Combat Ranting (formerly known as Famicom Mini)

[Dark Jaguar]

First off, I don't get why you'd suddenly bring up those two unrelated groups out of nowhere ABF. Second off, what's with the "you just don't care" attitude targetting me specifically? I already explained the reality there, that businesses come and go all the time even WITHOUT a big name company. Why should I care WHO drove business away from some small business? Seriously, should I ALSO hate the small business that provides cheaper goods (for instance, a 99 cent store driving a dollar store out of business) that ends up making the other one fail? It's the EXACT SAME THING EXACTLY THE SAME! NO DIFFERENCE! Scale is irrelevent.

As for your other thing, why do you actually EXPECT me to have pride in things I have nothing at all to do with anyway? I don't work for Nintendo, nor Sega, nor Blizzard, so why on Earth should I have pride in them? I never even met them! I'm completely unassociated! It would be like having pride in an ant colony in Europe somewhere just because someone told me they did a bang-up job against the rival ants next door. Same thing with sports teams. You seem to expect me to suddenly show pride in something I really don't care about like that, but hey, you don't seem to be getting mad at me for not taking pride in the local YuGiOh champion. I just don't care about either one (actually, I do play Yugioh, but that's neither here nor there).

[Weltall]

Totally insane. For proof look at pre-1940s America.

Yeah, middle class people sure did a great job of saving up money before Medicaire/SSI, yup! Oh wait, only in your demented imagination...

In those times there were practically no investment opportunities, and people hardly knew about what little there was. That is not the case today by any means, thus, your argument is invalid.

SSI and its related programs is one of the best programs the government has ever started. That alone easily would make Roosevelt one of our greatest presidents.

And the system isn't failing because it's a bad idea. Actually, it's in financial trouble because it's a good idea. It's failing because 1) not enough money is going into Medicare/SSI -- every time there's a budget problem money is stolen from it. 2) more and more old people every day. It puts a big strain on the system even in our system which isn't nearly comprehensive enough. (The only ways we have, long-term, to solve this are either to restrict benefits or raise taxes... there are no other options.)

Your second point shows exactly why it's a bad idea, and why the first point exists: The program is over-extended, created in a much different time. It was created in a time where people would collect benefits at age 65 and be dead in little more than five years. Now, people are living into the late eighties and early nineties, almost thirty years of collecting. The minimum age, for starters, needs to be raised by five, preferably ten years. Second, the program should be optional. Participation in SSI should not be forced. If people want the option of investing their own money, it should be provided. Those who wish to continue paying for SSI can do that as well, and many people will because investment isn't for everyone. But the system, like so many other liberal ideas, was much better in concept than in execution.

It's pretty depressing to see you continue to believe such delusions about poor people... I have said fifteen times before why this view of yours is lunacy so I don't see a point in repeating myself yet again.

As for the student loan part though, it's rare to get a full scholarship, which is what poor people would probably need (or full enough to pay the rest with a job), unless you play sports... and not many people get sports scholarships. And anyway, a lot of families need those people to work and can't afford to have them off in a school making nothing... after money that's the biggest reason they don't go as much.

So defeatist. You're then saying that they shouldn't bother, should not even be encouraged and helped to try. They should just become little piglets sucking on the welfare tit for everything they need, at my expense. Since not everyone will succeed, they should just give up and let Big Brother provide everything. The rest of us have the obligation to pay for all that.

THAT is delusional, yet it's exactly what you're suggesting.

I still can't understand why conservatives hate Clinton, given that he was so strongly middle of the road and a centrist who was quite pro business...

Anyway, maybe we could try something with China but it'd be tough... especially since a lot of Washington people seem to not care enough about this and think that because of the economic situation between our countries that they're untouchable...

Because he wasn't really a centrist, he pretended to be to cow the sheeple vote. And it worked. That horrendous attempt to communize health-care wasn't very centrist at all. Thank God it was defeated.

It was really wrong to hate Clinton though because he was the ultimate puppet. His policies were whatever his interest groups told him they should be, whatever it took to stay in power. That's why he was such an effective centrist. Puppets make good centrists. When he tried his own policies, like the health-care one, it was a pure disaster.

[A Black Falcon]

As for your other thing, why do you actually EXPECT me to have pride in things I have nothing at all to do with anyway? I don't work for Nintendo, nor Sega, nor Blizzard, so why on Earth should I have pride in them? I never even met them! I'm completely unassociated! It would be like having pride in an ant colony in Europe somewhere just because someone told me they did a bang-up job against the rival ants next door. Same thing with sports are about like that, but hey, you don't seem to be getting mad at me for not taking pride in the local YuGiOh champion. I just don't care about either one (actually, I do play Yugioh, but that's neither here nor there).

I still can't figure out how you justify that those things are different... You don't work for Blizzard or Nintendo? So? You probably don't work for the US Government either!

Because he wasn't really a centrist, he pretended to be to cow the sheeple vote. And it worked. That horrendous attempt to communize health-care wasn't very centrist at all. Thank God it was defeated.

Except for the health care thing, he was as centrist as you get. His whole thing was these "New Democrats" that would aim more towards the middle... he clearly still thinks that way which is why Clark's campaign has gotten the most support of the group from ex-Clintonites, I'd say.

So defeatist. You're then saying that they shouldn't bother, should not even be encouraged and helped to try. They should just become little piglets sucking on the welfare tit for everything they need, at my expense. Since not everyone will succeed, they should just give up and let Big Brother provide everything. The rest of us have the obligation to pay for all that.

Defeatist? No, realistic. Proven by looking at the last five thousand years of human experience.

In those times there were practically no investment opportunities, and people hardly knew about what little there was. That is not the case today by any means, thus, your argument is invalid.

True we have more opportunities for investing now, but no way in the world would I think that everyone would actually save enough money so that they could pay for all these things when they retire! Many would just spend it... we need the government to be there to keep people from wasting their future. And anyway the government can do this stuff better than individuals can.

Your second point shows exactly why it's a bad idea, and why the first point exists: The program is over-extended, created in a much different time. It was created in a time where people would collect benefits at age 65 and be dead in little more than five years. Now, people are living into the late eighties and early nineties, almost thirty years of collecting. The minimum age, for starters, needs to be raised by five, preferably ten years. Second, the program should be optional. Participation in SSI should not be forced. If people want the option of investing their own money, it should be provided. Those who wish to continue paying for SSI can do that as well, and many people will because investment isn't for everyone. But the system, like so many other liberal ideas, was much better in concept than in execution.

Hmm... raise the minimum age... that's been discussed. Lobbyists for old people have killed it so far, but it'll keep coming back because you are right, when SSI was created people died a whole lot younger... the age will probably have to be raised in the future, to help Medicare from not going bankrupt. Optional? You mean Bush's 2000 campaign idea to get people to leave government care and go to HMOs? The problem here is that no HMO wants to insure old people. Unless the goverment forces them, via laws, no sane HMO will ever pay for elderly care... that's why Medicare is there, and that's one reason it's so important (and should be spread to the uninsured too. Having people in this country with no health insurance is unacceptable.)... and as for having people put their money into non-SSI retirement accounts, go ahead with other money but leave SSI as it is. It's an important piece and if we put one hole in it the whole thing might blow up (much to the delight of people like you who detest the idea of your money actually helping people).

