# How long will the Democrats control the House?



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

Do you think it'll be a brief 4-6 years, or one or two decades? Or will they hold it for another 40 years, like the time they had it?

Also, is it virtually impossible for the GOP to retake the House unless there's a Democrat President in office?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

The Democrats control the House?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

AMVanquish said:


> Do you think it'll be a brief 4-6 years, or one or two decades? Or will they hold it for another 40 years, like the time they had it?
> 
> Also, is it virtually impossible for the GOP to retake the House unless there's a Democrat President in office?


The GOP squandered its chance to create a dynasty in the House. By almost any fiscal criteria one wishes to use (budget deficits, trade deficits etc) the borrow-and-spend Republicans who now comprise the party's leadership have managed to make a bigger fiscal mess in 12 years than the tax-and-spend Democrats did in 40 years.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

It wasn't that long ago varuious pundits questioned if the Democratic party would even survive. I believe their majority is a result more of failure in the Bush administration than any inherent qualities that shine through our national malaise. Both parties should be doing some serious introspection.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

per Dick Morris: I think what's going to happen in the world is that Hillary's going to be the next president. I think she'll be the world's worst president. I think Republicans will get massacred in Congress in the '08 election, massacred. But then I think in '10 they'll take Congress back because I think that Hillary will give the Republican party in 2010 the same gift she gave them in 1994. And then I think Hillary will be defeated '12, but I think that will be the last Republican president we'll ever see, because I think at that point the Hispanic and the black vote become so large, and the Hispanics I think now are irretrievable anyway.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> I think she'll be the world's worst president.


See, that'll be a really subjective assessment. I suppose if you are a conservative, she would be the worst. Because whatever she accomplishes probably won't be to your liking.

But the people who voted for her will judge her on how _effectively_ she carries out the agenda they voted for. And with a Democratic House and Senate, I don't see how she's going to be _ineffective._ She's smart, she has a husband who's done the job, and she has the support of the House and Senate. I fail to see how she's not going to please the people who voted for her.

I'm not convinced she'll get the nomination or win the election. But if she does, I think it's unlikely she'll fail to win a second term. Because she'll have more things working in her favor than just about any president ever has, and she'll be effective in the job. And that's all that counts, not pleasing people who are philosophically opposed to her already.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> per Dick Morris: I think what's going to happen in the world is that Hillary's going to be the next president. I think she'll be the world's worst president. I think Republicans will get massacred in Congress in the '08 election, massacred. But then I think in '10 they'll take Congress back because I think that Hillary will give the Republican party in 2010 the same gift she gave them in 1994. And then I think Hillary will be defeated '12, but I think that will be the last Republican president we'll ever see, because I think at that point the Hispanic and the black vote become so large, and the Hispanics I think now are irretrievable anyway.


Gotta love his use of the word "irretrievable", as if Hispanics are lost pets or something. We now have 55% of American families living from paycheck to paycheck, and the greatest income and wealth disparities between rich and poor since the Great Depression, and Morris blames blacks and "irretrievable" Hispanics for the inevitable extinction of the Republican Party. What political genius.

The reason most minorities don't vote Republican is simply because the party, as has been proven beyond any doubt in the past decade doesn't give a flying fajita about them. In fact it's more accurately labeled utter contempt.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I believe Morris almost completely right, with the exception (I'm desperately hoping, anyway) of his last point.

The Democrat leaders have the majority of African-Americans and Hispanics precisely where they want them - and their party philosophy will keep them right there; forever dependent on the "benevolent" Democrats.

Does anyone think Biden's outrageous condescension was a compliment to Obama? I'm sure that Biden really thinks it was. That type of thinking is rampant on the liberal left. Biden is still befuddled about the entire incident (as well as his comment about the Indians running all the Dunkin Donuts, etc). Most Democrat politicians are at least smart enough not to so blatantly publically state it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> See, that'll be a really subjective assessment. I suppose if you are a conservative, she would be the worst. Because whatever she accomplishes probably won't be to your liking.
> 
> But the people who voted for her will judge her on how _effectively_ she carries out the agenda they voted for. And with a Democratic House and Senate, I don't see how she's going to be _ineffective._ She's smart, she has a husband who's done the job, and she has the support of the House and Senate. I fail to see how she's not going to please the people who voted for her.
> 
> I'm not convinced she'll get the nomination or win the election. But if she does, I think it's unlikely she'll fail to win a second term. Because she'll have more things working in her favor than just about any president ever has, and she'll be effective in the job. And that's all that counts, not pleasing people who are philosophically opposed to her already.


