and their reputation precede them and help them to get more business.

Most business deals are about people trying to make more money. Who cares about honesty? I'll just get a contract and make sure that the company has more to lose by not going through with it.

It is not vital that someone be given money in order to become wealthy. However, at some point it is usually vital that someone have access to credit and this is where again good values are helpful. Responsible behavior is rewarded by good credit scores and by due dillegence searches prior to investment.

So these rules for success in full:
plan for the future
be honest
don't spend more than you can earn

Seems like a lot of people should be a lot more successful. And quite a few should be a lot less successful.

I've also got to wonder how white collar crime can exist with such great values around. Or how any page like this could be made: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accounting_scandals

Err...actually the guy who answered you earlier said it best.

People are a lot like their parents.

So the rich are great guys, the middle class are alright and the poor are a bunch of ****s. What a wonderful world view.

ZOMG!! Politicion haz money! he should be arrested for being so unAmerican!!1!!1! :rolleyes:

ZOMG!! Politicion haz money! he should be arrested for being so unAmerican!!1!!1! :rolleyes:
Being you, I assume you are trying to mock the fact that people are slamming John McCain for not realize how loaded he is. Thus I would like to point out that one of the neocon attack threads on Obama is that he is too rich and out of touch with your average American. McCain has so many houses he can't remember how many he has (or he is fucking senile, or likely both) and is married to some one with an inheritance like they Kerry's wife, something they used to roll him. Yet they are slamming Obama, some one who has one house and earns a fraction of what the McCain family earns. Some one who worked the rank and file in the communities of Chicago. He is out of touch with the average American? My ass.

So McCain was married by Hagee? Sat in Hagee's church for 20 years? Had his children baptized by Hagee? Wright was not family, Obama chose him as his mentor. And if you were Obama you WOULD disavow them, as Obama has done, but only after they dare to call you a typical politician.

Well, my dad and I disagree violently on a number of things, and I would still consider him important. I'm pretty sure there's an example you can think of.

Being you, I assume you are trying to mock the fact that people are slamming John McCain for not realize how loaded he is. Thus I would like to point out that one of the neocon attack threads on Obama is that he is too rich and out of touch with your average American. McCain has so many houses he can't remember how many he has (or he is fucking senile, or likely both) and is married to some one with an inheritance like they Kerry's wife, something they used to roll him. Yet they are slamming Obama, some one who has one house and earns a fraction of what the McCain family earns. Some one who worked the rank and file in the communities of Chicago. He is out of touch with the average American? My ass.

Pierrot FTW.

Being you, I assume you are trying to mock the fact that people are slamming John McCain for not realize how loaded he is. Thus I would like to point out that one of the neocon attack threads on Obama is that he is too rich and out of touch with your average American. McCain has so many houses he can't remember how many he has (or he is fucking senile, or likely both) and is married to some one with an inheritance like they Kerry's wife, something they used to roll him. Yet they are slamming Obama, some one who has one house and earns a fraction of what the McCain family earns. Some one who worked the rank and file in the communities of Chicago. He is out of touch with the average American? My ass.

It might be my p.o.v showing through but this stuff always seems to stick to the "liberal" candidate. He's an out-of-touch elitist who has a fraction of the wealth the Republican candidate. McCain is really old and unusually short (and has obviously been wearing lifts) but this has attracted less attention than the idea Obama might be a secret Muslim. And no one has managed to make in roads in the links between McCain and the dirtier side of organisations that he supports. I don't think this stuff matters and I don't think the election should be fought on this level but if it's going to be then Obama should kick butt.

I should add that McCain pays over $240,000/year to various personnel that keep his houses looking clean and dandy....so in other words, he pays MORE than the cost of an average american home EACH YEAR just to take care of his seven homes. AND he doesn't care enough to remember how many he owns in the first place.

Oh dear, I read that as penis... in the title that is.

Yeah, I keep reading it that way too. Reminds me of penis-stealers in the Congo.

Being you, I assume you are trying to mock the fact that people are slamming John McCain for not realize how loaded he is. Thus I would like to point out that one of the neocon attack threads on Obama is that he is too rich and out of touch with your average American. McCain has so many houses he can't remember how many he has (or he is fucking senile, or likely both) and is married to some one with an inheritance like they Kerry's wife, something they used to roll him. Yet they are slamming Obama, some one who has one house and earns a fraction of what the McCain family earns. Some one who worked the rank and file in the communities of Chicago. He is out of touch with the average American? My ass.

I am a neocon and I can assure you that the concerns about Obama's finances has nothing to do with neoconservatism. In fact I do not see how having wealth is at all anti-neoconservative. We are concerned with opposing totalitarianism by any means necessary, wealthy people do not piss us off.

It might be my p.o.v showing through but this stuff always seems to stick to the "liberal" candidate. He's an out-of-touch elitist who has a fraction of the wealth the Republican candidate. McCain is really old and unusually short (and has obviously been wearing lifts) but this has attracted less attention than the idea Obama might be a secret Muslim. And no one has managed to make in roads in the links between McCain and the dirtier side of organisations that he supports. I don't think this stuff matters and I don't think the election should be fought on this level but if it's going to be then Obama should kick butt.

I do not know about that. Obama ran with some really bad folks like that unrepentant former terrorist guy that somehow was a big shot in Chicago politics. I think he was in the Weathermen. Yikes!

Yeah, I keep reading it that way too. Reminds me of penis-stealers in the Congo.

Ok, we really don't need or want to know what you do on your vacation Neesika. ;)

I do not know about that. Obama ran with some really bad folks like that unrepentant former terrorist guy that somehow was a big shot in Chicago politics. I think he was in the Weathermen. Yikes!

wait, whats wrong with former-weathermen-turned-college-professors? as misguided as their tactics were, they at least were on the right side, unlike the mass murdering war criminals of the time that still get invited to speak at major right wing functions (to say nothing of the current crop...)

