Herman Cain Uses Numerology to Court Key Baseball Fan Demographic
by Freneau on Oct 13, 2011 10:52 PM EDT
Email
PrintGOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain has resorted to one of the oldest divine arts, numerology, in his attempt to claim the White House in 2012. Cain's widely discussed 9-9-9 plan, while superficially having something to do with taxes, has given his campaign a boost thanks to the symbolic power of the numbers involved. By tapping into the psyche of baseball fans, Cain has vaulted to the top of the polls.
Consider:
- Baseball games have nine innings.
- Baseball teams have nine players in the field.
- Baseball teams have nine players in the lineup.
- 9-9-9 = 9+9+9 = The number of outs in a baseball game.
- 9-9-9 gives you an outfield trio of Ted Williams, Reggie Jackson, and Roger Maris, all number 9s.
- Roy Hobbs was number nine.
- Cain's surge has coincided with the dramatic final week of the season and the beginning of the postseason.
Did somebody just open a window? Because I just felt a chill.
The simplicity of the 9-9-9 message has had an incantatory effect on seamheads. They don't consciously understand the appeal, but they feel the pull. As baseball interest reaches a crescendo with the World Series later this month, expect Cain's surge to continue. While this interest may fade as fall turns to winter, 9-9-9 could be a game-changer in the fall of 2012, should Cain win the GOP nomination. The 2012 pennant races and postseason will lead nearly all the way to November's Election Day.
55 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I hate how long presidential campaigns are
and how much press coverage they get. It’s so unnecessary
by Connor Moylan on Oct 13, 2011 11:32 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
I don't mind the length
Quite frankly, I wish we had more actual coverage, and especially more debates.
What I do get sick of is listening to the the current coverage we have on TV, which is about as hard-hitting as Neifi Perez in 2002.
by moregritplease on Oct 14, 2011 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions
TV for political covrage is terrible
but I think most tv coverage of sports is too. They both are trying to reach the lowest common denominator, which makes sense financially but is frustrating for those who want depth. For depth, I need to read.
by Connor Moylan on Oct 14, 2011 1:17 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Political coverage is worse because it affects the way competitors act
Sports are played by fixed rules, but media coverage largely determines the rules of the campaign. The worse the media coverage is (and it’s terrible — not just on TV), the worse political campaigns we get.
very trure....whether you are on the left or right, something we can all agree on
we’re poorly served by our media, and Democracy suffers because of it…..how can we wisely support political choices when we lack the basic facts? At least in baseball, for example, you can find facts if you have the desire to find them. I’m not sure where you can find similarly “fan friendly” info regarding income inequality, tax burdens, etc….and many places that provide this info are peddling an angle themselves.
by Nighthawk at the Diner on Oct 15, 2011 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Sure you can get facts
They’re just like baseball stats. Facts are objective. Its your interpretation of them that matters.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
As apposed to Obama's too-too-too plan
Too little too late too save my job
by R_F on Oct 13, 2011 11:51 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Never thought of it that way.
Fascinating. But come on Will, at least put a picture of the Hermanator instead of Mitt (who is also channeling baseball as his name is a glove).
It's from Sim City
That was the default tax settings.
So they say, I played it but I don’t remember. I’m not in favor of it, but I guess it’s better than what we have now. A 9% national sales tax would be a boon to craigslist, that’s for sure.
2011 Royals Review NCAA Bracket Challenge Winner, by process of attrition
Sim City didn't have corporate income tax; it had property tax
And if that’s the basis for the plan (and it makes as much sense as anything else I’ve heard), …
/can’t think of any way to finish this sentence that complies with the terms of Royals Review
by KSinDC on Oct 14, 2011 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I can't express how much I'd actually like to see what else you were going to say.
I wouldn’t judge either way and besides, Will started it…
I'm waiting for my wave of talent to arrive.
by mitchfreakingmaier! on Oct 14, 2011 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Time to stimulate the garage sale industry
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Oct 14, 2011 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions
You know, nine.
