Senate Rejects Lower Estate Taxes

[Nathan Brazil]

Senate Rejects Lower Estate Taxes - Washington Times (http://washtimes.com/national/20060608-014400-6534r.htm)
Senators voted today to reject a Republican effort to shrink taxes on inherited estates during this election year.

Republican leaders had pushed senators to end the tax once and for all. It disappears in 2010 under President Bush's first tax cut but rears up again a year later.

"This death tax is unfair," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee.

A 57-41 vote fell three votes short of advancing the bill.

So, whose money is it? The family and children of the deceased, the beneficiaries defined in the deceased's will, or Harry Reid's?

Clearly, it's the dead guy's money, and he should be able to leave it to whomever he wishes, without them having to pay an extra tax just because the government's miffed that it didn't get a cut.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I don't understand why a super majority of 60 was necessary to advance this.

[Nathan Brazil]

I don't understand why a super majority of 60 was necessary to advance this.


I'm guessing, but it could have been a cloture vote, ie, a vote needed to close the debate and bring the matter up for a final vote.

[DHard3006]

Why do the leftist aka progressives want to tax what people inherited? Are they mad because their parents did not save anÂ*Â*inheritance for them?
Today on leftist aka progressive radio I listen while a leftist aka progressive cried about rich people getting money untaxed that their parents made. Of course they used the really rich as an example.
How many people that worked hard all of their life earning under 50 grand a year and saved a nest egg in the 500,000 range are taxed on this inheritance? Are there more people like this then the super rich the leftist aka progressives want to tax?
So a lot of hard working people that want to leave a nest egg for their kids are taxed just because the leftist aka progressives want to tax a few super rich people. More perverted leftist aka progressive logic for you.
It is not like these people that inherit money are not going to spend that . It will be taxed when they spend it.

[penmyst]

Leftists hate the "regular" folk having money. Money = freedom from the leftist agendas and arguments, thereby significantly hampering their ability to gain power.

Everytime I hear some misinformed person claim that Republicans are the party of the "rich" and Democrats are for the "little guy"- I chuckle. Many of the filthiest rich people in the country are Democrats. Hollywood is 90% Democrats, many of the very richest are unabashedly leftist Dems. Many billionaires like George Soros, or millionaires like the Kennedys etc. are Dems. And most of them support regressive taxing and other assorted gov't controls that are supposedly to hurt the "rich". Yet mostly these types of schemes end up targetting and hurting the rich that are in the 100,000-400,000 dollar ranges. Not exactly the "filthy" rich, yeah?

Estate taxes are just another money grab by gov't house for cash that they had ZERO effort or risk involved to create. Money = power and that's why gov't house simply can't control themselves at any chance to take (or keep) more control over our lives.

[Alonzo]

Leftists hate the "regular" folk having money. Money = freedom from the leftist agendas and arguments, thereby significantly hampering their ability to gain power.


Ya, that's it. That's why leftists never want to raise taxes for the rich or lower them for the poor and working class. No leftist would ever suggest those things.

[Labrocca]

Taxes are already pretty low for the poor. As a matter of fact if you are in the poor/poverty level you pay ZERO taxes. If you get a few kids like me you have earn lots of credits as well. My family makes reasonable income and I consider our taxes low. As least I do now that Bush lowered them. I was paying more under Clinton.

[DHard3006]

Ya, that's it. That's why leftists never want to raise taxes for the rich or lower them for the poor and working class. No leftist would ever suggest those things.
This is about the inheritance tax, not all taxes. This is about money parents earn to leave their children. The leftist aka progressives want to tax a few super rich families and to do that the leftist aka progressives will tax hard working middle class families. This is how screwed up the leftist aka progressives are!

[Alonzo]

Taxes are already pretty low for the poor. As a matter of fact if you are in the poor/poverty level you pay ZERO taxes.Â*Â*If you get a few kids like me you have earn lots of credits as well. My family makes reasonable income and I consider our taxes low.Â*Â*As least I do now that Bush lowered them.Â*Â*I was paying more under Clinton.


Well, I didn't deny they're lower many of the poor, even if they're not as low as I'd like. My point was suggesting that liberals don't want "regular folk" to have money was absurd.

This is about the inheritance tax, not all taxes. This is about money parents earn to leave their children. The leftist aka progressives want to tax a few super rich families and to do that the leftist aka progressives will tax hard working middle class families. This is how screwed up the leftist aka progressives are!

What is with the "leftist aka progressives" bit? Is there a point I'm missing, or do you just like using unnecessarily long labels?

But, not very many working class families will be affected:

Today, the estate tax affects less than 2 percent of the richest households, those with wealth exceeding $1 million. A reformed estate tax, with wealth exemptions boosted to $3.5 million, would still generate tens of billions of dollars of revenue a year. Under such a reform, an estimated 6,000 estates a year, averaging $17 million each, would pay the tax. In Maine, Montana, Alaska and Mississippi--states where both senators have voted to completely eliminate the tax--the estimated number of estates paying the tax every year would be fewer than twenty-five.

Proposals to reform the tax have been blocked since 2000 by the "all or nothing" repeal lobby, which understands the peril of not having smaller estates as camouflage. Once exemptions rise above $3 million, it becomes impossible to find a credible and photogenic farmer or restaurant owner who will complain about what opponents call the "death tax." It's hard enough to find them now. The pro-repeal American Farm Bureau was asked to produce an example of a farmer who had lost a farm because of the estate tax. It could not identify a single one.

www.thenation.com/doc/20030127/gates+%22inheritance+tax%22+million&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6

We already have a massive deficit as it is, we don't need to cut taxes more than we already have.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You'll never understand 'zo.

Revenues increase each and every single time you lower tax rates.

The evidence is staggering and irrefutable.

Do you sell more DVD's at $30 or $15. Do you sell more computers at $1,000 or $699. Lower rates, lower prices, spur more economic activity.

The more money moves, the more it turns over or changes hands the more it is taxed.

Someone that makes $100 and doesn't spend it results in nothing. Someone that spends it pays sales tax. The person that made that $100 pays $80 to a supplier. That $20 he made he's taxed on. He spends the remainder it's also taxed. The supplier that made $80 pays profit on his margins, more tax. He employs people for payroll purposes, that money is taxed again, they spend it, taxed again.

The more money is moved, the more it turns over the more revenue is collected.

You raise taxes people sit on their money. No movement, no taxes.

It's so simple it's painful for economic idiots to understand.

[bobbylien]

Why do the leftist aka progressives want to tax what people inherited? Are they mad because their parents did not save an inheritance for them?
Today on leftist aka progressive radio I listen while a leftist aka progressive cried about rich people getting money untaxed that their parents made. Of course they used the really rich as an example.
How many people that worked hard all of their life earning under 50 grand a year and saved a nest egg in the 500,000 range are taxed on this inheritance? Are there more people like this then the super rich the leftist aka progressives want to tax?
So a lot of hard working people that want to leave a nest egg for their kids are taxed just because the leftist aka progressives want to tax a few super rich people. More perverted leftist aka progressive logic for you.
It is not like these people that inherit money are not going to spend that . It will be taxed when they spend it.

This won't effect the average joe who worked and earned 500,000$. This will effect multi-millionares who want to give their children a lot of money. I think the estate tax is wrong. Leave the rich alone, they shouldnt have to pay a higher tax rate than anyone else.