The former-Obama associate that's going to receive loads of press is a man by the name of Rezko...apparently he was some 'slum land lord' that had various dealings with Obama in the Chicago political scene (and, nominally, through a small law firm Obama worked with). I think these guys are having attention drawn to them out of desperation.

I do not know what world you live in but honesty and compassion are essential to establishing great business relationships. If someone is honorable and sees where the other guys is coming from he is the most effective at reaching a deal and develloping a good long term relationship.
As they say, "An honest person is simply a better liar than you."

Honesty won't get you in business any further than in poker. How many ads have you seen telling "This car has poor handling and detached driving, but at least your heart rate stays slower", or "Designed specifically for inexperienced drivers", or "We save on quality, but you get what you pay for"?
Do you think it would be good for business if you told the inspectors about all your problems?


I guess you'll say "Well, you only have to be honest with partners", but that's where the difference between a bad liar and a good liar comes in. A good liar knows when to lie, how much exactly to lie, thinks forward how to match the lie to the reality and make sure he can talk it out if exposed later, and has a talent in believing himself when talking. He builds up a good reputation for being an honest person, because he's never caught, and knows what exactly to say to reach his goals.

For instance...
Question: "So, how does your business go? Why are you selling the building?"

Really honest person: "Well, our accountant couldn't dodge the taxes, and we just can't pay them now. Half our machinery is made in 1960s and bought from junkyards, and last month our production was next to nothing. This warehouse is about to crumble, and we can't afford repairs, so if we don't get rid of it, we're goners."

Bad liar: "Better than ever! Our factory is state of the art, and we have massively growing revenues, it's a matter of time before I'm in Fortune 500! Now we're just swarmed with great offers we can't refuse for this excellent, always appreciating real estate."

Good liar: "These new taxes are pressing, but we'll deal. We have reliable customers, and our products sell faster than we make them. I plan to invest into equipment modernization to increase production, so we're selling off some disposable assets to pay for it. I hope we can negotiate a fair price."


Which deal would you be most likely to accept? I think the third, unless you blindly trust people (then the second), or are too compassionate (then the first, out of mercy).
Now, try to think about what the good liar said, and if you could really catch him lying, even after buying the property and running a scoop at his company.


Of course, sometimes it pays to be honest. Like in these pictures:

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/fail-owned-car-ad-fail.jpeg http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/fb97.jpg

But these are cases where you market to a very specific clientele.

Dear Vault 10,
I too have libertarian leanings. I apologize for my earlier comment. I too respect investors and have little appreciation for those who squander wealth. For example, I think it is really cool that Sam Walton drove a beat up pickup truck and Warren Buffet lives in the same house he bought in the 1950s or so.
However, I think that spending on frills is a matter of proportion. There is nothing wrong with a guy having a beach house and a cabin and a home, but there is something odd about a guy having 6 second homes that he does not rent out or let buddies use for vacations or use for some other constructive purpose. At some point things get too wasteful and extravagant.
That's just what I meant. And what's more, I don't think it's about the frills. I fully understand car enthusiasts who have 5 or even 10 cars. But usually they can tell me about each of them more than I know or could read online about it. Or at least they remember each car's model, year, engine type and displacement, number of seats, and something else.

And at the very least, they won't forget how many cars they have.
So in this case it isn't spending on frills and being extravagant, it's simply buying and holding property you don't really care about, just because its cost isn't significant enough for you to be bothered to sell it once you don't need it.


However, and I suspect that this is not the case, he has a lot of debt and expenses because of his lifestyle, and these costs put him heavily into the red, I think we have a problem. If the guy cannot run his own finances how can he be expected to wield foreign trade powers and veto powers over financial laws?
Well, then we would have a big problem, not just a problem. Such a person couldn't be trusted with even a local homeowners association.

Still, I think someone aiming for one of the highest positions in the nation should be held to a higher standard. To draw a sarcastic analogy, one could say, "If McCain runs US the way he runs his real estate, he'll forget a few divisions in Iraq, and ask the vice about how many states he has". Not seriously, but still.


You have only posted ten times or so, I did not know enough about you to do anymore than make a guess based off of your post. Please do not be mad at me for suspecting that you were anti-rich people.
No big deal, misunderstanding happens. I just thought my signature is pretty indicative, as people usually RP nations matching their political thoughts.


It's just that I prefer not to blindly follow an ideology, but rather always question it and look for its downsides.
For instance, one of the downsides of capitalism is that to work well, it requires everyone to make it his goal to make more money, but money has no inherent value. You could sell the houses you don't need, invest the money, and make more, but can't be bothered, since money per se can't make most people happy.
And while it's expected from an employed laborer to just spend his money on goods, the entrepreneurs should rather find value in money itself. If it goes that way, they create economic growth by constant expansion.

But if they start saying "OK, my business earns me 5 million a year - enough for me, now my job is to just to spend it", there's no economic growth, just production of luxuries, exactly like it was in the medieval times. Once there's enough peasants to sustain agriculture, the rest just serve to please the baron; whether they do it directly as servants or indirectly as producers of luxuries, doesn't matter.
I know I sound a bit idealist here, but that's not what capitalism is about.
A system with free enterprise, but in a society valuing conspicuous consumption over business expansion, is no better than advanced feudalism.



I think that spending money generally helps the economy. As long as it is lawful I think it is beneficial. We all have to make a living and we do that by people buying what we are selling.
Not so easy... Remember, money has no value of its own. While buying a product benefits the direct seller, it doesn't benefit the economy as a whole. To make the idea clear, imagine if someone does it with counterfeit money; he helps the seller, but certainly not the economy.
It's rather earning the money that helps the economy, spending it is just an incentive to make you earn it.