Nine chipmunks twirlin’ on a branch, eatin’ lots of sunflowers on my uncle’s ranch. You know that old children’s tale from the sea. It’s like you’re dreamin’ about Gorgonzola cheese when it’s clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Oct 14, 2011 11:09 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Dig It, Man
(Snapping fingers)
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Oct 14, 2011 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Harlan Williams
Fucking love that scene.
by OnixConcepcion on Oct 14, 2011 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions
It's definitely not the brightest plan
A) It’s revenue neutral, so does nothing to overspending.
B) It raises taxes on about 47% of people currently paying no personal income tax, some by as much as 18%.
C) The only advisor he’s named as helping him with this is some Wells Fargo mid level guy who works in an Ohio town of 6,000 people. Not exactly phd economics here.
Cain’s a marketing guy. He knows how to sell himself and his ideas. Problem is he has shitty ideas.
Obviously, you are not a golfer.
that reads weird
47% of people currently pay no personal income tax, and they’d all be paying way more.*
Kind of hard to get elected when alienating that many people by nearly 1/5th their income, small as it already is.
Obviously, you are not a golfer.
I refuse to believe that real people take this plan seriously
The media loves it, because it’s flashy but if people dived into the economic repercussions of it, they’d realize how scary it is.
Slow News Day
And Republicans are taking this opportunity to prove their opposition to everything Obama proposes has nothing to do with race.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Oct 14, 2011 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't think anybody does take it seriously
If anybody did take it seriously, there’d be more people pointing out that many of his claims (revenue neutral?) are just lies.
Wrong
A. Plan doesn’t say it reduces spending. Seperate topic.
B. 17.19 % is the highest rate, which would mean that their whole check is spent on new durable goods. Guess they will never use any services???
C. PHD economics have helped cause our current problem. I would bet that guy in small town USA didnt lose his home to foreclosure. Cain will be elected, because he is not a career politican.
D. His ideas are good for good hard working people. They may not appeal to the welfare class, but then again, maybe if the handouts stop people will get with the program. You have to ask yourself "would I raise my kids the way the USA treats its lower class.
"The 10 cannots"
By William J.H. Boetchker
- - You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich
- - You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
- - You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred
- - You cannot build character & courage by taking people’s initiative & independence
- - You cannot help people by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves
-————————————————————————————————————————
Out tax system is broken. It wastes hundreds of million of man hours to comply. Over 1/2 the people in the USA receive a check from the govt(which is us BTW).
__________________________________________________
“When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the end”
.
by R_F on Oct 14, 2011 7:03 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
YES! The poor wealthy folks who get taxed into oblivion...I love that angle.
I see them every day, hawking their burberry scarves for change to fill up the Mercedes Benz. How many folks go out of business or quit working altogether because of taxes? Too many to count. R.F, have you read Ayn Rand? You naughty boy.
by Nighthawk at the Diner on Oct 15, 2011 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
This meme
That half the people pay no taxes – has it ever been brought up that perhaps this is an indication that our wealth gap has gotten too great?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
its BS...because it pretends fed income tax is the ONLY tax
most people (the 99%), pay a proportionally bigger chunk in Soc Sec and Medicare taxes, not to mention sales tax, local and state taxes, etc….one of the few things Obama has done right is give tax cuts via the payroll tax break, which has added a modest amount back into everybody’s checks, it adds up, and is more likely to get spent, and stimulate local economies than tax breaks. If you make less than 250k, and I think thats pretty close to the top 95% of the pop, you’ve gotten bent over the table the last 40 years. Thats across the spectrum, left to right. If you are under 500k a year, you are part of the 99%.
by Nighthawk at the Diner on Oct 17, 2011 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions
47% pay no income tax
So you’re saying a system that works only to keep people poor is a good one.
This nearly 50 year(1964-2011) social welfare, multi trillion dollar “experiment” has been a monumental failure. You cannot force an equal outcome. It flies in the face of human nature. Greed may not be “PC” but it damn well works. Because by God if I get to keep what I earn, I’m going to bust my butt. But if the govt will give you someone else’s money for doing nothing, then nothing is what will get done.
_______
I put # – etc after the “5” above but it did not post, oh well.
