Check it out...
Then come back and try to defend NObama...
You will not get a response as I think most have seen the folly of their wasted votes on obamie. They all want to talk how popular he is/was but let's see if he attaines the same hi rating Bush got. Oh yea Bush's high was 92%.
We should just "stay the course" ?
No, stimulus is government spending on INFRASTRUCTURE, NOT on pet projects, NOT on governmental programs, NOT on governmental jobs, etc.
Infrastructure creates jobs, governmental spending does not.
Simple Keynsian Economics....
No, stimulus is government spending on INFRASTRUCTURE, NOT on pet projects, NOT on governmental programs, NOT on governmental jobs, etc.
Infrastructure creates jobs, governmental spending does not.
Simple Keynsian Economics....
Riderz - Great post! I especially liked:
"gw had 8 years to fuck this up (I voted for him the first time) 6 months into office and you're blaming BHO? wow!!!"
Talk about spot-on! The only thing I would have stated differently would have been 'ROYALLY fuck this up'
"gw had 8 years to fuck this up (I voted for him the first time) 6 months into office and you're blaming BHO? wow!!!"
Talk about spot-on! The only thing I would have stated differently would have been 'ROYALLY fuck this up'
INFRASTRUCTURE in Florida $902,312,452 For any area
Details of Urban Area Distribution (Population over 200 K) for Florida
Urban Area Amount($ Millions)
Bonita Springs--Naples $5.59
Cape Coral $8.34
Daytona Beach--Port Orange $6.46
Jacksonville $22.30
Miami $124.35
Orlando $29.26
Palm Bay-Melbourne $9.94
Pensacola $8.14
Port St. Lucie $6.84
Sarasota-Bradenton $14.14
Tallahassee $5.16
Tampa-St. Petersburg $52.13 (isn't this about 45/50 miles from you) nice chunk of change being spent on INFRASTRUCTRE in your area!!!
Actually, Sarasota-Bradenton is where I am...Tampa is close though...
The stuff they're spending on has already been planned AND budgeted...NO, it is not new money coming in, it is stuff that was in the budget, but got cut due to the real estate tax cuts, and now have been re-added, that is not stimulation.
Stimulation is NEW spending.
Total $292.65 million dollars (thats just Floridas "urban" areas)
From your video you're obviously pissed about the massive spending, But how do you suggest we get out of this mess? baby steps? stay the course??
Actually, I think that Bush's biggest blunder was TARP. That is NOT capitalism, that is NOT conservatism, it is NOT Republican to bail out companies that fucked up.
What is it you expect?
For the banks to fold and new ones to take their places. To have the money from the Porkulus bill to go to infrastructure ENTIRELY.
Yes there is waste, Yes there is corruption.
But WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT IT??
Actually, the waste, corruption, and crappiness was written into the bill, there's nothing that can be done now.
Go to recovery.gov and report abuses, make your voice heard!
But calling the pres. "NObama" on a swinger site??? how the fuck is that helping?
Hopefully, it will keep people from voting for him again.
gw had 8 years to fuck this up (I voted for him the first time) 6 months into office and you're blaming BHO? wow!!!
I seem to recall that Obama claimed he would have it all on his plate in 6 months, well, I am holding him to it.
Bush did not fuck it all up, but you'd like to think so...
Let's look at FACTS...Something the left does not like to really deal in...
1.) The Golden Boy, Slick Willy, turned over a DEFINED recession to Bush. Now, you can argue, 'Clinton left a budget surplus!' No, go to the Dept. of Treasury, you will find he went in the hole almost $1.5 Trillion in his 8 years, SURE it is better than $11 Trillion, but he did NOT balance anything, he pulled an Arthur Anderson accounting and you bought it, along with many others.
2.) September 11, no arguing that this effected our whole nation, not even going to come close to an argument on that.
3.) 4 hurricanes in one month, you ever live through one? How much was spent in New Orleans?
4.) Afghanistan, they had Bin Laden, we had no choice.
5.) Iraq, you can only blame Bush for the first 60 days, that is all he can use the military without CONGRESS agreeing to it, so can't say it is entirely on him.
6.) The housing issues, personally, I blame the press, but that is a whole other thread.
7.) The banking issues, this, and many will argue with me on it, is the fault of the morons who borrowed more than they could ever imagine to pay back. The banks are also at fault.
8.) GM and other companies, again, this is not Bush's fault, it is GM, Chrysler, etc's fault.
Need I go on? Sure, Bush put us in the hole $11 Trillion in 8 years, HOWEVER, when, not if, Obama's budget request goes through on Oct. 1, he will put us in the hole by $4.47 Trillion in ONE fiscal year. That means in one year, he will have almost 1/2 of Bush's deficit already in the bag.
Obama inherited a recession and 2 small wars.
The Feds distribute the money, the states and cities spend it, It's up to us to monitor the local polititions and make sure they spend the money in the best way possible.
THATS where your VOTE COUNTS!
You can either lead, follow or get outta the way is how I look at it.
Peace, Riderz
Now, I am not trying to group you with the left, just seems to me you're using their talking points and such.
Remain civil, maybe we can actually have a debate, unlike surf.
Details of Urban Area Distribution (Population over 200 K) for Florida
Urban Area Amount($ Millions)
Bonita Springs--Naples $5.59
Cape Coral $8.34
Daytona Beach--Port Orange $6.46
Jacksonville $22.30
Miami $124.35
Orlando $29.26
Palm Bay-Melbourne $9.94
Pensacola $8.14
Port St. Lucie $6.84
Sarasota-Bradenton $14.14
Tallahassee $5.16
Tampa-St. Petersburg $52.13 (isn't this about 45/50 miles from you) nice chunk of change being spent on INFRASTRUCTRE in your area!!!
Actually, Sarasota-Bradenton is where I am...Tampa is close though...
The stuff they're spending on has already been planned AND budgeted...NO, it is not new money coming in, it is stuff that was in the budget, but got cut due to the real estate tax cuts, and now have been re-added, that is not stimulation.
Stimulation is NEW spending.
Total $292.65 million dollars (thats just Floridas "urban" areas)
From your video you're obviously pissed about the massive spending, But how do you suggest we get out of this mess? baby steps? stay the course??
Actually, I think that Bush's biggest blunder was TARP. That is NOT capitalism, that is NOT conservatism, it is NOT Republican to bail out companies that fucked up.
What is it you expect?
For the banks to fold and new ones to take their places. To have the money from the Porkulus bill to go to infrastructure ENTIRELY.
Yes there is waste, Yes there is corruption.
But WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT IT??
Actually, the waste, corruption, and crappiness was written into the bill, there's nothing that can be done now.
Go to recovery.gov and report abuses, make your voice heard!
But calling the pres. "NObama" on a swinger site??? how the fuck is that helping?
Hopefully, it will keep people from voting for him again.
gw had 8 years to fuck this up (I voted for him the first time) 6 months into office and you're blaming BHO? wow!!!
I seem to recall that Obama claimed he would have it all on his plate in 6 months, well, I am holding him to it.
Bush did not fuck it all up, but you'd like to think so...
Let's look at FACTS...Something the left does not like to really deal in...
1.) The Golden Boy, Slick Willy, turned over a DEFINED recession to Bush. Now, you can argue, 'Clinton left a budget surplus!' No, go to the Dept. of Treasury, you will find he went in the hole almost $1.5 Trillion in his 8 years, SURE it is better than $11 Trillion, but he did NOT balance anything, he pulled an Arthur Anderson accounting and you bought it, along with many others.
2.) September 11, no arguing that this effected our whole nation, not even going to come close to an argument on that.
3.) 4 hurricanes in one month, you ever live through one? How much was spent in New Orleans?
4.) Afghanistan, they had Bin Laden, we had no choice.
5.) Iraq, you can only blame Bush for the first 60 days, that is all he can use the military without CONGRESS agreeing to it, so can't say it is entirely on him.
6.) The housing issues, personally, I blame the press, but that is a whole other thread.
7.) The banking issues, this, and many will argue with me on it, is the fault of the morons who borrowed more than they could ever imagine to pay back. The banks are also at fault.
8.) GM and other companies, again, this is not Bush's fault, it is GM, Chrysler, etc's fault.
Need I go on? Sure, Bush put us in the hole $11 Trillion in 8 years, HOWEVER, when, not if, Obama's budget request goes through on Oct. 1, he will put us in the hole by $4.47 Trillion in ONE fiscal year. That means in one year, he will have almost 1/2 of Bush's deficit already in the bag.
Obama inherited a recession and 2 small wars.
The Feds distribute the money, the states and cities spend it, It's up to us to monitor the local polititions and make sure they spend the money in the best way possible.
