George W Bush and the Real State of the Union Today the President gives his annual address. As the election battle begins, how does his first term add up?
232: Number of American combat deaths in Iraq between May 2003 and January 2004
501: Number of American servicemen to die in Iraq from the beginning of the war - so far
0: Number of American combat deaths in Germany after the Nazi surrender to the Allies in May 1945
0: Number of coffins of dead soldiers returning home from Iraq that the Bush administration has allowed to be photographed
0: Number of funerals or memorials that President Bush has attended for soldiers killed in Iraq
100: Number of fund-raisers attended by Bush or Vice-President Dick Cheney in 2003
13: Number of meetings between Bush and Tony Blair since he became President
10 million: Estimated number of people worldwide who took to the streets in opposition to the invasion of Iraq, setting an all-time record for simultaneous protest
2: Number of nations that Bush has attacked and taken over since coming into the White House
9.2: Average number of American soldiers wounded in Iraq each day since the invasion in March last year
1.6: Average number of American soldiers killed in Iraq per day since hostilities began
16,000: Approximate number of Iraqis killed since the start of war
10,000: Approximate number of Iraqi civilians killed since the beginning of the conflict
$100 billion: Estimated cost of the war in Iraq to American citizens by the end of 2003
$13 billion: Amount other countries have committed towards rebuilding Iraq (much of it in loans) as of 24 October
36%: Increase in the number of desertions from the US army since 1999
92%: Percentage of Iraq's urban areas that had access to drinkable water a year ago
60%: Percentage of Iraq's urban areas that have access to drinkable water today
32%: Percentage of the bombs dropped on Iraq this year that were not precision-guided
1983: The year in which Donald Rumsfeld gave Saddam Hussein a pair of golden spurs
45%: Percentage of Americans who believed in early March 2003 that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks on the US
$127 billion: Amount of US budget surplus in the year that Bush became President in 2001
$374 billion: Amount of US budget deficit in the fiscal year for 2003
1st: This year's deficit is on course to be the biggest in United States history
$1.58 billion: Average amount by which the US national debt increases each day
$23,920: Amount of each US citizen's share of the national debt as of 19 January 2004
1st: The record for the most bankruptcies filed in a single year (1.57 million) was set in 2002
10: Number of solo press conferences that Bush has held since beginning his term. His father had managed 61 at this point in his administration, and Bill Clinton 33
1st: Rank of the US worldwide in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per capita
$113 million: Total sum raised by the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign, setting a record in American electoral history
$130 million: Amount raised for Bush's re-election campaign so far
$200m: Amount that the Bush-Cheney campaign is expected to raise in 2004
$40m: Amount that Howard Dean, the top fund-raiser among the nine Democratic presidential hopefuls, amassed in 2003
28: Number of days holiday that Bush took last August, the second longest holiday of any president in US history (Record holder: Richard Nixon)
13: Number of vacation days the average American worker receives each year
3: Number of children convicted of capital offences executed in the US in 2002. America is only country openly to acknowledge executing children
1st: As Governor of Texas, George Bush executed more prisoners (152) than any governor in modern US history
2.4 million: Number of Americans who have lost their jobs during the three years of the Bush administration
221,000: Number of jobs per month created since Bush's tax cuts took effect. He promised the measure would add 306,000
1,000: Number of new jobs created in the entire country in December. Analysts had expected a gain of 130,000
1st: This administration is on its way to becoming the first since 1929 (Herbert Hoover) to preside over an overall loss of jobs during its complete term in office
9 million: Number of US workers unemployed in September 2003
80%: Percentage of the Iraqi workforce now unemployed
55%: Percentage of the Iraqi workforce unemployed before the war
43.6 million: Number of Americans without health insurance in 2002
130: Number of countries (out of total of 191 recognized by the United Nations) with an American military presence
40%: Percentage of the world's military spending for which the US is responsible
$10.9 million: Average wealth of the members of Bush's original 16-person cabinet
88%: Percentage of American citizens who will save less than $100 on their 2006 federal taxes as a result of 2003 cut in capital gains and dividends taxes
$42,000: Average savings members of Bush's cabinet are expected to enjoy this year as a result in the cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes
$42,228: Median household income in the US in 2001
$116,000: Amount Vice-President Cheney is expected to save each year in taxes
44%: Percentage of Americans who believe the President's economic growth plan will mostly benefit the wealthy
700: Number of people from around the world the US has incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
1st: George W Bush became the first American president to ignore the Geneva Conventions by refusing to allow inspectors access to US-held prisoners of war
+6%: Percentage change since 2001 in the number of US families in poverty
1951: Last year in which a quarterly rise in US military spending was greater than the one the previous spring
54%: Percentage of US citizens who believe Bush was legitimately elected to his post
1st: First president to execute a federal prisoner in the past 40 years. Executions are typically ordered by separate states and not at federal level
9: Number of members of Bush's defense policy board who also sit on the corporate board of, or advise, at least one defense contractor
35: Number of countries to which US has suspended military assistance after they failed to sign agreements giving Americans immunity from prosecution before the International Criminal Court
$300 million: Amount cut from the federal program that provides subsidies to poor families so they can heat their homes
$1 billion: Amount of new US military aid promised Israel in April 2003 to offset the "burdens" of the US war on Iraq
58 million: Number of acres of public lands Bush has opened to road building, logging and drilling
200: Number of public-health and environmental laws Bush has attempted to downgrade or weaken
29,000: Number of American troops - which is close to the total of a whole army division - to have either been killed, wounded, injured or become so ill as to require evacuation from Iraq, according to the Pentagon
90%: Percentage of American citizens who said they approved of the way George Bush was handling his job as president when asked on 26 September, 2001
53%: Percentage of American citizens who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president when asked on 16 January, 2004
[ January 20, 2004, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: Of those now on death row, 78 were juveniles when they committed their crimes, according to Professor Streib. Twenty-one states allow death sentences to be imposed on juvenile offenders who were at least 16 at the time of their crimes - a requirement of a 1988 Supreme Court ruling, which said that executing a 15-year-old was unconstitutional. The US is the only country besides Iran that formally allows the death penalty for juveniles; the practice is prohibited under several international treaties. The 22 juvenile offenders executed since 1973 represent only 2.5 percent of the total executions during that period.
It doesn’t say how old any of the 22 were when they were actually executed. If you held a juvenile offender until they turned 18 before killing them would it no longer count as “executing children”?
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Yeesh. So at 16, you're not old enough to buy cigarettes, alcohol, or decide to go see an R-rated movie in the theater, but you are old enough to be sentenced to death?
I'm generally in favor of the death penalty, but that's way too far. Even if they wait until the youth is over 18.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Not surprisingly, the list omits such statistics as "Iraqi civilians killed by the Hussein regime since it began" and cannot possibly produce statistics for "future loss in American, European, and Israeli lives were we NOT to fight this war", etc, etc ... I don't think the Bush administration's choices have been the wisest across the board, but come on, heavily-weighted lists of statistics are far more annoying than they are persuasive.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Ayelar, at 16 you're also undoubtedly not allowed to do whatever these kids did that got them the death penalty. I'm not arguing one side or the other, but I don't find your argument very persuasive.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
No one's going to chuckle at my link?
I mean, c'mon! Dean sounds like Jessie Ventura!
I don't care WHAT party you belong to, THAT link right there? That's Funny.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Ohh great, now even Scott has the funny. When will I get mine back?
Hobbes Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Oh, I wouldn't say it's an argument.
But I do think it's insane that we consider 16-year-olds to be incapable of deciding what movie they want to watch, but we don't mind executing them for their bad decisions.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
He sounded like Jesse Ventura right up until his hoarse, pansyish scream. Funny link, Scott.
[ January 20, 2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
16 year olds are free to watch R rated movies, if I remember correctly. I think it is up to the theater to decide if they enforce the age limit or not.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Actually, you might want to look into what those "kids" did.
One (with the help of a friend) attempted to rob two people who were sitting in a car. Later after driving the two victims around, he and his friend forced the two victims at knifepoint into the trunk of the car. Then the "kids" slashed the fuel line of the car and set fire to it, with the still living people trapped in the trunk. He and his friend came back later to "make sure the fire was still going." The two "kids" had been wanted for a number of rapes and assaults as well.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I'm curious about "$42,228: Median household income in the US in 2001" Could be a mismemory, but I'd guess that the higher average was substituted for the lower median of ~$35thousand.
Also "232: Number of American combat deaths in Iraq between May 2003 and January 2004 501: Number of American servicemen to die in Iraq from the beginning of the war - so far" The most reliable figures I've seen for 2003 are Combat Deaths US 328 Britain 20 Bulgaria 5 Other nations 27 NonCombat Deaths US 153 Britain 32 Other nations 3
Also where did they get "9.2: Average number of American soldiers wounded in Iraq each day since the invasion in March last year"? The Administration has kept casualty figures harder to get than directions for manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. Even so, that number is smaller than what Col.DavidHacksworth obtained for the number of casualties evacuated out of the warzone for weapons-caused amputations and broken bones requiring orthopedic surgery, head wounds, and internal injuries. Nearly all requiring extensive time&treatment in recovery facilities. Considering that BlackFox is still in Iraq, one can be fairly certain that wounds&injuries treatable in field hospitals are not included in Hacksworth's numbers.
[ January 20, 2004, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Also what he won't say.
"_____ is buying supplies to make nuclear weapons." or whatever he said about Iraq that was wrong and really bit him in the backside 6 months later.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:"future loss in American, European, and Israeli lives were we NOT to fight this war"
You mean all that future loss of life from Iraqi WMDs falling into the hands of terrorists?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dean's little yeeeha! is a scream. Literally.
Anyway, I don't really intend to watch the president's speech tonight. I'm pretty sure that's what they're counting on though.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
I agree w/ Rat. The funniest thing is that the list is produced by an organization that labels itself "independent." What garbage.
Not that I'm disputing the numbers (though some of them fail to stand up to scrutiny.) I'm just annoyed that the list conveniently omits any numbers that would (God-forbid!) cast Bush in a non-negative light, while pretending it is written by independently-minded, non-biased thinkers.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Thats because tonight President Bush will give us all the Good numbers that only show him and his policies shining in a positive light.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
and he's planning on stating how he's against gay marriage and would approve of such going into the Constitution.
What a tolerant man.
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
quote:The funniest thing is that the list is produced by an organization that labels itself "independent."
Not any funnier than FOX calling themselves "Fair and Balanced."
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
Dan, have you been reading Leonard Pitts again?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Jack - you thief! I was gonna say that!
Besides, this newspaper has been calling itself "The Independent" for quite some time - certainly a lot longer than Fox has been around.
Still, speaking as someone who is not a Bush fan, it's hardly unusual for a president to present a somewhat slanted picture in his "State of the Union" address. I think his predecessors have all glossed over the gaffes or failures of their administrations, and emphasized the positive.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Spoke about bipartisan support and got applause from half the audience.
Hobbes Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Assured public that, in spite of everything he's ever said or done, he's actually in favor of healthcare
Torn between laughing and crying...
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Ah! But which half of the audience? That's what I always wonder.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
"It's the jobless economy, stupid!"
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
"Read my lips: no new jobs!"
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Things Bush won't say tonight:
"Most people agree that my haircut is an improvement over Clinton's."
"I think we'll move the White House to Texas this year."
"Return of the King RULED, man!"
"National morale is down due to the two-day weekend, so we'll start having three-day weekends from now on."
"Jon Boy is SOOOO hot! Not to mention that Hot Nathan Novak in his orange tights. . . ."
"I don't know. Republican was fun for a while, but I think I'll switch to Democrat this year and see how it goes."
Seriously, what president would present the bad statistics at his state of the union address, especially if he was hoping to be re-elected the following November?