First off, I don't get why you'd suddenly bring up those two unrelated groups out of nowhere ABF. Second off, what's with the "you just don't care" attitude targetting me specifically? I already explained the reality there, that businesses come and go all the time even WITHOUT a big name company. Why should I care WHO drove business away from some small business? Seriously, should I ALSO hate the small business that provides cheaper goods (for instance, a 99 cent store driving a dollar store out of business) that ends up making the other one fail? It's the EXACT SAME THING EXACTLY THE SAME! NO DIFFERENCE! Scale is irrelevent.

If you don't understand now you never will, and I won't waste any more time re-explaining what I've already said.

[Great Rumbler]

But the jobs at Wal-Mart are generally not as good as the ones that they're replacing...

Better than having no job at all, which is what a lot of people who've been layed off would be faced with.

[Weltall]

Except for the health care thing, he was as centrist as you get. His whole thing was these "New Democrats" that would aim more towards the middle... he clearly still thinks that way which is why Clark's campaign has gotten the most support of the group from ex-Clintonites, I'd say.

Bah. Clark is a puppet too. He doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and everyone involved in his campaign knows it. The only reason he's running is to hurt Howard Dean, which will in turn bolster Hillary's chances in four years. It has nothing to do with what Clark believes, because Clark is so damned clueless he doesn't know what he believes. This is a very smart move by the Clintons. Hopefully not smart enough though.

Condoleeza for President, 2008 Bill may be a convincing centrist, but Hillary is very frighteningly socialist. If we're gonna elect a first female president, Rice is my choice.

Defeatist? No, realistic. Proven by looking at the last five thousand years of human experience.

The last fifty years of human experience is so totally unlike the preceding 4950 in America that it doesn't even make sense to say otherwise. Poor people in America live like kings compared to the poor in almost every other nation, and they have opportunities here that people elsewhere could not even comprehend.

True we have more opportunities for investing now, but no way in the world would I think that everyone would actually save enough money so that they could pay for all these things when they retire! Many would just spend it... we need the government to be there to keep people from wasting their future. And anyway the government can do this stuff better than individuals can.

No. The government doesn't exist to make sure people don't screw themselves up. People need to learn to be prudent with their money. Some people need to learn the hard way. That's life. The government's role should be as backup, not as the sole supplier of living money. That's what has the system so ruined now.

Hmm... raise the minimum age... that's been discussed. Lobbyists for old people have killed it so far, but it'll keep coming back because you are right, when SSI was created people died a whole lot younger... the age will probably have to be raised in the future, to help Medicare from not going bankrupt. Optional? You mean Bush's 2000 campaign idea to get people to leave government care and go to HMOs? The problem here is that no HMO wants to insure old people. Unless the goverment forces them, via laws, no sane HMO will ever pay for elderly care... that's why Medicare is there, and that's one reason it's so important (and should be spread to the uninsured too. Having people in this country with no health insurance is unacceptable.)... and as for having people put their money into non-SSI retirement accounts, go ahead with other money but leave SSI as it is. It's an important piece and if we put one hole in it the whole thing might blow up (much to the delight of people like you who detest the idea of your money actually helping people).

I do not agree with forcing HMOs to cover people in place of Medicare. People are on Medicare now and they should continue to be. To disrupt the system so suddenly would only make things worse. The shift to personal investment must be gradual, but it must happen. Pehaps not totally, as you and I both said, some people simply wouldn't be able to handle it. But individual investment should be suggested and encouraged, because as time goes on, people will need that extra money. At the same time, it should be theirs to do with as they please. Why deny those who can invest properly? It's money they work for and it's certainly possible to invest money better then the government has.

[Dark Jaguar]

ABF, you are right. A lot of people DON'T save up money for retirement like they should, or at least not enough. ABF, you are wrong. The government should NOT be there to help people out of their own mess. These people were too stupid to plan their lives correctly. Ever hear the story about the grasshopper and the ant? You know, the ant stores food for the winter, and the grasshopper is lazy and has nothing in the winter, so then he breaks down the door to the ant's house and robs the place blind, but since the ant lives in a great kingdom with theft laws, a gestappo shows up at the grasshopper's pad and, not finding the grasshopper who skipped town a few days earlier, tourches the place and kills all the friends and family of the grasshopper as a lessn, but eventually off in some other town a beetle sees a want-ad for the grasshopper with a huge reward and takes matters into his own hands, killing the grasshopper and throwing it's head before the Ant Queen, and thus the beetle was crowned as a lord of a local province and lived happily ever after? Well, the moral of the story is the same. Don't take other's stuff to make up for your mistakes in life.

[A Black Falcon]

Erm, you equate SSI/Medicade/Medicare with people with no money robbing people with it? So you want the starving people under the bridge to stay there because they deserve it? Homeless shelters should be illegal! Those bums don't deserve help, it's their fault...

Same with poverty, right? If you aren't out of it it's your fault because of course anyone who wants to can escape poverty!

And that's not even touching on the fact that SSI doesn't just benefit the person who is getting your money now, it'll benefit you a lot when you get older too...

And it's a proven fact that even people who know better are not moneywise. Look at the insane number of people in the US who have credit card debt and that point is proven. So most people, if they had that extra money, would be liable to waste it... I think that the government should step in and do things to help people. It's pretty sad that people like you (Weltall, GR, DJ, etc) would rather let them suffer.

The last fifty years of human experience is so totally unlike the preceding 4950 in America that it doesn't even make sense to say otherwise. Poor people in America live like kings compared to the poor in almost every other nation, and they have opportunities here that people elsewhere could not even comprehend

Better than ever before, but still not in good shape, especially when you look at the standards of modern society. But you clearly think that it's good enough as it is and doing things that would actually help people improve further and maybe get out of the trap of poverty are bad.

I know you'll say 'pessimism', but look. It is proven throughout history that virtually no poor people make it! Yes, once in a while one does... but the number that make it compared to the number that don't? Its infantessimal! That is why governments help the poor. They know that they cannot do enough to help themselves. Not when they must spend most of their time working just so they can pay the bills and put food on the table, for sure! I don't know where you get these delusions of poor people with lots of free time and zero interest of moving up, but I bet that in most cases that is just not true... they just do not have the opportunities... "go to college"? You can't do that if your family needs you to work at least one full time job just so you can keep your apartment and feed everyone!

Bah. Clark is a puppet too. He doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and everyone involved in his campaign knows it. The only reason he's running is to hurt Howard Dean, which will in turn bolster Hillary's chances in four years. It has nothing to do with what Clark believes, because Clark is so damned clueless he doesn't know what he believes. This is a very smart move by the Clintons. Hopefully not smart enough though.

Condoleeza for President, 2008 Bill may be a convincing centrist, but Hillary is very frighteningly socialist. If we're gonna elect a first female president, Rice is my choice.

Condaleeza Rice and Colin Powell both made fools of themselves and really degraded their worth in my eyes and in many others when they defended the administration's rush to war. I thought Powell was the more reasoned one in this administration, and then like a idiot he goes off spouting administration lies... and as for Rice, she's just a lapdog really, saying whatever the people really in charge tell her.