I'll bite
what 50 year social welfare trillion dollar experiment are you referencing? Greed works for those at the very top, but no so much for the rest of society. You might look into how income inequality has grown over the past 40 years, the historically high number of people living below the poverty line, unemployment rates, how the income tax burden on the rich has shrank dramatically, get your arms around the fact that income tax is not the only tax people pay (top 1% control 20% of the income in the US, and pay 21% of all taxes), health care costs per person in the US compared to other “western” countries, how the US has the least class mobility of all wealthy nations, etc.etc.etc…I think when you start to mind read and assume motivations for a whole class of people, i.e., poor people don’t work because they have no motivation, you get on thin ice real quick. These problems are not a work or effort issue. It has to do with opportunity. 50 yrs ago, you didn’t have to possess a BA to get your ticket to the middle class. Many factory or blue collar gigs included pensions, health care, etc….Not so much anymore. A big chunk of the population has had opportunities significantly narrowed, and a lot of it has to do with Gov policy over the last 40 years.
by Nighthawk at the Diner on Oct 15, 2011 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Let Them Die!
Or kill them……..because if you don’t, they’ll come to kill you and take your shit to survive. I’m too old to be a Road Warrior.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Oct 17, 2011 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Very Liberal in here
Last time I checked this was the USA, you know where things are designed to be equal? How is it possible that people think this plan is unfair?? This is the most fair plan ever proposed.
I pay plenty of taxes!! I think anyone should pay the same %!! Like Cain said, if you are poor,…..blame yourself!!
Some above posts are just wrong. NOT ONE PERSON would pay 18%. May be nit picking but on $100(if a consumer spent it all), total federal tax would be $17.19. If you made $100, AND SAVED $100, you pay $9.
Would love for someone to tell me how this plan would not spur economic growth, and in a huge way! Corporate tax rates would drop to 9%.
As a small business owner, I pay 35% income tax and 15.3% SS and Med. If for example I made 120,000. I would pay $60,360 in total taxes. This plan If I spend 100,000 of it $19,800 is my tax. So, what will I do with my “extra” 40k? Well I would open a fourth location, which would employ another 6 people.
I've got much respect for individuals who own their own businesses....
how would do you respond to the fact that taxes on businesses are at an all time low? From my view, we’ve tried the deregulation and low tax thing, and its resulted in high unemployment, increased poverty rates, a housing bubble, foreclosure crises, etc…This country was founded on progressive taxation, if you make more, you should pay more. Its a way to give back to society that undoubtedly has helped you find your success. It feels good to tap into that all american rhetoric that says anyone can pull themselves up by their boot straps, and that those who don’t are lazy. But that is seriously naive. Lots of poor people work their asses off, but simply haven’t had the same opportunities that successful people have had, whether thats a nurturing family situation when they grew up, understanding the importance of education, growing up in a family that has some wealth, been free from medical issues, or a whole host of things that are easy to overlook when you’ve managed to carve out a decent living. Do some people overcome long odds to “make it”. Sure. But the US has less social mobility than countries like Venezuela for christs sake. The best indicator of whether or not a kid is going to prosper is if mommy and daddy have BA degrees. Corporate tax rates are at all time lows, and nothing is happening. Corporate profits are booming now and they aren’t hiring. I think you’d be hard pressed to find any data that suggested taxes are the reason that unemployment is high, or that is the reason why businesses aren’t hiring. Why wouldn’t most companies continue to pad those profits with the tax windfall?
by Nighthawk at the Diner on Oct 17, 2011 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions
The trickle goes up and down
Our current president has recently acknowledged that most jobs are created by small businesses, such as mine. My tax rate, is not low!! This plan would help businesses such as mine. I have ALWAYS earned my strips (3 year army vet, who worked through college and saved ALL of my GI BIll money-which I used to open locaion #1) and have yet to achieve my goals, so I will invest in an attempt to achieve those goals.
Trickle up will occur when these small businesses expand, which will improve the overall employment level. This will be quickly followed by expansion of large corporarte workforces, who will be suppling products for more employed people, not to mention the fact that most middle class citizens will have more money in their pockets for purchasing.
The current tax system is part of what has failed in our country. I have no idea what a lot of the tax laws are, and neither do most IRS agents. Simple means good for business, which is what our country is all about.