[ January 20, 2004, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: Brinestone ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:232: Number of American combat deaths in Iraq between May 2003 and January 2004
501: Number of American servicemen to die in Iraq from the beginning of the war - so far
0: Number of American combat deaths in Germany after the Nazi surrender to the Allies in May 1945
0: Number of coffins of dead soldiers returning home from Iraq that the Bush administration has allowed to be photographed
0: Number of funerals or memorials that President Bush has attended for soldiers killed in Iraq
Why are non-combat deaths attributed to Bush? Do we keep track of non-combat related deaths in peacetime? It seems a little disingenuous to me that the people who trot out the 500+ death toll don't even consider similar deaths in peacetime. My point is, accidents happen and would happen in Iraq or out of Iraq.
There are currently about 160,000 American troops in Iraq. There have been 232 deaths thus far, and approximately 1,500 injuries if memory serves. That means that we have a %0.145 death rate in a war situation, with troops on the ground. This is a statistic that, surprisingly, isn't often reported. Let's say that there have been a total of 2,000 injuries and deaths. Even that very generous (to detractors) number only amounts to a 1.25 % casualty rate in Iraq, with troops on the ground.
Yet "Vietnam" is a word that detractors like to use. While I am not someone who enjoys having my homeland at war, and am not happy about it, nor am I so vehement in my opposition that I don't see much to be thankful for in a 0.145% death rate and a total casualty rate of 1.25%.
If Bush had been attending funerals, I have little doubt that most of his detractors would say he didn't "really" care about the deaths of American troops. It would just be a publicity stunt. I certainly expect you, Rabbit, to at least admit to that, whether or not you personally would say such a thing: Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't in that regard.
As for ten million people protesting the war, what of that? They were content to let Iraqis suffer and die under Saddam Hussein, but once big, bad, imperialistic America-under Bush, mind, because those ten million weren't pounding pavement when Clinton launched missiles-attacked, then injustice occuring in Iraq was something to be pissed about.
quote:92%: Percentage of Iraq's urban areas that had access to drinkable water a year ago
60%: Percentage of Iraq's urban areas that have access to drinkable water today
32%: Percentage of the bombs dropped on Iraq this year that were not precision-guided
You know, I wonder how many of those non-precision bombs were used in civilian areas. I suspect the percentage is miniscule, but I don't know one way or another. What's true, though, is that it's doubtless to be small, but that statistic isn't mentioned. Non-precision bombs dropped on a military convoy in the open desert are, of course, reprehensible. And given that we've just gone to war, a war that is supposedly so destructive, you'd think the fact that the majority of urban Iraqis have access to drinking water would be a good thing.
Then again, temporary loss of access to easy drinking water is far, far worse than indefinte bloody-handed tyranny.
Where have the numbers for civilian casualties been obtained, exactly?
quote:45%: Percentage of Americans who believed in early March 2003 that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks on the US.
A claim that has not been disproven. And in either event it is irrelevant. Saddam Hussein was a public supporter of terrorism against an American ally, and a chief-of-state no less. Let's just gloss over that.
quote:$127 billion: Amount of US budget surplus in the year that Bush became President in 2001
$374 billion: Amount of US budget deficit in the fiscal year for 2003
And, after all, this is all Bush's fault. Nothing, you know, surprising or damaging happened to the economy so far that might at least partially explain these figures.
quote:1st: Rank of the US worldwide in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per capita
$113 million: Total sum raised by the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign, setting a record in American electoral history
$130 million: Amount raised for Bush's re-election campaign so far
$200m: Amount that the Bush-Cheney campaign is expected to raise in 2004
$40m: Amount that Howard Dean, the top fund-raiser among the nine Democratic presidential hopefuls, amassed in 2003
We're the wealthiest, most developed nation on the planet. This is to be expected, and also worried about. But it's been true for awhile. It was true during the Clinton Administration, I suspect.
Raising large sums of money for political campagains is evil. And as for Dean, look where it got him in the Iowa primary. Where 75% of caucus-goers disapproved of going to war, he came in third, he the premier anti-war candidate. And not a close third by any means, either.
quote:28: Number of days holiday that Bush took last August, the second longest holiday of any president in US history (Record holder: Richard Nixon)
13: Number of vacation days the average American worker receives each year
One wonders how much vacation is actually obtained during vacation for a President. I don't know one way or another, but I'm quite sure it's a good deal less than an average American citizen.
quote:3: Number of children convicted of capital offences executed in the US in 2002. America is only country openly to acknowledge executing children
Children being a subjective word.
-------
Well, this is getting longer and longer, and the list remains long as well. I'm tired. But obviously the "Independant" is poorly named, at least if it published that link under its own name, and it wasn't a column. Didn't appear to be. Just as obvious to even the most cursory look, those statistics are frequently misleading, incomplete, or heavily weighted. More careful, objective analysis, I guess.
*shrug* If a Democrat wins the Presidential election, such objective analysis will of course come from Republicans.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Jack, that was a nice link. Lots more where that came from, too. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
This is an analysis from my love and soulmate, Sean. He drops F-bombs, though, as a warning for the faint of heart.
quote:bush just cleared his throat. the republicans stood and applauded. ted kennedy slowly shook his head in disbelief...
well, wasn't that boring?
i particularly liked the black delegate who saw fit to bring his little black daughter to the speech (surely she spent the whole week imploring, 'daddy, daddy, stade udda yoonyon!') so that bush could, in the presence of cameras, pick her up, hug her, and give her back. indeed, he should have had a lollipop in his pocket to give her for being such a good little girl. and for being a black little girl.
then there was the random guy who so could have given a **** that bush was talking. he was just behind one of the random generals, you had to look hard to see him. he would applaud absent mindedly then, sorta look around, go 'oh, we're standing now?', and drag himself up. good stuff!
then there was hillary, giving her 'what a ****ing geek' look to bush. a look i know all too well. by the way, it occurs to me now that i want to **** hillary. y'know, just for the historical significance of it all...
and teddy. glorious teddy. i need a drink too buddy...
and how about those wacky democrats applauding at the wrong times. bush goes 'parts of the patriot act will expire' and they burst into applause. bush was kinda 'eh, the ****? dick, why they clapping?' good stuff man. and they had the decency, far more than i would have, to wait like 40 minutes in until they booed. they actually ****ing BOOED! and you don't get any slack from me bush, i've seen the shit tony blair goes thru. his entire ****ing congress gets to rapid fire question him, often MOCKINGLY. and tony gets up and fires right back. 'you're so very wrong, eat that you bloody wanker'.
what the **** was tom brady and that random chick from that random wnba team doing there? i mean, is this a ticket event, can i show up and heckle? and do you think bush has an opinion on the arod to boston deal? i mean, he did own and sell the rangers. it's actually where he made his money...
oh, and how about that 'no fag weddings' bit? eh? wasn't that delicately inserted? indeed, marriage is so sanctified. what would god think? the real god too, not that bullshit arab god. or that stupid jew god. my god, the real god! you hear that? **** YOU BUDDAH!
'...we will cut the deficit in half...' really? what happened to that clinton surplus? eh?
isn't there some surgery that can uncross laura bush's eyes? seriously. this is for the good of the country.
christians are not descriminated against. they are the ones who do the descriminating. it's what makes them christians. just an fyi there W...
there is no spoon. coincidentally there is no ashley pierce. reading a letter from a fictional child is an old reagan device. you're the goddamn president, you can hire someone to come up with better ideas than that...
still a ****ing dull speech...
i remain, ever, a silly little liberal, 534N
Posted by Gottmorder (Member # 5039) on :
quote:232: Number of American combat deaths in Iraq between May 2003 and January 2004
501: Number of American servicemen to die in Iraq from the beginning of the war - so far
It's a war...people die, plain and simple. And compare our casualty rates to other wars.
quote:0: Number of American combat deaths in Germany after the Nazi surrender to the Allies in May 1945
What's the Relevance? The war in Iraq is not over.
quote:0: Number of coffins of dead soldiers returning home from Iraq that the Bush administration has allowed to be photographed
Again, the relevance?
quote: 0: Number of funerals or memorials that President Bush has attended for soldiers killed in Iraq
And? You expect him to attend every funeral?
quote:100: Number of fund-raisers attended by Bush or Vice-President Dick Cheney in 2003
Again, I fail to see the point of this.
quote: 13: Number of meetings between Bush and Tony Blair since he became President
So he's meeting with the Prime Minister of one of the US's greatest allies, how is this bad?
quote:10 million: Estimated number of people worldwide who took to the streets in opposition to the invasion of Iraq, setting an all-time record for simultaneous protest
I really should try to find the statistics for the number of people who supported the toppling of a Tyrannic regime.
quote:2: Number of nations that Bush has attacked and taken over since coming into the White House
Yeah, now consider that during Bush's term, the US, mainly the US mainland was attacked for the first time in almost sixty years, and a new wave of terrorism rose up.
quote:9.2: Average number of American soldiers wounded in Iraq each day since the invasion in March last year
1.6: Average number of American soldiers killed in Iraq per day since hostilities began
16,000: Approximate number of Iraqis killed since the start of war
10,000: Approximate number of Iraqi civilians killed since the beginning of the conflict
It is a war, a war W-A-R. People are going to die, and the US military could just go through Iraq and bomb everything into oblivion, but they're going out of their way to minimize uneeded casualties.
quote: $100 billion: Estimated cost of the war in Iraq to American citizens by the end of 2003
Well, one does need to fund a war. We can just go into Iraq with pointy sticks now can we?
quote: $13 billion: Amount other countries have committed towards rebuilding Iraq (much of it in loans) as of 24 October
How nice of them, trying to help rebuild a country that's been damaged by war. And that's not sarcasm.
quote:36%: Increase in the number of desertions from the US army since 1999
Hm, first time I've ever heard that. Of course, the deserters should get what they deserve. When you sign onto the military, you need to grasp the concept that you may have to fight.
quote: 92%: Percentage of Iraq's urban areas that had access to drinkable water a year ago
60%: Percentage of Iraq's urban areas that have access to drinkable water today
Which will go up. Like I said, it is war, and it is difficult to maintain the status quo.
quote: 32%: Percentage of the bombs dropped on Iraq this year that were not precision-guided
Which we just dropped on Iraqi urban area en masse...oh wait.
quote:1983: The year in which Donald Rumsfeld gave Saddam Hussein a pair of golden spurs
Your point? And Saddam invaded Kuwait and massacred his own citizens and a pair of golden spurs is supposed to make us overlook this fact?
quote: 45%: Percentage of Americans who believed in early March 2003 that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks on the US
So, there are ignorant people in the world, that was pretty well known before we invaded Iraq.
quote: 10: Number of solo press conferences that Bush has held since beginning his term. His father had managed 61 at this point in his administration, and Bill Clinton 33
So the man isn't great at speeches.
quote: 1st: Rank of the US worldwide in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per capita
So you're blaming Bush for pollution caused by everyone else? While we're at it, let's blame him for everything! Come on, it's all of Bush's head everyone!
quote: $113 million: Total sum raised by the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign, setting a record in American electoral history
$130 million: Amount raised for Bush's re-election campaign so far
$200m: Amount that the Bush-Cheney campaign is expected to raise in 2004
$40m: Amount that Howard Dean, the top fund-raiser among the nine Democratic presidential hopefuls, amassed in 2003
Kind of shows who the people support, huh?
quote: 3: Number of children convicted of capital offences executed in the US in 2002. America is only country openly to acknowledge executing children
And this is caused by Bush how?
quote: 1st: As Governor of Texas, George Bush executed more prisoners (152) than any governor in modern US history
Good for him. Would you rather prisons become overcrowded and turned into luxury resorts? No, people who commit serious crimes pay for it.
quote: 80%: Percentage of the Iraqi workforce now unemployed
55%: Percentage of the Iraqi workforce unemployed before the war
Changes in governments and restabilizing an nation is not easy. Like I said, it is war, and it is difficult to maintain a status quo.
quote: 40%: Percentage of the world's military spending for which the US is responsible
Yes, and the US is also the most powerful nation in the world, so yeah, that's probably what happens.
quote: 54%: Percentage of US citizens who believe Bush was legitimately elected to his post
So, the majority, what's your point?
quote: 1st: First president to execute a federal prisoner in the past 40 years. Executions are typically ordered by separate states and not at federal level
Good to see him showing criminals that crimes have penalties.
quote: 58 million: Number of acres of public lands Bush has opened to road building, logging and drilling
In case you haven't noticed, the world population is on the rise, and oil is still needed as a fuel source.
quote: 29,000: Number of American troops - which is close to the total of a whole army division - to have either been killed, wounded, injured or become so ill as to require evacuation from Iraq, according to the Pentagon
Amazing, in past wars, the amount dead would exceed that number in a single battle!
