On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:55:28 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

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


No, it is -very- irrelevant. To prove (or disprove) that half of all
marriages end up in divorce then you must know how many marriages and
divorces occur in a given amount of time. You can't determine that
information from the static data you sourced from the Census bureau.
The data I provided was accurate, relevant, and, according to the
source of -your- data, came from -the- authoritative source on the
subject. My statement was correct.

So then how many divorcees end up remarried?


Read my statement again, but this time stretch the limits of your
reading comprehension skills:

"Half of all marriages end in divorce."

Now think for a minute (assuming you can supress your medication that
long)..... What did I say in that statement? I said, very simply, that
one out of every two marriages ends in divorce. I didn't say anything
about divorcees getting remarried; I didn't say anything about how
many people are currently single and divorced; I didn't say anything
about -anything- other than what I said. And what I said is backed up
by marriage and divorce rates as provided by the CDC, which is the
agency that is repsonsible for collecting those statistics. What I
said is -not- undermined by census data because it doesn't have enough
information to determine marriage and divorce rates. What I said was
not an opinion or statistical abberation, nor was it a report written
by some "skilled left wing propagandist". What I said was a fact.

So are you -now- able to tell the difference between fact and opinion?
Or do you need yet -another- lesson?


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"?


Not in those exact words -- you need to have enough brains to figure
out that when the SS trust fund gets tapped for spending on Republican
bills during Republican administrations, it's usually done by the
Republicans.

So I suppose that the democrats had not done the same thing when they
controlled the congress (Which they did up until 1994)?

If you want to say that congress plays creative accounting games with
Social Security, I'll agree and let it pass. But don't try to pin this
on republicans alone. Unless, of course, you truly are a blind
partisan.


The blame does indeed rest with the Republicans. The Democrats have
consistently pushed to bolster Social Security since the 1960's, while
the Republicans have repeatedly dipped into the fund. Are you so out
of touch that you don't understand why the Democrats are so popular
with people that don't have a six-digit retirement portfolio? Holy
crap you are ignorant, Dave!


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.


Nope, it sure doesn't. You can call it "global warming" or "climate
change", the "estate tax" or the "death tax", an "enemy combatant" or
a "prisoner of war"..... it's all the same difference. So what liberal
has stated that America should become a "welfare state" by that or any
other name?

Any liberal who supports subsidizing any and all social programs,
starting with Welfare, and ending with Medicare. This programs are
part and parcel of a "Welfare State".


A certain amount of socialism is going to be part of the system
-regardless- of who runs the country. The reason is simple: poor
people vote. So would you support a Constitutional Amendment that
would guarantee every citizen the right to vote?


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.


First of all, what you refer to as a "living wage" is mighty important
to millions of voters who don't make a "living wage", mostly due to
irresponsible Republican economic plans

Irresponsible Republican plans? You really area blind partisan aren't
you? What "republican (Or democrat for that matter) plan" can stop the
natural course to the free international market without seriously
altering it?


Let's put it this way: For the past few decades the Republicans have
been campaigning on the pretext that they are for smaller government,
yet in -every- Republican-dominated administration the government has
increased in both size and spending. Republicans spend like they are
on a Bloomingdale's shopping spree! They claim that all the spending
is good for the economy, yet when it comes time to pay the bill for
all that spending they lose control of the budget with phrases like,
"Read my lips...." and the people get stuck with the bill. Then they
leave the books for the Democrats to balance and maybe build up a
surplus, which the Republicans end up throwing away on more spending
and tax refunds when they regain control of the budget.

It's like none of them ever learned basic fiscal responsibility: when
you get a little extra cash it's much wiser to use it to pay down the
credit cards, put back what you pilfered from the SS trust fund, and
save a little for a rainy day. Nope, the Reps just end up throwing the
money around like they were eccentric tycoons and it was -their- money
to spend. And when that money is all gone they just max out the credit
cards -- again. What they say and what they do are two very different
things. That is what I call 'irresponsible'.


And who stops those who are making less than a living wage from
obtaining the skills necessary to rise above that? You did it. I did
it. There's no excuse for anyone so motivated to not rise above the
poverty level. Of course you'd have to stop ****ing away your pay on
drugs, booze and cheap "dates" with the professional women.

It's called "Personal Responsibility". Take charge of your own life.
Don't wait for the government to bale you out (And blame then when
they don't).