THATS where your VOTE COUNTS!
You can either lead, follow or get outta the way is how I look at it.
Peace, Riderz
Now, I am not trying to group you with the left, just seems to me you're using their talking points and such.
Remain civil, maybe we can actually have a debate, unlike surf.
Sorry bro. but with that one careless statement, you have shown your true colors, Any one who thinks there is such a thing as a small war, aint worth debating!
Actually, the phrase was reffering to the fact that there are less than 300K troops involved in two wars.
To compare that to Viet Nam, Korea, or WWII is not accurate.
When you compare the two wars (WWII and Iraq), you're comparing real inflated dollars, BUT you're not comparing oranges to oranges.
One bomb in WWII was how much? What would it do? How much technology would it contain?
One bomb in Iraq was how much? What would it do? How much technology would it contain?
See what I mean?
Anyway, just because it is meaningless to you, due to a misunderstanding, does not make it so.
Actually, the phrase was reffering to the fact that there are less than 300K troops involved in two wars.
To compare that to Viet Nam, Korea, or WWII is not accurate.
When you compare the two wars (WWII and Iraq), you're comparing real inflated dollars, BUT you're not comparing oranges to oranges.
One bomb in WWII was how much? What would it do? How much technology would it contain?
One bomb in Iraq was how much? What would it do? How much technology would it contain?
See what I mean?
Anyway, just because it is meaningless to you, due to a misunderstanding, does not make it so.
You obviously don't see what I mean.
$435 million a day!!!!!!!
Thats not compared to anything, thats just $435 million a fucking day.
Tell the 4k dead troops family's it's a "small war"
Nephew just got back...
Brother going again...
I served...
What do you propose we do?
Just cut and run?
Please, what would you do, if you were CNC?
$435 million a day!!!!!!!
Thats not compared to anything, thats just $435 million a fucking day.
Tell the 4k dead troops family's it's a "small war"
Nephew just got back...
Brother going again...
I served...
What do you propose we do?
Just cut and run?
Please, what would you do, if you were CNC?
My two cents (and that's about what my financial acumen is worth):
I claim no financial expertise. I do claim to have better than average common sense/intuitive reasoning and the ability to discern bullshit.
Other than a slew of numbers which I didn't care to read through (and probably don't mean much in the BIG picture), I've seen no reason to believe there are any financial geniuses (or is that an oxymoron?) reading this site.
It is simply too soon to tell if BHO's policies will prove favorable in the long run (hell, we folks can't even agree on what favorable is anyway). This fucking mess wasn't created overnight and it sure isn't going to be painlessly self-corrected.
What I do know is that I am pleased to see the pendulum swinging away from the redistribution of our national wealth from the 'Haliburtons' and towards the middle and lower social classes. In my opinion, there is no doubt that unbridled greed has surely been proven to be pure evil. Additionally (pay close attention, now), ANY distribution system will have flaws. Let the flaws favor those who have less for awhile. If a flaw favors a greedy person, I'd rather it be a person who feels greed because they have very little, not because they love having so much!
Three other quick points:
- I didn't mean to 'dis' anyone posting statistics. As a matter of fact, I salute your efforts. It's just that I'm a relatively busy person (nothing important, just like to keep busy) and not adept at computer research. So, I gladly leave that to you folks. I would note though, that I did have enough 'statistics' in college to know how VERY deceptively they can be used. I prefer good ol' raw logic.
- Riderz - I am soooo with you on your alternative energy support! I am betting it to be a HUGE component of any successful recovery effort.
- As part of my job, I was required to occasionally attend city council meetings in the town where I worked (population, c. 7,000). It was both hysterical and/or sad to watch the council members debate endlessly about the cost/source/need for a new tailgate for the city's wastwater treatment plant's pickup truck - then spend two minutes reading and unanimously approving a proposal for a multi-million dollar whatchamacallit it for the streets or fire department, primarily because they didn't have a clue, but wouldn't dare show their ignorance by questioning it. Just sayin' ....
I claim no financial expertise. I do claim to have better than average common sense/intuitive reasoning and the ability to discern bullshit.
Other than a slew of numbers which I didn't care to read through (and probably don't mean much in the BIG picture), I've seen no reason to believe there are any financial geniuses (or is that an oxymoron?) reading this site.
It is simply too soon to tell if BHO's policies will prove favorable in the long run (hell, we folks can't even agree on what favorable is anyway). This fucking mess wasn't created overnight and it sure isn't going to be painlessly self-corrected.
What I do know is that I am pleased to see the pendulum swinging away from the redistribution of our national wealth from the 'Haliburtons' and towards the middle and lower social classes. In my opinion, there is no doubt that unbridled greed has surely been proven to be pure evil. Additionally (pay close attention, now), ANY distribution system will have flaws. Let the flaws favor those who have less for awhile. If a flaw favors a greedy person, I'd rather it be a person who feels greed because they have very little, not because they love having so much!
Three other quick points:
- I didn't mean to 'dis' anyone posting statistics. As a matter of fact, I salute your efforts. It's just that I'm a relatively busy person (nothing important, just like to keep busy) and not adept at computer research. So, I gladly leave that to you folks. I would note though, that I did have enough 'statistics' in college to know how VERY deceptively they can be used. I prefer good ol' raw logic.
- Riderz - I am soooo with you on your alternative energy support! I am betting it to be a HUGE component of any successful recovery effort.
- As part of my job, I was required to occasionally attend city council meetings in the town where I worked (population, c. 7,000). It was both hysterical and/or sad to watch the council members debate endlessly about the cost/source/need for a new tailgate for the city's wastwater treatment plant's pickup truck - then spend two minutes reading and unanimously approving a proposal for a multi-million dollar whatchamacallit it for the streets or fire department, primarily because they didn't have a clue, but wouldn't dare show their ignorance by questioning it. Just sayin' ....
What I'm saying is Obama inherited the biggest fucking mess in our nations history and it's gonna take Time and Money to get us out of it.
Not really...
Hoover and Rooseelt inherited the Great Depression...
A ton worse than what we have now...
Why not create jobs building Hybrid cars and converting the Gov. fleet?
Do you have any clue how much of a waste that would be?
The initial cost alone would bancrupt us. All it takes is a minor accident to destroy the batteries that are required for the vehicle. Not to mention the new mechanics needed and the old ones who will lose their jobs because of the conversion.
Not going to look it up, but the difference in cost between hybrid and gas cars is not made up in 10 years, or something along those lines. Does the government keep vehicles this long? Of course not!
Why not create jobs building clean alternative power stations?
So the government should just get into the power station business now?
even if Going green DOESN'T affect global warming, whats wrong with trying to clean up our mess of a planet?
At what cost?
Energy is not supplied by not for profits, nonprofits, nor the government, it is supplied by private, although regulated, industry, when alternatives are profitable, or at least relatively the same in costs, they WILL be used.
General Motors announced its second quarter earnings, which saw the giant automaker earn $891 million in Q2 compared to a loss of $3.4 billion last year
Good news, HOWEVER, they should've been closed down, bancrupted, etc. They should NOT have been bailed out.
Ford Motor Co posted a $2.3 billion quarterly net profit
And they did not need any governmental handouts either, they SHOULD be profitable.
Data show US housing market starts to recover from most far-reaching crisis since Depression
WASHINGTON - The U.S. housing market has started to recover from the most far-reaching crisis since the Great Depression, data released Thursday show.
Sales of previously occupied homes rose for the third month in a row in June, the National Association of Realtors reported. That hasn't happened since early 2004, during the boom.
NAR cannot be trusted to give accurate reports on realty, they are a promoter of the industry. It would be like listening to Sanofi Aventis about generic drugs, they stand to gain by their 'reports.'
Living in Florida, we make our living in real estate and tourism, if one goes bad, the industry insiders will claim that the numbers are improving, trying to get people to make it happen.
The Dow Jones industrial average, an index of 30 blue-chip stocks, has climbed 39 percent since early March, and last week it closed above 9000 for the first time since January.
The market is its own force, POTUS does not have a lot to do with it.
I work in the industry, what you have now is a false climb out of the doldrums, it will fall again.
What would You do as Commander in Chief, To get us out of this mess?
1.) NO money to banks or GM. If they fail, they fail. Bailing them out will just make them know that if they screw up again, they'll be saved, this will create another bailout for short-term profits.
2.) INCREASE troops in BOTH Iraq and Afganistan, the troop levels are NOT where they need to be. During ODS, there were 500K (plus other nations)troops on the ground JUST to push Iraq back into Iraq and out of Kuwait. The troops levels on both fronts added together do not equal that and we're trying to re-establish governments in these countries.
