Obama or McCain?

[TheAnimus]

And that is a great example of the problem. These people clearly can't budget for themselfs.

So they've got over $635 in welfair, and $100 in food stamps.

Whilst they claim to spend $100 on rent, $125 on electricity (i'm assuming no gas), $300 for groceries.

Now, that leaves over $200 a month for the car ($35) and other requirements.

How are they spending other peoples money, and still defaulting on a car repayment that low. I also get the impression they clearly can't cook and re-use food, as $300 a month for food for two people who've plenty of time to prepare food is folly.

The problem is giving them more money isn't going to help, it will only perpetuate their ineffeciencies in much the same way, if they have a kid, they get rewarded for choosing to have a child (rape asside) that they can't support. Well done, you've failed as the basic parentle roll of been able to put food on the table to provide for your genetic proliferation. Have some money. Its ludicrous.

[Mithrandir]

Decide here

[2Cold Scorpio]

The problem here is one largely of perspective. The British have good welfare programs. OK, they aren't 'Good'. They're inefficient and expensive and have many threads worth of stuff wrong with them. But the US has very bad welfare. They pay about the same in taxes but get little to nothing for them.

Here's a classic example: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=92592545

Take a look at the financial profile of these poor illiterates. Now, before anyone reacts to the small amounts of money, let me remind you that everything here is cheaper. For benefit of comparison, they spend $250 a month on groceries. Thats about the same as we do, and we live very well with my expensive foreign palate. They also spend $100+ a month on electricity. We spend $40.

So basically we have two utterly useless people paid by the government to sit in front of multiple TV's and eat all day. Suddenly our chilly friend makes a lot more sense with his hatred of welfare, and that's the American perspective. The hopeless are paid by the hardworking to watch TV all day.

Of course, we British would read that story and say, give them a bus pass (or start a subsidised bus route too and from that housing complex) and make them pay rent, so that they have to work. That's our idea of welfare: Providing support so that people can make a life for themselves.

And we could make them have to run for the bus...

They do need a welfare reform. But the democrats are more likely to throw money into providing helthcare for the useless than to reform the system in the way it needs to be. Because that would be 'socialist'.

"Of course, we British would read that story and say, give them a bus pass (or start a subsidised bus route too and from that housing complex) and make them pay rent, so that they have to work. That's our idea of welfare: Providing support so that people can make a life for themselves."

Now THAT is a system I could support. I don't mind helping folks (and have donated to charities when I could...may not be much, but its something) when I can who are helping themselves. But when my money goes to people watching TV all day while I work and live check to check, I get quite mad. And I get really mad when people, mostly democrats advocate this lunacy!

Generally I say pay your own danged bills. If you're trying and need a little help (not constantly, but for a period of time...hey, we all have rough patches), that's fine. But i ain't paying for your whole way of life. This is the same reason I oppose nationalized health care. ^_^

And that is a great example of the problem. These people clearly can't budget for themselfs.

So they've got over $635 in welfair, and $100 in food stamps.

Whilst they claim to spend $100 on rent, $125 on electricity (i'm assuming no gas), $300 for groceries.

Now, that leaves over $200 a month for the car ($35) and other requirements.

How are they spending other peoples money, and still defaulting on a car repayment that low. I also get the impression they clearly can't cook and re-use food, as $300 a month for food for two people who've plenty of time to prepare food is folly.

The problem is giving them more money isn't going to help, it will only perpetuate their ineffeciencies in much the same way, if they have a kid, they get rewarded for choosing to have a child (rape asside) that they can't support. Well done, you've failed as the basic parentle roll of been able to put food on the table to provide for your genetic proliferation. Have some money. Its ludicrous.

Heh, exactly. Well said, my friend.

[TeePee]

This is the same reason I oppose nationalized health care.

Nationalized healthcare isn't about supporting a way of life, it's about supporting survival. This is why every civilized country in the world has some form of government assured healthcare.

