Suppose that a president started two wars, cut taxes, and his party pushed through a large medical program that did not have a mechanism for funding it.
Suppose during his administration Congress raised the debt limit 7 times.
Suppose that the economy went belly up during his watch and the feds gave a massive bail out to banks that were too b ig to fail.
What would you say?
Duh.
Let's wait until a Democrat is in office to complain about this..

Posted by: Coralie

April 26, 2011 at 5:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Between January 20, 2001 and January 20, 2009 the national debt increased by 4.9 trillion. Since January 20, 2009 the debt has increased by 3.6 trillion .

Posted by: EndPoliticalCorrectness

April 26, 2011 at 8:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Part 2 to my last post:

As far as raising taxes on some goes, a stringent investigation into the effects a flat income tax would have need to be done. An across the board percentage for everyone over the age of 18 to pay out of there wages is a fair way forward. That solution would also require an abolition of all tax deductions and exemptions.

Posted by: Tankersley101

April 27, 2011 at 1:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

EPC says "A flat tax with no exemptions or exceptions sounds great."
Not to me.
This is the ultimate way to transfer taxes from the rich to the poor and middle class.
It's amazing how quickly the meme has spread that a flat tax is "fair" when even the founder of capitalist theory, Adam Smith, supported progressive taxes back in 1787.

Posted by: Coralie

April 29, 2011 at 3:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Another comment on 'fairness'. Property and personal property taxes in Washington county are based simply on what one owns. Not on what is owned with exceptions based on income levels. Is that fair? So someone who owns more personal property pays more tax, but everyone who owns personal property pays tax on what they own. I would say that is fair. Compare and contrast that for us with what you say is 'fair' about nearly 50% of Americans being exempted from federal income tax, and in many cases getting a tax system welfare payment above and beyond what was withheld from their income for taxation. Love to hear your answer.

Posted by: commonsense96

April 29, 2011 at 11:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

The great thing about our Republic is that everyone is free to create their own success. To some, fair only means a handout. When Adam Smith was writing about economic policy, not all people were free to make their own success. Americans are all free now. Socialism only empowers the government and bounds the efforts of some to the stagnation of many. Less government and an equitable fair system of taxation is the way forward in order to allow Americans to establish their own quality of life. Abandon all the complicated rules that establish exemptions and refunds, eiminate government subsidies, make everyone pay the same, and adjudicate a large amount of government funded projects. Let Capitalism takes it course and let Americans choose there own path.

Posted by: Tankersley101

April 30, 2011 at 11:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley, you said "To some, fair only means a handout." Is that demagoguery? Is it equivalent to my referring to "born-again fiscal conservatives"?
You then said "Are you going to call me a 'fundie' now?" To my understanding, fundie refers to religious fundamentalism, and you haven't said anything about religion so far.
Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by "born-again fiscal conservatives." I meant people whose fiscal conservatism only became evident after Obama was elected. I was using language metaphorically.

Posted by: Coralie

April 30, 2011 at 3:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Horatio Alger's 100+ 'rags-to-riches' stories about poor boys making good were extremely popular in the post-Civil War period, at a time when 'robber barons' were amassing great wealth, labor struggles involved hundreds of thousands, and most Blacks were little better off than they had been under slavery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_...

Posted by: Coralie

April 30, 2011 at 3:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

I believe that every American is born to the same guarantee and any other suggestion is divisive. It is embarrassing that an adult debate results in such gutter slinging and not only reflects the lacking level of education on the behalf of certain counter parts but also lacks of knowledge and care regarding the hard working American people.

Posted by: Tankersley101

April 30, 2011 at 3:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

Since your grandfather went out of his way to protect Coralie's "extreme Left BS ideologies", aren't you being disrespectful to him by being so disrespectful to Coralie's opinions? Might he be embarrassed-- and a bit taken aback-- by your ill manners in regard to the freedom he fought for?

No American is born with any kind of "guarantee". If there were such a guarantee, it would be worthless, and impossible to collect on.

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 30, 2011 at 3:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Coralie,

Under the law, we are all entitled to the same. Enough of the handouts or convincing people they are entitled to such and to funding such garbage social welfare.