Oh, and all these right wing conspiracies about how everything is a way to get Hillary into the White House are amusing. First she was going to run for this election, then she was going to be a suprise late entry into the race, and then she is going to run in '08 using Clark as a stepping stone... sure, I'll give you the fact that she's a top contender for Democrats running for the White House in the future, but the conspiracy stories? Crazy.

Oh, and I'd say the Clintonites like Clark because he's by far the most viable moderate in the race, nothing more.

[Great Rumbler]

Weltall, GR, DJ, etc

When did I say anything about medicare?

I don't like Clark. He says things that don't make sense.

[Dark Jaguar]

But it'd work just as well if people were just responsible about it! We'd help ourselves and them themselves. Look, generosity is all well and good, and I support homeless shelters and such fully when they are done by people who truly want to give to those in need. However, it shouldn't be forced or it's not true generosity. Generosity comes from the heart, not from orders to give or else. And, as I said, aside from help from those willing to do it, those who have not saved for retirement their whole life have EARNED what they get. Should someone help them, then they are being a very generous person, but they don't deserve help. I don't say that callously, I mean that NO ONE deserves a free handout. That's why it's free. The only time someone actually deserves something is when they earn it. The whole idea of Christmas is that no one deserves the gifts you give, but you give them anyway because you love them. It's more than what they earned, because that doesn't matter. Now, how much meaning behind gift giving would there be if people were ORDERED by law to give gifts on Christmas, and a specific dollar amount was required as well as what people you are to give to. That would take away all the meaning behind it. Same here. Generosity is meaningless if someone is forced rather than chooses to help someone themselves without coersion (sp?).

[A Black Falcon]

When did I say anything about medicare?

I don't like Clark. He says things that don't make sense.

Have you ever disagreed with Weltall?

Didn't think so.

But it'd work just as well if people were just responsible about it! We'd help ourselves and them themselves. Look, generosity is all well and good, and I support homeless shelters and such fully when they are done by people who truly want to give to those in need. However, it shouldn't be forced or it's not true generosity. Generosity comes from the heart, not from orders to give or else. And, as I said, aside from help from those willing to do it, those who have not saved for retirement their whole life have EARNED what they get. Should someone help them, then they are being a very generous person, but they don't deserve help. I don't say that callously, I mean that NO ONE deserves a free handout. That's why it's free. The only time someone actually deserves something is when they earn it. The whole idea of Christmas is that no one deserves the gifts you give, but you give them anyway because you love them. It's more than what they earned, because that doesn't matter. Now, how much meaning behind gift giving would there be if people were ORDERED by law to give gifts on Christmas, and a specific dollar amount was required as well as what people you are to give to. That would take away all the meaning behind it. Same here. Generosity is meaningless if someone is forced rather than chooses to help someone themselves without coersion (sp?).

You expect far too much of the human race. We are far, far from perfect... people live more in the now than in the future and do all kinds of things that in future years will look really dumb. Like amassing lots of credit card debt, and wasting your money on junk, and not saving for the future, or starting a habit like smoking or drugs...

In a similar vein, not many people would willingly give a big chunk of their paycheck to others who need it when they won't see a payout from it for decades. Sorry, but it just would not happen. It'd be about as likely as a industry dramatically reducing pollution without it being legislated (read: it would never happen)... the best way by far is to have the government set aside money, as SSI does.

And also, gift giving is dramatically different from funding medical care for people who otherwise would lie at home ill, or suffer because they cannot afford their perscription drugs.

[Weltall]

And that's not even touching on the fact that SSI doesn't just benefit the person who is getting your money now, it'll benefit you a lot when you get older too...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Yeah, right. If SSI is still around when I turn 65 (or whatever retirement age ends up being) I will personally give you my first check.

And it's a proven fact that even people who know better are not moneywise. Look at the insane number of people in the US who have credit card debt and that point is proven. So most people, if they had that extra money, would be liable to waste it... I think that the government should step in and do things to help people. It's pretty sad that people like you (Weltall, GR, DJ, etc) would rather let them suffer.

I find it personally sad that I have to handle my own finances in addition to those of people who are too capricious or stupid to do it themselves. That offends me. When the Founding Fathers drew up the Constitution, I think the idea was that people should be self-sufficient, not that the Government should protect you from your own stupidity. In fact, I have a hunch that they wanted exactly to avoid that from happening.

Better than ever before, but still not in good shape, especially when you look at the standards of modern society. But you clearly think that it's good enough as it is and doing things that would actually help people improve further and maybe get out of the trap of poverty are bad.

I don't think it's 'good enough'. I just have very different ideas on how the situation can improve itself.

I know you'll say 'pessimism', but look. It is proven throughout history that virtually no poor people make it! Yes, once in a while one does... but the number that make it compared to the number that don't? Its infantessimal! That is why governments help the poor. They know that they cannot do enough to help themselves. Not when they must spend most of their time working just so they can pay the bills and put food on the table, for sure! I don't know where you get these delusions of poor people with lots of free time and zero interest of moving up, but I bet that in most cases that is just not true... they just do not have the opportunities... "go to college"? You can't do that if your family needs you to work at least one full time job just so you can keep your apartment and feed everyone!

I wonder, you always say the poor can never 'make it'. Define 'making it'. There are many people who don't have much money or possessions, but have enough to live pretty comfortably and safely.

Again, I stress to you that in our 'modern society', the standards of being poor equate to the standards of excess wealth in about 90% of the rest of the world. Do poor people in India or Africa own televisions and at least one car? Do they ever suffer from obesity, the so-called 'disease of the poor' in America? No. They completely lack education, they often don't eat enough food to stay alive, and they make less money in a year than the average 'poor' American makes in a week. They have no chance whatsoever of raising thier quality of life because they are trapped in a world where the very concept of advancement doesn't exist. There are no facilities for it.

By those standards, our poor people have absolutely nothing to bitch about, and I find it hard to feel too sorry for them, and in that same respect I find it very hard to fault our 'modern society' because our modern society has the richest damn poor people in the history of poor people.

Condaleeza Rice and Colin Powell both made fools of themselves and really degraded their worth in my eyes and in many others when they defended the administration's rush to war. I thought Powell was the more reasoned one in this administration, and then like a idiot he goes off spouting administration lies... and as for Rice, she's just a lapdog really, saying whatever the people really in charge tell her.

Okay.

Oh, and all these right wing conspiracies about how everything is a way to get Hillary into the White House are amusing. First she was going to run for this election, then she was going to be a suprise late entry into the race, and then she is going to run in '08 using Clark as a stepping stone... sure, I'll give you the fact that she's a top contender for Democrats running for the White House in the future, but the conspiracy stories? Crazy.

Oh, and I'd say the Clintonites like Clark because he's by far the most viable moderate in the race, nothing more.

I never believed for a moment Hillary would run this year. Bush is far too tough an opponent, and staging a campaign would be a waste of time, much like Gore's. 2008 will unfortunately be different. I hope the Republicans shore up a worthy opponent.

The Clintonites like Clark because he's an idiot who is easily manipulated. He's so spineless that his position on the war changes depending on the temperature outside. He has no platform, nor does he have a goal. He's a joke of a candidate and his only purpose is to check Dean. Because, while the former Deciever-In-Chief played the centrist to get the sheeple to vote him in, Hillary Clinton is as dangerously liberal as one can get, she doesn't play the centrist nearly as well, and it's HER campaign being prepared.