3.) Would NEVER have signed the Porkulus bill without a line item veto power. The Porkulus bill was NOT stimulus, it was pork. I would have vetoed due to the lack of line item veto power, then Congress would have had to work on a REAL bill that would stimulate.
4.) The first question I would ask in the event a bill was presented to me, 'What does the Constitution say about this?' THIS, IMHO, is the BIGGEST problem we have in this country, NO ONE follows the Constitution any longer.
There's four things, but additionally, I would be leaving a nationalized healthcare initiative alone. There's a time and place for everything, this is NOT the time nor the place.
What I do know is that I am pleased to see the pendulum swinging away from the redistribution of our national wealth from the 'Haliburtons' and towards the middle and lower social classes.
Right, because the middle and lower classes create jobs, stimulare economies, etc?
Who is the 'Halliburtons?'
Do you own a 401K, IRA, Mutual Fund, Annuity, etc? Chances are, YOU are a 'Halliburton.' You say Halliburton like it is a singular person, not a publicly traded company that ANYONE can buy shares of. With somewhere near 70% of Americans owning stocks, I would say that allowing business to be business is good for 70% of Americans. That's not a bad percentage.
As part of my job, I was required to occasionally attend city council meetings in the town where I worked (population, c. 7,000). It was both hysterical and/or sad to watch the council members debate endlessly about the cost/source/need for a new tailgate for the city's wastwater treatment plant's pickup truck - then spend two minutes reading and unanimously approving a proposal for a multi-million dollar whatchamacallit it for the streets or fire department, primarily because they didn't have a clue, but wouldn't dare show their ignorance by questioning it. Just sayin' ....
So sad, yet, so true.
Most people on city councils, in Congress, etc. are wealthy people who have connections (the majority on state and federal level are lawyers), they know nothing about how the economy works, how the fire department works, etc. they just know the talking points from their party affiliates. This is a HUGE problem we have in this country.
Free 7:11 a.m. post:
CHRKE2('s post)
"ANY distribution system will have flaws. Let the flaws favor those who have less for awhile. If a flaw favors a greedy person, I'd rather it be a person who feels greed because they have very little, not because they love having so much!"
______________
Distribution? How about EARN. So distribution is the key, and no one has the responsibility to earn, invest, and save for their family? Just hand it over. Haliburton? LOL How about GE, GM, UAW,Microsoft, and on and on, not to mention Bank of America, Barney Fwank, and all the banks responsible for this so called recession. Stop it!!!
Alternative energy? How about all energy? for building the infrastructure where do you suppose all the plastic, wiring, and materials are going to come from? OIL!!!!!!! where are they going to be built? China? Russia? Whats it gonna cost you and me? Long run when these facilities are built where do the workers go then? We are now in the now and have no regard for the future. I have said it before. The enviroment will be fine, and the green is a SCAM! to suck the life out of America. The design of the scam is so obvious... being blind makes it easy.
sigh - here goes:
1) Distribution/Earn? - You continue to convolute. Don
CHRKE2('s post)
"ANY distribution system will have flaws. Let the flaws favor those who have less for awhile. If a flaw favors a greedy person, I'd rather it be a person who feels greed because they have very little, not because they love having so much!"
______________
Distribution? How about EARN. So distribution is the key, and no one has the responsibility to earn, invest, and save for their family? Just hand it over. Haliburton? LOL How about GE, GM, UAW,Microsoft, and on and on, not to mention Bank of America, Barney Fwank, and all the banks responsible for this so called recession. Stop it!!!
Alternative energy? How about all energy? for building the infrastructure where do you suppose all the plastic, wiring, and materials are going to come from? OIL!!!!!!! where are they going to be built? China? Russia? Whats it gonna cost you and me? Long run when these facilities are built where do the workers go then? We are now in the now and have no regard for the future. I have said it before. The enviroment will be fine, and the green is a SCAM! to suck the life out of America. The design of the scam is so obvious... being blind makes it easy.
sigh - here goes:
1) Distribution/Earn? - You continue to convolute. Don
1) Distribution/Earn? - You continue to convolute. Don
Free -
"... riddled with childish anger"?
Gee, thank you Dr. Freud! You have saved me a shrink visit.
"... riddled with childish anger"?
Gee, thank you Dr. Freud! You have saved me a shrink visit.
JSTJM -
(I wrote): "What I do know is that I am pleased to see the pendulum swinging away from the redistribution of our national wealth from the 'Haliburtons' and towards the middle and lower social classes."
(You responded): "Right, because the middle and lower classes create jobs, stimulare economies, etc?
Who is the 'Halliburtons?'
Do you own a 401K, IRA, Mutual Fund, Annuity, etc? Chances are, YOU are a 'Halliburton.' You say Halliburton like it is a singular person, not a publicly traded company that ANYONE can buy shares of. With somewhere near 70% of Americans owning stocks, I would say that allowing business to be business is good for 70% of Americans. That's not a bad percentage."
I use Haliburton as an example of white-collar greed and corruption . I'm not castigating all businesses. I'm not anti-capitalist. I also don't quiver in my boots when the words social/socialist/socialism are mentioned. I'm simply trying to say that the current pendulum shift is necessary and desirable.
(I wrote): "What I do know is that I am pleased to see the pendulum swinging away from the redistribution of our national wealth from the 'Haliburtons' and towards the middle and lower social classes."
(You responded): "Right, because the middle and lower classes create jobs, stimulare economies, etc?
Who is the 'Halliburtons?'
Do you own a 401K, IRA, Mutual Fund, Annuity, etc? Chances are, YOU are a 'Halliburton.' You say Halliburton like it is a singular person, not a publicly traded company that ANYONE can buy shares of. With somewhere near 70% of Americans owning stocks, I would say that allowing business to be business is good for 70% of Americans. That's not a bad percentage."
I use Haliburton as an example of white-collar greed and corruption . I'm not castigating all businesses. I'm not anti-capitalist. I also don't quiver in my boots when the words social/socialist/socialism are mentioned. I'm simply trying to say that the current pendulum shift is necessary and desirable.
It never ceases to amaze me that right-leaners are so much happier getting fucked over by those who have more (corporate greed and corruption, etc.), than they are with a screwing by those who have less (welfare fraud, etc.).
Is it a class thing? A good fucking from the well-to-do is classier? A sort of 'wish we-were-them' thing? The riffraff simply do the plundering with poor taste?
One theme that is standard right-fare states that the classy fuckers are harder workers and contribute more - where the poor fuckers are lazy and contribute little. DAMN! It is a class thing!
Is it a class thing? A good fucking from the well-to-do is classier? A sort of 'wish we-were-them' thing? The riffraff simply do the plundering with poor taste?
One theme that is standard right-fare states that the classy fuckers are harder workers and contribute more - where the poor fuckers are lazy and contribute little. DAMN! It is a class thing!
A class thing. I have seen it from both sides, Poor and the secure side. Most of us want the secure side. Dont want to be rich, just want what I have earned. Do I want to share my security? yes with my family, and the abilty to share it with my life style in spending. This is growth the entire country can enjoy. How much is a certain job worth? When does it stop? When is enough, enough. The economy is living and breathing. You are correct in that greed and corruption is a problem, but to the extent that all companies deliberately hold their employees back from earning a good living stinks to high heaven of socialism. So everyone should be of the same class? In the words of Ted Knight in caddy shack, "Well the world needs ditch diggers too". This president is propagating class warfare on those that provide jobs and security for millions of people. The more this government goes into debt the more enslaved we become. You are right we all hate the term "HAVES AND HAVES NOT" But this is a true fact of life and in order to deal with it we as individuals must take it on ourselves to break our own individual cycles of complacency. If individuals are acting in a corrupt fashion, or are dealing in illegal activity to deliberatly committ a crime then bring them to justice, Maddoff, and such is proof that our legal system works. But to cast all companies in a light of greed is wrong, just like our President accussing a cop of being a racist ie...Stupid for doing his job casts all police in a bad light at the same time is just wrong.
I use Haliburton as an example of white-collar greed and corruption . I'm not castigating all businesses. I'm not anti-capitalist. I also don't quiver in my boots when the words social/socialist/socialism are mentioned. I'm simply trying to say that the current pendulum shift is necessary and desirable.
How was Haliburton corrupt and greedy?
They had the ability to do the work, not a lot of companies were able to. They had the infrastructure in place to work in Iraq, they had the employees willing to go to Iraq to work, etc. I am assuming you're talking about the 'no-bid contracts' with them.
As to the other products and services they provide, they bid on them, the same as any other company.
