View Poll Results: Over the past 7 years, how would you rate President Bush’s Overall Performance?

Voters
56. You may not vote on this poll
  • Overall, I would rate his performance as Great

    6 10.71%
  • Overall, I would rate his performance as Good

    7 12.50%
  • Overall, I would rate his performance as OK

    4 7.14%
  • Overall, I would rate his performance as Poor

    9 16.07%
  • Overall, I would rate his performance as Terrible

    30 53.57%
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 109

Thread: Rate President Bush's Performance

  1. #76
    Just An Optician jediron1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    USA, New York
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Grubendol View Post
    Dude, you’ve got jedi in your name, you can’t be all bad ;)
    Really! I m Bad! ;)

  2. #77
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin View Post
    ... My problem is with paying to support other individuals. Paying for someone else's medical care, retirement, etc. is NOT the same as paying the dues necessary to defend the country, allow for commerce, etc.....
    So what's in store for those who don't have the means to pay for their own medical care, etc.?
    ...Just ask me...

  3. #78
    One of the worst people here
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    8,331
    Quote Originally Posted by Spexvet View Post
    So what's in store for those who don't have the means to pay for their own medical care, etc.?
    throw in the fact that some members on this board want a decrease in minimum wage

  4. #79
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,954
    So what's in store for those who don't have the means to pay for their own medical care, etc.?
    Excellent question- and I'm not going to pretend (as liberals have) to have the correct answer to that question.

    Apparently we can agree that:
    1.) some people have more money than they "need" (although the definition of "how much one needs" is quite disputable)
    2.) some people have less than other people

    My question is this:
    Should the federal government- in its broadly interpreted exercise of protecting the "welfare" of its citizens FORCE citizens it deems to be in group one to give money, aid, etc. to citizens it deems to be in group two?

    At this time, the federal government does forcibly redistribute wealth- that's not at question. If the answer to the above is "yes, it should" then the question becomes- "Well, how much is enough to satisfy someone's needs?" Obviously, according to the existing definitions of groups 1 & 2, I make more than my family needs- because each year some of my salary and wages are taken from me to assist those who make less than I do pay for medical care, retirement, disability, etc. At the same time, I need to provide food and shelter for my family and save towards my own retirement, and children's college funds. Meanwhile, each year more and more people move into this country and instantly become members of group 2, so I naturally wonder just how much I'll be asked to provide for this group- because (believe it or not) I have a hard enough time providing for the things my own family needs.

    If the answer to the above is "Ideally, the federal government should not be redistributing wealth..." (which is obviously the conclusion I've made.), then your question becomes rather important. Should the state governments (i.e., the citizens of each state) be charged with providing for those who are poor, should individual private citizens be charged with providing directly for specific poor individuals? Should the poor be shipped out to a special area to languish (just listing options- not one that I would advocate)?

    Throw in the fact that some members on this board want a decrease in minimum wage.
    Soon, a 16 year old flipping burgers at McDonalds will make- at minimum- $8.35 (or whatever the figure I see on the posters is) per hour! Here's the problem with raising the minimum wage (I won't argue we should decrease it, but the same principle applies). Certain types of labor aren't WORTH $8.35 an hour. In other words, for certain types of labor, there is only so much profit that can be generated by that labor. Since private businesses are not in business to be non-profit, the business owner needs to ensure his/her labor costs are in proportion to the profit being made. There are only three things that can happen when the minimum wage is raised:
    1.) hire people who don't complain if they do not make minimum wage (there is a steady, if illegal, supply of these workers- and its already causing problems in our society/economy)
    2.) lay off workers and attempt to improve efficiency among the remaining workers (result- work the fewer people you pay harder)
    3.) raise prices (which leads to inflation and is just one more way in which we redistribute wealth from the people who pay for goods to the people who make them).

    I've worked for minimum wage (when it was $5.35/hour)- as a laboratory technician. We didn't have much, but I think we had enough to cover our needs. We certainly didn't expect other people to give us their money (of course, we were fortunate in that neither of us became disabled or sick). We waited to have kids until our salaries could support them. I remember the first time I got my salary to $10/hour (took 4 years, but I worked hard to become the manager of the little retail store lab I was in)- thought I was rich!

