ILikeDubyah
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 172
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Phx
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
new coup for you said:and even if money wasnt an issue, i'm GLAD my mom has a job. i'm sure its made her feel more fufilled as a person.
ILikeDubyah said:Pretty much, this is America, the land of oppertunity...make something of yourself. Now, if charities & non profit organizations want to help these people out, God Bless them, but it's not, nor should it be required that the government does so.
ILikeDubyah said:Yeah, because there's nothing fufilling about raising your children and seeing that they turn out to be good productive, respectful members of society.
Back on topic, I'll state it again. Pre-school is un necessary, and I'm glad my tax dollars are going to the defense of this country rather than into the programs listed on that website, that I don't & would never support
Kelzie said:And if charities don't what? You are okay with letting a mother and her three children starve to death?
One of the vital functions of the government is to protect the weak for this very reason. It is because we have evoloved past the time of barbarianism. We (for the most part) realize that if everyone was only concerned for ourselves, we would still be flinging poo at each other. That is why societies were created. Because humans do better when they are organized. And this orginization helps to insure that the weaker among us are protected. If you see a helpless child on the side of the road, crying for it's mother, do you keep on driving? No. You stop and help him out. Because we all should realize that at some point in our lives, we could be that crying child: helpless, lost, with no idea what to do, and no means to do it. We have put this altuistic sense that (most) humans have into a better use than individual actions. Because, let's face it, there are people that will keep on driving. And is that child, or abused women, or elderly person who just lost their life savings any less deserving of aid because a particular person is cold hearted? We have charged the government with helping these people out because that it the best way to get aid to them. And that is what matters in the end. That someone stops, gives the kid a hug, some food, and helps him find his mom.
ILikeDubyah said:It may be the best way to get aid to them, but you have to realize that the aid would be less, both in quantity & quality.
ILikeDubyah said:The government would have to hire people & pay them government salaries to administrate and carry out aid functions, which means even more money would be coming out of our pockets to cover the cost. There goes the quantity. What if the fictional person you speak of has a job....suddenly they're receiving less in their paycheck to be able to pay for such aid, therefore keeping them DEPENDANT on government aid....Why would we do this????
ILikeDubyah said:The people paid for doing the work involved are doing the work to get paid (most of them) which means they really don't care about what they're doing, they're just going to do enough work as to not get fired....and being that hey work for the government, they only have to do about an hours worth of work a day to keep their jobs...there goes the quality.
ILikeDubyah said:Charities on the other hand are around for the specific purpose of helping others, and the people that donate time to them are there only to be selfless & help. Most of these charities are non/little profit....what do you know, you have quality & quantity of care back...
kal-el said:Yea, the cost definetly isn't worth it at all. First off, how many billions of tax-payer dollars does it tally up to? And how many people died? What did we accomplish? O yea, that's right, a quagmire. This war did nothing but fatten the pockets of a select few, while killing thousands of people. Not to mention, the next generation will carry the burden of sporting the cost of this immoral war, as most Presidents raise taxes during wartime, but not good ole Georgie, he gives tax breaks to his fat-cat, big-spending buddies.
Kelzie said:Are you suggesting that people are forced into poverty and welfare because they pay too much taxes? This is ludicrous and absolutely untrue. Provide any sort of substantial numbers that back this up, and I will cede the entire argument to you.
ILikeDubyah said:How is the cost not worth what we've accomplished? We've freed 2 nations from tyranny...one of the tyrants WE put into power...we at least owed the people of iraq their freedom after that. Second, having a secure & safe America isn't worth fighting for? Yes, Iraq posed no immediate threat to the US but who's to say it wouldn't have in the future? It's a pre-emptive war. How many people died? Americans? Far less than 10% of all serving...name another war where that's happened? Did you have a job at the time of the tax cut? Any working person who didn't owe the Government money got a check, and subsequent checks have been bigger, if you had been paying attention to your stubs. Yes, the people with more money got a bigger tax cut, but that's because they pay more taxes (in theory). As for saying it's an "immoral" war....how many times do I have to say this???? ALL WARS ARE IMMORAL!!!...however, some are necessary.
ILikeDubyah said:Yeah, because there's nothing fufilling about raising your children and seeing that they turn out to be good productive, respectful members of society.
Back on topic, I'll state it again. Pre-school is un necessary, and I'm glad my tax dollars are going to the defense of this country rather than into the programs listed on that website, that I don't & would never support
ILikeDubyah said:Analysis of the state data for 1992 yields the following estimates of the effects of an increase in Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits by 1 percent of the average personal income in the state: the number of AFDC recipients would increase by about 3 percent; the number of people in poverty would increase by about 0.8 percent; the number of births to single mothers would increase by about 2.1 percent; the number of adults who are not employed would increase by about 0.5 percent; the number of abortions would increase by about 1.2 percent; and the violent crime rate would increase by about 1.1 percent. - from Cato.org
Choke on it.