The nice thing, though, is watching the Democrats destroy themselves with all this infighting. It would be funny if... well, it is funny. I can only hope the damage will be long in repairing. :)

Have you ever disagreed with Weltall?

Didn't think so.

Of course not. I'm always right. :kiss:

[A Black Falcon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/18/nation...LM.html?hp

Surprising, Wal-Mart employees don't like being locked in in the night and told that if they use the emergency exits and there isn't a fire they'll be fired...

[A Black Falcon]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Yeah, right. If SSI is still around when I turn 65 (or whatever retirement age ends up being) I will personally give you my first check.

It will be. There well might be more restrictions (especially on age), but it will be.

I find it personally sad that I have to handle my own finances in addition to those of people who are too capricious or stupid to do it themselves. That offends me. When the Founding Fathers drew up the Constitution, I think the idea was that people should be self-sufficient, not that the Government should protect you from your own stupidity. In fact, I have a hunch that they wanted exactly to avoid that from happening.

The Founding Fathers were suspicious of the people and did what they could to keep the general public from having too much power in our government... remember things like the Senate being elected by the House of Representatives, or the President being elected by the Electoral College?

As for self-sufficiency I don't know what they would think. Political realities have changed so dramatically... back then it was very liberal to want to just give everyone the right to vote... we have advanced from there so of course the target moves. We have voting, more services are the clear place to go from there...

I don't think it's 'good enough'. I just have very different ideas on how the situation can improve itself.

Yes, by making sure that no one ever has any kind of chance of getting out of poverty, thus preserving our system where the top 5% of the population have 47% of the wealth.

And as for poverty... yes in other places poor people are more destitute than here. But it is a major mistake to say that because they can manage to put food on the table, usually, and pay the bills -- sometimes -- they aren't poor. They are. When you need two or three jobs just to barely keep your house, and need to choose between the power and having enough (barely) to eat... and have to go to work as soon as you can, no way could you ever go to college no matter how smart you are... that is a problem and something we should do more to help.

Oh yeah, and you didn't factor in relative costs. It costs a LOT more to live in America than some extremely poor part of Africa! You need to make $28,000 to be above the poverty line here and that's not nearly enough to actually live. In some places $100 a month is more than enough to live by what in that nation are decent standards... we need to remember relativism here. For trade too -- saying that everyone needs to meet our minimum wage laws would be idiotic. We need to look at what is a reasonable minimum wage for that society and say that for that country we won't let them trade with us unless they meet it (and actually enforce it, which is the bigger challenge)...

I never believed for a moment Hillary would run this year. Bush is far too tough an opponent, and staging a campaign would be a waste of time, much like Gore's. 2008 will unfortunately be different. I hope the Republicans shore up a worthy opponent.

The Clintonites like Clark because he's an idiot who is easily manipulated. He's so spineless that his position on the war changes depending on the temperature outside. He has no platform, nor does he have a goal. He's a joke of a candidate and his only purpose is to check Dean. Because, while the former Deciever-In-Chief played the centrist to get the sheeple to vote him in, Hillary Clinton is as dangerously liberal as one can get, she doesn't play the centrist nearly as well, and it's HER campaign being prepared.

The nice thing, though, is watching the Democrats destroy themselves with all this infighting. It would be funny if... well, it is funny. I can only hope the damage will be long in repairing.

First, Bush is far more vulnerable than you say.

Second, you're right that Clark doesn't make a very convincing Democrat... he seems to be more liberal than most military types for sure (he voted for Clinton and Gore), but a true liberal, like he is saying in his speeches? I don't really believe it.

Still, he has a very good point that we should never have gone into Iraq while the major issue of Afghanistan should have been our focus.

And third, campaigns are often bloody but usually they make peace in the end... I'm sure they will, because beating Bush is the most important thing here.

[Great Rumbler]

Have you ever disagreed with Weltall?

Didn't think so.

[A Black Falcon]

Politically I can't think of any times you have.

[Great Rumbler]

Don't make assumptions, though.

But...I do think it should be a matter of choice. If you don't feel like you'd be able to save the money yourself [I doubt I'd be able to] you can pay into Social Security, or if you can handle your own retirement you can opt out and put that money away in the bank or whatever.

[A Black Falcon]

Well if you disagree with Weltall on any of the points we raised, say it instead of just making nebulous statements of unhappiness!

[Great Rumbler]

*points to edit made to above post*

[A Black Falcon]

You did that after I posted. :)

And after all that you agree with him exactly.

[Great Rumbler]

*shrugs*

I just wanted to make sure that you knew I didn't like being lumped in with others on a subject I hadn't said anything about yet.

[A Black Falcon]

I would stop doing that if you ever showed any individuality on these matters, but you don't...

For example DJ agrees with you two on some things but not everything, I think...

[Great Rumbler]

It's not like I'm on some campaign to disagree with you all the time because I enjoy it. I disagree with you because you have views that a very different frome mine. Nothing more.

[A Black Falcon]

There are problems with privatizing SSI... it's easy to invest and lose money. The government might lose money too but unlike a private insurer they guarantee that you will get the money you are owed. Let people invest it themselves and you will have a lot of retirees without much money on your hands for all kinds of reasons and no way for the government to help... that is just not good. It also harms SSI when it needs the money pretty badly.

Oh, another good article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/18/busine...8view.html

[Weltall]

It will be. There well might be more restrictions (especially on age), but it will be.

I have serious doubts about that. In any case, in fifty-odd years we'll see.

The Founding Fathers were suspicious of the people and did what they could to keep the general public from having too much power in our government... remember things like the Senate being elected by the House of Representatives, or the President being elected by the Electoral College?

As for self-sufficiency I don't know what they would think. Political realities have changed so dramatically... back then it was very liberal to want to just give everyone the right to vote... we have advanced from there so of course the target moves. We have voting, more services are the clear place to go from there...

I know what they would think. You might remember that not too long before the Constitutional Convention, there was a little matter of a war, one that we defeated Britain in. You might remember that some of the main reasons we fought this conflict were overtaxation and overburdening governmental control. They, perhaps reflexively, did everything they could to limit the power and scope of the government. I can't find it possible to believe that they would even consider the idea of making the federal government a perpetual wetnurse charity organization.

Yes, by making sure that no one ever has any kind of chance of getting out of poverty, thus preserving our system where the top 5% of the population have 47% of the wealth.

Tell me this. Your solution is to give these people a living. How does that help them not be poor?

You spew lies about conservatives' methods, so tell me how your idea of giving a free ride to anyone who wants it helps poor people (key phrase coming) not be poor. If conservatives are trying their hardest to keep people destitute, how are your methods any better? How has any federal welfare/medicare program EVER helped the poor become middle class?

And as for poverty... yes in other places poor people are more destitute than here. But it is a major mistake to say that because they can manage to put food on the table, usually, and pay the bills -- sometimes -- they aren't poor. They are. When you need two or three jobs just to barely keep your house, and need to choose between the power and having enough (barely) to eat... and have to go to work as soon as you can, no way could you ever go to college no matter how smart you are... that is a problem and something we should do more to help.