Everyone thinks Haliburton has all this power with the government, but here's ONE example where they don't, and it occured during the Bush predidency:
Halliburton was supplying cases to the military since the 1980's, the cases were designed to hold sensative electronic goods in a protective shell, so they wouldn't break when soldiars dropped them. Any vet will remember the cases, they were made of aluminum and had a twisting mechanism to close and seal them. A newer company, Pelican (www.pelican.com) had better cases at a better price. The contract to supply cases was granted to Pelican.
I am a Pelican dealer, I have many vets and current members of our military stopping by to see me and my products. I have had a few who's lives were saved by the cases, the case became an explosion proof bunkers of sorts. A case in point, a soldiar came up to me, 'This case, LITERALLY, saved my ass. I was in Iraq, I was told to get into a Humvee, I had no place to put my case, so I sat on it. We ran over an IED, everyone in the hummer was killed but me, the case absorbed all the fragmented metal from the explosion, sure, I got some in the back of my legs, but the rest was in the case!' I asked, 'Did the case make it?' 'Nah, but the stuff inside was fine.'
How did Pelican do it? Having a superior product at a better price. If you attempt to sell to the government, the key is price, they go with the lowest. Anyone can do it, they just need to be able to beat anyone else's price. I know MANY GSA suppliers, they all have the same story, start with a low price, get the products in the hands of the government workers, then raise the price each year until you're profitable. This applies to big and small companies. I know one GSA supplier, he works out of his garage, proving it does not take a HUGE amount of money to get contracts with the government.
Now, to make a statement of the current pendulum shift being necessary and desirable.
How so? What makes it necessary? What good does it do?
Give me an example a country who's government took from the more wealthy and gave to the less wealthy helped anyone.
What makes it desirable?
Do you stand to gain from the new proposals? Does someone you know and are close to stand to gain?
BTW...Has nothing to do with class, class envy, etc. It has to do with where the money comes from and where it goes. A few examples:
1.) A couple loses their jobs, they go onto welfare, food stamps, medicaid, etc. What good did that do the nation as a whole? Sure, it is a small amount of money, but multiply that by a few thousand couples, now you're looking at some money.
2.) A woman has a child, she signs up for food stamps, AFDC, WIC, etc. She gets an apartment in Section 8 housing or 'the projects,' she gets all this money and free housing. What good did that do for society as a whole? Sure, again, not a lot of money for one, but multiply it by a few thousand.
3.) A PhD wnats to study the mating rituals of the tse tse fly, they apply, apply, and apply for millions in grants. They finally get it, now, they can study the flies and not produce anything of value. Again, what good did it do for society as a whole?
If you took all that money and left it in the hands of US, the workers, we'd go out and spend it on goods and services that stimulate the economy. Wouldn't that be better for our economy?
If the government took that money and invested it in infrastructure, wouldn't that be better stimulation in our economy?
If our government took that money and did nothing but buy pencils, pens and other office supplies, wouldn't that stimulate our economy?
JSTJM - I appreciate your Haliburton story. But, as I tried to indicate in an earlier post on this thread: "Haliburton is just a symbol of the greed and moneygrubbing fostered by Bush/Cheney."
Symbol, OK?
If it would help to clarify my point, remove Haliburton and replace it with CBCBNMC Company and their ilk. CBCBNMC = Corporate Behemoth Controlled By No Moral Conscience. Since I am not privy to the second, third or fourth sets of books for any businesses, don't expect any argument from me concerning which companies are honorable. I've seen Big Business operate (from the inside). I'm comfortable with my belief that there are fraudulent actions costing - pick your ?illions.
You wrote: Now, to make a statement of the current pendulum shift being necessary and desirable.
How so? What makes it necessary? What good does it do?
I would call it a societal shift. We trended the way of not only winking at white-collar corruption but paving the way for the financial windfall that was/is the destruction/re-construction of Iraq (just as an example). Someone care to check out that papertrail and report back?
You then provide three examples of what I presume you are calling 'waste' spending, after which you ask:
"If you took all that money and left it in the hands of US, the workers, we'd go out and spend it on goods and services that stimulate the economy. Wouldn't that be better for our economy?"
I will ask right back - what the fuck do you think happens to the money that the unemployed and the tse tse fly studiers receive? Are they taking it home and sticking it under their mattresses?
I'll refer back to my small-town city council story. Those who get all bent out of shape about welfare fraud, but gleefully bless businesses for grabbing everything they can in the name of profit, are the same as those council folks. They'll shout til they're blue in the face about a fucking tailgate cuz it's simple enough for them to understand, otherwise ..........
Symbol, OK?
If it would help to clarify my point, remove Haliburton and replace it with CBCBNMC Company and their ilk. CBCBNMC = Corporate Behemoth Controlled By No Moral Conscience. Since I am not privy to the second, third or fourth sets of books for any businesses, don't expect any argument from me concerning which companies are honorable. I've seen Big Business operate (from the inside). I'm comfortable with my belief that there are fraudulent actions costing - pick your ?illions.
You wrote: Now, to make a statement of the current pendulum shift being necessary and desirable.
How so? What makes it necessary? What good does it do?
I would call it a societal shift. We trended the way of not only winking at white-collar corruption but paving the way for the financial windfall that was/is the destruction/re-construction of Iraq (just as an example). Someone care to check out that papertrail and report back?
You then provide three examples of what I presume you are calling 'waste' spending, after which you ask:
"If you took all that money and left it in the hands of US, the workers, we'd go out and spend it on goods and services that stimulate the economy. Wouldn't that be better for our economy?"
I will ask right back - what the fuck do you think happens to the money that the unemployed and the tse tse fly studiers receive? Are they taking it home and sticking it under their mattresses?
I'll refer back to my small-town city council story. Those who get all bent out of shape about welfare fraud, but gleefully bless businesses for grabbing everything they can in the name of profit, are the same as those council folks. They'll shout til they're blue in the face about a fucking tailgate cuz it's simple enough for them to understand, otherwise ..........
Free wrote: "But to cast all companies in a light of greed is wrong,..."
I'm afraid I didn't do that. From an earlier post, same thread, I wrote: "I use Haliburton as an example of white-collar greed and corruption . I'm not castigating all businesses."
I'm afraid I didn't do that. From an earlier post, same thread, I wrote: "I use Haliburton as an example of white-collar greed and corruption . I'm not castigating all businesses."
If it would help to clarify my point, remove Haliburton and replace it with CBCBNMC Company and their ilk. CBCBNMC = Corporate Behemoth Controlled By No Moral Conscience. Since I am not privy to the second, third or fourth sets of books for any businesses, don't expect any argument from me concerning which companies are honorable. I've seen Big Business operate (from the inside). I'm comfortable with my belief that there are fraudulent actions costing - pick your ?illions.
How do you figure this?
Is profit a dirty word?
Is success a dirty word?
Because a company has a few people who conspire to do wrong, the whole company is evil?
I would call it a societal shift. We trended the way of not only winking at white-collar corruption but paving the way for the financial windfall that was/is the destruction/re-construction of Iraq (just as an example). Someone care to check out that papertrail and report back?
We winked at white collar corruption?
Last time I read the paper (daily) there's all sorts of white collar people going to prison...
I will ask right back - what the fuck do you think happens to the money that the unemployed and the tse tse fly studiers receive? Are they taking it home and sticking it under their mattresses?
The idea is NOT about the money not being sent, it is about the production made with the money.
What good did the tse tse fly study do for society as a whole?
What good did the welfare do for society as a whole?
In your repeated accusations that Haliburton is some how tainted by political and money greed. Bush/Chenney connection where as Chenney owned (past tense) shares in this company. And that some how cronnyism [sp] was the reason they got the job. Yet since 2006 the congress (democratic controlled) appears satisfied that no such thing occured. They have had 3 years now to investigate any wrong doing by the past administration. And nothing. The idea that you are so focussed on greed and corruption yet you ignore how congress has behaved over the past few decades. The heirostocracy that is our congress, is the true definition of greed, of money yes, but greed of power and control is what concerns me. Their continual attack on our individual right to the persuit of happiness. With unmatchable thirst for spending and an overwhelming need to overthow what has and what will always work. A free market society. We have a very good DOJ that works tirelessly on the very issues we are discussing and from what I have seen they have done very well in curbing corrution in the private sector, however in our governemnt not so well.
The Dodd, Countrywide scandal has just surfaced and will soon dominate the news. And is one example of where our congress has been for a number of years. They have forgotten that what they are sworn to do is serve, however now we are being told to serve our government. I have given enough thank you very much.
