On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 03:58:21 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

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."

That statement is disingenuous. Many people marry for the wrong
reasons once, divorce after 2 or 3 years, and then marry again, and
this time stay married. Those facts aren't reflected in your numbers.


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.

Proof please. Democrats have traditionally been of the expand
government programs, and tax people to pay for it type. While
republicans have been in favor of trimming government programs and
giving money back to the people.


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!

The reason that democrats are popular with the poor and politically
ignorant (Which appears to include you), is because they promise to
"give" them something that they don't have to earn themselves. Whether
it's welfare, Social Security, Food Stamps, free health care, extended
unemployment, or any number of "gimme" programs. Those programs are
championed by democrats, and favored by people in need, and paid for
by people who earn. It's nothing more than redistribution of wealth
and leveraging class warfare to advance their political goals. One of
those goals is to create a class of dependant people who the democrats
can continue to feed (Just enough to keep them above water, but not
enough to become truly independent), in exchange for their continued
support.

Democrats are popular with those who take.

Republicans are popular with those who MAKE.


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.

No, it doesn't have to be. I suppose you've heard the saying: "Give a
person a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a person to fish and
they'll eat for a lifetime"? That's one of the major differences in
ideological philosophies between conservatives and liberals. Liberals
just want to throw money at every problem and hope that it goes away.
Conservatives want to teach people to be self sufficient and to learn
to stop thinking of themselves as victims.


The reason is simple: poor
people vote. So would you support a Constitutional Amendment that
would guarantee every citizen the right to vote?

Sure, why not? Most poor people would rather earn their own keep, if
given that chance.


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.

Proof please. Start in 1995 with Newt Gingrich's brilliantly executed
"Contract with America" and how, for the first time in many years, a
republican led majority in congress, slashed pork, wasteful spending,
and government programs which resulted in the balanced budget that
"Slick willie" Clinton tried to take credit for, and laid the
foundation for the tax cuts that Bush gave back to every taxpayer.

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.

You've got the cycle right, but for the wrong reasons. Democrats,
enact social programs which cost money. They therefore have to raise
taxes to pay for them. High taxes **** off a lot of people, so they
vote the democrats out and the republicans in. The republicans slash
and burn the democrats programs, give people tax relief, and cut the
budget. Then people start to bitch that they want this program and
that program, and accuse the republican administration of being
"insensitive" to the needs of these whiny special interest groups, and
they vote in a slick talking democrat who will promise them the moon,
but neglect to inform them of what it will all cost. Then the cycle
repeats.

This administration has been the lone exception. Spending has been
ridiculous for a republican administration. But remember, we were
recovering from a recession which started with the stock market crash
at the end of Clinton's term. We also had 9/11, and we're fighting two
wars. Those are not normal circumstances.


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'.

You've just described historically typical democratic spending
policies. How come it only bothers you now when it's a republican at
the helm?

Can you say "Partisan"? Sure you can.....


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.

You were right then. What happened?

Then I got a look at the -real- world.

No, you were indoctrinated by a whiney left coast liberal.

It just doesn't work that way, Dave.

Yes, yes it does. There is absolutely no reason why a person with
marketable skills cannot obtain a gainfully paying job. No one said
the path will be easy or the same for every person. But there is a
path. You just have to be willing to take it, and stay the course.

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.

Frank, I live in the real world, I observe real people, and am
particularly sensitive to the psychological aspects of how people
interact. There is no good reason you can give me, that will convince
me that any person, who is duly motivated, cannot achieve some level
of financial independence. There is nothing magical, genetic, or
special about people like Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Sean Fanning, or
any number of other people who took dirt and made it into something.

Some people whine that they couldn't afford to go to college. Yet
there are others who find a way to make it happen. Others whine that
they're being discriminated against. Yet there are others in a similar
group who achieve quite well. Then there are people who say that there
are just no jobs out there for them. Then there are those who are
willing to relocate to where the jobs are.

There are two kinds of people in this world Frank. Those who achieve,
and those who make excuses why they won't.

If you have a defeatist attitude, you're doomed before you start. Part
of the problem is that our culture has adopted an "Instant
gratification" aspect. Whether it be in the things we buy or the path
we choose to aspire to, we expect things to happen right away. There
is little patience involved. If your circumstances dictate that you
will not be able to earn a college degree for 10 years of night
school, while working at Wal-Mart, then many people with little
patience quit and then vote for a democrat who will give them food
stamps. Those who stick it out, will eventually receive the rewards
for their efforts. With today's technology, there are businesses that
anyone with a computer can set up on line with virtually no overhead.
There are people who make 6 figure incomes just by buying and selling
items on E-Bay.

America truly IS the land of opportunity. But it's not the land of
guarantees. You have to be willing to WORK for your success. Unless
you have a physical or mental handicap, which prevents you from
working, you have only yourself to blame if you don't succeed.



(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

Actually there are credible economic sources that claim that Bush's
tax rebate did lessen somewhat both the severity and the duration of
the recession. So it did work, to some degree.

, but
apparently Bush slept through that class in college (you and Bush sure
have a lot in common).

Interesting side note. Apparently Kerry has finally released his GPA
for the years when he was at Yale. It seems that his GPA was WORSE
than Bush's. Imagine that.......


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".

You don't have to. That's what we currently have.



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.

I tend to liken that approach to what happens when my work group
decides to celebrate some award or other activity at a local eating
establishment. We have 10 or 15 people, who all order different
things, some order appetizers and alcoholic drinks as well. The when
the bill comes, and because it's easy, they normally just take the
amount and divide it by the number of people, and everyone forks up.

The problem is that I usually end up paying $15 for a meal which in
reality should have cost me $8.50. I end up paying for those extra
appetizers and drinks that some of the other people ordered.

So much for "fair"


I'd much rather pay for what I use.


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.

Typical of liberals. Rely on a strawman argument in an effort to make
your point. But then when your point is based on an exaggeration of
reality, so to, is your credibility.


-- 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.

Well, that's a far better solution then just letting people have
children, willy-nilly without having any practical means to support
them, and then expecting society to save them from their own mess.
Ultimately the children are the ones who suffer, and statistically,
children brought up in those situations rarely exceed the economic
status of their irresponsible parents (Another cliche for you: "The
apple never falls far from the tree"). Whether it's genetic of
environmental, the result is the same.

The philosophical question is: Should a person's right to procreate
deserve greater consideration than their responsibility to properly
care for their offspring?


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!

Attempts to demonize a rational point about personal responsibility by
invoking an emotional reaction through a vain attempt to make a poorly
crafted and unrelated comparison to an evil regime in another place
and time are just as bogus now, as when those who employ the same
technique compare Bush to Hitler.


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.

Yet you oppose Bush's plan to change the way it works in order to save
it.? Or would you rather just dump more and more taxpayer money into
what is essentially a pyramid scheme?


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.

I've read reviews and talked to other people who DO watch it.


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

COPS.


True, but COPS was not one of the choices.


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