There are very few people today who are in the situation where they graduate or drop out of high school and need multiple jobs to survive... and those that are in that position a majority of the time did it to themselves by being indescreet sexually. And, uncompassionate I may be, but I don't feel sorry for stupid people. Don't make them if you can't raise them. Don't KEEP them if you can't raise them; there is never a shortage of people willing to adopt children in America.

Oh yeah, and you didn't factor in relative costs. It costs a LOT more to live in America than some extremely poor part of Africa! You need to make $28,000 to be above the poverty line here and that's not nearly enough to actually live. In some places $100 a month is more than enough to live by what in that nation are decent standards... we need to remember relativism here. For trade too -- saying that everyone needs to meet our minimum wage laws would be idiotic. We need to look at what is a reasonable minimum wage for that society and say that for that country we won't let them trade with us unless they meet it (and actually enforce it, which is the bigger challenge)...

A single person or a couple without children can live comfortably on $28,000 a year, and even with one child, by skimping on a few things, it is very possible to get by just fine. And it's quite unlikely that a couple together makes less than that much money, unless they're very young and have no job experience. That isn't the case with most people. You seem to have this strange idea that everyone who makes less than the poverty line is a single mother of four and has to juggle three jobs. It's not anywhere near true.

First, Bush is far more vulnerable than you say.

There is no one in this divided Democratic comedy of errors that has a legitimate shot at winning this election.

I would just love if the ticket split, and the conditions are certainly ripe for it, considering how close this large race for second place is. Bush vs. Dean and Clark or Gephardt? It'd be murder.

Second, you're right that Clark doesn't make a very convincing Democrat... he seems to be more liberal than most military types for sure (he voted for Clinton and Gore), but a true liberal, like he is saying in his speeches? I don't really believe it.

Still, he has a very good point that we should never have gone into Iraq while the major issue of Afghanistan should have been our focus.

And third, campaigns are often bloody but usually they make peace in the end... I'm sure they will, because beating Bush is the most important thing here.

1. Clark is no liberal.
2. He has no point on the war. Everyone knows that until recently he was a vocal supporter of the war and has gone on public record stating so numerous times.
3. Beating Bush is the most important thing for the Dems because they have no real agenda or platform to fight for.

Now, with that aside, I found a lovely little article by one of my favorite pundits, Walter Williams. It was published in my paper yesterday and it deals with the poor in America, and just how wrong and laughably uninformed you are about them being a doomed people. Read on:

How can it be?
Walter E. Williams (archive)


January 14, 2004 | Print | Send

It might have been Ross Perot who first used the expression that America is turning into a nation of "hamburger flippers," in reference to the decline in good paying manufacturing jobs replaced by low-pay service sector jobs.

Here's my question: If millions of high-paying jobs are leaving the country only to be replaced by millions of low-paying jobs, what prediction would you make about the trend in our standard of living? It would have to be in steep decline, but the facts don't square with that. Per capita GDP, the population divided into the value of goods and services produced, is one of the methods used to gauge the standard of living. The historical trend, including today, is a rising American standard of living. In fact, our per capita GDP in 1980 was $21,500 and, as of 2002, it was $36,000 -- a 59 percent increase. So how can it be that we're becoming a nation of low-pay hamburger flippers?

How about this pronouncement: The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer? The Census Bureau just came out with a report saying that 35 million Americans are living in poverty. Robert Rector and Kirk A. Johnson addressed this figure in their recent publication "Understanding Poverty in America," produced by the Washington-based Heritage Foundation.

From various government reports they find that: 46 percent of poor households actually own their homes; 76 percent have air conditioning; the typical poor American has more living space than the average non-poor individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities in Europe; nearly 75 percent of poor households own one car, and 30 percent own two or more cars; 97 percent have at least one color television; 62 percent have cable or satellite reception; and 25 percent have cell phones.

While "poor" Americans don't live in opulence, they are surely not poor either by international or historical standards in our own country. I'm betting if God condemned an unborn spirit to a lifetime of poverty but He left him free to choose the country in which to be poor, he'd choose United States.

How many times have we heard that the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer? Contrary to that nonsense, the fact of the matter is that some of the rich are getting poorer, and many of the poorer are getting richer.

According to the 1995 Annual Report of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, only 5 percent of those in the bottom 20 percent category of income earners in 1975 were still there in 1991. What happened to them? A majority made it to the top 60 percent of the income distribution -- middle class or better -- over that 16-year span. Almost 29 percent of them rose to the top 20 percent.

The evidence suggests that low income is largely a transitory experience for those willing to work. There's no mystery to it: As a function of age, people get wiser and gain more experience. That means it's not very intelligent to think one can make meaningful statements about poverty simply by measuring income at a particular point in time. By the way, people are also mobile downward, as suggested by the joke that the easiest way to become a Texas millionaire is to start out as a Texas billionaire.

Here's Williams' roadmap out of poverty: Complete high school; get a job, any kind of a job; get married before having children; and be a law-abiding citizen. Among both black and white Americans so described, the poverty rate is in the single digits.

[size=2]Why... that kinda means that your lines are untrue and nothing more than the desperate liberal class-warfare scare tactics I knew they were.


[/size]

[Weltall]

Here is the report mentioned in the article published by the Heritage Foundation. It's even better:

Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were nearly 35 million poor persons living in this country in 2002, a small increase from the preceding year. To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers--to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor.

For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 35 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.1

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

• Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
  
• Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
  
• Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
  
• The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
  
• Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
  
• Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
  
• Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
  
• Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
  

As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is short-term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, over a quarter of poor households have cell phones and telephone answering machines, but, at the other extreme, approximately one-tenth have no phone at all. While the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.

The best news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced further, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and fathers are absent from the home.

In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

While work and marriage are steady ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, remaining poverty would drop quickly.

There's much more. It's really good stuff.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

[Great Rumbler]

Those are good articles.

[A Black Falcon]

The Heritage Foundation... I've heard of them. I doubt that they've ever said a true statement since their founding. I can quite reliably know that whatever they say the opposite is probably true.

I'm getting tired of this... not sure if continuing has a point. Well, except for this one, because I love history and can't resist an effort to talk about that. :)

I know what they would think. You might remember that not too long before the Constitutional Convention, there was a little matter of a war, one that we defeated Britain in. You might remember that some of the main reasons we fought this conflict were overtaxation and overburdening governmental control. They, perhaps reflexively, did everything they could to limit the power and scope of the government. I can't find it possible to believe that they would even consider the idea of making the federal government a perpetual wetnurse charity organization.

Wrong wrong wrong. We fought the American Revolution for many reasons... but first, remember a few things. One, the colonies were not united and reasons varied in different places. Two, the main reasons for the Revolution. The main one was not because we were being taxed, actually. If you remember the Townshend Acts, one of the last ones, taxed a variety of things... the protest was great. They removed all of them except a symbolic and very small tax on tea. Paying it would not have been a hardship for Americans. So why did they react so badly and do things like the Tea Parties, the most famous of which was in Boston? Simple. To quote them, "No Taxation Without Representation is Tyranny". THAT is the main reason. Not that they were being taxed -- though taxes were an onorous burden like they always were, they paid local and colonial taxes without revolution -- but because they had no say in if they were taxed. The response from England was that the Parliament is (if you don't know, for a long time the Parliament was not realigned -- it was set up at one point based on what were towns then and didn't change for centuries. So some people were "elected" from towns that had ceased to exist while some major industrial cities had no vote at all because they were newer... colonies were in that same boat.) that the Parliament stands for all Englishmen, elected by you or not. But the Colonists didn't like that idea and it set us on the inevitable path to war.

