Tell me again...why would you vote for Bush over Kerry?

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous

It's much as if you, trying to build more muscle, was already on steroids to begin with - this money gives the rich person a huge advantage to begin with, irrespective of his innate abilities or his efforts.

This is completely moronic. Not every rich man today was born that way.

Nor is every poor man poor because of welfare and lack of effort/ability. So? Your point is completely moronic.

The fact is, whether you admit it or not, that it is easier for the rich to become richer than the poor to become richer - even if they have the same efforts and abilities. I like the fact that you sidestep this issue every time. It just helps proves my point.

And gimme a break. A huge majority of the rich were born into rich or upper-middle class families. Who gives a crap about the few who earned their way from poor to rich? The reason they earned their way from poor to rich was with the help of the progressive tax system, in which they had to pay less taxes when they were poor. Oh yeah, don't forget the government subsidies for their education that gave them the smarts to go from poor to rich.

 

[GeneralGrievous]

Not only was he born rich, he had a whole political machine already in place so he could run for President.

What does he have to do with anything? Certianly there are people who are born rich, and don't have the "wealth making ability" so to speak (and don't need it), but someone like Edwards has this ability more than a mcdonalds worker.

I cannot say what this ability is, but it looks like it has to do with innovation, intelligence, luck, and other things.

I know people right here in my small town who don't "work" like the rest of us. They just manage their investments. Shouldn't they have to pay a tax on that money?? I even know some people who don't even manage their money. They are son's and daughters of rich farmers who inherited land and just rent out the land and do as they please, when they please.

They paid taxes when they made the money to purchase those investments. Or if they didn't, someone else did. Are you willing to pay tax on your investments?

Nor is every poor man poor because of welfare and lack of effort/ability. So?

Most of them are.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous

Not only was he born rich, he had a whole political machine already in place so he could run for President.

What does he have to do with anything? Certianly there are people who are born rich, and don't have the "wealth making ability" so to speak (and don't need it), but someone like Edwards has this ability more than a mcdonalds worker.

I cannot say what this ability is, but it looks like it has to do with innovation, intelligence, luck, and other things.

I know people right here in my small town who don't "work" like the rest of us. They just manage their investments. Shouldn't they have to pay a tax on that money?? I even know some people who don't even manage their money. They are son's and daughters of rich farmers who inherited land and just rent out the land and do as they please, when they please.

They paid taxes when they made the money to purchase those investments. Or if they didn't, someone else did. Are you willing to pay tax on your investments?

Nor is every poor man poor because of welfare and lack of effort/ability. So?

Most of them are.

Do you have facts to prove that most of them are poor because of that? Cause I have facts to prove that most of the rich people were born into rich or upper-middle class families. Show me some statistics that show poor people are poor because they lack effort and ability.

 

[1EZduzit]

I misread the meaning of the post you made about Edwards.

Do you know that there is a fair amount of money that passes down untaxed. If they have too much money, they can start giving it away tax free before their death. I believe there is a limit per gift per year, but it's something like $10,000 per person.

Things are much better now then they used to be. When my wife's father died, it all went to his spouse and they took over 40% of it, even though they were dairy farmers and worked side by side their whole lifes. Then when she dies there will be another taxation on it, if she has enough. Since he's been dead for over 25 years, I think it will be pretty much gone by then.

The only thing my father has is a house and a nice goverment retirement that will stop when he dies. Why should I worry about inheritance taxes? There more they let slip by, the more someone else has to pay. It's always been that way so why change it now?

After a while we would only have two classes of people, those that have to work and those that don't. It's already too much that way IMHO. Of course, you aren't going to agree with me, you are going to go with what's best for you, but so am I.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous

Not only was he born rich, he had a whole political machine already in place so he could run for President.

What does he have to do with anything? Certianly there are people who are born rich, and don't have the "wealth making ability" so to speak (and don't need it), but someone like Edwards has this ability more than a mcdonalds worker.

I cannot say what this ability is, but it looks like it has to do with innovation, intelligence, luck, and other things.

----------------------
What does it have to do with anything?? Are you really serious? DO you think he ever would have had a snowball's chance in hell of being President if he was George Jr.???? Hell man, he can't even speak in public worth a sh1t let alone run a presidential campaign.
-----------------------

I know people right here in my small town who don't "work" like the rest of us. They just manage their investments. Shouldn't they have to pay a tax on that money?? I even know some people who don't even manage their money. They are son's and daughters of rich farmers who inherited land and just rent out the land and do as they please, when they please.