The Dodd, Countrywide scandal has just surfaced and will soon dominate the news. And is one example of where our congress has been for a number of years. They have forgotten that what they are sworn to do is serve, however now we are being told to serve our government. I have given enough thank you very much.
HOLY CRAP!!!
This is beginning to resemble what I thought a forum thread ought to look like!
I'll be back later.
This is beginning to resemble what I thought a forum thread ought to look like!
I'll be back later.
Jstjm -
No, profit is not a dirty word. "Obscene Profit", however, is a dirty phrase. And, no, I don't have a definition of 'obscene profit'. I just knows it when I sees it!
"Because a company has a few people who conspire to do wrong, the whole company is evil?" - Absol-fucking-tutely! If the "few people" are at the top, they ARE the company!!! Of course, that doesn't mean all people in the company are evil. HOWEVER, bear in mind that large corporations are all about mindset. And those at the top, do their damnedest to "instill" their value system.
"Last time I read the paper (daily) there's all sorts of white collar people going to prison ..." - And I maintain that is the tip of the iceberg. The people who climb to the top of a company didn't get there because they're blockheads. They are, without exception, clever and able to influence others with their guile. Their type of crime is not easily detected, not to mention it's not a cakewalk going after people of power.
"The idea is NOT about the money not being sent, it is about the production made with the money.
What good did the tse tse fly study do for society as a whole?
What good did the welfare do for society as a whole?"
As far as I'm concerned, this is where your logic has a hole the size of the Titanic.
Please explain to me how the kazillions of unknown profit in 'golden parachutes' and off-shore, tax-free bank accounts is productive for our economy?
Welfare, on the other hand, keeps desperate people from getting REALLY desperate (read increased violent crime rates, not just welfare fraud). And I'd be willing to bet that the bulk of welfare money stays in this country, which, the last time I checked, was good for our economy.
No, profit is not a dirty word. "Obscene Profit", however, is a dirty phrase. And, no, I don't have a definition of 'obscene profit'. I just knows it when I sees it!
"Because a company has a few people who conspire to do wrong, the whole company is evil?" - Absol-fucking-tutely! If the "few people" are at the top, they ARE the company!!! Of course, that doesn't mean all people in the company are evil. HOWEVER, bear in mind that large corporations are all about mindset. And those at the top, do their damnedest to "instill" their value system.
"Last time I read the paper (daily) there's all sorts of white collar people going to prison ..." - And I maintain that is the tip of the iceberg. The people who climb to the top of a company didn't get there because they're blockheads. They are, without exception, clever and able to influence others with their guile. Their type of crime is not easily detected, not to mention it's not a cakewalk going after people of power.
"The idea is NOT about the money not being sent, it is about the production made with the money.
What good did the tse tse fly study do for society as a whole?
What good did the welfare do for society as a whole?"
As far as I'm concerned, this is where your logic has a hole the size of the Titanic.
Please explain to me how the kazillions of unknown profit in 'golden parachutes' and off-shore, tax-free bank accounts is productive for our economy?
Welfare, on the other hand, keeps desperate people from getting REALLY desperate (read increased violent crime rates, not just welfare fraud). And I'd be willing to bet that the bulk of welfare money stays in this country, which, the last time I checked, was good for our economy.
Free -
Umm, yea. Congress can be fucked up too. There is certainly enough fucked up stuff, plenty of blame to go around.
I believe I may never use Haliburton as an example of Corporate Greed again. Nah, they earned the tag, it fits, they should wear it. Besides, anything that annoys that much, must be finding a sore spot.
Umm, yea. Congress can be fucked up too. There is certainly enough fucked up stuff, plenty of blame to go around.
I believe I may never use Haliburton as an example of Corporate Greed again. Nah, they earned the tag, it fits, they should wear it. Besides, anything that annoys that much, must be finding a sore spot.
I just knows it when I sees it!
So it is VERY subjective then?
I suppose you thought Exxon's profits were obscene?
How so? They did not control the price of gas, they did not control what vehicles people drove (read SUV here), etc.
Exxon makes a set rate of profit off of their investments in oil, the raise in oil prices increased their profits, the increased demand raised their profits, they did nothing differently than all the previous years.
And I maintain that is the tip of the iceberg. The people who climb to the top of a company didn't get there because they're blockheads. They are, without exception, clever and able to influence others with their guile. Their type of crime is not easily detected, not to mention it's not a cakewalk going after people of power.
I agree, they are not blockheads, usually.
It IS a cakewalk to go after these people, it is the job of those who do it. They get paid to do their job, fucking do it!
What would happen if you suddenly said, 'My job is to hard, I can't do it!' Would you continue having it?
Of course not, but we, the people of the USA, accept that as an excuse from governmental employees and those we vote for.
Please explain to me how the kazillions of unknown profit in 'golden parachutes' and off-shore, tax-free bank accounts is productive for our economy?
1.) Like your numbers, if you're going to make unproved and unprovable accusations, might as well make them a big one...
2.) Golden Parachutes are taxable and kept in the states, they are a package for those who are leaving the firm.
3.) Tax-Free? How so? What I find VERY funny is all these accusations without a shred of proof. EVERYWHERE charges taxes, EVERYONE (even companies) pay taxes, so how is it possible to have a tax free bank account?
In the USA, we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, only Switzerland taxes more, can you blame them for wanting to avoid some of them?
In addition to this, MOST of this 'tax-free' profits that you mention are made by a small business, NOT a large corporation, and the owner of the business takes all the profit out as pay and then pays PERSONAL taxes on it. I have read these reports, most of the 'accused' companies are owned by a small handful of people, they are not stock exchange companies, etc. that you'd expect.
Welfare, on the other hand, keeps desperate people from getting REALLY desperate (read increased violent crime rates, not just welfare fraud). And I'd be willing to bet that the bulk of welfare money stays in this country, which, the last time I checked, was good for our economy.
Do some research before you spout off with this crap in the future.
The most crime ridden areas of the country are those who have multiple welfare people living in a small area. In my local area, you have Newtown and 'The Projects' (unsure what the actual name is, they keep changing it so people do not associate the residents with crime). Both areas have the highest crime rates in their respective counties, both areas are where you go if you do not know a drug dealer to 'score' whatever you want, all the apartments and homes are government subsidized, they get food stamps, they get welfare, etc.
Why your theory of welfare cuts crime?
Jstjm -
"Do some research before you spout off with this crap in the future."
You want research? Find a new sparring partner. One who gives a shit about spending the time finding "crap" to debunk someone else's "crap". "Crap" that you would simply deny with other statistical "crap". Get out of your box and try looking at the big picture. Have a crappy day!
"Do some research before you spout off with this crap in the future."
You want research? Find a new sparring partner. One who gives a shit about spending the time finding "crap" to debunk someone else's "crap". "Crap" that you would simply deny with other statistical "crap". Get out of your box and try looking at the big picture. Have a crappy day!
You want research? Find a new sparring partner. One who gives a shit about spending the time finding "crap" to debunk someone else's "crap". "Crap" that you would simply deny with other statistical "crap". Get out of your box and try looking at the big picture. Have a crappy day!
In other words, 'I have no statistics to support this statement, but it makes sense so I will use it.'
If you simply typed, 'Does welfare prevent crime?' into your search engine, you'd get plenty of studies that prove the opposite:
Testimony of
Michael Tanner
Director of Health and Welfare Studies
The Cato Institute
Before the:
Senate Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on Youth Violence
June 7, 1995
Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Members of the Committee:
My name is Michael Tanner and I am the director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee on an issue of extreme importance to the American people. There is no doubt that juvenile crime is a serious and continuing problem in this country. There are many factors contributing to the rise in juvenile violence and crime, from the glorification of violence in the media to the failure of the "war on drugs." But, today, I would like to focus on a factor that has received far less attention -- the relationship between the welfare state and crime.
Last year, the Maryland NAACP released a report concluding that "the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today."(1) Their conclusion appears to be confirmed by academic research. For example, research by Dr. June O'Neill's and Anne Hill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that a 50 percent increase in the monthly value of combined AFDC and food stamp benefits led to a 117 percent increase in the crime rate among young black men.(2)
Welfare contributes to crime in several ways. First, children from single-parent families are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. According to one study, children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior.(3) Moreover, O'Neill found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single- parent households are twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father is present. Nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates.(4) Research indicates a direct correlation between crime rates and the number of single-parent families in a neighborhood.(5)
As Barbara Dafoe Whitehead noted in her seminal article for The Atlantic Monthly:
The relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation's mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family break up as the most important source of rising rates of crime.(6)
At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O'Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)
The same results can be seen from welfare systems in other countries. For example, a recent study of the impact of Canada's social-welfare system on family structure concluded that "providing additional benefits to single parents encourages births of children to unwed women."(9)
Of course women do not get pregnant just to get welfare benefits. It is also true that a wide array of other social factors has contributed to the growth in out-of-wedlock births. But, by removing the economic consequences of a out-of-wedlock birth, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid such pregnancies. A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors is liable to see several who have given birth out of wedlock. When she sees that they have suffered few visible immediate consequences (the very real consequences of such behavior are often not immediately apparent), she is less inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy.
