What Is Next For The Point?

KHTOExtreme - sorry to jump down your throat. I don't want to personally attack you or any other individual. I just have a problem with people thinking the government or the country owe them something. Everything they give to one person comes out of the pocket of another or is added to our debt - neither of which is a great thing. I just don't like the philosophy of government redistribution of wealth. And I'm not even rich by any means. I just don't think it works. I want the government to keep me safe, give us some infrastructure to do business, and maybe maintain some standards for education. They have their nose in way too many things and they've proven they can't do any of them as efficiently as private industry or individuals.

bholcomb said:
How is it ok for you to live in a house and eat off the government?

exactlyyyyyyyyyyyyy. or drive around that jeep with 2,000$$$ rims on it?

bholcomb said:
Well if you're so poor, have you considered getting a second part-time job?

Also, I would like a house, but I realize that I can't reasonably afford one right now. How is it ok for you to live in a house and eat off the government?

That's it. I'm getting a house. And government assistance!

I am not poor poor poor I don't totally eat off the gov't Also with your statement about a second part time job is I have one, taking care of my Grandma which I don't receive pay for but it is my caring and compassion that is the pay. I don't expect the gov't to take care of everyone as it is not the gov't job to do everything for them.

cpfanatic066 said:

bholcomb said:
How is it ok for you to live in a house and eat off the government?

exactlyyyyyyyyyyyyy. or drive around that jeep with 2,000$$$ rims on it?

The house I live in is my Grandmothers and I don't drive a jeep with fancyrims. It is a S-10 truck which i use for my job and it has so manydents in it but it doesn't bother me it gets me around and does justfine.

MDOmnis said:
KHTOExtreme- sorry to jump down your throat.

Thank you for your apology I do feel the same way and wealth redistribution in non sensewe need to fix the problem at hand and start to stand up for ourselvesand let the politicians have it.

Seeing as how the presidential race could be broken down into: "I don't know where <insert name> got that from..." followed by: "I'm not sure where <insert name> is getting his facts from.." It seems to me the upcoming election is nothing but a lesser of the two evils decision. Neither candidate is remotely qualified to fix anything...but we don't really have much choice. But voting should be based on which candidate more aligns with your personal views, that much I agree with.

I disagree completely. People have clear records and policy. They have Web sites where you can see what they want to do. But you have to turn off the TV, ignore the ads, and find out what they actually stand for.

But... But... John McCain said he approved that message where he called Obama a poopy head. All this time I believed it. :(

I'm tired of TV ads already.

Jeff, the time when a candidate actually follows through on even half of their policies listed on their websites or other "clear" media, I'll take back what I said, since I have yet to be proven wrong, I'll stick to my opinion. And I wasn't implying that simply based off of the debates and tv ads will my vote be based, assuming I haven't already done the background research is assinine in of itself.

After checking in after not reading this thread for 24 hours...

*slowly backs out and quietly closes door.*

Let's be clear though... a president can only do what Congress agrees with. For most of my lifetime, the controlling party has been opposite of the White House. And honestly, I don't think that's a bad thing, because it tends to filter out all of the stuff that falls too radically either way.

A good president surrounds him or herself with smart people too. Even Bush got that in most cases, but over the years they all left him.

I suppose I'm just not as jaded as a lot of people.

A true point, and for the record, I'm not attacking you for your opinion, we might have differing views which is fine. I think Jeff, that Bush ended up driving his smart people away...I can't remember the exact year when it started, but I recall the headlines whenever a member of his cabinet resigned, or someone else dropped their support...there's not much left of his original support circle, thats for sure.

I just finished watching the VP debate, and was wondering how in the heck Palin was even allowed to be mayor...politics can be sadly amusing sometimes.

I just finished watching the VP debate, and was wondering how in the heck Palin was even allowed to be mayor...politics can be sadly amusing sometimes.

How so? Sarah Pain showed last night that she is capable of being vice president. The bias media has just been bashing Palin because they don't like her obviously. I hope you're smart enough to not fall for the garbage they spew out.

Yea, I didn't think she knocked it out of the park like she did with her convention speech, but she went up against someone who has been in Washington for 35 years, and she held her own just fine. She's smarter than most of the media gives her credit for.