    When my 13 year old starts working in a couple years, I suspect he'll make minimum wage. I have a hard time thinking of anything he's going to be able to do that is worth $8+/hour (it certainly won't be his lawn cutting skills, which are dubious at best ;^). However, I'm going to try to get him a job working with my brother (who is a carpenter), so he can begin to learn some skills that make his labor more valuable.
    Pete Hanlin, ABOM
    Sr. Director Professional Solutions
    Essilor of America

    http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74

  5. #80
    One of the worst people here
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    8,331
    Pete, you cannot have it both ways.

    You either have to have the poor making more so they can afford more, or you have to provide them more.

    If someone is making $12k a year and health care costs $6k, they cannot afford it. If someone is making $12k a year working and welfare offers them $10k, then you can bet they will leave for welfare. So what do you want to do?

    Of course, you can just leave no minimum wage, have it perfectly competitive, so these individuals make $2 an hour. Then remove the barriers on health care and make that perfectly competitive, so it costs $12k a year for a single person. Then you can get rid of welfare.

    There are countries that believe in this model. They are usually detect by having open sewers, lame beggers, open poverty, and no means of getting away from it.


    But guess what, you just made an extra $1000 a year from the tax cuts :thumbsup:

  6. #81
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin View Post
    So what's in store for those who don't have the means to pay for their own medical care, etc.?
    Excellent question- and I'm not going to pretend (as liberals have) to have the correct answer to that question.
    An imperfect answer is better than no answer - or the conservative answer "it's not my problem".

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin View Post
    At this time, the federal government does forcibly redistribute wealth- that's not at question.
    Every day my wealth is forcibly redistributed to wealthy individuals. When I buy food or drink water, my wealth is taken away and redistributed to the executives and shareholders of food and water companies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin View Post
    ...(believe it or not) I have a hard enough time providing for the things my own family needs.
    Dude. Boat. 'nough said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin View Post
    If the answer to the above is "Ideally, the federal government should not be redistributing wealth..." (which is obviously the conclusion I've made.), then your question becomes rather important. Should the state governments (i.e., the citizens of each state) be charged with providing for those who are poor, should individual private citizens be charged with providing directly for specific poor individuals?
    Had these ideas worked in the first place, there would have been no need for the welfare system to have been created. Imagine the 1940s, in southern states. Would black families have been provided for? I doubt it, given the way they were treated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin View Post
    Should the poor be shipped out to a special area to languish (just listing options- not one that I would advocate)?
    Yeah - let's "concentrate" them all in one "camp"! NOT

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin View Post
    In other words, for certain types of labor, there is only so much profit that can be generated by that labor. Since private businesses are not in business to be non-profit, the business owner needs to ensure his/her labor costs are in proportion to the profit being made. There are only three things that can happen when the minimum wage is raised:
    1.) hire people who don't complain if they do not make minimum wage (there is a steady, if illegal, supply of these workers- and its already causing problems in our society/economy)
    2.) lay off workers and attempt to improve efficiency among the remaining workers (result- work the fewer people you pay harder)
    3.) raise prices (which leads to inflation and is just one more way in which we redistribute wealth from the people who pay for goods to the people who make them).....
    4.) Those who make over $40.00 can accept less, thus funding the increase for the lowest paid individuals. This would keep the price the same, the workforce intact, and the business "above the table".
    ...Just ask me...

  7. #82
    Ophthalmic Optician OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    USSA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    12,589
    Quote Originally Posted by Spexvet View Post

    Every day my wealth is forcibly redistributed to wealthy individuals. When I buy food or drink water, my wealth is taken away and redistributed to the executives and shareholders of food and water companies.
    .

    Forcibly?

    They MAKE you buy water?!?

    Forcibly?

    ...and then they give the "wealth" to those that made it possible for you to have food on your table?

    All I can say is...wow.
    Ophthalmic Optician, Society to Advance Opticianry

  8. #83
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Johns View Post
    Forcibly?

    They MAKE you buy water?!?

    Forcibly?

    ...and then they give the "wealth" to those that made it possible for you to have food on your table?

    All I can say is...wow.
    Yeah, forcibly. I don't have to buy water or food, but I'll die. Not really a choice, is it? On the other hand, if Pete doesn't want to pay taxes, he'll merely go to jail.
    ...Just ask me...

  9. #84
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,954
    An imperfect answer is better than no answer - or the conservative answer "it's not my problem".
    First, I never proposed that the poor are not my problem (nor have Republicans in general)- you enjoy insinuating that because you feel it paints us as a selfish misers (its called pitting one class against another- not a particularly great idea). My point is I do not believe that forced redistribution of wealth by the federal government is the most efficient way to assist those truly in need- not that assistance should not be provided.
    Second, I can think of MANY "imperfect answers" that are worse than no answer at all (think about it).