Posted by: Tankersley101

April 30, 2011 at 3:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE "I am sick and tired of attacks on those that find it unacceptable to not be fisicsally conservative."

Oh, waaah. You're clearly not tired of attacking liberals. Look back at the posts between yourself and Coralie. Who is attacking whom?

RE "America is a place where any one can be someone."

That and "Under the law, we are all entitled to the same" are both a long way from that guarantee you mentioned before. Of course, if you were interested in that guarantee, or if you had any faith in people, you would know that a lot of-- perhaps most-- people who receive government aid of some sort are actually on their way up. Are conservatives all so sleazy that they automatically think all aid recipients are sleazy? What happened to that conservative "faith in the individual" thing?

RE "Under the law, we are all entitled to the same."

So go on welfare-- what's left of it. You'll show us liberals!

RE "Every American is guaranteed the to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Based on your amended statements, that has nothing to do with the "guarantee" you mentioned earlier. But if one needs government aid in order to stay alive, or to stay out of jail, or to be able to afford gas in order to look for a job, it is clear that you resent them and would stand in their way. In other words, you can quote the Constitution (sort of), but you don't really believe it.

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 30, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

I realized as I clicked "Submit" on my last post that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is not in the Constitution-- it's in the Declaration of Independence.

I'll never again simply assume that Tankersley101 knows what he's talking about (even when he uses exclamation points!), and I promise to reread the Constitution if he will.

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 30, 2011 at 6:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

TNK: "I am sick and tired of attacks on those that find it unacceptable to not be fisicsally conservative.">>

Tank, the term "fiscally conservative" is a vapid political slogan peddled the by the far right. Recorded US history shows it is meaningless and I don't for a minute believe conservatives aren't well aware it is meaningless. If you want to see "fiscally conservative" in action then you need look no further than the first term of Bush, when he and his "fiscal conservative" bunch controlled all branches. Federal spending went from a 3.4% growth rate under Bill Clinton to 10.4% under Bush and his republican Congress.

TANK: "Why should the successful pay the way for the lazy?">>

The system has been so well gamed for the rich that 400 individuals have corned as much wealth as 50% of the population (155 million people). Do you really believe half the people in the US are "lazy?" Do you have any idea how corrosive and detrimental such wealth inequality is to a society? Learn about this here:

"15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America"

http://www.businessinsider.com/facts-...

Further reading:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/200...

TANK: "Tell me I am wrong.">>

You are bigtime wrong with bells on and horns blaring.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 30, 2011 at 7:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Coralie: " I believe you are naive to think that everyone is born in America with an equal opportunity to "create their own success." Do you think that a person born on an Indian reservation with 50% unemployment, or in the Mississippi Delta where infant mortality is similar to that of Third World countries, is equally free to make their own success as someone born into the Walton family?".

See Elvis Presley, Oprah Winfrey (born to an unwed mother in Mississippi) www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/win0...

and Morgan Freeman (grew up in MS with his grandparents).

and James Earl Jones (raised by his grandparents in MS).

and BB King (played on the street corner for dimes as a kid).

All successful beyond most imaginations. Looks like we are all 'equally free to make (our) own destiny".......

What is the comment about the Walton Family about? Sam Walton started with a 5 and dime and worked his way up to a multinational company. A one generation success story. Is that a bad thing?

Posted by: commonsense96

April 30, 2011 at 9:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

SFA: "i am not 'cherry picking'.">>

You are totally, completely, 100% committing the logical fallacy of cherry picking:

"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_p...)

SFA: "nearly 1/2 of Americans pay no FEDERAL INCOME TAX..">>

Completely bogus, semantic, talking point canard. Just debunked again, moments ago, here:

http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2011/ap...

SFA: "Lumping in state taxation, sales tax, property tax, etc is a 'slick willy'">>

There is no need at all to add those in to refute your point. But when one does (and it is certainly fair to do so when considering the overall tax burden on citizens), it makes your canard even more bogus than it was to begin with. And that is really really bogus.

SFA: "Those extraneous taxes fund other initiatives">>

Wrong. They go into general revenues and are spent with the rest, IOU's notwithstanding.