[Alonzo]

You'll never understand 'zo.

Revenues increase each and every single time you lower tax rates.

The evidence is staggering and irrefutable.

Do you sell more DVD's at $30 or $15.Â*Â*Do you sell more computers at $1,000 or $699.Â*Â*Lower rates, lower prices, spur more economic activity.Â*Â*

The more money moves, the more it turns over or changes hands the more it is taxed.

Someone that makes $100 and doesn't spend it results in nothing.Â*Â*Someone that spends it pays sales tax.Â*Â*The person that made that $100 pays $80 to a supplier.Â*Â*That $20 he made he's taxed on.Â*Â*He spends the remainder it's also taxed.Â*Â*The supplier that made $80 pays profit on his margins, more tax.Â*Â*He employs people for payroll purposes, that money is taxed again, they spend it, taxed again.

The more money is moved, the more it turns over the more revenue is collected.

You raise taxes people sit on their money.Â*Â*No movement, no taxes.

It's so simple it's painful for economic idiots to understand.


That's the problem, most wealthier people are more likely to invest it than spend when they have extra money due to lower taxes.

Though I can't help but feel you're just baiting people here, as you can't honestly believe that each and every single time taxes where cut revenues increased, or, the seemingly implied alternative, that tax increases are always harmful. No sane person can be that absolute, and no sane liberal would be so absolute in suggesting the opposite.

[DHard3006]

This won't effect the average joe who worked and earned 500,000$. This will effect multi-millionares who want to give their children a lot of money. I think the estate tax is wrong. Leave the rich alone, they shouldnt have to pay a higher tax rate than anyone else.

Typical leftist aka progressive double talk. I know from experience. But like all leftist aka progressive you keep sticking it to the super rich guys while you hurt more hard working people then super rich guys.
Leftist aka progressive are one pissed off bunch of AHOLES! Blinded by your hatred for rich people like all leftist aka progressives you will harm more hard working people trying to leave their kids money then super rich guys!

[bobbylien]

This won't effect the average joe who worked and earned 500,000$. This will effect multi-millionares who want to give their children a lot of money. I think the estate tax is wrong. Leave the rich alone, they shouldnt have to pay a higher tax rate than anyone else.

Typical leftist aka progressive double talk. I know from experience. But like all leftist aka progressive you keep sticking it to the super rich guys while you hurt more hard working people then super rich guys.
Leftist aka progressive are one pissed off bunch of AHOLES! Blinded by your hatred for rich people like all leftist aka progressives you will harm more hard working people trying to leave their kids money then super rich guys!

I'm not a liberal you idiot. Is it impossible for someone to disagree with you without being called a lol "leftist aka progressive." I also said that I DON'T SUPPORT THE ESTATE TAX. Get your facts straight before you start talking. You are worse than ratasman or whatever that morons name was.

[DHard3006]

Hey braindead leftist aka progressive below if your moronic post:

This won't effect the average joe who worked and earned 500,000$. This will effect multi-millionares who want to give their children a lot of money. I think the estate tax is wrong. Leave the rich alone, they shouldnt have to pay a higher tax rate than anyone else.

Now stupid leftist aka progressive how hard is it for you to comprehend I know from expereince?
You are one stupid fuck!

[bobbylien]

Hey braindead leftist aka progressive below if your moronic post:

This won't effect the average joe who worked and earned 500,000$. This will effect multi-millionares who want to give their children a lot of money. I think the estate tax is wrong. Leave the rich alone, they shouldnt have to pay a higher tax rate than anyone else.

Now stupid leftist aka progressive how hard is it for you to comprehend I know from expereince?
You are one stupid fuck!

What? I cant understand you... love the swearing. :rolleyes:

[Alonzo]

Hey braindead leftist aka progressive below if your moronic post:

Now stupid leftist aka progressive how hard is it for you to comprehend I know from expereince?
You are one stupid f_ck!

DH, do you actually intend to show people you have a brain, or are you just going to make attacks on anyone who does not mimic your opinion as a "braindead leftist aka progressive"?

[Nathan Brazil]

We already have a massive deficit as it is, we don't need to cut taxes more than we already have.


Taxes should be cut until there's a moral reason to stop cutting.Â*Â*Not having enough money in the treasury to finance some "progressive" notion of "charity", or Ted Turner's farm, isn't justification for raising taxes on ANYONE.

Deficits should be the reason to cut spending on luxuries. They should never be a reason to raise taxes while buying luxuries.

Luxuries: welfare payments, farm/oil/business subsidies, drugs for seniors plans, congressional pay raises, retirement packages or gym priveleges, FEMA, education, national endowment boondoggles, public broadcasting, and all sorts of other stuff.

Get rid of the unconstitutional crap, see what happens to the surpluses then, and cut taxes even more.

No, the average citizen doesn't have any obligation whatsoever to take care of anyone not himself or his family. He and his family have absolutely no basis for demanding that others take care of him.

[Alonzo]

So your goal is just to cut taxes so everyone pays less to the government. So when disasters hit, people be damned. If your poor and your parents can't afford education, well I guess you'll stay poor. If you're old and can't afford medicine, guess you better get in touch with a mortician.

Well, I will say one thing, you have an excellent system set up for ensuring that the rest of the world surpasses america in virtually every field.

Taxes should be cut until there's a moral reason to stop cutting.

Morality is subjective.

[Nathan Brazil]

So your goal is just to cut taxes so everyone pays less to the government. So when disasters hit, people be damned. If your poor and your parents can't afford education, well I guess you'll stay poor. If you're old and can't afford medicine, guess you better get in touch with a mortician.

If you're poor, ...it's not my problem, is it? What has a poor person done for me lately?

Nothing, so why should I be required to pay for them?

Think of it as an incentive for people to not be poor.

As for disasters, ....what has that poor person done for me lately that requires me to face jail if I don't pay to support them?

Morality is subjective.


No, morality is an absolute, unless you're a leftist using moral relativism to engineer immoral projects.

Real moral absolutes:

If they're not a threat to life and limb, you're not allowed to kill them.

If you don't own it, it's not yours. Stealing's not allowed. This includes taxes.

Don't initiate violence.

Morally relative precepts, like the nonsense that I should be forced to care for the useless when they've done nothing for me, that babies should be murdered when it's convenient for their incubators, that nonsense about how the good of the individual must be sacrificed for the good of the whole, are all illogical emotional agenda driven nonsense.

[Nathan Brazil]

That's the problem, most wealthier people are more likely to invest it than spend when they have extra money due to lower taxes.

Yeah, those evil wealthy people. When they invest their "unearned" money, they invest in things like the insides of mattresses, tin cans in the back yard, and holes in the wall. They never ever put their multi-million dollar inheritances into capital for business, R & D efforts, stocks, bonds, or anything other activity that might involve hiring people, creating new jobs or new markets for new businesses. So naturally it's okay for the government to take the money, so it can grow at a negative percentage, feed endless bureaucrats, and fade away into nothing at all.

[Alonzo]

If you're poor, ...it's not my problem, is it?Â*Â*What has a poor person done for me lately?

Nothing, so why should I be required to pay for them?

Think of it as an incentive for people to not be poor.