    Dude. Boat. 'nough said.
    Okay then, everyone who owns a boat (or apparently makes over $40 per hour) obviously has more than they need- thanks for clearing that up. In fact, we should just cap everyone's salary at $40/hour- I mean, hey, people will still be motivated to build businesses and develop talents even if there is no potential to make more money as a result of their efforts- right? (sigh)

    Every day my wealth is forcibly redistributed to wealthy individuals. When I buy food or drink water, my wealth is taken away and redistributed to the executives and shareholders of food and water companies.
    Wow, you really believe that- don't you? First, water is a public utility for which we all pay. Second, wherever you choose to purchase food, there is a whole slew of people who derive income from that choice- grocers, truck drivers, and- heaven forbid- the people who invested to build the grocery store.

    Those who make over $40.00 can accept less, thus funding the increase for the lowest paid individuals.
    Glad there is someone who gets to determine what is "too much." Still, you haven't answered my question- WHY should it be the federal government that requires (or oversees) the confiscation of money from the person who makes $40 an hour and the distribution of money to the person making $6 an hour?

    Pete, you cannot have it both ways.
    You either have to have the poor making more so they can afford more, or you have to provide them more.

    For-Life, you also cannot have it both ways (i.e., hoping people will be motivated to work by increasing their wage- but demotivating the people who employ people by making it less profitable to do so... nor can you make it easier for people who do not work or work in minimally skilled jobs to afford a comfortable living with the expectation that they will have any motivation to acquire work or improve their skills). The ideal solution to the problem of unemployment/low wages is to develop an economy that has great demand for workers- the laws of supply and demand then raises the value of labor. There are two extremely complicating factors on our economy in respect to this right now- first, we are losing most of the manufacturing industries to countries with labor forces willing to accept less. Second, we have a continual influx of additional labor that ensures the supply of labor outpaces the demand (not blaming immigrants- blaming our lax policies towards uncontrolled immigration).

    I can live with the taxes I pay now- not happy about them- but I can live with them. The proposition that I should be paying more is simply not acceptable. Cut spending- if you want to include the military and subsidies to business, go for it- but you're already taking enough of my money for the services you provide. If taxes are dues- then I guess I'm saying the dues are high enough right now.

    But guess what, you just made an extra $1000 a year from the tax cuts...
    The tax rates passed under the Bush admin certainly saved me less than $1000, and I surely hope you aren't insinuating that I'd be happy to let a few more people starve if I can save a couple hundred in taxes. If that is the insinuation, you are sadly mistaken- the problem isn't we don't pay enough to care for people- the problem is the administration of how that money is distributed is so inefficient (and perverted from its original cause) as to be laughable. The people who really NEED help often don't get enough, and there are large numbers of people who receive assistance they do not NEED. Meanwhile, we just keep going back to the middle class to say "Hey, thanks for holding down jobs and investing for your retirement- could you pay a bit more into this inefficient system?"
    Pete Hanlin, ABOM
    Sr. Director Professional Solutions
    Essilor of America

    http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74

  10. #85
    Ophthalmic Optician OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    USSA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    12,589

    Dear Entitled One:

    Quote Originally Posted by Spexvet View Post
    Yeah, forcibly. I don't have to buy water or food, but I'll die. Not really a choice, is it? On the other hand, if Pete doesn't want to pay taxes, he'll merely go to jail.
    :o (Embarassed...for you.)
    Ophthalmic Optician, Society to Advance Opticianry

  11. #86
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin View Post
    An imperfect answer is better than no answer - or the conservative answer "it's not my problem".
    First, I never proposed that the poor are not my problem (nor have Republicans in general)- you enjoy insinuating that because you feel it paints us as a selfish misers

    And by saying
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin
    and I'm not going to pretend (as liberals have) to have the correct answer to that question.
    You show that you enjoy insinuating that because you feel it paints us as controlling and unintelligent.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin View Post
    My point is I do not believe that forced redistribution of wealth by the federal government is the most efficient way to assist those truly in need- not that assistance should not be provided.