I am not so sure crs. Somehow, there seems to often be a disconnect between people's expectation and actual outcomes. Let me give you an example:

Here in Arizona, a voter's initiative to raise the minimum wage passed last fall. A very wealthy and prominent local Democrat called me to complain about some billing to a family member recently. I explained how many of my costs have gone up as part of the reason this healthcare encounter cost more than the previous. I was challenged to list a specific cost. I told her many of my low skill jobs now cost more due to the huge hike in the State's minimum wage (of course I chose this with a reason, as I know this person's politics). Not only did I have to raise the wages of a whole cadre of workers, I also had upwards wage pressure on another set of workers. So the results were we cut a couple of FTEs and raised the rates on some global prices. This wealthy and prominent Democrat could not believe we would pass some of the cost on to the end user. As the kids would say, "Duh!"

So the moral is, if Hillary enacts her left wing agenda, many people that once backed her really might be surprised when these policies take a big wet gaping bite out of their fannies, not some imaginary evil class known as "the rich." Keep in mind, at that point it will be moot to me though crs, as I plan to quit working and move in down the street from you and collect welfare


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

" I think"- therefore, I am, I am right, I am in need of an editor.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> I told her many of my low skill jobs now cost more due to the huge hike in the State's minimum wage (of course I chose this with a reason, as I know this person's politics).


So what you are saying is that you didn't give the whole truth, you put a political spin on it? Well, both sides do that. Unless you think the Dems are more honest than the Republicans and won't try to put a positive spin on any negatives that are bound to happen?

Just like now. We have one portion of America that believes the notion that the economy is doing great. And we have one portion that doesn't. I base my assessment of the economy on the fact our revenue is down, not because we have fewer readers, but because advertisers keep going out of business. People who aren't into ideology base their assessments on a very micro level -- how their personal and local economies are doing.

Do you think you changed that woman's mind about minimum wage? If she's like me, she believes she is paying the price for living in the kind of society she chose -- she might not be overjoyed about her increased costs, but she accepts it.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Does it matter? They are one, and the same. Especially since Bush is a closet Democrat. He even fights a war like LBJ.

Republicans = American Socialist Party.
Democrats = American Communist Party.

Same 'ol Scheisse.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> So what you are saying is that you didn't give the whole truth, you put a political spin on it?


Are you indicating that I was in some way disingenuous? I most certainly was not. I was challenged for *an example* and I gave her a true and verifiable example. Please show me the "spin". It was an example specifically designed to shut this person up yes, but "spin"? No way.



crs said:


> Do you think you changed that woman's mind about minimum wage? If she's like me, she believes she is paying the price for living in the kind of society she chose -- she might not be overjoyed about her increased costs, but she accepts it.


I used reason, logic, and economics. No, I certainly do not think I changed a liberal's mind with those tactics. Sorry to sound snide, but Key-right-ist Almighty, your typical cynicism addressed above is beyond me.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I want to further address this crs. So what you are basically saying is that liberals and Democrats will participate in adverse outcomes for themselves to create the type of semi-socialist society you so desire?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> I want to further address this crs. So what you are basically saying is that liberals and Democrats will participate in adverse outcomes for themselves to create the type of semi-socialist society you so desire?


Sure, for the greater good. Of course.

As for the "spin," you indicated that you "chose" your explanation based on the woman's politics. I inferred that you therefore had a choice, and chose one explanation over another.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Sure, for the greater good. Of course.


For the greater good, yes.....so then, one would not expect, say...Noam Chomsky to avoid "death" taxes by setting up trust funds for his daughter? I mean, is it legal? Sure. But is it moral according to what you have just formulated? I think not. Is it a liberal/socialist avoiding an adverse outcome to benefit his family by ignoring the "greater good"? You bet yer hiney it is. Is it something a working class person, the class Noam feels is so hard done by, would have access to? Not a chance.

