American Politics

[skauble]

Food is pinned down to the fact that we evolutionarly felt the need to consume more in order to survive. Now that it is abundent we haven't been able to stop ourselves.

The thing is that we throw away huge amounts of food. That waste suggests that hunger is possible to end, we just need to have excess food end up in other places. That means it's choice based, not shortage dictated.

 

The reason we can't end poverty is because poverty is defined by living on a portion of money that is hard to live on, and as the standard of living rises then so does the poverty level (not the people in it but what is considered poverty.

Except that as a country, and for the purposes on measuring and addressing the issue of poverty, the government sets a line. For instance, the poverty level in the U.S. is $27,010 for a family of four. I think that, from that perspective and in this society, there should be a way to raise all families above that.

 

ETA: In all fairness, since I mentioned the thing about Paul Ryan, I should add that The Drudge Report is supposed to be revealing a shocking past Obama speech tonight.

 

I will say that there's speculation that this is the speech. If so, I'm not sure what the issue is. In fact, I found it rather inspirational. So now I'm wondering if that could actually be the one they're planning to show.

Edited October 3, 2012 by skauble

[~Kat~]

Really seems a lot of people just love the handouts, and really resent the people who are wealthy. I wonder why people resent those who are wealthy.

 

Well, it may depend on how much I am taxed if the socialist Obama gets re-elected. Just wait until you see how much your electricity bill goes up. He is going to get us worse than he already has. Just wait and see. I might just find a way to get on welfare myself, get food stamps and all the other goodies that those who do not want to work get. It will be so nice getting up late of a morning, going to bed late, and getting money and food stamps and doing nothing for it.

 

I think that would be fair. It might be nice living off the rich for a while, lol.

[Rosedamai]

Really seems a lot of people just love the handouts, and really resent the people who are wealthy. I wonder why people resent those who are wealthy.

 

Well, it may depend on how much I am taxed if the socialist Obama gets re-elected. Just wait until you see how much your electricity bill goes up. He is going to get us worse than he already has. Just wait and see. I might just find a way to get on welfare myself, get food stamps and all the other goodies that those who do not want to work get. It will be so nice getting up late of a morning, going to bed late, and getting money and food stamps and doing nothing for it.

 

I think that would be fair. It might be nice living off the rich for a while, lol.

Look, people have given you facts and statistics and personal stories on why what you're saying is not true. And you keep ignoring them. Please go through the posts made before you say something like that because really, it's tiring to have to explain the same thing over and over again.

[demonicvampiregirl]

Really seems a lot of people just love the handouts, and really resent the people who are wealthy. I wonder why people resent those who are wealthy.

 

Well, it may depend on how much I am taxed if the socialist Obama gets re-elected. Just wait until you see how much your electricity bill goes up. He is going to get us worse than he already has. Just wait and see. I might just find a way to get on welfare myself, get food stamps and all the other goodies that those who do not want to work get. It will be so nice getting up late of a morning, going to bed late, and getting money and food stamps and doing nothing for it.

 

I think that would be fair. It might be nice living off the rich for a while, lol.

Sarcasm or not that is a very hypocritical thing to say. Not everyone who is on there is doing it just so they do not work. Did you not see the link I posted where MILLIONAIRES were getting unemployment benefits that would have went well to the other people who actually NEED money?

 

Almost 2,400 Millionaires Pocketed Unemployment Benefits

 

Here is the very same link again for you to view.

 

You act like everyone abuses the system and I can vouch for my family and say you are completely wrong.

 

If Mitt Romney gets elected the same things that Bush did are going to happen yet again and how can you even say that it was better then? He destroyed the economy and Obama is doing the best he can with what he's got to fix the issues that Bush got us into.

 

The rich have money they can spend and do anything with while the working classes barely have enough to scrape together to take care of their own family members or put food on the table and try to keep a roof over their heads.

[brairtrainer]

The thing is that we throw away huge amounts of food. That waste suggests that hunger is possible to end, we just need to have excess food end up in other places. That means it's choice based, not shortage dictated.

 

 

Except that as a country, and for the purposes on measuring and addressing the issue of poverty, the government sets a line. For instance, the poverty level in the U.S. is $27,010 for a family of four. I think that, from that perspective and in this society, there should be a way to raise all families above that.