    What other mechanisms have worked? If they worked, why was there a need for an "assistance system" in the first place?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin View Post
    Dude. Boat. 'nough said.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin View Post
    Okay then, everyone who owns a boat (or apparently makes over $40 per hour) obviously has more than they need- thanks for clearing that up. In fact, we should just cap everyone's salary at $40/hour- I mean, hey, people will still be motivated to build businesses and develop talents even if there is no potential to make more money as a result of their efforts- right? (sigh)
    That's not what I said. How can you claim
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin
    I have a hard enough time providing for the things my own family needs.
    when you can afford to buy, maintain, and use a boat? If a smart person has a hard enough time providing for necessities, he would not spend money on unnecessary things (a boat). BTW, I don't own a boat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin View Post
    Every day my wealth is forcibly redistributed to wealthy individuals. When I buy food or drink water, my wealth is taken away and redistributed to the executives and shareholders of food and water companies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin View Post
    Wow, you really believe that- don't you? First, water is a public utility for which we all pay. Second, wherever you choose to purchase food, there is a whole slew of people who derive income from that choice- grocers, truck drivers, and- heaven forbid- the people who invested to build the grocery store.
    My money leaves my wallet, and is redistributed to others. Many of the things that I spend my money on, I can't live without. Force, redistribution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin View Post
    Those who make over $40.00 can accept less, thus funding the increase for the lowest paid individuals.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin View Post
    Glad there is someone who gets to determine what is "too much." Still, you haven't answered my question- WHY should it be the federal government that requires (or oversees) the confiscation of money from the person who makes $40 an hour and the distribution of money to the person making $6 an hour?
    I used that figure as an example - puleeeeze.

    The government wouldn't have to be involved at all if those who had wealth would voluntarily pay low paid employees more. Remember this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jubilee View Post
    Lets think about this...

    $10/hr is a "great" wage. Its almost 2x the amount of minimum wage. But how far does it really go?

    $10/hr x 40hrs x 52weeks a year = $20,800

    for a family of 2 this is more than what you can make to qualify for any assistance! (except maybe WIC for a child under 5)

    15% of that is the bare minimun to be taken out for taxes, unless you get jeapordize having to pay state and local taxes.

    Leaving $17680 - $1800 benefits (health, disability, dental) = $15,880

    $15,880 - $6600 ($550/month) for an apartment. (Based upon cost of "cheap" 1 large bedroom or 2 small bedroom apt in this city.)

    $8980 - $5200 daycare (avg cost of $100/wk for kindergarten or younger non-corp provider or summer) = $3780

    $3780 - $1800 food ($150/mo) = $1980

    $1980 - $1800 utilities (phone, Gas, Electric) = $180

    We are already broke, and haven't even taken care of the car (gas, insurance, maintenance) and medical costs (copays, deductibles, etc)

    This is the scenario for a single parent working a "decent" job that pays more than minimum wage! And doesn't qualify for assistance in my fine city...

    You tell me who's crazier, the person working, or the one staying at home?

    Cassandra
    ...Just ask me...

  12. #87
    Master OptiBoarder Grubendol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Whittier, CA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,506
    Originally Posted by Jubilee
    Lets think about this...

    $10/hr is a "great" wage. Its almost 2x the amount of minimum wage. But how far does it really go?

    $10/hr x 40hrs x 52weeks a year = $20,800

    for a family of 2 this is more than what you can make to qualify for any assistance! (except maybe WIC for a child under 5)

    15% of that is the bare minimun to be taken out for taxes, unless you get jeapordize having to pay state and local taxes.

    Leaving $17680 - $1800 benefits (health, disability, dental) = $15,880

    $15,880 - $6600 ($550/month) for an apartment. (Based upon cost of "cheap" 1 large bedroom or 2 small bedroom apt in this city.)

    $8980 - $5200 daycare (avg cost of $100/wk for kindergarten or younger non-corp provider or summer) = $3780

    $3780 - $1800 food ($150/mo) = $1980

    $1980 - $1800 utilities (phone, Gas, Electric) = $180

    We are already broke, and haven't even taken care of the car (gas, insurance, maintenance) and medical costs (copays, deductibles, etc)

    This is the scenario for a single parent working a "decent" job that pays more than minimum wage! And doesn't qualify for assistance in my fine city...

    You tell me who's crazier, the person working, or the one staying at home?

    Cassandra
    I never saw that before but it is brilliant...especially when you consider that is assuming a CHEAP area to live. If you are ANYWHERE in California, "cheap" housing would be at the absolute minimum closer to $900 a month for a one bedroom.