But that's when considering paper money. Rich people don't store the money in paper, they store them in bank accounts. And what is a bank? A bank is a company that takes your money and lends it to someone who needs it more; often to the entrepreneur who needs a loan to start the business, or to a company which needs to expand it.
Thus, money stored in a bank counts as investment, you just leave profits and risks to the bank in exchange for a fixed interest rate.
So, not that spending money is bad for the economy - it would be hypocritical to say so, since being spent is money's whole purpose - but, let's put it this way, not spending bank-stored money is good for the economy, as the bank puts them to better use.

The funny thing? He claims Obama's out of touch.

They are both out of touch. Obama has been leading a sheltered life as an idealist. McCain, who used to have good ideas and used to be a great candidate, has been influenced by party members to follow their agenda. Maybe he's just old.

Anyway, atleast Obama can gain experience whereas McCain is just... senile.

I own two manor houses, four mansions, one ranch, three apartment buildings, one condo building, two hundred rental homes, four golf courses, four yachts, one oil refinery, two hydroelectric dams, eight hundred thousand agriculture acres, five hundred thousand grazing acres, one million six hundred thousand acres of forest readily open to forestry, ten logging companies, a oil platform, three shoe factories in India, one textile factory in Thailand, twenty eight thousand head of cattle, two private jets, eight minor airports, and a vast amount of stock shares. So am I rich or am I am rich enough to make you look humble?

Could I borrow a few bucks...

They are both out of touch. Obama has been leading a sheltered life as an idealist. McCain, who used to have good ideas and used to be a great candidate, has been influenced by party members to follow their agenda. Maybe he's just old.

Anyway, atleast Obama can gain experience whereas McCain is just... senile.
what makes you think that obama has been living in an ivory tower?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3196/2793290383_ecd85e4347_o.jpg

True, but that senile tumor named McCain has rapped on Obama for being "out of touch". What does he say now?

What he says now is "Obama should have picked Hillary for VP". Thing is, that will likely be a very effective diversion.

what makes you think that obama has been living in an ivory tower?

Because McCain said so.:rolleyes:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3196/2793290383_ecd85e4347_o.jpg
i heard a snippet of an interview with mccain this morning. the interviewer was asking him about this housing gaff.

his answer started out with "well i went 51/2 years without a kitchen table"....meaning

SHUT UP I WAS A POW, DAMMIT

These 6 homes stay uninhabited, while they could be inhabited, thus denying their use to the people and reducing the common good.
And they require maintenance despite that, thus wasting labor.

I know this isn't my debate but felt like this was worthy of a response...

There isn't a finite amount of homes in the USA. If there aren't enough, guess what, we'll build more. That aside, wasting labor? That's called creating jobs. Someone got paid to build these homes for McCain so in essence, he is responsible for assisting the common man in earning a living. I just wish he had 500 homes, think of all the jobs that would have created. What he does with them is his business.

There's a difference between "I need a big house and a good car to enjoy life, so I buy a big house and a good car", and "I have the money, so why not buy some houses I might visit once in a year and cars I might once drive".
While you have all the right in the world to do the latter, it doesn't speak well of you.

Why? Spending money that otherwise would lead to ..uh.. sitting in the bank collecting dust? Normally I hear the debate go the other way, claiming that the rich people horde the money so no one else has access. McCain bought a few houses, creating jobs from the labor needed to build those houses and making someone else a bit of money to pay their bills. You folks act like a rich man spending money that he earned is immoral and unacceptable. What should he have done.. just hand the money to the people that built his house for nothing? Would that have been better? I don't accept that philosophy. I know how I feel when I go to work and earn my cash. I get a sense of accomplishment beyond being handed cash. Once my father gave me a car that cost $400. That car was abused and meant next to nothing to me. The first car I bought on my own was $2600 and I made payments for a year to earn it. That car meant something to me and I treated it as such. The car I have now cost me $57,000 and I've earned every dime it took to pay for it. (Ok, it's not quite paid for. lol) Give a man money and you give him the ability to survive. Give a man the opportunity to EARN money and you give him the ability to LIVE with PRIDE.

What's heroic about him?

He served this nation and spent 5 years as a P.O.W. I don't care who you are or where you come from, that's heroic to me. This man endured a lot for this nation and he did things right afterwards as well. I don't agree with 100% of what he stands for but I respect 100% of him as a man, a soldier and an American.

Anyway, atleast Obama can gain experience whereas McCain is just... senile.

Sorry, when I'm in an airplane I don't want a guy that "can gain experience", I want the one that KNOWS how to fly and can at least tell you what each control does. I'm not interested in a guy that seems to be reading the "Running American into the ground for Dummies..by Jimmy Carter" book.

What he says now is "Obama should have picked Hillary for VP". Thing is, that will likely be a very effective diversion.

Sorta. Let's see what happens if McCain plays it TOO hard...

Sorry, when I'm in an airplane I don't want a guy that "can gain experience", I want the one that KNOWS how to fly and can at least tell you what each control does. I'm not interested in a guy that seems to be reading the "Running American into the ground for Dummies..by Jimmy Carter" book.
yes but doesnt that describe BOTH men in the race (in the major parties i mean, one of whom will be president) except that one of them is far past retirement age?

Sorry, when I'm in an airplane I don't want a guy that "can gain experience", I want the one that KNOWS how to fly and can at least tell you what each control does. I'm not interested in a guy that seems to be reading the "Running American into the ground for Dummies..by Jimmy Carter" book.

Instead you'll pick the incompetent moron who not only supports and agrees with the figurative pilot that's running the plane into the ground, but also is running for pilot on the fact that he himself, quite literally, got shot down?

Instead you'll pick the incompetent moron who not only supports and agrees with the figurative pilot that's running the plane into the ground, but also is running for pilot on the fact that he himself, quite literally, got shot down?
Heh, touché.

and this is news, why....?

Considering Obama has been constantly labelled 'Elitist' the most right after 'Closet Muslim Sleeper', this kind of puts a fly in McCain's soup.

Sounds like he's a rich twat who's out of touch with his electorate, to be frank.

So out of touch if he gets elected, it'll feel very much like a Third George Dubya Bush term in office.