SFA: "why is it 'fair' that nearly 50% of Americans spend no treasure to">>

Your canard was exposed weeks ago, time to catch up and then set it aside. It's getting embarrassing.

SFA: "I have not been 'shown' anything.">>

Well perhaps you have a learning disorder. Can't help you with that. But I can show that your cherry picking of one single category of taxation, while purposely ignoring another, is transparently, disingenuous. And I have shown that.

D.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 30, 2011 at 10:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Now SFA brings out the real funny stuff.

SFA: "See Elvis Presley,">>

I guess this argument is supposed to go... Elvis was the world's most famous rock star so you could be too!

SFA: "Morgan Freeman">>

Morgan Freeman had the talent to become a world famous actor, therefore you could be too!

SFA; "and James Earl Jones">>

Ditto

SFA: "and BB King">>

Notice how all of these cherry picks are artists that just happened to have a one in a million talent?

SFA: "Looks like we are all 'equally free to make (our) own destiny">>

Yes, with your couple of cherry picks of gifted artists, we are to believe that circumstance of birth has nothing to do with accumulation of wealth among an American aristocracy.

SFA: "Working 18 hour days 7 days a week and risking more than their net worth to start and build a business they were passionate about.">>

Yes, because the 400 wealthiest people in the US, probably got that way by starting a mom and pop store.

D.
----------
Having less wealth inequality isn't socialism, it's just the sign of a highly functional society:

"...almost every social problem common in developed societies - reduced life expectancy, child mortality, drugs, crime, homicide rates, mental illness and obesity - has a single root cause: inequality.

"It became clear," Wilkinson says, "that countries such as the US, the UK and Portugal, where the top 20% earn seven, eight or nine times more than the lowest 20%, scored noticeably higher on all social problems at every level of society than in countries such as Sweden and Japan, where the differential is only two or three times higher at the top."

The statistics came from the World Bank's list of 50 richest countries, but Wilkinson suggests their conclusions apply more broadly. To ensure their findings weren't explainable by cultural differences, they analysed the data from all 50 US states and found the same pattern. In states where income differentials were greatest, so were the social problems and lack of cohesion."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/200...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 30, 2011 at 11:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

SFA: "throwing-off of legitimate arguments">>

I specifically showed how your "arguments" were not legitimate. You might try responding directly to these points. But you probably won't.

SFA: "Anyone can achieve their dream in this country.">>

But only in the same sense that "anyone" can become Elvis Presley, Oprah Winfrey, BB King or Morgan Freeman.

Where did you learn these arguments, in a bar? Would they make more sense if I drank a lot before reading them?

SFA: "democrats have allowed generations of citizens in the poorer sections">>

Which reminds me, see this chart:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

Turns out, everyone's income grows better under Democratic presidents. Curious that.

SFA: "Your attempt at humor shows your inability to confront the facts>>

I think the record shows I take your "facts," put them over my knee, and spank them.

SFA: "anyone can become wildly successfull in a free-market society..">>

Tell that to Somali. There's your "free-market society." All others are heavily regulated by governments. That's why they work.

Let me share with you once again the Heritage freedom index. It measures: "183 countries across 10 specific freedoms such as trade freedom, business freedom, investment freedom, and property rights." Here is the order of the top ten:

1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore
3. Australia
4. New Zealand
5. Switzerland
6. Canada
7. Ireland
8. Denmark
9. United States
10. Bahrain

http://www.heritage.org/index/

My oh my, Switzerland, Canada and Denmark beating the US. Isn't that something. Weren't you just calling them socialists a little while ago?

Apparently that word doesn't mean what you would like to think it means.

D.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 1, 2011 at 12:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

alpha cat,

Your last stated, "I realized as I clicked "Submit" on my last post that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is not in the Constitution-- it's in the Declaration of Independence."

You are absolutely correct about the Constitution not including those exact words. Those things are guaranteed under the Constitution, not word for word, but in the spirit of the Bill of Rights followed by the latter Amendments. I think everyone could use another look at our national treasures.

This doesnt change my stance on a fair and simple system of how we tax ourselves. One percentage for everyone to pay accompanied by the abolition exemptions, deductions, subsidies, refunds ect.