As for disasters, ....what has that poor person done for me lately that requires me to face jail if I don't pay to support them?

Yes, since so many aspire to poverty :rolleyes:.

If you have more poverty, a less educated population, the country loses. Crime increases, there are less doctors, scientists etc. When every other developed country remains as it is, the u.s. would fall further and further behind, and we are already struggling in producing top tiered talent in many fields.

No, morality is an absolute, unless you're a leftist using moral relativism to engineer immoral projects.

Real moral absolutes:

If they're not a threat to life and limb, you're not allowed to kill them.

If you don't own it, it's not yours.Â*Â*Stealing's not allowed.Â*Â* This includes taxes.

Don't initiate violence.

Morally relative precepts, like the nonsense that I should be forced to care for the useless when they've done nothing for me, that babies should be murdered when it's convenient for their incubators, that nonsense about how the good of the individual must be sacrificed for the good of the whole, are all illogical emotional agenda driven nonsense.


On what are you basing morality? If it's absolute, then it must have a source other than your own thought. If it's purely what you think, then there's no way to know which one is correct when two people disagree.

Yeah, those evil wealthy people. When they invest their "unearned" money, they invest in things like the insides of mattresses, tin cans in the back yard, and holes in the wall. They never ever put their multi-million dollar inheritances into capital for business, R & D efforts, stocks, bonds, or anything other activity that might involve hiring people, creating new jobs or new markets for new businesses. So naturally it's okay for the government to take the money, so it can grow at a negative percentage, feed endless bureaucrats, and fade away into nothing at all.

You see no point in improving the general welfare of the population. Economic growth is more important than quality of jobs or anything else. If money is locked up in stocks and bonds, instead of schools and hospitals, that's a bonus for you.

[penmyst]

"Locked up in stocks and bonds" is a bad thing??

Maybe you don't comprehend what "invest" means?

That money being invested in stocks and bonds is what provides capital for those companies (or whomever is floating the bond) to run their business or improve their services.

Running their business includes things like expansion, research and development for new products or techniques, business improvements etc. Those things usually result in growth of the company. Those benefits reach across the economic board.

Something that Rush Limbaugh has said before, and that liberals either can't or won't understand- is that the economic pie is not limited. The economy is not a zero-sum game. When businesses grow, the "pie" grows and there is more slices to go around. That's why business growth is important. And that growth happens mostly via that money "locked up in stocks and bonds". That growth is also stifled by heavy gov't taxation or control.

I firmly believe any penny is better utilized in the hands of the private sector than in the hands of bureaucrats. It's been proven over and over again throughout the history of mankind. The guys that penned the Constitution understood that government was a necessary evil and one that ought to be limited as much as possible. The ceaseless and unending power grabs (via taking our money) that we see today are rock-solid proof that those gentlemen knew what the hell they were talking about.

[Nathan Brazil]

On what are you basing morality? If it's absolute, then it must have a source other than your own thought. If it's purely what you think, then there's no way to know which one is correct when two people disagree.

Source? It's based on the reality that no man is born superior to others. Besides me, I mean. The moral absolutes I spell out apply to lesser beings than God, of course. Any reading of the Bible will tell you that God is one of the most immoral people around.

Start with this axiom: "All men are born equal" - meaning born with no magical priveleges over others, and see what develops.

You see no point in improving the general welfare of the population. Economic growth is more important than quality of jobs or anything else. If money is locked up in stocks and bonds, instead of schools and hospitals, that's a bonus for you.


Of course I do. The best way to raise the level of the population is to allow each individual to maximize his potential to profit from expanding and exploiting his personal skillset and advantages. (America until FDR)

Babying them, coddling them, being their nanny? The best and time-honored way of expanding the parasite classes. (America since FDR raped the Constitution)

Funny, isn't it, how it took more than 150 years for the magical meaning of the "general welfare" clause to morph into meaning taxpayer support for parasites and the useless?

[Alonzo]

Source?Â*Â*It's based on the reality that no man is born superior to others.Â*Â*Besides me, I mean.Â*Â*The moral absolutes I spell out apply to lesser beings than God, of course.Â*Â*Any reading of the Bible will tell you that God is one of the most immoral people around.

Start with this axiom: "All men are born equal" - meaning born with no magical priveleges over others, and see what develops.Â*Â*

Considering your views on "enemy civilians" I think I adopt that line much better than you. The problem is you don't seem to want to do anything to ensure people have the ability to improve their lives.

Of course I do.Â*Â*The best way to raise the level of the population is to allow each individual to maximize his potential to profit from expanding and exploiting his personal skillset and advantages. (America until FDR)

Babying them, coddling them, being their nanny?Â*Â*The best and time-honored way of expanding the parasite classes. (America since FDR raped the Constitution)

Funny, isn't it, how it took more than 150 years for the magical meaning of the "general welfare" clause to morph into meaning taxpayer support for parasites and the useless?


Before fdr we had more poverty and the poverty was worse. Allowing people the opportunity to get things that they can't afford (i.e. college education, day care, food, after school programs) can have very beneficial results on their lives.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You see no point in improving the general welfare of the population. Economic growth is more important than quality of jobs or anything else. If money is locked up in stocks and bonds, instead of schools and hospitals, that's a bonus for you.

What funds hospitals and schools?

Answer: Municipal bonds.

What funds quality jobs?

Answer: Stocks

Your economic education is woefully lacking.

[rastaman]

You see no point in improving the general welfare of the population. Economic growth is more important than quality of jobs or anything else. If money is locked up in stocks and bonds, instead of schools and hospitals, that's a bonus for you.

What funds hospitals and schools?

Answer: Municipal bonds.

What funds quality jobs?

Answer: Stocks

Your economic education is woefully lacking.


Municipal bonds, Stocks, and equitable taxation pays for the COMMONS.

[rastaman]

"Locked up in stocks and bonds" is a bad thing??

Maybe you don't comprehend what "invest" means?

That money being invested in stocks and bonds is what provides capital for those companies (or whomever is floating the bond) to run their business or improve their services.

Running their business includes things like expansion, research and development for new products or techniques, business improvements etc. Those things usually result in growth of the company. Those benefits reach across the economic board.

Something that Rush Limbaugh has said before, and that liberals either can't or won't understand- is that the economic pie is not limited. The economy is not a zero-sum game. When businesses grow, the "pie" grows and there is more slices to go around. That's why business growth is important. And that growth happens mostly via that money "locked up in stocks and bonds". That growth is also stifled by heavy gov't taxation or control.

I firmly believe any penny is better utilized in the hands of the private sector than in the hands of bureaucrats. It's been proven over and over again throughout the history of mankind. The guys that penned the Constitution understood that government was a necessary evil and one that ought to be limited as much as possible. The ceaseless and unending power grabs (via taking our money) that we see today are rock-solid proof that those gentlemen knew what the hell they were talking about.


Yo Gengish Kahn wanna be :P, what have you to say about the national debt and the deficit?

[Nathan Brazil]

Considering your views on "enemy civilians" I think I adopt that line much better than you. The problem is you don't seem to want to do anything to ensure people have the ability to improve their lives.

Unless you impose socialism on a society, or some other form of collectivist control that prevents the individual from profiting from his own efforts, there's no way to prevent people who want to from improving their lives.