So out of touch if he gets elected, it'll feel very much like a Third George Dubya Bush term in office.
nooooo

it cant feel like the bush administration without puppetmaster dick cheney pulling the strings.

Instead you'll pick the incompetent moron who not only supports and agrees with the figurative pilot that's running the plane into the ground, but also is running for pilot on the fact that he himself, quite literally, got shot down?

Nice try but the real moron in the election is Obama.

Let's get something straight, McCain will give me about 30% of what I want. Obama.. less than 2%. I am stuck with the lesser of two evils but I'll go on record saying that if being forced to choose between a guy that's never flown a plane and one that's been shot down, I'll take the one that's been shot down. :D

Serious, Obama will, according to his website, tax and spend. If you think he will only tax the rich and that it won't affect you, that's your own ignorance, don't expect me to fall for it. The fact of the matter is that when you tax the "rich", you slow the economy and cost America jobs. Don't believe me? Why does unemployment drop every time we give tax cuts? When the top 50% pay 97.3% of the total taxes, EVERY tax cut goes to the "rich" according to the left in this nation. If it doesn't benefit the poor, they don't want to hear about it. Funny enough, the real benefit to the poor is getting out of the way of the upper income individuals so they can build business and create jobs.

McCain isn't my first choice but he's the best of what's left. Obama isn't a choice if you really believe in Capitalism, you know, the system that built the most powerful economy in the world?

In the words of Reagan,


Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

That aside, wasting labor? That's called creating jobs. Someone got paid to build these homes for McCain so in essence, he is responsible for assisting the common man in earning a living. I just wish he had 500 homes, think of all the jobs that would have created. What he does with them is his business.
You see, please, take no offense, but this comes from not understanding the basics of economics.

It's not a question of whether you spend the money on 500 homes or don't spend it. Because it's impossible not to spend big money. The only way you could not spend it is if you stored it all as green paper. But you don't store big money as paper, you store it in a bank. Then the bank lends it to people who need it to start or expand a business, and they spend it.
Thus, it's only a question of what you spend it on. And whatever you spend it on, it creates jobs.

But here's the difference.
If you spend $500 million on houses, it creates jobs for the builders of these homes, say 10,000 jobs for 1 year. [We'll take a ratio of 1 job/$100,000.]
If you spend $500 million on building a factory, it creates jobs for the builders of the factory, same 10,000 jobs for 1 year, and it creates jobs for the workers of this factory.
We can even calculate how many: with 5-year non-interest payoff at 50% margin, it creates 4,000 jobs for the factory's lifetime, say 20 years.

You feel the difference? 10,000 temporary jobs, or 10,000 temporary jobs plus 4,000 permanent jobs. That's 10,000 job-years for houses versus 90,000 for factories.




Why? Spending money that otherwise would lead to ..uh.. sitting in the bank collecting dust?
If you think money is sitting in the banks collecting dust, then why do they pay you for storing the money there? Shouldn't it be the other way around then, with you paying the bank for safe storage?

As I've explained above, the bank pays you the interest because it can spend the money and make profits on them. When the bank has more money than needed for daily cash operations, it lowers its credit interest rate, so more people come there and take loans.
Then they spend the money, too. In the simplest case, the loans could be taken by thousands of Joe Average who would spend them on homes for themselves. But most times, banks give loans to investors, entrepreneurs, companies and corporations.

Then these people use the loan money to start or expand a business. And see above. Building a factory creates 9 times more jobs than building houses with the same money.
(It can be any other enterprise, "factory" is just an umbrella word).
If we assume that 50% of money in the bank is taken by regular people, spent on operations, otherwise conventionally spent, and 50% invested, it's still 50,000 jobs versus 10,000.


What should he have done.. just hand the money to the people that built his house for nothing?
No, of course. The best way to spend extra money, if you want to help the economy, is to invest it in companies, so they create jobs and pass the money down to people who produce goods, benefiting others.

Nice try but the real moron in the election is Obama.

Let's get something straight, McCain will give me about 30% of what I want. Obama.. less than 2%. I am stuck with the lesser of two evils but I'll go on record saying that if being forced to choose between a guy that's never flown a plane and one that's been shot down, I'll take the one that's been shot down. :D

Serious, Obama will, according to his website, tax and spend. If you think he will only tax the rich and that it won't affect you, that's your own ignorance, don't expect me to fall for it. The fact of the matter is that when you tax the "rich", you slow the economy and cost America jobs. Don't believe me? Why does unemployment drop every time we give tax cuts? When the top 50% pay 97.3% of the total taxes, EVERY tax cut goes to the "rich" according to the left in this nation. If it doesn't benefit the poor, they don't want to hear about it. Funny enough, the real benefit to the poor is getting out of the way of the upper income individuals so they can build business and create jobs.

McCain isn't my first choice but he's the best of what's left. Obama isn't a choice if you really believe in Capitalism, you know, the system that built the most powerful economy in the world?

In the words of Reagan,
why dont you just say that you wouldnt vote for a democrat instead of pretending that it is some defect in obama that is guiding your vote?

You see, please, take no offense, but this comes from not understanding the basics of economics.

I love it, disagree with them for good reason and you just don't "understand economics".. Sorry fella, I understand them just fine.

It's not a question of whether you spend the money on 500 homes or don't spend it. Because it's impossible not to spend big money. The only way you could not spend it is if you stored it all as green paper. But you don't store big money as paper, you store it in a bank. Then the bank lends it to people who need it to start or expand a business, and they spend it.
Thus, it's only a question of what you spend it on. And whatever you spend it on, it creates jobs.

Nice theory, but spending money and putting it directly into the economy trumps allowing it to be used as loans for direct benefit to an economy. BY FAR.

