| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Todd_Summers
USA
69 Posts |
 Posted - 12/06/2002 : 20:16:58
|
Memo to JimF and OTD,
I just want y'all to know that it is refreshing to see the change in direction this forum has taken and that, I, too enjoy a good right vs. left debate. My best adjusting buddy while I was working mold is a liberal and my best friend, who was killed earlier this year was a liberal. We had many similar debates over a few beers and a chess game. Imagine winning the chess game also kind of settled the political debate. I apologise for the attacks on overweight Dem's who shop at K-mart for their clothes. There are probably (maybe?) Republicans who fit this description as well. No hard feelings, ok?
As for BBQ, I have never tasted it from the Carolinas, but, being born and bred in Tx I would have to vote for TX BBQ.
BTW, I took the short poll Jennifer provided a link to and discovered that lo and behold I fall into the right leaning Libertarian philosophy after all. Imagine that! |
 |
|
|
Todd_Summers
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2002 : 20:20:32
|
AlanJ...
He CUT YOUR TAXES !!!
'nuff said. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2002 : 20:38:12
|
| Todd right leaning nah tell me it ain't so! At least noone attacked the poor old soccer moms. As i'm in texas for a visit I have been able to get some of that good ole texas BBQ although I have a definate preference to mesquite over hickory. I have had NC style and it's worth the trip... |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2002 : 21:19:35
|
Ok, we seem to be moving away from debate (which is good) and more toward discourse and dialogue (which is even better: more productive as well as more informative). With a little effort we may even begin to see that there is more we can agree on rather than disagree on, and with some issues, perhaps even reach consensus.
Now here is what I would like to ask of each and everyone: for the next few days or so, let's avoid "labels"(D-R, L-C)and see if we can move past "stereotypes" and "cliches" and see if we can reach real understanding.
Let me pose an example: several posters here have denounced the social welfare programs or social welfare state that they see the US as fostering.
Can anyone do a little research and share with this audience the following answers/information:
(1) What percentage (let's call this the 'piece of the whole pie') of the US Federal Budget (let's call it the 'pie') is absorbed by social welfare programs?
(2) Now what percentage of the US Federal Budget is absorbed by interest payments on the National Debt?
(3) Now what percentage of the US Federal Budget is absorbed by Defense and Military spending?
(4) What changes (up or down) in the above percentages have occured during the years since Lyndon Johnson was President?
(5) What are the percentages of recipient/user distribution by race of US social welfare programs (Caucasian, Hispanic, African American, Asian, other)?
(6) If there is a specific welfare or social welfare program which wasn't mentioned and which you specifically find egregious, please provide the name of that specific program and it's current and historic 'costs' ($'s or % of the US Budget).
The questions which I am asking and the information I am seeking here is readily available on the Internet as well as elsewhere (and from official US Government sources), and the answers may surprise some.
The factual answers may also go a long way to disproving the basis for some of the stereotypes being banded about.
There are some pretty smart rascals around here (both democrat and republican, liberal and conservative) who know how to use Internet search engines for research.
Let's get "The Facts" and then have a REAL and MEANINGFUL discussion! |
Edited by - JimF on 12/06/2002 21:41:34 |
|
|
|
fivedaily
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2002 : 21:43:29
|
Jim... I'm kind of busy right now, could you go ahead and find the answers for us? I think you should be included among the "pretty smart rascals" crowd.
Jennifer |
|
|
|
ALANJ
USA
159 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2002 : 21:52:44
|
My friends:
My friends are worse off now, then they were 2 years ago.(Are you better off now or not) They went from fat and happy to unemployed. It seems George W. is more interested in a little pay back on dads behalf, then he is on our economy. It would not be 2 bad, except he doesn't have a clue on how to handle world affairs. My many friends who are now unemployed are case and point that he doesn't have a domestic agenda. The Bush boys think the common man is someone who makes 500k to 750k a year.
Alan L. Jackson (working man)
|
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2002 : 22:07:14
|
Alan. Alan. Alan.
Now I am not ready to get into the issue (which is quite valid) about the Bush domestic economic policy, at this time, and I hope others will take a pass for the time being on specifically agreeing with you or arguing the antithetical position.