They paid taxes when they made the money to purchase those investments. Or if they didn't, someone else did. Are you willing to pay tax on your investments?

--------------
I pay over 40% of my meager income in taxes right now. How much do you pay? Doesn't anybody see that the rich benifit the most from this country and should pay the most in taxes? If the country were defeated in war or whatever happens they have the most to lose. Why shouldn't they pay more to protect what they have instead of constasntly whining about it???
-----------------------

Nor is every poor man poor because of welfare and lack of effort/ability. So?

Most of them are.

Consider yourself lucky they don't tax people for being dumb. You would be poor in a heartbeat. Totalcommand makes some very impressive arguments and is running circles around you.

 

[Brickster]

If you want to support the continued destruction of cordial foreign relations and heave gobs of water and manure fertilizer on the vivacious sapling of global Anti-American sentiment, then you should vote for Bush.

Do a little travelling - that is, OUTSIDE the USA - and you will find a strong hatred for Bush, and for those who execute his policies. Speaking with foreigners tends to give one a 'jolt of reality', and waken the eyes to the dysfunction.

As for myself, I am scared to think that a re-election of Bush would refocus the world's attention to the American Public, and exemplify that we, as a whole, are in support of him and his policies. I am scared that the hatred would turn from one man and his Administration to the nation in general.

The fact that Bush squandered the good-will of so many nations after 9-11 is a testament to the measure of his ineffectiveness as a leader; leaders should bring people together, and not just those within the country - but even we, the USA, are more divided than ever.

Only problem is, the only foreigners the Bush family seems to care about is the Saudi royal family.

So, in essence, it's not so much "Pro-Kerry" as it is "Anti-Bush". At least Kerry has voiced his strong desire to mend our international relationships.

May it be so...

 

[GeneralGrievous]

"The 1994-5 National Household Surveys of Drug Abuse, which has information on psychiatric disorders, welfare use, and substance abuse, found about 19 percent of welfare recipients (compared to 15 percent of nonrecipients) qualify for a diagnosis of psychiatric disorder: major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, panic attack, and agoraphobia or one of three other psychiatric disorders. A psychiatric disorder and crack/cocaine raised the odds of welfare use significantly."

"Learning disabilities are indicated by a disjuncture between potential achievement (as measured by IQ) and measured achievement. The Washington State Learning Disabilities Initiative found 54 percent of JOBS participants had special learning needs, with 35 percent learning disabled, 14 percent slow learners (IQ of 70-80), and 5 percent showing mild mental retardation (IQ below 70)."

"There is evidence that, at least in the AFDC environment, welfare recipients with disabilities were unlikely to leave welfare for work."

Looks like a good portion of welfare recipients are stupid, lazy, or somehow addled in the mind.

http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/Publications/disabilitiesissue.htm

The majority of welfare families have 1 or more children, so I ask you: Why are welfare families having kids in the first place?

"Experts say that the incidents of drug use among welfare recipients is about the same as the general public"

http://www.antiessays.com/essay.php?eid=1920

I guess we see where our money is going.

"In a recent Forbes magazine list of 552 billionaires, 326 are self-made."

http://marriottschool.byu.edu/cfe/resources/DeseretNews/dn04_04_04.html

What does it have to do with anything?? Are you really serious? DO you think he ever would have had a snowball's chance in hell of being President if he was George Jr.???? Hell man, he can't even speak in public worth a sh1t let alone run a presidential campaign.

Funny, he convinced half of America to vote for him. Almost every President has had extensive political connections.

He is a simple example of a rich person who was born that way in the context of this discussion.

Doesn't anybody see that the rich benifit the most from this country and should pay the most in taxes?

They do.

Why shouldn't they pay more to protect what they have instead of constasntly whining about it???

Why should they have to devote a greater percentage of their income than everyone else? I have already said I am a strong proponent of a flat tax rate. Tax anything and everything you want, but do it equally for everybody.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
"The 1994-5 National Household Surveys of Drug Abuse, which has information on psychiatric disorders, welfare use, and substance abuse, found about 19 percent of welfare recipients (compared to 15 percent of nonrecipients) qualify for a diagnosis of psychiatric disorder: major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, panic attack, and agoraphobia or one of three other psychiatric disorders. A psychiatric disorder and crack/cocaine raised the odds of welfare use significantly."

"Learning disabilities are indicated by a disjuncture between potential achievement (as measured by IQ) and measured achievement. The Washington State Learning Disabilities Initiative found 54 percent of JOBS participants had special learning needs, with 35 percent learning disabled, 14 percent slow learners (IQ of 70-80), and 5 percent showing mild mental retardation (IQ below 70)."

"There is evidence that, at least in the AFDC environment, welfare recipients with disabilities were unlikely to leave welfare for work."

Looks like a good portion of welfare recipients are stupid, lazy, or somehow addled in the mind.

--------------------
Will these people ever to be able to get work in a competitive job? What does it have to do with any welfare program? I fail to see your point? The ones that can go back to work, will and the ones that can't won't and never will??? I just don't see what your driving at here?
-------------------

http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/Publications/disabilitiesissue.htm


"In a recent Forbes magazine list of 552 billionaires, 326 are self-made."

http://marriottschool.byu.edu/cfe/resources/DeseretNews/dn04_04_04.html

______________
So define self made. Did they start out from total poverty and then work thier way up? Not too many, I would be willing to wager. That still leaves a good portion who inherited their wealth and that's just counting thew billionairs. What are the stats for multi-millionairs? Your stats really prove nothing as far as I'm concerned
----------------------

What does it have to do with anything?? Are you really serious? DO you think he ever would have had a snowball's chance in hell of being President if he was George Jr.???? Hell man, he can't even speak in public worth a sh1t let alone run a presidential campaign.

Funny, he convinced half of America to vote for him. Almost every President has had extensive political connections.

He is a simple example of a rich person who was born that way in the context of this discussion.
__________________
He would never have been nominated in the first place if he wasn't George Sr.'s son. Did he spend his whole life trying to attain such lofty heights? Yeah, that's why he was a cocaine sniffing cheerleader in college. Defintley Presidential material.
-------------------------

Doesn't anybody see that the rich benifit the most from this country and should pay the most in taxes?

They do.

________
Good. I think they should pay even more and I will do everything I can to help them acheive that goal. There are too many Leona Helmsleys and off shore corporations and who knows how many other loopholes being taken advantage off. That's not even mentioning the rampant corruption, insider trading, etc., that is going on. You just stick to your guns and I will stick to mine and we will see what happens in November, now won't we. Brace yourself, because the pendulum to the right has lost its momentum and has started to swing back to the left. It will only pick up speed as people start jumping on the bandwagon. You can post your objections and stats all you want, but I know better. It's obvious that the only thing you really care about is you and your money. You only care about this country as it can profit you. I will waste no more of my time bantering with you so good luck to you and have a happy life counting your money.

 

[Xenon14]

Before I address your responses, let me make one thing clear. You have to stop with the flaming. Address my points.

If that is true, and I have my doubts, then your family is an example of good results from a federal program is it not? You did say "name one federal program".

You're taking what I said completely out of context. Yes, I specifically said that government programs helped our family - but I also said that my family got on its feet and gave back to society much more than they consumed from the programs. If that was the case with a 1/2 or even 1/3 of the people on these programs currently, then the cost of welfare would be nullified. Instead, the cost of welfare has grown. Why? B/c the current welfare system makes being poor an opportunity rather than a source of stigma. The system that existed prior to new deal reforms, had private charities like salvation army and/or local government closely monitor the people on that welfare - they had to show that they had a plan to get on their feet and were monitored closesly until they did; which not only minimized the cost of welfare it also maximized job placement. Today's welfare simply requires you to fill out the form to make urself eligible, and you can receive welfare indefinately, regardless of whether you're actually trying to improve your life or not.

I'm glad you got the point so easily. It's like if everyone in the country suddenly increased their IQ by 50 points, what would change??? Nothing really. Either you can see where I'm coming from or you can't. Experience is the best teacher.

If experience is the best teacher, than why haven't 30 years of increasing costs and increasing problems teach you that government programs don't work?