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
This is why people shouldn't post the chain letter e-mail they get. I'm not voting for the man, but the fanaticism in that whole list borders on obsissive.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
In which previous wars?
In the vietnam war, a total of 30,921 US soldiers died in battle in over 10 years of combat.
In fact, US casualties in Iraq during the first 6 months of this war exceed US casualties in during the first 3 years of the Vietnam war.
This casualty count is indeed much lower than during the WW II invasion of Normandy. During the this battle, 40,000 allied soldiers were killed during 75 days of battle. However, the Battle of Normandy was fought between forces of substantially equal strength, something which could never be said of the war in Iraq.
It is no more amaizing that the casualty counts in Iraq have been lower than those in WW II, than it would be "amaizing" for Mike Tyson to beat me in a boxing match with a single punch.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Argent: Pay attention. This wasn't a chain e-mail letter it was published in a UK newspaper "The Independent".
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
I'm not sure I understand when you're distinguishing between casaualties and deaths. If 501 American servicemen have died so far, and almost 31,000 died in ten years in Vietnam, then isn't this one going much better in that regard?
Also, I'll admit I get confused/frustrated when I hear complaints that we're spending too much money and not using a high enough percentage of smart bombs all in the same breath. Those things do cost more, don't they? But hey, I'm relatively ignorant in the grand scheme of politics, so I'll return to just listening.
--Pop
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
I saw what it was from, and It's the stuff of chain e-mails. Where did YOU get it from? Did you find it on your own, because you read that paper? Or did you get it in an e-mail, with a link to the source?
Posted by Jerryst316 (Member # 5054) on :
quote:What's the Relevance? The war in Iraq is not over.
See now thats what I like to hear. I guess when Bush went to the aircraft carrier on May 1 and declared the war over, he was just kidding.
Oh, and I loved two things about the speech tonight. The black senator from New York was ASLEEP! when the camera panned to him in the middle of speech. That was hilarious. The other part I loved was when Bush said that the Patriot Act would expire soon and many of the democrats applauded. You could see on his face that he didnt know what to do about that! That was great. I sincerely hope that whomever comes out of the race as frontrunner for the democratic nomination can beat Bush because he may in fact be the greatest threat to democracy the world has ever known.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote: Where did YOU get it from? Did you find it on your own, because you read that paper? Or did you get it in an e-mail, with a link to the source?
Maybe I shouldn't dignify this with comment, but why does it matter HOW a person found information? Call me naive, but I get some good news from e-mails. I also look for links to sources before quoting the information, too.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Have you looked at this source? And furthermore, have you looked at the hyperbole in the content? Sure, the numbers are not exactly lies, but they are displayed in an out of context fashion. It is strictly something written for the express purpose of exhibiting outright hatred for Bush. It is practically fanatical in its dogmatic approach to it. That is scary, even to people like me, who don't want Bush in office. I don't agree with the dogma of Bush-do-no-wrong supporters, either, and this kind of religious approach to politics is just unnecessary. People who write this are just as bad as the people who demanded french fries be called freedom fries.
[ January 21, 2004, 01:08 AM: Message edited by: Argèn†~ ]
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
About that federal government execution...is that a reference to Timothy McVeigh? If so, how is Bush responsible for a sentence that was handed down when Clinton was in office?
"Children" is misleading. Most people probably use that term to refer to children under 13, not all legal minors. Criticizing the US for executing older teens just isn't as shocking as criticizing them for executing children, though.
Also, I suspect the war would be cheaper if we were more careless with the lives of Iraqi civilians. In fact, it would have been much cheaper to obliterate Baghdad with missles or bombs. Not to mention there would be no U.S. casualties. So, which is more important: saving money or saving lives?
Having said all that, I have a few criticisms of my own:
quote:Since we last met in this chamber, combat forces of the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Poland and other countries enforced the demands of the United Nations
Funny thing was, the UN didn't want to enforce it's own "demands"--so they weren't really demands, were they? Why is Bush bringing up the UN at all? I don't care if we act without the UN's consent, but let's not pretend the UN wanted the war to happen.
quote: I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom.
That's a lovely belief, but it seems that the human heart likes oppressing other people more than it likes freedom. That's why Iraq's constitution had better have plenty of provisions for protecting the minorities, because some powerful factions seem to want a theocracy.
quote:We're providing more funding for our schools -- a 36-percent increase since 2001.
Um...didn't seem like that was true in my state. Did you forget Oregon when you handed out the money? (Granted, Oregon has some serious budget issues. Perhaps federal grants did increase but they didn't make up for the loss of state funding).
quote:Unless you act, the death tax will eventually come back to life.
I just wanted to point this one out because it was funny. Kudos to the speechwriter on that one.
quote:We will double federal funding for abstinence programs, so schools can teach this fact of life: Abstinence for young people is the only certain way to avoid sexually-transmitted diseases.
I don't understand why it takes so much money for a teacher to tell his or her class over and over: "Don't have sex." In fact, I'm not sure why you need a whole class to tell them that. Maybe they could make a public-service announcement over the school intercom?
And one more complaint: why didn't Bush mention the space program? Let's choose to go to Mars in this decade and do other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard...
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
quote:[George W. Bush] may in fact be the greatest threat to democracy the world has ever known.
I don't like what Bush has done to our liberties, but don't you think that maybe Stalin or Mao were a wee bit more oppressive? This is precisely why I am concerned about certain Democratic candidates winning the election, by the way. Some of their supporters say things like this, and sometimes the candidates come pretty close. They are exploiting fears of the American public for personal power. And then they criticize Bush for doing the same. That's it; I'm writing someone in this year. Bob Scopatz for President: Pun for All and All for Pun!
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Jerry,
He announced an end to major combat operations, its different than announcing the end of the war. If you believed it was the end of the war thats your own fault not the presidents.
By the way, most of the democrats who talk about the patriot act negatively, actually voted for the patriot act. It wasnt only George Bush, it was the whole house.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
I cannot put into words how badly i hate this man...
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Promethius: There was that matter of the large sign on the carrier. Does "Mission Accomplished" mean "Well, It's a Good Start"?
Ben, any particular reason why you hate Bush?
Posted by OrangePeanut (Member # 6123) on :
This post has been edited by Kathryn H. Janitor because it was both racist and obnoxious.
[ January 21, 2004, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: KathrynHJanitor ]
Posted by OrangePeanut (Member # 6123) on :
This post has been edited by Kathryn H. Janitor because it was an addendum to the aforementioned racist and obnoxious post.
[ January 21, 2004, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: KathrynHJanitor ]
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Man... we need a Hatrack Posse.
A loosely-formed team of hatrack grumpies, like me, bent on protecting hatrack from the evils of the outside world. Stand fast ye men and women of hatrack! For we will vanquish those foes who seek to do ye harm!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: -The girls look like purple spiders. Imagine having sex with a disgusting purple spider, yeah.
-The guys look like vampires and it's a lot more complicated than that usually.......
-Chinese food tastes like germs. Literally germs. If u can eat that without getting sick then ur crazy or something.
Best post ever.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
As someone who voted for Bush in 2000, I feel ashamed having heard his speech. Instead of putting money into education George Bush took over 270 billion out of secondary education federal aid.
No Child Left Behind is hardly federally funded at all, it is mostly an unfunded mandate that forces schools to meet a federal standard or risk having the feds actually go in and shut the school down completely. Never mind the Federalism issues here, that is plain ridiculous and does not help students at all.
The Price of Loyalty said it best: "Bush is a blind man in a room full of deaf people." I believe it when it says in the book that Bush himself was slightly against the 2nd round of tax cuts but that his "handlers" quickly got him back in line.
His little spiel about making Catastrophe Insurance 100% tax deductable is probably the worst thing to come out of that speech. Think about it, that would be the ultimate tax loophole for coorporations, especially since threats from "terror" make it seem so reasonable.
I myself am a Christian but I know that not all of America believes in God, one god, or even any god. For our leader to fill his speech with so much Christian rhetoric and design muddles the boundry between religion and government.
Did anyone catch the statement about "we will not suffer the objections of the few" when he was talking about the UN and Iraq? What he didn't say is that Bush himself ordered several votoes on the security council concerning Israel/Palestine resolutions. And we were in some cases the only country to do so.
I notice that whenever Bush spoke abput the economy he either spoke in vague terms about "getting stronger" or he spoke in confusing terms such as "x quarter saw the highest growth in 20 years." It is my understanding that there should be no surprise since we hadn't suffered a recession that bad in over 20 years. We had nowhere to go but up!
Bush talked a lot about jobs and job education but what he didn't mention is that since he has taken office the unemployment rate has risen to over 8 percent nationally.
For my own values I feel that teaching abstinance to children is very important, but unfortunately it doesn't work for teenagers. Bush's abstinance program will only alienate teenagers and make STDs worse then safe sex education.
This ties in with Bush's empty promise to HIV in Africa and Inida. Did anyone else notice how Bush completely ignored AIDS this year?
The reason he did that is because he would have to report that he has reduced AIDS funding and aid to Africa and India by 80%. This is due to his re-instatement of the Mexico City Agreement, which Reagan created and Clinton had gotten rid of. The Mexico City Agreement basically makes all foreign medical aid contingent on the fact that no money will go to any nation or program that uses or is connected to or is affiliated with planned parenthood or any kind of education for contraceptives. This has basically heightened the danger that AIDS poses exponentially since the US has pulled almost all of its funding out. President Bush sending abstinance pamphlets to Africa will not stop the current practice of raping virgins to try to get rid of HIV. That's the kind of stuff they still do over there and Bush has decided no to try to help that anymore.
I coudl probably go on but this is just what came to mind. I feel utterly ashamed that I voted for him, and that he is a Republican, a party I thought was above this kind of stuff, and that was centered around true conservatism.
I will not be voting for George Bush in 2004.
I never thought I would ever agree with Ted Kennedy until last night.
[ January 21, 2004, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
I know how you feel, BrianM. Watching the speech last night, all I could think was that I would never be able to tell my children I voted for this man. The history books will not be as kind as the current media.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Not to be insufferable or anything, but can those of us who DIDN'T vote for him and warned all of you years ago that he was odious say a quiet little "I told you so" yet?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Yeah, I feel pretty bad about a lot of what Bush has done as well.
His disgusting expansion of the welfare state to include prescription drugs shows clear disreguard for the ideals our country was founded on, specifically personal liberty.
The president's continued support of the patriot act also sickens me. His education bill, which he allowed Ted Kennedy to write(no joke), doesn't go nearly far enough. Money is not the problem. Cash does not educate the kids. The pres. seems to barely understand that raising standards is the biggest part of the solution, but he needs to go further with it.
Then there is the constant mis-characterization of our war on terror as an attempt to help the Iraqi people. Our goal is not ultimately to help the Iraqi people, it is to protect Americans from the jihadi savages. It would serve all involved to be clear about our motives.
Not to mention his embarassingly weak performance on budget control. The tax cuts were and are absolutely right. He just needed to follow them with even deeper cuts in the economic redistribution structures like welfare, social ecurity, and medicaid.
(edit: added last paragraph)
[ January 21, 2004, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: he spoke in confusing terms such as "x quarter saw the highest growth in 20 years.
