World Politics

[patricknd]

That is not a jump for scott.. he was raised to levitate that one with ease..when scott was 4 he was the first kid on the block to use the n word..he was so cute!!!!

i don't know red. looks suspiciously like Louisiana to me....

 

[redtreviso]

i don't know red. looks suspiciously like Louisiana to me....

probably one of scott's uncles was from Pineville.

 

[patricknd]

probably one of scott's uncles was from Pineville.

we missed you for a few days. i was afraid you got arrested for agitating or organizing voters or something.... glad to see you're well.

 

[Anonymous]

Again and 'cause I'm lazy...I wouldn't be surprised if the increase in illegitmacy, unemployment, etc. has increased in other races at the same rate in regions of chronic poverty. Beverly Hills for instance; how many single-family or non-married families exist and how many illegitmate kids as a percentage of children? There is probably an increase even in that region more related to overall social issues. Mixing old statistics and the claim that a "minimum wage" is somehow directly correlative to illegitimacy or unemployment is nonsense. Washington State has one of the highest minimum wages in the country and an unusually high amount of unemployed, white realtors and mortgage brokers. Does that suggest that the high minimum wage provides a disincentive for these folks to sell and finance real estate?

You have missed the point. Government mandated minimum wage has destroyed entry level jobs. Youth unemployment these days is a real problem particularly in inner city communities.

Similarly, government programs have had the unintended consequence of hurting famiies they are supposed to help by providing financial incentive to not marry, incentive to have more kids, etc.

 

[redtreviso]

Republican flight attendant

"""You would never be able to open an aircraft door during flight because of the speed the aircraft is going, and throwing people out of planes on movies is a load of crap.

In real life, you, along with most objects and people inside the cabin/galley, would get sucked out due to the force of gravity. Common sense! But we flight attendants are trained to open aircraft doors whilst in flight! It's simple: descend lower and lower when the aircraft has slowed down and is low enough to allow objects to remain inside the aircraft you can open the door.

Do not attempt it because you will be arrested or you, along with the hundreds of other souls on board could die as the gravity (force) will get inside the cabin and start pulling the aircraft faster toward the ground!"


To summarize: If you open the exit door in flight, gravity from the outside will leak into the plane and pull it down to the ground.
""

 

[Hugh Januss]

Milton Friedman spoke at length about incentive.

Yeah nothing like the good old incentive of the slavery system, work for nothing, all day, or starve.

Yeah of course couples will stay together when they can't go anywhere else.

 

[redtreviso]

John McDonogh

White people would not go to his funeral

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDonogh


McDonogh was a slaveholder. In 1822 he devised a manumission scheme by which his slaves could buy their freedom. The process took about 15 years; thus he was able to profit from their labor before he set them free.[5] McDonogh was also active in, and contributed to, the American Colonization Society, which enabled freed black slaves to emigrate back to Africa.[3][5] McDonogh used the Society to provide passage to Liberia for many of his former slaves

 

[Bala Verde]

Huckabee's History of Amurrica...EEK

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah nothing like the good old incentive of the slavery system, work for nothing, all day, or starve.

Yeah of course couples will stay together when they can't go anywhere else.

All of which goes to show you know nothing of Friedman or Williams (except what someone else has written about what they have written...).

Krugman?? A man amongst children. Have I got that right, err Wright?

 

[Oldman]

You have missed the point. Government mandated minimum wage has destroyed entry level jobs. Youth unemployment these days is a real problem particularly in inner city communities.Similarly, government programs have had the unintended consequence of hurting famiies they are supposed to help by providing financial incentive to not marry, incentive to have more kids, etc.

The bold part is a sweeping postulate considering each state sets their own minimum wage. Southeast states typically have the lowest minimum wages, highest recivitist unemployment and lowest levels of academic performance. You place someone with no examples of self improvement in an environment and convince them that procreation is the way to survival and you're surprised at the result? So you cut out the minor dollars of welfare and don't pursue the deadbeat dads and what do you end up with, an improvement?

Your intimation that this is an typical urban phenomenon is completely off base and that race is a specific contributing factor is, again; missing the trend. More poor people are begetting more poor people from every region, race and religion because the ecomomic disparity is increasing. That's a more relevant correlation than "minimum wage".

 

[redtreviso]

The bold part is a sweeping postulate considering each state sets their own minimum wage. Southeast states typically have the lowest minimum wages, highest recivitist unemployment and lowest levels of academic performance. You place someone with no examples of self improvement in an environment and convince them that procreation is the way to survival and you're surprised at the result? So you cut out the minor dollars of welfare and don't pursue the deadbeat dads and what do you end up with, an improvement?