I think the "welfare to work" system works better then the old "just give them money" ever worked

That's not how the old system worked, see above. And that's pretty much how the current system works.... it gives a blank check to anyone who's qualified on paper, very impersonal, and consequently ineffective.

then you really don't know what it is like to struggle along yet if your parents are footing the bill. That's like being against unions when you've never even worked in a sweat shop. You can have an opinion about it, but I say walk a mile in their shoes and then see what you think about it.

I don't have to be a weight lifter to know that lifting weights is hard work. I don't have to be fat to spot a fat person or to understand that they need to go on a diet. I don't need to be a scientist to understand the value of medicine or computer technology. And I don't have to be unemployed to understand the consequences of unemployment.

And my opinion about sweatshops is like my opinion about any other job...i have no problem with it. The only thing I have a problem with is slavery, which sweat shops are not (slavery is forced labor, sweat shops is personal choice). I may not want to work in a "sweat shop" or at mcdonalds or be a lifeguard at the beach... but if someone wants to work there, then by all means. As long as no one is being enslaved, a person's decision to work where they want is their decision... regardless of whether it's a 'sweat shop' or at Morgan Stanley.

If it's the only car you have and can't afford to buy one any better, then you have to fix it. Medicare is the only stop gap measure out there for many people at this point. Would you "junk" out medical insurance also because it is too expensive?

The way medicare works is far worse - it's not reparing a $400 for $1000, it's repairing a $400 with $1000, and then another $1000 and then $1300, etc. While the broken state of the car does not improve, fixing costs appreciate.

Yes, medicare helps pay for hospital bills, but if hopsital bills and insurance premiums weren't expensive (which they are b/c of government programs) then a person would end up paying all of the bill and/or be assisted with private charity, but in reality paying much less since the bill would cost so much cheaper. You don't have to look far to see the outcome of the current American healthcare system. The American health care system is quickly becoming the health care system in Canada... which is in complete shambles.

Well, you seem to know more on this subject then anyone who lived thru it and all the teachers and history books combined. I bow to your excellent knowledge on this subject. You are indeed a genius.

Again, kindly stop flaming. I never said anything that didn't happen, I simply provided information that people tend to overlook, and understandably so... since it's contrary to what they preach. I justified my opinion by presenting examples and arguments. You're justifying your opinion by saying your father was born in 1920. Come on... being born at a certain era doesn't make you the authority on anything. I was born in the 1980's but that doesn't automatically make me an authority on Reagonomics or The Cosby Show. And I'm not pre-supposing anyone's intelligence... it's an open forum and you can present your arguments freely. But please present arguments, instead of blanket statements about your father's birthday and how that equates to knowledge; it's childish at best and ignorant at worst.

NASA is the forefront of the technology at this point. Everything that comes after it was made possible by that tax funded program. It's like the weather report you watch every night. That was all funded initially by the goverment, and then private companies absorbed the technology and then improved on it. The same thing is in the process of happening in the space program. I don't know where it will lead though. I'm leary of private industry being free to do whatever they want in space. Take the nuclear energy program for example. I'm sure there are safeguards in place to make sure that somehow, someone can't build a private nuclear bomb. I don't what safeguards would be needed, but I don't doubt that some will be needed. We can't privatize everything just because it would be cheaper. Shall we privatize the judical system? I think not. We have to keep this country a goverment of the people, by the people, for the people.

You're right... privatizing government is ludicrous. But privatizing government programs is not, since goverment programs are simply private ventures that the government decided to control. And you still have not responded to my point: NASA doesn't provide anything that private companies can't do cheaper and more efficiently.

 

[totalcommand]

"The 1994-5 National Household Surveys of Drug Abuse, which has information on psychiatric disorders, welfare use, and substance abuse, found about 19 percent of welfare recipients (compared to 15 percent of nonrecipients) qualify for a diagnosis of psychiatric disorder: major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, panic attack, and agoraphobia or one of three other psychiatric disorders. A psychiatric disorder and crack/cocaine raised the odds of welfare use significantly."

Nice survey. Maybe you missed that "15% of nonrecipients" part. That means, that there's only a 4% difference between welfare recipients and everyone else. Care to report the margin of error???

"Learning disabilities are indicated by a disjuncture between potential achievement (as measured by IQ) and measured achievement. The Washington State Learning Disabilities Initiative found 54 percent of JOBS participants had special learning needs, with 35 percent learning disabled, 14 percent slow learners (IQ of 70-80), and 5 percent showing mild mental retardation (IQ below 70)."

