Obama and Biden want to give $50 billion to the U.N.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Great idea, because we totally have our house in order here in the U.S.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/19/obama-laments-debt-but-promises-billions-for-anti-poverty-program/

In short, Obama's whining about how the poor and middle class are being repressed by the evil right, but he thinks we should be adding more to our national debt to take care of the poor elsewhere before we take care of our own.

:td

Not that Bush and the Republicans (when they had control of Congress) haven't fucked us all over financially, but now Obama wants to come over the top with even more ludicrous spending.

And this, among other things, is why I don't want Obama anywhere near the Oval Office. I'd like the dollar to be worth more than a peso in five years, thank you.

[boutons_]

slime alert. HUSSEIN is not whining, he's stating a fact.

To be "fair and balanced", while I agree with the humanitarian intention of helping the world's poor, I disagree that the UN is the conduit I agree with UN critics that poverty money, as with "charities" in the USA, is gobbled up by fat-cat administrators and govts, with a nominal trickle actually reaching the poor. Fix that (probably unfixable) problem first, before wasting money on it.

While we permit DTC, (BigPharma incessantly spamming us with $60B/year of direct-to-consumer ads), but we cannot do DTP, direct-to-poor because of the corrupt fat-cats in the channel, and the need to respect sovereignty of mostly corrupt (like in the USA) governments of poor countries.

USA poverty, esp childhood poverty, has increased in dubya's 8 years, while the super-wealthy have taken a bigger bite of national wealth (mostly from bullshit, unregulated financial debt dealings and dubya's $800B estate tax cuts). If we can't lift more Americans out of poverty, we very probably can't lift foreign poor out of poverty. It's pretty clear that right-wingers are social Darwinists, anyway.

Show a link to the McWorse/Repug platform that expresses ANY humanitarian concerns and programs for anybody, domestic or foreign. (pre-empting hint: continuing/increased tax cuts for corps and super-wealthy aren't humanitarian programs)

[SnakeBoy]

I agree with the humanitarian intention of helping the world's poor

as long as they're not in Iraq. Fuck those people.

[Anti.Hero]

Life's not fair. But keep catering to the weak to strengthen America. I'm sure we'll last another 200 years.

Didn't we just give 50 bil to Africa. Jesus Christ. Can I have one of dem moneyz printin' machines????

[Shastafarian]

Life's not fair. But keep catering to the weak to strengthen America. I'm sure we'll last another 200 years.

Ignoring them for the past 8 years has sure as shit worked hasn't it?

[Anti.Hero]

Ignoring them for the past 8 years has sure as shit worked hasn't it?

Ignoring them? Gimme a fucking break.

Should we be like the Dems and give them just enough to get by (for a vote) while keeping them poor modern day slaves dependent on the government???

[whottt]

Great idea, because we totally have our house in order here in the U.S.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/19/obama-laments-debt-but-promises-billions-for-anti-poverty-program/

In short, Obama's whining about how the poor and middle class are being repressed by the evil right, but he thinks we should be adding more to our national debt to take care of the poor elsewhere before we take care of our own.

:td

Not that Bush and the Republicans (when they had control of Congress) haven't fucked us all over financially, but now Obama wants to come over the top with even more ludicrous spending.

And this, among other things, is why I don't want Obama anywhere near the Oval Office. I'd like the dollar to be worth more than a peso in five years, thank you.


Anyone that thinks that money is actually going to poor people is stupider than the people voting for Obama are.


Hate on W all you want...but he's the only reason they haven't attempted to pass that bill yet.

[whottt]

Life's not fair. But keep catering to the weak to strengthen America. I'm sure we'll last another 200 years.

Didn't we just give 50 bil to Africa. Jesus Christ. Can I have one of dem moneyz printin' machines????


It's not just that...it's that Americans already give an astronomically large amount through charitable organizations.


It's just going to kill all the charitable organizations in America...people won't give to them anymore once that is being taken out of their taxes. And even less of that money is going to go to poor people than it does now.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Ignoring them for the past 8 years has sure as shit worked hasn't it?

Ignoring them? What world do you live in?

Between welfare, giving people mortgages they have no business qualifying for (all under the auspices that everyone should be able to own a house), not paying any taxes, etc. I'd say they've hardly been ignored.

[boutons_]

"giving people mortgages they have no business qualifying for"

slime alert. Nobody forced the mostly sophisticated lenders (getting bailed out) to lend to unqualified, often-unsophisticated, often-first-time borrowers (left to Twist In The Wind). Greenspan's too-low interests rates fueled a feeding frenzy, with lending sharks chomping up borrrowers they knew were unqualified.

A large portion of the housing bubble was home owners, often upper/middle class financial winners, greedily re-financing their homes and themselves into huge debt.

"all under the auspices that everyone should be able to own a house"

slime alert. The lenders were willingly lending to make money, not to give away homes.

[Shastafarian]

Ignoring them? What world do you live in?


It's an interesting place really. It's called the real world. Drop by sometime.

[Tully365]

It seems obvious to me that in the mortgage crisis there are many at fault: the people who took out mortgages that were too large for them, the mortgage companies and banks that gave out loans to high risk, bad credit borrowers, industry regulators, politicans, etc.
But in a scenario where a wealthy, finance-savvy company whose existence is based on the sophisticated understanding of finance decides to loan money to an individual with bad credit, low earnings, a poor earnings-to-debt ratio, etc., who is more at fault? Neither is faultless, but shouldn't the money experts be the smarter decision makers in money issues than the financially unsophisticated?