| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
June 3rd 05, 12:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
#2
June 7th 05, 03:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:33:13 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : 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. Play semantics all you want -- I said that half of all marriages end up in divorce and you coughed up your statistic. Now you have to explain how your statistic relates to my statement. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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 (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). 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. And "universal care" is a simple concept that provides basic health care service for anyone whether they can afford it or not -- 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. It's also targeted towards the increasing senior population who will be SOL when the SS trust fund dries up in a few years (and after Bush shuts down drug imports from Canada). Care to make any more assinine comments about those subjects? 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. Yep, you sure do a lot of guessing. I'll agree with that. "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. ----== 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 =---- |
|
#3
June 7th 05, 06:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 07:35:27 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:33:13 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : 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. Play semantics all you want -- I said that half of all marriages end up in divorce and you coughed up your statistic. Now you have to explain how your statistic relates to my statement. 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. 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? 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. 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". 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? 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!" (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. 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. 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. -- 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. 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. 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...... "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. But which show stands a better chance of happening in the real world? Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
#4
June 8th 05, 11:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 =---- |
|
#5
June 9th 05, 02:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#6
June 9th 05, 04:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote:
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. Nice theory, but you can't swing that excuse in the real world. For example, take the layoffs GM just announced. Many are single parents with school age children who can not go back to school AND support a family. What should they do, Dave? They lost their well paying jobs and medical insurance for themselves and their children. If you were well educated in the world beyond eastern Pa., you would know what the employment scene is like in Detroit. You claim one can simply move away, but that is based on your own lack of education and not able to realize many can't move away for a myriad of reasons, such as caring for an infirm parent nearby in a care facility for but a single example. More children are now caring for parents than in any other time in our history. Many have taken out home equity loans to pay for health care and prescription coverage that they lost through no fault of their own. There is an entire contingency in many demographical areas of the US in which many are trapped in a sort of financial snare. People like you usually get what is coming in the end and karma, luck, divine intervention, whatever, will dictate you end up just like those you blame for being poor, black, queer, liberal, etc. In fact, your daughter may quit school, commonly become pregnant to an African-American or three, have many children and volunteer at the ACLU before realizing she is a lesbian and needs a job to pay the attorney for the crack and prostitution charges. |
|
#7
June 10th 05, 12:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#8
June 10th 05, 04:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 =---- |
|
#9
June 10th 05, 02:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 20:57:33 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: 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. Based on what? A few failures caused by people who are still too immature and materialistic to fully understand the responsibility that a successful marriage entails? That fact does not negate that a great majority of final marriages last. 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. An erroneous conclusion arrived by a flawed premise and incomplete data. Typical for you Frank. 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. So you are adopting the patented Twistedhed cop-out. I would have though better of you Frank. So unless you are going to start providing some facts to support your many claims, don't beg me for any more proof. In other words, you can't. 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? Name me a state, anywhere in this country, where the right to vote is lawfully denied to anyone. A fiscally responsible government? We have one. Once the economy fully turns around. Deficit spending kicked the economy into high gear when Reagan did it in the 1980's. The resultant economic boom erased the deficit and provided a surplus. There is no reason to believe that the same won't happen now. A few years without war? With the exception of the current war, and the Gulf War, who was president when the last several wars broke out, and which party where they a part of? 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. Your refusal to see the truth for what it is, beyond the blinders that your left coast education have taught you does not negate it for those of us who aren't so blind. Democrats have historically tried to play the race card, the class card, and the gender card when it suits them as a level to achieve their political goals. If it suits them to accuse republicans of being racist (Even though it was southern democrats who most opposed the civil rights bill) they do it. If it suits them (and it seemed to have worked on you) to demonize the wealthy and successful in this country as somehow not worthy of the fruits of their labors, and somehow responsible for the predicament that the poor are in (The flawed concept that someone cannot be rich, without another person having to become poor), they will do it. Conservatives who oppose abortion on the very moral reason that it is killing, are branded as opposing a woman's right to choose. Yet those same democrats who champion a woman's right to choose an abortion hypocritically oppose the death penalty for convicted killers and rapists. These same democrats who hypocritically champion choice, sit in opposition to the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms, or a family's right to choose which public funded school to send their kids to. 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. Frank, as is typical with you, when you can't argue the points, you resort to insult. The one who needs perspective is you. You think that government should replace God as the savior of your soul and the great protector of the people (But at the same time oppose their efforts to better clamp down on domestic terror). You favor safety net dependency rather than pushing for financial independence and personal responsibility. You want to keep the government training wheels on every citizen's bikes, thereby never fully allowing them to truly achieve anything. For if and when they start to, you also want the government to increasingly tax them. That's why socialism is a failed ideology. Socialism promotes mediocrity, by removing incentives to better one self. If everyone is treated equally, there is little incentive to advance, as the rewards are greatly diminished. Frank, you need to get away from the left coast and see how real people live, and stay away from the "Starbucks liberals" 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! Partly. We eventually want the Iraqi people to become totally self sufficient, and self governing, and no longer under the thumb of a despotic dictator. 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? Some poor people do. They've known little else. They were born into welfare families, so that's what they've been indoctrinated into thinking is their "career" path. But the "working poor" truly want to be productive, and will put in a hard days work. But for whatever reason they chose not to pick a career path that would return a greater financial reward for those hours worked. The ONE social program that I favor is universal education or vocational training. Provide the tools to everyone so that they can pull themselves up from their boot straps, and get a "real" job. That way, anyone who's still flipping burgers or sweeping streets is doing so by their own actions (or more accurately inactions). Ambitious people can do it already, but universal education will remove all remaining excuses for failure. You are clearly in a state of meltdown. I could see how your rose colored glasses would show me in that light. But trust me, it's an illusion that 's strictly in your mind only. 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. You need to get your history in order. Newt was "bounced" from congress after a democratic led smear campaign over an alleged ethics issue. In fact, it's pretty much common speculation that this event is what prompted a retaliation against Clinton, with the Monica Lewinsky scandal. If you go back and look at the votes, most of the Republicans voted -against- the balanced budget during the Clinton years. Yea, Clinton's budget. But they backed their own version, which included better cuts. 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. That's a load of crap Frank! Democrats love to spend. In fact, when the budget surplus was finally realized, the first thing congressional democrats wanted to do, was create more social programs. Clinton, always the smooth and savvy strategist, suggested using the surplus to pay down the debt and bail out social security. His message resonated with the American people, and the democrats in congress were forced to back away from their initial spending ideas. Republicans favor increased spending on military and defense. In most other areas, republicans favor cuts. But it didn't even get to the floor. So quit with the spin and stick to the facts, Dave. As opposed to your relentless left wing spin? You "facts" are just plain wrong Frank. 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. That's one of the things that I am very much disgusted with Bush on, and that's the expansion of the medicare prescription program. That's going to cost an arm and a leg, and illustrates why sensible people do not want the government involved in paying for healthcare. I believe that Bush did it simply to remove it as a platform item for democrats. A strictly political move. A bad one IMHO. Democrats (-and- Bush Sr) had to raise taxes in order to pay for Republican spending sprees -- that's a FACT! It's a fact that the democratically controlled congress raised taxes. Bush Sr. was coerced into signing it, under threat on not having any of his bills passed through. Reagan spent jillions on the military and ran the deficit higher than it had ever been before, even during wartime. And the economy recovered from "Stagflation" and when it rebounded the deficit recovered. There is no evil in deficit spending, when you understand how it works. But it seems like you don't. Daddy Bush lost re-election because he got stuck with the bill. Yes, plus the involvement of Ross Perot, syphoned away many would-be republican votes. Although Clinton was a crappy leader, he had some decent economic advisors that bailed out the country. Clinton was a very skilled and savvy leader. He knew how to manipulate people to get what he wanted. He was also a skilled orator, and could make his case to the American people like no other since Reagan. But Clinton know that (After 1994) that he would have a fight in congress, so he coopted many republican ideals. Things like welfare reform, and trimming government spending were all republican initiatives. Clinton successfully co-opted them and managed to take the credit for them And now Baby Bush has pushed the budget back into the infra-red. And like the Reagan years, when the economy fully recovers, the deficit will shrink (again!). Yet you think Democrats raise taxes just to pay for social programs? That's pretty much their standard modus operandi. Look into a little history. Preferably history that was written before the liberals started trying to rewrite it. Books published before the 1970's should be safe. You are TOTALLY CLUELESS, Dave! For God's sake, get an education! All you accomplish Frank is to illustrate just how obviously biased you truly are. 