Repeat after me: "I am not a victim!"


You need to pull your head out of the sand. I used to think that way
too, that everyone has the ability to take charge of their own future,
to better themselves with education, to work hard and make something
of themselves. Then I got a look at the -real- world. It just doesn't
work that way, Dave. You claim to live in the real world yet you know
nothing about it. And I'm not going to explain this aspect of it to
you. You have to go find out the facts for yourself -- assuming you
want to continue to claim that you are in touch with reality.


(not to forget that 40% of
wage-earners don't make enough money to pay income taxes and therefore
didn't get Bush's 'tax rebate' that turned out to be nothing more than
a loan).

I suppose you're one of those people who feel that those who didn't
put anything into the tax system should v'e got something back. This
wasn't "giveaway money" it was a REBATE on tax money already paid in
to the system, If you didn't pay anything in, you can't very well get
a rebate on it back. Last time I went to school 100% of zero is still
zero.


As usual, you missed the whole point: 40% of people who work don't
make enough to pay taxes. What does that tell you, Dave? And there is
no such thing as a "tax rebate" -- if government spending doesn't
decrease by the same amount then it's nothing but a loan. As it turns
out, government spending increased -dramatically- after the rebate and
-before- 9/11; Bush's plan was that the "rebate" would stimulate the
economy enough that the cost of the rebates would come back in the
form of increased tax revenue. The plan never worked before, but
apparently Bush slept through that class in college (you and Bush sure
have a lot in common).


Second, "fair share" is in reference to fat-cats and corporations who
skip out of paying taxes through shelters, subsidies and a variety of
other carefully legislated loopholes.

As opposed to the progressive tax scale which punishes those who
achieve by burdening them with a higher tax rate? A flat tax rate is
the fairest thing. Everyone pays the same percentage. Those who make
more, pay more as a matter of percentage of gross. But a progressive
tax rate is little more than a thinly veiled socialistic attempt to
shift the burdens of society from those who take the most, to those
who make the most.


I don't recall saying anything about a "progressive tax rate".


And "universal care" is a simple concept that provides basic health
care service for anyone whether they can afford it or not

But SOMEONE has to pay for it.


OF COURSE someone has to pay for it. Someone has to pay for every
aspect of the government. Do you want it to be fair? Then boil down
the cost of government per person and let -that- be the tax. If they
can't pay it then send them to debter's gulag where they can work off
their debt to the government. And don't forget to ship them off when
they're young -- heck you don't want to defer taxes to kids while they
go to college since they might end up improving their life and taking
your job in the future. And if they get sick just let them die, even
if the illness is curable. After all, if they can't produce anything
they might as well be dead anyway, right? And if they can't even meet
their tax burden then what business do they have spending money on
antibiotics to get rid of an infection, or a doctor to set a broken
leg? Survival of the fittest, to be sure. Darwinism + taxes. Good
plan, Dave.


-- more
specifically, the programs are targeted towards children whose parents
work two or three of Bush's new jobs and still can't pay the rent, let
alone health insurance for their children.

People who do not possess the skills or motivation to obtain gainful
jobs should not be having children. It's that "personal
responsibility" thing again.


Actually, it's almost verbatim from "Mein Kampf". Sterilize the weak
so they are not a burden on society. Even better, just "sterilize"
society, and that way you can eliminate the 'ghetto' stage.


Raising children is an enormous
responsibility both financial and emotional. Potential parents should
be ready on both counts before bringing another mouth to feed into the
world and then abdicating their responsibilities on to the rest of us.


Zieg Heil!


It's also targeted towards
the increasing senior population who will be SOL when the SS trust
fund dries up in a few years

Yet you guys on the left are the ones now claiming that there is no
problem with social security. Yet when Clinton was in office, it was a
"big problem". Would you please make up your minds......


Despite the countless times I have reminded you, you keep forgetting
that I'm not one of those "guys on the left". I never claimed that
there was no problem with Social Security.


"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.


Of course you believe everything you're told as long as you're told
it's liberally slanted.


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


yawn. If I want to watch a shoot-em-up-bang-bang show with bad dialog,
shallow characters and weak plots I'll watch reruns of Rawhide.

Yet "West Wing" is any less shallow and crafted? It's Hollywood's
version of what THEY would like the government to be.


How would you know? You've never seen it.


But which show stands a better chance of happening in the real world?


COPS.






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----