This 9-9-9 plan, which is proposed by a Washington outsider is even more promising to me than to many others. It shows that new ideas are being offered! Kind of like, “sometimes it cost more to fix a car than it is worth”, so you should buy a different car. Well it is time for a new car, and I will take a new driver as well. Maybe, as I hope, this is just the first step in a long line of reforms that just make more sense. I mean really, our National Debt will soon equal our GDP.
Reforms to Congress, set a commission structure for Congressman. I would pay a million dollar bonus to each if certain goals are achieved (balanced budget, GDP increases, debt reduction, educational achievments) . For a little over half a billion, we would stop hundred of billions of dollars in FAT.
Reform each government agency. Why does the post office loss money? They dont charge enough!! For 44 cents my letter goes through between 2-4 peoples hands on its journey of maybe thousands of miles. Doesn’t make much sense to me. Find out how much it cost to run our postal system, divide it by the number of items expected to be shipped, then add 2 cents just in case. Not hard!
Do the same thing with the Highway Department, The FAA, FDA inspectsions and fines should cover all of the programs cost. Immigration: charge a toll at the border! Build a fence, put solar panels on the whole thing, now we are making money!!!
Military, never occupy! Kick ass, then leave…next guy screw up, kick ass, then leave. People will learn to not screw up.
Energy: Natural Gas. Period, end of discussion until WE create a better option.
Health: Tort reform, free market system!
Ammendment- Outlaw flag burning as well as any protest of military personal living or dead. the pledge should be said in every classroom, to include the word “GOD”. Also a moment of silence to allow for prayer.
You're not entitled to your own facts
I’m not getting into a political discussion on this site, but your tax numbers are wrong across the board.
You’re confusing marginal rate with effective rate (you pay 35 cents on every dollar above the threshold, not 35 cents on every dollar made)
You’re applying the 35% tax bracket to somebody making $120,000 a year even though that bracket stats at $379,000 adjusted gross income for a single filer.
You’re applying 15.3% payroll tax even though the payroll tax cuts lowered the rate to 13.3% for this year and next.
You’re applying the full payroll tax to $120,000 in income even though the social security portion stops at $108,000 in gross income. Only the 2.9% that funds Medicare is in effect above the social security ceiling.
You keep stating that the Cain 9% tax would only apply to durable goods, or perhaps only goods, but it’s a sales tax, and the idea that it’s even close to revenue neutral is predicating on the idea that it would apply to all consumer spending.
Married filing jointly
Just an vague example of the effect on one of my sub chapter S corporations.
If you're married filing jointly
Then your marginal income tax rate at $120,000 taxable income is 25% and your marginal payroll tax rate is 2.9%, not 35% and 15.3% as you’d used.
Assuming that you have no additional deductions or credits from children, mortgage interest, etc, your taxable income would be $101,000 and your income taxes would be $17,500 — this is the maximum it could be. Your payroll taxes are determined by how much of your income you take in the form of wages and how much in the form of profits, but again, let’s look at the maximum you could owe: $14,712, assuming you took all $120,000 in the form of wages.
You figured your tax liability as $60,360, but the maximum tax liability on a married couple bringing in $120,00 under the current system is $32,212. Any credits and deductions would reduce that further.
It sounds like you’re a successful businessman. That’s good. You’re obviously perceptive and focused on the numbers. I think your political analysis could benefit from the same approach you take to business.
Ok
I just took one corporation, I have two others and my wife has a really good income. I wanted to make the point that, as far as that one business was concerned, I would have a lot of funds to expand it.
The numbers might be off some, but there is no way I pay more than I do now if 9-9-9 is approved. I am who they speak of (small scale) when they talk about adding jobs. I would expand, in part due to the tax savings, but also because someone is finally leading with a vision that I would again with.
If you have multiple corporations, your lower payroll tax would offset the higher income tax
There’s just no way to get anywhere close to the $60,360 you gave above, and, depending on your other businesses, the likely number is less than half of that.