What's confusing about it? I believe the exact numbers are: 8.2% real GDP growth in the 3rd quarter of 2003. Its really one of the only clear and precise things he said last night.
quote: Bush talked a lot about jobs and job education but what he didn't mention is that since he has taken office the unemployment rate has risen to over 8 percent nationally.
By who's accounting? According to the Department of Labor the unemployment rate is 5.7%. Besides, the president is not responsible for creating jobs. Try to explain what specifically Bush did to eliminate those jobs.
(edited: added last paragraph)
[ January 21, 2004, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:BrianM said: Bush talked a lot about jobs and job education but what he didn't mention is that since he has taken office the unemployment rate has risen to over 8 percent nationally.
Can you source that, please? I haven’t been able to find anything over 6.2% documented since Bush took office.
Also, could you point to the portion of NCLB that has the “feds actually go[ing] in and shut[ting] the school down completely”?
Dagonee
[ January 21, 2004, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Wow Robes, and before I read that I had felt that arch-conservatives were a noxious bunch. Now I'm seeing a political mindset that I am even more disgusted by.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Now I'm seeing a political mindset that I am even more disgusted by.
I like government enforced slavery even more than you like my positions! Sops, I am feeling a little hungry today, there will be a government agent arriving at your house with a gun to loot your pantry and find me some cheez-its, to promote...social...justice.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Spoken like a man more comfortable in theory than in the real world.
Establishing some form of assistance to seniors and the desperately poor to provide them access to life-saving and life-preserving medications isn't some classroom philosophical discussion. Have you ever seen a poor person gasping and struggling because they couldn't afford a simple medication for their asthma? How about someone who had to have a leg amputated because they could not afford insulin? Or the fact that the poor do not receive the same qaulity of overall health care that even the moderately middle class do? This isn't welfare, it is humanity, the core of existence.. that we are all in this together and we all deserve some help when it is needed.
Does it even bother you that drug companies charge Americans an astronomically higher price for their products than they do in other countries? How about does it bother you that they do that after receiving numerous governmental grants to help them develop those products?
And if you came home to find out that your grandmother had been taking her cancer medications only once every three days instead of daily because she couldn't afford them, would that bother you in the least? What if one day you had to take your child in for leukemia treatments to be told that by statistical data they had determined that it wasn't worth it to work to keep your child alive?
Let's look at education. Cash does make a difference in the results of education. Don't believe me? Go speak with a teacher at an inner city or rural public school. Ask them about class size and shortages of teaching materials or whether their pay is worth the efforts that they make. Ask a parent how they feel when their kid comes home with a list that demands they send 4 rolls of toilet paper and a box of tissues in with their kid at the beginning of the year because the school doesn't have it in the budget. Perhaps you should look at how long a school system typically recycles text books until they are held together with tape and threads with outdated information. Or maybe you'd like to look into a poor, hungry child's eyes and tell them that we're getting rid of the free lunch program.
Robes, perhaps you should change your screen name to Antionette, you seem to have a "let them eat cake attitude" when it comes to society. Really, you took Swift's Modest Proposal to heart and at face value, didn't you?
And Jihad Savages... it has a ring to it that a Roman Senator would enjoy using when speaking of the Goths on the Bulgarian frontier. Just some savages that need to be taught a lesson with steel and the blood of someone else's son.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
No, I'm not talking about the new standards set for being umployed that Bush has brought through, I am talking about people reporting not being able to find work. The statistics I read were in the Wall Street Jounral and I saw them also posted in this last's quarter's John Marhsall Law Review. I believe the statistics are done by an indepedant group now that does the survey to counterbalance the Bush admin.'s lowered standards. This is like how Bush lowered the poverty line just so less people would fall over it. In any case, I can't find the statistics online, I don't have the time or the desire to go hunting for them. If you like, I am lying and you can ignore me, alright?
To those who are defending Bush with petty positives, hasn't it occured to you that HIV is perhaps the greatest biological threat man has ever encountered, and that if we don't do something about it it will eventually mutate into something even more virulent and contagious? Even if you don't care about the hundreds of millions of people that are dying and will die from it at least be selfish and be worried about yourselves getting it. Already concentrated strains in laboratories are being spread through mere touch contact, no longer just body fluids. We are doing alright at keeping the virus itself repressed with drugs, but no closer at coming to understand what a cure might even resemble, short of changing the human imune system.
Sopwith, I hear you. My wife just had to assist on a leg amputation of a 68 yr old 250lb man who went into some kind of comatose state and whose leg was turning black. He still hasn't come out of it. Easily preventable if he had had his insulin.
I am still waiting for an answer on Bush's hypocritical expectation of the UN.
[ January 21, 2004, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Rabbit,
quote:In fact, US casualties in Iraq during the first 6 months of this war exceed US casualties in during the first 3 years of the Vietnam war.
In the first three years of Vietnam (according to the DoD), there were 392 deaths out of a total of 17,000 servicepersons. That's a death rate of approximately 2.31 %. So the figures you're citing are not complete anyway. And you haven't even mentioned the differences in the type of wars being waged. Naturally in two different theaters of conflict, facing different sorts of opposition, casualties will be different.
I stand by my statement that a death rate of 0.145% since combat started is, though not a good thing, not nearly as bad as you claim.
quote:It is no more amaizing that the casualty counts in Iraq have been lower than those in WW II, than it would be "amaizing" for Mike Tyson to beat me in a boxing match with a single punch.
What's amazing is that, first of all, you're digging so shallowly. Even a cursory look finds more than you're seeing in casualty statistics.
There's enough to dislike about Dubya in domestic policy, but if one is going to dig deep to find it, apply that same depth to searching his foreign record as well. Seems to me that if the American military is suffering less than one percent death against Iraqi military, that ain't so bad.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:BrianM said: No, I'm not talking about the new standards set for being umployed that Bush has brought through…
What new standards? Got a description of them and how they are different from past ones?
quote:BrianM said: If you like, I am lying and you can ignore me, alright?
Incredibly mature attitude. You accuse someone of fudging statistics but don’t backup your statement at all.
Dagonee
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Is this a big liberal board?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not sure it's a liberal board, but most of the liberals here are somewhat large. So depending on what you mean by "big liberal board," the answer is either "yes" or "no."
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Spoken like a man more comfortable in theory than in the real world.
This is a nice sentiment, but it means nothing. I reject your classification.
quote: Establishing some form of assistance to seniors and the desperately poor to provide them access to life-saving and life-preserving medications isn't some classroom philosophical discussion.
The disgusting and condecending nature of your response clues all who read you into the true nature of your disagreement. You respond on a purely emotional level. You seem to imply that I lack empathy, that I don't understand the situation. Your monsterous arrogance is really what prevents any real discussion from happening. I have a policy disagreement with you. What is the best way to help the elderly, the poor, the unemployed, etc. You then assert that I don't know what its like to be poor, or I have no humanity, or whatever.
quote: Does it even bother you that drug companies charge Americans an astronomically higher price for their products than they do in other countries?
Does it bother you that this country was established with a capitalist system? Ask yourself what the source of those costs are. Are drug companies trying to force people to die and not afford their products? They are just out to make as bg a profit as possible. This is what corporations do. This is how capitalism works. This is how most people handle their economic activities, be they employment, investing, whatever.
quote: And if you came home to find out that your grandmother had been taking her cancer medications only once every three days instead of daily because she couldn't afford them, would that bother you in the least?
Would it bother you if I confiscated 50% of your paycheck because my grandma was sick, and I didn't want to help her myself? You seem to miss the point that the government doesn't create wealth. They cannot make money, then give it to your grandma. That money must first be looted from someone else's grandma. Why is this form of slavery, where people are forced by the gun to work for the benefit of others, okay with you? Does the bill of rights bother you?
How about if I came into your house and took $50 out of your wallet to buy some groceries because I got fired?
quote: Cash does make a difference in the results of education. Don't believe me? Go speak with a teacher at an inner city or rural public school.
Do you think the problem with our public schools is lack on money? The racist strategy of lowering standards in inner-city schools is part of the problem in our schools.
quote: Or maybe you'd like to look into a poor, hungry child's eyes and tell them that we're getting rid of the free lunch program.
Again, I see plenty of emotion here, but no logic.
quote: And Jihad Savages... it has a ring to it that a Roman Senator would enjoy using when speaking of the Goths on the Bulgarian frontier. Just some savages that need to be taught a lesson with steel and the blood of someone else's son.
You saw the history channel last night too, eh? Yeah, I guess I should respect the beliefs of those who wish to destroy my life with the very vehicles we use to build so much prosperity. How "draconian" of me. If you want to tell me that the terrorists who threaten us are not savages, you say that outright.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
quote:Your monsterous arrogance is really what prevents any real discussion from happening.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Easily preventable if he had had his insulin.
Why didn't this man buy some insulin?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Pot. Kettle. Black.
Welcome Bob.
Look, I started the whole thing by yelling about Bush. Then I was labeled as disgusting, and worse than the obnoxious neo-cons. I think I well within the bounds of logic to make that claim.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
He couldn't afford it. This guy was barely making enough money to eat working as a bus boy at a local Inn's restaurant. My wife told me that there was some trouble at the hospital over whether his "common law" wife would allow the operation, since Alaska doesn't really recognize common law marriages. I'm not sure if the woman was just trying to grab his PFD or what, but it was clear that he had to choose between food and heat or insulin.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: My wife told me that there was some trouble at the hospital over whether his "common law" wife would allow the operation
Okay, so was this a problem with the wife being a christian scientist or what? Who is responsible in this case?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Well, one of the problems was that he couldn't afford the medicine he needed to live...
I'm really not a big fan of nationalized healthcare because I think it will only worsen the bureaucracy I have to deal with now when I try to get my insurance to pay for something. However, I also think that nobody should die or suffer serious and permanent injury simply because they can't afford treatment. You have no right to a facelift, liposuction, or breast implants. If you can't afford them, tough. However, a nation as wealthy as our should not allow our poor to die from preventable causes.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Isn't it sad when you hear the Fountainhead sputtering and see Altas Shrug about the real world tragedies around us?
Robes, if it took half my paycheck to do my part to make sure no one's grandmother or child had to go without their medication, then I'd do it with the understanding that when I was in need, the assistance would be there for me as well. But you're only looking into your wallet, not the ones that were taxed before you were ever born. What about those who put into the Social Security and Medicare systems only to find out later, when they really needed it, those safety nets were full of holes? Do we just say, sorry chuckles, you should have evaded taxes and set some more money back for what was going to be stolen from you anyway.
The Medicare system and Social Security were promises our nation made to its citizens. You put in your share and it will be there for you when your time of need comes. Generations now have put their money into it and actually seen their benefits fall. It's not all about the baby boom generation getting ready for retirement age. It's also the fact that the costs associated with providing those services have sky rocketed, greatly due to the free-fire zone that the medical and pharmaceutical field has become over the years. Government intervention was a necessity in this twenty years ago, but they held off and held off until it may be too late. When they did try to do it, the drug companies had gotten too big and too politically saavy and we ended up with some watered down mishmash that will probably just put the final coffin nails in.
quote: You saw the history channel last night too, eh? Yeah, I guess I should respect the beliefs of those who wish to destroy my life with the very vehicles we use to build so much prosperity. How "draconian" of me. If you want to tell me that the terrorists who threaten us are not savages, you say that outright.
Actually, I did see the History Channel last night and it seemed so appropriate. But yes, I would advise that we respect those who oppose us (not necessarily their beliefs, but respect them for the threat they are) because if we don't, we shall vastly underestimate the threat they can and do pose. I could point to Custer before Little Big Horn, the British at Iswandallah and Rourke's Drift and our own intelligence services before 9/11.
Hey, they were all just savages... right? Nothing to worry about... right? Not a threat to people at the pinnacle of modern technology... right?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Shigosei, I agree completely. I don't believe in fully socialized medicine, but I do believe that every American should have a real safety net in times of dire trouble.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Isn't it sad when you hear the Fountainhead sputtering and see Altas Shrug about the real world tragedies around us?