Before fdr we had more poverty and the poverty was worse. Allowing people the opportunity to get things that they can't afford (i.e. college education, day care, food, after school programs) can have very beneficial results on their lives.


Before we had the government "helping" students go to college, college tuitions didn't balloon at a rate of 10% per year, those costs kept pace with inflation.

Day care? Why should anyone else have to pay for the support of someone else's children? Why didn't they choose to not get pregnant before they could afford to support them?

Food? Suddenly, after 150 years of independence, the Constitution has been found to include the intent that the government should be everyone's mother? People want food? Tell'em to find work that will provide them with the money to buy the food. Or tell'em to find some soft-headed charity to feed them. Feeding people isn't a legitimate function of the Federal government.

After school programs? So you want the federal government to be everyone's nanny for real, don't you?

Funny how in the 1930's the nation didn't have any afterschool programs, and didn't need them, either.

What you're discussing are items that should be possibly laudable objects of charity for a concerned society. They are not legitimate functions of a government.

[Alonzo]

Unless you impose socialism on a society, or some other form of collectivist control that prevents the individual from profiting from his own efforts, there's no way to prevent people who want to from improving their lives.

Environmental factors put significant strain on that ability. The level of drive that is needed to succeed differs on the economic class and area your family resides in. And situational factors, such as ability to afford college, family support etc. all have significant effects.

Before fdr we had more poverty and the poverty was worse. Allowing people the opportunity to get things that they can't afford (i.e. college education, day care, food, after school programs) can have very beneficial results on their lives.


Before we had the government "helping" students go to college, college tuitions didn't balloon at a rate of 10% per year, those costs kept pace with inflation.

And less people attended, or were able to attend, college then than now.

Day care?Â*Â*Why should anyone else have to pay for the support of someone else's children?Â*

Increases the chances of having productive adults who contribute to the upkeep of society, instead of feeding off it.
Â*
Why didn't they choose to not get pregnant before they could afford to support them?

Ah yes, because unplanned pregnancy is a liberal myth.

Food?Â*Â*Suddenly, after 150 years of independence, the Constitution has been found to include the intent that the government should be everyone's mother?Â*Â*People want food?Â*Â*Tell'em to find work that will provide them with the money to buy the food.Â*Â*Or tell'em to find some soft-headed charity to feed them.Â*Â*Feeding people isn't a legitimate function of the Federal government.

After school programs?Â*Â*So you want the federal government to be everyone's nanny for real, don't you?

Keeps kids off the streets and out of jail, and helps them to stay focused on school and continue their academic careers. You can pay a little now and end up with more productive tax paying adults, or pay nothing now and increase the welfare and prison populations of tomorrow.

Funny how in the 1930's the nation didn't have any afterschool programs, and didn't need them, either.

Oh yes, great time. 1930's, a quarter of the nation unemployed, families of 10 without a single high school graduate, kids quitting school to work at 14. Huge, crime ridden ethnic ghettos. Do you really want to emulate that. Do you have any idea what was going on in the 1930's? That's a really horrible defense.

What you're discussing are items that should be possibly laudable objects of charity for a concerned society.Â*Â* They are not legitimate functions of a government.


Charities are not capable of providing such alrge scale programs, and there is a significant humiliation factor often involved. That's fine when you punish adults, but the kids can't decide for themselves. They themselves lobby for increased government funding for these programs, as many state they are stretched to their limits, if not beyond, as it is.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Oh yes, great time. 1930's, a quarter of the nation unemployed, families of 10 without a single high school graduate, kids quitting school to work at 14. Huge, crime ridden ethnic ghettos. Do you really want to emulate that. Do you have any idea what was going on in the 1930's? That's a really horrible defense.

That's what we're trying to avoid.

A decade of misery not helped by Democratic socialist policy.

[Alonzo]

That's what we're trying to avoid.

A decade of misery not helped by Democratic socialist policy.


Are you sure?

Funny how in the 1930's the nation didn't have any afterschool programs, and didn't need them, either.


It doesn't sound like he wants to avoid that misery. I think he either doesn't know what he's talking about at all, or is confusing the 20's with the 30's.

Though I think Hoovers refusal to do much of anything contributed more to the poverty, especially his insistance that caring for the massive amounts of impoverished people was the responsibility of volunteer workers. There were two ideologies major present at the time, and hoovers laissez-faire approach failed miserably.

[Nathan Brazil]

Environmental factors put significant strain on that ability. The level of drive that is needed to succeed differs on the economic class and area your family resides in. And situational factors, such as ability to afford college, family support etc. all have significant effects.

Yeah, I suppose so. I don't think the child of two alcoholic mostly unemployed parents could ever escape that cycle of self-destruction without the help of the nice kind social services lady.

Of course, I did do just that without the help of the busy bodies. If other people can't, or won't, why should anyone else care? Specifically, why should anyone be taxed to give them a hand up?

Why should the father of four, working long hours to provide his own children with what they need to thrive and survive, be given the additional burden of supporting someone else's family also?

As for "the level of drive" needed to succeed, it's clearly not the taxpayers concern if someone is motivated or not. If they are motivated, they'll probably succeed without taxpayer help. If they're not motivated, why should anyone bother with 'em?

And less people attended, or were able to attend, college then than now.

And the quality of college educations has been devalued to less than what a high-school diploma was worth because this culture has the peculiar notion that as many people as possible should go to college, even though no greater percentage of the people are capable of learning on a true collegiate level than before.

"Basket Weaving", or the equivalent "English" or "Psychology" degrees may prove that someone's gone through college, but it didn't give them any better skills at running items through the scanner at Wal-Mart. What the increased attendence at colleges means is that we have more dolts with degrees than ever before in the history of mankind.

Increases the chances of having productive adults who contribute to the upkeep of society, instead of feeding off it.

Teaching women to keep their legs closed until they're done with school and mature enough to make such decisions will increase the number of productive adults, too, and won't cost taxpayers a dime.

Teaching women to only open their legs to men with proven skills would help give males the incentive to do well in school, too. That's a law of nature, after all.

[Ah yes, because unplanned pregnancy is a liberal myth.

Got nothing to do with the problem. The real issue is that so-called "unplanned" pregnancies aren't the public's problem, and the public shouldn't be taxed to support them. And this little economic incentive will also act as a knee-bungee to some degree.

Keeps kids off the streets and out of jail, and helps them to stay focused on school and continue their academic careers. You can pay a little now and end up with more productive tax paying adults, or pay nothing now and increase the welfare and prison populations of tomorrow.

First off, we don't ever have to have in increase in the welfare population if we re-establish constitutional government and end welfare payments.

If so-called "after school" programs were such wonders, we'd have had a massive crime wave during the Depression because there was plenty of poverty and no after school programs. Didn't happen...because parents parented back then. Maybe if parents parented today they wouldn't need government parenting instead?

Whatever. If a little brat wants to be a delinquent, put his rear in reform school, and then put him in jail forever, if that's what it takes. Since the incentives to refrain from criminal behavior have been weakened....because of liberal bleeding heart policies, I do expect criminal behavior to increase temporarily if after-school programs are cancelled.

Let's hire some consultants from Singapore to show good liberals the proper use of a cane. THERE'S a soundly grounded after-school "show" for the kiddies.