Overburdening governmental control? You mean repressive control. Yes, they didn't like having soldiers quartered in their homes, or curfews, or taxes they had no say in... but that is different from hating the government. They wanted a government that they could choose and influence and not one chosen for them... a revolutionary idea at the time to be sure but not one that was aimed at destroying the idea of a government having power over its nation. Well for a while it was but that cooled down quick...

After the war, we had the first American government, governed by the Articles of Confederation. If you don't remember it, this was a true radical form of government where the national government barely existed and only had any power over international issues -- states had control over local and state-to-state issues. Also, it had just one house, which elected its president. It was the ultimate in state's rights... which made sense at the time given how much the states disliked eachother. The US really was more like thirteen nations than one.

Needless to say, it failed miserably. Without any power in the federal government the states had all kinds of quarrels and the nation could not function well. They could tax trade between states for instance with no problems because the federal government couldn't do anything about it. Oh, by the way, in the late 1700s 'Conservatives' supported big, authoritarian governments (like monarchies; see Alexander Hamilton's ideas) and 'Liberals' small, more locally controlled ones (state's rights). The Constitutional Convention was called by conservatives, in secret -- it was originally supposed to just revise the Articles, but they quickly decided to write an all-new Constitution (and historians ever after have a huge debt to James Madison for keeping those secret notes of the proceedings). It was the antithesis of the liberals' (such as Jefferson, who of course at the time was in France, or Patrick Henry, who wasn't there either) ideas of what the US goverment should be in many ways -- unlike the previous one as I said it has a very strong central government. Conservative idea. Several branches, with a balance of power... compromise to keep the big and small states, and the liberals and conservatives, happy, as each branch was different... the House, for the people with its 2 year terms; the Senate, elected by state legislatures and with 6-year terms; the President, elected by the Electoral College elected by the states (not sure if it was by popular sufferage (of white male landowners) or by the state legislatures at first though); and the Judicial branch, appointed by the President or Congress and having life terms.

What they did was form a much stronger form of government than the liberals who started the Revolution wanted... right on the edge of what the people would accept, because the people by that point had been liberalized (at the start it was 1/3 pro revolt, 1/3 neutral, and 1/3 Tory, but the latter group was gotten rid of obviously after the independance). Showing that this more centralized and stronger form of government (that kept the people farther away from power, a key idea for 18th century elites like the Framers) was needed was important... what we got from that was the Federalist Papers, a very well done defence of capitalistic democracy.

"did everything possible to limit the power and scope of government"? Depends on what you mean. If you mean that they limited government powers? Somewhat... but yes that was more the liberals, who insisted on the Bill of Rights be added on. Actually the Bill of Rights at the Convention was mentioned and it was promised that it would be the first thing done once the new government was formed. That did limit governmental options with things like freedom of speech and no quartering of troops and the idea that you can't be forced to incriminate yourself. But liberals did that, not conservatives, who would have probably rather not had them, or had them in a more limited form... I know Hamilton, the pentultimate American (well he was actually born in the West Indies, but moved to the Colonies when he was young) Conservative, made us pay our debt off (because he knew that we could not start off in debt, it'd ruin any chance of our nation's success), and what he really wanted was a monarchy. And as for the Constitution what it actually did overall was make a form of government not as strong as a monarchy but far, far stronger than the Articles -- a good middle ground that still was one of the most liberal governments in the world but now was one that this elite could support.

I could go on for some time, but I think you get the picture...

[Weltall]

I do get the picture. What I don't get is how you think that means that the Founders would have supported your idea that our government become a large, compulsory charity organization, which was the point of my statement. The ones about taxation and government control, which 99% of your post focused on, was just periphery to that point... which, of course, you completely ignored.

What I do get, very well, is why you automatically dismiss the entirety of both articles offhand without so much as a thought... because you have no evidence to disprove them. You're content on regurgitating the same old liberal lies because it soothes the terrible guilt you have because you're not poor.

[A Black Falcon]

I dismiss everything the Heritage Foundation says. Just like you probably did with things like that Carnegie Peace Institute study of how the Bush Administration lied and exaggerated its way into war...

And I said I don't know what they would think of SSI/Medicade/Medicare because such ideas really didn't exist back then. It's kind of hard to predict such things... but as I said you also need to consider how the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" are very different now from what they were then.

But if you support taxation and a strong national government... but I don't know because obviously medicine as we know it today didn't exactly exist then either.

[Weltall]

I dismiss everything the Heritage Foundation says. Just like you probably did with things like that Carnegie Peace Institute study of how the Bush Administration lied and exaggerated its way into war...

And I said I don't know what they would think of SSI/Medicade/Medicare because such ideas really didn't exist back then. It's kind of hard to predict such things... but as I said you also need to consider how the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" are very different now from what they were then.

But if you support taxation and a strong national government... but I don't know because obviously medicine as we know it today didn't exactly exist then either.

I would think that if someone made exaggerated claims while using Census Bureau information as a source, certainly someone would have noticed. You're making the judgement that the article is totally false, you claim it's all lies.

Prove it. And I don't want to hear excuses. It makes perfect sense and you claim it's malarkey. So I want you to show me proof that poor people are significantly worse off than this study says, as that is what you are claiming. Don't disappoint me please, you always choke when I make a challenge like this to you, because it seems like there is never any proof to substantiate your claims.

Also, the definition of 'liberal' and 'conservative' has always been the same. The issues they have stood for are what has changed.

As for whether they'd understand the concept, you'd have to put it to them in terms they'd understand; "Do you support the concept of using large amounts of tax revenue to give free money to poor people, requiring little or nothing in return from them".

I'd guarantee they wouldn't. It's a ridiculous idea. The greatest nation in the history of the world wasn't created by idiots.

[Great Rumbler]

Off we go to the Debate forum!

[A Black Falcon]

I would think that if someone made exaggerated claims while using Census Bureau information as a source, certainly someone would have noticed. You're making the judgement that the article is totally false, you claim it's all lies.

Prove it. And I don't want to hear excuses. It makes perfect sense and you claim it's malarkey. So I want you to show me proof that poor people are significantly worse off than this study says, as that is what you are claiming. Don't disappoint me please, you always choke when I make a challenge like this to you, because it seems like there is never any proof to substantiate your claims.

I doubt that they're making up the numbers... they're just only using the ones that most suit their case and ignoring a lot of important points. Like the one I mentioned -- relative wealth. In this case how the average CEO of an American company makes $10 million dollars. $10 million. That is a little bit more than the $28,000 of a poverty-line worker. That comparison is unprecidented in world history. If you look at the $10 million on top, the definition of 'poor' based soley on income becomes more interesting... like, would $50,000 even be considered middle class on that scale? Probably not. And we are giving those people who make $10 million massive tax cuts while increasing (or not changing) taxes on the lower end of the ladder!

Also, the definition of 'liberal' and 'conservative' has always been the same. The issues they have stood for are what has changed.

Same thing. What they stand for has changed a lot, so so has the definition of the terms. Especially liberals -- 19th century 'liberals' were dramatically different from modern ones.