Need I go further to prove your words very false? Liberal NIMBY for instance? No crs, people are people. No matter what they espouse, when push comes to shove, they take care of their own first. People like me are just honest about it and do not walk around with blinders on.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> For the greater good, yes.....so then, one would not expect, say...Noam Chomsky to avoid "death" taxes by setting up trust funds for his daughter? I mean, is it legal? Sure. But is it moral according to what you have just formulated? I think not. Is it a liberal/socialist avoiding an adverse outcome to benefit his family by ignoring the "greater good"? You bet yer hiney it is. Is it something a working class person, the class Noam feels is so hard done by, would have access to? Not a chance.


Right, there are no conservative hypocrites. It's silly to point to one example and act as if it's a "gotcha." We both could play it that way -- drug laws and Rush Limbaugh, for example.



Wayfarer said:


> Liberal NIMBY for instance?


Where I live there are far greater examples of conservative NIMBY. However, I see nothing wrong with a neighborhood saying we've done our share, don't put _all of it_ here, spread it around. Conservatives are quick to point fingers from their gated communities, but there is no reason why liberal towns need to house _all_ county, state and federal social services. I only visit your state nowadays, but over here you'd be dead wrong. My experience of living where you live, albeit 23 years ago, was that most social services were located downtown and in the liberal neighborhood next to it, just west of the U. So I don't buy it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Right, there are no conservative hypocrites. It's silly to point to one example and act as if it's a "gotcha." We both could play it that way -- drug laws and Rush Limbaugh, for example.


Ah yes, the every popular _tu quoque_ argument. Sorry, does not negate my example yet my example eviscerates your thesis, as I used someone that is seen as a leading and paragon liberal. And just to refute your endless implications of my somehow giving a damn about Rush, I do not. Anyone with half a mind reading my myraid of posts knows I differ sharply from about 80% of his views. Again, nice try, but no dice.



crs said:


> Where I live there are far greater examples of conservative NIMBY. However, I see nothing wrong with a neighborhood saying we've done our share, don't put _all of it_ here, spread it around. Conservatives are quick to point fingers from their gated communities, but there is no reason why liberal towns need to house _all_ county, state and federal social services. I only visit your state nowadays, but over here you'd be dead wrong. My experience of living where you live, albeit 23 years ago, was that most social services were located downtown and in the liberal neighborhood next to it, just west of the U. So I don't buy it.


You can deny reality again, which is exactly what I knew you would do. You fail to see reality or even worse, see it yet fail to admit it to uphold your patently absurd stances, such as the one I just finished destroying.

I fail to see what you are talking about _vis a vis_ Tucson also. I am not sure how housing social services offices in office buildings translates to NIMBY, but I am sure you will offer insight into that. And FYI, all of Tucson is predominantly liberal, one must leave the city proper and hit Oro Valley to run into conservatism. Oddly enough, over double the average household income vs. Tucson too. Corelation? Hmm.

Your stated thought that liberals will gladly sacrifice "for the greater good" is disprovable time and time and time and time......again. It is a patently absurd thing to say. What some few misguided souls, with little wordly possession and little liklihood to obtain much, will do is not representative. Need I detail all the tax shelters, loop holes, etc. that wealthy liberal after wealthy liberal take advantage of? How many kids of Democrat parents go to private schools? Hell, how many Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers I still see on gas guzzling SUV?

Sorry, anyone with a touch of reason will see I am far and away presenting a much more realistic picture than you.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

crs said:


> We have one portion of America that believes the notion that the economy is doing great. And we have one portion that doesn't.


What good is a record high stock market when the top 1% of income earners own over a third of the market, while the bottom 80% own less than 11%?

What good is low unemployment when underemployment is at epidemic levels?

What's the point e.g. of offering federal tax breaks for heath care costs, to people who don't earn enough to have any federal tax liability?