    EDIT: Not to mention that at the current cost of gas, even public transit has become more expensive, but if you use your own car to get to and from work, especially in a place like LA, you are looking at exorbitant expenses. In my case, my car is ONLY used to get to and from work. And even with just driving to and from work and nothing else, my commute is over 200 miles a week. I drive a small VW, so I get decent mileage, but with the stop and go of city driving I usually get around 21/mpg. Using the easy math on this, that means I’m going through about 10-11 gallons a week. At current gas prices, that means at the MINIMUM I’m spending $32 a week on gas. Of course my car requires prem to get that mileage so in reality I actually spent $36-40 per week. Multiplied by 52 weeks $1870 just on gasoline!
    Last edited by Grubendol; 02-15-2008 at 11:20 AM.
    www.opticaljedi.com
    www.facebook.com/opticaljedi
    www.twitter.com/opticaljedi
    __________________________________
    Prognatus ex Alchemy ad Diligo
    Eliza Joy Martius VIII MMVIII


  13. #88
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    United States
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Spexvet View Post
    My money leaves my wallet, and is redistributed to others. Many of the things that I spend my money on, I can't live without. Force, redistribution.
    Again, I think you are dropping the context of Pete's statements in that there is a difference between voluntary exchange of value (e.g. money) and what is typically meant by "redistribution of wealth". By this distortion of context, one could assume that a bank robber is simply redistributing wealth. Wanting or even needing something does not necessitate that they have the right to take it.

  14. #89
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    United States
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Grubendol View Post
    I never saw that before but it is brilliant...especially when you consider that is assuming a CHEAP area to live. If you are ANYWHERE in California, "cheap" housing would be at the absolute minimum closer to $900 a month for a one bedroom.
    Good point... don't live in an expensive area if you cannot afford to do so. Move to someplace more affordable. Also, for those who can help it, condoms are cheaper than kids.

  15. #90
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,757
    Quote Originally Posted by 1968 View Post
    Again, I think you are dropping the context of Pete's statements in that there is a difference between voluntary exchange of value (e.g. money) and what is typically meant by "redistribution of wealth". By this distortion of context, one could assume that a bank robber is simply redistributing wealth. Wanting or even needing something does not necessitate that they have the right to take it.
    The point is that the term "redistribution of wealth" is BS. It's connotation is that taxes that are used to invade Iraq or build roads are *not* redistributing wealth, but taxes that pay for healthcare, food, clothing, and shelter for those who otherwise would not be able to afford it is somehow "theft". There's a double standard in that it's OK if poor people starve or die from inadequate healthcare or are malnurished - it must be their own fault, after all. Too many people assume that everyone who gets "assistance" is "playing the system" and should just get a job. That's crap. Jubilee's post shows that even people with a "good" job live a pretty miserable lifestyle.
    ...Just ask me...

  16. #91
    Master OptiBoarder Grubendol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Whittier, CA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,506
    Quote Originally Posted by 1968 View Post
    Good point... don't live in an expensive area if you cannot afford to do so. Move to someplace more affordable. Also, for those who can help it, condoms are cheaper than kids.

    That’s really an unfair way of looking at it though, to be honest. If we’re going to discuss honest interpretations and keeping things in context, we both know that anyone who is among the working poor cannot move that easily. My wife and I make what would be considered a fairly comfortable salary, especially outside of LA, but even with that when we moved three weeks ago, we had to borrow money from family to afford the deposit, let alone the cost of moving vans, etc. If you want to move out of an expensive region, you’re looking at thousands of dollars just to afford the trucks to get out of town, let alone the costs of first and last rent, etc. when you get into a new town.
    www.opticaljedi.com
    www.facebook.com/opticaljedi
    www.twitter.com/opticaljedi
    __________________________________
    Prognatus ex Alchemy ad Diligo
    Eliza Joy Martius VIII MMVIII


  17. #92
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Grubendol View Post
    That’s really an unfair way of looking at it though, to be honest. If we’re going to discuss honest interpretations and keeping things in context, we both know that anyone who is among the working poor cannot move that easily. My wife and I make what would be considered a fairly comfortable salary, especially outside of LA, but even with that when we moved three weeks ago, we had to borrow money from family to afford the deposit, let alone the cost of moving vans, etc. If you want to move out of an expensive region, you’re looking at thousands of dollars just to afford the trucks to get out of town, let alone the costs of first and last rent, etc. when you get into a new town.
    And school systems in a "lower class" neighborhood are notorious for providing a less safe environment and a lower quality education.
    ...Just ask me...