Kelzie said:And yet, for some reason, the actual numbers don't support the pro-small government website. How odd
Total social welfare expenditure/Unemployment Rate/Median Four Peson Income
1965 / 77,084 / 4ish
1970 / 145,979 / 4.9
1975 / 288,967 / 6.2ish / 15,848
1980 / 492,213 / 7.1 / 24,332
1985 / 731,840 / 7.2ish / 32,777
1990 / 1,048,951 / 5.6 / 41,151
1992 / 1,266,504 / 7.5 / 44,251
1993 / 1,366,743 / 6.9 / 45,161
1994 / 1,435,714 / 6.1 / 47,012
1995 / 1,505,136 / 5.6 / 49,687
Now if you'll notice, the total social welfare expenditure seems to have no affect on unemployment rate. And the average household income seems to be going up, despite the huge amount of extra taxes placed on them. How can this be reconciled with your data? Oh yeah, it can't.
Social welfare expen. is in millions
kal-el said:You wanna talk about accomplishments? 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, almost 2,000 dead US soliders. And what about the sanctions put in place after Gulf War 1, over 500,000 deaths, and 10,000 of them children. I think freeing 2 nations from tyranny pales in comparison to these numbers, and they keep swelling everyday. And besides, there were a handful of countries with worse regimes than Saddams, so why didn't we free them from tyranny? O, I remember, Iraq controls the second largest supply of oil. Could that be why?
ILikeDubyah said:I'm sure if another (real) Republican gets into office, we will go after more "evil" regimes. Yes, I believe oil plays a major part in this war, however once it's over (and not right after it's over), I doubt we'll be paying 3 bucks a gallon anymore...think about the future. The dead Iraqi Civilians...are you speaking of the gassed kurds?....that was saddam, not us. 2000 dead soldiers....again, far less than 10 % of all soldiers serving....the only other US war with a casulty rate so LOW is gulf war 1. The deaths due to sanctions were not the fault of the US...all the regime would have had to do to stop the death is either step down or at least comply with our demands....after all, we did win that war.
SouthernDemocrat said:1.
FDR, the greatest president we have ever had (he was even Reagan’s childhood hero), had a lot of incites into the principles that our great nation is based in. I think the following three apply best to this thread:
Reagan's childhood hero....and then Reagan grew up. Greatest president ever....the man who had prior knowledgeof Pearl harbor and still allowed it to happen, got us into a war because his policy could not pull us out of the depression, and created the welfare state...all really great things!
"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward."
When "walking forward" leads to the moral decay & eventual collapse of society as we knew it...I believe I would rather stand in place, but stand in place 100 years ago.
And if socialization and multiculturalism are so important, and must be learned outside the home, and learning it outside the home is so much better, why is it that children today are so much more cruel to children that do not "fit in" or even look the same. If anything, they're being taught to despise everyone equally, and care only about themselves or the conscequences to themselves of the actions they carry out.
ILikeDubyah said:SouthernDemocrat said:1.
FDR, the greatest president we have ever had (he was even Reagan’s childhood hero), had a lot of incites into the principles that our great nation is based in. I think the following three apply best to this thread:
Reagan's childhood hero....and then Reagan grew up. Greatest president ever....the man who had prior knowledgeof Pearl harbor and still allowed it to happen, got us into a war because his policy could not pull us out of the depression, and created the welfare state...all really great things!
"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward."
When "walking forward" leads to the moral decay & eventual collapse of society as we knew it...I believe I would rather stand in place, but stand in place 100 years ago.
And if socialization and multiculturalism are so important, and must be learned outside the home, and learning it outside the home is so much better, why is it that children today are so much more cruel to children that do not "fit in" or even look the same. If anything, they're being taught to despise everyone equally, and care only about themselves or the conscequences to themselves of the actions they carry out.
He had no more knowledge of Pearl Harbor before it happened then Bush did of 9/11 before it happened. In both cases, its nothing but extreme partisan lies.
The reason the United States did not go communist during the Great Depression is FDR.
The reason you have electricity in rural areas is FDR.
The reason you don’t speak German today is FDR.
The man was the most popular president of all time, if we would have had less of a man as president then, the nation probably by any historians account would not have survived or at the very least, we would not be the greatest nation in the history of civilization like we are today.