"The most recent findings on income inequality come from the _New York Times'_ analysis of a November, 2006, Internal Revenue Service report on income in 2004. Although overall income has grown by 27% since 1979, 33% of the gains went to the top 1%. Meanwhile, the bottom 60% were making less: about 95 cents for each dollar they made in 1979. The next 20% - those between the 60th and 80th rungs of the income ladder -- made $1.02 for each dollar they earned in 1979. Furthermore, the _Times_ author concludes that only the top 5% made significant gains ($1.53 for each 1979 dollar). Most amazing of all, the top 0.1% -- that's one-tenth of one percent -- had more combined pre-tax income than the poorest 120 million people (Johnston, 2006)."
https://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC, read your article. It clearly indicates that this has been the status quo for nearly 200 years:



> Numerous studies show that the wealth distribution has been extremely concentrated throughout American history, with the top 1% already owning *40-50%* in large port cities like Boston, New York, and Charleston in the 19th century (Keister, 2005). It was very stable over the course of the 20th century, although there were small declines in the aftermath of the New Deal and World II, when most people were working and could save a little money. There were progressive income tax rates, too, which took some money from the rich to help with government services.


1998, the last year in Table 3, shows the top 1% owned ~ 38% so actually, a decline over the proposed mean.

I like too that it states less than 1.6% of the population inherits 100k or more. Even this article written by a sociology prof dispells the popular myth most millionares inherited their wealth.

This article also shows I am clearly not oppressing enough people. I need to hustle and get wealthier!

Cheers


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Ah yes, the every popular _tu quoque_ argument. Sorry, does not negate my example yet my example eviscerates your thesis, as I used someone that is seen as a leading and paragon liberal. And just to refute your endless implications of my somehow giving a damn about Rush, I do not. Anyone with half a mind reading my myraid of posts knows I differ sharply from about 80% of his views. Again, nice try, but no dice.


Limbaugh is just as much a conservative icon as Chomsky is a liberal icon. You seem unable to grasp that your example is equal to mine, but it is. It is not necessary for you to agree with Limbaugh any more than it is for me to agree with Chomsky to make these examples equal.



Wayfarer said:


> And FYI, all of Tucson is predominantly liberal, one must leave the city proper and hit Oro Valley to run into conservatism.


Liberal by Arizona standards perhaps, but certainly not by blue-state standards.

You really don't know what you're talking about. You've lived what, two places in this country? I've lived all over it, liberal areas, conservative areas.

You have this annoying habit of declaring victory in an argument, just like Saddam in the Gulf War. From my standpoint it appears that you are a person with native intelligence but superficial knowledge of the United States gained from living in one of the most depressed areas of the country and then in one of the most conservative.

Gotta go for now.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Limbaugh is just as much a conservative icon as Chomsky is a liberal icon. You seem unable to grasp that your example is equal to mine, but it is. It is not necessary for you to agree with Limbaugh any more than it is for me to agree with Chomsky to make these examples equal.


You seem unable to grasp, in debate, as it is you that placed forward a thesis for contention, the only thing I need to win is valid proof you are incorrect. You can say what you want about Limbaugh as he relates to conservatism, but that has exactly nadda to do with your stated concept that liberals will suffer adverse things "for the greater good". My Chomsky example was a huge blow to your thesis.

As to Tucson now not being liberal....again, you really need to get a grip on yourself. First, let me refresh your memory here on who deemed it liberal in this conversation:



crs said:


> My experience of living where you live, albeit 23 years ago, was that most social services were located downtown and* in the liberal neighborhood* next to it, just west of the U.


Now for you to tell me...and this really makes me chuckle as keep in mind, I did not raise the politics of the Tucson area, you did:



crs said:


> Liberal by Arizona standards perhaps, but certainly not by blue-state standards.
> 
> You really don't know what you're talking about.


All you have done here is tell me you considered your original classification incorrect. The person that would therefore seem not to know what they are talking about would seem to be none other than you. You are basically arguing against yourself at this point. This is the danger of attempting _ad hoc_ rescues, you start to contradict yourself.

Also, as far as the Detroit area being "depressed"? Sure parts of it are very, very depressed. Now please go an educate yourself and tell me how many Detroit area 'burbs are actually in the Top 25 wealthiest communities in the US (hint: two). What this has to do with your thesis again, is beyond me, but I could not resist showing you your error yet again.

You have to run? Yes, I would flee from the tripe you have posted too.

Cheers


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I keep waiting for someone to claim, "I'm running circles around you logically." It worked great in Monty Python's "Penguin on top of the TV set" routine.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> What's the point e.g. of offering federal tax breaks for heath care costs, to people who don't earn enough to have any federal tax liability?