But, for arguments sake, let me ask you this question (and I invite others to weigh in with their thoughts as well):
What effect do you think that the events of 9-11 have had on the US economy?
What effect has 9-11 had on the world economy?
Has or hasn't that event created some conditions that affect the US economy in ways that no other event in our history has?
Has or hasn't the rightful conditions of fear among the American people also played a part in their financial indecision and economic uncertainty, thus affecting the US economy?
Does or doesn't economic indecision and uncertainty by a buying (or saving or investing) public affect the economy in a drastic albeit measurable manner?
Does or doesn't the effects of the global economy have an effect on the US economy, and if so, what effect?
For the time being, let's not throw stones or point fingers prematurely at any politician or political party, and figure out first the effects of 9-11 on the economy and then what if anything we can do about it. Then and only then, can we decide if the Bush economic policy is addressing the problems with the American economy realistically with realistic answers and approaches.
OK? |
Edited by - JimF on 12/06/2002 22:12:57 |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2002 : 23:29:40
|
I don't have much time as I am packing to head to an assignment. I will however leave a few thoughts before I go.
Alan, I'm sorry to hear about you and your friends. As for myself, I am having the best year of my life. I'm infinitely better off than I was 2 years ago. My friends all have jobs and they are all better off than they were two years ago. Maybe it's a regional thing, who knows?
As far as the economy vs foreign policy thing, I think it is more of a philosophy difference. I don't want the president worrying about domestic issues. To me he is here to represent us on the world stage and defend our country and take care of our business around the world. It is the job of congress and the states to worry about domestic issues. That's just the way I think it should be. I know it isn't that way, but I am much happier when the president isn't passing initiatives to pry into my life. I can take care of myself here at home, it is outside of our borders that I am worried about. The economy is coming around.
As Jim pointed out, there is a whole new mix of variables in our economy today that have never existed before. I saw a documentary a few years ago about the stock market crash of October 1929. The started in the summer of 28 when the stock market was really booming. They interviewed this elderly man who was a shoe shine boy in NYC back then. They didn't have Ameritrade back then, so it was not all that common for people to buy and sell stock, but stock market fever was so big that he said that even a 12yr old shoe shine boy could walk into an accountants office and buy 10 shares of GE or whatever was hot that day, just like someone might place a bet with a bookie. It was a black market for stocks but it was hot because the market was hot. When that market crashed less than 10% of the American public was invested in equity securities, I don't have the numbers handy now, but do you know anyone who doesn't own stock either outright or through a mutual fund or some other device? The difference is today everyone has access to the market and just as fast as it falls it can surge again. I can buy and sell stock right from the keyboard I'm typing on right now. 10 years ago you had to pick up the phone an talk to a broker, which most people didn't have.
Jim, you hit upon a big raw nerve. The permanent dependant class we have created in this country is something we should all be ashamed of. Between that and other entitlement programs, the government has gottens both fists and both feet into a tarbaby that we may never get out off. We must find a way to ween generations of check getters off of the dole and transform them into tax paying check earners instead. I don't remember who said it, but to paraphrase it, "Democracy can only work until the populace realizes that they can vote themselves the largesse of the treasury, then it is doomed." Or something like that. That is why every politician runs on a "What can I bring you back from D.C." platform. I'll try to get the facts you asked about if I find the time.
Later.
|
Edited by - KileAnderson on 12/06/2002 23:32:35 |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2002 : 00:00:00
|
Kile, thanks for your level headed response.
You posted the following comment in your last post, which is worth examining more closely: "The permanent dependant class we have created in this country is something we should all be ashamed of."
The questions which your comment poses are these:
(1) Is the 'dependent class' you mentioned in this country growing in number or diminishing?
(2) What definition would you apply to 'dependent' class?
(Please specifically name those groups or sub-groups you have in mind as being part of your definition of a dependent class, so we can avoid the use of stereotypes and cliches in a meaningful and factual examination of the issue you bring to question).
(2-a) Would those mentally ill in our society who are wards of the states be considered part of your definition of dependent class?
(2-b) Would those who are incarcerated as a result of crime be considered part of your definition of dependent class?
(2-c) Would those who are are permanently disabled by accident,catastrophe, or disease (without family or private insurance) be considered part of your definition of dependent class?
(2-d) Would those senior citizens who are (without family or private insurance)in nursing homes be considered part of your definition of dependent class?