And obviously, I don’t know you at all, but the people like you who respond to the surveys that the National Federation of Independent Businesses overwhelming say the level of consumer demand (rather than the state of their personal finances or the tax code or availability of credit) is what is holding them back from expanding right now. So while you are describing what 9-9-9 would do for you individually, most people are looking at how it will affect the economy as a whole. If the plan is truly revenue neutral as claimed, all the lower taxes you’re seeing are being matched by someone else’s higher taxes. Does a giant rearranging of the tax burden produce aggregate sales that are higher, lower or the same as before?
Kind of
But I would be an example of how it would affect the entire economy. I stated that I would add a location, which would employee 6 new people. They would then have money to spend. This is how it works from a trickle up standpoint. When this trend (expansion in the middle class/small business arnea) continues, the demand for goods increases which FORCES large companies to add jobs to meet demand.
At the same time trickle down will take place as the wealthy will have more revenue to spend.
From what I understand, “fear of the unknown”, as well as a tight money supply is why investment in business growth has stalled. Not to mention a certain healthcare reform deal.
You're obviously a very politcally involved businessman
so I can see how you would make changes to your business based on political changes.
Almost all of the evidence we have shows that most businesses don’t work that way. We saw very weak job creation after the significant tax hikes of 2001, 02 and 03 (not to mention 08 and 09, which may not have been structured the way you like) and we saw quite strong job creation after the tax hikes of 1983, 84, 90, and 93.
Going back to Adam Smith, standard economic models show that businesses expand when marginal revenue exceeds marginal cost. This is inconsistent with the idea that tax cuts for business owners will lead to increased hiring or increased overall demand (indeed, providing additional money to business owners seems like an odd prescription for economic growth when corporate profits and corporate cash holdings are larger than they’ve ever been) and it is consistent with the idea that what matters is final demand for goods and services. A tax plan that imposes a new tax on sales and that raises tax rates on 87% of the population, concentrated on those with the highest marginal propensity to consume, would seem almost designed to produce a decrease in consumer spending. If that happens, you’d expect to see a decrease in employment under any economic model I’m aware of.
Also Sick of
Hearing the whole blame wall street crap! The meltdown was caused by fraud and our government, those who were guilty should go to jail. Bailouts are what we should be upset about. Not many are aware but some banks took no interest loans from the US, then took the money and bought treasury notes. So they got interest from our government for the money that the government loaned them!!! Where do I sign up for that?
CEO’s, mainly in the banking industries bonus payouts are huge, well so what! Does anyone ever ask why?? Simple, companies elect top tier people to head their organization in order to promote the stock price of their shares. In some companies a couple dollar gain in stock price could mean a billion dollars of market cap, so it makes sense to overpay for the best canidate. Stockholders own the company, so they can do what they want!
Very Idealistic, And
Naive.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Oct 18, 2011 8:19 AM EDT up reply actions
the idea that Gov caused the meltdown is at odds with the facts, unless you are asserting that Gov didn't regulate enough
which certainly is true. I’d argue with the idea that top execs and CEOs are somehow like Gods descending from Mt Olympus to guide us mere mortals. Hundreds of CEOs have driven their companies, and companies shares into the ground, yet receive sweet compensation and golden parachutes. There simply is no correlation between job performance and compensation for CEOs. CEOs in other western countries make far less. Free markets system for health care? Really? Who else does it that way? No one. We currently spend twice as much per person as most modern countries on health care, yet manage to leave millions uninsured and come up with inferior results. That is where the outrage should be. Some of our free trade agreements actually have provisions that protect drs and medical related fields from overseas competition….factory guy is up against workers in India who can be paid at a fraction of the cost….but the US only allows so many Drs educated abroad to relocate in the US. How’s that for your free market? Which is all besides the point, we pay thru the nose for our health care. Cost controls are needed.
by Nighthawk at the Diner on Oct 18, 2011 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions
You missed the point
Top CEO’s are hired for the “sizzle” factor. Big name makes stock go up and everybody is happy. Most are not paid on performance, again SO WHAT! If you dont like it become a large shareholder in a company and vote your ideals. Look at Bob Nardelli, he was a VP at GE under Welch, then lands Home Depot CEO (and sucked), then still gets CEO job a Chrylser! All sizzle with zero results
Yes, the government should have regulated more. FDIC should not be used as an excuse to allow the things that went on.