But here's the difference.
If you spend $500 million on houses, it creates jobs for the builders of these homes, say 10,000 jobs for 1 year. [We'll take a ratio of 1 job/$100,000.]
If you spend $500 million on building a factory, it creates jobs for the builders of the factory, same 10,000 jobs for 1 year, and it creates jobs for the workers of this factory.
We can even calculate how many: with 5-year non-interest payoff at 50% margin, it creates 4,000 jobs for the factory's lifetime, say 20 years.

LOL. So the money spent doesn't go into a business to grow it as direct profits? Sorry but your theory holds no basis in reality. If I give company A $500,000 to build me a house, it is in their pockets and X% is profit where they can grow their business with. If I give it to a bank to LOAN to a company, the same company might borrow the money and grow their business, yet they now are responsible for interest. Companies in the Green that grow will last a lot longer than companies that grow in the RED.

You feel the difference? 10,000 temporary jobs, or 10,000 temporary jobs plus 4,000 permanent jobs. That's 10,000 job-years for houses versus 90,000 for factories.

Yes, I feel the difference, forcing a company to grow in the red to provide jobs -vs- allowing them to grow in the GREEN to provide jobs. Sorry but your theory is flawed. You think it is more productive to let a third party LOAN the cash to a business so they can grow, I think it's more productive to buy something from that company increasing their bottom line and allowing for capital investment that doesn't require loans.

If you think money is sitting in the banks collecting dust, then why do they pay you for storing the money there? Shouldn't it be the other way around then, with you paying the bank for safe storage?

I think when I put cash in the bank it makes THEM rich, not the corporations and individuals that they loan the money to. The only ones that get rich off of cash in the bank is the bank. Everyone else pays for access to that cash. It's far better to put it into the hands of people that earn it so they don't HAVE to go get a loan.

As I've explained above, the bank pays you the interest because it can spend the money and make profits on them. When the bank has more money than needed for daily cash operations, it lowers its credit interest rate, so more people come there and take loans.
Then they spend the money, too. In the simplest case, the loans could be taken by thousands of Joe Average who would spend them on homes for themselves. But most times, banks give loans to investors, entrepreneurs, companies and corporations.

You've explained nothing, you've spouted some half baked theories that don't hold water. I'm not interested in more profits for the banks, I'm interested in capital investments from corporations that create jobs and drive the economy, not organizations that drive us further into debt.

Then these people use the loan money to start or expand a business. And see above. Building a factory creates 9 times more jobs than building houses with the same money.
(It can be any other enterprise, "factory" is just an umbrella word).
If we assume that 50% of money in the bank is taken by regular people, spent on operations, otherwise conventionally spent, and 50% invested, it's still 50,000 jobs versus 10,000.

Still incorrect in your theory.

No, of course. The best way to spend extra money, if you want to help the economy, is to invest it in companies, so they create jobs and pass the money down to people who produce goods, benefiting others.

That I agree with, and the best way to invest that money is to get people to build you a house, growing a corporations' bottom line, creating capital investment from profits -vs- capital investment from loans. Anyone in their right mind will choose green investment over red. ANYONE. Red investment costs you interest and impedes growth.

...at first I read "penis" instead of "pens". Imagine my confusion.

...at first I read "penis" instead of "pens". Imagine my confusion.
ever since someone pointed that out, i keep reading it that way.

its amusing.

why dont you just say that you wouldnt vote for a democrat instead of pretending that it is some defect in obama that is guiding your vote?

Because Democrats are all socialists, Republicans are all Nazis, Greens are all hippies, and People Who Stereotype others are all morons. ;)

why dont you just say that you wouldnt vote for a democrat instead of pretending that it is some defect in obama that is guiding your vote?

Democrats have earned my vote in the past, when they make sense. As of lately they're more like Socialists which I disagree with 100%. I will vote for a Democrat that stands for the right ideas and has some solutions. If Obama came out and said "We need change", I an accept that. Where he loses me is when he wants to change back to the Jimmy Carter days. Where he loses me is the class warfare bullcrap. Where he loses me is wanting to raise taxes and spend even MORE when we can't flippin afford the spending that we're doing right now. Yes, I want a change. I want the Feds to get the hell out of my pocket. I want the Feds to DECREASE SPENDING and to start to balance the budget. What I see from Obama is "We need.."..i.e.. he wants more taxes to spend because Americans just aren't capable of deciding how to spend their own money. I see him wanting to create more programs to "fix" problems when it's Government spending that has created half of the problems we have right now.

No my friend, it is not a Democrat that I won't vote for, it's Obama. I hold no party loyalty, I look at the candidate and what they have to offer and vote accordingly. I just seems I'm stuck voting for Republicans even though at best since Reagan I get 50% of what I want. Reagan gave me about 90% of what I believed in. I see no better option out there than McCain this year at this point. Show me a real conservative and that person has my vote, even if he/she has a D by their name.

Democrats have earned my vote in the past, when they make sense. As of lately they're more like Socialists which I disagree with 100%. I will vote for a Democrat that stands for the right ideas and has some solutions. If Obama came out and said "We need change", I an accept that. Where he loses me is when he wants to change back to the Jimmy Carter days. Where he loses me is the class warfare bullcrap. Where he loses me is wanting to raise taxes and spend even MORE when we can't flippin afford the spending that we're doing right now. Yes, I want a change. I want the Feds to get the hell out of my pocket. I want the Feds to DECREASE SPENDING and to start to balance the budget. What I see from Obama is "We need.."..i.e.. he wants more taxes to spend because Americans just aren't capable of deciding how to spend their own money. I see him wanting to create more programs to "fix" problems when it's Government spending that has created half of the problems we have right now.

No my friend, it is not a Democrat that I won't vote for, it's Obama. I hold no party loyalty, I look at the candidate and what they have to offer and vote accordingly. I just seems I'm stuck voting for Republicans even though at best since Reagan I get 50% of what I want. Reagan gave me about 90% of what I believed in. I see no better option out there than McCain this year at this point. Show me a real conservative and that person has my vote, even if he/she has a D by their name.
and yet you felt the need to call a harvard educated lawyer--president of the harvard law review--a MORON.

wouldnt it have been better to just focus on how you dont agree with his policies instead of pretending that it was some personal defect?