Proof of this can be found in a study by Professor Ellen Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania, who surveyed black, never-pregnant females age 17 or younger. Only 40% of those surveyed said that they thought becoming pregnant in the next year "would make their situation worse."(10) Likewise, a study by Professor Laurie Schwab Zabin for the Journal of Research on Adolescence found that: "in a sample of inner-city black teens presenting for pregnancy tests, we reported that more than 31 percent of those who elected to carry their pregnancy to term told us, before their pregnancy was diagnosed, that they believed a baby would present a problem..."(11) In other words, 69 percent either did not believe having a baby out-of-wedlock would present a problem or were unsure.
Until teenage girls, particularly those living in relative poverty, can be made to see real consequences from pregnancy, it will be impossible to gain control over the problem of out-of- wedlock births. By disguising those consequences, welfare makes it easier for these girls to make the decisions that will lead to unwed motherhood.
Current welfare policies seem to be designed with an appallingly lack of concern for their impact on out-of-wedlock births. Indeed, Medicaid programs in 11 states actually provide infertility treatments to single women on welfare.(12)
I should also point out that, once the child is born, welfare also appears to discourage the mother from marrying in the future. Research by Robert Hutchins of Cornell University shows that a 10 percent increase in AFDC benefits leads to an eight percent decrease in the marriage rate of single mothers.(13)
As welfare contributes to the rise in out-of-wedlock births and single-parent families, it concomitantly contributes to the associated increase in criminal activity.
Secondly, welfare leads to increased crime by contributing to the marginalization of young black men in society. There are certainly many factors contributing to the increasing alienation and marginalization of young black men, including racism, poverty, and the failure of our educational system. However, welfare contributes as well. The welfare culture tells the man he is not a necessary part of the family. They are in effect cuckolded by the state. Their role of father and breadwinner is supplanted by the welfare check.
The role of marriage and family as a civilizing influence on young men has long been discussed. Whether or not strict causation can be proven, it is certainly true that unwed fathers are more likely to use drugs and become involved in criminal behavior.(14) Indeed, single men are five times more likely to commit violent crimes than married men.(15)
Finally, in areas where there is a high concentration of welfare, there may be an almost total lack of male role models. This can lead to crime in two ways. First, as the Maryland NAACP puts it, "A child whose parents draw a welfare check without going to work does not understand that in this society at least one parent is expected to rise five days of each week to go to some type of job."(16)
Second, boys growing up in mother only families naturally seek male influences. Unfortunately, in many inner city neighborhoods, those male role models may not exist. As George Gilder, author of Wealth and Poverty, has noted, the typical inner-city today is "almost a matriarchy. The women receive all the income, dominate the social-worker classes, and most of the schools." Thus, the boy in search of male guidance and companionship may end up in the company of gangs or other undesirable influences.(17)
Given all of the above, I believe it is clear that our current social welfare system is a significant cause of juvenile crime and violence in America today. Exactly how welfare should be reformed is undoubtedly beyond the scope of this hearing. The Cato Institute's position, however, is well known. Our research indicates that the current federal welfare system cannot be reformed. Accordingly, we have suggested that federal funding of welfare should be ended and responsibility for charity should be shifted first to the states and eventually to the private sector.(18)
In conclusion, let me simple say that, whatever Congress eventually decides to do in the way of welfare reform, I hope that you will recognize the disastrous consequences of our current welfare system. The status quo is plainly and simply unacceptable. The relationship between our failed social welfare system and juvenile violence and crime is one more urgent reason for reform.
Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions.
And that was from the FIRST thing I clicked after getting the results...
"In other 'words, 'I have no statistics to support this statement, but it makes sense so I will use it."
NO! Not "in other words", I used the exact words I intended.
You simply don't get it. Google to your heart's delight. Not interested. I'll question your source if it's Mother Theresa.
I'm trying to explain my perception and how I'm comfortable viewing things. I can't see the wind either, but I'm able to make conclusions from its' actions.
I had to give up on Free and his little poll thing when he first asked for an a), b), c) or d) answer. I responded 'none of the above' and explained my stance. The response? "OK, your answer is c)" or some such bologna.
Ya both gotta quit trying to fit square pegs into round holes (it'll wear ya out!)
NO! Not "in other words", I used the exact words I intended.
You simply don't get it. Google to your heart's delight. Not interested. I'll question your source if it's Mother Theresa.
I'm trying to explain my perception and how I'm comfortable viewing things. I can't see the wind either, but I'm able to make conclusions from its' actions.
I had to give up on Free and his little poll thing when he first asked for an a), b), c) or d) answer. I responded 'none of the above' and explained my stance. The response? "OK, your answer is c)" or some such bologna.
Ya both gotta quit trying to fit square pegs into round holes (it'll wear ya out!)
Ya both gotta quit trying to fit square pegs into round holes (it'll wear ya out!)
I am not trying to fit you into a hole at all, that's where he and I may differ.
I am a firm believer in FACTS, not a believer in feelings, ideas, etc. The facts are that welfare increases crime rates, not decreases them.
You, and I, would like to believe it helps curb crime, as would almost anyone, but the facts remain the facts.
I agree with you that it should decrease them, but the facts get in the way of this, it simply is not so.
Sure, the person speaking that I posted contributed it to single parenthood, but I do not think that is the case. Personally, I contribute it to a lack of upbringing, not single parenthood. If the single parent does not work, yet, has all the luxuries of a working person, this teaches the child they do not have to work either. In addition to this, the child sits in their neighborhood, watches Mr and Mrs Jones go to work every day, come home exhausted, and have nothing; the child looks over and sees the drug dealer driving a nice car, having a big fat knot of money, and plenty of fans of the opposite sex. Which person is this child going to want to be?
"Sure, the person speaking that I posted contributed it to single parenthood, but I do not think that is the case. Personally, I contribute it to a lack of upbringing, not single parenthood."
Well, damn! What happened to 'Just the facts...'? You are now discrediting your own source! You demand the "facts", right up until you don't agree with them? If it was attributed to single parenthood, just maybe it was ATTRIBUTABLE TO SINGLE PARENTHOOD, despite you 'thinking' (thinking is not facts, Bucko) otherwise! Interestingly though, using the same logic we should castigate all the white-collar corruption being 'exampled' into the rich kids? Works both ways doesn't it?
With TV's and computers raising one hell of a lot of today's kids, I don't think "lack of upbringing" is a flaw that is peculiar to the poor.
If you consider any information that contains statistics to be factual, you need to study statistics further. A study is only as good as the parameters set for it.
In summary, if you want to argue "facts" back and forth, I'll repeat that you should find a new sparring partner. Otherwise, bring on the best logic ya got!
Food for thought:
Everything is taken as fact right up until the point where someone takes the time to prove it otherwise.
Even conventional wisdom seems to have croaked.
Well, damn! What happened to 'Just the facts...'? You are now discrediting your own source! You demand the "facts", right up until you don't agree with them? If it was attributed to single parenthood, just maybe it was ATTRIBUTABLE TO SINGLE PARENTHOOD, despite you 'thinking' (thinking is not facts, Bucko) otherwise! Interestingly though, using the same logic we should castigate all the white-collar corruption being 'exampled' into the rich kids? Works both ways doesn't it?
With TV's and computers raising one hell of a lot of today's kids, I don't think "lack of upbringing" is a flaw that is peculiar to the poor.
If you consider any information that contains statistics to be factual, you need to study statistics further. A study is only as good as the parameters set for it.
In summary, if you want to argue "facts" back and forth, I'll repeat that you should find a new sparring partner. Otherwise, bring on the best logic ya got!
Food for thought:
Everything is taken as fact right up until the point where someone takes the time to prove it otherwise.
Even conventional wisdom seems to have croaked.
"Welfare, on the other hand, keeps desperate people from getting REALLY desperate (read increased violent crime rates, not just welfare fraud). And I'd be willing to bet that the bulk of welfare money stays in this country, which, the last time I checked, was good for our economy."