As for whether they'd understand the concept, you'd have to put it to them in terms they'd understand; "Do you support the concept of using large amounts of tax revenue to give free money to poor people, requiring little or nothing in return from them".

Maybe they would if you used terms that actually explained the concept... though of course they would hardly agree given how the Framers are a mix across the spectrum. :)

First, what program are you talking about? SSI is for everybody, not just poor people. Poor people get a lot less of it actually since they put less in. Medicare? Yes, that is. Medicade? That's for old people in general... food stamps? That's not free money, that's helping these people survive when otherwise they well might starve or become homeless... free lunches in schools?

SSI is easy. "Do you support taking part of everyone's paychecks to fund a fund that pays people money after they retire?", more or less... not sure about the others offhand. But if you explain first the fact of modern life that you need insurance for health care, and that it costs a lot and often comes from your employer, and about perscription drugs and how high the prices for those are in this country... they well might understand how important better health care for all is.

I defintely think they'd agree with public education, though, and how imporant it is to have a good system.

[Weltall]

I doubt that they're making up the numbers... they're just only using the ones that most suit their case and ignoring a lot of important points. Like the one I mentioned -- relative wealth. In this case how the average CEO of an American company makes $10 million dollars. $10 million. That is a little bit more than the $28,000 of a poverty-line worker. That comparison is unprecidented in world history. If you look at the $10 million on top, the definition of 'poor' based soley on income becomes more interesting... like, would $50,000 even be considered middle class on that scale? Probably not. And we are giving those people who make $10 million massive tax cuts while increasing (or not changing) taxes on the lower end of the ladder!

CEOs do not make up any significant portion of the population.

I don't understand what relative wealth has to do with anything. If the 'poor' are healthy, well-fed and with luxuries and amenities, they are not destitute. It doesn't matter if the richest people had ten bazillion dollars, it wouldn't change the 'poor' much. It's not like things cost less if you're rich or something. You don't get a free discount in the grocery store just because you make over a hundred thou a year. You're gonna be charged the same amount for a gallon of milk that everyone else is.

Hell, if upper limits are put in place in the grading scale, there are probably about a hundred people in the world who aren't poor.

I think this is just your communist wealth hate speaking again.

Same thing. What they stand for has changed a lot, so so has the definition of the terms. Especially liberals -- 19th century 'liberals' were dramatically different from modern ones.

A liberal is someone who embraces change, a conservative is someone who desires preservation. That's as it is and as it's always been.

Maybe they would if you used terms that actually explained the concept... though of course they would hardly agree given how the Framers are a mix across the spectrum. :)

First, what program are you talking about? SSI is for everybody, not just poor people. Poor people get a lot less of it actually since they put less in. Medicare? Yes, that is. Medicade? That's for old people in general... food stamps? That's not free money, that's helping these people survive when otherwise they well might starve or become homeless... free lunches in schools?

Medicade, yes. Food stamps? Regardless of what they are used for (and as often as not, they're not used for food), they're still free money. They are given to people without anything expected in return. It's unreasonable to expect recompense from the elderly, but a majority of food-stamp recipients are not elderly.

SSI is easy. "Do you support taking part of everyone's paychecks to fund a fund that pays people money after they retire?", more or less... not sure about the others offhand. But if you explain first the fact of modern life that you need insurance for health care, and that it costs a lot and often comes from your employer, and about perscription drugs and how high the prices for those are in this country... they well might understand how important better health care for all is.

They very well should. But that's not the question, the question is should it be under the control of the government? That's the bone of contention today, and that little bit is very important.

Reforming the malpractice system and stopping some of the horrendous abuses of the existing medical system need to happen first. Did you know that most people will recieve emergency health care even without insurance? It's the law in Virginia, I don't know about other places. People who take advantage of that are not required to pay for their care, though they are strongly encouraged to, few do. To make up for this, insured people have to pick up the slack and pay for them, which is a big reason hospitals in Virginia have such tremendous operational costs and budget problems. There are awful abuses of this free system, people use the emergency room for very trivial things, and these things carry a big price tag that the rest of us have to take. Abuses like that cause huge financial problems, and one of the big things that scares me about standardized health care is that these abuses will multiply. Who would be able to pay for it all?

[A Black Falcon]

A liberal is someone who embraces change, a conservative is someone who desires preservation. That's as it is and as it's always been.

But what is to be changed or preserved has changed a lot.

For instance, do you support giving everyone (over a certain age) the right to vote? 19th century conservatives sure didn't.

Medicade, yes. Food stamps? Regardless of what they are used for (and as often as not, they're not used for food), they're still free money. They are given to people without anything expected in return. It's unreasonable to expect recompense from the elderly, but a majority of food-stamp recipients are not elderly

No, they just don't make enough money to feed their family (and at least pay the minimums on their bills) without the food stamps.

They very well should. But that's not the question, the question is should it be under the control of the government? That's the bone of contention today, and that little bit is very important.

Reforming the malpractice system and stopping some of the horrendous abuses of the existing medical system need to happen first. Did you know that most people will recieve emergency health care even without insurance? It's the law in Virginia, I don't know about other places. People who take advantage of that are not required to pay for their care, though they are strongly encouraged to, few do. To make up for this, insured people have to pick up the slack and pay for them, which is a big reason hospitals in Virginia have such tremendous operational costs and budget problems. There are awful abuses of this free system, people use the emergency room for very trivial things, and these things carry a big price tag that the rest of us have to take. Abuses like that cause huge financial problems, and one of the big things that scares me about standardized health care is that these abuses will multiply. Who would be able to pay for it all?

If someone goes to the emergency room no doctor could refuse to treat them and call themselves ethical. And yes, the hospital has to pay for their care... it is definitely a big problem and one for which the best solution is expanding health care so that fewer people are uninsured. I'm not sure which plan is best, but all the Democratic candidates have plans for this and any of them would be a huge, huge help on this and all the other issues related to problems because of the uninsured.

Oh yeah, and it'd have the side benefit of reducing the strain on emergency rooms because when you have health insurance you don't have to wait until you're falling down ill to see a doctor, and thus wouldn't have to wait until you need an emergency room to go to the hospital...

CEOs do not make up any significant portion of the population.

I don't understand what relative wealth has to do with anything. If the 'poor' are healthy, well-fed and with luxuries and amenities, they are not destitute. It doesn't matter if the richest people had ten bazillion dollars, it wouldn't change the 'poor' much. It's not like things cost less if you're rich or something. You don't get a free discount in the grocery store just because you make over a hundred thou a year. You're gonna be charged the same amount for a gallon of milk that everyone else is.

Hell, if upper limits are put in place in the grading scale, there are probably about a hundred people in the world who aren't poor.

I think this is just your communist wealth hate speaking again.

Massively unbalanced wealth distribution is a huge problem. CEOs should not be getting massive raises while they cut jobs and services for their employees, that is absurdly unethical and probably should be illegal. And those people in that top 5% that do have 47% of this nation's wealth should be paying a huge percentage of the taxes, and not be getting ridiculously large tax cuts like they are getting. And as I said being 'poor' IS relative to your society. Poor people are poor because in modern American society they do not make enough money to be considered middle class. And because they don't have enough to live comfterbly in this society -- pay their bills, afford food all the time, etc... again, relativism matters a lot here, but it's hardly the only reason to say that your act that American poor people are doing fine is pure lies.