America needs to get back to hard work and an oppurtunity for everyone to make their own way.

I am not soley defending the wealthy or the poor. What I am in favor of is a tax system of absolute equality. The exact same tax rate for everyone with zero catches. So people could do what ever makes them happy, whether that means being a farmer or a stock broker.

Some people are not intersted in fixing America problems. Some people only want to make America just like other industrialzed nations where hard work and opportunity matters. America is not any other country. I know that sounds strange, but it is the truth. America is the greatest country in the world . America is special. It was built on hard work, not a government run economy. There is a difference between government oversite and government control.

Posted by: Tankersley101

May 1, 2011 at 2:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley said "It is embarrassing that an adult debate results in such gutter slinging." If you were referring to me I'd like to know what you interpreted as "gutter slinging." I already explained, in case you misunderstood, that a "born-again fiscal conservative" was somebody who suddenly saw the light of fiscal conservatism after Obama was elected. It had nothing to do with being a born-again Christian.
SFA, you assume that the only two alternatives are capitalism and socialism. In fact, every country in the world has a mixed economy. Even a communist country would have street vendors and small farms, and there is NO totally free-market capitalist system without some publicly-owned schools, parks, roads, and such.
Your examples of government regulation all have to do with oil extraction. More to the point, most of the financial regulations that the government imposed after the 1930s Depression were dismantled in recent decades so that the very same speculation and fraud occurred as had occurred in the 1920s--with a similar result.

Posted by: Coralie

May 1, 2011 at 2:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Here are just a few ideas, Tankersley..
1. Ban political advertising on TV, or encourage the two major parties to agree to stop doing it. This would make political campaigns much less expensive and thus much less corrupting.
2. Bring back the financial regulations that were dismantled, leading to the 2008 crash.
3. Take off the cap on earnings subject to the payroll tax. By bringing the top 6% of incomes into the same system as those of us earning under $106,000/year, Social Security would be much more secure.
4. Instant Voter Runoff would make voting more responsive to the electorate.
http://www.fairvote.org/instant-runof...
5. Tobin tax would not only raise revenue but help curb the kind of financial speculation that leads to economic crashes. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/t...

Posted by: Coralie

May 7, 2011 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Here's a couple of ideas:

The government cannot force any individual to vote, but laws could be enacted that would allow the relevant government to nullify the results of any election in which less than, say, 60% of eligible voters cast a ballot.

Score political advertising as follows: Give each candidate some number of points in each medium in each relevant advertising market. Each time an ad is aired in which he makes a truthful statement about himself, subtract no points; each time he tells a stretcher about himself, subtract one point; each time he bases an ad on an opponent's record, subtract two points; each time he lies about his opponent or misrepresents his opponent's record, subtract four points. When he reaches zero points, he can no longer advertise except with the first category of ad, which subtracts no points. Automatically decrease the point total over time so a candidate cannot run a negative blitz right before the election. Fine candidates for going below zero points; give the money to their opponent. Voila: better advertising.

Tankersley101--

I have to say that, exclusive of the tone any user might use in posting (and I admit to being sarcastic myself; you should meet me), one problem with the conversation in these threads is that many of the conservative commenters don't just ignore citations of fact-- they insult people who provide them for providing them. As long as those people obstinately repeat lies and misinformation in the face of repeated refutation, and as long as they proudly refuse to provide any factual basis for their own arguments, there can be no exchange of ideas-- cooperative or not.

I won't number you among the worst of them, and one particularly bad example is no longer posting here (unless under a different name), but it is a basic attitude that makes dialog impossible.

And then there's that whole misunderstanding and misuse of the Bible...

Posted by: AlphaCat

May 8, 2011 at 5:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

SFA: "Why is there only a 70% High School graduate rate in this community?">>

Perhaps this is why:

"The [US] graduation rate was 68.8 percent in 2007."

http://tinyurl.com/2d5bel2

So they're a bit better than average.

You like to type out piles of rightwing knee jerk assertions that sound like they are fresh from the Rush Limbaugh shovel, but you don't back any of it up. You just assume your claims are obviously true. But why should anyone believe your claims?