This statement sums up you entire way of thinking. My firm cleans up what welfare leaves behind. Deadly horrific kill zones that will turn your stomach.Unless you have seen what the welfare state has become first hand all your gut "feeling" would be cast aside. people use their food stamps to buy drugs, welfare checks turn into a friday nite drug festivals. If you think for one minuet the money stays here in the US you are sadly mistaken.Not to mention the white man spending their Min wage paycheck in one night. It would not be so bad if the pimps and dealers put all that money back in to their community , but all that money ends up in mexico and colombia.In to the Billions of dollars (factual). How does that help all of us?
If I lumped all of the black and hispanic communities together I would be a racist. Are all the people in the community bad? fuck no!!!! But lumping all companies and all those working for crooked companies are bad is doing the same thing.
They wouldnt be so desperate if We the People didnt inable them to do so in the first place. Is everyone on welfare bad? Fuck no!!!! but there are many who abuse the system by dealing in the drug and human trades.And never once have I heard of a pimp or drug dealer giving back to his community hell they dont even pay taxes, again how does welfare help all of us?
Single parenthood is a product of the welfare state. And has lead to dead beat moms and dads. It is known that if you dealing drugs or pimpin or just hanging out you dont have to pay child support.It has lead to high violent crime amongst blacks (over 70% of all violent crime in America) and hispanics. Gangs although nothing new have stepped up operations and are more organized than ever before in our history. Their Organization is a product of the welfare state. Apathy has raised and developed people who just accept it. And have become not victims but willing participents in the life that surrounds them.
This statement sums up you entire way of thinking. My firm cleans up what welfare leaves behind. Deadly horrific kill zones that will turn your stomach.Unless you have seen what the welfare state has become first hand all your gut "feeling" would be cast aside. people use their food stamps to buy drugs, welfare checks turn into a friday nite drug festivals. If you think for one minuet the money stays here in the US you are sadly mistaken.Not to mention the white man spending their Min wage paycheck in one night. It would not be so bad if the pimps and dealers put all that money back in to their community , but all that money ends up in mexico and colombia.In to the Billions of dollars (factual). How does that help all of us?
If I lumped all of the black and hispanic communities together I would be a racist. Are all the people in the community bad? fuck no!!!! But lumping all companies and all those working for crooked companies are bad is doing the same thing.
They wouldnt be so desperate if We the People didnt inable them to do so in the first place. Is everyone on welfare bad? Fuck no!!!! but there are many who abuse the system by dealing in the drug and human trades.And never once have I heard of a pimp or drug dealer giving back to his community hell they dont even pay taxes, again how does welfare help all of us?
Single parenthood is a product of the welfare state. And has lead to dead beat moms and dads. It is known that if you dealing drugs or pimpin or just hanging out you dont have to pay child support.It has lead to high violent crime amongst blacks (over 70% of all violent crime in America) and hispanics. Gangs although nothing new have stepped up operations and are more organized than ever before in our history. Their Organization is a product of the welfare state. Apathy has raised and developed people who just accept it. And have become not victims but willing participents in the life that surrounds them.
With TV's and computers raising one hell of a lot of today's kids, I don't think "lack of upbringing" is a flaw that is peculiar to the poor.
I cannot agree more, PC's, TV's, etc is something that is indeed raising our kids, it is one of the saddest commentaries on our society, IMHO.
If you consider any information that contains statistics to be factual, you need to study statistics further. A study is only as good as the parameters set for it.
With a BA in economics, believe me, I know how stats can be manipulated.
IMHO, the speach was merely additional proof that welfare does not prevent crime. The statistics added to my personal experiences, added to knowledge that I have, added to....
I agree that LOGICALLY you're correct, if you give someone a home, food, a couple of dollars to spend, it would cause a lowering of crime rates, makes a lot of sense, the only problem is that human nature does not come into play in that theory. Human nature is a bitch of a thing, it is one of the things that fucks up any economic formula, a prime example of this is the whole Pepsi/Coke thing, when one goes on sale, the sales should skyrocket while the other wallows in the depths of lack of sales. Having lived in WI, I did not see a huge preferance one way or the other with Pepsi/Coke, but in Florida, and most other southern states, Coke is sold out when on sale, Pepsi is barely a blip on the radar, even when on sale. Economically speaking, this should not happen.
Everything is taken as fact right up until the point where someone takes the time to prove it otherwise.
Even conventional wisdom seems to have croaked.
You're right, proving it otherwise is how you defy logic though.
Once you have human beings added to any given situation, logic goes out the window, there is NO way to predict how humans will react to any given set of circumstances.
Conventional wisdom indeed seems to have croaked, our society has shifted to the point that conventional does not have a definition any longer. 50 years ago, a person who was divorced was seen as a 'failure' in society, rarely was a woman employed outside the home, and kids had respect, not just for their parents, but for anyone who was deemed an adult, all those things have changed, how can you apply conventional wisdom to a different situation?
Jstjm - Now you're cookin' ! I'll be formulating my reply while at work.
! I'll be formulating my reply while at work."With a BA in economics, believe me, I know how stats can be manipulated."
Fair enough. Then why rely on them for anything that likely wasn't adequately studied?
If we were debating topics which were more science-related, for example, I'd be more inclined to defer to studies from reputable sources. Or, at least take the time to counter research.
We don't tend to debate topics with black and white answers here. I've stated before that I admire the research abilities/time-spent of those so inclined. I am rarely impressed with the results, however. Too much taken out of context. Too many unanswered questions. Too many questionable sources (wanna go at it 'bout media bias for awhile? lol).
Let's take your Pepsi/Coke example. There is likely nothing befuddling about your scenario. Just one possibility: Where are the two Florida products bottled? Maybe it's the water.
"I agree that LOGICALLY you're correct, if you give someone a home, food, a couple of dollars to spend, it would cause a lowering of crime rates, makes a lot of sense, the only problem is that human nature does not come into play in that theory. Human nature is a bitch of a thing, it is one of the things that fucks up any economic formula ..."
I'm glad you agree with the logic. My Bachelor's is in Social Welfare (Psych Minor). Human nature is only a bitch of a thing when you get out there a few standard deviations. The bulk of us are as predictable as rats.
I propose that as an economist you are simply looking at things with a limited perspective.
There is simply no question that if a person's basic needs (food and shelter) are met, there is less motivation to risk the consequences of violating societal rules.
All this blather about welfare cheaters is confounding to me because I don't believe for a second that that segment is ANY more CORRUPT than any other segment of society - yet, they are the neediest segment. Why all the outrage only at the lowest-of-income folks? I think ANY corruption at ANY of the higher social strata is more obscene!
"Once you have human beings added to any given situation, logic goes out the window, there is NO way to predict how humans will react to any given set of circumstances."
Obviously, I could not disagree with you more!
Techno-raised kids and conventional wisdom? Different threads, huh?
Fair enough. Then why rely on them for anything that likely wasn't adequately studied?
If we were debating topics which were more science-related, for example, I'd be more inclined to defer to studies from reputable sources. Or, at least take the time to counter research.
We don't tend to debate topics with black and white answers here. I've stated before that I admire the research abilities/time-spent of those so inclined. I am rarely impressed with the results, however. Too much taken out of context. Too many unanswered questions. Too many questionable sources (wanna go at it 'bout media bias for awhile? lol).
Let's take your Pepsi/Coke example. There is likely nothing befuddling about your scenario. Just one possibility: Where are the two Florida products bottled? Maybe it's the water.
"I agree that LOGICALLY you're correct, if you give someone a home, food, a couple of dollars to spend, it would cause a lowering of crime rates, makes a lot of sense, the only problem is that human nature does not come into play in that theory. Human nature is a bitch of a thing, it is one of the things that fucks up any economic formula ..."
I'm glad you agree with the logic. My Bachelor's is in Social Welfare (Psych Minor). Human nature is only a bitch of a thing when you get out there a few standard deviations. The bulk of us are as predictable as rats.
I propose that as an economist you are simply looking at things with a limited perspective.
There is simply no question that if a person's basic needs (food and shelter) are met, there is less motivation to risk the consequences of violating societal rules.
All this blather about welfare cheaters is confounding to me because I don't believe for a second that that segment is ANY more CORRUPT than any other segment of society - yet, they are the neediest segment. Why all the outrage only at the lowest-of-income folks? I think ANY corruption at ANY of the higher social strata is more obscene!
"Once you have human beings added to any given situation, logic goes out the window, there is NO way to predict how humans will react to any given set of circumstances."
Obviously, I could not disagree with you more!
Techno-raised kids and conventional wisdom? Different threads, huh?
"There is simply no question that if a person's basic needs (food and shelter) are met, there is less motivation to risk the consequences of violating societal rules."