Neither of these surveys proves that poor people are poor because they lack effort and ability. Might I add that the JOBS program no longer exists as of July 1, 1997. It was replaced by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). For further information: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/

 

[Ulukia]

"Last night in his acceptance speech before the Democratic National Convention, Senator John Kerry said, "For four years, we've heard a lot of talk about values. But values spoken without actions taken are just slogans. Values are not just words. They're what we live by. They're about the causes we champion and the people we fight for."

Have John Kerry's "values spoken" agreed with his "actions taken?"

Kerry Values Spoken:

Kerry Says He Personally Believes Life Begins At Conception. "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception." (Jonathan Finer, "Kerry Says He Believes Life Starts At Conception," The Washington Post, 7/5/04)

Kerry Actions Taken:

Kerry Voted Against Unborn Victims Of Violence Act "Laci And Conner Peterson Law"
Kerry Has Voted At Least Six Times Against Banning Partial-Birth Abortion.
Kerry Has Voted At Least 25 Times In Favor Of Using Taxpayer Dollars To Pay For Abortions In United States.
Kerry Has Voted At Least Three Times Against Requiring Parental Consent/Notification For Minor's Abortion.
Kerry Has Voted To Allow Schools To Hand Out The Morning After Pill Without Parental Knowledge.
Kerry Has Said That His First Executive Order Would Be To Reverse The Mexico City Policy Banning U.S. Tax Dollars From Being Spent on International Family Planning.
Kerry Values Spoken:

Kerry Opposes Gay Marriage Due To "Personal Belief" That "Marriage Is An Institution Between Men And Women." "I do not support [gay] marriage ... it's just a personal belief about what the relationship of marriage and how it works ... Marriage is an institution between men and women for the purpose of having children and procreating. That's my belief and some people may not like it." ("Kerry: Worst Jobs Record' Since Hoover," The Washington Post, 7/11/03)

Kerry Actions Taken:

Kerry Was One Of Only 14 Senators To Vote Against 1996 Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), Which Banned Federal Recognition Of Gay Marriage And Same-Sex Partner Benefits.
Kerry Called Defense of Marriage Act "Fundamentally Unconstitutional"
Kerry Said Resolving The Tension Over Gay Marriage Lies With Judicial Branch, Not Congress.
Kerry Attacked Defense Of Marriage Act As "Gay Bashing."
Kerry Calls President Bush's Support For Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage Attempt To Divide America.
What kind of person do you want leading our nation for the next four years? A President who shares our values and has worked hard for them. Or, someone who claims to share our values, but does nothing to defend them?"

"The Democrats are singing a different song now that the elections are near.
With all due respect to the anonymous researcher who compiled the quotes,
here is the song they sang not that long ago.
Subject: Bush Lied?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 (Pres. Clinton's Secy. of State)

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9,1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton-Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of
a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has
also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda
members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein
will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical
warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime . . . He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .
. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
. ."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003"

Shall I go on?

 

[Ulukia]

"Lets put all the pollitics aside for one second and look at the facts. Notice that Democrats have layed off the economy issue at least for now.
Of course they are still out there saying they can do better, but is more goverment involvement what we actually need you be the judge.

Uneployment rate
(Clinton)1993-1995 6.2% (Bush)2001-2003 5.5

Inflation rate
(Clinton)1996 2.6% (Bush)2004 1.9%

Morgage rate
(Clinton)1996 7.81% (Bush)2004 5.86%

Prime interest rate
(Clinton)1996 8.25% (Bush)2004 4.25%

Those #'s I posted check out. And incase your wondering why I used 1996 for clinton. Basically that is what he did after four years vs. Bush's first four.

And on the iraq war please tell me were (Kerry) he stands I don't know. This is quite interesting click on this link if you want some hard proof of Kerry flip flop.

Click on the link then click the veiw button under the kerry iraq war document headline:
Kerry on war"

 

[GeneralGrievous]

Wow, Ulukia, nice post!!

 

[GeneralGrievous]

Nice survey. Maybe you missed that "15% of nonrecipients" part. That means, that there's only a 4% difference between welfare recipients and everyone else. Care to report the margin of error???

3%

Neither of these surveys proves that poor people are poor because they lack effort and ability.