Frank, please tell the class at what amount of income one begins to incur a federal tax liability and please list some examples of the jobs that you think earn below that amount?


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> The Democrats control the House?


LOL. Very funny.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Frank, please tell the class at what amount of income one begins to incur a federal tax liability and *please list some examples of the jobs *that you think earn below that amount?





> My babysitter refused to provide me with her social security number.


From:

We are missing out on BILLIONS of dollars in tax revenues I think. We need to slap these pony-tailed dead beats into irons!

:icon_smile_big:


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> What good is a record high stock market when the top 1% of income earners own over a third of the market, while the bottom 80% own less than 11%?
> 
> What good is low unemployment when underemployment is at epidemic levels?
> 
> What's the point e.g. of offering federal tax breaks for heath care costs, to people who don't earn enough to have any federal tax liability?


Read:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Everyone, please re-compute your previous estimates with the latest information ...


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Everyone, please re-compute your previous estimates with the latest information ...


It would certainly motivate me to work harder and make more money!


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> You seem unable to grasp, in debate, as it is you that placed forward a thesis for contention, the only thing I need to win is valid proof you are incorrect. You can say what you want about Limbaugh as he relates to conservatism, but that has exactly nadda to do with your stated concept that liberals will suffer adverse things "for the greater good". My Chomsky example was a huge blow to your thesis.


Your Chomsky example was complete garbage. I couldn't tell you whether I agree with him or not as he is not even on my radar. Yet you hold him up as some norm of liberalism. He is to liberals what Limbaugh is to conservatives. Famous, but that's about it. In fact I could quote Limbaugh a lot more easily than I could quote Chomsky. You gave a ridiculous example and I countered with the exact equivalent.



Wayfarer said:


> As to Tucson now not being liberal....again, you really need to get a grip on yourself. First, let me refresh your memory here on who deemed it liberal in this conversation:


No, I referenced one neighborhood. You're writing about the entire city.

Pima County has voted barely Democratic in the past two presidential elections. New York City has voted in two consecutive two-term Republican mayors. Does that make New York conservative? If you moved from metro NYC to Tucson, you would consider Tucson conservative. If you moved from Tucson to NYC, you would consider NYC ultra-liberal.



Wayfarer said:


> Also, as far as the Detroit area being "depressed"? Sure parts of it are very, very depressed. Now please go an educate yourself and tell me how many Detroit area 'burbs are actually in the Top 25 wealthiest communities in the US (hint: two).:


Yes, I have a former colleague/roommate (at the Fox TV station!) who lives in Grosse Pointe Something. We're talking what percentage of metro Detroit living in luxury? Five percent, 10 percent maybe? As a whole it is a depressed area.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Read:


Thanks for the link. That's perhaps the most agendized, pathetic collection of half-truths and utter deception I've ever read. E.g. the idea of basing how poor people are by the square footage of their housing, as if poor people had (or have) some kind of control over building standards in the U.S... good grief, my eight year-old could easily see the agenda behind the argument.

But to those who try to justify e.g. the greatest income and wealth disparities since the Great Depression in this country, the report tells them exactly what they want to hear.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Thanks for the link. That's perhaps the most agendized, pathetic collection of half-truths and utter deception I've ever read. E.g. the idea of basing how poor people are by the square footage of their housing, as if poor people had (or have) some kind of control over building standards in the U.S... good grief, my eight year-old could easily see the agenda behind the argument.
> 
> But to those who try to justify e.g. the greatest income and wealth disparities since the Great Depression in this country, the report tells them exactly what they want to hear.


For those who wish to justify your view, it provides the perfect punching bag. By the way, what would your solution be?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

While poverty has no "solution", our government can and should address the major causes of it, i.e. keeping decent paying jobs in the U.S. by removing economic incentives for corporations to export them; implementing a basic but universal health care program to keep small medical problems from becoming big expensive ones, etc. But above all else, the American people must finally be given the peace dividend that has been due them since the end of WWII. The military-industrial complex needs to be dismantled, the Pentagon all but dismantled, their shadow government disbanded, and the resulting half trillion dollars a year in savings spent on our elderly, disabled and poor, and infrastructure.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> implementing a basic but universal health care program to keep small medical problems from becoming big expensive ones, etc.