Your intimation that this is an typical urban phenomenon is completely off base and that race is a specific contributing factor is, again; missing the trend. More poor people are begetting more poor people from every region, race and religion because the ecomomic disparity is increasing. That's a more relevant correlation than "minimum wage".

But the Koch brothers are promoting scott's pov..he's just poodling for them..thinks he'll get a star for his forehead.

 

[rhubroma]

Untold millions owe it to the form of government you advocate that they have been utterly destroyed, with their appallingly corrupt bureaucratic methods. That's the truth.

Instead of (just) my opinion, I will give you another...

Walter Williams interviewed by the WSJ;




http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704881304576094221050061598.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

Place people in a society that doesn't give a damn about them for a few centuries and this is what you get. A state welfare system, or lack there of, has got nothing to do with it. Because it has to do with an integration that was always missing and has never fully taken place. There is thus a part of American society to which a dignified life has been much more gauranteed as a result of history, environement and race; and another that was marginalized and gauranteed nothing for the same reasons. While the state allowed first slavery and then apartheid to flourish without hindrance till the civil rights movements, and then it acted in many places only with great reluctance.

And this is precisely what has led to the disaster, for which you have class in American society that does extremely well, or relatively so, and another that gets simply left behind. The ghettoization of America's urban centers has been the result. So too has the disparity in wealth between the North and South.

To further exacerbate the situation has been the culture of hyper-individualism, your kind advocates, that says that only I exist and to hell with everybody else, let them fend for themselves, which is such a crude polemic that it isn't even worth discussing in the context of a civilized society. Unfortunately, we are foced to do so. Thus it is rather the absence of a state that works toward the collective well-being, instead of one following an agenda that caters to the corporate plutocracy and individual private wealth, which is where the real problem arises. So if the state bureaucracy has ruined the lives of millions, as you suggest, it is actually because it was absent and not doing its job.

In any case it is a lack of integration and inclusiveness, not welfare, that's problematical.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Place people in a society that doesn't give a damn about them for a few centuries and this is what you get.

Except this is not what we got until "the society" started to act like it gave a damn.

The state also has "cared" for the Native Americans. All that "caring" has been even more destructive to them than the "caring" received by the blacks. Life on the reservations would be much worse if they didn't have those casinos infusing their economies.

Let's not forget the effect the state's war on drugs has had on the black community as well.

Few would argue that blacks have not benefited from the repeal of discriminatory law. But everything else the state has done "for" them has arguably been more destructive than helpful.

 

[rhubroma]

Except this is not what we got until "the society" started to act like it gave a damn.

The state also has "cared" for the Native Americans. All that "caring" has been even more destructive to them than the "caring" received by the blacks. Life on the reservations would be much worse if they didn't have those casinos infusing their economies.

Let's not forget the effect the state's war on drugs has had on the black community as well.

Few would argue that blacks have not benefited from the repeal of discriminatory law. But everything else the state has done "for" them has arguably been more destructive than helpful.

My point was about non-integration. You mentioned the issue about the native Americans, which is another tragic case.

For the government and so called well bred society, historically these people were simply an obtacle to be removed (first by means of mass murders and then by being placed on reservations) and, like blacks, could not possibly have benifited from modern state social and welfare programs. These are rescue initiatives in extremis, which can't make up for historically not having existed within mainstream society in an all too recent past.

Before you can have social programs that actually provide needed assistance where individual efforts aren't enough, in a functional and not disfunctional manner, you first have to have a society in which each individual feels part of the greater whole and, in an egalitarian sense, is participating within a collective destiny. But this wasn't the case with the groups mentioned and, in many ways, still is not.

This hasn't anything to do with rich vs. poor per se, but a country in which the government for far too long really didn't consider all of its citizens as full members of a society working toward a common future.

Still less does it have anything to do with "caring", but being civilized.

 

[Anonymous]

The bold part is a sweeping postulate considering each state sets their own minimum wage. Southeast states typically have the lowest minimum wages, highest recivitist unemployment and lowest levels of academic performance. You place someone with no examples of self improvement in an environment and convince them that procreation is the way to survival and you're surprised at the result? So you cut out the minor dollars of welfare and don't pursue the deadbeat dads and what do you end up with, an improvement?