Moreover, what world do you live in? Let’s just take your advice and return American society to the state it was in 100 years ago. Back to those moral days when:
- Lynchings were common place.
- Minorities could not vote.
- Child labor was the norm and children routinely worked in sweat shops.
- Seniors made up the largest demographic living in poverty.
- There was virtually no middle class at all.
- The KKK had 20 million members.
- Segregation was the norm throughout the south.
- There were no worker protections at all.
- Marijuana, heroin and morphine were all available over the counter at
corner drugstores
Wow what a wonderful world that a century worth of progressive and liberal policies have ruined for us. I am with you, lets go back to the good old days.
SouthernDemocrat said:ILikeDubyah said:SouthernDemocrat said:1.
FDR, the greatest president we have ever had (he was even Reagan’s childhood hero), had a lot of incites into the principles that our great nation is based in. I think the following three apply best to this thread:
Reagan's childhood hero....and then Reagan grew up. Greatest president ever....the man who had prior knowledgeof Pearl harbor and still allowed it to happen, got us into a war because his policy could not pull us out of the depression, and created the welfare state...all really great things!
"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward."
He had no more knowledge of Pearl Harbor before it happened then Bush did of 9/11 before it happened. In both cases, its nothing but extreme partisan lies.
The reason the United States did not go communist during the Great Depression is FDR.
The reason you have electricity in rural areas is FDR.
The reason you don’t speak German today is FDR.
The man was the most popular president of all time, if we would have had less of a man as president then, the nation probably by any historians account would not have survived or at the very least, we would not be the greatest nation in the history of civilization like we are today.
Moreover, what world do you live in? Let’s just take your advice and return American society to the state it was in 100 years ago. Back to those moral days when:
- Lynchings were common place.
- Minorities could not vote.
- Child labor was the norm and children routinely worked in sweat shops.
- Seniors made up the largest demographic living in poverty.
- There was virtually no middle class at all.
- The KKK had 20 million members.
- Segregation was the norm throughout the south.
- There were no worker protections at all.
- Marijuana, heroin and morphine were all available over the counter at
corner drugstores
Wow what a wonderful world that a century worth of progressive and liberal policies have ruined for us. I am with you, lets go back to the good old days.
First I'd like to say that debating FDR belongs in another post, but since we're on the subject, FDR found out Pearl harbor was going to happen somewhere around November 24th. He then decided to pull major defenses away from the hawaiian islands & bring them back to San Diego...There is no comparison between 9/11 & Pearl Harbor in that aspect.
How many steps away from communism did we come during the great depression? The only reason the New Deal & New Deal II weren't completely communist was because no one would go for it in the first place.
Electricity in rural areas would have gotten there eventually with expansion...you can say "electricity AT THE TIME was thanks to FDR."
and, I do speak German today....fluently.
Anyhow. I stand by my original statement. Minorities were able to vote as early as 1869. Lynchings may have been commonplace, but today it's been replaced by gang warfare, and drive-by shootings that kill innocent people. Seniors still make up a large portion of those living in poverty...300 a month from social security just doesn't cut it....way to go, Social Security act of 1935! As for bigotry & racism, they're still around...people just whatch what they say & how they act in public. The only difference now is that it's not all out in the open, how people feel about eachother....(A project I did in college) when asking 100 caucasian woman what they though of a picture of a woman walking down an urban street filled with male minorities at night....98 of the women said they felt "uneasy", "afraid", or "scared"....you can't tell me it doesn't still exist, and more than likely at the same rate it did 100 years ago.
None of the opposing posts have convinced me as to why things like pre-school should undoubtedly be paid for by the fed.
ILikeDubyah said:SouthernDemocrat said:ILikeDubyah said:First I'd like to say that debating FDR belongs in another post, but since we're on the subject, FDR found out Pearl harbor was going to happen somewhere around November 24th. He then decided to pull major defenses away from the hawaiian islands & bring them back to San Diego...There is no comparison between 9/11 & Pearl Harbor in that aspect.
How many steps away from communism did we come during the great depression? The only reason the New Deal & New Deal II weren't completely communist was because no one would go for it in the first place.
Electricity in rural areas would have gotten there eventually with expansion...you can say "electricity AT THE TIME was thanks to FDR."
and, I do speak German today....fluently.
Anyhow. I stand by my original statement. Minorities were able to vote as early as 1869. Lynchings may have been commonplace, but today it's been replaced by gang warfare, and drive-by shootings that kill innocent people. Seniors still make up a large portion of those living in poverty...300 a month from social security just doesn't cut it....way to go, Social Security act of 1935! As for bigotry & racism, they're still around...people just whatch what they say & how they act in public. The only difference now is that it's not all out in the open, how people feel about eachother....(A project I did in college) when asking 100 caucasian woman what they though of a picture of a woman walking down an urban street filled with male minorities at night....98 of the women said they felt "uneasy", "afraid", or "scared"....you can't tell me it doesn't still exist, and more than likely at the same rate it did 100 years ago.
