Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|