The McCain campaign needs to do a better job of telling people the root cause of the housing/economic mess we're dealing with now. I'm not sure why we've heard so little about the Community Reinvestment Act and the corruption at Fannie and Freddie and the Democrats shooting down warnings about these problems and proposed new oversight. Everyone keeps saying "Wall St" as if CEOs making big salaries caused this. Don't get me wrong, some of them make more than they deserve and it's one of the few jobs on earth where you can get fired and still collect a huge paycheck (others being profesional athletes/coaches), but their salaries did not cause this.

Yeah, she did a great job. Much like the current administration, she has absolutely no problem not answering any questions, even admittedly so.

The most frightening part was that she agreed with Cheney, in that the VP position is somehow magical and deserves more power. Yikes.

Yes, I was a bit distressed to hear that as well. She seemed to imply that she and McCain would give the vice president a more active role in the Senate. That's frightening since the Constitution is very clear that the Vice President only gets to vote in the event of a tie in the Senate. More than anything else, that tells me that a McCain administration would only continue Bush's power grab from Congress.

Glad to see some people saw right through the "gotcha's" and winks...and actually focused on what she said. Oh, and did anyone catch the fact she didn't even know the commanders name? Biden kept pointing out, and I think even the moderator had to remind her, she wasn't answering any of the questions. She'll fit right in at the White House.

Did you guys see the same debate I did? She didn't answer ANY of the questions. You ask her about the economy and she starts talking about her kitchen table. How can anyone be OK with that? I'll give her that she's got a great personality, but I'm not interested in hearing that John McCain is a maverick over and over again. What is he going to do? She doesn't know.

...Democrats shooting down warnings about these problems...

Wait, you mean the problems caused by the deregulation craze of the last decade? So you're one of the people who accuses the Dems of wanting to control everything, big government, etc., and yet the regulations governing dozens of industries were dismantled primarily by Republican legislators, including those that governed the financial sector. You can't have it both ways, which is exactly why making it about one party or the other is non-productive.

You know why American radio sucks? Deregulation. I saw it happen while I was working in it, when the deregulation craze rocked the FCC and lifted ownership limits. Now two companies own most of radio, and it's homogenized crap devoid of local and scarce resource principles that justified heavy regulation in the first place. It's a great example of how a dogmatic approach to any high ideal as a black and white issue ultimately backfires.

And the market responded to the crap they tried to pass off as good. Who listens to radio anymore anyway? I can't imagine broadcast TV and Radio will be around for more than another 10-15 years.

Jeff - there's the problem. Congress never approaches anything logically. If removing some regulations is good (which it is) then they determine that removing all of them is better. Just as they will believe the inverse (adding some regulations is good, so over-regulating must be better).

CPboy77 said:
How so? Sarah Pain showed last night that she is capable of being vice president.

Yes - you're correct on that. She is capable of being the Vice President. She is also capable of being a complete useless airhead... In traditional politics from previous administrations the Vice President has commonly taken the role of a figure head, and only is allowed to vote in the Senate in the case of a tie. We could all debate what party clout she may hold, but I just don't take her seriously in matters of state and world affairs...

The bias media has just been bashing Palin because they don't like her obviously. I hope you're smart enough to not fall for the garbage they spew out.

Where is your fact for that assumption? "they don't like her obviously"..... Well I could assume someone who lives in Birmingham is rich and spoiled, but that wouldn't be a fair assumption either.

Perhaps we can all agree that the present situation is not acceptable, no matter what party affiliation you are. I would like a third, fourth, or even fifth option, but alas that is not going to happen.

bholcomb said:
And the market responded to the crap they tried to pass off as good. Who listens to radio anymore anyway? I can't imagine broadcast TV and Radio will be around for more than another 10-15 years.

First off, radio advertising has been flat to slightly growing since deregulation, so you're wrong. But you still illustrate the point that you and lawmakers disregard the complexities of the situation in favor of letting the market do whatever.

As I said, the justification for the regulation of broadcast media is predicated on scarcity. In other words, there is limited spectrum, and you can't just start a radio station because you want to. There has to be a specific frequency open and it can't interfere with other stations. That's why the licensing process used to consider serving the public trust and limit ownership. It's the same rationale for enforcing community standards for content.

It's the same thing I've been saying over and over, that it's apparently easier for some people to prescribe a black and white standard and dogmatically apply it to things instead of appreciating that most things fall into a gray area. With radio, it was deregulate and ignore the scarcity doctrine that has been serving us well for decades. For lending, it was deregulate to foster more home sales and see that love spread throughout the economy. In both cases, it went too far.

This is a good description of what happened, probably the best I've seen. Even Palin could understand it.