quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Reagan and Bush created what jobs were created and ran their version of fiscal conservatism [sic] based on their policies.

Clinton did a complete economic turn-around with an equally complete and absolute reversal of policy by raising rather than cutting taxes, created 22 million jobs and explosions of GDP without inflation, doing much better than either of his predecessors, created a surplus and all doing so based on his policies.

You are giving Clinton way too much credit for the GDP explosions and job creation. That is, unless you are under the impression that the information boom due to the internet was due to the Clinton Administration.

No and I've said as much here in the past. Clinton did get a little lucky but at least the benefits were put in the right places rather than a tax cut, 80% of which would go to the top 5% or so.

Let me know? Is this Bush's fault or something else not Obama? What's the story going to be in ten years to explain this?

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-economy-has-no-clothes/

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Your link doesnt exactly support your assertion. It clearly states Saddam was getting some of his money from the CIA.

Hint - your pretending it says that doesnt make it say that. The UPI article clearly states that Saddam was on the Egyptians' payroll

The CIA was involved, but considering the alternatives and if you have half a brain you would have hoped so

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

How about the "war on poverty" which could be better named the "war on black families" it had done as much for blacks as "Indian affairs" has done for the native Americans. (ps when Columbus got here one branch of my family owned the great plains, should we give that back)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

How about the "war on poverty" which could be better named the "war on black families" it had done as much for blacks as "Indian affairs" has done for the native Americans. (ps when Columbus got here one branch of my family owned the great plains, should we give that back)

I am really not able to comment on what any government programs have done to/for black families.

What I can comment on is how programs created during LBJ's years in office have directly impacted my life.

Like Medicare/Medicaid, which paid for my father's dialysis three times a week for the last five years of his life. Or Social Security Disability, which was his only income for the last twelve years of his life. As a dependant child, a check was issued for me each month throughout my teenage years as well, once Social Security determined my dad as disabled. Of course, this was in lieu of the child support he was supposed to be paying my mother after their divorce.

Sure, there are those that will abuse any sort of assistance. Often criminally. And these cases should be prosecuted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I still don't see the war on poverty as anything other than a war on poverty.

Education improvements continue to be a massive part of that war. Be it the Higher Education Act of 1965, Head Start programs, or Obama's proposed free community college for everybody (maybe Hillary can pull it off).

Yet higher education is deemed "discretionary spending" when it's time for a budget. Seems shameful.

Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme the world has ever known. But it's worked. So far, anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Bama, has it occurred to you that maybe people just like to fuck?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I have no idea where you're getting your numbers from.

Maybe read this? http://racerelations.about.com/od/diversitymatters/a/Four-Myths-About-Black-Marriage.ht,

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I have no idea where you're getting your numbers from.

Maybe read this? http://racerelations.about.com/od/diversitymatters/a/Four-Myths-About-Black-Marriage.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I have no idea where you're getting your numbers from.

Maybe read this? http://racerelations.about.com/od/diversitymatters/a/Four-Myths-About-Black-Marriage.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I have no idea where you're getting your numbers from.

Maybe read this? http://racerelations.about.com/od/diversitymatters/a/Four-Myths-About-Black-Marriage.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I have no idea where you're getting your numbers from.

Maybe read this? http://racerelations.about.com/od/diversitymatters/a/Four-Myths-About-Black-Marriage.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


Do you favor the government stealing from the successful and giving it to the unsuccessful?

How do you arrive at the claim that a legally elected Govt imposing and collecting legally instituted taxes is "stealing"? 'Stealing refers to illegal acts. A legally elected Govt imposing and collecting legally instituted taxes cannot be accurately or honestly described as "stealing".

I am guessing that you also agree with the odd notion that any individual's success is entirely the result of that individual's efforts alone, and that no one or nothing else contributed to that success. This notion is obviously incorrect and insupportable, as a cursory glance at any successful individual's case will demonstrate. Most (financially) successful individual's supply services or goods that others want - so how their success is a uniquely individual achievement defies logic. There are always other people and other institutions involved at every stage of any individual's 'success'.

This kind of billionaire friendly position only makes sense if you want the already rich to get even richer and the already poor to remain so or get further impoverished, though why anyone who isn't already rich might desire such a situation also defies logic - it runs directly against the doctrine of 'enlightened self interest', a doctrine that many on the right claim as their 'inspiration'.

You of all people should understand using pejorative terms to describe things you don't agree with.
Tell me something, if the rich got that way because of government why isn't everyone rich. Keep in mind that you want to give everyone but the rich credit for them BECOMING rich.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


Do you favor the government stealing from the successful and giving it to the unsuccessful?

How do you arrive at the claim that a legally elected Govt imposing and collecting legally instituted taxes is "stealing"? 'Stealing refers to illegal acts. A legally elected Govt imposing and collecting legally instituted taxes cannot be accurately or honestly described as "stealing".

I am guessing that you also agree with the odd notion that any individual's success is entirely the result of that individual's efforts alone, and that no one or nothing else contributed to that success. This notion is obviously incorrect and insupportable, as a cursory glance at any successful individual's case will demonstrate. Most (financially) successful individual's supply services or goods that others want - so how their success is a uniquely individual achievement defies logic. There are always other people and other institutions involved at every stage of any individual's 'success'.