 

ETA: In all fairness, since I mentioned the thing about Paul Ryan, I should add that The Drudge Report is supposed to be revealing a shocking past Obama speech tonight.

 

I will say that there's speculation that this is the speech. If so, I'm not sure what the issue is. In fact, I found it rather inspirational. So now I'm wondering if that could actually be the one they're planning to show.

And the poverty line moves up when things get more expensive.

 

The line isn't a stagnent line is what I'm saying it can be changed. (in fact in my county you get assitance for more than that because you can't afford it.)

[philpot123]

Really? I saved several lives when I was unemployed through my voluntary work, and in an average night would relieve the local A&E of two bed-wasters as well as all the minor treatments - that's a lot of money I was saving the NHS per night, which is that little bit more relief for the economy. Yes, some of those people would have done much more, but all of them? No.

 

But equally yes, there are a lot of people on various welfare programs who do nothing with their lives. Which is why I've always supported suggestions of people being on welfare for only a limited amount of time unless they continually provide evidence of active job-seeking, or other circumstance that would limit their job-seeking capability (carers, disabled, new mothers, etc).

 

It annoyed me that I would apply for literally several jobs per day when I was unemployed and still do some twenty or thirty hours a week voluntary work, and yet there were loafers who did nothing and just sat around all day watching TV, and they'd have the same rights to welfare as me. I'd be actively seeking work and be painted with the same brush as those who did nothing all day long. It is frankly humiliating and insulting to be seen that way - which is why when I hear about every jobless person being 'scrounging benefit-seekers' I get annoyed; a lot of us aren't. In the same way that not all students are rich, conceited scroungers who have never done a day's work; a lot of my friends I've known in my seven years of uni have had holiday or part-time jobs from which they actually get most of their money from.

I can appreciate that. I would support such limits as well, as a step towards my unrealistically perfect ideal

 

 

And I'll gladly concede that a lot of those who are jobless are not jobless because they like it that way. I just have reservations about the idea that a welfare system, especially if we (America or any other nation) increased what already exists, would lend itself to solving poverty issues and reducing unemployment. I think there's practical evidence at this point that it's not doing much to stay the tide. Of course, if we didn't have it, it might be a landslide in the wrong direction. I'll gladly admit that I could be wrong. But I just wonder if there might be a better way than increasing the government's reach.

 

 

What I mean by that is that in a country this wealthy and with the vast amount of resources that we possess, there's no reason that people should be under the poverty level or that children go to bed hungry. And if that's happening, when we know that he have the ability to stop it, then it means that we've placed a greater value on something else. Right now, we've placed more value on people being able to amass a lot of money than on ending poverty. And you can certainly make the argument that it's a matter of freedom and that it's a necessary part of the American system, but that argument has to come with the acknowledgement then that we value that system more than ending people's suffering

 

You're quite right. It is a matter of freedom. I place a large value on freedom. The fact that there is poverty in our nation is an evidence of failures in attitudes at the personal level, not the federal level. And you're never going to regulate someone into a heart change. They'll work the system, they'll get around the regulations, anything to avoid the government's control over their funds. It's because people are inherently selfish. Hypothetically, if one was to remove that excessive government control, that money that's currently tied up in avoiding taxation could be put back into the economy, creating jobs... Might not be what would happen. But it's a possibility. What we're doing now isn't quite fixing the problem...

 

I don't see what the problem is with paying percentage tax. That seems the most fair to me.

 

I think this is probably the tenth time I've said this... define "fair."

[skauble]

Look, people have given you facts and statistics and personal stories on why what you're saying is not true. And you keep ignoring them. Please go through the posts made before you say something like that because really, it's tiring to have to explain the same thing over and over again.

Yes, and I'll restate:

 

As I stated above, TANF is the welfare program meant when we talk of living off of welfare. But A. that's impossible to do, B. it's not a comfortable life because they're still below the poverty level, and C. the average family doesn't even use their benefits for the full amount of time they're given.

Question: If poor people just want to live (barely) off the government, why don't they all stay on welfare until the hit the time cap?

 

Really seems a lot of people just love the handouts, and really resent the people who are wealthy. I wonder why people resent those who are wealthy.

And this would be the vilification of the poor I was talking about.

 

And the poverty line moves up when things get more expensive.

 

The line isn't a stagnent line is what I'm saying it can be changed. (in fact in my county you get assitance for more than that because you can't afford it.)