Ok, how exactly do you prove lack of "wealth making" capability? Clearly the average welfare recipient is intellectually inferior (ie lacking capability in that department). Not surprising, really, given that they are so many blacks and hispanics in that category. How many employers do you know that are looking for retards for their jobs?

So define self made. Did they start out from total poverty and then work thier way up? Not too many, I would be willing to wager. That still leaves a good portion who inherited their wealth and that's just counting thew billionairs. What are the stats for multi-millionairs?

self-made (slfmd)
adj.

1. Having achieved success or recognition by one's own efforts: a self-made millionaire.
2. Made by itself or oneself: a self-made pond.

I don't know how many started from poverty levels, but they certainly were not rich at birth. I looked for stats for multi-millionaires and could not find any, though I see no reason why they wouldn't follow similar percentages (if not moreso, all professional athletes/many actors grew up in very poor households, some in poverty stricken areas). Even if I posted them I doubt you'd believe it anyway.

total said he had statistics, ask him to post them.

You just stick to your guns and I will stick to mine and we will see what happens in November, now won't we. Brace yourself, because the pendulum to the right has lost its momentum and has started to swing back to the left. It will only pick up speed as people start jumping on the bandwagon. You can post your objections and stats all you want, but I know better. It's obvious that the only thing you really care about is you and your money. You only care about this country as it can profit you. I will waste no more of my time bantering with you so good luck to you and have a happy life counting your money.

If you say so.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Why would I vote for someone who's running for office on a distorted account of what he did for 4 months over 40 years ago?

Are you talking about the lies you saw on a TV commercial Or is this in reference to Dubyas' fantastic service Record?

How about all the wonderful fraudulent activities that Cheney's company was involved in when he was in charge ... I'm sure he had nothing to do with it ....






I really wish Bush would drop out of the race and Mccain would run. He would have my vote.

 

[imported_tss4]

And you still have not responded to my point: NASA doesn't provide anything that private companies can't do cheaper and more efficiently.

Actually, NASA provides research that would not produce profit for private firms. This is very similar to the governments funding of research into particle physics. Sure eventually Space exploration may be profitable, but at this point, even with 50 years of work behind us, you'd be hard pressed to find a company that could turn a profit on it. The initial investment resrach costs are just too prohibitive. Even Satellite production took time to become profitable, but look what we have to show for it now. With out the government leading the way it is unlikely the initial investments in research would have been made to make business's later investments profitable.

I don't need to be a scientist to understand the value of medicine or computer technology.

Maybe you understand the value of technnology but you don't understand the cost of developing it.

 

[imported_tss4]

Clearly the average welfare recipient is intellectually inferior (ie lacking capability in that department). Not surprising, really, given that they are so many blacks and hispanics in that category. How many employers do you know that are looking for retards for their jobs?

GeneralGrievous, So blacks and hispanics are intellectually inferior? I get annoyed with minorities complaining about racism but after reading your racist comment, I'll have to reconsider their complaints.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Xenon14
Computers??? What advancements did Nasa make with computers? It is b/c of private companies like Intel that Nasa has computers.

It is because of NASA there are semiconductor companies like Intel. NASA drove the research. NASA had the need for expensive new technologies like transistors and integrated circuitry.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: tss4

Clearly the average welfare recipient is intellectually inferior (ie lacking capability in that department). Not surprising, really, given that they are so many blacks and hispanics in that category. How many employers do you know that are looking for retards for their jobs?

GeneralGrievous, So blacks and hispanics are intellectually inferior? I get annoyed with minorities complaining about racism but after reading your racist comment, I'll have to reconsider their complaints.

Take into consideration he's from Alabama.

 

[Xenon14]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Xenon14
Computers??? What advancements did Nasa make with computers? It is b/c of private companies like Intel that Nasa has computers.

It is because of NASA there are semiconductor companies like Intel. NASA drove the research. NASA had the need for expensive new technologies like transistors and integrated circuitry.

So you're saying that if NASA didn't exist, computer technology wouldn't be where it is today? Not to mention, private companies would also/do have the need for that technology, so the same demand would exist...in fact greater, since increased competition.

 

[Xenon14]

Originally posted by: tss4

And you still have not responded to my point: NASA doesn't provide anything that private companies can't do cheaper and more efficiently.