This kind of billionaire friendly position only makes sense if you want the already rich to get even richer and the already poor to remain so or get further impoverished, though why anyone who isn't already rich might desire such a situation also defies logic - it runs directly against the doctrine of 'enlightened self interest', a doctrine that many on the right claim as their 'inspiration'.

You of all people should understand using pejorative terms to describe things you don't agree with.
Tell me something, if the rich got that way because of government why isn't everyone rich. Keep in mind that you want to give everyone but the rich credit for them BECOMING rich.

I have no idea of how you got the idea that I was saying the rich prosper because of government. Obviously you either ignored or misunderstood the phrase "Most (financially) successful individual's supply services or goods that others want ". I argued that crediting all of their success to the individuals concerned is invalid. I stated that "There are always other people and other institutions involved at every stage of any individual's 'success'".

"People" here refers to employees, consumers professional advisers, parents etc and "institutions" here covers anything from educational institutions, legal systems, professional assistance, etc through to government. It is plain wrong to single out any one of these and insist it alone constitutes the meaning of my words, as you have done.

It would be nice if you responded to what I actually wrote instead of inventing strawman arguments.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


Do you favor the government stealing from the successful and giving it to the unsuccessful?

How do you arrive at the claim that a legally elected Govt imposing and collecting legally instituted taxes is "stealing"? 'Stealing refers to illegal acts. A legally elected Govt imposing and collecting legally instituted taxes cannot be accurately or honestly described as "stealing".

I am guessing that you also agree with the odd notion that any individual's success is entirely the result of that individual's efforts alone, and that no one or nothing else contributed to that success. This notion is obviously incorrect and insupportable, as a cursory glance at any successful individual's case will demonstrate. Most (financially) successful individual's supply services or goods that others want - so how their success is a uniquely individual achievement defies logic. There are always other people and other institutions involved at every stage of any individual's 'success'.

This kind of billionaire friendly position only makes sense if you want the already rich to get even richer and the already poor to remain so or get further impoverished, though why anyone who isn't already rich might desire such a situation also defies logic - it runs directly against the doctrine of 'enlightened self interest', a doctrine that many on the right claim as their 'inspiration'.

You of all people should understand using pejorative terms to describe things you don't agree with.
Tell me something, if the rich got that way because of government why isn't everyone rich. Keep in mind that you want to give everyone but the rich credit for them BECOMING rich.

I have no idea of how you got the idea that I was saying the rich prosper because of government. Obviously you either ignored or misunderstood the phrase "Most (financially) successful individual's supply services or goods that others want ". I argued that crediting all of their success to the individuals concerned is invalid. I stated that "There are always other people and other institutions involved at every stage of any individual's 'success'".

"People" here refers to employees, consumers professional advisers, parents etc and "institutions" here covers anything from educational institutions, legal systems, professional assistance, etc through to government. It is plain wrong to single out any one of these and insist it alone constitutes the meaning of my words, as you have done.

It would be nice if you responded to what I actually wrote instead of inventing strawman arguments.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Again, there's other factors to consider.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/abortions-racial-gap/380251/

It's possible that Obamacare, by providing access to more effective birth control for many women, can help reduce both the number of abortions and children born out of wedlock.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


Do you favor the government stealing from the successful and giving it to the unsuccessful?

How do you arrive at the claim that a legally elected Govt imposing and collecting legally instituted taxes is "stealing"? 'Stealing refers to illegal acts. A legally elected Govt imposing and collecting legally instituted taxes cannot be accurately or honestly described as "stealing".

I am guessing that you also agree with the odd notion that any individual's success is entirely the result of that individual's efforts alone, and that no one or nothing else contributed to that success. This notion is obviously incorrect and insupportable, as a cursory glance at any successful individual's case will demonstrate. Most (financially) successful individual's supply services or goods that others want - so how their success is a uniquely individual achievement defies logic. There are always other people and other institutions involved at every stage of any individual's 'success'.

This kind of billionaire friendly position only makes sense if you want the already rich to get even richer and the already poor to remain so or get further impoverished, though why anyone who isn't already rich might desire such a situation also defies logic - it runs directly against the doctrine of 'enlightened self interest', a doctrine that many on the right claim as their 'inspiration'.

You of all people should understand using pejorative terms to describe things you don't agree with.
Tell me something, if the rich got that way because of government why isn't everyone rich. Keep in mind that you want to give everyone but the rich credit for them BECOMING rich.

I have no idea of how you got the idea that I was saying the rich prosper because of government. Obviously you either ignored or misunderstood the phrase "Most (financially) successful individual's supply services or goods that others want ". I argued that crediting all of their success to the individuals concerned is invalid. I stated that "There are always other people and other institutions involved at every stage of any individual's 'success'".

"People" here refers to employees, consumers professional advisers, parents etc and "institutions" here covers anything from educational institutions, legal systems, professional assistance, etc through to government. It is plain wrong to single out any one of these and insist it alone constitutes the meaning of my words, as you have done.

It would be nice if you responded to what I actually wrote instead of inventing strawman arguments.

Providing goods and services others want is how you get rich. That doesn't justify taking what they make away from them. The government would only be justified in taking their profits and redistributing it if they were somehow responsible for them getting rich. I came to that conclusion by trying to get something coherent out of your socialist rant.

PS My position is not pro billionaire it is pro success.