On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:45:29 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 06:57:43 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to cough up
the marriage data so that it can be compared to the divorce data.

No one had asked previously.


I asked several times.

No, you asked about the divorce rate.


But since you have now, the percentage of
married people (Which included both spouse present and absent) is
about 53.5% from the same spreadsheet that you can't seem to read and
gather information from.


Excellent. Now, from that same spreadsheet, how many of those people
that are married have been previously married? And how many times?

Repeat marriages are not accounted for. So what? It is irrelevant.



Care to help Social Security?

The best way to help it is to remove it, and divert all former SS
withholdings into individual 401K accounts. Of course that penalizes
those who have already given into the SS program for their entire
working lives. So the transition has to be gradual so to be fair to
everyone.


So your solution is to simply eliminate Social Security? Hey, neat
idea, but you can't "divert" what you don't have, and the Reps have
tapped the SS trust fund so deep that there isn't anything to
"divert".

Care to substantiate that statement with some hard facts?


Like the way -you- back up -your- statements with hard facts? Sure....
It's true because I say it's true.

In other words, you don't have any. Just another regurgitated
"factoid" written by another skilled left wing propagandist.


If you assume that the annual Federal Budget Reports from both
Congress and the White House are written by skilled left wing
propagandists then I suppose you are correct.


The federal budget reports claimed that "republicans tapped social
security"?


Bush's solution to SS is a "credit-card" retirement plan,
which isn't any better. Maybe you two should get together and figure
out what "promote the general Welfare" means.

America was never meant to be a "Welfare state", despite the
objections of liberals who would socialize every program and service,
at the expense of the people who actually earn money.


If you could quote any liberal who said that America should be a
"welfare state" I might agree.

They refer to it by different names.


Which is something the conservatives -never- do, I'm sure.

Irrelevant. It doesn't change the truth of my statement.


Names like "living wage", "fair
share", "universal care". But it basically means the same thing.
Taking money from people who earn it, to give to people who don't.


LOL..... I think I'll let that statement stand on it's own 'merits'!

Yea, the truth. But you wisely chose not to comment on it as the only
thing you could do is defend the practices. That's sort of like
defending the IRS. Not a very popular position to be in.


What part of 9.6% of the total population is divorced do YOU not
understand?


What percent of people are married, Dave?

See above. And before you jump the gun and say "Aha! if 53.4% of
people are married, that means that 46.4% are divorced, that's almost
half!", you need to consider that an additional 6.2% are widowed, 2.1%
are separated, and 28.6% have never been married.

It's all there in the spreadsheet. Don't tell me you too have webTV
and can't read a simple spreadsheet?


I can read it just fine. Now it's -your- turn to read it: Notice that
the total for each row is 100%. So how many people are counted in two
or more categories?

None if you add all the numbers together to get that 100%. Although I
would tend to think that there should be no difference between
"married spouse absent" and "separated". Although the former category
could refer to things like military deployment for long term. But
then, I'm guessing at that point.


"In a free society, you don't need a reason to make something legal.
You need a reason to make something illegal."

-- Donna Moss, "West Wing"

And you accuse ME of watching too much TV?


You do, and that's why I used the quote.

Yea, I'll bet. I've never even seen "West Wing", but it doesn't
surprise me that you have.


You bet I do! It's a lot better than most of the other crap that's
pushed onto the public as 'entertainment'.

That figures. West wing is very liberally slanted so I've been told.

I prefer "24". The most intense show on TV.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj