Re: Election Results

[Guest guest]

Well, here in Virginia, our popular former governor has lost by a few thousand votes to a Democrat who hasn't even lived in the state very long. Its pathetic, but questions about if ever used the the "n" word (nigger for those overseas) and possibly calling a disruptive person a macacah at a rally. Then there was that radical blogger who entered an campaign location and caused so much trouble he had to be wrestled out of the building. Of course there were TV cameras there and this "person" had said in his blogs that he was going to do just this kind of thing to hurt the campaign. Well, now the rest of us are going to end up being taxed to build those Northern Virginia cry babies their roads. We should kick those counties lose to land.

Anyway, as of this moment, the Dems control the House. The Stupid Party has no one to blame but themselves. It has been predicted that the Dems will spend a lot of time on hearings and investigations and probably set a withdrawal date from Iraq. The fear is that this will weaken and distract us in time of war (on all terrorists not just Iraq) and that these results will embolden our enemies.

Honestly, I expect to see terror activity pick up in Iraq and elsewhere. The aim will be to force the US out of Iraq even faster and then things will really go to heck in a hurry. I don't expect the Dems will extend the tax cuts that have been causing the upswing in the economy (strong growth, 4.4% unemployment, the lowest in 5 years, a stock market over 12,000: the things that don't get reported in the media). That will hurt us. Already the Bipartisan, post-Enron legislation has cut dramatically the number of new companies listing on the exchanges, while those in England and other places have been rising and indeed are several times the levels of new US listings. Lost of companies are also pulling out of the listings because the costs of the new legislation fall most heavily on the small and medium sized companies that can't afford all the extra paperwork.

Well, the US does have this suicidal fixation with change for the sake of change. We are too short-sighted to plan for the long term and instead chase the feel-good quick fix.

Its going to kill us one day.

[Guest guest]

Well , I think you need to go get a cup of mc donalds coffee and wake up and see what is going on in our nation. I don't know about your Governor, but I do know about what is going on here in PA and in the country. People are not happy with the way things are being run. We are not happy about the war fighting the wrong country for oil rather than the terrorists. We are not happy about the heathcare situation, and the tax cuts (only for the rich), and the schooling problems. The no child left behind act is the worst written act in our history, yes it was written by a Democrat but it was put into action by Republicans. I personally don't vote Republican or Democrat, I vote for honestly, and things that I want changed. I hate the way our country is being run now. I don't believe congressional votes for their own raises should take place in the middle of the night. It isn't change

for the sake of change its change to make it better, cause this country with the way it was being run Sucks, our current politician including the president are deceivers, and the people are seeing that finally. I have been waiting 16 very long years for something to happen. It is about time it will, this country has being going way down hill for 16 long long years, unemployment is up from before 16 years ago, welfare is up, people without health care is up, our schools are having more and more problems. Change is needed, the current parties are doing a lousy job! Look at the ads, the Republicans in PA ran nothing but attack adds, nothing positive, no changes nothing they were going to do to make things better. The Democrats ran ads to show what they wanted to do to fix things, and responses to the Republicans attack ads, there were very few Democratic attack ads ran in our area. I need

change I want change, I want the corruption out of Government, and with the people in there before this election you will never see it. I can't wait 2 more years to get Bush out of office, personally. He is taking our country in a downward spiral I don't think we will ever recover from. You need to stop looking at party affiliation, and look at what these people are doing, and what actions they are taking rather than thinking one side is automatically right because they are Republican, and look at the issues. and what these people stand for in there personal life as well as with government. I don't belive the politicans before this elections were thinking of the long term, just the quick fix to get back into office, which is why a change was necessary. Beth, Co-administrator ( these comments have nothing to do with being an administrator they are my

personal comments and have no affiliation with society)VISIGOTH@... wrote: Well, here in Virginia, our popular former governor has lost by a few thousand votes to a Democrat who hasn't even lived in the state very long. Its pathetic, but questions about if ever used the the "n" word (nigger for those overseas) and possibly calling a disruptive person a macacah at a rally. Then there was that radical blogger who entered an campaign location and caused

so much trouble he had to be wrestled out of the building. Of course there were TV cameras there and this "person" had said in his blogs that he was going to do just this kind of thing to hurt the campaign. Well, now the rest of us are going to end up being taxed to build those Northern Virginia cry babies their roads. We should kick those counties lose to land. Anyway, as of this moment, the Dems control the House. The Stupid Party has no one to blame but themselves. It has been predicted that the Dems will spend a lot of time on hearings and investigations and probably set a withdrawal date from Iraq. The fear is that this will weaken and distract us in time of war (on all terrorists not just Iraq) and that these results will embolden our enemies. Honestly, I expect to see terror activity pick up in Iraq and elsewhere. The aim will be to force the US out of Iraq even faster and then things will

really go to heck in a hurry. I don't expect the Dems will extend the tax cuts that have been causing the upswing in the economy (strong growth, 4.4% unemployment, the lowest in 5 years, a stock market over 12,000: the things that don't get reported in the media). That will hurt us. Already the Bipartisan, post-Enron legislation has cut dramatically the number of new companies listing on the exchanges, while those in England and other places have been rising and indeed are several times the levels of new US listings. Lost of companies are also pulling out of the listings because the costs of the new legislation fall most heavily on the small and medium sized companies that can't afford all the extra paperwork. Well, the US does have this suicidal fixation with change for the sake of change. We are too short-sighted to plan for the long term and instead chase the feel-good quick fix. Its going to kill us one

day.

Sponsored Link

Free Uniden 5.8GHz Phone System with Packet8 Internet Phone Service

[Guest guest]

Beth,

I do know what is going on in the country and not all of it is good. There is corruption, incompetence and party politicking on both sides.

Next I'll say that I'm not a Republican. I'm a Conservative. The Republicans lost me around 1998 when they started to backtrack from the Contract with America. They really lost me after they gained full control of the government and went on a spending bender and dropped any pretense of caring about Conservative core values. So in that regard, I don't look at party affiliation, even though Republicans do tend to suit my views more than the Democrats.

Some of the issues you mentioned.

The war on terror isn't about primarily about oil. Primarily, it is about defeating a radicalized Islam which is heavily influenced by Nazism, that wants to impose Sharia on the world and kill those who resist. Secondarily it is about oil because the developed world, not just the US depends on it and unfortunately most of the world's supply is under populations of the very people who want us dead. The Saudis have been funding Whabbism, one of the most radical forms of Islam, using petrodollars. Sadly for the house of Saud, the Whabbis hate them and they are hanging on by the skin of their teeth. If the Middle East falls to these radicals or to Iran, which is the open leader of the radicals, the gas crisis will be worse than in the 1970s. Western economies would be crippled overnight if the flow of oil was cut by the terrorist or their supporters. It is merely a sad aside that in the 30+ years since the Oil Crisis that neither party has done anything to prepare domestic supplies and resources of oil so that now the US imports more oil that it did in the 1970s.

I do disagree with how the war is being run. Afghanistan was a legitimate target because that was where Bin Laudin was located and the Taliban all but said to come and get him. Remember also that the Taliban stuck its finger in the world's eye by blowing up those statues of Buddha and doing all manner of other bad things in the name of Sharia Law. We just didn't go in with sufficient force to get the leaders because we were building up for Iraq.

I think the Iraq invasion was a mistake. Iraq is a composite nation drawn the British and French after WWI when they divided up the Middle East between themselves. It had long had three major ethnic groups (Kurds, Sunni and Shia) who hated each other. It took the strong and ruthless rule of the Ottoman Empire to keep them under control. Sadaam was continuing this role and since the West isn't willing to be sufficiently ruthless to control them, we are seeing the results. Since we weren't willing to do what was necessary, we should have stayed out. Furthermore, Sadaam was far more useful as a check against a resurgent Iran. He was the only regional power capable of opposing them and had even fought several, albeit unsuccessful, wars with them. It would have made more sense to leave Sadaam in power with a behind the scenes understanding to stop dealing with the terrorists and to not attack his neighbors or he'd get a smart bomb in the lap or a sniper's bullet in the head. Besides, the French, Germans and Russians were violating UN trade sanctions with abandon, including weapons (several sets of modern French antiaircraft missiles were found in lots less than 6 months old, which meant they were shipped in during the US build up). If they wanted to do business with him so badly, we should have turned over the business of controlling Sadaam to the EU and Russia and taken those many billions per year we were spending and developed oil alternatives.

On the national level, unemployment is very low at 4.4%. 4% is full employment so that's about as good as it gets. Full employment is 4% because there has to be some slack in the employment market to allow for people to switch jobs and new businesses to open. That PA has higher, regional levels of unemployment is most likely a result of local and state taxes, unionization and being caught in a shifting economy. Now I will agree with you that too much manufacturing is going overseas, however, the US needs to update its plant and equipment and lower labor costs, which can be accomplished through better productivity, to remain competitive.

Schools are also local affairs. If the local schools are bad, it is because of local and state leadership. Public schools do receive some funding from the Federal Government, but primarily they are the responsibility of the state and particularly local governments. If you want them improved, the boards of those schools need to be pressured by local parents. Local politicians need to be pressured too, but that won't be easy since public school teachers have a well organized and financed union that will stand by its teachers against parents more often than not. The Fed might send more money, but unless local management is changed, nothing will happen.

The public schools in this city are a dismal joke. Only 6 or so out of 20 passed accreditation this year, and this after 4 years of notice. About 2 years ago, there was a serious push to raise test scores by dropping reading as a requirement. Local pressure was brought on and this didn't happen.

Health Care is a problem too. The cost is rising very fast and it probably will continue to do so for another decade at least. There are several factors for this.

1. Demand is rising. As the population ages, there is an increasing demand for medical care across the board, particular the more expensive long-term cares and surgeries. An increasing amount of this is being covered by Medicare, which often does not even cover basic costs of the tests (all inclusive meaning costs of machines, rents, taxes and wages of staff, including doctors). Doctors and hospitals are forced to recoup this by raises costs elsewhere, like charging $5 of a couple of aspirin.

2. Lots of people take care and don't pay for it. The local hospital here takes huge losses every year from the welfare people who come in and they have to treat, but the people then leave without paying for services rendered. Medicaid, the poor people insurance, pays as little as Medicare. This is one reason many emergency rooms are the country are closing. They just aren't getting enough money to cover their minimum costs.

3. Lawsuits. Lawsuits are the primary reasons ERs are closing around the country. Lawsuits have made Obgyns an endangered species in Louisiana and Mississippi. 5 years ago, basic malpractice insurance for an Obgyn in Miss. was over $100,000, if they delivered under 125 babies per year. Over that limit and the rates went up like a hockey stick. Most have since fled across state lines. It should not be surprising that infant mortality has since been on the increase. This is happening all around the country though. Lawyers circle hospitals like vultures and have commercials all over the TV. People think they can sue doctors and get free money. It isn't. The doctors face higher insurance rates, which means higher costs passed on to everyone else. When doctors leave practice, that tightens labor supply and prices again go up.

4. Innovation. Lots of innovation going on. Much of this is spurred by the high medical prices out there. This is basic capitialism, though it does feel a little unsavory when comparing it to healthcare. Patients have more information these days and they demand the top of the line treatments. That means higher costs as doctors have to by the new stuff and learn how to use it. So if one demands the latest, one has no right to complain about the cost.

5. A better informed public. This is both good and bad. It can make people seek preventative measures sooner, but it can also have them demanding the best, which as mentioned above, increases costs. A large part of the problem is the commericals for prescription drugs. Patients used to take what the doctor gave them. Now patients demand the pills they saw on TV, even if they aren't the best thing. This also causes costs to go up.

6. There are plenty of other factors too. Obesity, diabetes, violent crime, etc. that also serve to increase medical costs.

What is the solution? Hard to say, but I don't think more government is the answer. The Reps did set up a number of new programs for health care, but those are going to cost us plenty. In 2000, the projected unfunded debt in 2030 was to be around $10 trillion, that is $10,000,000,000,000. Today, after the Prescription Drug Program and other big ticket social programs, like Social Security, that has risen to $43 trillion. When the "donut hole" in the Prescription Drug plan is closed and some other programs kick in, that will go even higher. Consider that today the entire US economy is only about $10 to 12 trillion (on the high end estimate), you can see how that will be a problem. I don't recall the formula, but even assuming a steady 4% annual growth, we won't come close meetint that bill even if we sold the whole of the USA. Adding more coverage and programs will only make this worse.

They, both parties, are getting away with this now because they are backdating the due dates on the bills. They are pandering to today's voters demands of "gimme, gimme, gimme" while mortgaging the future of those same people's children. People just don't realize how bad the situation is, which is why reform has not been forthcoming. If people knew and could comprehend the numbers, they might stop thinking in terms of the government doing for them now and realize there might not BE a government for their children. Or if there is, taxes would be so crushing that it would be a misery.

Taxes are the last thing I will talk about.

1. The top 10% of taxpayers pay about 50% of the total income tax burden. The top 1% pays about 20% of the total. The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay about 5% of the total.

2. Outside of Hollywood and sports, most of those rich people own businesses. That means their wealth comes from a productive enterprise. Yes, I will agree that some of the big CEOs are over paid, especially those who run companies into the ground. However, they are a small number of the overall top 10%.

3. Most of the "rich" are owners of small to medium sized businesses, farmers and entrepreneurs. As it stands, taxes have them on the edge most of the time anyway. Raising taxes would put some of them out of business. Every year farms are lost because they can't cover the tax burden and other are sold because the family can't cover the death tax if they inherited the place. This is another reason many productive farms become suburbs: the farmers can't pay the taxes any other way.

4. Over half of current tax revenues come from business, not private citizens. The high tax rate is beginning to hurt our competitiveness on the world market. Even many European nations have lower corporate taxes than the US now. The only thing in our favor is the lower number of unfunded mandates, mostly in the form of accounting regulations, but that is changing. If these companies start to head overseas, then they will take their tax revenues with them.

Now, what do people think these "rich" people do with their money? Buy big fancy yachts, mansions and all that? Yes, some do. But look at it this way: someone had to build those things. Someone had to furnish those things. Someone has to manage and maintain those things. That's a lot of jobs created by that spending. For the most part though, their money goes back into making more money. Real estate aside, most of that money goes into business enterprises which cause them to grow and thus employ more people, so it is good for the economy.

The past is also illustrative. During the Great Depression, the top tax rate was 95%. How you would like someone taking 95% of your income? The Great Depression did not begin to turn around until FDR cut that rate and all the others. Once that was done, the economy revived. JFK faced a similar problem. The economy was struggling so he cut taxes. Once that was done, the economy began to pick up. raised taxes and the economy went from faltering into a depression. Reagan cut taxes and the economy bounced back, which laid the groundwork for today. Notice that I mentioned 2 Democrats who cut taxes and only 1 Republican. The simple fact is that lower taxes and smaller government is best for the economy. The figures bear this out.

It is true that not everyone benefits as much as others so. This is simply because some people have the right education, are more willing to take risks to get ahead, or are just lucky enough to be at the right place at the right time or invent the right product for the right niche. Without people like that, the economy would be small and weak. For an analogy, just think about how quality of life would be if no one was willing to take the risk to be a doctor.

Just because they made a lot of money, no one else has the right to any of it. No one in the country has any claim to Bills Gate's money except creditors he willingly entered into a contract with. Joe Public has no claim to even one penny of his money. By the same token, no one, aside from creditors or service providers I enter into legal contracts with, have any right to my money, or yours. What a person earns is theirs and theirs alone. So long as they do nothing illegal with it, they can do as they please.

The problem comes because there are more "have nots" than "haves." Since Democracy is a game of zeroes, the more zeroes one gets, the better. So, if there are 10 have and 100 have nots, government can promise goodies to the have nots, paid for by the haves, and still get elected. This is the road the West has been on for some time now. Looking at the past, the ancient Greeks are very instructive. They pointed out time and again that a Democracy survived until the people figured out that they could vote themselves all they wanted from the treasury. Shortly after this, the city-state would collapse into bankruptcy.

It should also be instructive that more often that not, those collapsed states either came under control of a real dictator or were destroyed by their enemies.

[Guest guest]

Beth I agree with you Except (for Mcs anything) . But the

country is decieving itself. Yes we have to vote for change and be

change and make change happen, the government is run like a bad mafia

(no one really bothers to hide their tactics. If it was run like a

good mafia at least the country would be making money(I filed an

absentee ballot and never got my ballot) Sorry. I know that sounds

weak but I am sorry. Sorry that I didn't even know how bad things

were

I never voted before and I didn't really care I thought my job was to

just take care of my own people and that was the best I could do.

But you are all correct. We all need to vote. The criminals are in

office and we the people are the victims. I was so distracted by my

own life, I lost my voice and let others speak for me. I don't like

what they said, and we have quite the job on our hands. As in the

other discussions A LOT has to change from policy to food

contamination, environment, to our system of values. What is being

fowarded now is not what I value. People are polluted mind body and

spirit. Oh for anyone that doesn't know the president eats organic,

according to a TIME article. So I guess he doesn't believe in fast

food either, maybe we could get him a lot of Burger King and make him

eat it, and the spending he has done has wiped out the surplus and

put us 523billion in the hole

[Guest guest]

There is a new Mcs, comercial about people drinking there coffee and realizing they have a twin or they have chidren ect, that is what I was refering too. ie. one of those wake up and smell the coffee moments Beth Co-administratormiminm <mnmimi@...> wrote: Beth I agree with you Except (for Mcs anything) . But the country is decieving itself. Yes we have to vote for change and be change and make change happen, the government is run like a bad

mafia(no one really bothers to hide their tactics. If it was run like a good mafia at least the country would be making money(I filed an absentee ballot and never got my ballot) Sorry. I know that sounds weak but I am sorry. Sorry that I didn't even know how bad things wereI never voted before and I didn't really care I thought my job was to just take care of my own people and that was the best I could do. But you are all correct. We all need to vote. The criminals are in office and we the people are the victims. I was so distracted by my own life, I lost my voice and let others speak for me. I don't like what they said, and we have quite the job on our hands. As in the other discussions A LOT has to change from policy to food contamination, environment, to our system of values. What is being fowarded now is not what I value. People are polluted mind body and spirit. Oh for anyone that doesn't know the

president eats organic, according to a TIME article. So I guess he doesn't believe in fast food either, maybe we could get him a lot of Burger King and make him eat it, and the spending he has done has wiped out the surplus and put us 523billion in the hole

Sponsored LinkMortgage rates near historic lows: $150,000 loan as low as $579/mo. Intro-*Terms

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/8/2006 4:45:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, mnmimi@... writes:

In actuality, the economy would be better off if there was a family unit and division of labor. One parent works (based on ability, not gender) and that lifestyle is affordable. Marriage isn't so easily done and more difficult is divorce.(thus requiring thought)

This is the best and most workable way. If one parent works and the other raises the children at least until such time as they are in school, they have the best chances of turning out well. If the parents then stagger their work hours such that at least one is home to see them off to school and one is at home when they get home from school, that helps too.

The main reason there are two income families these days is that everyone has to have the latest and most expensive toys. If people knew how to handle money, they could get some of those toys and still only have one parent working.

So now a story. I have (but am currently not on welfare) I qualify mind you In spades. Why not then. 1. I can't bear to be on it, I feel guilty.

I commend you on this. My family too was at a point where we could have gone on welfare but we didn't. We worked hard and it was s rough time, but we got through it.

Intelligence alone doesn't not quartet a job. What most employers look at is education and work experience. Jobs in the $40 to $50k range probably will require a college degree. You might try a bank or something like that. Tellers make a reasonable wage and there is chance for promotion to higher level jobs in customer service. They might even pay for your college education, if you need one. I know a number of people who started out on the bottom wrung and after time they worked up into management.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/8/2006 4:58:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, mnmimi@... writes:

OK then like when an Aspie is overwhelmed we should pull back and rely on ourselves. If we need something we make it here. Let's promote self sustainability right here right now in our own country. Buy nothing from outside. work on alternate fuels, grow our own food and find better, less toxic energy sources. Make our own electronics.

This is not entirely possible. There is an economic principle called comparative advantage that gets in the way. Comparative Advantage simply stated is that while both countries A and B and produce products X and Y, each country can produce one item for less.

1. Country A can make item X for $10 and item Y for $15.

2. Country B can make item X for $15 and item Y for $10.

In this case, it is more efficient for Country A to make item X and trade it to Country B for item Y. This is a gross simplification of course.

Country A could produce both items for itself, but it would end up paying more for item Y and this would drag on the economy and less of the item would be produced.

Now, this system works just fine so long as everyone plays fair. However, this is rarely the case. China in particular pays its people virtual slave wages with no benefits, does not have the environmental laws that we do, manipulates if currency to maintain a favorable (to it) trade balance and will not open its markets to foreign goods. In addition, China makes no secret about stealing technology. They will buy a copy of a machine or item, take measurements and built exact copies of them without paying due royalties. Most computer software in China is pirated. Why anyone still does business with them is a wonder.

Mexico has problems because it is a Socialist State and poor. It is also dreadfully corrupt. It is so bad, that many companies that set up in Mexico after NAFTA have moved to China or South Asia. The roads alone are so poor and dangerous that it is cheaper to ship from China that from 30 miles across the Mexican border.

That's not even counting the fact that the drug cartels practically run several of the North Mexican states. Violence is in credible there, something never reported in the US media. In all honesty, since it is our drug habit causing the problem, we should have sent those units in Iraq into Mexico to clean those people out, just to balance accounts.

The other problem is that Mexico relies one illegal immigration. Money sent home from Mexicans in the US is the second leading income for Mexico behind only oil. Those billions of dollars and however many more billions they can get by sending more people across is a strong incentive against economic reform. Also, Mexico uses the US as its welfare state. More and more of the people coming across go on welfare or into crime. Mexico is simply unloading is dregs onto us.

Don't believe it? Read about MS-13 and the other Hispanic gangs. They make the old black drug gangs look soft. A large percentage of the US prison population is now illegal immigrants who have committed felonies, everything from murder and rape to child molestation. California, fearing people weren't using food stamp and other programs held Spanish language seminars a few months ago and signed up tens of thousands of people, with no inquiry into their status.

Yes, American society has been on a downward slide. You also guess correctly that it largely began in the 1920s. What happened was the soldiers went overseas and saw the wild lifestyles of the French, the drinking, partying and easy sex, and brought it home with them. Without involvement in WWI (which I think should have been strictly naval on our part, fighting U-boats and sending over supplies to the allies), the Roaring 20s probably would not have happened, particularly had Prohibition not happened.

I can understand not wanting to be rich. Wealth does not solve problems, it only creates more expensive ones. If someone does want to be rich, as long as they do it legally, then good for them.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/8/2006 5:33:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

I base my comments on statistics. Having worked for a consulting firm, I know where the numbers lie, and so I know that it is Democrats who tend to have the more lazy and negative traits, that it is the Democrats who ask more from the system, that it is the Democrats who fail to follow the advice given to them in credit counseling and other services. Facts do not lie.

There was a Webb commercial here that had a woman complaining that , a Republican, had done nothing for her and her family. She complained that she paid too much for health care, for gas and college loans were becoming harder to get. This was par for the course though with the Dem commercials, the ones that weren't attack adds.

Just bear in mind what I said in other post. Democracy is a game of zeroes. The one with the most zeroes on election day wins. Therefore, it is easy to take money from the less numerous haves to give "freebies" to the most numerous have nots. The more politicians can convince the have nots that the government can give them things or that they are "owed" money by the haves, the better for the politicians. Of course, that can only go so far until the haves are tapped out and there is no money left. Then the system goes boom and we have civil war. It happened time and again in ancient Greece and it happened in contemporary Europe up through the aftermath of WWII. There is no reason at all to think that we will be any different.

Regarding your story, do not assume that I think that welfare and social services ought to be cut for EVERYONE. I just don't think they should be so easy for people to attain. Currently there are many people who are abusing the system, and it is these people that the Democrats are cowtowing to.

There should be social service for those who truly need them. However, many people have been abusing the system for decades. I don't blame all of these people though. Many of them are suffering for decisions made by their grandparents who decided to go on welfare when the programs were established. The parents stayed in the programs and now the grandchildren are trapped by the system.

This is very much what the Romans did. It was called the client system. Roman politicians and ns would grant audiences to people who wanted something. The pols would grant what they could in exchange for the person's votes in the elections. What we have today is the same thing but on an industrial scale. People on welfare will vote for whoever gives them the most and against whoever wants reform because it is in their interest not to reform welfare and indeed to grow it. Social Security and Medicare are the same. People have come to depend on these programs even though better option could have been and still could be pursued. These people push for more and more coverage, even though it is transferring huge debt to the next generation. But remember the zero thing: seniors vote in larger numbers than young people.

So, the welfare state is really a client state with the government, or just one party, buying votes buy stealing and redistributing wealth. This process is speeding up with more people demanding more things. As we can see, the long term debt already stands at $43 trillion in 2030 and it is only going to get worse. The longer we wait, the more painful the fix will be and the more likely it will be to crush the economy.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/8/2006 6:01:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, dksunglsses@... writes:

I agree completely with this you have no arguement with me on the war. I don't believe it is being handled proberly and that the current administration was dealing with it properly

It isn't being handled properly. Rumsfeld convinced Bush to do something that has never worked: to fight the war on the cheap. Every time this has been tried in the past it has lead to disaster.

Originally, several divisions were supposed to have invaded Iraq from Turkey. Turkey withdrew its cooperation and so those divisions were written out of the plan. Rumsfeld wasn't worried and instead bragged about how this would make the war cheaper. So, we went into Iraq with sufficient force to beat the Iraqi field army. However, there was not enough force to maintain the peace in the areas we had conquered. That lead to a period of lawlessness that has tainted events to this time.

The worst result was that we allowed the Shia muslims to set up their own militias, because we did not have the military force to spare to keep them safe from Sunni loyalists. We should have known that was a major error since the Shia really hate us. These militias have been a prime source of the attack on one troops and their death squads have been slaughtering Sunni who refuse or are unable to leave Shia dominated areas. We are now starting to act against them, but this is something we should have done years ago before they were as strong and entrenched as they are.

A key problem is that the military is too small. Clinton cut a huge number of forces, so much so that after 9/11, many of his advisors came on record as saying they cut too much. We lost something like 4 carrier groups, 5 air wings, 5 or 6 divisions from the army. Right now we have not much more than 500,000 regular in the army. That is why National Guard and Reserve troops are being used to much in Iraq: there just aren't enough regulars. That force is about equal to what we had in Vietnam total at peak troop deployment. Those cut divisions would have been a tremendous help.

Also, we are too reliant on technology. Afghanistan was troublesome because the ground forces relied on the Air Force to drop precision bombs rather than haul in field artillery. This was supposedly due to logistical reasons, but more it was to get every branch into the operation and for the Air Force to play with, and justify its expensive toys. As a result, the troops had to sit for hours waiting for a jet to come along and drop a smart bomb where field artillery could have blasted the position. This is probably what allowed Bin Laudin to escape at Tora Bora. Incidentally: the brass thought that it would be impossible to use tanks and APCs in Afghanistan but US troops often found anti-Taliban forces well supplied with both.

The war we are in now requires more boots on the ground than high tech bombers. Indeed newer forms of smart artillery are reducing the need for jet bombers. Anyway, my point is that we need to rebuild combat formations in the regular army and Marine Corps rather than build large numbers of fighter planes that aren't really needed right now. Heck, the F-22 is going to cost around $300 million per copy. That's almost too expensive to use for fear of losing one, and is also enough money for a few hundred ground troops.

In my opinion, we should have used more force in Afghanistan to crush the Taliban and hurt them worse than we did. Then, we should have been using our Special Operations teams to hunt terror cells and training camps around the world. At the same time, the CIA should have been hunting and killing the money men and managers that were helping the terrorists to crimp the money supply. Above all, we should have been sweeping the US, expelling the mullahs and imams who were preaching the destruction of the US within our own borders and encouraged Europe to do the same. At the same time, the money used to pay for the war in Iraq would have gone to develop oil alternatives once found, and they have been, generous tax credits and other incentives to get the built as fast as possible would be laid out. The object would be to get us away from Middle Eastern oil and so deprive the terrorists of their prime source of income.

Way to much manufacturing goes overseas, Clinton made the problem and Bush made it worse, with the economy the way it is there is very little new construction or renovations being done and that also places people out of work.

I agree. China is not out ally, but a competitor at best and more likely an enemy that is getting rich and dangerous by our own hand. They already control a lot of our manufacturing, as well as that of Europe, and they hold a great deal of the US debt. if this trend continues, they will be able to control us without even going to war. They could simply threaten to stop shipments to the US or to call their debt, which the government would be unable to pay, causing it to default or declare bankruptcy.

Manufacturing is where most of the money in the economy comes from. It has the highest blue collar wages. These high wages trickle down through the rest of the local economies via the multiplier effect of money and greases the economy. As more manufacturing jobs are lost, more people are forced into the secondary service sector, which in general pays less than manufacturing. As a result, there is less money in the economy.

This plays straight in to your other comment. Yes, the middle class is getting the squeeze. The middle class is paying a large share of the taxes and has none of the relief that the higher and lower brackets get. Not only is it Fed tax, but state and local as well. Historically, a large middle class is the greatest stabilizing force in a country. Venezuela and other South American countries are so wild and unstable because they have about 2% of the people controlling 98% of the wealth. That is a very bad situation. The more of the middle class we lose in the US, the closer we get to those same conditions.

Manufactures have noticed this trend. Today, many produce only two lines of goods: those for the rich and those for everyone else. A lot of the middle grade goods are disappearing.

Im not sure what the answer is maybe making suing drs illegal except for gross incompetence. Maybe making a salary cap or an insurance cap or a cap on lawsuits. Maybe providing services for the people that can't afford them at a lower cost so people don't run after recieving treatment. Something has to be done on a nationwide scale and who better to do something on a nationwide scale than our government

Tort reform would be a major part of any meaningful health care reform plan. However, tort lawyers are among the biggest contributors to the Dems and many Dems are themselves tort lawyers, so that is very unlikely to happen.

My suggestion has long been to have a free or low cost clinic at the hospitals so the poor could be handled there rather than are the far more expensive emergency room. The biggest problem there though is that a lot of those people won't take care of themselves and come in when they are desperately ill, which is very expensive to treat. Many of them seem to think that they can do what they like and the doctor will magically make them better for free. Reality isn't like that though. Still, a clinic would at least be cheaper than the ER.

I agree with you on this we all have way to much of a gimme attitude, but what about working to make things better rather than worse. If the government had programs encouraging people to work rather than just handing out It might help.

I agree that government could best help by encouraging people to work for themselves. There are two ways they could do that.

1. A simple to compute flat tax. This would include a few exemptions like taxes do now and would have a credit, something like $20,000 for singles and $30,000 for couples. That is to say you deduct that amount from you income and not have to pay tax on it. If the code was simple with no loop holes, tax compliance would also increase which would mean more money coming in, as has been seen in Russian and the Ukraine and other places with simple flat taxes.

2. Private retirement accounts. Bush tried this but blew it. He went too far toward individualism. Most professionals can't pick winning stocks, let alone average citizens. What he should have pushed for was a personal, full-market mutual fund type account. These accounts would be offered by private firms under government supervision, like from the SEC. The lion's share of each person's Social Security money would be directed from their employer into this account. A small portion would go into a special account solely for the upkeep of the indigent. Several cities have set up programs like this and the payouts have been at least three times higher than what Social Security pays and they are privately owned so they can be left to children. Also because they are privately held, they would easily follow someone as they moved from company to company. For that matter, corporations could give up their pension plans and put the pension money straight into each person's retirement account.

This would have to be an all market fund because picking individual stocks in dangerous. If a person built up a portfolio with a lot of an Enron stock they could be wiped out. However, if the Enron stock was only one of hundreds of stocks, it would only be an annoyance. Since the stock market average an 8% per year gain in the long term, that is a great payout. If workers knew the kind of money they could have when they retire, they would work very hard indeed and save.

I really think this would solve a great many problems because people would have their own money and would be less worried about things like medical expenses and drug costs. Not that those aren't valid concerns mind you, but having more money would ease the sting and would allow for more honest talk about reform.

I read some where that no democracy has lasted over 200 years without imploding, apparently we are late for this to happen and are on a new frontier. We have to wait and see, and hope that we don't implode and that we have chosen proper leaders for this path, we infact are on the horizon of a new frontier. Personally if the Republicans and Democrats can get along and work together like we can, agree and disagree on points and make our points clear come to a comprimizes and pull our country together without getting lost in political retoric and religious aggendas there may be a hope for us. Thank you for restoring my faith in human nature. I have really enjoyed this discussion and can't wait for your response.

I'm glad you mentioned this. I didn't in hopes someone else would. We aren't that far beyond 200 years, though. There is a book called "When Nations Die." It lists 10 historical warning signs that a nation is about to collapse. The Romans had about 4. The US today has all 10. I don't think that we have too much longer, however, not without some serious reform. Most of that would be government reform, primarily taking the ability to spend out of the hands of the politicians. I've stated before several times that I favor a fixed schedule based on true government priorities (defense, foreign relations, minimal bureaucracy, law enforcement and courts to enforce legal contracts) and all else being secondary that would be squabbled over like the essentials are now. A flat tax would further force spending control. Once they could not longer cause much mischief with the purse strings, politicians would be pretty much obsolete.

I also think that immigration needs to be controlled. Mexico has a series of about 12 or more requirements that immigrants have to meet before being allowed to settle in the country. Furthermore, there is a long list of jobs that are reserved for natural Mexicans only. If they can do it, then there is no reason at all why we can't have equal requirements. Mexico also uses its military to patrol its southern border and conducts regular internal sweeps to round up and deport illegals. If they can do it, so can we.

The biggest problem though is that increasing numbers of the Hispanic immigrants don't assimilate. They are forming their own communities and don't learn English. If this isn't dealt with soon, we will end up like France, with ghettos filled with people who are technically outside the system and are staging a rebellion. The rebellion in this case will be to reunite the American southwest and who knows what else with Mexico. Rather odd I think since they came here to get away from Mexico, but that is what the radical groups are already saying the goal is, and e Fox and other Mexican government types have also made noises along the same lines.

It is possible to find common ground. I'm not a party fanatic. I was at one time until the party strayed. What has gotten me fired up lately is all the corruption and stupidity on display this election. What really has me steamed is that the Republicans committed the ultimate sin against the Conservatives: they betrayed us. They used to be the party of limited government, military strength and high standards. However, they have become just the opposite, except maybe for military strength, but that isn't enough to save them and even then, if they really meant it they would have worked on rebuilding the military. Bear in mind that in Dante's Inferno, the betrayer were in the deepest level Hell frozen in ice. He and I view betrayal in much the same light.

I have stated my beliefs and you have stated yours. For the most part we seek the same ends, just the means are different.

[Guest guest]

(Sigh)

Beth, Beth, Beth,

You ought to try looking at things from a global view and the perspective of wall street.

"I think you need to go get a cup of mc donalds coffee and wake up and see what is going on in our nation. "

I think you need to do the same.

"People are not happy with the way things are being run. "

It's their own fault.

" We are not happy about the war fighting the wrong country for oil rather than the terrorists. "

1) My dad worked for the government. The US sold Iraq the chemicals necessary to manufacture weapons of mass destruction and the technology necessary to manufacture more weapons. Knowing that Sadam used some to gas the Khurds to death, the US was able to calculate what gas has been left over. Given that no gas has been found anywhere, and knowing the time it would take to destroy the remaining stock of gas, it either means that the majority of the WMDs are still hidden or they have been sold to someone else.

If there is a Sarin nerve gas attack anywhere in the US or around the world, chances are it came from Iraq.

2) After Gulf War I, Sadam massacred over 125,000 of his own civilians who stood with the Americans during the war, and the remaining Khurds were next on his extermination list, but this fact falls on deaf ears with the American people even as they clamor for us to do something about the slaughter going on in Somolia.

3) An unstable Iraw means and unstable Middle East and that means an unstale global economy because the entire world depends on the Middle East for fifty percent of its oil or more, and the Communist Chinese are bartering for most of it. You want a global economic slowdown and work stopage as the result of no energy to run factories and automobiles, then do what the democrats want and pull the troops out of Iraq. Let them have their civil war. Iran will invade on the one side, the Turkish Khurds on the other, and then the rest of the Middle east will takes sides and go to war with each other. Then no oil at all.

4) If we pull out now, there will be a civil war just like in Rawanda and people will kill each other by the hundreds of thousands, but apparently Democrats believe that the nearly three thousand American troops we've lost and the rest of the troops we keep in harms way are worth more than the lives of (2006 estimate) 26,783,383 Iraqis living there.

5) The war has drawn all the terrorists into the theatre of battle. Thus we can knock them out there instead of on our own soil.

Remember, if the Iraqis want us to leave, all they have to do is take control of their own country, but they would rather let the terrorists take charge and bomb our troops and massacre their own citizens.

But democrats are too shortsighted to see any of this. To them, the sacrifice of one American troops is too much.

" We are not happy about the heathcare situation, and the tax cuts (only for the rich), and the schooling problems. "

Here are a few easy solutions to that problem:

1) Get a job that offers insurance.

2) Recognize that is is the rich people in the fifty percent tax bracket who got there by busting their humps and investing what they earned that pay for YOUR roads, YOUR schools, YOUR welfare benefits and YOUR other social programs while "poor" folks gamble their money away on lottery tickets, fritter away money on booze and cigarettes, buy more stuff than they can afford on credit, and lead inactive sedentary lifestyles that cause health issues to flare up.

If anything, there should be one single tax bracket across the board, and if that was the case, we'd all be paying about 25 cents of every dollar to taxes. Then noone could complain that they were over taxed, and everyone would have to control their own spending.

3) Get kids away from the TV set and video games and help them withtheir schoolwork. Teachers don;t fail students, parents do. Demographically speaking, the worst performing students come from the households I have described above, and demographically speaking, it is households such as the above that are most likely to vote democrat.

Democrats want everything now and cannot see a decade into the future. They have no self- discipline, moderate to no religious views, and they lower morals and values than Republicans.

"The no child left behind act is the worst written act in our history, yes it was written by a Democrat but it was put into action by Republicans."

Here is why a Democrat wrote it: The idea was to reform the system. Schools that don't preform don't get money, which means that parents and educators must work harder to get their kids/students to perform. The educators stepped up to the plate. The parents didn't.

The Democrats didn't get behind the program because they know their own constituency and know that most people don't care enough about their kids to motivate them to study hard. But the Republicans know that if we are to comphete with the Japanese and the Koreans, the kids have no choice but to study harder.

But the Democratic majoirty in this country doesn't can't see what is happening...mostly because they themselves are uneducated and cannot extrapoloate from existing data. So the country's educational system continues to go downhill because people won't motivate their own children to study harder.

" I personally don't vote Republican or Democrat, I vote for honestly and what I want changed "

So do I. And voting honestly means you have to look at people in an honest fashion, and then you have to look at what's right.

If you look at people honestly, here is what you see:

1) They want to legalize pot rather than face and overcome their addiction.

2) They want to kill their unborn babies rather than use birth control or abstain from having sex.

3) They want free hypodermic needles for their heroine addiction rather than treatment.

4) They want free healthcare for the AIDS and STDs they caught while sleeping arund and sharing needles.

5) They want legalized prostitution to get their rocks off.

6) They want an increase in the number of casinos.

And the Democrats are willing to give it to them, because it is these typesof people that make up the majority of the Democratic constituency.

And so when I examine eaxch and every candidate and what they stand for, my conscience tells me that it's best to keep our society from becoming addicted, diseased, aborted, sick, and, sexually perverse, and in debt, and so I vote for the party that stands against all of that: The Republican one.

"I hate the way our country is being run now. "

Miserable isn't it, that the government has been trying toget its citizens to be responsible for themselves? The debt that we've racked up has less to do with Republicans cutting taxes than the Democrats refusal to cut social programs to people who don't need it.

" I don't believe congressional votes for their own raises should take place in the middle of the night. "

Neither do I.

"It isn't change for the sake of change its change to make it better, cause this country with the way it was being run Sucks, our current politician including the president are deceivers, and the people are seeing that finally. "

Wrong. There was a congressional Republican cadidate over there in the east who had a 69% approval rating from her district but they voted her out and voted the worse Democrat candidate in to spite Bush. That just goes to show that Democrats are so vindictive that they will sacrifice what is in their own interest for the sake of revenge.

Democrats of this type cannot be reasoned with.

"....unemployment is up from before 16 years ago,..."

That's due to the Clinto administration opening free trade with China. They are now the biggest source of our trade deficit, and the biggest retailers in the country all buy from them to cut costs and keep profits up at the expense of American jobs.

Bush has reversed this trend by putting breaks on the economy, such as by lowering interests rates so people can pay off their loans. The problem is, spendthrift people used this opportunity to borrow more, and so now that interests rates have gone up to keep inflation in check, people are finding their adjustable rate mortgages are no longer affordable.

This once again is the result of the largely spendthrift and undisciplined Democratic constituency thinking "Me, me, me" and "I want, I want, I want" and not seeing even five years into the future.

"... welfare is up..."

Due to people spending themselves into the poorhouse instead of paying off their debts, as I have already illustrated.

"... people without health care is up..."

Due to Clinton outsourcing most of work to China, the country's major corporations have been forced to cut their own costs, and currently healthcare is a huge cost. So blame Clinton and the Democrats and yourself and those who voted like you did who sold you out. Not the Republicans. And you can blame yourself again when the economy gets worse.

"... our schools are having more and more problems."

Because more and more parents take less and less responsibility for bringing up their kids with each passing year.

" Change is needed, the current parties are doing a lousy job!"

Yes. the Democrats should be ousted from government, and those people that voted for them ought to be disallowed from playing the lottery, smoking pot, aborting their kids, free needles, and having sex and forced to work as hard as the Republicans do to earn a living without sliding into the sort of moral degredation that Democrats do as demographically proven.

"Look at the ads, the Republicans in PA ran nothing but attack adds, nothing positive, no changes nothing they were going to do to make things better. "

It's not THEIR job to make things better when it is the people themselves who made things worse. The Democrats are the subject of attack ads because the Republicans are trying to make the people understand how they are destroying America. But Democrats are too obtuse to listen.

"The Democrats ran ads to show what they wanted to do to fix things, and responses to the Republicans attack ads, there were very few Democratic attack ads ran in our area. "

What the Democrats are proposing is to do the exact same thing they did during the Clinton administration, and as we have seen, what they did destroyed the American economy, lowered the conditions within our schools, increased the debt we are all carrying, and forced companies to terminate healthcare to stay competitive with China. Do you really want more?

Well guess what? That is what you are in for.

"I need change I want change, "

Vote Democrat next time.

"I want the corruption out of Government,"

Then vote the Democrats out of government. They wgere the ones who effectively blocked campaign finance reform thereby preventing honest people from being able to campaign and make it into office.

"...and with the people in there before this election you will never see it."

I disagree.

" I can't wait 2 more years to get Bush out of office, personally. He is taking our country in a downward spiral I don't think we will ever recover from. "

The spiral began with Clinton. All you see is the effects of it. That is why you blame Bush. What I would like to see is twenty years of Democrat rule in the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. At first you would see the country's condition plunge so low that their would be the threat of a public uprising, but then the Democrats would be forced to wise up and think like the Republicans do. Then we could all be on the same page and solve all of our problems.

"You need to stop looking at party affiliation, and look at what these people are doing, "

And so do you.

"...and what actions they are taking rather than thinking one side is automatically right because they are Republican, and look at the issues."

Republicnans encompass the morals and values that ressurect the nation. Democrats encompass the values that have ruined it. When I vote I vote for the best candidate, and that candidate is ALMOST always Republican.

"... and what these people stand for in there personal life as well as with government. "

Yes. Remember what the Democrats stand for and keep it with you always:

1) They want to legalize pot rather than face and overcome their addiction.

2) They want to kill their unborn babies rather than use birth control or abstain from having sex.

3) They want free hypodermic needles for their heroine addiction rather than treatment.

4) They want free healthcare for the AIDS and STDs they caught while sleeping arund and sharing needles.

5) They want legalized prostitution to get their rocks off.

6) They want an increase in the number of casinos.

"I don't belive the politicans before this elections were thinking of the long term, just the quick fix to get back into office, which is why a change was necessary."

Nope. Quite the opposite. But the voters are too short-sighted to see it.

Tom

[Guest guest]

P.S. Constitutinally speaking, the government is not your babysitter.

If you want the government to be your babysitter, then vote Communist

next time.

Tom

Administrator

Well ,

" I think you need to go get a cup of mc donalds coffee and wake up and

see what is going on in our nation. "

[Guest guest]

" So I guess he doesn't believe in fast food either, maybe we could

get him a lot of Burger King and make him eat it, and the spending

he has done has wiped out the surplus and put us 523billion in the

hole. "

He spent that money because people have already spent themselves

into the hole and cannot afford to buy anything.

Look at it this way:

If you've got nothing to spend, you can't buy anything. If you can't

buy anything, nothing needs to be manufactured. If nothing needs to

be manufactured, no one needs to be employed.

By spending 523 billions dollars, Bush ensured that people would be

put to work to manufacture the goods that the government bought.

If Clinton had not put the nation in this situation in the first

place by opening unregulated free trade with China where all of our

jobs had gone, Bush would not have needed to lower taxes to bail out

spendthrift people, and he would not have needed to spend money to

keep US people employed.

Bush has argued with the Democrats to reverse or revise the trade

agreement with China, but the Democrats don't see the sense in that

and have fought him tooth and nail while whining about cuts in

public services that they themselves are responsible for causing.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

And Bush out sourceing all of those jobs to mexico, doesn't count

Nothing the a Republican could do could be wrong could it Tom.

Beth

>

> " So I guess he doesn't believe in fast food either, maybe we could

> get him a lot of Burger King and make him eat it, and the spending

> he has done has wiped out the surplus and put us 523billion in the

> hole. "

>

> He spent that money because people have already spent themselves

> into the hole and cannot afford to buy anything.

>

> Look at it this way:

>

> If you've got nothing to spend, you can't buy anything. If you

can't

> buy anything, nothing needs to be manufactured. If nothing needs to

> be manufactured, no one needs to be employed.

>

> By spending 523 billions dollars, Bush ensured that people would be

> put to work to manufacture the goods that the government bought.

>

> If Clinton had not put the nation in this situation in the first

> place by opening unregulated free trade with China where all of our

> jobs had gone, Bush would not have needed to lower taxes to bail

out

> spendthrift people, and he would not have needed to spend money to

> keep US people employed.

>

> Bush has argued with the Democrats to reverse or revise the trade

> agreement with China, but the Democrats don't see the sense in that

> and have fought him tooth and nail while whining about cuts in

> public services that they themselves are responsible for causing.

>

> Tom

> Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

Ok now we are getting to the reasons I never voted.

perception is from the point of view of the person looking. So as a

POOR person whom has been POOR all her life I can tell you this

perhaps I am different due to my Aspie nature but,

1) Get a job that offers insurance.

Depending on your level of education and the circumstances of your

life this doesn't always happen. As a male with no children and in a

location of businesses that are profitable, since there were no

constraints but yourself this was possible. As a teen that had a

child at 16 I signed up to care for this child and that meant working

A LOT 70-90 hours a week. I had 3 jobs at a time. Not a lot of time

for parenting you say>> correct say I. I stopped working with child

2 went to college and as you say busted my hump, you know in my spare

time while buying lottery tickets. What did I get for hump busting

well 10.00 per hour with a college degree on Cape Cod MA. No

insurance. I did this for 7 years. I did/do own a home and pay

taxes, my mother helped me to get this home and I built it myself.

Damn lottery never worked.

2) Recognize that is is the rich people in the fifty percent tax

bracket who got there by busting their humps and investing what they

earned that pay for YOUR roads, YOUR schools, YOUR welfare benefits

and YOUR other social programs while " poor " folks gamble their

money away on lottery tickets, fritter away money on booze and

cigarettes, buy more stuff than they can afford on credit, and lead

inactive sedentary lifestyles that cause health issues to flare up.

If anything, there should be one single tax bracket across the board,

and if that was the case, we'd all be paying about 25 cents of every

dollar to taxes. Then noone could complain that they were over taxed,

and everyone would have to control their own spending.

Never played the lottery, can't afford to Gamble, drink and never

smoked. In actually I have worked hard all my life(actually with the

exception of now) and now I am just that parent thing. No biggie. I

cook clean, do home maintainence, and repair and have been the

organizer. Compared to before this actually really is a vacation,

and I am looking to go back to school. Since I never was allowed a

childhood, I am goofing off currently

3) Get kids away from the TV set and video games and help them

withtheir schoolwork. Teachers don;t fail students, parents do.

Demographically speaking, the worst performing students come from the

households I have described above, and demographically speaking, it

is households such as the above that are most likely to vote democrat.

This non parenting you describe occurs in " rich " homes just as much

if not more than " poor " homes. Full time parenting requires a full

time parent. Sooooo ummm. We can't be poor lazabouts on the one hand

and hard working bust humping money earners at the same time.

Democrats want everything now and cannot see a decade into the

future. They have no self- discipline, moderate to no religious

views, and they lower morals and values than Republicans.

Democrats aren't the only ones that want everything!!! Many people

don't really know what they want. But pointing fingers is as short

sighted as party voting.

In actuality, the economy would be better off if there was a family

unit and division of labor. One parent works (based on ability, not

gender) and that lifestyle is affordable. Marriage isn't so easily

done and more difficult is divorce.(thus requiring thought)

Again sterilization as a real option(you wouldn't believe how hard it

was to get fixed) This; government should pay for: because if the

poor are sterilized, it is hard for us to make more burdens. Value

and promote education. Not an easing of standards but higher

expectations. If on welfare there should be a child limit say 2

tops. when I was a teen people just continued to have 6,7,8 children

even though welfare is not an amount one can live on without cheating

the system.

So now a story. I have (but am currently not on welfare) I qualify

mind you In spades. Why not then. 1. I can't bear to be on it, I

feel guilty. 2. I do get food stamps, but as I figure big pharma

made my son's symptoms worse the least they can do is pay for the

food while I repair his damaged system(which actually they won't pay

for. Oh and I do get free health care for him. Mind you I don't

actually use it often because he is making progress without the aid

of a DR. so they pay for the Evals that say this every 18 months or

so. I almost never go to the DR. because they are wrong so often

that I get sicker with their aide.

I live a simple life, no credit cards, no trips or vacations, I

manage to help my daughter as much as I can. (she has a job and pays

her own bills. My BF pays for things I can't (let's not get into

guilt again, did I mention I was Jewish) I am never extravagent, but

that doesn't put money in my acct.

So why don't I get a job. Read > son needs mom. after that the job

I would need to let go of the aid and pay for what is necessary is in

the neighborhood of 45-50k so let me know when rich companies are

hiring. Anything less leaves my son worse off than I am now. You

might imagine that high IQ alone isn't enough for a resume, even

though I started a business and held together a family as well as

making my son's life better sans guidence or money. Really when you

think about it I am a miracle worker (no jobs for miracle workers) I

even ran my boses business and took it from red to black in his

absense. Still no job position offer based on these attributes.

UMMMMMMMM people those with abilities. I have worked in nursing

homes. whopping $12 an hour there (no insurance) Been a home health

aid Ditto. house cleaning Let's see so offered lots of services to

rich people for no security and no pay. really that is short

sighted, perhaps luck and or gender played a role in my life's course

but cutting social programs isn't the answer to make " us " stop being

a burden. Morality is an interesting issue, religion doesn't

guarentee morality, People do. I can tell you stories from first

hand accounts of priest and Rabbi wrong doings. SO WHAT WE REALLY

HAVE IS A SOCIAL PROBLEM. social reform would lead to political

reform would lead to global reform. What are people in politics

afraid of INFORMATION and INTELLIGENCE. So the spread misinformation

and won't support schools to educate the masses any better.

[Guest guest]

Bush finalized the North American free Trade agreement to stem the

tide of illegal immigrants into this country, but Mexico's economy

continued to tank due to mismanagement, Thus the flow of immigrants

into this country has actually INCREASED. The Republicans wanted to

seal off the borders and boot out the illegals, but the Denmocrats

would not hear of it so Bush suggested letting the illegals stay,

building the border fence, and kicking out any new illegals.

If you want full employment, then convince your newly re-elected

Democrats to dowhat they are unwilling to do: Kick out the 12

million illegals in this country, build the border fence, and not

allow any new illegals to stay here.

Tom

Administrator

" And Bush out sourceing all of those jobs to mexico, doesn't count

Nothing the a Republican could do could be wrong could it Tom. "

[Guest guest]

OK then like when an Aspie is overwhelmed we should pull back and

rely on ourselves. If we need something we make it here. Let's

promote self sustainability right here right now in our own country.

Buy nothing from outside. work on alternate fuels, grow our own food

and find better, less toxic energy sources. Make our own

electronics. Close the borders. hard choices have to be made put

those poor oafs to work. look why employ me at 40k when you can get

my level of work for $1 a day. realistic is realistic one policy

isn't the problem. like my son's progress it is multideciplinary.

Many things being applied at once. No more india, china, iraq etc.

Make the US what it used to be the leader of the pack not the joke of

the planet. WE kill ourselves all while pointing the finger at

terrorists, big business. Money that is all we respond to and we will

do anything (kill babies) to get it. that is what has to stop.

Money has supplanted religion for at least the last 50 years. I

think it started in the 20's really, maybe since we became a

country. Vice, Folly, Immoral goals and behavior and NO

consequence. I am poor, and I have been afraid of what money can do

all of my life. My goals are to earn my money get off all social

programs and raise my children with respect, love, and education. I

never want to be rich, i do however want to reach the point when no

one can come for what I have with justification.

[Guest guest]

I said:

" 1) Get a job that offers insurance.

" Depending on your level of education and the circumstances of your

life this doesn't always happen. As a male with no children and in a

location of businesses that are profitable, since there were no

constraints but yourself this was possible. "

You are making assumptions here. False assumptions.

" As a teen that had a child at 16 I signed up to care for this child

and that meant working A LOT 70-90 hours a week. I had 3 jobs at a

time. Not a lot of time for parenting you say>> correct say I. I

stopped working with child 2 went to college and as you say busted

my hump, you know in my spare time while buying lottery tickets.

What did I get for hump busting well 10.00 per hour with a college

degree on Cape Cod MA. No insurance. I did this for 7 years. I

did/do own a home and pay taxes, my mother helped me to get this

home and I built it myself. "

My parents, in addition to having me cut 5 neighbors yards each week

required me to hold a job. During the summer it was two jobs, and I

held those jobs until I turned 17 and went to college, paying for

most of it with the money I earned from age 12 to 17.

AND

I was required to keep my grades up the whole time AND do chores

around the house, such as cutting the lawn, raking leaves, shoveling

snow, washing the cars, making the bed, dusting, vacuuming, baby-

sitting my sister, etc.

While the rest of my friends spent their money on candy , soda pop,

hamurgers and fries, Atari and Activision and Sega videogames, and

jeans and clothes that went out of style six months after they

bought them, I saved and invested my money, and invested it so well

that I was able to pay for most of my college with it.

Meanwhile, my friends were getting pregant by accident, goofing off,

getting high, getting failing grades in high school, and trying to

figure out how they were going to secure loans for college.

As soon as I got my driver's license I had to clean my grandparebt's

appartment each week and buy their groceries for them, in addition

to taking them to the doctors. They lived 15 miles away.

While I was in college, I had to have a job.

Afterwards I held three jobs at once while caring for my ill

grandmother and managing a 6 flat apartment building.

I invested nearly everything I earned.

" Since I never was allowed a childhood, I am goofing off currently "

I was never allowed a childhood either, and am currently goofing

off, but not at the government's expense. I am living off my

investments.

" This non parenting you describe occurs in " rich " homes just as much

if not more than " poor " homes. Full time parenting requires a full

time parent. Sooooo ummm. We can't be poor lazabouts on the one hand

and hard working bust humping money earners at the same time. "

Untrue. The affluent community in which I worked DID spoil their

kids, but they also insisted their kids get jobs and study hard. TV

time for these kids was typically less than you see in most

families, and these kids were required to involve themselves in more

extra-curricular and charitable activities.

" Democrats aren't the only ones that want everything!!! Many people

don't really know what they want. But pointing fingers is as short

sighted as party voting. "

I base my comments on statistics. Having worked for a consulting

firm, I know where the numbers lie, and so I know that it is

Democrats who tend to have the more lazy and negative traits, that

it is the Democrats who ask more from the system, that it is the

Democrats who fail to follow the advice given to them in credit

counseling and other services. Facts do not lie.

" In actuality, the economy would be better off if there was a family

unit and division of labor. One parent works (based on ability, not

gender) and that lifestyle is affordable. Marriage isn't so easily

done and more difficult is divorce.(thus requiring thought)

Again sterilization as a real option(you wouldn't believe how hard it

was to get fixed) This; government should pay for: because if the

poor are sterilized, it is hard for us to make more burdens. Value

and promote education. Not an easing of standards but higher

expectations. If on welfare there should be a child limit say 2

tops. when I was a teen people just continued to have 6,7,8 children

even though welfare is not an amount one can live on without cheating

the system. "

I agree.

Regarding your story, do not assume that I think that welfare and

social services ought to be cut for EVERYONE. I just don't think

they should be so easy for people to attain. Currently there are

many people who are abusing the system, and it is these people that

the Democrats are cowtowing to.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

I love it william, what a well written well thought out post. Thank you, I can have a political argument with a well armed opponent, this could be fun. I agree with a lot of what you say but not all, and I will go piece by piece. VISIGOTH@... wrote: Next I'll say that I'm not a Republican. I'm a Conservative. The Republicans lost me around 1998 when they started to backtrack from the Contract with America. They really lost me after they gained full

control of the government and went on a spending bender and dropped any pretense of caring about Conservative core values. So in that regard, I don't look at party affiliation, even though Republicans do tend to suit my views more than the Democrats. I tend to side with the democrats on most issues but I don't feel as if I am a democrat I don't agree on all of the issues and some are key Some of the issues you mentioned. The war on terror isn't about primarily about oil. Primarily, it is about defeating a radicalized Islam which is heavily influenced by Nazism, that wants to impose Sharia on the world and kill those who resist. Secondarily it is about oil because the developed world, not just the US depends on it and unfortunately most of the world's supply is under populations of the very people who

want us dead. The Saudis have been funding Whabbism, one of the most radical forms of Islam, using petrodollars. Sadly for the house of Saud, the Whabbis hate them and they are hanging on by the skin of their teeth. If the Middle East falls to these radicals or to Iran, which is the open leader of the radicals, the gas crisis will be worse than in the 1970s. Western economies would be crippled overnight if the flow of oil was cut by the terrorist or their supporters. It is merely a sad aside that in the 30+ years since the Oil Crisis that neither party has done anything to prepare domestic supplies and resources of oil so that now the US imports more oil that it did in the 1970s. I do disagree with how the war is being run. Afghanistan was a legitimate target because that was where Bin Laudin was located and the Taliban all but said to come and get him. Remember also that the Taliban stuck its finger in the world's eye by blowing up those

statues of Buddha and doing all manner of other bad things in the name of Sharia Law. We just didn't go in with sufficient force to get the leaders because we were building up for Iraq. I think the Iraq invasion was a mistake. Iraq is a composite nation drawn the British and French after WWI when they divided up the Middle East between themselves. It had long had three major ethnic groups (Kurds, Sunni and Shia) who hated each other. It took the strong and ruthless rule of the Ottoman Empire to keep them under control. Sadaam was continuing this role and since the West isn't willing to be sufficiently ruthless to control them, we are seeing the results. Since we weren't willing to do what was necessary, we should have stayed out. Furthermore, Sadaam was far more useful as a check against a resurgent Iran. He was the only regional power capable of opposing them and had even fought several, albeit unsuccessful, wars with them. It would have

made more sense to leave Sadaam in power with a behind the scenes understanding to stop dealing with the terrorists and to not attack his neighbors or he'd get a smart bomb in the lap or a sniper's bullet in the head. Besides, the French, Germans and Russians were violating UN trade sanctions with abandon, including weapons (several sets of modern French antiaircraft missiles were found in lots less than 6 months old, which meant they were shipped in during the US build up). If they wanted to do business with him so badly, we should have turned over the business of controlling Sadaam to the EU and Russia and taken those many billions per year we were spending and developed oil alternatives. I agree completely with this you have no arguement with me on the war. I don't believe it is being handled proberly and that the current administration was dealing with it properly On the national level, unemployment is very low at 4.4%. 4% is full employment so that's about as good as it gets. Full employment is 4% because there has to be some slack in the employment market to allow for people to switch jobs and new businesses to open. That PA has higher, regional levels of unemployment is most likely a result of local and state taxes, unionization and being caught in a shifting economy. Now I will agree with you that too much manufacturing is going overseas, however, the US needs to update its plant and equipment and lower labor costs, which can be accomplished through better productivity, to remain competitive. Way to much manufacturing goes overseas, Clinton made the problem and Bush made it worse, with the economy the way it is there is very little new construction or renovations being done and that also places people out of work. I belive you may be a little

high on your statistics, with what I see and hear, about people being laid off and businesses closing down Schools are also local affairs. If the local schools are bad, it is because of local and state leadership. Public schools do receive some funding from the Federal Government, but primarily they are the responsibility of the state and particularly local governments. If you want them improved, the boards of those schools need to be pressured by local parents. Local politicians need to be pressured too, but that won't be easy since public school teachers have a well organized and financed union that will stand by its teachers against parents more often than not. The Fed might send more money, but unless local management is changed, nothing will happen. Schools are not a local affair since the no child left behind act was passed all schools public and

private have to report back the to govnt. It isn't being funded it is written very poorly and actually punishes schools that are doing well whether they are underprivilaged or not. I do a lot of work in the school I talk to the teachers I write the administrators I am one of the parents that gets things done, Yes parents need to be involved, but this act needs to be fixed in the worst way. (ps, it was written by a democrat but Bush pushed it through and is really proud of it) The public schools in this city are a dismal joke. Only 6 or so out of 20 passed accreditation this year, and this after 4 years of notice. About 2 years ago, there was a serious push to raise test scores by dropping reading as a requirement. Local pressure was brought on and this didn't happen. Health Care is a problem too.

The cost is rising very fast and it probably will continue to do so for another decade at least. There are several factors for this. 1. Demand is rising. As the population ages, there is an increasing demand for medical care across the board, particular the more expensive long-term cares and surgeries. An increasing amount of this is being covered by Medicare, which often does not even cover basic costs of the tests (all inclusive meaning costs of machines, rents, taxes and wages of staff, including doctors). Doctors and hospitals are forced to recoup this by raises costs elsewhere, like charging $5 of a couple of aspirin. 2. Lots of people take care and don't pay for it. The local hospital here takes huge losses every year from the welfare people who come in and they have to treat, but the people then leave without paying for services rendered. Medicaid, the poor people insurance, pays as little as Medicare.

This is one reason many emergency rooms are the country are closing. They just aren't getting enough money to cover their minimum costs. 3. Lawsuits. Lawsuits are the primary reasons ERs are closing around the country. Lawsuits have made Obgyns an endangered species in Louisiana and Mississippi. 5 years ago, basic malpractice insurance for an Obgyn in Miss. was over $100,000, if they delivered under 125 babies per year. Over that limit and the rates went up like a hockey stick. Most have since fled across state lines. It should not be surprising that infant mortality has since been on the increase. This is happening all around the country though. Lawyers circle hospitals like vultures and have commercials all over the TV. People think they can sue doctors and get free money. It isn't. The doctors face higher insurance rates, which means higher costs passed on to everyone else. When doctors leave practice, that tightens labor supply and

prices again go up. 4. Innovation. Lots of innovation going on. Much of this is spurred by the high medical prices out there. This is basic capitialism, though it does feel a little unsavory when comparing it to healthcare. Patients have more information these days and they demand the top of the line treatments. That means higher costs as doctors have to by the new stuff and learn how to use it. So if one demands the latest, one has no right to complain about the cost. 5. A better informed public. This is both good and bad. It can make people seek preventative measures sooner, but it can also have them demanding the best, which as mentioned above, increases costs. A large part of the problem is the commericals for prescription drugs. Patients used to take what the doctor gave them. Now patients demand the pills they saw on TV, even if they aren't the best thing. This also causes costs to go up. 6. There are plenty of other factors too. Obesity, diabetes, violent crime, etc. that also serve to increase medical costs. What is the solution? Hard to say, but I don't think more government is the answer. The Reps did set up a number of new programs for health care, but those are going to cost us plenty. In 2000, the projected unfunded debt in 2030 was to be around $10 trillion, that is $10,000,000,000,000. Today, after the Prescription Drug Program and other big ticket social programs, like Social Security, that has risen to $43 trillion. When the "donut hole" in the Prescription Drug plan is closed and some other programs kick in, that will go even higher. Consider that today the entire US economy is only about $10 to 12 trillion (on the high end estimate), you can see how that will be a problem. I don't recall the formula, but even assuming a steady 4% annual growth, we won't come close meetint that bill

even if we sold the whole of the USA. Adding more coverage and programs will only make this worse. Im not sure what the answer is maybe making suing drs illegal except for gross incompetence. Maybe making a salary cap or an insurance cap or a cap on lawsuits. Maybe providing services for the people that can't afford them at a lower cost so people don't run after recieving treatment. Something has to be done on a nationwide scale and who better to do something on a nationwide scale than our government. They, both parties, are getting away with this now because they are backdating the due dates on the bills. They are pandering to today's voters demands of "gimme, gimme, gimme" while mortgaging the future of those same people's children. People just don't realize how bad the situation is, which is why reform has not been forthcoming. If