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...." No new taxes. Unless of course the democratically controlled congress, forces me into a no-win situation...... 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%!!! The national debt is separate from the government budget. Don't tell me you are one of those people who think that the budget surplus that we had in 2000 also meant that the national debt was also erased? 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 had to deal with a democratically controlled congress. Clinton had to deal with a republican controlled congress. Which ultimately has more power in passing spending budgets? 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. And when the value of the dollar increases, and the economy turns around, that number will shrink almost like magic. Is that enough proof for you? What proof? I saw no reference source given. 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? Right now no. There's a war to fight and that typically costs a lot of money. But they are cutting funding to other programs. 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. You mean in the way you have been all this time? 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..... Sure I can (and have), and the facts support my claims. 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? Ah, more ad-hominem (Another logical fallacy by the way), attacks in lieu of countering the points (Which you can't). 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? I think you spent way too much time in that back room minding that radio transmitter and getting exposed to high levels of RF radiation. I am not the one who lives in a fantasy Frank, you are. Travel somewhere east of the rockies and live with real people (Preferably not in a major city) for a while and see what is really going on. You claim to live in the real world yet you know nothing about it. According to you, a self professed "child prodigy" in college, master of electrical engineering, logic, psychology and economics, who curiously works as a bartender in one of the most liberal areas in the country. And I'm not going to explain this aspect of it to you. Because you can't. You have no life experiences save for your reluctant service in the military. You have had no serious relationships, prefer to be a loner, and consider people with a healthy family life to be some sort of psychologically defective "co-dependant" relationship. You have renounced God, accept the existentialism concept of "This is all there is", and are pretty much ready to just cash in the chips. I'd say you need some therapy Frank. You have to go find out the facts for yourself -- assuming you want to continue to claim that you are in touch with reality. I live, interact, and more importantly, work in a field that is very much in touch with the needs and wants of the consumer. THAT is reality Frank. You probably don't know it, but you likely have something in your house (or shack) that I had a part in the development of. 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. Because YOU disagree with me? YOU who thinks that the 1st amendment of the Constitution calls for the separation of church and state in all government dealings. Even though in no place do those words ever appear. 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. As you continue to sling insults to cover the fact that you have nothing but you own bias to counter any of my points. You've lost and you are lost Frank. Get over it and move on. 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 So you could earn the money to go to a second rate engineering school. 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, And earn a handsome paycheck from an employer who is much more demanding and harder to fool than you are.... the liberally-slanted conservative that worked for several years at a radio station which broadcasts nothing but the news, In a part of the country known to be one of the most liberal. the bartender whose job demands a diversified understanding of social, ethnic and cultural issues, Yea, I guess you have to know how to say "That'll be $3.50" in Spanish..... Or "Would you like Chips with that"? 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?) Are you suggesting that Welfare is only available to "certain" people? , the newsgroup junkie who has pretty much destroyed your academic credibility In your own mind. But a true intellectual, of any prominence, or status, would have just ignored the rantings of someone who they felt inferior. But you just keep coming back. Like a moth to the flame. You have something to prove, a battle to win. And you know what? You still do. for you and your posterity -- to go earn a living. Say Hi to Cliff and Norm for me..... Maybe some day you can earn a living, too. Yea, I just love that money tree I planted in the back yard. But don't tell my neighbors..... My closing word for you to mull over: pa·thet·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-thtk) also pa·thet·i·cal (--kl) adj. 1. Arousing or capable of arousing sympathetic sadness and compassion: “The old, rather shabby room struck her as extraordinarily pathetic” (John Galsworthy). 2. Arousing or capable of arousing scornful pity. You seem to fit number 2 quite well...... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home/ptd.net/~n3cvj |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