Oh, one comment about that stupid thing about poor people... I could make more but for now just this. Poor people work less than full time hours? Oh what a shock, I am absolutely amazed... I mean, companies NEVER hire lots of part-time workers so that they can get around paying benefits, nope! Nuh-uh!

Oh yeah, and "Welfare-to-work" (Clinton's program to empty welfare rolls) is a failure as a social program. All it does is gets people off welfare rolls and into low-paying dead end jobs... just what they didn't need to have a chance. Yes, it's reduced welfare rolls a lot, but at the cost of hurting a lot of people... what we need to do is actually try to improve things for them, not just force them into low paying, often part-time jobs.

[Weltall]

No, they just don't make enough money to feed their family (and at least pay the minimums on their bills) without the food stamps.

That doesn't change the fact that the money comes to them for nothing. There's no reason at all why able-bodied people should not give back to the society that has been giving them a free ride for so many years.

If someone goes to the emergency room no doctor could refuse to treat them and call themselves ethical. And yes, the hospital has to pay for their care... it is definitely a big problem and one for which the best solution is expanding health care so that fewer people are uninsured. I'm not sure which plan is best, but all the Democratic candidates have plans for this and any of them would be a huge, huge help on this and all the other issues related to problems because of the uninsured.

Oh yeah, and it'd have the side benefit of reducing the strain on emergency rooms because when you have health insurance you don't have to wait until you're falling down ill to see a doctor, and thus wouldn't have to wait until you need an emergency room to go to the hospital...

Er, it's people that use emergency rooms needlessly that causes Virginia's problems. There are no such restrictions here.

Massively unbalanced wealth distribution is a huge problem. CEOs should not be getting massive raises while they cut jobs and services for their employees, that is absurdly unethical and probably should be illegal. And those people in that top 5% that do have 47% of this nation's wealth should be paying a huge percentage of the taxes, and not be getting ridiculously large tax cuts like they are getting. And as I said being 'poor' IS relative to your society. Poor people are poor because in modern American society they do not make enough money to be considered middle class. And because they don't have enough to live comfterbly in this society -- pay their bills, afford food all the time, etc... again, relativism matters a lot here, but it's hardly the only reason to say that your act that American poor people are doing fine is pure lies.

So basically, you're advocating communism. It's not fair that some people are rich and others aren't, so no one should be rich and no one should be poor. Guess what, that idea never really did work in practice.

Again, our poor, in relation to poor people in the rest of the world, live like kings. When is the last time you hear of American people starving to death, or having to hike miles for clean water? Last I heard, among poor people obesity is a much more prevalent problem than starvation or malnutrition was. It's common knowledge that the stats in that study are true.

As I said before, I think deep down you know what you're saying is silly, it's just this strange liberal guilt you feel because you aren't poor and others are.

Oh, one comment about that stupid thing about poor people... I could make more but for now just this. Poor people work less than full time hours? Oh what a shock, I am absolutely amazed... I mean, companies NEVER hire lots of part-time workers so that they can get around paying benefits, nope! Nuh-uh!

Oh yeah, and "Welfare-to-work" (Clinton's program to empty welfare rolls) is a failure as a social program. All it does is gets people off welfare rolls and into low-paying dead end jobs... just what they didn't need to have a chance. Yes, it's reduced welfare rolls a lot, but at the cost of hurting a lot of people... what we need to do is actually try to improve things for them, not just force them into low paying, often part-time jobs.

I just don't get you. You seem to think it's better a person be on welfare and not work at all than it is for them to work.

Several times in this thread I've asked a question you refuse to answer:

How does welfare help poor people stop being poor?

Surely you can at least pretend to fix the holes in your logic. Then again, as history has shown, you're all talk and no substance. It doesn't matter that what you say cannot be substantiated, so long as it's said and there are people stupid enough to believe it.

By the way, you still never showed me any proof that most poor people are starving single mothers of multiple children juggling multiple jobs, or something similar.

I mean, I'd be surprised if you found any such proof. But the least you could do is try. It makes your arguments seem all the weaker when you don't.

[A Black Falcon]

http://www.selectsmart.com/president/

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info
2. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (81%) Click here for info
3. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (79%) Click here for info
4. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (74%) Click here for info
5. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (73%) Click here for info
6. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (70%) Click here for info
7. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (66%) Click here for info
8. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (61%) Click here for info
9. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (48%) Click here for info
10. Libertarian Candidate (24%) Click here for info
11. Bush, President George W. - Republican (9%) Click here for info
12. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (7%) Click here for info

[Weltall]

This thread is wearing me out.

<table> <tbody><tr><td>1. </td><td>Your ideal theoretical candidate. [size=2] (100%) [size=1]Click here for info[/size][/size]</td></tr><tr><td>2. </td><td>Bush, President George W. - Republican [size=2] (68%) [size=1]Click here for info[/size][/size]</td></tr><tr><td>3. </td><td>Libertarian Candidate [size=2] (48%) [size=1]Click here for info[/size][/size]</td></tr><tr><td>4. </td><td>Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat [size=2] (40%) [size=1]Click here for info[/size][/size]</td></tr><tr><td>5. </td><td>Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat [size=2] (38%) [size=1]Click here for info[/size][/size]</td></tr><tr><td>6. </td><td>Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat [size=2] (37%) [size=1]Click here for info[/size][/size]</td></tr><tr><td>7. </td><td>Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat [size=2] (36%) [size=1]Click here for info[/size][/size]</td></tr><tr><td>8. </td><td>Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat [size=2] (33%) [size=1]Click here for info[/size][/size]</td></tr><tr><td>9. </td><td>Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat [size=2] (32%) [size=1]Click here for info[/size][/size]</td></tr><tr><td>10. </td><td>Phillips, Howard - Constitution [size=2] (26%) [size=1]Click here for info[/size][/size]</td></tr><tr><td>11. </td><td>Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat [size=2] (21%) [size=1]Click here for info[/size][/size]</td></tr><tr><td>12. </td><td>Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat [size=2] (16%) [size=1]Click here for info[/size][/size]</td></tr></tbody> </table>

[A Black Falcon]

Me too...
And strange, I'd think that for you Leiberman would be near the top because of his views and how for me he was the last Democrat on the list...

[Great Rumbler]

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info
2. Bush, President George W. - Republican (71%) Click here for info
3. Libertarian Candidate (46%) Click here for info
4. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (41%) Click here for info
5. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (39%) Click here for info
6. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (35%) Click here for info
7. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (31%) Click here for info
8. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (30%) Click here for info
9. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (30%) Click here for info
10. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (25%) Click here for info
11. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (23%) Click here for info
12. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (21%) Click here for info
13. Socialist Candidate (18%) Click here for info
14. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (16%) Click here for info

[Fittisize]

That's all wrong...the percentages add up to waaaaaay over 100.

[A Black Falcon]

:)

[OB1]

Why did you move the whole thread here? You should have just split it.

[A Black Falcon]

Because he is lazy and doesn't want to take the time to sort through every post...

[OB1]

All you need to do is rename this thread, split it and just select the first dozen or so posts and send them to the Nintendo forum.

[Weltall]

Split.