On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:15:07 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :
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.
And I implied nothing of the sort. In fact, you just helped make my
case for me -- admitting that marriage isn't taken nearly as seriously
by the general public as you would like everyone to believe. People
-do- get married for the wrong reasons. People -do- get divorced.
People -do- remarry (many times resulting in excommunication). Some
people -do- get married more than once, twice,.... sometimes even four
or five times or more. And in almost all of those marriages each
person took an oath that included "until death do us part". And some
people don't even get married at all -- they live together, have kids,
raise a family and retire without ever exchanging vows.
The fact is that marriage simply isn't taken seriously enough by
people to justify calling it a "sacred tradition" either by law or by
any religious standard.
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.
Sure, just as soon as you come up with proof that has been asked of
you for numerous claims you have made over the past several months. Or
you could look for the proof yourself. But that would be pointless
because if you can't find it, you characteristically conclude that it
doesn't exist, which is especially lame when your only resource is the
internet. And even -then- your research consists of a few common words
in a google search, followed by abandonment of your search because you
get discouraged at the high number of results.
So unless you are going to start providing some facts to support your
many claims, don't beg me for any more proof.
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.
You mean things like the right to vote? A fiscally responsible
government? A few years without war?
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.
You have just jumped into the deep end, Dave. Get help.
Democrats are popular with those who take.
Republicans are popular with those who MAKE.
And you are popular with those who make repetitive moaning sounds
while banging their heads against a padded wall. Seriously, Dave, get
some perspective.
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.
So -that's- why we invaded Iraq!
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.
Really? Then why have you been saying for months that poor people just
want to kick back and leech from others through welfare checks, food
stamps and other social handouts?
You are clearly in a state of meltdown.
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.
In case you didn't notice, Newt was the lone Republican proponent of a
balanced budget amendment, which is why he was publically trounced and
bounced from Congress. If you go back and look at the votes, most of
the Republicans voted -against- the balanced budget during the Clinton
years. The Democrats forced a few Reps to fold on the balanced budget
in exchange for a little district money because Clinton, unlike Bush,
wasn't afraid to veto a budget bill with higher deficit ceilings and
packed with Republican pork-barrel spending. And if the Reps -really-
wanted a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution it would have
passed with almost a unanimous vote because the Dems have been pushing
for it for years. But it didn't even get to the floor. So quit with
the spin and stick to the facts, Dave. Start your education on the
subject by learning about the Graham-Rudman-Hollings Act.
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.
So that's why Medicaid spending grew 13.2 percent in 2002, the
steepest rate of growth since 1992? Because Democrats were at the
helm? I really think you got your facts backwards, Dave.
Democrats (-and- Bush Sr) had to raise taxes in order to pay for
Republican spending sprees -- that's a FACT! Reagan spent jillions on
the military and ran the deficit higher than it had ever been before,
even during wartime. Daddy Bush lost re-election because he got stuck
with the bill. Although Clinton was a crappy leader, he had some
decent economic advisors that bailed out the country. And now Baby
Bush has pushed the budget back into the infra-red. Yet you think
Democrats raise taxes just to pay for social programs? You are TOTALLY
CLUELESS, Dave! For God's sake, get an education!
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,
"Read my lips...."
and cut the
budget.
HA! What a load of horse-hooey! So what year did the Republicans cut
the budget, Dave?.... aw, the heck with it. You want proof? Here you
go:
Reagan/Bush:
The Federal deficit jumped from $73.1B in 1980 to $237.9B in 1986. The
Federal debt jumped from $711.9B to $1,740.6B in that same time frame.
By the time he left office the Federal debt was $2,051.6B. By the time
Daddy Bush left office it was $2,999.7B and the deficit had risen to
$340.4B. Just a quick summary:
1980.....Deficit = $73.1B.....Debt = $711.9B
1992.....Deficit = $340.4B.....Debt = $2999.7B
----------------------------------------------
Change...Deficit ^ $267.3B.....Debt ^ $2287.8B
Both increased more that 400%!!!
Clinton:
By 2000, and for the first time in over 50 years, there had been a
budget SURPLUS for not just one but TWO YEARS. Clinton left office
with a SURPLUS of $86.3B, and was in the process of reducing the
Federal debt. He had also halted the increases in discretionary
spending, one of the hallmarks of the Republican party.
Bush Jr:
Since Baby Bush took office (as of the end of 2004), discretionary
spending has almost doubled, program spending has increased by almost
half, the surplus went bye-bye and was replaced with a deficit of
$567.4B (an increase of more than -twice- the deficit at the end of
the Reagan/Bush years) and the debt had increased to an all-time high
of..... are you ready for this?..... $4,295.5B!!! Just the INTEREST on
the debt is $160.2B.
Is that enough proof for you? Do you still think the Republicans are
cutting the budget like they claim? Or are you going to wallow in your
ignorance and try to spin the cold, hard facts?
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.
The circumstances are -never- normal, Dave -- except that people like
you will always come up with excuses and spins and lies to defend your
profound ignorance.
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.....
Can you read the Federal Register? Congressional voting records?
Budget resolutions? Domestic economic policy statements? Federal
Reserve economic analyses? The Wall Street Journal? The National
Enquirer? Anything in a library? I doubt it.....
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.
When are your parents ever going to kick you out of their trailer,
garage, basement, or whatever emotionally secure little fortress of
social isolation you have built around yourself? Isn't it about time
you light a fire, haul your fat ass out that chair and into the -real-
world so you can actually learn something about it instead of making
wild speculations, adopting internet fantasies, and making up excuses
why you can't experience it firsthand?
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,
No you don't. You don't have any idea what happens in the real world,
just like you don't have any idea what is taught in college, or how
economics works, or how the government works, or any of the other
dozen or so claims you have proven are nothing but lies. You may get
to the store if you take an extra dose of Paxil, and you might have a
driver's license, but your mind is existing in it's own little fantasy
land devoid of facts or social interaction. That's why you can't break
away from your codependent relationship with your mommy -- life is
just too hard for you to make it on your own, isn't it? Poor baby.
It's sure a good thing that your neocon brothers are there to change
your diaper and powder your bottom, ready to hand you a pacifier every
time some liberal gets you all upset. Just like a Baby Bush clone.
Well, take a nap, Baby Bush clone, because it's time for me -- the
big, ugly ex-Marine who risked his life and gave up four years of it
just so you could be coddled in adulthood by your mommy, the engineer
who is educated at a level that you think you can fake with info from
the internet, the liberally-slanted conservative that worked for
several years at a radio station which broadcasts nothing but the
news, the bartender whose job demands a diversified understanding of
social, ethnic and cultural issues, the guy who has never drawn a
single dollar of unemployment benefits or a welfare check (assuming
such benefits were available to an able-bodied male such as myself,
which they aren't, or hadn't you ever thought of that?), the newsgroup
junkie who has pretty much destroyed your academic credibility for you
and your posterity -- to go earn a living. Maybe some day you can earn
a living, too. But probably not. Just stay home with your mommy and
live your life through the TV and computer so the real world doesn't
have to deal with you.
But just to be fair, at least you are useful in one way -- you provide
great entertainment while I waste time before I go to work. Too bad
you don't get paid for it.
----== 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 =----