Thanks to the bad welfare system in the US, many people assume that 'communist' healthcare means providing more for the useless ingrates who make their living on welfare. The reality is the taxpayer currently spends far more providing care to the dying in their final days than it would have cost to treat their condition when it first occured.

The vast majority of people who would benefit from government assured healthcare would be people able to return to work (and pay taxes) resulting in a net gain for the economy.

Most Americans also don't understand that government assured healthcare isn't necessarily government provided healthcare. The Swiss have a system where everyone is guaranteed insurance on a sliding scale of cost, making insurance affordable for everyone.

There is something broken in a country where someone can't work because their untreated Asthma is so bad, and they can't afford the medications. Of course, they live on welfare, and get their food stamps. How much would the taxpayer save if this person could get the treatment they need?

[Jokerdog33]

I think they should stick with Bush, hes worth it for commedy value alone

[2Cold Scorpio]

I think they should stick with Bush, hes worth it for commedy value alone

You have a point. We can't really make fun of Obama without getting labeled racist, even if the joke weren't even race-related! Where's the fun in that? Clinton and Bush were both comedy gold mines. If Obama gets elected, Jay Leno and David Letterman may well be out of a job (nevermind the fact they're both looking to retire in a few years anyways...convenient timing that!).

[TeePee]

The race has taken an interesting twist, and would you believe I actually think Obama might have a chance, there is hope!

And that hope is with Sarah Palin, McCains Hillary-like (Because she's a woman, see) creationist VP nominee. She's there for family values, yet it's just been announced that her 17yo daughter is preggers, and the rumour is it's not her first.... Which just adds irony to the fact that her 'abstinence-only position on sex education just doesn't work!

Far be it for me to presume an American has basic intelligence, but there are so many wildcards. I suspect the only people voting in this election will be African Americans and swing voters.

As I said, there is hope!

[TooNice]

This is kind of like the Olympics, but longer (from a media perspective anyway).

[breezer]

Obama me thinks. Not really bothered though.

[directhex]

okay, what the ****?

i just ran the numbers.

mccain, a man in his 70s with a history of cancer, picked "relative unknown" sarah palin, to be his choice for VP.

in a rush to explain why palin's complete lack of experience doesn't matter but obama's is a terrible thing, they're touting "executive experience" as part of the city council (and eventual mayor) of Wasilla, AK. the mccain campaign turned "experience" into their main talking point, so i'm talking about it. they're using her time as Wasilla mayor as proof that she already knows how to be president for 300 million people. no specific things to cite, just a general "she's got lots of executive experience".

Wasilla is not a large city. Wasilla is, in fact, small. it's very small. 30 times smaller than Basingstoke. smaller than Gerrards Cross. smaller than Princes Risborough. about half the size of Thame. it's a town where the main executive experience is going to be "when shall we have the town fete this year?"

is that IT? the best they can do in terms of proving this woman to be ready to be president is that she handwaved a little at the village events, and is in a state physically close to siberia?

remember, the issue here is not absolute - it's about saying one thing and doing another. the mccain campaign made experience the CORNERSTONE of their campaign. i'm not saying she has any less experience than inexperienced mister obama - but the democrats aren't trying to say that experience is the crucial, most important point

and don't get me started on "i support abstinence only, no sex ed in schools, don't talk about my daughter's private matters"

who the buggery**** would vote for these clowns without a full frontal lobotomy, followed by a full rear lobotomy?

[Byatt]

who the buggery**** would vote for these clowns without a full frontal lobotomy, followed by a full rear lobotomy?

May I (re)introduce you to the delights of BBC's Have Your Say

*shudders.

[00oceanic]

Obama, simply cos i don't like bush (and his party)

[broadinscope]

Obama, McCain sounds like more of the same. Not that it will change anything too drastically anyways..

[shadowmaster]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/oliv...08.barackobama

You gotta love the ad

[nichomach]

May I (re)introduce you to the delights of BBC's Have Your Say

*shudders.

Here you go, squire:
The Tw*t-o-Tron.

[kingfoo]

i think Obama going to win