Democrats have earned my vote in the past, when they make sense. As of lately they're more like Socialists which I disagree with 100%. I will vote for a Democrat that stands for the right ideas and has some solutions. If Obama came out and said "We need change", I an accept that. Where he loses me is when he wants to change back to the Jimmy Carter days. Where he loses me is the class warfare bullcrap. Where he loses me is wanting to raise taxes and spend even MORE when we can't flippin afford the spending that we're doing right now. Yes, I want a change. I want the Feds to get the hell out of my pocket. I want the Feds to DECREASE SPENDING and to start to balance the budget. What I see from Obama is "We need.."..i.e.. he wants more taxes to spend because Americans just aren't capable of deciding how to spend their own money. I see him wanting to create more programs to "fix" problems when it's Government spending that has created half of the problems we have right now.

No my friend, it is not a Democrat that I won't vote for, it's Obama. I hold no party loyalty, I look at the candidate and what they have to offer and vote accordingly. I just seems I'm stuck voting for Republicans even though at best since Reagan I get 50% of what I want. Reagan gave me about 90% of what I believed in. I see no better option out there than McCain this year at this point. Show me a real conservative and that person has my vote, even if he/she has a D by their name.

*tear

Don't make me think about what modern America would become if another Carter takes office. Seriously, I don't like Obama, but he's no Carter (close though, closer than McCain anyways).

Nice try but the real moron in the election is Obama.

Let's get something straight, McCain will give me about 30% of what I want. Obama.. less than 2%. I am stuck with the lesser of two evils but I'll go on record saying that if being forced to choose between a guy that's never flown a plane and one that's been shot down, I'll take the one that's been shot down. :D

Serious, Obama will, according to his website, tax and spend. If you think he will only tax the rich and that it won't affect you, that's your own ignorance, don't expect me to fall for it. The fact of the matter is that when you tax the "rich", you slow the economy and cost America jobs. Don't believe me? Why does unemployment drop every time we give tax cuts? When the top 50% pay 97.3% of the total taxes, EVERY tax cut goes to the "rich" according to the left in this nation. If it doesn't benefit the poor, they don't want to hear about it. Funny enough, the real benefit to the poor is getting out of the way of the upper income individuals so they can build business and create jobs.

McCain isn't my first choice but he's the best of what's left. Obama isn't a choice if you really believe in Capitalism, you know, the system that built the most powerful economy in the world?

In the words of Reagan,

WAIT and yet under one of the most neo-con leaders the states economy is dieing with a multi trillion dollar debt and unemployment rates higher (much higher) than 2000.

Democrats have earned my vote in the past, when they make sense. As of lately they're more like Socialists which I disagree with 100%. I will vote for a Democrat that stands for the right ideas and has some solutions. If Obama came out and said "We need change", I an accept that. Where he loses me is when he wants to change back to the Jimmy Carter days. Where he loses me is the class warfare bullcrap. Where he loses me is wanting to raise taxes and spend even MORE when we can't flippin afford the spending that we're doing right now. Yes, I want a change. I want the Feds to get the hell out of my pocket. I want the Feds to DECREASE SPENDING and to start to balance the budget. What I see from Obama is "We need.."..i.e.. he wants more taxes to spend because Americans just aren't capable of deciding how to spend their own money. I see him wanting to create more programs to "fix" problems when it's Government spending that has created half of the problems we have right now.

No my friend, it is not a Democrat that I won't vote for, it's Obama. I hold no party loyalty, I look at the candidate and what they have to offer and vote accordingly. I just seems I'm stuck voting for Republicans even though at best since Reagan I get 50% of what I want. Reagan gave me about 90% of what I believed in. I see no better option out there than McCain this year at this point. Show me a real conservative and that person has my vote, even if he/she has a D by their name.
Two things you have too understand. Firstly The American government has ALOT of debt and a HUGE governmental difference between spending and earnings. In order to fix this the governent will have to do something fairly drastic. 1,it can cut enough spending (say out of education, sanitation and socxial programs). 2, it can get out of Iraq (that alone would save quite a bit though not as much as never having gone would have saved). 3, it can increase Taxes. Even with doing ALL these i don't think your governemnt would be able to balance the books any time soon meaning that, secondly, Someone is going to HAVE to increase Taxes and I'd rather vote for the guy who says upfront that he will do that.

LOL. So the money spent doesn't go into a business to grow it as direct profits? Sorry but your theory holds no basis in reality. If I give company A $500,000 to build me a house, it is in their pockets and X% is profit where they can grow their business with. If I give it to a bank to LOAN to a company, the same company might borrow the money and grow their business, yet they now are responsible for interest. Companies in the Green that grow will last a lot longer than companies that grow in the RED.
Yes, economy is a harsh thing, and there's natural selection. But again, large amount of money in the banks -> lower interest rates -> more companies -> more jobs.


You think it is more productive to let a third party LOAN the cash to a business so they can grow, I think it's more productive to buy something from that company increasing their bottom line and allowing for capital investment that doesn't require loans.
The difference is that when buying something just for the sake of it, 80% of that money also goes to spending involved in making the product, and only 20% (at most) to growth. If you simply give it to the company, they get 100% of it to grow. That's how it works.

But just giving out money would be very generous of you. So what people do is rather invest it in the company - you give it the money, then the company shares its profits with you.
Anything wrong with that?


I think when I put cash in the bank it makes THEM rich, not the corporations and individuals that they loan the money to. The only ones that get rich off of cash in the bank is the bank. Everyone else pays for access to that cash.
Nope, it's you who gets most rich off the cash in the bank - the bank pays you the interest.

And then the bank could invest it. Give it to a company, and demand a share of profits when they come. Actually, many banks do exactly that.


You've explained nothing, you've spouted some half baked theories that don't hold water.
It's not "my theories", I had a few semesters on the economy, and that's what it says, except simplified and reworded.