What's this? Does this mean something?
quote: But you're only looking into your wallet, not the ones that were taxed before you were ever born.
Who's wallet should I be concerned with, if not my own?
quote: What about those who put into the Social Security and Medicare systems only to find out later, when they really needed it, those safety nets were full of holes?
Yeah, what about them? Sorry chuckles, you demanded government run pensions, now you got 'em. ENJOY. But no, that isn't the proper response, because now I am being looted by that same system. What would have happened if we had not taught people to rely solely on the gubbmint for their retirement? No way to know that now.
quote: you should have evaded taxes and set some more money back for what was going to be stolen from you anyway.
I am having a hard time parsing this, are you being using sarcasm within a sarcastic statement?
quote: The Medicare system and Social Security were promises our nation made to its citizens.
Exactly, promises which the nation cannot back up.
quote: Generations now have put their money into it and actually seen their benefits fall.
Actually benefits have been increasing since the program was started.
quote: Hey, they were all just savages... right? Nothing to worry about... right? Not a threat to people at the pinnacle of modern technology... right?
Are you claiming that I don't understand the threat that jihadist savages pose to the united states? I mean, cause, I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings here(terrorists included), but the people who strap bombs to themselves, or who fly airplanes into civilian buildings, these are savages of the worst kind.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: However, a nation as wealthy as our should not allow our poor to die from preventable causes.
A noble cause. How can we best make sure this doesn't happen? Do we destroy wealth and trample people's freedoms to accomplish it?
Again, I would ask all of those who support social security and other redistribution programs, have they worked? What would it take to make them work? Were people better off, or worse off before these programs started?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: I don't believe in fully socialized medicine, but I do believe that every American should have a real safety net in times of dire trouble.
So you only partially believe in it? Why not fully? If its okay for a safety net, why is it not okay for everyone all the time?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I've swiped away the original draft of this post because, honestly, sometimes it's best to walk away from something loathsome than to wrestle with it.
Robes, Ms Antoinette, I just can't cotton to your economic/political beliefs, it just continually gives me this picture of a neo-Gollum hunched over his money saying "Precious, MY precious... nasty poor peoples, nassty grubby poor peoples.."
So, I wish you well and I hope you can find something more worthwhile in the life than a claim to capitalism that smacks of a Gordon Gecko-ist proclaimation that "Greed is Good."
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: it's best to walk away from something loathsome than to wrestle with it.
I ask again.
quote: So you only partially believe in it? Why not fully? If its okay for a safety net, why is it not okay for everyone all the time?
I don't think this is an insulting question. Its specific and direct. However, you don't have an answer for why a little socialism is okay, but a lot isn't.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
May I ask how helping the poor is destroying wealth and trampling peoples' freedoms? First of all, preventive care such as providing insulin to a diabetic who needs it is probably cheaper than paying for an amputation and keeping a man in a coma on life support. Health care for the poor may actually help protect our wealth because we won't have to pay for expensive procedures later.
There's also the fact that if we let the lower class die, who will work the low-paying jobs? If you want to be pragmatic about it, it's probably better for your pocketbook to keep those people alive and healthy so they'll be productive. It's also the compassionate thing to do.
You are, of course, welcome to try to protect your wallet. I think that the government is horribly inefficient, which is why I prefer to donate my money rather than pay taxes. If you don't like the choice of what to do with your money taken away from you, why don't you choose to help the poor so the government doesn't have to?
Regarding social security and medicare: It's a pyramid scheme. Eventually the system will collapse, unless we increase the birth-rate. The country made promises it couldn't keep forever. I don't expect to see the money I put in ever again, personally. I think social security will probably be gone by the time I retire.
[ January 21, 2004, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Shigosei ]
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Robes, why is it a problem to want a balance of capitalism and socialism? I personally like free-markets, but I realize that capitalism is only beneficial when there's healthy competition. So I agree with anti-trust regulations because trusts are bad for the economy. Do you like your capitalism completely unregulated? If not, then why are you criticising sopwith for wanting a moderate amount of socialism?
The economy is not a black and white issue. There is a continuum between capitalism and socialism, and almost everyone falls somewhere in the middle, not on the extreme edges.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The reason you haven't found higher unemployment numbers is cuz those past their eligiblity for unemployment insurance payments are no longer counted. Nor are highly trained (with formerly decent pay&benefit packages) personnel now forced to work as "independent" consultants and as office temps at lower wages&benefits. Nor are highly trained (with formerly decent pay&benefit packages) personnel now forced to work part-time -- often at minimum and near-minimum wage jobs -- with no benefits. Nor are those who once contributed financially to formerly two-income households, but have ceased seeking work because the wages now offered are too low to cover the extra expenses and higher tax bracket of being employed. Nor are those who are newly entered in the job market. Nor are those forced to take early retirement, and small retirement compensation packages, in lieu of probable layoffs. Nor are those who would like to return to work after an early retirement, and subsequent destruction of their retirement finances by the Dubya recession. Nor are those who would like to return to the job market after raising their kids to an age where they no longer need the constant presence of adult supervision. Nor are those fully dependent on welfare. Nor are those dependent on charity. Nor are street people who manage to find enough occasional employment to keep themselves alive. Nor are "illegal"s. ETC
BTW: The types of unemployed and under-employed cited above are counted as part of the unemployment rolls in Canada and the EuropeanUnion nations.
[ January 21, 2004, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
It is a sad fact that the posted Unemployment Rate doesn't reflect the actual employment situation.
An out of work nuclear engineer who takes a job at Burger King to help cover the bills, is technically employed by the government's standards, but the engineer would probably think differently.
An economist once explained to me that the perfect unemployment rate (realistic "full" employment) would be 4.5 percent. Half of a percent would be folks transitioning from one career to another, one percent would be available workforce from layoffs or firings, another one percent would be just entering or leaving training/college and sadly the other two percent are the terminally unemployable.
On a side note, dealing with unemployment and underemployment -- how bad is the budget deficit going to get as we start to feel the effects of lower incomes for the middle and lower classes start resulting in lower income tax revenues?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
George Bush is pushing his Jobs For American's Training Plan.
He wants to train everyone for the growth industries of the 21st century.
Everyone stand up and repeat after me:
"Do you want fries with that?"
What are the growing Job Markets of the 21st century?
Soldier? Sky Marshal? Metal Detector Operator?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: May I ask how helping the poor is destroying wealth and trampling peoples' freedoms?
Choosing to help the poor doesn't destroy anyone's freedom. FORCING people to help the poor, under threat of jail and gun, does destroy freedom.
quote: There's also the fact that if we let the lower class die, who will work the low-paying jobs?
Geezus, how did humans survive before medicare and social security? I guess if we stop looting money from those who earn it, the lower class will perish. Then who will pay the liquor and tobacco taxes!?
quote: If you want to be pragmatic about it, it's probably better for your pocketbook to keep those people alive and healthy so they'll be productive.
If these programs actually made people healthy and more productive, you might be right, but they don't. Check the numbers. Plus, even if they worked, it is still immoral to take from someone just because they have succeeded.
quote: It's also the compassionate thing to do.
Compassion at the point of a gun?
quote: why don't you choose to help the poor so the government doesn't have to?
The best help they can get is a good economy. Simply giving money away helps no one, as you can see by the abject failure of the "war on poverty".
quote: why is it a problem to want a balance of capitalism and socialism? I personally like free-markets, but I realize that capitalism is only beneficial when there's healthy competition.
The problem is that socialism, on any scale, doesn't work. Look at the government programs like welfare, social security, medicare, etc. These are all failures.
The comment about competition is ironic because socialism allows no competition, it holds competition to be destructive. We don't need to balance success with failure.
Socialism entails minute planning of the economy and controled production. The economy is too complex for some individual or small group of individuals to control from a central office.
quote: Do you like your capitalism completely unregulated?
We just had a big discussion about this recently. Short answer is yes. Understand however, that this does not then mean its okay to break the law by cheating or stealing or whatever. Those are covered by other laws. Regulations cover the minute details of the day to day operation of businesses.
quote: destruction of their retirement finances by the Dubya recession.
Who broke the stock market?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Just wait until Dubya's indentured servitude program gets fully underway. In it, if a burger joint can no longer fully supply its labor needs at minimum wage with Americans, it can hire an alien citizen instead. If an InformationTechnology company can't hire an American at say 60% of current wages (which is what foreigners now working in the US for IT companies make in comparison to their American citizen or permanent resident counterparts), they can import new workers from overseas.
And those alien workers can't even switch jobs for better working conditions or higher pay without leaving the country. Heck, they can't even legally get another job if their wages&benefits are reduced. And leaving America means only that they can reapply for work documents in hope that sometime in the future they will once again be approved by the US government to get another job at another US company, with no guarantee that the new job won't be worse.
[ January 21, 2004, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Ahh, sometimes you can't help but dive back in... here goes.
Who broke the stock market? Excessive greed or unfettered capitalism goaded on by opportunists broke the stock market.
The Internet Bubble was only the first shudder and shake. You remember that one don't you? Everyone dove in to buy up IPOs for internet-based companies that had shaky business plans, no true financial backing and no physical products. Why were they able to make these IPOs? Simply because the system had become so filled with rats on both the regulatory and sales side that as long as everyone made money, no one balked.
The same thing happened in the 80s with junk bonds.
Later it happened with Enron and other companies as they reinvested their worker's pension funds back into their own stocks to artificially inflate the prices. Why did they do it? Because some mighty git decided that the time for day traders had finally come. Add in discount Internet brokerages giving everyone the option to buy and sell at a moment's notice (and the discount guys pulled a coup by finding a way to charge an investor for both buying and selling, whereas before it had only been on commissions from sales).
Now, what did this do to the economy? It shifted the entire business plan of the major US companies. The major investors were no longer interested in the long-term viability of a company so much as the short-term return on their investment. This fueled more layoffs, re-orgs and off-shore flights than anything in the history of American business.
Rampant capitalism made investors put on an eyepatch, grab a cutlass and set forth to rape, pillage and plunder anything they could get their hands on. They were in it for the fast buck and the companies they now controlled had no choice but to follow the path these folks had laid before them.
And no one a hardcore capitalist would care about cried until the jig was up and some folks had run some surefire businesses into the ground. Because we couldn't have government in to assess the details or to regulate the finer print.
It's still going on and people still haven't learned anything. They're going back into the stock market for quick profits like a hang-over sufferer heading back for a hair of the dog that bit them.
But in the meantime, those folks at Enron and Tyco and many other firms lost their hard-earned pension plans and their jobs and their homes and their health care insurance. That probably doesn't sweat you much Robes. Or maybe it does, as long as you don't have to put in 75 cents to try to provide them with some sort of aid.
But you see, they are part of the same society that you are. Once, they may have been in the same shoes as you, but they put in their fair share of the tax burden... not at the point of a gun but out of their duty for being part of this society. They contributed to a society, a nation, a collection of people whose lives -- no matter how distant -- are inextricably entwined.
You, however, benefit from this society. From the traffic cop he pulls the drunk from behind the wheel that could have plowed into you, to the emergency workers who will save your life before checking your bank account first, to the military that protects your right to live a pompous life, to the very inks that are used to print the money. They've contributed to this society, one that has strived to provide some guarantee of assistance when it is needed, and they have benefitted from it to.
You live in a society and benefit from the good graces of your neighbors, yet have the gall to complain that you have to pay for your fair share? What makes you so special? What makes you worth more than a down-on-their-luck person living on the streets?
I'll give you a hint... the real answer doesn't require an accountant.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I noticed that no one has responded to Brian's post about AIDS.
The trouble, Brian, is that no one has ever produced a cure for any viral disease, to the best of my knowledge. The best we can do are prevention and amelioration of symptoms, despite decades of work. With most viruses, this is okay because eventually the body manages to throw off the invasion if it has enough help.
All known organisms have the same basic structures in their DNA and RNA, and many viruses use proteins similar or the same as those already found in the body. Moreover, cellular membranes protect large reservoirs of the virus already within the cells. It is thus near-impossible to kill a virus without killing the host as well.