I don't think single payer health care would have that result. In my experience, it is often not lack of funds/health insurance that prevents people from seeking treatment before small problems become large, expensive ones. I've seen lots of older patients, all covered by Medicare, who have let their disease develop over years when most people would have sought treatment immediately. It can't be explained away as a lack of insurance, because they're covered by Medicare. The better explanation is lack of discipline or education, but mostly discipline, which is the same reason many of those patients were not financially successful as working adults. So, I think you're fooling yourself if you're convinced that single payer health care would result in most of those people getting treated right away.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

In many cases medical problems in the elderly are the result of years of neglect, years in which they may not have had medical insurance. While I agree with your basic point, I think it's a stretch to claim we wouldn't see a substantial reduction in health care costs in this country if everyone had access to basic coverage.


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

Back to original post and question.

Dems will lose control of House in 2010.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> What's the point e.g. of offering federal tax breaks for heath care costs, to people who don't earn enough to have any federal tax liability?





ksinc said:


> Frank, please tell the class at what amount of income one begins to incur a federal tax liability and please list some examples of the jobs that you think earn below that amount?


Frank, we're still waiting for you to dazzle us with your mastery of economic data and U.S. Tax Codes.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> In many cases medical problems in the elderly are the result of years of neglect, years in which they may not have had medical insurance. While I agree with your basic point, I think it's a stretch to claim we wouldn't see a substantial reduction in health care costs in this country if everyone had access to basic coverage.


Wtf are you talking about? The elderly by definition have great medical coverage, i.e. Medicare. Can you even explain to me the four parts of Medicare Part A? (Of course you can with Google).

Can you give me some stats/references to support your first sentence?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> While poverty has no "solution", our government can and should address * the major causes of [poverty] *, i.e. keeping decent paying jobs in the U.S. by removing economic incentives for corporations to export them; implementing a basic but universal health care program to keep small medical problems from becoming big expensive ones, etc. But above all else, the American people must finally be given the peace dividend that has been due them since the end of WWII. The military-industrial complex needs to be dismantled, the Pentagon all but dismantled, their shadow government disbanded, and the resulting half trillion dollars a year in savings spent on our elderly, disabled and poor, and infrastructure.


So, the major cause of poverty in the U.S. is that people lost decent paying jobs after the U.S. incentized them to be exported, but we can solve that by instituting universal health care and laying off 2 million people working in the defense industry? Interesting theory.

Please point to the economic model that you would have us follow to do that. I'm sure you can name a country that has grown their economy, lowered unemployment, raised wages, and reduced the earnings gap all at the same time by following your prescription, right "doctor"?

While you are 'researching' consider the following:

Reducing Poverty
The best news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced further, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and fathers are absent from the home. In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work each year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.11

Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes. Each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty. If welfare could be turned around to really require work and to encourage marriage, remaining poverty would drop quickly.12

Conclusion
The recent Census Bureau report substantially exaggerates the extent of poverty and economic inequality in the United States. To the extent that enduring poverty continues in our society, it is largely the result of personal behavior, particularly the lack of work and marriage. Policies that require welfare recipients to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving aid and that encourage the formation of healthy marriages are the best vehicles for further reducing poverty.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*To crs*

Sorry, you just are not worth it anymore. I am sure we could go out and have a beer, but trying to talk to you on any intelligent basis on most of these topics is useless. Your constant use of logical fallacies and your incessant ignoring of facts contrary to your paradigms has made me decide to simply smile and nod to you. For example, Pima County =! Tucson. You create bad arguments on purpose.

/smile
/nod

Let me know when you're in Tucson, we'll have a beer in the "liberal"...oh wait, not liberal...oh wait....part of town.

Cheers


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Sorry, you just are not worth it anymore. I am sure we could go out and have a beer, but trying to talk to you on any intelligent basis on most of these topics is useless.


Why is it necessary to be a troll like that? I think you stoop to that because you know you're wrong and don't have it in you to admit it.



Wayfarer said:


> For example, Pima County =! Tucson.