That I agree with, and the best way to invest that money is to get people to build you a house,
No, it isn't. They'll spend 80% for raw materials and other stuff. But if you just give them the money, they can spend 100% on growth.

and yet you felt the need to call a harvard educated lawyer--president of the harvard law review--a MORON.

wouldnt it have been better to just focus on how you dont agree with his policies instead of pretending that it was some personal defect?

His policies make him a moron in my eyes. Don't like it, tough. Education doesn't make a person smart. Obama wants to grow the Federal Government at a time when we cannot afford more spending and wants to increase taxes at a time when business is already having a rough go with energy prices. That makes him a moron to me.

Of course he isn't going to say how many houses he has. You would do the same thing, if he says right off the bat, "Well I have 7 houses" Your not going to get people to vote for you when they are trying to keep 1 house.

Two things you have too understand. Firstly The American government has ALOT of debt and a HUGE governmental difference between spending and earnings. In order to fix this the governent will have to do something fairly drastic. 1,it can cut enough spending (say out of education, sanitation and socxial programs). 2, it can get out of Iraq (that alone would save quite a bit though not as much as never having gone would have saved). 3, it can increase Taxes. Even with doing ALL these i don't think your governemnt would be able to balance the books any time soon meaning that, secondly, Someone is going to HAVE to increase Taxes and I'd rather vote for the guy who says upfront that he will do that.

I don't accept your argument. Tax increases will lead to a slowing of the economy which will decrease tax revenues long term. Proven time after time. On the other side of the coin, allow business to grow the economy and revenues increase and drive down the debt. The ONLY logical fix is to cut spending, which can be done. There are a lot of different ideas on how much, but I would be willing to bet we could chop 20% off of the budget just by killing the fraud waste and abuse. For reference, that would amount to about $600 billion next year, more than the Federal Deficit. Just for your own information, (I've done it) make a spreadsheet. Take today's spending and freeze it. If we want to spend $3 trillion next year, cut from programs to increase others. Allow for average revenue increases over the past 40 years and watch how fast the deficit goes away. All we have to do is FREEZE spending and we can be in the green in a very short period of time. Anyone that tells you we Can't do that is just not living in reality.

His policies make him a moron in my eyes. Don't like it, tough. Education doesn't make a person smart. Obama wants to grow the Federal Government at a time when we cannot afford more spending and wants to increase taxes at a time when business is already having a rough go with energy prices. That makes him a moron to me.
that makes you a bad debater to ME

go figure.

Of course he isn't going to say how many houses he has. You would do the same thing, if he says right off the bat, "Well I have 7 houses" Your not going to get people to vote for you when they are trying to keep 1 house.

Or if you say "I have 7 houses" and it ends up that you have 4 condo's, two houses and another house that your aunt lives in, then you get attacked by the media again.

I guess I'm just tired of the media painting any form of success in a bad light. When did it become a crime to make a profit and spend it how you see fit in this country?

His policies make him a moron in my eyes. Don't like it, tough. Education doesn't make a person smart. Obama wants to grow the Federal Government at a time when we cannot afford more spending and wants to increase taxes at a time when business is already having a rough go with energy prices. That makes him a moron to me.

energy prices have fallen over the last couple of weeks. The lack of available funding and the "hard time" buisnesses are going through are entirely due to the previous republican government. Education makes educated. . .you know about things like the economy. Things you seem to have little education in. Increasing spending in order to fund buisness initiatives is exactly the way for a government to break out of an economic slump (Roosevelt`s new deal anyone) the fact that you've failed to consider these points . . . .ill leave it at that.

Two things you have too understand. Firstly The American government has ALOT of debt and a HUGE governmental difference between spending and earnings. In order to fix this the governent will have to do something fairly drastic.
It's been this way for a lot of time. Nothing drastic.

1,it can cut enough spending (say out of education, sanitation and socxial programs).
What about rather out of USAF, and out of dumb micromanagement?

2, it can get out of Iraq (that alone would save quite a bit though not as much as never having gone would have saved).
Yes, it has no place there.

Even with doing ALL these i don't think your governemnt would be able to balance the books any time soon
There's no need to immediately zero out the national debt.

Increasing taxes hurts the economy, then next year you collect less taxes, then you have to increase taxes again. It's a vicious circle leading to economic collapse, like USSR had.

that makes you a bad debater to ME

go figure.

LMAO. You're allowed your opinions no matter how silly they may be. :D:D

I pointed out why I think Obama is a moron. His policies. I think he's bad for America and I refuse to jump on the PC bandwagon in fears of hurting his feelings. Feelings aren't protected by the Constitution.

Or if you say "I have 7 houses" and it ends up that you have 4 condo's, two houses and another house that your aunt lives in, then you get attacked by the media again.

I guess I'm just tired of the media painting any form of success in a bad light. When did it become a crime to make a profit and spend it how you see fit in this country?
if it were just the media it would indeed be annoying.

but mccain was hoist by his own petard.

he really shouldnt have been painting obama as an elitist when he is in a higher category yet.

Ah well, when Obama wins, four of McCain's residences will be converted into mosques, and three into blocks of flats to house proletarians who lost their homes due to the housing crisis. You know, what with Obama being a Muslim, and all Democrats being commies? :p

It's been this way for a lot of time. Nothing drastic.


What about rather out of USAF, and out of dumb micromanagement?


Yes, it has no place there.


There's no need to immediately zero out the national debt.

Increasing taxes hurts the economy, then next year you collect less taxes, then you have to increase taxes again. It's a vicious circle leading to economic collapse, like USSR had.

1)um its quite a bit worse than it was during the bill clinton government
2)Agreed. (though lowering american millitary funding or, even better, reworking it, is probably not really feasable.)
3)agreed
4) Increase taxes one year. Pay of national debt . . .NOW you dont have to spend as much on the INTREST on your debt. Meaning you have more disposable monney from the taxes you collect and you dont have to tax as much allowing you to increase your economy while NOT cutting programs.