  18. #93
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    United States
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Spexvet View Post
    The point is that the term "redistribution of wealth" is BS. It's connotation is that taxes that are used to invade Iraq or build roads are *not* redistributing wealth, but taxes that pay for healthcare, food, clothing, and shelter for those who otherwise would not be able to afford it is somehow "theft". There's a double standard in that it's OK if poor people starve or die from inadequate healthcare or are malnurished - it must be their own fault, after all. Too many people assume that everyone who gets "assistance" is "playing the system" and should just get a job. That's crap. Jubilee's post shows that even people with a "good" job live a pretty miserable lifestyle.
    There is an argument to be made that all taxes are theft, but I think everyone here is reasonable and will assume that some people have less because of misfortune and that some people have less because of the choices they have made in life. By the same token, some people have more because of good luck and others have more because of the good decisions they have made. Most of us want to help those who are down on their luck but we also feel we become enablers of poor decision making when people are simply given what they haven't earned.

  19. #94
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    United States
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Grubendol View Post
    That’s really an unfair way of looking at it though, to be honest. If we’re going to discuss honest interpretations and keeping things in context, we both know that anyone who is among the working poor cannot move that easily. My wife and I make what would be considered a fairly comfortable salary, especially outside of LA, but even with that when we moved three weeks ago, we had to borrow money from family to afford the deposit, let alone the cost of moving vans, etc. If you want to move out of an expensive region, you’re looking at thousands of dollars just to afford the trucks to get out of town, let alone the costs of first and last rent, etc. when you get into a new town.
    By using yourself as an example, you are making this tough because I don't want to start knocking things I think you could have or should have changed. I'm certainly not as wise as I sometimes like to think I am. Suffice it to say...

    Quote Originally Posted by Spexvet View Post
    And school systems in a "lower class" neighborhood are notorious for providing a less safe environment and a lower quality education.
    ...there are choices that people need to make before deciding to have kids.

  20. #95
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    United States
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    902
    I like it better when I agree with you guys. We've won the war in Iraq, so let's come home so we can all have more money for other things.

  21. #96
    Master OptiBoarder Grubendol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Whittier, CA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,506
    Quote Originally Posted by 1968 View Post
    I like it better when I agree with you guys. We've won the war in Iraq, so let's come home so we can all have more money for other things.
    If nothing else, I agree with you on that point!
    www.opticaljedi.com
    www.facebook.com/opticaljedi
    www.twitter.com/opticaljedi
    __________________________________
    Prognatus ex Alchemy ad Diligo
    Eliza Joy Martius VIII MMVIII


  22. #97
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,757
    Quote Originally Posted by 1968 View Post
    I like it better when I agree with you guys. We've won the war in Iraq, so let's come home so we can all have more money for other things.
    Then just agree with us!:cheers: There's nothing stopping you! :bbg::D
    ...Just ask me...

  23. #98
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,757
    Quote Originally Posted by 1968 View Post
    ...there are choices that people need to make before deciding to have kids.
    Are you against family values??? Think of the children!
    ...Just ask me...

  24. #99
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Only City in the World built over a Volcano
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    12,996

    A small quiz:

    Who was the first political leader in a major country to ban smoking?


    Who was the first political leader in a major country to ban firearms in the civilian population?

  25. #100
    Master OptiBoarder Grubendol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Whittier, CA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,506
    Quote Originally Posted by chip anderson View Post
    Who was the first political leader in a major country to ban smoking?


    Who was the first political leader in a major country to ban firearms in the civilian population?
    Do you know the answer or are you asking?
    www.opticaljedi.com
    www.facebook.com/opticaljedi
    www.twitter.com/opticaljedi
    __________________________________
    Prognatus ex Alchemy ad Diligo
    Eliza Joy Martius VIII MMVIII


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Performance Evaluation
    By MrsFoley in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-13-2006, 08:17 PM
  2. George Bush's 2000th Murder Victim
    By finklstiltskin in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: 11-06-2005, 08:09 AM
  3. Evaluating Employee Job Performance
    By Snitgirl in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-17-2005, 12:43 PM
  4. coming soon: Bush's little Red Book
    By chm2023 in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 11-30-2004, 09:41 AM
  5. The Next Generation Performance Chart
    By Steve Machol in forum Smart Lens Technology by Transitions Optical
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-05-2002, 01:51 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
OptiBoard is proudly sponsored by:
Younger Optics and Vision Equipment