Actually, NASA provides research that would not produce profit for private firms. This is very similar to the governments funding of research into particle physics. Sure eventually Space exploration may be profitable, but at this point, even with 50 years of work behind us, you'd be hard pressed to find a company that could turn a profit on it. The initial investment resrach costs are just too prohibitive. Even Satellite production took time to become profitable, but look what we have to show for it now. With out the government leading the way it is unlikely the initial investments in research would have been made to make business's later investments profitable.

I don't need to be a scientist to understand the value of medicine or computer technology.

Maybe you understand the value of technnology but you don't understand the cost of developing it.

Actually I think I understant costs and where the come from pretty well. I'll grant you that NASA may do things that would be of no interest to private firms (searching for black holes or looking at supernova's for instance) (which may give NASA some inherent value in the name of scientific development), but NASA's existence (mainly the way it functions) stifles competition in the aerospace industry causing increased costs for consumers, and moreso - increased taxes for tax payers to fund the non-efficient NASA, and it also consequently causes the industry to stagnate with little or no progress due to lack of competition.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Xenon14

Originally posted by: tss4

And you still have not responded to my point: NASA doesn't provide anything that private companies can't do cheaper and more efficiently.

Actually, NASA provides research that would not produce profit for private firms. This is very similar to the governments funding of research into particle physics. Sure eventually Space exploration may be profitable, but at this point, even with 50 years of work behind us, you'd be hard pressed to find a company that could turn a profit on it. The initial investment resrach costs are just too prohibitive. Even Satellite production took time to become profitable, but look what we have to show for it now. With out the government leading the way it is unlikely the initial investments in research would have been made to make business's later investments profitable.

I don't need to be a scientist to understand the value of medicine or computer technology.

Maybe you understand the value of technnology but you don't understand the cost of developing it.

Actually I think I understant costs and where the come from pretty well. I'll grant you that NASA may do things that would be of no interest to private firms (searching for black holes or looking at supernova's for instance) (which may give NASA some inherent value in the name of scientific development), but NASA's existence (mainly the way it functions) stifles competition in the aerospace industry causing increased costs for consumers, and moreso - increased taxes for tax payers to fund the non-efficient NASA, and it also consequently causes the industry to stagnate with little or no progress due to lack of competition.

NASA's efficiency is certainly open for debate. Just don't say something silly like NASA doesn't do anything that private industry couldn't do. Personally, I think NASA's biggest porblem right now is a loack of competition too. Hoever, I think that given its goals are somewhat different from private industry I think an excellent source for that competition would be foreign space programs. We responded well to the soviet program. Perhaps as China improves thier program we will respond accordingly.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous

Nice survey. Maybe you missed that "15% of nonrecipients" part. That means, that there's only a 4% difference between welfare recipients and everyone else. Care to report the margin of error???

3%

Neither of these surveys proves that poor people are poor because they lack effort and ability.

Ok, how exactly do you prove lack of "wealth making" capability? Clearly the average welfare recipient is intellectually inferior (ie lacking capability in that department). Not surprising, really, given that they are so many blacks and hispanics in that category. How many employers do you know that are looking for retards for their jobs?

So define self made. Did they start out from total poverty and then work thier way up? Not too many, I would be willing to wager. That still leaves a good portion who inherited their wealth and that's just counting thew billionairs. What are the stats for multi-millionairs?

self-made (slfmd)
adj.

1. Having achieved success or recognition by one's own efforts: a self-made millionaire.
2. Made by itself or oneself: a self-made pond.

I don't know how many started from poverty levels, but they certainly were not rich at birth. I looked for stats for multi-millionaires and could not find any, though I see no reason why they wouldn't follow similar percentages (if not moreso, all professional athletes/many actors grew up in very poor households, some in poverty stricken areas). Even if I posted them I doubt you'd believe it anyway.

total said he had statistics, ask him to post them.

You just stick to your guns and I will stick to mine and we will see what happens in November, now won't we. Brace yourself, because the pendulum to the right has lost its momentum and has started to swing back to the left. It will only pick up speed as people start jumping on the bandwagon. You can post your objections and stats all you want, but I know better. It's obvious that the only thing you really care about is you and your money. You only care about this country as it can profit you. I will waste no more of my time bantering with you so good luck to you and have a happy life counting your money.

If you say so.