A million dollars buys you 2,000 square feet here. Not exactly a mansion.

Not exactly working-class everyman either.

Obama and his supporters can't seem to grasp that elitism and humility have little to do with what you own and everything to do with attitude.

Case in point, Warren Buffet: worth billions, still drives an old pick-up and lives in the same house he's had for decades.

On the other hand, the Obamas: financially, you could still squeeze them into the upper middle class, nothing special about that. But they look down their noses at people who go to church, oppose abortion, and shoot a couple of deer.

You want an elitist in the White House, vote Obama.

1)um its quite a bit worse than it was during the bill clinton government
Yes. But national debt isn't like the debt to your loan shark. It's very flexible.


4) Increase taxes one year. Pay of national debt . . .NOW you dont have to spend as much on the INTREST on your debt.
This is silly. Tax-through-the-sky for a year will bring a lot more damage than the interest does.

Again, there's an assumption that debt is necessarily a terrible thing... It isn't.
Say, if you take a loan for 10%, and it lets you grow at 15%, you're winning, and should only take more. Virtually all corporations have debts, often massive ones. They don't keep money for expenses, they take a loan whenever they need money, much like you with the credit card, only repaying much later, when it's convenient. Many operate with large constant debt. Having debts is normal for a large entity.

The debt should be repaid if the interest exceeds economic growth, like it does now, but there's no need to do it all in one year - paying interest will end up cheaper than healing the economy for the damage caused by excessive taxes.


---
And programs should be cut. People should be just given the money to use it as they need.

Not exactly working-class everyman either.

Obama and his supporters can't seem to grasp that elitism and humility have little to do with what you own and everything to do with attitude.

Case in point, Warren Buffet: worth billions, still drives an old pick-up and lives in the same house he's had for decades.

That's not "attitude," that's "PR." That's pretending to be an "everyman" just so people like you will go "Aha! It's someone I can relate to!" As if any presidential candidate is really an "everyman."

On the other hand, the Obamas: financially, you could still squeeze them into the upper middle class, nothing special about that. But they look down their noses at people who go to church, oppose abortion, and shoot a couple of deer.

What exactly does one's attitude towards church, abortion or deer hunting have to do with finances or class or attitude or being an "everyman?" Nothing, right? Right.

You want an elitist in the White House, vote Obama.

It's the White House. If you have a shot of living there in the first place, you're an elitist by definition.

You go on and vote based on "attitude" and appearance. Me, I'm going to vote for the guy who is vaguely less likely to fuck up my country.

Not exactly working-class everyman either.

Obama and his supporters can't seem to grasp that elitism and humility have little to do with what you own and everything to do with attitude.

Case in point, Warren Buffet: worth billions, still drives an old pick-up and lives in the same house he's had for decades.

On the other hand, the Obamas: financially, you could still squeeze them into the upper middle class, nothing special about that. But they look down their noses at people who go to church, oppose abortion, and shoot a couple of deer.

You want an elitist in the White House, vote Obama.

Your best example of elitism not being about what you own is to cite two things that Warren Buffet owns?

4) Increase taxes one year. Pay of national debt . . .NOW you dont have to spend as much on the INTREST on your debt. Meaning you have more disposable monney from the taxes you collect and you dont have to tax as much allowing you to increase your economy while NOT cutting programs.

LMAO, you would have to collect the GDP to pay off the national debt in 1 year. Almost the ENTIRE GDP.

You go on and vote based on "attitude" and appearance. Me, I'm going to vote for the guy who is vaguely less likely to fuck up my country.

We have a winner... McCain gets the nod.

Obama is no poor boy himself. Lives in a million plus dollar mansion.

A million dollars isn't all that much anymore. There are several million dollar homes in my town and they're not even very big. Hell, we bought our house originally for 29,000, and now it's supposedly worth $800,000. We could sell it and be sorta wealthy, but then we wouldn't have a house, lol.

LMAO, you would have to collect the GDP to pay off the national debt in 1 year. Almost the ENTIRE GDP.
And you really can't anyway, since half the GDP is services - something you can't just pack on ships and sell abroad.

Freeze spending and the national debt gets paid off in about 26 years, providing the economy continues to grow at the average pace of the previous 40 years.

On the other hand, the Obamas: financially, you could still squeeze them into the upper middle class, nothing special about that. But they look down their noses at people who go to church, oppose abortion, and shoot a couple of deer.

You want an elitist in the White House, vote Obama.

Proof that they do those things, please?

Proof that they do those things, please?

He won't be able to come up with any. The Obamas go to church themselves, and while, like myself and If I recall correctly, you as well, they support a woman's right to choose, thus disagreeing with those who oppose abortion, but I'd hardly say they "look down their noses" at the pro-lifers any more than the latter look down their noses at those they disagree with.

Freeze spending and the national debt gets paid off in about 26 years, providing the economy continues to grow at the average pace of the previous 40 years.
It might be actually more cost-efficient not to pay the debt. The debt's in dollars, the dollar's falling, thus offsetting the interest, and it could collapse in the near to mid future - voila, debt's gone.

It might be actually more cost-efficient not to pay the debt. The debt's in dollars, the dollar's falling, thus offsetting the interest, and it could collapse in the near to mid future - voila, debt's gone.

That's not how it works, I'm afraid. Foreign powers own more than "Symbolic Dollars," they own companies, land, bonds, etc.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3196/2793290383_ecd85e4347_o.jpg

i heard a snippet of an interview with mccain this morning. the interviewer was asking him about this housing gaff.

his answer started out with "well i went 51/2 years without a kitchen table"....meaning

SHUT UP I WAS A POW, DAMMIT

its the only shot he has

That's not how it works, I'm afraid. Foreign powers own more than "Symbolic Dollars," they own companies, land, bonds, etc.
Less than a mere fraction of what US owns in each of these powers.