We have the highest quality health care in the world. There are small portions of Obamacare that are needed, however most of it is just socialism which doesnt work in Europe!! We dont let people die here.
First off, thankfully
Our country was founded on ideals, and very good ones!
Naive, about what? That is why CEO’s receive large incomes, not naive- it is the truth.
As I stated above:
One telling question:
Would you, Did you or Are you raising your children in the same manner that our country treats it’s lower class?
How do you think we treat our lower classes?
Very poorly by almost any estimation. So no, I certainly don’t. If you think the pittance that is welfare, food stamps, health care for the poor, etc…is somehow “spoiling” the “lower class” or robbing them of work ethic, I guess I’d ask you to back it up with some kind of data, not rhetoric. The average number of applications to jobs is higher than it was during the depression. Doesn’t seem like a case of folks sitting around getting fat on unemployment to me. The amount of money spent on welfare is always wildly over estimated by most folks anyway. We’re talking less than 1 half of one percent of discretionary funding. Most modern countries spend FAR more.
Don’t you think, considering the wealth in this country, that we should have a base line level of existence that prevents people from being homeless because of medical bills, or from starving? We need more compassion, and less I got mine, you got yours. We all live in communities together. The problem is that more and more, the I got mine crowd has more to do with who your parents are, than your precious accomplishments.
What Obama health care provisions are socialist?
by Nighthawk at the Diner on Oct 18, 2011 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Well
Every topic seems like you are referring to Europe. You think the lower classes of Asian countries are better off than here? How about Africa—hell they all just die of hunger and Aids!
Comparing our current time with the depression is foolish. In the 1930’s we were without unemployment checks, welfare checks, food stamps, Social Security, etc. If you lost your job and home then you moved to Hooverville, or you jumped trains. Today, people move from their oversized home into a smaller home or an apartment as a renter. BIG DIFFERENCE! During the first five years of the Depression 1 in 3 banks closed, and GDP dropped 40% as oppose to less than five. That generation truly felt pain! Our collective standard of living is a little higher than it was in the 1930’s
Anything that government mandates consumers to purchase, which is not tied to the collective safety of other citizens, is a form of unlawful intervention. Socialism is a generic label that could easily be applied to many topics due to increased involvement stemming from countless bailouts.
The point about “the raising children question” is: We have huge safety nets for every citizen. So we basically say that if you cant make it or if you wont try to make it- well we will feed you and give you a place to stay. If you are sick, you may come in and we will heal you. If you dont make enough money, we will give you some from the people that do (even if you take your earned income check to Best Buy and buy a 60" flat screen).
So, the point is I tell my two sons to mow the lawn, one the front and other the back. One mows the back and the other mows a third of the front. Next, I tell the son who mowed the back to go finish the front! The son who didn’t complete the job isnt punished and goes and plays while his brother finishes his chore. So, in closing Herman Cain’s plan wants both kids to mow their part of the yard.
its good to have a civil discussion with people who see things from a different perspective
maybe one form of “mowing the yard” is paying more in taxes…..and just because someone has a TV doesn’t mean they don’t live in poverty. In virtually all modern countries, the poor have access to more services than they do here in the US…i don’t think we should crow about having poor people in better shape than 3rd world countries. It goes beyond that tho, most workers in Europe, for example, work fewer hours, have more vacation time, better health, etc…..this blind adherence to USA being the bestest in everything simply doesn’t stand up to any real scrutiny.
by Nighthawk at the Diner on Oct 18, 2011 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes it is a good discussion
I like my country better than any other, I like that it was formed by an amazing group of people who had foresight coming out of their ears. Their ideals and beliefs, which have helped evolve this nation into the greatest in all history, are now being pushed aside. I dream of a bright future for my children, just as I work to help secure it. My beliefs have been shaped by a life of earning my own way, and while my path continues to form my determination has always been steedfast.
Freedom should not be applied here and there, but everywhere and to each topic.
I dont have a 60" TV in my house and I could afford one for each room, again the point is that earned income money should help with living expenses. Not luxury goods that people like me go without simply because I dont want to ever have to receive a handout from anyone.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