I tried to find city stats but couldn't.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Why is it necessary to be a troll like that? I think you stoop to that because you know you're wrong and don't have it in you to admit it.


Wrong yet again. Please search this forum. I have been wrong on more than one occasion and admitted it. Unlike you, I actually try and learn and improve myself. I do not consider defending a patently incorrect position a virtue and when proven wrong, I value the lesson.

This is not one of those occasions.

Have your last word crs, any reasonable reader will see I have turned you inside out time and time again. This is not "declaring victory" as you moan about, it is simply the truth. I realize there is no "victory" against you as you simply seem incapable of realizing you have been disproven.

Again, let me know when you are in Tucson, I'll buy you a margarita. I am done debating you however as this requires a give and take of ideas.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> any reasonable reader will see I have turned you inside out time and time again.


Given that conservatives dominate this forum, I have no doubt that you'd have the majority on your side. However, that doesn't mean it's right.

People who win an argument usually don't find it necessary to proclaim it, especially in the chest-beating, "look at me" fashion you practice, not just with me but with others. It's low-class when it's a football player taunting an opponent, and it's not only low-class but ludicrous when the field of play is politics -- something that always has been and always will be debatable, in which no argument ever is won except at the polls. Declare victory all you want, it's thoroughly stupid to do so and couldn't possibly mean less.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

crs said:


> *Given that conservatives dominate this forum*, I have no doubt that you'd have the majority on your side. However, that doesn't mean it's right.


ROFLMAO


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Dominate numerically, I mean.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> So, the major cause of poverty in the U.S. is that people lost decent paying jobs after the U.S. incentized them to be exported, but we can solve that by instituting universal health care and laying off 2 million people working in the defense industry? Interesting theory.


Nothing could be healthier for our economy. After WWII these government teetsuckers should never have been allowed to attach themselves in the first place. By the early 1950's they had established a permanent shadow government and a propaganda machine that still works the same way today, i.e. immediate and relentless brainwashing of elected officials (insisting imminent threats to our national security exist under every rock), fabricating one nebulous boogeyman after another etc. In other words, to perpetuate their own existence, keep their obscene budgets intact and growing, and keep themselves sucking at the government teet. Year after year, trillion after trillion.

Every year the U.S. spends more on defense than the military budgets of the next fourteen highest spending countries COMBINED. This spending produces nothing of use to anyone outside the defense industry, it contributes virtually nothing to GDP except for weapons trade. Since the end of WWII we've spent in the neighborhood of $100 trillion, and what do we have to show for it? The same unelected, unaccountable idiots making our foreign policy based on profit margin, a steady stream of fabricated boogeymen, the slaughtering of over 150,000 of our kids, and the wounding of hundreds of thousands more. And please spare us the "lowest defense spending since WWII as a percent of GDP" nonsense. Take a look at U.S. defense spending for the 100 years prior to WWII if you wish to understand this scam, numbers you definitely won't find on Heritage's website.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

crs said:


> Dominate numerically, I mean.


You're kidding right? There's literally like four or five Conservatives on the Interchange. Heck JLP probably has that many recent reincarnations (bulla, english_gent, et al).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Nothing could be healthier for our economy. After WWII these government teetsuckers should never have been allowed to attach themselves in the first place. By the early 1950's they had established a permanent shadow government and a propaganda machine that still works the same way today, i.e. immediate and relentless brainwashing of elected officials (insisting imminent threats to our national security exist under every rock), fabricating one nebulous boogeyman after another etc. In other words, to perpetuate their own existence, keep their obscene budgets intact and growing, and keep themselves sucking at the government teet. Year after year, trillion after trillion.
> 
> Every year the U.S. spends more on defense than the military budgets of the next fourteen highest spending countries COMBINED. This spending produces nothing of use to anyone outside the defense industry, it contributes virtually nothing to GDP except for weapons trade. Since the end of WWII we've spent in the neighborhood of $100 trillion, and what do we have to show for it? The same unelected, unaccountable idiots making our foreign policy based on profit margin, a steady stream of fabricated boogeymen, the slaughtering of over 150,000 of our kids, and the wounding of hundreds of thousands more. And please spare us the "lowest defense spending since WWII as a percent of GDP" nonsense. Take a look at U.S. defense spending for the 100 years prior to WWII if you wish to understand this scam, numbers you definitely won't find on Heritage's website.