Your intimation that this is an typical urban phenomenon is completely off base and that race is a specific contributing factor is, again; missing the trend. More poor people are begetting more poor people from every region, race and religion because the ecomomic disparity is increasing. That's a more relevant correlation than "minimum wage".

When I write 'Government' I am including States.

Would it surprise you to know youth unemployment is higher in 'enlightened' States (Cali, Oregon, Washington) than in the Southeast?

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=12406207e3a3291f93ce306f2aca0650

You place someone with no examples of self improvement in an environment and convince them that procreation is the way to survival and you're surprised at the result?

I am not at all surprised that generational welfare recipients have a difficult time. BTW, who (besides govt programs) is convincing anyone that procreation is the way to survive?

More poor people are begetting more poor people from every region, race and religion because the ecomomic disparity is increasing

I acknowledge the economic disparity but I don't agree that this is the sole reason for 'poor people begetting more poor people'. After several decades of the war on poverty in the US there has been a relatively constant 35 - 37 million people living in poverty despite the trillions of public dollars spent. Now we see a statistically significant increase in the poverty rate both as a percentage and real number (around 41.5 million Americans). If you want to hide and blame this on an economic disparity then feel free. The key to helping the poor is a thriving economy where unemployment rates are low because private business is expanding.

 

[Anonymous]

Place people in a society that doesn't give a damn about them for a few centuries and this is what you get. A state welfare system, or lack there of, has got nothing to do with it. Because it has to do with an integration that was always missing and has never fully taken place. There is thus a part of American society to which a dignified life has been much more gauranteed as a result of history, environement and race; and another that was marginalized and gauranteed nothing for the same reasons. While the state allowed first slavery and then apartheid to flourish without hindrance till the civil rights movements, and then it acted in many places only with great reluctance.

And this is precisely what has led to the disaster, for which you have class in American society that does extremely well, or relatively so, and another that gets simply left behind. The ghettoization of America's urban centers has been the result. So too has the disparity in wealth between the North and South.

To further exacerbate the situation has been the culture of hyper-individualism, your kind advocates, that says that only I exist and to hell with everybody else, let them fend for themselves, which is such a crude polemic that it isn't even worth discussing in the context of a civilized society. Unfortunately, we are foced to do so. Thus it is rather the absence of a state that works toward the collective well-being, instead of one following an agenda that caters to the corporate plutocracy and individual private wealth, which is where the real problem arises. So if the state bureaucracy has ruined the lives of millions, as you suggest, it is actually because it was absent and not doing its job.

In any case it is a lack of integration and inclusiveness, not welfare, that's problematical.

To further exacerbate the situation has been the culture of hyper-individualism, your kind advocates, that says that only I exist and to hell with everybody else, let them fend for themselves, which is such a crude polemic that it isn't even worth discussing in the context of a civilized society.

This is just weak. I have a responsibility first to provide for myself and family before I look to government redistribution. I have an obligation to help others who can not provide for themselves. That is hardly what you describe.

I realize you need to denigrate those you disagree with but let's try and keep it somewhat accurate, shall we?

 

[redtreviso]

This is just weak. I have a responsibility first to provide for myself and family before I look to government redistribution. I have an obligation to help others who can not provide for themselves. That is hardly what you describe.

I realize you need to denigrate those you disagree with but let's try and keep it somewhat accurate, shall we?

bwahhhaaaaa...poor put upon you..Do you ever hold a door open for someone?
(without saying to yourself "what is in it for me?") "What did that person ever do to deserve ME taking MY time and putting out MY effort to help them?" "They owe ME already"

 

[Anonymous]

bwahhhaaaaa...poor put upon you..Do you ever hold a door open for someone?
(without saying to yourself "what is in it for me?") "What did that person ever do to deserve ME taking MY time and putting out MY effort to help them?" "They owe ME already"

Look who's whining. Lotsa Boogeymen in your world.

You've got the Alinskyisms down pretty well.

 

[redtreviso]

Look who's whining. Lotsa Boogeymen in your world.

You've got the Alinskyisms down pretty well.

Those are your Randisms..The Catcher in the Rye for the pathologically selfish.

 

[redtreviso]

"""The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted.

They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

---

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it.

---

Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of:

---

But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.""

--------Obviously not Ayn Rand huh?

 

[Oldman]

When I write 'Government' I am including States.

Would it surprise you to know youth unemployment is higher in 'enlightened' States (Cali, Oregon, Washington) than in the Southeast?