When we look to our peer countries (they're not the "greatest country in the world" mind you) we find that they are usually much better at dealing with these societal problems. Why is that? Would you like to know? Contrary to your piles of assertions, I can provide actual, specific, detailed, verifiable, evidence. And it doesn't involve less government support and social safety net for the populace, it involves more.

D.
---------------
TIME magazine, March:

"Are America's Best Days Behind Us?

...most Americans operate on the assumption that the U.S. is still No. 1.
But is it? Yes, the U.S. remains the world's largest economy, and we have the largest military by far, the most dynamic technology companies and a highly entrepreneurial climate. But these are snapshots of where we are right now. The decisions that created today's growth — decisions about education, infrastructure and the like — were made decades ago. What we see today is an American economy that has boomed because of policies and developments of the 1950s and '60s: the interstate-highway system, massive funding for science and technology, a public-education system that was the envy of the world and generous immigration policies. Look at some underlying measures today, and you will wonder about the future.

The following rankings come from various lists, but they all tell the same story. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), our 15-year-olds rank 17th in the world in science and 25th in math. We rank 12th among developed countries in college graduation (down from No. 1 for decades). We come in 79th in elementary-school enrollment. Our infrastructure is ranked 23rd in the world, well behind that of every other major advanced economy. American health numbers are stunning for a rich country: based on studies by the OECD and the World Health Organization, we're 27th in life expectancy, 18th in diabetes and first in obesity. Only a few decades ago, the U.S. stood tall in such rankings. No more. There are some areas in which we are still clearly No. 1, but they're not ones we usually brag about. We have the most guns. We have the most crime among rich countries." --TIME, March 3, 2011

http://www.time.com/time/nation/artic...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 8, 2011 at 11:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

FFT - Quit taking the comments out of context. The 'graduation rate' was pointing out that they are indeed average in graduation rate, and yet 1/2 of the population cannot read or write. You miss the point. Detroit is graduation seniors and giving them a diploma and they cannot read. Looks like we need to pour more liberal monetary resources into this trouble spot!

Where are your comments on the fact that nearly1/2 of the Detroit population cannot read or write. Skipped right over that point did we? You only want facts to refute you cherry picking. Well, here is a FACT for you, only 14% of Americans are illiterate on average. That puts Detroit at 4x the average. Explain that.

So your assertion is to spend more federal dollars on education in Detroit? Aren't we spending the same amount around the rest of the country with much better results?

Typical liberal thought process, spend more of everyone else's money on a problem that is systemic and not a monetary problem. Let's look for real societal changes, not more areas to pour money into black holes.

Posted by: commonsense96

May 9, 2011 at 12:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

I agree with the proposal to no longer allow a system that supports the leeches of society. That's why my forced eugenics plan is ever the more important to pass today.

We can take all the dregs of society! Blacks! Illegal Immigrants! Legal Immigrants! Drug Addicts! Anyone whose ever been arrested! Anyone whose different from you or me! Anyone who knows more than one language! Anyone who isn't a christian! Anyone who doesn't vote republican!

We can take them all and kill them! It's a "final solution" if you will to the dirty liberalization of America!

Posted by: wuseche

May 9, 2011 at 3:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Besides that 1/5th to 1/4th of us who are unable to read beyond a basic level, there must be at least another 1/4th of us who are unable to read text of any complexity with true comprehension. Like newspaper columns and editorials.
It would be hard to find the stats, because of the difficulty in defining reading competency.
And then there are all the people who know how to read, but seldom do it.

Posted by: Coralie

May 9, 2011 at 1:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

In the 1980s, several countries in Central America (Cuba, Nicaragua, Honduras) had mass drives to improve lieracy. If such poor countries can afford it, why not us?
Tankersley says "A quick cost benefit analysis suggests that it would be better for America to allocate more funds into areas with suffering literacy rates. " Agreed.
Another approach--and I wonder why Obama hasn't proposed it--is something like the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) in the 1930s. Men in this program acquired basic literacy training, had an income, and completed conservation projects. It could also include repair of infrastructure, weatherizing homes, etc..

