I Can Forgive Her But I Don't Have To Because She Screwed With My Chickens!" - That said (I said it), if you want an actual "fair" analogy, I'd say that, while the UAW did force people to work for less, the vast majority of American citizens were better off by receiving that subsidized food and other services. We are talking about the difference between a couple bucks for lettuce and a couple bucks for lettuce in a box - not an overblown caricature of the difference between $6 an hour and $25 an hour. Your caricature is an overblown caricature. You've done your best to turn a reasonable argument - one in favor of collective bargaining and in favor of workers over bosses - into one in favor of bosses over workers. That was just a tactic, not a sincere statement of conviction. It's the same tack that union apologists used against critics of George W. Bush (in their case, the opposite stance, defending workers over bosses) when they claimed that "the rich are always going to be able to take care of themselves" because the US is supposedly "one of the few places on earth where people can succeed if they work hard." I'll buy that your wife buys a fair share of the farm's output (which I presume is why you have those chickens), but your characterization of the market as a system where the rich "always win" is absurd and, again, a tactic, not a sincere belief. No, I don't think you're a racist. A man is the sum of his memories. Take away a man's memories and you take away the man. On the one hand, the fact that Obama is black has led some people to see him as a socialist, while simultaneously inspiring others to believe he's an African warlord, or at least a secret Muslim who hates America. That's what those "Muslim"-looking ears on the president have done? Seriously? You're using "this" to support your argument? Wow. The thing about Obama that a lot of people like is the idea of him as a different kind of politician. The thing about Obama that I like is that he's just another politician doing what politicians do best: running around and talking. But I understand the need for the Republicans to demonize him, that's the way politics work. The only problem is, they keep on missing the point. Obama seems to want everyone to have an equal shot and more opportunity. He also does not seem to know what a "stretch" is. Maybe it's because he's always gotten more than he thought he would have. I'm not sure why this bugs people so much. What pisses me off is when the media makes him out to be a foreigner when clearly that is not the case. This makes it seem like he wants everyone to be like him. So again, the whole thing comes down to this; this is the same guy that made a speech about the working poor. And in that speech he made sure to use the word, poor in that context. And he also used that word "middle class". Just more than a week after he said he never uses that word. I guess he does use that word. "When you watch President Obama, he's so smart, he is so brilliant. I said he's so smart, this guy, we're in trouble." No, you say that because you're a moron. He's not smarter than anyone on this site, I'll give you that, but if you're dumb enough to consider him a genius you really are dumb. I'd love to get the real argument in favor of the current bailouts out. It'd be interesting to see how many people would still want to bailout companies if that means they don't have to bailout their employees. I'd love to get the real argument in favor of the current bailouts out. It'd be interesting to see how many people would still want to bailout companies if that means they don't have to bailout their employees. I'd love to get the real argument in favor of the current bailouts out. It'd be interesting to see how many people would still want to bailout companies if that means they don't have to bailout their employees. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. The average person really can't afford to have food inflation right now. No doubt they feel this way. I'm not saying that people shouldn't buy food and go hungry if they need to, just that you can't really afford to because you have other bills. If you haven't noticed, we're living in an inflationary times right now. So people living on less have seen their money disappear. They don't buy food, they can't afford it right now. For whatever reason, these people who can't afford it are all over the media and they're the ones complaining. Obama's trying to say if it's that bad for them (people making $50,000, which is a very large segment of our society) that it's that bad for everyone. They don't see it the same way. That's my point. And I think that people should support the bailouts. You can't bailout their companies, but you can help people who are losing their homes. I don't see how that's not a good thing. You can also explain why anyone could think that Obama's so smart because he's an Ivy League grad, and explain how anyone could mistake that for being intelligent. And I would support the bailout until I figured out exactly what the banks were doing with that money. The money is being loaned out for less than 10%. I have no problem with helping small business and homeowners. I've worked with small business all of my career. I think that if you're going to help homeowners, you need to figure out exactly what you're doing, because there seems to be little consistency there. So, here's my proposal, instead of trying to figure out how to help every single homeowner out there, create a system where your loan is guaranteed by the government if you make less than a set amount, so that banks can't go bankrupt for any reason. The average person really can't afford to have food inflation right now. No doubt they feel this way. I'm not saying that people shouldn't buy food and go hungry if they need to, just that you can't really afford to because you have other bills. If you haven't noticed, we're living in an inflationary times right now. So people living on less have seen their money disappear. They don't buy food, they can't afford it right now. For whatever reason, these people who can't afford it are all over the media and they're the ones complaining. Obama's trying to say if it's that bad for them (people making $50,000, which is a very large segment of our society) that it's that bad for everyone. They don't see it the same way. That's my point. I get what your saying but some of those people might be a lot poorer than they think if they aren't spending. The rich and poor only "seem" to be equal by giving a huge percentage of the population poor the ability to continue living, it isn't by much because it doesn't go both ways. I'm sure you meant to say that it doesn't go both ways. You have to remember though, that your perception of what people make is skewed by the fact that a good portion of the country works for an hourly wage and many others who work for a salary have their entire compensation, minus taxes, taken from them in various and sundry other ways. The reason for the difference between perception and reality is this: As you said, most people aren't paying attention. And people who are wealthy and think their lot in life is hard, often don't do anything to keep their incomes in check. For instance, I had a conversation with my brother-in-law recently about all the credit card debt we accumulated before we bought our house and how much we were going to have to do to pay it off. He told me "I'll pay off the card debt," and added, "I'm paying for my house entirely by savings. I don't have anything to worry about like you and your wife do." His gross income per year is around $125,000 and so are our combined incomes (his wife is stay at home, I make about $45,000). Our expenses, including food and housing are about $7500/yr. And we live in a house that's just shy of 20 years old. There's a reason why this guy is living in his parents' house, while he buys expensive cars that he can't afford and takes vacations to Europe, Mexico, Bermuda, Cuba, and China. But