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=12406207e3a3291f93ce306f2aca0650




I am not at all surprised that generational welfare recipients have a difficult time. BTW, who (besides govt programs) is convincing anyone that procreation is the way to survive?



I acknowledge the economic disparity but I don't agree that this is the sole reason for 'poor people begetting more poor people'. After several decades of the war on poverty in the US there has been a relatively constant 35 - 37 million people living in poverty despite the trillions of public dollars spent. Now we see a statistically significant increase in the poverty rate both as a percentage and real number (around 41.5 million Americans). If you want to hide and blame this on an economic disparity then feel free. The key to helping the poor is a thriving economy where unemployment rates are low because private business is expanding.

While I agree on the basis for lowering unemployment statistics you must remember the old adage: "there are statistics and then there are damn statistics". Your referenced state by state unemployment statistics show an comparable increase in youth unemployment in Washington for both blacks and whites. In California the statistics show a decrease in black teenage unemployment.
Agreeing with you again on the economic disparity as a sole contributor; of course not but it is a damning constant in extreme downturns. The lower entrants to the emerging "middle class" pretty much disappear in extreme economic dips and that isn't reflected in unemployment statistics, necessarily. Assuming they don't slip into the poverty levels again is ignoring the fine line of economic improvement required to show some statistical difference. The reality is on the streets and it involves all kids, most of which may never have enjoyed benefits of any government program.

 

[redtreviso]

""Didn’t know Jewish Republicans even existed.

Jews voted for zero, I couldn’t care less what they think about conservtive candidates.

I have little respect for Americanized Jews. They are just out to pad their wealth on the backs of anyone the dems choose to misuse. To these “intellectuals” I say go the he!! back to Israel and leave us patriots to clean up the mess ya’ll have created.

Sarah has been known at least by me as the most pro-Israel (possible) candidate for the nomination. Other than converting, I don’t see what she could do more for these people.

For whatever reason, Jews seem to be terrified of any person or party that promotes traditional, conservative values - particularly if they are Christian (or anything not Jewish). American Jews vote secular leftist and that isn’t going to change, so why bother caring what this group thinks.""

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2717779/posts#comment

 

[Anonymous]

"""The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted.

They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

---

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it.

---

Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of:

---

But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.""

--------Obviously not Ayn Rand huh?

So what's stopping you (and Ben Franklin disciples) from getting out your checkbook?

Meanwhile in the real world;

Effective income tax rate in 2008 as function of taxable income. The two most common filing statuses are shown: single (black curve) and married filing jointly (red curve). The dashed green line represents the maximum tax rate.

So while we are at it why don't you enlighten me. What should the income tax rates be?

Oh, and another thing... I'm guessing the Daily Kos or MoveOn did'nt post this Franklin quote;

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

Or this one;

History affords us many instances of the ruin of states, by the prosecution of measures ill suited to the temper and genius of their people. The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy... These measures never fail to create great and violent jealousies and animosities between the people favored and the people oppressed; whence a total separation of affections, interests, political obligations, and all manner of connections, by which the whole state is weakened.

Or

There are two Passions which have a powerful Influence in the Affairs of Men. These are Ambition and Avarice; the Love of Power, and the Love of Money. Separately each of these has great Force in prompting Men to Action; but when united in View of the same Object, they have in many Minds the most violent Effect. Place before the Eyes of such Men a [Post] of Honor that shall at the same time be a Place of Profit, and they will move Heaven and Earth to obtain it.

 

[patricknd]

"""The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted.

They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

---

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it.

---

Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of:

---

But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.""

--------Obviously not Ayn Rand huh?

cool. does this mean i can have your stuff? if it's for my welfare?

 

[Oldman]

""Didn’t know Jewish Republicans even existed.

Jews voted for zero, I couldn’t care less what they think about conservtive candidates.

I have little respect for Americanized Jews. They are just out to pad their wealth on the backs of anyone the dems choose to misuse. To these “intellectuals” I say go the he!! back to Israel and leave us patriots to clean up the mess ya’ll have created.

Sarah has been known at least by me as the most pro-Israel (possible) candidate for the nomination. Other than converting, I don’t see what she could do more for these people.

For whatever reason, Jews seem to be terrified of any person or party that promotes traditional, conservative values - particularly if they are Christian (or anything not Jewish). American Jews vote secular leftist and that isn’t going to change, so why bother caring what this group thinks.""

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2717779/posts#comment

There are some broad and well-informed minds behind those quotes. Good example of what a narrow media exposure does for opinions.