Posted by: Coralie

May 10, 2011 at 4:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Finnish elementary schools have LOTS of recesses, while we are cutting down on recess and physical education. Bad choice. The mind and body work together.

Posted by: Coralie

May 11, 2011 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

FFT: You never fail to amaze. Quoting rankings of our students on standardized tests is somehow a rebutal to the fact that we have a system spending more per capita than any other country in the world and yet having a lower success rate? You totally miss the point. Money is not the problem. If it were, we would be the king of kings. We have a societal problem that has been created by 40 years of liberal vote grabbing. Give more to the poor, they will vote for you again, and you can give more to them again. So how is that working out for us? More money is not the answer. Personal responsibility is. You have claimed several times on this blog that you are a entrepreneur who has created many jobs. So do your require personal responsibility and accountability for your employees? If your businesses are successful, the answer is yes. Why is the general public who receives our tax dollars any different? The difference is we do not require accountability when receiving assistance. Yes, we require those on unemployment to show they have been looking for a job. I have had many of these individuals come into my business and ask "you aren't hiring are you" and then ask me to sign their card. We need real change in our system, or we will continue to 'get what we have already got'. - see definition of insanity.

Here is a real world example. I have a 15 year old son who decided it was not necessary to do his homework about 6 weeks ago. As soon as i saw his grades drop, i took all that was precious away from him and did a nightly review of his homework. His grades came right back up. He is a very smart kid, but for some reason lost his way. He required parenting and leadership to get back on the right path.....The teachers, school, curriculum, testing methods, or government spending did not change during this process. He needed parenting. We have a parenting problem in our country, not a spending or teacher problem.

Posted by: commonsense96

May 13, 2011 at 1:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

AlphaCat- glad i could deliver. You are correct that tea party folks are not happy. Let's start with increased deficit of 5 trillion under the Pelosi/Reid/Obama regime. All in just 2 years! I am not happy because my grandkids who are not born yet will be left with an economic meltdown based on liberal philosophy. So label me unhappy. Unhappy that 50% of the US population is being carried on the backs of the other half. Unhappy that we are spending money like drunken sailors and kicking the can down the road when it comes to paying for the spending. Unhappy that we are sitting on some of the richest energy reserves in the world, and yet paying over $100 per barrel for oil to countries who hate us. Unhappy that liberals continue to stick their collective heads in the sand when it comes to economic and energy sensibility. Let's not forget that common sense is not so common, and those who lack such are typically in your camp. It continues to amaze me that a common sense approach to our troubles is politicized by liberals as being the end-all. Responsibility for our financial troubles lies clearly in the lap of liberals. Until we change our course, I will continue to be unhappy with the direction of our country. That makes me a patriot. If you are happy with our course, then there is something significantly wrong with your thought process. By the way, being unhappy with the way things are is what has made us great. A drive to continually improve has fueled our economy for decades. Complacency and happiness with our direction is so outside of sensible reasoning that it would be hilarious if not for the seriousness of the situation.

Posted by: commonsense96

May 13, 2011 at 4:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

SFA returns for another trip to the woodshed. Once the slogans are removed, not much left.

SF: "every child has the same access to the same teachers and curriculum as the rest...">>

Really? Did you see those picture of Detroit?

SF: "multiple generations of leaches (sic) sucking off the government,..">>

Where do these wingnuts get this inspiration to refer to their fellow citizens as leeches? Usually here, (see first paragraph):

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

SF: "We already spend more per capita than any other first-world country...">>

We do spend a lot, but you own source shows your claim is wrong:

"expenditures per student for the United States were $10,267 at the combined elementary and secondary level"

"Expenditures per student... $15,440 in Luxembourg at the combined elementary and secondary level,"

And US spending overall, is close to Canada's for the post secondary level:

"$22,810 in Canada and $25,109 in the United States at the postsecondary level."

Actually, at the elementary and post secondary level, we come in 4th:

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/...

And as a % of GDP (your source), we are tied for *9th* place. Perhaps you should read your sources before you pass them along?

SF: "Why do we just hand out welfare and unemployment dollars with no requirements for service...">>

Unemployment is an insurance program, and welfare has *lots* of requirements.