There are no consequences for their actions. It is obvious with the violent crime rate in these communities, teen pregnancy, and single parents. Thinking that one would not get pregnant to increase benafits is niave at best. Hell it is happening in our military with dependant pay increases and taxes. Hell I even rejoiced when our third child was born just to realize the added dependant. Not to mention he was an awesome addition to our family.
There are no consequences for their actions. It is obvious with the violent crime rate in these communities, teen pregnancy, and single parents. Thinking that one would not get pregnant to increase benafits is niave at best. Hell it is happening in our military with dependant pay increases and taxes. Hell I even rejoiced when our third child was born just to realize the added dependant. Not to mention he was an awesome addition to our family.
Fair enough. Then why rely on them for anything that likely wasn't adequately studied?
Likely just does not do it for me...When the numbers are given AND shown how they were gathered, I tend to believe they are fairly accurate.
Let's take your Pepsi/Coke example. There is likely nothing befuddling about your scenario. Just one possibility: Where are the two Florida products bottled? Maybe it's the water.
Both bottled locally, it is chalked up to being a preferance thing. In WI, lived there for a while, it was called pop or soda, unless a VERY specific thing was needed, a Mountain Dew for instance. In the south, it is a Coke no matter what it is. If someone in the south offers a Coke, it could be Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Diet Rite, Sam's Club Soda, etc.
I'm glad you agree with the logic. My Bachelor's is in Social Welfare (Psych Minor). Human nature is only a bitch of a thing when you get out there a few standard deviations. The bulk of us are as predictable as rats.
Believe it or not, I have 2 BA's (econ and int. rel.) with a minor in social work. So I am very aware of social science standards and SOME believe that we're predictable. If you have a smaller sample, we are fairly predictable, especially when the sample is taken from a specific group of people (swingers for instance, better yet, swingers in a specific region), once you get to the larger populations (nationwide for instance), human behavior is not easily quantified.
Try being the ONLY conservative in all the social work classes, it was fun!
Then again, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.
I propose that as an economist you are simply looking at things with a limited perspective.
Possibly, but I also have a rare ability to look at it from an outsider's view....
There is simply no question that if a person's basic needs (food and shelter) are met, there is less motivation to risk the consequences of violating societal rules.
I can see the logic of this, however, we are Americans, we always want MORE, we are constantly bombarded with images of MORE, we are constantly told that without MORE we are incomplete, etc.
What are the consequences of violating societal rules?
Food, shelter, clothing, TV, etc? Really tough there.
Look at prisons in Mexico, if your family does not provide, you starve, more than likely. THAT is consequences, it is a deterrant (sp?).
IMHO, one of the reasons for our increased crime rates is the lack of public punishment. If every time you turned around, you saw a group of people in black and white stripes mowing lawns, trimming trees, etc. on the side of the road in leg chains, it would cut crime considerably. If they did public executions, it would cut crime dramatically.
Then again, I am a staunch supporter of heavy penalties for crimes, especially when they are repeat offenders, most of the social scientists are not. They want more rehab and such, which I also support, BUT only for first timers, not for repeat offenders.
Anyway, I am thoroughly enjoying our debate...
Next!
"Believe it or not, I have 2 BA's (econ and int. rel.) with a minor in social work."
Um, I hope we aren't beginning a game of who's got the most cards in their deck. I guess I'll believe you (this one time).
Your initial counterpoints notwithstanding, please respond to: "All this blather about welfare cheaters is confounding to me because I don't believe for a second that that segment is ANY more CORRUPT than any other segment of society - yet, they are the neediest segment. Why all the outrage only at the lowest-of-income folks? I think ANY corruption at ANY of the higher social strata is more obscene!"
Your final segment is the most interesting! PREDICTABLY (lol), we begin to find common ground.
I agree with public punishment. I agree Americans are a lustful society. I agree with stiffer penalties for repeat offenders. I believe rehabilitation is an obligation.
My question remains unanswered. Why are those at the bottom of the economic spectrum judged so harshly compared to the corrupt in other segments of society? I hypothesize that the $ figure associated with all middle class and above who: cheat on their taxes/bend the system/participate in white collar crime/etc., dwarfs the $ figure associated with welfare fraud. Wanna take a whack at refuting that?
I'm also quite enjoying this.
By the way, "... and SOME believe that we're predictable." . I am, in fact, a dyed-in-the-wool behaviorist.
Um, I hope we aren't beginning a game of who's got the most cards in their deck. I guess I'll believe you (this one time).
Your initial counterpoints notwithstanding, please respond to: "All this blather about welfare cheaters is confounding to me because I don't believe for a second that that segment is ANY more CORRUPT than any other segment of society - yet, they are the neediest segment. Why all the outrage only at the lowest-of-income folks? I think ANY corruption at ANY of the higher social strata is more obscene!"
Your final segment is the most interesting! PREDICTABLY (lol), we begin to find common ground.
I agree with public punishment. I agree Americans are a lustful society. I agree with stiffer penalties for repeat offenders. I believe rehabilitation is an obligation.
My question remains unanswered. Why are those at the bottom of the economic spectrum judged so harshly compared to the corrupt in other segments of society? I hypothesize that the $ figure associated with all middle class and above who: cheat on their taxes/bend the system/participate in white collar crime/etc., dwarfs the $ figure associated with welfare fraud. Wanna take a whack at refuting that?
I'm also quite enjoying this.
By the way, "... and SOME believe that we're predictable." . I am, in fact, a dyed-in-the-wool behaviorist.
You also have the ability to either not comprehend or ignore 90% of what others are saying and then use the remaining 10% to wander off on a point YOU want to make. Illegal aliens, as a group, are not the topic I'm discussing. They may be a subset, but the issues are separate.
You apparently are a forester observing from the trees (limited perspective). The question is do you have the ability to see the forest? I think not. It seems not.
You apparently are a forester observing from the trees (limited perspective). The question is do you have the ability to see the forest? I think not. It seems not.
My question remains unanswered. Why are those at the bottom of the economic spectrum judged so harshly compared to the corrupt in other segments of society? I hypothesize that the $ figure associated with all middle class and above who: cheat on their taxes/bend the system/participate in white collar crime/etc., dwarfs the $ figure associated with welfare fraud. Wanna take a whack at refuting that?
I have often wondered that...
If you steal a car, you go to prison for years, get raped, etc.
If you steal millions, you go to 'Club Fed' for a little while, then when released, head to the Caymans to live a life of leisure...
Makes NO sense to me...
Wonder what it is that makes it that way...
I have theory that it is simply those who pass judgement can see the person, they have similar backgrounds, they have similar upbringing, etc. When they see the crackhead who stole the car, they have nothing to see that is similar...
Who knows?
I DO know those who write the laws are also similar to those who steal millions, that probably adds to it too...
"Making it easy to get in and next too impossible for them to get OUT!!!!"
And just whatthefuck does that mean, if not illegals?
I stand by my comments.
(I lived in a community just as we're discussing and worked at a nearby hospital - the recipient of the results of all sorts of atrocities). You don't have the market cornered on practical experience, pal.
And just whatthefuck does that mean, if not illegals?
I stand by my comments.
(I lived in a community just as we're discussing and worked at a nearby hospital - the recipient of the results of all sorts of atrocities). You don't have the market cornered on practical experience, pal.
Free - Maybe the problem is your ability to communicate clearly? So you have boiled this thread down to one comment for which I understand your meaning (perhaps because I'm not familiar with 'government controlled poverty')? You apparently are unable to comment intelligently on the bulk of what has been said, so you focus on this? Laughable.
Oh, and who is the idiot who doesn't know how to spell "buffoon"?
You have now alienated just about the last person still willing to try to engage you in intelligent conversation (I knew better, tried anyway). You've made it obvious time and again that you are a checker player at a chess match.
You've been begging for responses on the health care thread, to no avail. Perhaps it's because all have grown tired of your sorry-assed posts like the one above.
Being the joke that I am, PLEASE feel free to not respond to any of my future posts. I grew up on a farm and have dealt with enough horse's asses to last a lifetime.
Oh, and who is the idiot who doesn't know how to spell "buffoon"?
You have now alienated just about the last person still willing to try to engage you in intelligent conversation (I knew better, tried anyway). You've made it obvious time and again that you are a checker player at a chess match.
You've been begging for responses on the health care thread, to no avail. Perhaps it's because all have grown tired of your sorry-assed posts like the one above.
Being the joke that I am, PLEASE feel free to not respond to any of my future posts. I grew up on a farm and have dealt with enough horse's asses to last a lifetime.
Hey, no problem! I don't need a button to ignore a clown like you - consider it done!!!