That study just shows that the difference between welfare recipients and non-recipients is very very small. You're right, you can't quantify that wealth making capability. But, all other things being equal, having wealth itself provides a great capability to make more wealth, regardless of your personal traits. To put it in your language, a retarded person with millions of dollars could easily make tons more money by hiring someone to invest his dollars, even though he is retarded. A innately brilliant person with little or no money has a very tough road to make more money - it's hard to get a good education with very little money and he has no money to invest.

You still have failed to address this. This whole argument about the fact that a small number of welfare recipients (not even the general poor population) are retarded is a red herring. As long as being rich is such an advantage to getting more rich, a progressive tax is needed.

 

[Xenon14]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Xenon14

Originally posted by: tss4

And you still have not responded to my point: NASA doesn't provide anything that private companies can't do cheaper and more efficiently.

Actually, NASA provides research that would not produce profit for private firms. This is very similar to the governments funding of research into particle physics. Sure eventually Space exploration may be profitable, but at this point, even with 50 years of work behind us, you'd be hard pressed to find a company that could turn a profit on it. The initial investment resrach costs are just too prohibitive. Even Satellite production took time to become profitable, but look what we have to show for it now. With out the government leading the way it is unlikely the initial investments in research would have been made to make business's later investments profitable.

I don't need to be a scientist to understand the value of medicine or computer technology.

Maybe you understand the value of technnology but you don't understand the cost of developing it.

Actually I think I understant costs and where the come from pretty well. I'll grant you that NASA may do things that would be of no interest to private firms (searching for black holes or looking at supernova's for instance) (which may give NASA some inherent value in the name of scientific development), but NASA's existence (mainly the way it functions) stifles competition in the aerospace industry causing increased costs for consumers, and moreso - increased taxes for tax payers to fund the non-efficient NASA, and it also consequently causes the industry to stagnate with little or no progress due to lack of competition.

NASA's efficiency is certainly open for debate. Just don't say something silly like NASA doesn't do anything that private industry couldn't do. Personally, I think NASA's biggest porblem right now is a loack of competition too. Hoever, I think that given its goals are somewhat different from private industry I think an excellent source for that competition would be foreign space programs. We responded well to the soviet program. Perhaps as China improves thier program we will respond accordingly.

Indeed, the cold war is a good example of competition. I guess I didn't explain my stance too well. I'm merely pointing out that just like Nasa uses Intel processors (which is a lot cheaper and more efficient than for NASA to develop their own computer chips) NASA should not be allowed to monopolize the market b/c it can afford to charge less than private companies, on the grounds that it'll make up the difference in government funds.

Whether or not NASA uses the technology for the sake of science and not the sake of profits is one thing - that i'm not disputing. When I said "What can NASA do that private companies can't do cheaper/more efficiently" I was referring to the development of technology, not what is done with it. If the actual technology/development is left to private companies, NASA can use them as contractors instead of developing things themselves which will allow for much better progress and success rates and at a cheaper cost to NASA and the tax payers when NASA undetakes a non-money making project like exploring the solar system.

Just as an example: If Intel was in its infancy (as private companies in the space industry are now) and NASA developed computer CPUs, it would be able to offer a company like Dell very cheap prices say $100 for each cpu as opposed to intel's $150/cpu (a very competitive price considering it costs NASA $200/cpu)...but since the rest of the payment will be from government funds/taxes NASA can afford to charge $100/cpu. This will cause Intel to crumble from lack of business at worst, and at best it will stifle competition, and cpu development will come to a hault since there is no need for NASA to provide the latest and greatest since Dell has no one else to go to for cheaper and/or better cpus.

 

[GeneralGrievous]

GeneralGrievous, So blacks and hispanics are intellectually inferior? I get annoyed with minorities complaining about racism but after reading your racist comment, I'll have to reconsider their complaints.

Do whatever you want, but there is no denying the truth. I'm not going to get into a discussion about this, but the evidence is out there, in many places. Of course, they would rather complain than do something about it. How typical.

But, all other things being equal, having wealth itself provides a great capability to make more wealth, regardless of your personal traits. To put it in your language, a retarded person with millions of dollars could easily make tons more money by hiring someone to invest his dollars, even though he is retarded. A innately brilliant person with little or no money has a very tough road to make more money

If you want to talk about investments, its also easier for a rich person to lose large sums of money.