SF: "You have claimed several times on this blog that you are a entrepreneur who has created many jobs.">>

Nope. I am an entrepreneur, but I am the only employee.

SF: "we do not require accountability when receiving assistance. ">>

Again, you are misinformed. Best to not get your information about such things from AM talk radio.

SF: "Food stamps did not exist in the 1960's.">>

How soon we forget:

"First Food Stamp Program (FSP) (May 16, 1939—Spring 1943)"

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

SFA: "If you lost your job and fell on hard times, you moved in with a relative.">>

Poverty rate in 1959: 22.5%

Poverty rate in 2005: 12.6%

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia...

Or what SFA would call, "the good old days."

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 13, 2011 at 10:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

FFT: Get thy head out of thy arse. Every child in a classroom has the same access to education. This includes Detroit and any other city you want to cite. Many do well, others fail miserably. So the point is why do some excel and others fail given the same educational access within a given school or classroom? Answer: Parental failure and gaps in ability. This is not a money problem. For your reading pleasure:

http://buehlereducation.com/homeschoo...

Detroit spends more per student per year on public education than do all but a small handful of cities, yet in terms of results, such as high school graduation rates, their outcomes are abysmal.

And as for Luxembourg - missed that one with them being so important to the world economy! I went back and reviewed the source... you distort as usual. You are correct that we are beat in dollars spent by Luxembourg, Switzerland, and Norway. That puts the US 4th. As for percent of GDP, i never cited that measurement, but if you want to reference it, Luxembourg is not reported, and we beat Switzerland and Norway. Nice try. Maybe you should analyze your response more closely. As for Canada, I don't care to emulate that program, and 'close' at nearly 15% difference is irrelevant. There are many countries under that definition that are close. We are not playing horseshoes here.

As for Food Stamps - typical liberal fact twisting. Yes there was a CONTRIBUTORY Food Stamp Program in the early 40's. It was an experiment. There was also an experiment in the 50's (limited counties and a few cities). The Food Stamp Act was not enacted until 1964. That was the birth of Food Stamps as we know them today. Taking the reader back to the 40's with an off-hand comment is classic for you.

As for your new argument about poverty rate, it is irrelevant. The method for measuring same has changed dramatically over the years. Not a static measurement. Obama claims we have the illegal immigration situation under control by citing fewer arrests as his basis. Forget about the fact that he has made it harder to arrest! Measurements are more than just the numbers.

Posted by: commonsense96

May 16, 2011 at 1:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

SFA: "Every child in a classroom has the same access to education.">>

How do you know?

SFA: "as for Luxembourg - missed that one...">>

You missed more than one. Did you get anything right from your own source?

SFA: "As for percent of GDP, i never cited that measurement,">>

Your source did. And we come in ninth. Again:

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/...

You probably didn't mention this normal measurement because you didn't see it or you avoided it because it didn't support your attempt to claim that we spend more than anyone else.

SFA: "you should analyze your response more closely.">>

I used your very own source, to rebut your claims. This happens a lot.

Now let's watch you make excuses for your: "Food stamps did not exist in the 1960's."

SFA: "Yes... Food Stamp Program in the early 40's.">>

Okay.

SFA: "also an experiment in the 50's.">>

So we had food stamps in the '40's and '50's. Got it.

SFA: "The Food Stamp Act was not enacted until 1964.">>

So that's 40's, '50's and 60's too?

Well, close. If you had read the reference I already gave you...

" President Kennedy's first Executive Order called for expanded food distribution and, on February 2, 1961, he announced that food stamp pilot programs would be initiated."

So what does that leave of your "Food stamps did not exist in the 1960's" comment? Zip.

SFA: "Taking the reader back to the 40's with an off-hand comment is classic for you.">>

Yes, showing you don't know what you are talking about, is becoming classic.

SFA: "The method for measuring [poverty] has changed dramatically over the years.">>

I'll look to people with the training and expertise in such analysis to know how to make adjustments for such things, rather than your mere assertion.

All standard references show poverty approximately cut in half since that time. And with good reason. Our social programs work to reduce poverty, contrary to what your your right wing sources told you.

D.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 17, 2011 at 8:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )