[talaniman]

Clinton didn't have TWO wars to pay for under the books and Obama put them on the books to include them in his budgets. That Dieshowitz guy is a brilliant lawyer, gotten a lot of innocent people out of jail, but as an economist?? His opinion is worthless.

[Athos]

taxes isn't the problem . overspending is the issue.

No argument that overspending is an issue, but that doesn't mean tax structures are NOT a problem. Two sides of the same coin.

Clinton didn't have TWO wars to pay for under the books and Obama put them on the books to include them in his budgets. That Dieshowitz guy is a brilliant lawyer, gotten a lot of innocent people out of jail, but as an economist?? His opinion is worthless.

Like a lot of lawyers, they are past their use-by date. Dershowitz and Giuliani are two prime examples. Rudy was terrific early on, now he defines the expression "unhinged".

Good grief Athos. Chill out. You get too bent out shape.

You have nothing to say, so you sputter. I thought you left.

[paraclete]

Athos play nice all opinions are accepted even if we disagree

[Athos]

Athos play nice all opinions are accepted even if we disagree

Sorry, P, you lack any credibility for me which is why I rarely directly respond to you. And I certainly do NOT accept all opinions. I do respect right-wing arguments - tomder being a worthy example - but I don't often agree with them, and I never agree with a Trump supporter.

Trump's edicts and his attitudes toward immigrants and the press, and his disparagement of the rule of law (among other of his attributes) are chillingly similar to the 1930s fascist programs and ideas. Even his body language is an almost comical spot-on replication of Mussolini's strutting, arms folded, head-nodding, self-congratulatory posture.

[paraclete]

Sorry, P, you lack any credibility for me which is why I rarely directly respond to you. And I certainly do NOT accept all opinions. I do respect right-wing arguments - tomder being a worthy example - but I don't often agree with them, and I never agree with a Trump supporter.

Trump's edicts and his attitudes toward immigrants and the press, and his disparagement of the rule of law (among other of his attributes) are chillingly similar to the 1930s fascist programs and ideas. Even his body language is an almost comical spot-on replication of Mussolini's strutting, arms folded, head-nodding, self-congratulatory posture.

Stop living in the past, Trump is a class on his own, Trump is no socialist, he is a populist, a would be demagog, but his oratory skills are lacking, so he speaks in short sentences and catch phrases.

You say I have no credibility, but where is yours. You would rather have someone like Hilliary because she is slapped with a demorat label, but she has no credibility at all, Without the support of those super nominations she would hardly have any support and you would have been voting for Bernie. Now I don't say Trump has credibility but he did get elected and he did it in a way that counted, which indicates he had a smart team.

I think you should spend your time on your next wish list

[jlisenbe]

My goodness. All quiet on the western front.

[talaniman]

Stop living in the past, Trump is a class on his own, Trump is no socialist, he is a populist, a would be demagog, but his oratory skills are lacking, so he speaks in short sentences and catch phrases.

You say I have no credibility, but where is yours. You would rather have someone like Hilliary because she is slapped with a demorat label, but she has no credibility at all, Without the support of those super nominations she would hardly have any support and you would have been voting for Bernie. Now I don't say Trump has credibility but he did get elected and he did it in a way that counted, which indicates he had a smart team.

I think you should spend your time on your next wish list

I would have voted for Bernie, though I don't line up all the way with his platform. I do think an American version of socialism would shame the Chinese, Russians and all those tin hat dictators.

[paraclete]

It's not in your genes

[jlisenbe]

Russia verges on being a third world country. China was a big nothing until they began to move in the direction of... capitalism and free enterprise! Name the socialist country that has matched the economic growth of the U.S. the past fifty years. Socialism promises to erase poverty. We don't like to say this, and I realize it's not popular, but most poor people in America are poor because they make poor decisions. Some have mental and physical problems that limit them, and I get that, but the majority doom themselves to poverty with their lifestyle decisions. Having three or four children out of wedlock, for instance, is nearly always a decision to stay in, or near, poverty. I think it would be amazing if we woke up one day and the out of wedlock birth rate had dropped to 10% or less. That by itself would result in a much lower poverty rate.

Tal, we just ended up buying a new stove. From what I could read, and the videos you dug up (thanks!), there is a relay that energizes the upper element that can fuse stuck. In that case, you have to replace the entire electric control unit for over three hundred bucks. Just made more sense to get a new one.

[paraclete]

China has outstripped the US in the last fifty years

[talaniman]

Russia verges on being a third world country. China was a big nothing until they began to move in the direction of... capitalism and free enterprise! Name the socialist country that has matched the economic growth of the U.S. the past fifty years. Socialism promises to erase poverty. We don't like to say this, and I realize it's not popular, but most poor people in America are poor because they make poor decisions. Some have mental and physical problems that limit them, and I get that, but the majority doom themselves to poverty with their lifestyle decisions. Having three or four children out of wedlock, for instance, is nearly always a decision to stay in, or near, poverty. I think it would be amazing if we woke up one day and the out of wedlock birth rate had dropped to 10% or less. That by itself would result in a much lower poverty rate.

Tal, we just ended up buying a new stove. From what I could read, and the videos you dug up (thanks!), there is a relay that energizes the upper element that can fuse stuck. In that case, you have to replace the entire electric control unit for over three hundred bucks. Just made more sense to get a new one.

If that's the case, why do conservatives seek to make birth control hard for poor people? Why do you FORCE poor woman to have those out of wedlock kids? LOL in contrast, females with means and insurance see the oby/gyn a few times a year for birth controlling procedures and drugs and I respectfully submit if poor woman had the same access and means to such care we wouldn't see women and children in poverty as we do now. Doing it your way has been a recipe for MORE children out of wedlock, and expecting the least of us to toe your moral line has done nothing to help, or guide those in such need, it's made matters worse, as capitalism has failed as miserably as socialism. If you speak of choice you must also recognize that some have more choices than others, and some are forced into bad choices because of OTHERS. Limiting the choices of others has as much consequences as bad choices. Heck guy a LIVING wage would go further in eliminating poverty than almost any other policy. Most poor people I know are working poor, or displaced poor after they lost a job through no fault of their own, they had for years or decades. Some are DIVORCED, lose everything and find themselves in overwhelming situations. It takes YEARS to correct poor choices or BAD times and a STRONG social safety net is NEEDED for BOTH.

Glad you solved your problem. I always feel it helpful to know your OPTIONS. Just curious what would you do if you didn't have the RESOURCES for a new oven?

China has outstripped the US in the last fifty years

Not hardly, because they need us a lot more than they let on. There are a lot more of them than us. They require MUCH help.

[jlisenbe]

If that's the case, why do conservatives seek to make birth control hard for poor people? Why do you FORCE poor woman to have those out of wedlock kids?

I am 65 years old and I have never heard of any conservative who forced a poor woman to have sex and get pregnant. BC pills are 10 bucks a month. Condoms are what, a quarter? And there is always your beloved Planned Parenthood with their free services, not to mention the many other free and low-priced clinics there are. How do you explain the fact that poor women 60 years ago had children out of wedlock only rarely, and that was before BC pills? Getting pregnant, outside of rape or incest, is a choice. Having sex is a choice. Having 3 or 4 kids out of wedlock is a choice. Don't throw that on conservatives.

Most poor people I know are working poor, or displaced poor after they lost a job through no fault of their own, they had for years or decades. Some are DIVORCED, lose everything and find themselves in overwhelming situations. It takes YEARS to correct poor choices or BAD times and a STRONG social safety net is NEEDED for BOTH.

That is a good point. I am referring to the generationally poor who have been raised on welfare with no real intention of working. For those who are in a temporary situation there is unemployment insurance, or for divorced women there should be a divorce financial settlement. But here is where we part company. I think that helping the poor should be an individual undertaking for you and me. You seem to believe, but correct me if I'm wrong, that Tal, and other liberals, should display their compassion for poor people by getting other people to support them through taxation.

If I didn't have the resources for a new oven, I would buy a used one, or get the cheapest one I could find and pay for it over two years. I have been poor before in my life. I know what it's like. I would not have forced Tal to buy me an oven through taxing him. I would, and have done so many times, consider it to be my job to take care of me and my family. It is also my job to help the poor, and it is your's as well, but not by forcing the feds to take money from others (the "rich") in order to do so.

The terrible thing is this. By getting poor people accustomed to living on the resources of others, you are robbing them of their only real chance to escape poverty. That is to work, to work hard, to work 70 hours a week if need be, and then to have the satisfaction of knowing that YOU purchased the food on your table. The only real avenue of escape from poverty, for most people, is to get married, have children inside of marriage, work hard, spend wisely, and work together. Welfare robs them of the incentive to do that.

That Dieshowitz guy is a brilliant lawyer, gotten a lot of innocent people out of jail, but as an economist?? His opinion is worthless.

Who appealed to AD as an economist?

[tomder55]

China has outstripped the US in the last fifty years

Xi jinping's great leap backwards will derail any gains they had from their pseudo-capitalism.

[paraclete]

You may be right but it is his answer to maintain the boom and China is indebting many poor nations

[talaniman]

I am 65 years old and I have never heard of any conservative who forced a poor woman to have sex and get pregnant. BC pills are 10 bucks a month. Condoms are what, a quarter? And there is always your beloved Planned Parenthood with their free services, not to mention the many other free and low-priced clinics there are. How do you explain the fact that poor women 60 years ago had children out of wedlock only rarely, and that was before BC pills? Getting pregnant, outside of rape or incest, is a choice. Having sex is a choice. Having 3 or 4 kids out of wedlock is a choice. Don't throw that on conservatives.

I should have specified conservative policy makers. Specifically in Texas where I am. They have been shutting down MANY PP clinics across the state, regulating the doctors who do the actual abortions (Stiff hospital affiliation standards, which hospitals understandably balk at strenuously), and some pretty tough building codes. The funny thing is the emergence of private clinics and emergency facilities, like you said being pushed statewide, but do they cater to women with no insurance or treat Medicaid recipients for women health needs? As to the BC being cheap, yeah if you have an insurance carrier to pay the rest after your copay. How about those conservatives who run Hobby Lobby that refuse to provide insurance to their female employees for any kind of pills or procedures that deal with anything to do with BC? How about those states that conservatives control that didn't expand Medicaid? Such policies and legislation does affect the availability of female services as it relates to any kind of responsible actions for POOR females even in light of the facts that the need for abortions go down with education, and care available to them. Your point of this being an old ongoing issue is well taken but a clearer understanding I think of the solutions to those choices as far as sex and families go for the poorest among us goes back to what I originally said about a strong social safety net being needed.

I mean its great to be able to see that OBY/GYN regularly, and when needed, get scripts, and guidance, and access to those inpatient procedures if you are a few days weeks pregnant despite whatever BC you may use, and that does happen, and I just think poor woman should have that same CHOICE for care and guidance and support.

*Condoms help but are not 100% effective so not a guarantee at all and yes I know a few who use them and the pill and still got pregnant. Browse these forums if you decline to take my word for it.

That is a good point. I am referring to the generationally poor who have been raised on welfare with no real intention of working. For those who are in a temporary situation there is unemployment insurance, or for divorced women there should be a divorce financial settlement. But here is where we part company. I think that helping the poor should be an individual undertaking for you and me. You seem to believe, but correct me if I'm wrong, that Tal, and other liberals, should display their compassion for poor people by getting other people to support them through taxation.

I respectfully submit that the case for generationally poor is overblown, and the governments own data indicates that public aid is used by the working poor as well as people going through hard times, typically on average for TWO years. Children born out of wedlock is a NON FACTOR in a country with a 50% divorce rate for a FIRST marriage, and many who live together in long term relationships. A marriage license or religious affiliated ceremony doesn't protect anyone from the life altering break up of the family structure. I won't get on the subject of education both primary and higher being sorely and systematically underfunded, staffed, and inadequate, that's more to the leadership of the state, nor will I fault those that have shared in the states failings due to budgets cuts because of closing businesses and high unemployment, and massive infrastructure degradation. I find it amazing that nobody minds being taxed for guns and weapons of war, windfalls to rich guys and a bunch of corporate welfare to international conglomerates, but no help for struggling in need men woman and children. It's my position that EVERYBODY be treated fairly while keeping the trains running on time and the roads and schools open and maintained and not just a cash cow for rich guys who hoard their money. You saying taxation shouldn't support ALL the people, just the rich investor class job creators? DUDE, those job creators barely support their own workers let alone their country. Got to be a better way. Research Amazon workers on food stamps to get an idea of what I'm talking about. What you thought Walmart was the only gouger in town? That's your local taxes at work. You are paying workers instead of the boss they work for. So lets put this welfare charity tax stuff to bed until we address the corporate welfare that destroys the tax base like poor people never will. Yeah I did the MATH!

If I didn't have the resources for a new oven, I would buy a used one, or get the cheapest one I could find and pay for it over two years. I have been poor before in my life. I know what it's like. I would not have forced Tal to buy me an oven through taxing him. I would, and have done so many times, consider it to be my job to take care of me and my family. It is also my job to help the poor, and it is your's as well, but not by forcing the feds to take money from others (the "rich") in order to do so.

A fair tax contribution/distribution system is in order if you want America to be great again. The one we have now is nowhere near FAIR or effective. I know poor myself and can say with certainty it's not even a matter of taking from the rich, it's more like giving MORE to the rich and very little is left for anything else. Poor people don't cause recessions/depressions, or global financial meltdowns... RICH guys do. I got nothing against them but why should I slobber over them and just give 'em my life for little return? LOL, I know where the cheap parts are, and the easy credit terms can be found.

The terrible thing is this. By getting poor people accustomed to living on the resources of others, you are robbing them of their only real chance to escape poverty. That is to work, to work hard, to work 70 hours a week if need be, and then to have the satisfaction of knowing that YOU purchased the food on your table. The only real avenue of escape from poverty, for most people, is to get married, have children inside of marriage, work hard, spend wisely, and work together. Welfare robs them of the incentive to do that.

Got ya' on the working hard deal, not so much on escaping poverty through marriage. It's that 50% divorce rate that looms large. Just don't buy that last line for reasons outlined above.

Who appealed to AD as an economist?

He is entitled to his opinion when getting his face time. Your choice to agree, disagree, or ignore.

I admire any 65 year old guy who can work 80 hours a week.

8)

[jlisenbe]

Interesting reply. I have three questions for you.

1. Why is it that the out of wedlock birth rate was so low in 1960 (about 5%) compared to now (about 40%)? Bear in mind that this was before any birth control than those old unreliable condoms.

2. Can any woman get pregnant who is not having sex? If the answer is "no", then wouldn't it be sensible for unmarried women to simply not have sex? If you feel that is not sensible or possible, then explain how it was both sensible and possible for nearly all of recorded human history. And if they become pregnant by having unprotected sex, then why would any other American be forced to pay to support her?

3. Would you be OK with the feds issuing a poor person a voucher entitling that person to 300 dollars a month of your income? That way you would have the satisfaction of knowing that you were actually contributing to the benefit of a poor person.

One point. Ten dollars a month for birth control pills is the actual price at Walmart and several other stores, not a co-pay. In fact, it is actually cheaper than 10 bucks.

[Wondergirl]

2. Wouldn't it be sensible for unmarried women to simply not have sex?

And certainly there's NO pressure on her to have sex.... New rule for males: No more sex unless you're married to her.

[jlisenbe]

Ahh, Wondergirl. Now you are catching on! I agree with you completely.

There is pressure to do many things. Drugs, drunkenness, party down, drop out of school, and so forth. The challenge is to do what is productive, and I would say what is pleasing in the sight of God.

[Wondergirl]

Ahh, Wondergirl. Now you are catching on! I agree with you completely.

And males will say when she says "no"....?

[jlisenbe]

What does that have to do with it? So you are seriously suggesting that women should base their decisions on what they think a man will say? A woman makes a decision to live wisely. Why should she care what some stupid men say about it? What if they won't date her because she won't do drugs, or she won't get drunk? Should she change her standards then?