I would very much like to see a cure for AIDS, but I do not expect one any time soon. I would like to think that people would stop transmitting the virus--ie, STOP SCREWING AROUND!!!--but apparently that is contrary to human nature.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Ahh yes Rospierre, people did die in droves.
Why do you think Socialism, Communism, and Fascism were so rampant in this century?
Was it because people were lazy that they decided to risk their lives to protest and "rob" the rich?
No.
It was because the wealthy, seeking to find more wealth, did not look for it in themselves, but sought to get it from the workers, and return none of it. It was because they were all "just trying to make as big a profit as possible", and those who did not have the capital to invest and make a profit had no choice but to starve or revolt.
If the charities you assume would help the poor did indeed solve the problems.
You talk a lot about freedom.
You say that my taking your money to feed the poor makes you a slave.
What of the freedom of the poor?
Do they not have the freedom to live? The freedom to work? The freedom to try and get an education?
You say that removing any of your money through taxes is making you a slave.
That is an insult to people in this world who do live in slavery, whether its a Nike' shoe factory in Brazil or a road crew of children in Pakistan or else where in the hidden third world we try to pretend doesn't exist.
There are benefits and costs to freedom. Taxation is one of the ways we pay.
You have stated earlier that the reason for government is to protect property.
I state that the reason for government is to protect the people who make up the society. Protecting their property is just one of the ways this is done.
We can argue about it in another thread. I have to go now.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
aspectre, you said
quote:BTW: The types of unemployed and under-employed cited above are counted as part of the unemployment rolls in Canada and the EuropeanUnion nations.
Because the majority is usually right isnt it? I wanna see the last time the United States looked at the nations of Europe and said, "since Europe is doing it, we should do it to." There is a reason why we are such a powerful country and its not because we do what the EU does.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Who broke the stock market?"
Quite correct. Reagan can take a portion of the blame: for the ReaganDebt still being paid off; and his decrease of the InternalRevenueService audits on large corporations, which otherwise might have kept the stockmarket fraud to a minimum.
The Republican Congress can also take a large portion of the blame for jamming though Congressional overrides of Clinton's vetos of three bills which essentially gutted oversite of the stockmarket by reducing responsibility of executives, boards of directors, legal advisors, and auditing firms to their stockholders AND reducing the requirement for a paperwork trail while making proof of fraud more difficult by requiring that any conviction contains undisputable evidence of knowing&deliberate deception by those charged with the crime. Using such a 'state of mind' evidentiary requirement would have made it difficult to obtain a conviction of JackRuby, who murdered LeeHarveyOswald during live coverage on national television.
Of course, it didn't help that Dubya ran his entire 2000 campaign swearing that a recession was inevitable. And when he took office, one can hardly blame the stockmarket for believing the new President -- who is in the strongest position to influence the economy -- and bear-market crashing stock prices. Even then, he went well out of his way to ensure that a recession would occur, by having his FederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission ignore the obviously illegal manipulation of the California energy supply by his buddies at ElPasoGas, Enron, FirstEnergy, etc. California couldn't do anything since it had given its regulatory powers over to the FERC under a bill designed&approved by Republican Governor PeteWilson. Energy cost being a major driver in production costs (~30% or greater), California's economy tanked. However, not even Dubya&Rove could pull off this act of political vengence for rejection of the Dubya-Cheney presidential aspirations without affecting the national economy. California is the 5th strongest economy in the world; and a sneeze in California causes a flu in the overall US economy.
If it weren't for Dubya's buddy OsamaBinLaden using mostly Saudi nutcases to stage the 9/11 attacks, the economy would still be in a recession. As it was, the SaudiArabian government ducked for cover and lowered oil prices to unprecedented lows in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars. And the American public went on a massive patriotic spending binge in an attempt to prevent a further collapse of the economy. Add the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates, and the subsequent refinancing boom allowing consumers to spend even more, and the recession was over.
And it worked, to a point. The point being business confidence remained&remains quite low, since the Administration has gone out of its way to do as little as possible inregard to the multi-tens-of-billions of dollars lost in Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, AOL, Vivendi, etc frauds. Yet it has plenty of money&personnel to waste on MarthaStewart's minor act of stupidity involving only a few ten-thousand dollars in hopes that the public will be gullible enough to take it as a sign that the Administration cares about stock manipulation&deceit. However, when honest (and even dishonest) businessmen can no longer count on the companies that they deal with -- exchange cash/credit, products, and services with -- to be on the up&up inregards to their financial condition, and can't rely on the regulatory bodies to enforce compliance with the law, the prudent thing to do was to tighten their belts. Which they did: engaging in massive worker layoffs and firings; mandating more overtime at less overall payroll costs; reducing inventories; reducing new purchases of equipment; reducing new business construction; etc. Despite the recession being over.
Granted the reduction in the capital gains tax has artificially bumped up the stock prices. However, if an investor wants a $10 yearly profit on $100 capital, and the tax is 25%, then he must receive a $13.33 to both pay taxes and get his desired return. Eliminate the tax, keep the $13.33 return, and a new investor wishing for a 10% return would be willing to pay $133.33 for the same stock. Which tells you why the stock market rose. However, there needs to have been no underlying increase in the assets of the businesses themselves: no increase in profit; no increase in production; no increase in overall wages; no increase of the number of wage earners capable of buying products and services. So business confidence remains low in terms of actual investment to increase production, and unemployment remains high.
Then add in the borrowing to cover the TRILLION dollar deficit for 2003 and 2004 which will certainly raise interest rates, making investment in capital goods even less attractive. And you get capital flight to eg Europe which is reflected in the ~40%rise in the price of Euros for the dollar. That same rise in overseas currencies is causing OPEC to raise its oil prices so that eg Europe and Japan pay less-but-somewhat-near the same amount of their trade goods for oil as they currently do. And Americans have to pay considerably more. Which increases US production costs. In fact, the Dubya debt has caused oil producing nations to consider moving off the strict dollars-for-oil exchange to a more flexible Dollars&Euros&Yens&etc oil purchasing mechanism. And the dollars-for-oil is a major reason why the US dollar is favored as a reserve currency by other nations. Eliminate the necessity to buy oil with USdollars, and the underlying need to purchase the USdollar decreases, as well as a major prop for its value.
Burning out, so I'll post.
[ January 21, 2004, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I see no difference between people being forced to support a war financially at gunpoint and people being forced to support others at gunpoint. You might argue that the government ought to do one and not the other, but you are still taking away the exact same freedoms when you tax, no matter what you spend that money on.
I personally think you should be able to determine where a percentage of your tax money goes. Check off boxes if you want to support the military, education, and heathcare, say. If the public is sufficiently well-informed (not likely, I admit) then theoretically the useful programs stay while the wasteful ones might get less funding.
What happened to the poor before social programs? Sometimes they died, sometimes their family took care of them. Many probably had to beg. We don't have beggars all over the place now, probably because the government takes care of them.
As I said, if you don't like the government taking your money to support the poor, then I hope you do it voluntarily in some way. Not everyone who is poor got that way because they were lazy. Sometimes it's just the luck of the draw.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
You guys are wasting your time trying to get a libertarian to see things in shades other than black and white.
The notion that there is only one moral principle which applies perfectly to all situations is pretty attractive, and the principle of pure unrestricted liberty is a good one in most cases. But of course exceptions arise, especially in a technologically advanced society with a highly artificial man-made market economic system like our own. So better principles must be sought.
My current idea is that we should view someone as free only to the extent that they have a wide variety of lifestyle choices available to them. By this reckoning, the wealthier you are the freer you are, and so if we can boost the general wealth of the poor we are boosting their freedom.
Anyway, contrary to what Sopwith said, I have much more sympathy for libertarians than communitarian conservatives. I think it would be best if the world political dialogue shifted from conservative v. liberal to libertarian v. liberal. That way at least everyone involved would agree that personal freedom is the top priority, and the subject of controversy would be how best to secure it.
[ January 21, 2004, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Because the majority is usually right isnt it?"
On the contrary, I haven't a care for majority opinion. Look at how often I ignore the majority's desire for "proper" grammar&spelling. If you knew me from other forums, you would have even stronger proof. Facts are the same, but the interpretation can differ greatly, especially semanticly. Often I was in argument with misinterpretations of eg physics by those who mistakenly assumed PhysicsEnglish is the same language as AmericanEnglish. It ain't.
In this case I added the "BTW: The types of unemployed and under-employed cited above are counted as part of the unemployment rolls in Canada and the EuropeanUnion nations." because anytime anyone mentions American unemployment, a "conservative" says "but look how much worse it is in Europe and Canada." Thought I'd preempt that statement by pointing out that it isn't comparing the same type of data sets.
[ January 21, 2004, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Excessive greed or unfettered capitalism goaded on by opportunists broke the stock market.
Wrong. People trying to get something for nothing broke the stock market.
quote: Everyone dove in to buy up IPOs for internet-based companies that had shaky business plans, no true financial backing and no physical products.
People made idiotic decisions. Which they are free to do. People are free to eat fast food every meal of every day if they want.
quote: The same thing happened in the 80s with junk bonds.
And who's fault was it then? Was it the fault of capitalism? I think the problem here is that capitalism is the only economic system that works in the real world. Socialism has been shown to be the system of utopian fools. So whenever something happens, it gets blamed on greedy capitalists. Well sure, there really aren't that many socialists running the stock market or being CEO's of big companies. So when these people commit crimes, its not because they were dishonest and wanted something for nothing, no. It was because of capitalism.
quote: they reinvested their worker's pension funds back into their own stocks to artificially inflate the prices.
Wrong. The artificial inflation of their stock value was done by committing fraud with their accounting. The re-investment was perfectly legal, although stupid. I don't think anyone forced those employees to put all their retirement money into the company. They wanted to get rich quick. Which is not to be looked down upon. However, they are the ones that took the risk of investing all their money in one place. They are not at fault, but lets be honest about it.
quote: Rampant capitalism made investors put on an eyepatch, grab a cutlass and set forth to rape, pillage and plunder anything they could get their hands on.
What madness is this? Who plundered what now?
quote: Because we couldn't have government in to assess the details or to regulate the finer print.
Lack of government regulation caused this last economic downturn? Thats a new one on me, how?
quote: Once, they may have been in the same shoes as you, but they put in their fair share of the tax burden... not at the point of a gun but out of their duty for being part of this society.
If paying income taxes were optional, would you, or anyone else, do it? Indeed everyone pays at the point of a gun. You may pay because it makes you feel good, but I do not pay for that reason. I pay so that the man won't come and take my house away.
quote: to the military that protects your right to live a pompous life,
Your type disgusting psuedo moralism is rampant in our society today. Those who don't help help the majority continue their lie of "helping everyone" are hated. You claim to just want the best for everyone, and oh why can't we all just pitch in and help everyone. Well your system has been shown as the hideous failure it is. Why don't you answer my last question? What is wrong with socialism?
quote: You live in a society and benefit from the good graces of your neighbors
This does not mean I demand charity from them. I do not live at their expense.
quote: What makes you worth more than a down-on-their-luck person living on the streets?
What makes the jobless more deserving than the employed? What gives the unproductive a claim on the money of the productive?
quote: What of the freedom of the poor?
Yeah, what of their freedom?
quote: Do they not have the freedom to live? The freedom to work? The freedom to try and get an education?
Apparently they have MORE of a right than I do.
quote: That is an insult to people in this world who do live in slavery
They live in bonded slavery for the same reasons we live in monetary slavery. The disease of guilt, which allows its host the self-righteous feeling of having a right to another person's life.
{edited to fix a quote}
[ January 21, 2004, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: So better principles must be sought.
I am willing to listen. I am trying to express what I see as the most logical and moral point of view. The psuedo-libertarian views I express on here are the best I can do when it comes to explaining the world as best I can.
However, I don't want to listen to emotional apeals. Emotions are not the solution here. Empathy will not solve the problem in and of itself. There needs to be some logical and moral premise to the actions we take and the laws we make.
And majority be damned. The bill of rights is there to hamper the majority's efforts to oppress the minority with religious and social laws. If we allowed a majority vote on everything, christianity would likely be the established religion of the realm. Federal oversight, rooted in the constitution is one of the most important parts of our government.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"However, I don't want to listen to emotional apeals. Emotions are not the solution here."
Why not, exactly? What leads you to think that ruthless logic is the best way to deal with human beings?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
quote: Federal oversight, rooted in the constitution is one of the most important parts of our government.
And so, with a stretch and a strain of unbounded logic, Ourobouros puts it's tail into its own mouth and the circle is formed.
I rest my case.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
aspectre,
I think what your saying is solid then and I see why you brought it up. I dislike it when people compare the U.S. to Europe, and portray America in a negative light, as if just being in Europe makes them better. For instance, when people like Madonna or Qweneth Paltrow(spelling?) say, "Its just such a different way of life in Europe."
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
quote: Wrong. The artificial inflation of their stock value was done by committing fraud with their accounting. The re-investment was perfectly legal, although stupid. I don't think anyone forced those employees to put all their retirement money into the company. They wanted to get rich quick. Which is not to be looked down upon. However, they are the ones that took the risk of investing all their money in one place. They are not at fault, but lets be honest about it.
You might want to look into this a bit more, Ms. Antoinette. What was invested back into the company were the employee's 401K and pension funds, at the advisement of the company's investment gurus. The actual employees did not have a say into which stocks were purchased or how much would be invested back into the company.
After such maneuvers, many investment firms also began trading these little schemes for advance purchase ability of IPOs for spin-off stocks. This prompted many companies to spin off their most profitable enterprises in an attempt to boost quick sales of their stock, or increase their own portfolios in these artificial splits. Greed at its finest for the quick bang.
AT&T was one of the first to get into this as they spun off Lucent (their own R&D firm) which saw them lose their edge in the telecom business. Lucent set a record for an IPO investor boom in its day and then, without the support of its parent company, it quickly fell into the doldrums and became one of the more lackluster stocks of the last decade. Not to be outdone, AT&T then spun off their wireless division before they had even finished paying for all the lil wireless providers they had bought up in a desperate attempt to be part of that boom. Now, their AT&T Wireless is struggling mightily. Then spun out AT&T broadband and well, that's hitting the ground with a mighty thud as well. Meanwhile, old Ma Bell is finding itself out of the innovation loop and holding onto a share of long distance business of satellites and land lines, but it's future days are looking pretty ho-hum.
There are a few hundred more companies with similar woes in both of the mentioned scenarios. All done in the name of capitalism, but really done for greed's sake.
Capitalism isn't a bad thing, but only if the bad people don't get involved.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: and the circle is formed.
Federal oversight of legislature. The congress is not allowed to pass any old law that they wish. Or, rather, they may, but the supreme court then has the duty to destroy those laws which contradict the constitution.
Did you think I meant oversight of the economy?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Not to interrupt the entertaining venom-spewing, but a statistic interested me from the original post:
quote: 501: Number of American servicemen to die in Iraq from the beginning of the war - so far
You realize that there were about the same number of deaths over the same time period in New York City alone, yes?
There were 564 murders in 2003 as of Dec 14th, just under 12 months (the lowest in years - and only the second year since 1968 that it's been under 600). There have been 501 over roughly 10 months in Iraq.
Now, these numbers have nothing in common, obviously. I mean, in one, there was a war. There are militant groups actively attacking US soldiers, laying ambushes and waging a guerilla campaign. Many people have fully automatic weapons and explosives. Comparisons to Vietnam are being made. The loss of life is so tragic that *something must be done*. It's unnatural. It's wrong. It's terrible.
Yet, there were a comparable number of murders in New York City (not including other means of death) over the same period. There is no war there. There are no guerillas. The police are far less heavily armed. And a similar amount in Detroit. And Washington, DC (our murder capital, with 262 murders and only 600,000 people). And Baltimore. NYC is not even in the top ten cities for highest murder rate.
All in all, for fighting a war and maintaining a military presence in a country without a centralized government, that has groups of regime loyalists still attacking and killing US troops... I'd say 501 is pretty good.
quote: 0: Number of American combat deaths in Germany after the Nazi surrender to the Allies in May 1945
I got a laugh out of this, too. Care to count the number of combat deaths before the Nazi surrender?
While loss of life is always tragic, the numbers of deaths for the invasion and occupation of Iraq are still very low.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Also, if you look at the end of the war in Europe and the war in Iraq, you'll see that the populations of the two countries were dealing with something entirely different.
In Germany, the people had literally been ground down to the point where resistance was the last thing on their minds. They'd suffered through death and destruction that is pretty much unimaginable in this day and age. The fire Bombing of Dresden, the constant bombing of every manufacturing facility, large battles fought in their own cities, Russian, American, British and Canadian troops numbering in the millions inside their country, plus the discovery of the concentration camps and the horrors therein. This was a defeated and shattered people. The Germans were also completely disarmed, as were the Japanese after their surrender.
The Iraqis never got to even see one percent of the destruction that was invested upon the Germans. The Iraqi citizenry was also not completely disarmed, being allowed if I remember to keep one AK-47 per household.
Isn't it amazing that we allow them to each keep an AK-47 but our own citizens can't do the same?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:BrianM said: The reason he did that is because he would have to report that he has reduced AIDS funding and aid to Africa and India by 80%.
Will you now source some of your claims, or are we just to take your word for these things?
Dagonee
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Dagonee, the problem with that bill is that even if it is passed, the funds will be re-appropriated once the Admin. is not able to find hardly any/no places for the money that abide by the Mexico City Agreement. You want a source for this try looking up Bush's executive order's at whatever .gov site they are at.
[ January 22, 2004, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Brian,
All we've got is your word for this. This isn't the only press coverage that uses the 2.4 B or fivefold numbers.
If the effect will be to cut 80% of the funding (which would actually be cutting something like 96% of the funding from the 2.4 B mark), I'm assuming some advocacy group would have documented and laid out the claim.
Participating in a political debate is impossible under these conditions. You've rejected the official unemployment figures, without ANY source that says their inconsistent with the past, and yo've made this accusation about AIDS funding that at least on it's face is instantly refutable.
Dagonee
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
Robes, i used to agree with a lot of what you've been saying so i'm going to ignore all the pettiness that's been going around here.
first, it amazes me to no end that you're not familiar with Ayn Rand (or at least seemed not to be when the Fountainhead was mentioned), as you would probably consider her your soul-mate.
second, you keep talking about "rights", and i'm curious where you see these rights as coming from? do you see them as being god-given, and if so please elaborate on exactly what you see the natural rights of man as including. if not, then the only "rights" which we can say we deserve are those we fight for, somewhat reducing the validity of the "you're taking the money that i have a RIGHT to keep" argument against taxation. if you can't protect that money it's not really your right to have it now is it?
thirdly, the core of my disagreement with your stance is that social programs funded by the state have greater value than they cost. for example: public education creates an educated public, leading to the development of industry and the inflow of foreign investment capital, leading to higher wages and better standard of living. you benefit directly from the education of those around. you said earlier that government's don't create wealth and i'm sorry but i have to diagree wholeheartedly with you. if companies can take money, invest it, and create profits, why can't the government do the same? especially when the government is doing things like educating, protecting, and potentially even housing the populace? would these things not create a more productive workforce? do you really think that we'd be better off if people only learned to read if their parents chose to spend the money to put them in school or knew how to read themselves? you're proposing a return to 20's era government policies, but look at how much our country has grown from the social programs you're so bitter about.
finally, you've said multiple times that socialism doesn't work, and while that maybe technically be true, i don't think anyone on this board is really arguing that socialism is the answer, the comments i have seen are for a type of socialist capitalism in which the state provides certain base services such as road maintenance, military protection, and maybe medical care. you can't say that one is ok (for example an interstate highway system) and then say that another is impossible (social healthcare). most importantly, these types of socialism do work, as can be seen in many countries other than our own.
to truly adhere to what i hear you saying government should be able to do, government would not really exist. the idea of a social contract itself goes against the concepts of "rights" you've been proposing, which really leaves nothing but anarchy, and i don't know many people who are willing to sacrifice that much just so they can say the've earned everything they own. And if it's opression you're worried about, what do you think would happen if corporations were left to do whatever they wanted?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Whew, finally read the speech (it was the night of my Grandma's funeral). One thing stuck out at me from the initial list:
"0: Number of American combat deaths in Germany after the Nazi surrender to the Allies in May 1945"
Maybe, but a lot of German Children were being killed in the combat just prior. But the under 18 definition.
I think the term Vietnam gets tossed around a lot because, you know, it was also a war type thing and it happened during the lifetime of the baby boomers. Sarcasm aside, the baby boomers seem to be suffering mass post traumatic stress disorder. Or it makes them feel young again.
Would the same commentators who scoff at a linkage between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of 9/11 be willing to assert that there are no Al-Qaeda in Iraq fighting Americans now?
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Are you saying that there were Al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded? If so, do you have some kind of proof of this? How long ago are we talking?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"The omnibus spending bill completing its passage through Congress has $2.4 billion for AIDS..."
sigh... Dubya's "AIDS bill" consists of: 1) Funding missionaries to run around preaching abstinence, and sex solely within the confines of a monogamous marriage. It specificly forbids funding for condoms, advocating the use of condoms, and the promotion of other 'safer-sex' practices. Considering Dubya's population control funding effectively allows only "keep it zipped" messages, I doubt that there is any shortage of preachers in Africa running around spreading such anti-effective propaganda and general disinformation about condoms and 'safer sex'.
2) Drug funding disallows use of generic versions of AIDS drugs; manufacture and purchase of even patented drugs without paying patent fees allowed for national health emergencies under international treaty, which the US signed. So Dubya's bill is solely to prop up the absurd profit margins -- some exceeding 20 times cost -- of FirstWorld drug manufacturers by stealing the US taxpayers' money to blackmail/bribe African nations from producing or purchasing cheaper versions of AIDS drugs.
3) And as far as actual funding, Dubya's program has so far given back half or less of the funding that was taken away from previous US AfricanHealth programs to fund the Afghan occupation health&education programs.
[ January 22, 2004, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Dagonee, I eventually got sick of your insinuations that I was making this up so here you are.
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Restoration of the Mexico City Policy
The Mexico City Policy announced by President Reagan in 1984 required nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations. This policy was in effect until it was rescinded on January 22, 1993.
It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad. It is therefore my belief that the Mexico City Policy should be restored. Accordingly, I hereby rescind the "Memorandum for the Acting Administrator of the Agency for International Development, Subject: AID Family Planning Grants/Mexico City Policy," dated January 22, 1993, and I direct the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to reinstate in full all of the requirements of the Mexico City Policy in effect on January 19, 1993.
GEORGE W. BUSH
It should be noted that a seperate follow-up executive order expanded this policy to include all forms of advocating, educating about or condoning the use of contraceptives.
Dagonee, its nice to hear Bush say "ok heres a whole bunch of money for AIDS" and quite another to see that even though it's been aproved, there are hardly any organizations or entities qualified to recieve it due to this regressive policy.
[ January 23, 2004, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: it amazes me to no end that you're not familiar with Ayn Rand (or at least seemed not to be when the Fountainhead was mentioned), as you would probably consider her your soul-mate.
Okay, lets clear this up.
Sopwith said:
quote: Isn't it sad when you hear the Fountainhead sputtering and see Altas Shrug about the real world tragedies around us?
I responded:
quote: What's this? Does this mean something?
Now, as other may know from previous discussions, I indeed am familiar with the writting of Ayn Rand. I would not label her my "soul-mate" but I do not deny that I sympathize with her positions. However, sop's statement was some non-sense about(I assume) Rand's ideas failing in the real world. He didn't explain this at all. There were no examples given. I am perfectly willing to discuss things logicaly, and if I am wrong, I will admitt it. However, I will not allow emotional appeals. Baseless rhetoric will do nothing to convince me. If Rand's ideas are so evil, tell me why and give me examples of real world situations that you think apply.
quote: you keep talking about "rights", and i'm curious where you see these rights as coming from?
These rights are self-evident. Because we exist, these specific rights exist. The Declaration of Independence does a good job on this topic.
quote: From the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I don't believe that its necessary for there to have been a creator for these rights to apply. The fact that we exist is enough for me. God is not the source of morality. If there were no God, would it be moral to own slaves?
quote: if you can't protect that money it's not really your right to have it now is it?
Only if violating another person's right to their own property is moral.
Lets clear up something very important. During discussions of this sort, it is common practice to mistake wishes for rights. When we hear a phrase like "right to medical care" or "right to housing" or "right to employment" what is really meant is a WISH for medical care, a WISH for housing, and a WISH for employment. A right is a basic moral unit, which does not burden others save for preventing them from violating the right. My right to speak freely does not require someone else to speak less, or to provide me with a radio show. However, a so called "right" to health care DOES require that someone else's rights be reduced. They have less of a claim on their own personal property than if the demander of health care could afford it.
While I wish that every American had good health care, nice housing and a good job, I don't recognize the right of American's to these same things. They have the right to persure them at their own expense, and to do so unecumbered by the government.
quote: social programs funded by the state have greater value than they cost.
The value of these programs is irrelevant. The government has no consitutional right to loot money from one group of people and then give it to another.
However, I will still disagree with your statement. The program you mention, education could be valuable if it were run correctly. However, it is not. I don't deny that education is a very important part of our economy, perhaps the most important part. I am more of the opinion that local governments need to take control of education, as it is not within the responsibilities of the federal government. But this is an issue for another day.
You say federal programs are worth more than they cost. How can you evaluate the worth of the social security program? You might say that without it, the elderly would be eating dogfood or worse. Well, what did they do before SS was created, did it help them? What was the poverty rate among elderly before SS? How much money has been taken from the economy to fund SS, how has that money been kept, and could that money have actually boosted our economy if it had been invested privately in the stock market or elsewere?
How about Welfare and food stamps. What is the dollar value of this program? What is the value of the lesson that you need not work to support your children, that its not important to have a father around to support your children? What is the effect of excessively high income taxes which fund welfare on the economy compared to the slight return of this money to those who didn't earn it? How many people starved to death before this program was implemented, and how many were poor before, and how many after this program?
Okay, you say this:
quote: i don't think anyone on this board is really arguing that socialism is the answer
Then go on to say this:
quote: the comments i have seen are for a type of socialist capitalism in which the state provides certain base services
I do think that they are contradictory.
quote: base services such as road maintenance, military protection, and maybe medical care.
I don't think that anyone has argued that a capitalist government cannot supply military protection or road maintenance and construction. Military protection is specifically mentioned in the constitution as the job of government. We all delegate our right to protect ourselves with physical force to the government to avoid chaos and anarchy.
However, medical care is something that is the responsibility of the individual, and something that the government has no right to ask another individual to cover for.
quote: these types of socialism do work, as can be seen in many countries other than our own.
Nationalizing medical care works? By what standard? Have you ever had to use the UK medical system? Its trash. Sure, technically they do "work" but not very well.
quote: what do you think would happen if corporations were left to do whatever they wanted?
Behind this question, I suspect, is the assumption that I believe that no laws should be enforced at all. Well, if you have been paying attention, you will see that I do support the enforcement of laws, specifically, those commited against personal property. If a company defrauds an individual, that individual has a right to seek legal retribution.
What would happen if companies could do whatever they wanted, within the framework of laws? Massive economic growth.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
It's like arguing with a Communist in 1908... hardcore rhetoric and well thought out positions, but still naive.
Communism might have worked, if it weren't for human nature peeking in. Humans weren't ants working for the nest, and not all were noble enough to happily be part of the machine. Corruption dug in and personal needs/wants were always more than the supposed necessities.
Pure capitalism suffers from the same naive assumption but from the other side of the coin. There is a belief that once unfettered from taxation and social responsibilities based purely on emotion, that the average citizen would take to wing and soar in the new found freedom. But it doesn't take into account the vast variety of abilities, talents, moralities, work ethics and initiative that is presented across a society.
I've referred to Robes as Marie Antoinette many times, I find the similarities to be myriad. "Let them eat cake" was her reply when asked what should be done for the people who could not afford even a simple loaf of bread. It was both condescending and uninformed. And Mr. Guillotine eventually laid her down when the hungry and exploited masses had had enough.
Such is the way of purely basing a lifestyle on wealth and status.
Robes also seems to forget that little line in our sacred national documents that refers to forming a more perfect union, hopefully for the benefit of all.
He also forgets that personal wealth always devolves back to the state. The right of imminent domain is there to remind us that the government (and thereby all of the people) hold final ownership on all real property (real estate). I notice he mentioned the maintenance of highways earlier in his discussion, but didn't proclaim how those highways required the seizing of lands and regular taxation of Americans for their construction and upkeep. Lands of people who might not even have a car were taken, as were their tax monies. Yet, he doesn't complain about that, instead choosing to look at health care and the poor as evil initiatives to separate him from his hard-earned dollars.
Perhaps we always support the things that help us, but turn a baleful eye on that which we have never found ourselves in need of. As someone once said, "There, but by the grace of God, goes me."
You see, the US is a society -- a joint effort by all of its peoples to live together, support each other (in so many ways) and to promote the common good. Robes' dogma naively attempts to promote good, but not truly to all of the commons.
It's a thought process that a plaintation owner in 1859 would heartily embrace. Luckily, we're a bit beyond that now.
And yep, I took a stab at Ayn Rand. She'd probably change her tune nowadays, though, since she's probably found out that you can't take it with you.
[ January 23, 2004, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Sopwith ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: hardcore rhetoric
What is hardcore rhetoric?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Robes also seems to forget that little line in our sacred national documents that refers to forming a more perfect union, hopefully for the benefit of all.
Unpack this. By who's definition of perfect? By what means? Does this call for any and all means possible to achieve the goal?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: It's a thought process that a plaintation owner in 1859 would heartily embrace. Luckily, we're a bit beyond that now.
You have the amazing ability to speak very much, without saying anything at all. What does this trash mean? Did you just read one or two lines of my post?
quote: I don't believe that its necessary for there to have been a creator for these rights to apply. The fact that we exist is enough for me. God is not the source of morality. If there were no God, would it be moral to own slaves?
Let me answer my own question for you then. I believe there is no God and I also believe that it is immoral to own slaves.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"However, I will not allow emotional appeals."
I humbly submit that it will be difficult to discuss the evil nature of objectivism with you if you aren't willing to allow emotion into the discussion. Because it's exactly the lack of emotion that makes objectivism evil.
"What would happen if companies could do whatever they wanted, within the framework of laws? Massive economic growth."
Isn't this already the case? Can't companies ALREADY do what they want, within the framework of the law?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Isn't this already the case? Can't companies ALREADY do what they want, within the framework of the law?
Of course not. I think you would admitt that the laws do not apply equally to all people and companies. Those who have special political pull, get special favors.
However, I will agree that we are close enough to this ideal to see that it does work. This is why the US has been so successful. We have had massive economic growth over the past 228 years.
quote: Because it's exactly the lack of emotion that makes objectivism evil.
That might be correct. However, I am not arguing about objectivism. I am arguing about the constitution and the current state of our union. Complaining that I lack compassion for the poor and hungry because I disagree with you about how best to help them, is cheap.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Robes, I have yet to see you motivated by any real compassion. Logic is a poor substitute.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Okay, Robes...
So how do you help the poor and the sick?
Lay it on us man, fill us in on the brighter side of being poor in a society that only embraces wealth?
(And yes, I did read your entire post, just like I read all of the previous ones. I don't ignore you, I just get creeped out by you.)
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Robes, I have yet to see you motivated by any real compassion. Logic is a poor substitute.
Compassion for whom? Where does logic not apply when we are discussion the state of our union?
quote: Lay it on us man, fill us in on the brighter side of being poor in a society that only embraces wealth?
What do you mean by a "society that only embraces wealth"? Is it possible to not violate the rights of others and help the poor at the same time? I believe it is. Private charity, where one has the option to give, has proven to be a very viable method of helping the poor and sick in the past. Right now, Americans donate $125 Billion per year to charity. I would argue that if 30% of people's paychecks were not taken from them by force, this number would be much higher.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I'd argue that without tax write-offs and tax shelter foundations, the amount of private charity would be much, much lower.
That's why they gave the tax write-offs and allowed the creation of foundation grants -- to promote charitable donations.
Like I said before, lay it on us man, how does a purely capitalistic society care for the poor and sick? The charity line isn't going to work and statistically charitable donations drop when tax write-offs for them are rolled back.
What's in it for the poor and sick in your society, Robes? Lay the theory on us, I'd be very interested to see it spelled out. Perhaps I could be wrong, it's always a possibility with me, but I'd like to see it laid out there first.
(C'mon, fess up, it's about eating the babies, right Mr. Swift?)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Compassion for whom? Where does logic not apply when we are discussion the state of our union?"
I believe YOU'RE discussing the state of the union. The rest of us are discussing the plight of the poor. Maybe that's why you're confused. Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: believe YOU'RE discussing the state of the union. The rest of us are discussing the plight of the poor. Maybe that's why you're confused.
Could be. I was working under the assumption that "What George Bush won't say today" was referring to the State of the Union speech, and that the discussion was about the state of that same union.
quote: Lay the theory on us, I'd be very interested to see it spelled out.
I am not going to continually restate what I have said over and over for you. Go back and read it yourself.
The only theory that has NOT been discussed in detail here, is yours. Please explain to me how so called "compassion" can help the poor. Please speak about existing government programs which use "compassion" as their basis, and speak about their effectiveness. Do they indeed help the poor?
quote: charitable donations drop when tax write-offs for them are rolled back.
So when the government allows people to keep less of their money, they give less to charity. This is what you are saying with this statement. So, is the reverse true? When the government lets people keep more of their money, do people then give more to charity? I would say they do.
quote: (C'mon, fess up, it's about eating the babies, right Mr. Swift?)
You are trying very hard to cover the lack of any logical support for your claims.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I find it mildly amusing that someone who says emotion has no place in these arguments falls back to the kindness of strangers to help the poor. 'Course, I'm easily amused.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Robespierre, I'd like to submit that the situation of the poor in this country has improved dramatically since we instituted welfare and other social programs. Ironically, the situation of the rich has ALSO improved.
Clearly, welfare is not as apocalyptic as you would have us assume; over the last hundred years, it's worked out pretty well for the country and its richest citizens.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:BrianM said: Dagonee, I eventually got sick of your insinuations that I was making this up so here you are.
I was following your instructions... It’s interesting that you think posting sources that contradict your unsourced statements is insinuating that you are making something up.
I note the attached release does not outline the extent the money is not distributed.
Why is it a regressive policy to not fund abortion promoters and advocates?
Dagonee
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Nationalizing medical care works? By what standard? Have you ever had to use the UK medical system? Its trash. Sure, technically they do "work" but not very well.
Robespierre, what is the basis for the claim that the UK system is trash?
If you go by WHO outcomes measures for national morbidity and mortality figures, Canada and New Zealand do better than the US. If you go by international surveys of customer satisfaction, Canada, New Zealand, Great Britain, and Australia do better than the US.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Robespierre, what is the basis for the claim that the UK system is trash?
Personal expirience and anecdotal evidence, which I admit can be faulty. I will assume that your stats and surveys are all acurate and ask, by what right can our government impose such a system? And at this point, the discussion is better off finished in the "rosepierrian capitalism discussion" thread.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
FederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission ignore the obviously illegal manipulation of the California energy supply by his buddies at ElPasoGas, Enron, FirstEnergy, etc. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)