None of the opposing posts have convinced me as to why things like pre-school should undoubtedly be paid for by the fed.
1. Due to poll taxes and other measures meant to keep minorities from voting, it wasn’t until the Johnson Administration that African American’s right to vote was actually protected and enforced. Moreover, 100 years ago, Women could not even vote.
2. Prior to the New Deal and Social Security, seniors made up the largest demographic living in poverty. Today, seniors are the wealthiest demographic. Oh, and do you know when the poverty rates actually dropped here in America? Answer: During the New Deal, the Great Society, and during the Clinton Administration. Since Bush took office the poverty rate has consistently risen. Way to go “Compassionate Conservatism”
3. Of course bigotry and racism is still around. However, American society for the last 100 years has consistently become more socially liberal and tolerant. There is far less racism and bigotry today than there was 100 years ago, or 30 years ago for that matter. Hell, a little more than 30 years ago, a lot of states didn’t even recognize interracial marriage.
4. Gang violence is nothing new. In fact, violent crime rates today are lower than they were at times during the 1800s.
The problem with the radical right is that they idealize a time and culture that never existed. They talk about how immoral America is today compared to the past. I mean come on, we have a lot of premarital sex today and sex certainly sells, but we used to horsewhip slaves, work young children 7 days a week in deplorable conditions in sweat shops, prostitution and pornography was more common in the civil war era than even today, women were treated as second class citizens, minorities couldn’t even use the same restroom as whites and could be lynched if they even so much as glanced at a white woman, gays were imprisoned, there were no environmental protections and entire species were hunted and or driven to extinction, poverty rates were at third world levels, venereal diseases were rampant… I can go on and on, but on balance we are a more moral, just, and tolerant society today than we have ever been in the history of man. Sure we have our problems, but they pale in comparison to the societal problems of the past.
Moreover, as I stated earlier, I don’t think that everyone ought to get their day care paid for, but I do think it’s a necessity for working families that are having a hard time getting by or many single parents.
The median income of family households where both parents are typically employed is: $53,991
The median income for family households with only one female parent present is: $29,307
Of course by median, that means that half of American house holds earn less than those figures.
The nationwide median single family home price is: $208,500
Now assuming a typical family where both parents worked that earned the typical median income of $53,991 a year wanted to purchase a home. Now say they found a modest home for less than the national median home priced at $190,000 and since it’s their first home, they put 5% down on it so they borrow $180,500.
So with taxes and insurance, their payment is approximately $1282.00 a month.
After taxes, assuming they have 2 kids, their monthly take home income is about $3200 dollars a month.
So $3200 a month
Minus House payment at $1282 a month leaves $1918
Minus Typical Car payment for 2 modest cars and insurance at $750 a month leaves $1168
Minus Typical Utilities assuming they try to conserve at $300 a month leaves $868
Minus Gas and maintenance on the cars if they try to conserve at $150 a month leaves $718
Minus Insurance payments for what their work doesn’t cover for their kids at (if they are getting a deal) $150 a month leaves
$568
Minus Food if they are also frugal at 500 a month leaves
$68
So at this point, that typical American family has 68 dollars left a month. Now, of course I haven’t even taken into account clothing, money for emergencies or home repairs, money for school supplies or the seemingly thousands of other expenses that families incur.
So by your reasoning, if that family were to do the right thing, they would cut their income nearly in half and the mother would stay at home to raise the kids.
.
vandree, your outta control! But keep it up. These are very, very good posts. Thank you.Originally posted by vandree:
B. Disabling International Law
The unilateral U.S. decision to go to war in Iraq violated the United Nations
Charter, setting a dangerous precedent for other countries to seize any opportunity to respond militarily to claimed threats, whether real or contrived, that must be “preempted.” The U.S. military has also violated the Geneva Convention, making it more likely that in the future, other nations will ignore these protections in their treatment of civilian populations and detainees.
Originally posted by vandree
B. Disabling International Law
The unilateral U.S. decision to go to war in Iraq violated the United Nations
Charter, setting a dangerous precedent for other countries to seize any opportunity to respond militarily to claimed threats, whether real or contrived, that must be “preempted.” The U.S. military has also violated the Geneva Convention, making it more likely that in the future, other nations will ignore these protections in their treatment of civilian populations and detainees.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?