Oh yes, great time. 1930's, a quarter of the nation unemployed, families of 10 without a single high school graduate, kids quitting school to work at 14. Huge, crime ridden ethnic ghettos. Do you really want to emulate that. Do you have any idea what was going on in the 1930's? That's a really horrible defense.

What crime ridden ghettoes? Got any stats?

Charities are not capable of providing such alrge scale programs, and there is a significant humiliation factor often involved.

So? Some poor slob that ain't good enough has to feel embarassed to ask for help? That sounds like a serious case of unchewable mammary to me. Should anyone care?

You mean resources for charity are limited so only those most deserving would receive it? And HORRORS! some private agency might actually use selection criteria to reject applicants? What a shame! That's what private charity is for, of course.

That's fine when you punish adults, but the kids can't decide for themselves.

I don't recall discussing punishment. Is being poor some kind of criminal act?

They themselves lobby for increased government funding for these programs, as many state they are stretched to their limits, if not beyond, as it is.

OF COURSE they lobby for funding. Getting more money is always the name of the game. That's such a big surprise. I mean, you have a liberally educated society that refuses to stress useful skills in it's primary education system, that places emphasis on unearned self-esteem, and that tells all those people they have "rights" to things that have a price, and then it's a surprise that there's too many sloths in the hammock?

How about if we engineer a society that says if someone doesn't have a useful skill or if they have to go begging there's no reason for them to be proud?

Let's resurrect that old saying "beggars can't be chosers", and dress it up with the rhyming couplet "and neither can they be voters".

[Nathan Brazil]

It doesn't sound like he wants to avoid that misery. I think he either doesn't know what he's talking about at all, or is confusing the 20's with the 30's.

Though I think Hoovers refusal to do much of anything contributed more to the poverty, especially his insistance that caring for the massive amounts of impoverished people was the responsibility of volunteer workers. There were two ideologies major present at the time, and hoovers laissez-faire approach failed miserably.

Laissez-faire didn't fail. The exact cause of the Depression was the imposition of the Federal Reserve system by Wilson. They didn't know what they were doing and first permitted the money supply to grow excessively, and then drastically trimmed it back. Voila! Disaster.

Laissez-faire couldn't have created a Depression of that magnitude because individual businesses don't have that kind of power.

As for FDR doing anything to help, he helped make it longer and deeper. What did hungry people in the cities need? More and cheaper food. What did FDR do? Destroyed produce and initiated farm price supports.

People didn't trust the currency. What did FDR do? He made it illegal for citizens to own gold, destroying any residual trust they may have had.

FDR created a depression inside the Depression because of his socialist bent. No wonder it took more than a decade to fix.

[Alonzo]

As for "the level of drive" needed to succeed, it's clearly not the taxpayers concern if someone is motivated or not.Â*Â*If they are motivated, they'll probably succeed without taxpayer help.Â*Â*If they're not motivated, why should anyone bother with 'em?

That's not true. There are many very hard working people who are living in poverty. One of my friends family comes from vietnam. His father works in a factory but he previously ran his own restaurant, but it went out of business. The mother also works and is college educated and speaks english, spanish, cantonese, mandarin, vietnamese and one other language I can't remember. They both work, yet they can only afford a small apartment.

And the level of drive simply refers to the fact that, on a scale of 10, if a middle class person gives an effort level of 5 hey'll get farther than a person living in the ghetto putting in equivalent effort.

the quality of college educations has been devalued to less than what a high-school diploma was worth because this culture has the peculiar notion that as many people as possible should go to college, even though no greater percentage of the people are capable of learning on a true collegiate level than before.

It has to do with this peculiar notion of wanting educated employees and people wanting to have better lives than a career as a miner or a factory worker.

"Basket Weaving", or the equivalent "English" or "Psychology" degrees may prove that someone's gone through college, but it didn't give them any better skills at running items through the scanner at Wal-Mart.Â*Â*What the increased attendence at colleges means is that we have more dolts with degrees than ever before in the history of mankind.

Ah yes, what a waste a psychology degree is. The whole field of counseling, psychiatry and psychology is worthless and provides absolutely no career possibilities. And, by no means would a wide range of jobs find psychology degrees useful.


Teaching women to keep their legs closed until they're done with school and mature enough to make such decisions will increase the number of productive adults, too, and won't cost taxpayers a dime.

Teaching women to only open their legs to men with proven skills would help give males the incentive to do well in school, too. That's a law of nature, after all.

It also results in men without those oppurtunities possibly becoming violent, just look up "young male syndrome".

But you have an expectation that is counter to human nature. People are going to have sex, we've never been able to stop it. We're not going to suddenly be able to do that now.

Though it's funny how people complain about women having sex, but not the men they're having it with.

Got nothing to do with the problem.Â*Â*The real issue is that so-called "unplanned" pregnancies aren't the public's problem, and the public shouldn't be taxed to support them.Â*Â*And this little economic incentive will also act as a knee-bungee to some degree.

It becomes their problem if the kid ends up a criminal, which is statistically much more likely.

First off, we don't ever have to have in increase in the welfare population if we re-establish constitutional government and end welfare payments.

Which numerous legal scholars and supreme court judges have ruled constitutional.

If so-called "after school" programs were such wonders, we'd have had a massive crime wave during the Depression because there was plenty of poverty and no after school programs.Â*Â*Didn't happen...because parents parented back then.Â*Â*Maybe if parents parented today they wouldn't need government parenting instead?

Crime has been dropping since such programs were instituted, even though it's often poor quality.

And, for all intensive purposes, there was massive crime in many areas. Mafia was all over many cities.

Whatever.Â*Â*If a little brat wants to be a delinquent, put his rear in reform school, and then put him in jail forever, if that's what it takes.Â*Â*Since the incentives to refrain from criminal behavior have been weakened....because of liberal bleeding heart policies, I do expect criminal behavior to increase temporarily if after-school programs are cancelled.

After school programs are much cheaper than the jail you advocate.

What crime ridden ghettoes?Â*Â*Got any stats?Â*Â*

Many cities were infested with organized crime such as the Mafia. My family grew up in the west end in boston (lived there from the 20's until it was torn down in the 50's) and all of them knew mafia members, including some relatively famous ones.

But homicide rates were at levels rivaled only by the late 70's/early 80's and the early 90's (the point where social programs for kids where being implemented) http://suicidemethods.net/tables/sui-homi.htm. Crime was much more centralized then though.


So?Â*Â*Some poor slob that ain't good enough has to feel embarassed to ask for help?Â*Â*That sounds like a serious case of unchewable mammary to me.Â*Â*Should anyone care?

Ya, because we all know only losers and lazy people end up poor.

And, again, the kids have no choice in the matter.

How about if we engineer a society that says if someone doesn't have a useful skill or if they have to go begging there's no reason for them to be proud?

Let's resurrect that old saying "beggars can't be chosers", and dress it up with the rhyming couplet "and neither can they be voters".


So you want to disenfranchise people and create an entire underclass of american society. That's the american spirit! :rolleyes:

[Nathan Brazil]

That's not true.

That's totally true. Did you overlook the word "probably"? There ain't no guarantee for success, not even with Uncle Sam stealing money to pay for it.

There are many very hard working people who are living in poverty. One of my friends family comes from vietnam. His father works in a factory but he previously ran his own restaurant, but it went out of business. The mother also works and is college educated and speaks english, spanish, cantonese, mandarin, vietnamese and one other language I can't remember. They both work, yet they can only afford a small apartment.

Bell curve. Not everyone can be on the right end. Not everyone is on the left end.

But there has to be someone on each end, regardless.

Maybe God hates them?

And the level of drive simply refers to the fact that, on a scale of 10, if a middle class person gives an effort level of 5 hey'll get farther than a person living in the ghetto putting in equivalent effort.

Yeah, sorta like tossing a rock up from the top of the Empire State Building compared to someone tossing a rock just as hard from the 50th floor. Guess what? That's life. Not everyone starts his elevator ride up from the penthouse. Not everyone's elevator ride gets out of the basement.

Ah yes, what a waste a psychology degree is. The whole field of counseling, psychiatry and psychology is worthless and provides absolutely no career possibilities. And, by no means would a wide range of jobs find psychology degrees useful.

Compared to a degree in engineering or physics or even business management? Yeah, they're worthless. If they weren't worthless, shrinks could make a decent living with a BA.

It also results in men without those oppurtunities possibly becoming violent, just look up "young male syndrome".

Look up "itty bitty guillotine" while you've got your dictionary out.

Also "Bubba", "Annie Oakley", and "Daddy's Got a Katana, Too".

But you have an expectation that is counter to human nature. People are going to have sex, we've never been able to stop it. We're not going to suddenly be able to do that now.

This means that people that do have self-control have to subsidize those that don't? What a nonsensical idea. People that live an uncontrolled life fully deserve to enjoy unrealized expecations.

It's good for them. They set examples without which we generate a society of people who feel that someone else owes them something they've done nothing to earn.

Though it's funny how people complain about women having sex, but not the men they're having it with.

What? Women aren't in charge of their bodies any more? I assume females are exercising their "right" to reproductive freedom when they have sex like rabbits, just like they're exercising the same freedom when they say "no".

Nor have I excluded men. I've merely pointed to the biologically evolved mechanisms that used to govern female reproductive choices.

It becomes their problem if the kid ends up a criminal, which is statistically much more likely.

Then you put the little bastard in jail, and let him rot. A bowl of rice a day, with a rotten fish on Saturday, doesn't cost much. Again, why should people that work to support themselves be expected to support those that won't work at all?

Needless to say, the crime rates weren't very high back when the gravy train hadn't been built.

Which numerous legal scholars and supreme court judges have ruled constitutional.

Oh, dear. Numerous legal scholars and judges have ruled that slaves are legitimate property and that negros can be restricted from using facilities intended for whites. You in the market to buy a nigger? It's constitutional, you know.

Crime has been dropping since such programs were instituted, even though it's often poor quality.

Crimes by children were almost non-existent before the notion of the welfare state infected this country. How about seeking a solution that addresses real causes instead of buying bandaids?

And, for all intensive purposes, there was massive crime in many areas. Mafia was all over many cities.

So that means you don't have any numbers. Okay.

Needless to say, the prominent gangs of the '20's and '30's were Prohibition related.

After school programs are much cheaper than the jail you advocate.

But...I don't care if the little buggers rot in jail. It's not about saving money, it's about the ethical treatment of my money. It's not ethical to steal money from me so the criminals stealing it can boast about how they're reducing crime.

Many cities were infested with organized crime such as the Mafia. My family grew up in the west end in boston (lived there from the 20's until it was torn down in the 50's) and all of them knew mafia members, including some relatively famous ones.

But homicide rates were at levels rivaled only by the late 70's/early 80's and the early 90's (the point where social programs for kids where being implemented) http://suicidemethods.net/tables/sui-homi.htm. Crime was much more centralized then though.

Hmmm...that data on murder...it rises steadily to a peak of 10.1 in the 1930s, then drops precipitously with the onset of the Depression, totally blowing a hole through any theory that poverty creates crime. The rate declines through the '60s, then commences a rise, reaching a cyclic peak slightly above the earlier peak in the 1930's, but hovering instead of declining. This last MUST be caused by after-school programs, no other parameters exist to explain it. Clearly we need to discontinue those programs immediately.

If I can figure out how, I'll post the graph.

Ya, because we all know only losers and lazy people end up poor.

No, but they certainly make up a large percentage of that group, don't they?

And, again, the kids have no choice in the matter.

Right. That makes it a stranger's responsibility how?

So you want to disenfranchise people and create an entire underclass of american society. That's the american spirit! :rolleyes:

If they're not paying the taxes, why are they dictating how the tax dollars are spent? You obviously enjoy having strangers tell you how to spend your money for things they want. Most of us do not.

[bobbylien]

And, again, the kids have no choice in the matter.

Right. That makes it a stranger's responsibility how?

Its comments like that that show how truely heartless you really are. The point is that because of their parents, kids are being led into a path that makes them MUCH more likely to fail. Its not their fault. What their parents are doing to them is wrong but standing around when you could do something to stop it is just as bad. You say that you went through the same situation and turned out alright, good for you.. congrats. That doesn't mean that we should put others through it. We Americans are blessed, why shouldn't we help others who haven't been as fortunate. We are the most powerfull nation on this planet and we can't figure out how to end poverty and crime?

[Alonzo]

Bell curve.Â*Â*Not everyone can be on the right end.Â*Â*Not everyone is on the left end.

But there has to be someone on each end, regardless.

Maybe God hates them?

That's a ridiculous argument.


Compared to a degree in engineering or physics or even business management?Â*Â*Yeah, they're worthless.Â*Â*If they weren't worthless, shrinks could make a decent living with a BA.

So a field that requires someone to achieve a high level of education is worthless?

Though a psychology major can earn a decent live with a BA, just probably not in the field of psychology. It's a very flexible degree.

Oh, dear.Â*Â*Numerous legal scholars and judges have ruled that slaves are legitimate property and that negros can be restricted from using facilities intended for whites.Â*Â*You in the market to buy a nigger?Â*Â*It's constitutional, you know.

Funny, you refused to show me where it stated that when I asked for evidence.

But, numerous citizens have also voiced virtually every constitutional argument. When it comes down to it, I think the scholars have more backing them than someone such as you.



Crimes by children were almost non-existent before the notion of the welfare state infected this country.Â*Â*How about seeking a solution that addresses real causes instead of buying bandaids?

Jail is a bandaid, preventing kids from turning to crime is a cause.

And street kids who went around pickpocketing people, or young pubescent teens joining gangs, were common in many urban areas.

If they're not paying the taxes, why are they dictating how the tax dollars are spent?Â*Â*You obviously enjoy having strangers tell you how to spend your money for things they want.Â*Â*Most of us do not.


So, again, you support the disenfranchisement of a large amount of american citizens?


Hmmm...that data on murder...it rises steadily to a peak of 10.1 in the 1930s, then drops precipitously with the onset of the Depression, totally blowing a hole through any theory that poverty creates crime. The rate declines through the '60s, then commences a rise, reaching a cyclic peak slightly above the earlier peak in the 1930's, but hovering instead of declining. This last MUST be caused by after-school programs, no other parameters exist to explain it. Clearly we need to discontinue those programs immediately.

Why don't you come back when you have at least figured out when the depression occured.

But...I don't care if the little buggers rot in jail. It's not about saving money, it's about the ethical treatment of my money. It's not ethical to steal money from me so the criminals stealing it can boast about how they're reducing crime.


So, by your own admission, you don't care about taking steps to prevent crime, you don't care about aiding the poor, you don't care about saving money. Your political philosophy is nothing more than a cruel joke. It provides no benefit to society.

[Nathan Brazil]

That's a ridiculous argument.

That means you can't dispute it.Â*Â*Okay by me.

So a field that requires someone to achieve a high level of education is worthless?

Sure.Â*Â*A PhD in basket weaving is a high level of education, too.

Though a psychology major can earn a decent live with a BA, just probably not in the field of psychology. It's a very flexible degree.

Ummm....if they're not working as shrinks, then their training was wasted, just like the history and music teacher wannabes I used to know who worked in K-Mart when I was going to college.Â*Â*They were doing the same jobs as the high school dropouts.Â*Â*

Funny, you refused to show me where it stated that when I asked for evidence.

That's because I figured you could read the Constitution yourself.Â*Â*Was I wrong?

But, numerous citizens have also voiced virtually every constitutional argument. When it comes down to it, I think the scholars have more backing them than someone such as you.

No, they just have psychology degrees, or the equivalent, a law degree.

And street kids who went around pickpocketing people, or young pubescent teens joining gangs, were common in many urban areas.

And that hasn't changed with the advent of midnight basketball, either.

So, again, you support the disenfranchisement of a large amount of american citizens?

Yes.

Voting is a privelege to be earned.Â*Â*It's a responsibility, not a toy.Â*Â*If people can't pay taxes they shouldn't expect a say in how taxes are spent.


Hmmm...that data on murder...it rises steadily to a peak of 10.1 in the 1930s, then drops precipitously with the onset of the Depression, totally blowing a hole through any theory that poverty creates crime.Â*Â*The rate declines through the '60s, then commences a rise, reaching a cyclic peak slightly above the earlier peak in the 1930's, but hovering instead of declining.Â*Â*This last MUST be caused by after-school programs, no other parameters exist to explain it.Â*Â*Clearly we need to discontinue those programs immediately.

Why don't you come back when you have at least figured out when the depression occured.

Why don't you plot the data and see the pretty picture?Â*Â*It's pretty foolish to post trend information and not try to see it yourself.Â*Â*Your argument was totally shredded.

But...I don't care if the little buggers rot in jail.Â*Â*It's not about saving money, it's about the ethical treatment of my money.Â*Â*It's not ethical to steal money from me so the criminals stealing it can boast about how they're reducing crime.


So, by your own admission, you don't care about taking steps to prevent crime, you don't care about aiding the poor, you don't care about saving money. Your political philosophy is nothing more than a cruel joke. It provides no benefit to society.


Oh, no.Â*Â*I'm all for taking steps to prevent crime.Â*Â* The only restriction on firearm ownership should be that people using them to commit crimes never see the outside of a barbed wire fence ever again.

People using them in self-defense should be protected from vicious lawsuits by predatory lawyers.

I don't care to be forced to help the poor by having my money stolen by a bureaucrat who probably majored in psychology, or worse, law.

I do care about saving money, that why I don't want my money wasted on other people's brats.

My philosophy is the only thing that benefits society in real terms.Â*Â*People work, mind their own business, support themselves, and volunteer their time, effort, and money as they desire to support causes they deem worthy.Â*Â*Parasites starve.Â*Â*What better society can you imagine?Â*Â*Anything else involves slavery.

[Alonzo]

That means you can't dispute it.Â*Â*Okay by me.

To suggest that people are poor because god hates them has no basis in any major religion, and is in stark opposition to christianity. The suggestion that religious favour determines wealth is laughable superstition.

Ummm....if they're not working as shrinks, then their training was wasted, just like the history and music teacher wannabes I used to know who worked in K-Mart when I was going to college.Â*Â*They were doing the same jobs as the high school dropouts.Â*Â*

A psychology degree is the most flexible degree, and people end up in various positions throughout the business and social world with nothing more than a bachelors in psychology. But suggesting that a field that is the requirement for a masters and phd (what you usually need to work in the field of psychology) is useless is exceptionally bizarre.


That's because I figured you could read the Constitution yourself.Â*Â*Was I wrong?

My opinion seems to be shared by most legal experts and judges, are you suggesting they haven't read the constitution?


No, they just have psychology degrees, or the equivalent, a law degree.

And you have a what? A degree in inflated ego? When your opinion is against my view, the vast majority of scholars, and you don't possess the ability to argue your opinion, why should I take it seriously?

And street kids who went around pickpocketing people, or young pubescent teens joining gangs, were common in many urban areas.

And that hasn't changed with the advent of midnight basketball, either.


Why don't you plot the data and see the pretty picture?Â*Â*It's pretty foolish to post trend information and not try to see it yourself.Â*Â*Your argument was totally shredded.

You know, you think that after exposing, multiple times, that you don't know when the depression occured you'd just google it instead of just ignoring that.

I do care about saving money, that why I don't want my money wasted on other people's brats.

No you don't "It's not about saving money, it's about the ethical treatment of my money. ".

My philosophy is the only thing that benefits society in real terms.Â*Â*People work, mind their own business, support themselves, and volunteer their time, effort, and money as they desire to support causes they deem worthy.Â*Â*Parasites starve.Â*Â*What better society can you imagine?Â*Â*Anything else involves slavery.


Well, my society doesn't involve creating the american version of Uganda.

[Nathan Brazil]

To suggest that people are poor because god hates them has no basis in any major religion, and is in stark opposition to christianity. The suggestion that religious favour determines wealth is laughable superstition.

Then again, it may have been a sprightly humorous remark, intensified several times over by someone's agititation over it.

Ummm....if they're not working as shrinks, then their training was wasted, just like the history and music teacher wannabes I used to know who worked in K-Mart when I was going to college.Â*Â*They were doing the same jobs as the high school dropouts.Â*Â*

A psychology degree is the most flexible degree, and people end up in various positions throughout the business and social world with nothing more than a bachelors in psychology. But suggesting that a field that is the requirement for a masters and phd (what you usually need to work in the field of psychology) is useless is exceptionally bizarre.

No, I'm just aware of who it is that wanders into the psychology schools. 90% of them are there because other majors are too difficult for them.


That's because I figured you could read the Constitution yourself.Â*Â*Was I wrong?

My opinion seems to be shared by most legal experts and judges, are you suggesting they haven't read the constitution?

Are you suggesting they're honest, too?

No, they just have psychology degrees, or the equivalent, a law degree.

And you have a what? A degree in inflated ego? When your opinion is against my view, the vast majority of scholars, and you don't possess the ability to argue your opinion, why should I take it seriously?

I have been arguing my point quite well, thank you. You've been arguing from authority, which is a weak defense at best.

You know, you think that after exposing, multiple times, that you don't know when the depression occured you'd just google it instead of just ignoring that.

I take it you haven't loaded that data into Excel and looked at the graph? You haven't invalidated anything I've said, the data hits a peak at 10.1 or so in 1931 or so, and since FDR forced the Depression to last a decade longer, I'm quite justified in calling it "the beginning of the Depression".

You're just quibbling because you're embarassed at what the curve shows, aren't you?

I do care about saving money, that why I don't want my money wasted on other people's brats.

No you don't "It's not about saving money, it's about the ethical treatment of my money. ".

My philosophy is the only thing that benefits society in real terms.Â*Â*People work, mind their own business, support themselves, and volunteer their time, effort, and money as they desire to support causes they deem worthy.Â*Â*Parasites starve.Â*Â*What better society can you imagine?Â*Â*Anything else involves slavery.


Well, my society doesn't involve creating the american version of Uganda.


You're vision of society steals money from the people that work for it to pay off the people that don't. How is that different from Uganda, unless Uganda's moving away from Marxism now?

[penmyst]

I would just like to add, it's not charity when someone forces you to use your money for a cause.

And that is what happens when gov't house steals your money from you via force (don't pay your taxes and see what happens) and then doles it out to whatever special interest group Uncle Sam deems worthy (read: bribed the most).

It's totally immoral, no ifs ands or buts about it. And there ain't one single word in The Constitution allowing for ANY of it.

And seriously 'zo, I blew milk through my nose when I read your comment of concern about the "humiliation" endured by beggars when they got to get their beggings face-to-face from a person instead of the nameless, faceless bureaucracy.

Pride is a helluva motivator isn't it, and avoiding that shame was often what kept hard-working, honest men from laying about in the hammock of gov't goodies. I remember a time when people were ashamed, MORTIFIED to have to apply for gov't assistance. People that were EMBARRASSED to be seen using food stamps for groceries, or cashing a gov't check.

Now you see people proudly waving their Access card about as they pay for name brand products and sirloin steaks, or families totally destroyed because gov't house steps in and assumes the role of provider thereby totally eliminating the need for young men to be responsible caretakers or young women to be serious about the consequences of premarital sex. Great society brought to you by gov't house. /rolls eyes

[Alonzo]

No, I'm just aware of who it is that wanders into the psychology schools.Â*Â*90% of them are there because other majors are too difficult for them.

Have you ever taken anything more than an intro course in psychology?


Are you suggesting they're honest, too?

See, I don't believe that there's this vast conspiracy against the american people being perpetrated by scholars and the courts. So I wouldn't say they're any more or less honest than anyone else.

I take it you haven't loaded that data into Excel and looked at the graph?Â*Â*You haven't invalidated anything I've said, the data hits a peak at 10.1 or so in 1931 or so, and since FDR forced the Depression to last a decade longer, I'm quite justified in calling it "the beginning of the Depression".

You're just quibbling because you're embarassed at what the curve shows, aren't you?

What's it been, 4 or 5 times now and you still don't know when the depression occured? Google is only a click away you know. And, an additional question since you think FDR forced the depression to last longer, what was going on around the world at that time?


You're vision of society steals money from the people that work for it to pay off the people that don't.Â*Â*How is that different from Uganda, unless Uganda's moving away from Marxism now?


So you think that Uganda was marxist? And that social services are used primarily for the unemployed?

[Nathan Brazil]

No, I'm just aware of who it is that wanders into the psychology schools.Â*Â*90% of them are there because other majors are too difficult for them.

Have you ever taken anything more than an intro course in psychology?

Nope. So what? It's not like I'm either illiterate or unobservant. When you feed the hopper with the scrapings off the second layer from the bottom of the barrel (teachers coat the liner), the finished product ... tastes like the scrapings from the second layer from the bottom of the barrel.

Psychologists are one of the loudest voices in favor of midnight basketball and other "after school" programs. The numbers you yourself posted indicate that such programs are a total waste of money. Ergo, psychologists are either liars, or stupid, though both can't be ruled out.

See, I don't believe that there's this vast conspiracy against the american people being perpetrated by scholars and the courts. So I wouldn't say they're any more or less honest than anyone else.

Yeah, right. The recent decision by the USSC permitting local government to seize private property to give to other private companies for development?

That's a legitimate and honest interpretation of the Constitution? The USSC's rapid reversal of itself in it's sudden consent to FDR's illegal socialist wealth re-distribution schemes, that was part of an honest reading of the Constitution?

Plessy vs Ferguson...that was an honest reading of the Constitution?

How about Dred Scott? If that was an honest interpretation of the Constitution, why can't we go to the store and buy niggers today?

Do you think the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790's survived by honest readings of the Constitution?

HELL YES, the people interpreting the Constitution are as biased and politically motivated as anyone else.

What's it been, 4 or 5 times now and you still don't know when the depression occured? Google is only a click away you know. And, an additional question since you think FDR forced the depression to last longer, what was going on around the world at that time?

That means you haven't looked at the plots yet.

Oh, and FDR's incompetence DID force the Depression to record lengths. That's historical fact.

So you think that Uganda was marxist? And that social services are used primarily for the unemployed?

It was collectivist. It was totalitarian. That's Marxist enough for anyone interested in freedom. Marx was all about making each man his neighbor's slave even though he dressed it up in feel-good language and class envy.

[Alonzo]

Nope.Â*Â*So what?Â*Â*It's not like I'm either illiterate or unobservant.Â*Â*When you feed the hopper with the scrapings off the second layer from the bottom of the barrel (teachers coat the liner), the finished product ... tastes like the scrapings from the second layer from the bottom of the barrel.

Psychologists are one of the loudest voices in favor of midnight basketball and other "after school" programs.Â*Â*The numbers you yourself posted indicate that such programs are a total waste of money.Â*Â*Ergo, psychologists are either liars, or stupid, though both can't be ruled out.

So you admit to denouncing a field that you are ignorant about, have no experience with, and oppose them simply because sociological and psychological data doesn't agree with you?


Yeah, right.Â*Â*The recent decision by the USSC permitting local government to seize private property to give to other private companies for development?

That's a legitimate and honest interpretation of the Constitution?[quote]

I think it was the correct one. I don't like, I don't agree with it, but constitutionally it was correct in my opinion. I said that when they ruled and I say that now.

[quote]The USSC's rapid reversal of itself in it's sudden consent to FDR's illegal socialist wealth re-distribution schemes, that was part of an honest reading of the Constitution?

Plessy vs Ferguson...that was an honest reading of the Constitution?

How about Dred Scott?Â*Â*If that was an honest interpretation of the Constitution, why can't we go to the store and buy niggers today?

Do you think the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790's survived by honest readings of the Constitution?Â*Â*

HELL YES, the people interpreting the Constitution are as biased and politically motivated as anyone else.Â*Â*

I don't see any of those interpretations as dishonest. It was a different way of thinking. Just because I don't agree doesn't mean my opponents are liars.



That means you haven't looked at the plots yet.

Oh, and FDR's incompetence DID force the Depression to record lengths.Â*Â*That's historical fact.

So the depression was an american phenomenon?

Also, true or false, the depression started in 1931?


It was collectivist.Â*Â*It was totalitarian.Â*Â*That's Marxist enough for anyone interested in freedom. Marx was all about making each man his neighbor's slave even though he dressed it up in feel-good language and class envy.

Have you ever read Marx? You're arguing philosophy here.

[Nathan Brazil]

True or false, you haven't plotted the data in Excel yet so you can't discuss how you torpedoed your own argument?