I thought you were anti- non sequitur?!

You're supposed to be explaining how laying off 2 million people and instituting universal health care will cure poverty which is mostly caused by the exportation of jobs due to U.S. government incentives.

That was your premise. Back it up.

By the way, your answer should include how many employed Americans there were before these *incentives* began.
What the incentives are and how many jobs were left in America afterwards so we can get a net job loss figure to compare to the 2 million you want to cut. Perhaps some idea of how you plan to provide equally high paying jobs for them might be wise also.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> What's the point e.g. of offering federal tax breaks for heath care costs, to people who don't earn enough to have any federal tax liability?





ksinc said:


> Frank, please tell the class at what amount of income one begins to incur a federal tax liability and please list some examples of the jobs that you think earn below that amount?





ksinc said:


> Frank, we're still waiting for you to dazzle us with your mastery of economic data and U.S. Tax Codes.


Here we sit like birds in the wilderness ...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc:

Some very funny stuff from you  Remember however, we need to take oil profits and give them to Hillary.

FrankDC, still waiting on some data for your outlandish claims. And to your response that the heritage.org article was agenda driven....yes, I do not suppose the one you posted, the one by a sociology prof quoting left wing sources...that was perfectly objective and balanced, right? And no comments on the very obvious things he was writing that are in direct opposition to your stances, i.e. wealth disparity. I mean, your own source showed you are full of crap when stating wealth concentration is at all time disparities. When you cannot even quote sources that support you, you really should just give up.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Given that conservatives dominate this forum....


Glad to see you finally admit you are being dominated. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Careful, Wayfarer, I know of no place in the conservative dogma for the leather and other tools of domination.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Frank, please tell the class at what amount of income one begins to incur a federal tax liability and please list some examples of the jobs that you think earn below that amount?


Minimum wage is currently $5.15/hour. For a full-time job that works out to $10,700/year. Standard deduction and personal exemption for single filers is currently $8450.

Federal tax liability doesn't begin until almost double that net income. So a "tax credit" to help pay for health care insurance means nothing to these workers.

As for job examples, simply visit any restaurant, hotel, retail establishment etc etc. You know, those wonderful service sector jobs Reagan and your Republican ilk are so fond of.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Minimum wage is currently $5.15/hour. For a full-time job that works out to $10,700/year. Standard deduction and personal exemption for single filers is currently $8450.
> 
> Federal tax liability doesn't begin until almost double that net income. So a "tax credit" to help pay for health care insurance means nothing to these workers.
> 
> As for job examples, simply visit any restaurant, hotel, retail establishment etc etc.


Wow, Your $5.15/hr example is a excellent attempt. You are correct that a single filer has AGI of $2,262 ($10,712 earned income - $8,450) pre-W-plan. However, you are wrong on the tax liability.

You are actually more incorrect, post-W-plan. Which is the real point.

However, you are very, very close pre-W-plan. I think you should keep working on it. If you made an attept to actually compute the tax/refund due and after-tax income in both cases you might surprise yourself. You need to distinguish between a tax credit and a deduction. Tax credits and tax deductions are different, as the Internal Revenue Service explains as part of its "Understanding Taxes" education program: "A tax deduction reduces income subject to tax," while a "tax credit is a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the tax liability." FWIW, the Heritage Foundation proposed a tax credit, but W is only proposing a tax deduction.

---

As to your worker examples making min. wage, consider the following:

Workers in service jobs *are most likely* to earn wages at or below the current federal minimum wage of $5.15 per hour, according to data just released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). So, you did pick the industry that helps your argument the most. However: according to the BLS, only about 8 percent of all service workers reported earning at or below the federal minimum wage in 2005. Less than 1% of those were over age 25. So, that sort of narrows down the sample quite a bit.

FWIW, the last time I bought single coverage when I was under 25 it was $53/mo. The lady told me you're under 25 and male. Therefore statistically, you're too stupid to go to the doctor when you need it. I undertand it's about $125/mo now. So, you can use $1,500 for the cost of healthcare for a single, 25 yr old making the min. wage in your example.

Good luck!


----------