I get that it changes, my point is just that it's always still such a low amount, even when it rises, in comparison to the expansion of the economy when cost of living generally shifts upwards, that I think that it can always be tackled.

 

Look at all the money we were willing to borrow to go to war. If we'd gone into the same amount of debt, but spent it making families more productive and financially stable, we'd be in a much better position to pay that debt down and we would have made substantial inroads on the poverty issue.

[~Kat~]

If any of you go back, you will see where I agree there are those that need to be on WELFARE.

 

But people are really down on the rich, and seem to want them to help pay for others just because they are rich. Well, a lot of these people got rich by working their tails off to, as well as having to use their brains. They should not be taxed so hard.

 

My kids did not get to wear all the cloths the rich people wore, but they do not resent them and neither do I. You work for what you get. As I have said before, the world does not owe you, you owe the world.

 

If people would go to school and pay attention, and not drop out because they are busy stealing or doing drugs or getting pregnant, just to name a few things of why they drop out, maybe they would have a chance in life. It is manatory for all kids to go to school here in the USA.;

Edited October 3, 2012 by ~Kat~

[demonicvampiregirl]

If any of you go back, you will see where I agree there are those that need to be on WELFARE.

 

But people are really down on the rich, and seem to want them to help pay for others just because they are rich. Well, a lot of these people got rich by working their tails off to, as well as having to use their brains. They should not be taxed so hard.

 

My kids did not get to wear all the cloths the rich people wore, but they do not resent them and neither do I. You work for what you get. As I have said before, the world does not owe you, you owe the world.

 

If people would go to school and pay attention, and not drop out because they are busy stealing or doing drugs, just to name a few things of why they drop out, maybe they would have a chance in life. It is manatory for all kids to go to school here in the USA.;

And the people who scheme, tax evade and rip-off people shouldn't be taxed?

 

In my personal opinion on people who do that they should have every single dollar taken off them and given to either charities or put back where it belongs. They didn't do anything honestly to deserve a dollar of it.

 

They have all the money can do whatever they want and yet millions of people struggle day to day just to have the BASIC necessities.

 

You say "we owe the world" yet how many are actually living by that? How many will willingly give up a large chunk of their stored up millions to people on the street?

 

People do go to school, they do pay attention. (Some don't!) Doesn't make you "smart" over all. You can go through school and not have a flipping clue about anything once you get out. I knew a girl who seemingly didn't know the Alphabet very well.

 

(The girl in question wondered why someone who's last name started with a T was underneath my paper (mine starts with a S) when she signed her paper with her first and middle names as she was called mostly. She knew the girl and knew her full name. She graduated. Was she smart or not?)

 

Not everyone who doesn't pay attention in school is a druggy or some drunk. I haven't gone to college and if you want to know the full reason why it's because I don't want to bury my mom and dad in a debt because I went to school. I'm not doing that to my parents. They went through hell when my dad was being ripped off by the company he worked for. I'm not putting them through that kind of thing ever again.

[brairtrainer]

If any of you go back, you will see where I agree there are those that need to be on WELFARE.

 

But people are really down on the rich, and seem to want them to help pay for others just because they are rich. Well, a lot of these people got rich by working their tails off to, as well as having to use their brains. They should not be taxed so hard.

 

My kids did not get to wear all the cloths the rich people wore, but they do not resent them and neither do I. You work for what you get. As I have said before, the world does not owe you, you owe the world.

 

If people would go to school and pay attention, and not drop out because they are busy stealing or doing drugs or getting pregnant, just to name a few things of why they drop out, maybe they would have a chance in life. It is manatory for all kids to go to school here in the USA.;

First off I don't resent rich people. What I resent is the fact that there are a bunch of loop holes in the tax code that they can get away with that rarely anyone else can (dancing horses for campains, off-shore bank accounts, legal changes to income statements that make companies look like they have less money so they aren't taxed heavily).

 

I'm just saying make everyone chip in an equal ammount of thier pay check.

 

Let Bill from down the street who makes 60,000 a year pay 15% (giving him 51,000 a year) and have Joe who makes 1,000,000 a year pay 15% each year (giving him 850,000). Joe still has more than Bill but they are both contributing equally.

 

But under the system we have now Joe is charged 25% (giving him 250000 in spending money) but he then takes advantage of tax breaks that actually cause him to get refund of 2,000 making him earn 1,002,000 a year.

 

btw this is over simplified.

[demonicvampiregirl]

First off I don't resent rich people. What I resent is the fact that there are a bunch of loop holes in the tax code that they can get away with that rarely anyone else can (dancing horses for campains, off-shore bank accounts, legal changes to income statements that make companies look like they have less money so they aren't taxed heavily).

 

I'm just saying make everyone chip in an equal ammount of thier pay check.

 

Let Bill from down the street who makes 60,000 a year pay 15% (giving him 51,000 a year) and have Joe who makes 1,000,000 a year pay 15% each year (giving him 850,000). Joe still has more than Bill but they are both contributing equally.

 

But under the system we have now Joe is charged 25% (giving him 250000 in spending money) but he then takes advantage of tax breaks that actually cause him to get refund of 2,000 making him earn 1,002,000 a year.

 

btw this is over simplified.

This is EXACTLY my problem with them.

 

They get away with so much it's not funny. I think anyone caught with a off-shore bank account should be forced to give it up and have all of it taxed immediately afterwards. How is it fair to the American Economy when you are storing your millions elsewhere and not paying when you should be LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!

[skauble]

You're quite right. It is a matter of freedom. I place a large value on freedom. The fact that there is poverty in our nation is an evidence of failures in attitudes at the personal level, not the federal level. And you're never going to regulate someone into a heart change. They'll work the system, they'll get around the regulations, anything to avoid the government's control over their funds. It's because people are inherently selfish. Hypothetically, if one was to remove that excessive government control, that money that's currently tied up in avoiding taxation could be put back into the economy, creating jobs... Might not be what would happen. But it's a possibility. What we're doing now isn't quite fixing the problem...

I understand that. A lot of people in this country our very protective of our particular brand of freedom and I don't think that's unreasonable.

 

But I have to admit that I don't see people as inherently selfish. I think that people, early on, were self-focused because they were driven to survive. But I think that the less we feel of that basic fear, the more we are willing to incorporate others into our sphere of concern.

 

After all, our budget crisis would be vastly easier to solve without all of the entitlement programs, but we keep them. Since even if we go with Romney's 47% that's still not at a majority, it seems to me that we could either eliminate or completely gut them if we felt driven to.

 

But I get where you're coming from, because if you believe that human nature is inherently selfish (not a historically unsupported view) then yeah, you probably won't want other people being able to easily take what is yours.

[KageSora]

That's lovely, ~Kat~.

 

Too bad that there are people out there with wonderful degrees who can't find work because the work in their field is non-existent at the moment/they can't afford to move where the work is and they're "too qualified" for anything else. And then a high school dropout gets hired instead of them because they're just the right level of qualification.

 

 

And not all the rich people worked their butts off. Some of them inherit it, and while they do work, they aren't working anywhere near as hard as a person pulling 3 jobs and still failing to make ends meet, constantly struggling to decide which bill to pay that month, and barely getting enough food and sleep. Sure, rich people work hard. But they also just happened to be lucky enough to be skilled enough in a field where there was a chance for them to amass such riches.

 

Besides, not everybody can actually afford college. Sure, you don't always need a degree to get a job and work your way up to a good-paying job. But it can help. And college is really freakin' expensive. People go into debt they have no hope of ever paying back trying to get a degree that it turns out is basically useless because nobody in their field is hiring anymore/they're too far in debt to afford to move to the only places they could get a job, and then they'll never get out of it.

 

 

Why get into debt just to get a job so you can pay that debt back?

[demonicvampiregirl]

That's lovely, ~Kat~.

 

Too bad that there are people out there with wonderful degrees who can't find work because the work in their field is non-existent at the moment/they can't afford to move where the work is and they're "too qualified" for anything else. And then a high school dropout gets hired instead of them because they're just the right level of qualification.

 

 

And not all the rich people worked their butts off. Some of them inherit it, and while they do work, they aren't working anywhere near as hard as a person pulling 3 jobs and still failing to make ends meet, constantly struggling to decide which bill to pay that month, and barely getting enough food and sleep. Sure, rich people work hard. But they also just happened to be lucky enough to be skilled enough in a field where there was a chance for them to amass such riches.

 

Besides, not everybody can actually afford college. Sure, you don't always need a degree to get a job and work your way up to a good-paying job. But it can help. And college is really freakin' expensive. People go into debt they have no hope of ever paying back trying to get a degree that it turns out is basically useless because nobody in their field is hiring anymore/they're too far in debt to afford to move to the only places they could get a job, and then they'll never get out of it.

 

 

Why get into debt just to get a job so you can pay that debt back?

That is exactly why I didn't go to college. I'd love to but why should I heap all that debt onto my parents or myself?

 

I couldn't do that to them. They went through it before over a companies greed and I don't want to do it to them because of a piece of paper.

 

Also I really don't want to leave home because of my dads leg. If mom ain't around I'm the only one here and if I'm gone he won't have no one around and if something happens and he can't get to a phone I have no clue what would happen. (They have no clue I feel that way and I'm keeping it like that.)

[philpot123]

I understand that. A lot of people in this country our very protective of our particular brand of freedom and I don't think that's unreasonable.

 

But I have to admit that I don't see people as inherently selfish. I think that people, early on, were self-focused because they were driven to survive. But I think that the less we feel of that basic fear, the more we are willing to incorporate others into our sphere of concern.

 

After all, our budget crisis would be vastly easier to solve without all of the entitlement programs, but we keep them. Since even if we go with Romney's 47% that's still not at a majority, it seems to me that we could either eliminate or completely gut them if we felt driven to.

 

But I get where you're coming from, because if you believe that human nature is inherently selfish (not a historically unsupported view) then yeah, you probably won't want other people being able to easily take what is yours.

Yeah, I hold to Calvinist doctrines, so I'm pretty pessimistic about human nature in general so we probably disagree there. As I said, helping the poor is a definite necessity. I would just prefer it not be government coerced aid.

[~Kat~]

Any of you that did not go to college because you did not want to put debt on your parents, that was your choice then.

 

We had our children and knowing we would send them to college.

 

Here Are Some Statistics Of People On WELFARE.

 

It also includes special payments for young mothers and for women to.

 

It also will tell you that welfare from some opponents that it affects the icentives to work. It is at the very top and says Statistic Verification.

 

Well, sometimes you have to get in debt and pay it back ... many have done it!!!

 

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

 

 

[skauble]

Yeah, I hold to Calvinist doctrines, so I'm pretty pessimistic about human nature in general so we probably disagree there. As I said, helping the poor is a definite necessity. I would just prefer it not be government coerced aid.

I hold to the Calvin & Hobbes doctrine which involves me, a wagon, a steep hill, and therefore a definite need for universal health care.

 

Here Are Some Statistics Of People On WELFARE.

 

It also includes special payments for young mothers and for women to.

 

It also will tell you that welfare from some opponents that it affects the icentives to work. It is at the very top and says Statistic Verification.

 

Well, sometimes you have to get in debt and pay it back ... many have done it!!!

 

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

It should be noted that this is is not confined to just the welfare that people actually live off of (TANF), but includes a vast array of programs including Medicaid. Medicaid is, by far, one of the largest of our entitlement programs, and is given, not just to welfare recipients, but also to the disabled (who also use the housing benefits) and, taking up a sizable chunk, the elderly poor who need nursing home care.

 

Darn lazy old people who just want to lay around in bed. Seriously, they're ruining it for all of us.

 

And, again, if TANF encourages people not to work, how do you possibly explain the fact that the average usage of it ends long before the time limit that they can use it runs out? Why would they voluntarily go back to work if TANF encourages them not to?

[philpot123]

I hold to the Calvin & Hobbes doctrine which involves me, a wagon, a steep hill, and therefore a definite need for universal health care.

 

Hahah I love Calvin and Hobbes. Of course you were joking, but you might know that Calvin WAS actually named for the John Calvin of Calvinism, and Hobbes after philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who had VERY different worldviews, just as the characters did both shared very pessimistic views of human nature though...

[demonicvampiregirl]

Any of you that did not go to college because you did not want to put debt on your parents, that was your choice then.

 

We had our children and knowing we would send them to college.

 

Here Are Some Statistics Of People On WELFARE.

 

It also includes special payments for young mothers and for women to.

 

It also will tell you that welfare from some opponents that it affects the icentives to work. It is at the very top and says Statistic Verification.

 

Well, sometimes you have to get in debt and pay it back ... many have done it!!!

 

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

And how many of them have made it back out of it? How many are not in debt still right now years later?

 

You say it affects the incentives to work ever think that if they felt like that they never planned to work in the first place?

[Syaoransbear]

Any of you that did not go to college because you did not want to put debt on your parents, that was your choice then.

 

We had our children and knowing we would send them to college.

Maybe off topic, but why do Americans pay for their kid's college? I always hear this, and it always baffles me because it's just unheard of here. It's like buying your kid's first car or first house or something. Here, if you want to go to university, you get a student loan or a part time job or both. Your parents have nothing to do with it. My parents didn't pay a dime and the only person I know who had his university paid for is my husband because his dad is a wealthy surgeon, but he plans on paying his dad back one day.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Syaoransbear

[demonicvampiregirl]

Maybe off topic, but why do Americans pay for their kid's college? I always hear this, and it always baffles me because it's just unheard of here. It's like buying your kid's first car or first house or something. Here, if you want to go to university, you get a student loan or a part time job or both. Your parents have nothing to do with it. My parents didn't pay a dime and the only person I know who had his university paid for is my husband because his dad is a wealthy surgeon, but he plans on paying his dad back one day.

Most kids can't get the loans or anything they need to do that on their own so they have to borrow.

 

Just like Mitt Romney said "Get the education you need, borrow from your parents if you have to"

 

' Sorry but I'm not doing that to my parents.

[TikindiDragon]

Well, it may depend on how much I am taxed if the socialist Obama gets re-elected. Just wait until you see how much your electricity bill goes up. He is going to get us worse than he already has. Just wait and see. I might just find a way to get on welfare myself, get food stamps and all the other goodies that those who do not want to work get. It will be so nice getting up late of a morning, going to bed late, and getting money and food stamps and doing nothing for it.

Wait a minute.... what?

 

Sorry, just.... what on earth are you on about?

 

If you think your electric bills are somehow magically connected to how much is being paid out in welfare then your understanding of the system is so broken I don't think it could be explained to you. Heck, I live in the UK (where we've much better social programmes than you have in the US) and *our* energy bills a\re not linked to the cost of welfare.

 

Energy comes from private companies. Which means the cost of it is in no way related to government spending.

[Fuzzbucket]

Look, people have given you facts and statistics and personal stories on why what you're saying is not true. And you keep ignoring them. Please go through the posts made before you say something like that because really, it's tiring to have to explain the same thing over and over again.

As someone said, why respond. She is clearly frightened half to death - of "socialism" and mexican drug barons and terrorists and more - that makes people say strange things and disregard the facts that don't support their position.

 

Though this electricity bill thing is awesomely confusing.

[~Kat~]

As someone said, why respond. She is clearly frightened half to death - of "socialism" and mexican drug barons and terrorists and more - that makes people say strange things and disregard the facts that don't support their position.

 

Though this electricity bill thing is awesomely confusing. 

It does not matter what links I put up, or what I say ... most of you, not all, do not agree with me, and it does not bother me.

 

Maybe it is because I watch a lot of TV concerning the news, news paper and radio on many things such as "socialism" and mexican drug barons and terrorists and more. My sister is also a history major and we talk all the time.

 

Just because someone says something, they also do not have to put a link up about it either.

 

Someone posted to me that "Sarcasm or not that is a very hypocritical thing to say". But it seems it is ok for some of you to be sarcastic!!!!

Edited October 3, 2012 by ~Kat~

[Kestra15]

If people would go to school and pay attention, and not drop out because they are busy stealing or doing drugs or getting pregnant, just to name a few things of why they drop out, maybe they would have a chance in life. It is manatory for all kids to go to school here in the USA.;

And what about those who dropped out of school to care for their sick, elderly relatives? Who had to go out and work because they lost their parents and were responsible for looking after little brother and sister? Who were pulled out of school because the prohibitive costs of education was putting an already-struggling family into debt? Those who became too ill to attend school and never managed to find a way back in? Those who were bullied out and lost all courage to find education?

 

I could go on all day with such examples.

Maybe it is because I watch a lot of TV concerning the news, news paper and radio on many things such as "socialism" and mexican drug barons and terrorists and more. My sister is also a history major and we talk all the time.

You have heard of disinformation and media spin, right? And a History Major does not make you a Current Affairs expert, let alone talking to one.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Kestra15