3. Under your concept of a dependent class, is dependency determined by a complete and total dependence on government, or would an individual or group be considered dependent if they received any 'assistance' of any amount, thus making them less than totally dependent on government and/or government social programs?
These really aren't trick questions and I pose them so we can discover the facts together (rather than relying on or resorting to stereotypical cliches) in a valid search for factual knowledge of current problems in our society so as to logically and factually establish our own personal opinions. |
Edited by - JimF on 12/07/2002 00:18:03 |
|
|
|
fivedaily
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2002 : 00:07:13
|
In no particular order...
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." ~ Ronald Reagan
"There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun is held to his head." ~ P.J. O'Rourke
"We have rights, as individuals, to give as much of our own money as we please to charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of public money." ~ David Crockett, Congressman 1827-35
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." ~ Alexis de Tocqueville
"The taxpayer is someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take a civil service examination." ~ Ronald Reagan
"There is no art which one government sooner learns of another than that of draining money from the pockets of the people." ~ Adam Smith (1723-1790) in Wealth of Nations
Jennifer |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2002 : 00:19:02
|
Good questions Jim,
When I refer to the dependent class in this country I am refering to those who are able bodied but lack the skills and education to do anything more than cash checks and procreate. (As an aside I recently read an article about a study that found that people with more intelligence and education tend to have fewer children and birth rates among college graduates have dropped below replacement level so if you believe in Darwin, as a species we are getting dumber every generation.)
As for those who lack the physical ability or the mental capacity to contribute financialy to society, I don't consider them part of the dependant class because they, through no fault of their own, are unable to contribute.
I am not resorting to any type of stereotyping or cliche's. I am speaking of a socio-economic divide between those who contribute to the coffers of the federal government and those who live off of it. Remember 50% of us pay more than 96% of the taxes. It would behoove the top 50% to elevate the bottom 50% to a point where they can contribute or at least take care of themselves rather than live off of the rest of us and then the burden would be more equally distributed and we all would win. The answer is not to drag the top 50% down by taxing them more and more thereby holding all of us back.
If you believe the press, the poverty problem is getting worse, but if you believe the politicians the welfare rolls are shrinking. I will see if I can find some numbers to substantiate either of these claims, perhaps they are both correct. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2002 : 00:38:18
|
Memo to Jennifer:
Kile and I seem to be in agreement in our regard for the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln, although more likely for two very different reasons.
Jennifer, out of curiousity, have you read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address of March 4, 1865?
What about you Kile? Do you agree or disagree with Lincoln's message in his Second Inaugural Address?
As a Libertarian, what do you think of Lincoln and the Lincoln political philosophy?
As for your request that you're busy and don't have time, and I should therefore do 'the work' (research) and then share 'the benefits' (answers to questions I posed) with you, isn't yours the rather identical philosophical position of the dependent class that Kile is talking about?
Wouldn't that constitute an 'intellectual welfare' state?
|
Edited by - JimF on 12/07/2002 08:09:29 |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2002 : 02:00:17
|
| Oh, just to put things in perspective, to be in the 50th percentile. The borderline between the 50% that pay 96% of the taxes and the 50% that pay less than 4% is $26,000 for a couple filing jointly. Since the tax cut was across the board, that means all tax brackets got a cut. So a married couple where the husband works at Jiffy Lube for 8 bucks and hour and the wife works at McDonalds for 6 bucks an hour would be about $500 above that threshold if they work 40 hours a week for the entire year. Therefore they are amongst the 50% who pay 96% of the taxes and they benefited from the recent tax cut. The Democrats like to say only the rich got a tax cut. So according to the Democrats if you and your spouse together earn $26,000 a year, you are now rich. Congratulations. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2002 : 08:55:02
|
STEREOTYPE ~ CLICHE DETECTOR ALERT
Kile:
Your quote: "I am refering to those who are ABLE bodied but lack the skills and education to do anything more than cash checks and PROCREATE."
Then you say: "I am not resorting to ANY type of stereotyping or cliche's"
Kile. Kile. Kile.
Time to go back to the dictionary to look up definitions for 'stereotype' and 'cliche'. |
Edited by - JimF on 12/07/2002 08:58:23 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Partisan Politics
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