people knew and could comprehend the numbers, they might stop thinking in terms of the government doing for them now and realize there might not BE a government for their children. Or if there is, taxes would be so crushing that it would be a misery. I agree with you on this we all have way to much of a gimme attitude, but what about working to make things better rather than worse. If the government had programs encouraging people to work rather than just handing out It might help. Taxes are the last thing I will talk about. 1. The top 10% of taxpayers pay about 50% of the total income tax burden. The top 1% pays about 20% of the total. The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay about 5% of the total. 2. Outside of Hollywood and sports, most of those rich people own businesses. That means their wealth

comes from a productive enterprise. Yes, I will agree that some of the big CEOs are over paid, especially those who run companies into the ground. However, they are a small number of the overall top 10%. 3. Most of the "rich" are owners of small to medium sized businesses, farmers and entrepreneurs. As it stands, taxes have them on the edge most of the time anyway. Raising taxes would put some of them out of business. Every year farms are lost because they can't cover the tax burden and other are sold because the family can't cover the death tax if they inherited the place. This is another reason many productive farms become suburbs: the farmers can't pay the taxes any other way. 4. Over half of current tax revenues come from business, not private citizens. The high tax rate is beginning to hurt our competitiveness on the world market. Even many European nations have lower corporate taxes than the US now. The

only thing in our favor is the lower number of unfunded mandates, mostly in the form of accounting regulations, but that is changing. If these companies start to head overseas, then they will take their tax revenues with them. Now, what do people think these "rich" people do with their money? Buy big fancy yachts, mansions and all that? Yes, some do. But look at it this way: someone had to build those things. Someone had to furnish those things. Someone has to manage and maintain those things. That's a lot of jobs created by that spending. For the most part though, their money goes back into making more money. Real estate aside, most of that money goes into business enterprises which cause them to grow and thus employ more people, so it is good for the economy. The past is also illustrative. During the Great Depression, the top tax rate was 95%. How you would like someone taking 95% of your income? The Great

Depression did not begin to turn around until FDR cut that rate and all the others. Once that was done, the economy revived. JFK faced a similar problem. The economy was struggling so he cut taxes. Once that was done, the economy began to pick up. raised taxes and the economy went from faltering into a depression. Reagan cut taxes and the economy bounced back, which laid the groundwork for today. Notice that I mentioned 2 Democrats who cut taxes and only 1 Republican. The simple fact is that lower taxes and smaller government is best for the economy. The figures bear this out. It is true that not everyone benefits as much as others so. This is simply because some people have the right education, are more willing to take risks to get ahead, or are just lucky enough to be at the right place at the right time or invent the right product for the right niche. Without people like that, the economy would be small and weak. For an analogy,

just think about how quality of life would be if no one was willing to take the risk to be a doctor. Just because they made a lot of money, no one else has the right to any of it. No one in the country has any claim to Bills Gate's money except creditors he willingly entered into a contract with. Joe Public has no claim to even one penny of his money. By the same token, no one, aside from creditors or service providers I enter into legal contracts with, have any right to my money, or yours. What a person earns is theirs and theirs alone. So long as they do nothing illegal with it, they can do as they please. My problem is is with the economy the way it is and the tax system the way it is the middle class is being edged out, you either have to work your tail off to get into the weathy class and be taxed to death or, sink in to the lower class. The prices of everything are going

higher and higher and salaries are not matching them not even close these days. The minimum wage is a joke, there is no way a single person could live on that forget it if you have a child to support. The problem comes because there are more "have nots" than "haves." Since Democracy is a game of zeroes, the more zeroes one gets, the better. So, if there are 10 have and 100 have nots, government can promise goodies to the have nots, paid for by the haves, and still get elected. This is the road the West has been on for some time now. Looking at the past, the ancient Greeks are very instructive. They pointed out time and again that a Democracy survived until the people figured out that they could vote themselves all they wanted from the treasury. Shortly after this, the city-state would collapse into bankruptcy. It should also be instructive that more often that not, those collapsed states

either came under control of a real dictator or were destroyed by their enemies. I read some where that no democracy has lasted over 200 years without imploding, apparently we are late for this to happen and are on a new frontier. We have to wait and see, and hope that we don't implode and that we have chosen proper leaders for this path, we infact are on the horizon of a new frontier. Personally if the Republicans and Democrats can get along and work together like we can, agree and disagree on points and make our points clear come to a comprimizes and pull our country together without getting lost in political retoric and religious aggendas there may be a hope for us. Thank you for restoring my faith in human nature. I have really enjoyed this discussion and can't wait for your response. Beth Co-administrator

Sponsored Link

Free Uniden 5.8GHz Phone System with Packet8 Internet Phone Service

[Guest guest]

>

> Bush finalized the North American free Trade agreement to stem the

> tide of illegal immigrants into this country ...

There wasn't that same flow of Canadians trying to get into America

illegally. Free Trade has hurt Canada a lot.

Raven

[Guest guest]

This is very much what the Romans did. It was called the client

system. Roman politicians and ns would grant audiences to

people who wanted something. The pols would grant what they could in

exchange for the person's votes in the elections. What we have today

is the same thing but on an industrial scale. People on welfare will

vote for whoever gives them the most and against whoever wants reform

because it is in their interest not to reform welfare and indeed to

grow it. Social Security and Medicare are the same. People have come

to depend on these programs even though better option could have been

and still could be pursued. These people push for more and more

coverage, even though it is transferring huge debt to the next

generation. But remember the zero thing: seniors vote in larger

numbers than young people

Look you are correct the true culprit in any system is those whom

abuse it. Welfare isn't easy to get (if you are white and honest) it

is if you are a liar, foul in your appearence and behavior,

uneducated. Welfare was a syatem meant to be a temporary thing.

Used in times of trouble but to be generally avoided. I agree there

are people whom view that as a job, and they are invested in not

being employed and getting money by nefarious means. Hey those are

the " rich on welfare " I was just saying that people must be

determined and the people must be reformed. Education from a [young]

age. Teach responsibility, consequence, and give the children a

chance to be more than their grandparents. To an extent we can

expect no better because they know no other experience. In school I

remember an English teacher explaining " frame of reference " there is

no frame of reference for individuals like mentions and so it

is like blaming babies for being born into a Spanish speaking home

when they are in America. So you say well they are in America so

they should learn English, well they do, but they will always think

in Spanish first, maybe their children will learn Enish but They need

Education, and support to develop a value system and whom ends up

teaching that has many of the ties to the outcome. All I am saying

is that we keep blaming people for not being smart enough to know

better, but we never give them this knowledge!!!! How is an Aspie

supposed to learn NT if no one takes the time to teach them. Some of

us will through trial an error, some of us won't. It is the same,

everything is the same, communication and the method of communication

and the other person's understanding have everything to do with the

outcome. And so LIKE EVERYTHING IN LIFE COMMUNICATION AND

UNDERSTANDING DETERMINE OUTCOMES. genius and savant alike have the

ability to understand and deseminate a concept, overall communication

determines whether the person is genius or simply savant

[Guest guest]

" In school I remember an English teacher explaining " frame of

reference " there is no frame of reference for individuals like

mentions and so it is like blaming babies for being born

into a Spanish speaking home when they are in America. So you say

well they are in America so they should learn English, well they do,

but they will always think in Spanish first, maybe their children

will learn Enish but They need Education, and support to develop a

value system and whom ends up teaching that has many of the ties to

the outcome. All I am saying is that we keep blaming people for not

being smart enough to know better, but we never give them this

knowledge!!!! "

If people decide to make American their home, then Eniglish ought to

be their first language. Spanish is on some products and even on

some public signs, butin small print. This is not a new concept.

If you move to Quebec Canada, all the signs are in French, with

English subtitles in small print.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

I am sorry I was likening thinking to a difference in language meaning

what we are taught as young children becomes very hard to change, and

so like having a native tongue but living in a foreign (different)

country that thought system is in a sense hard wired. only by teaching

the young to respect and what respect is by showing concern for humAN

development can we hope to advance as a collective productive people.

example

What would cause a revolution in Iraq? Educating the women and making

them equal. This would forever change the power structure in the

government because woman don't only have a silent role they are

expendable. If they learn respect for life and equality in terms of

status and being educated, they would no longer be fodder for

destruction. So the example was to illustrate the problem with

uneducated people here in America, did I mention my way of

communication is sometimes convoluted

[Guest guest]

I am sorry I was likening thinking to a difference in language meaning

what we are taught as young children becomes very hard to change, and

so like having a native tongue but living in a foreign (different)

country that thought system is in a sense hard wired. only by teaching

the young to respect and what respect is by showing concern for humAN

development can we hope to advance as a collective productive people.

example

What would cause a revolution in Iraq? Educating the women and making

them equal. This would forever change the power structure in the

government because woman don't only have a silent role they are

expendable. If they learn respect for life and equality in terms of

status and being educated, they would no longer be fodder for

destruction. So the example was to illustrate the problem with

uneducated people here in America, did I mention my way of

communication is sometimes convoluted

[Guest guest]

Okay. I understand.

My post was full of spelling errors because I was rushed...which only

goes to show that English speaking people cannot communicate

effectively sometimes, even in their country of origin.

Tom

Administrator

I am sorry I was likening thinking to a difference in language meaning

what we are taught as young children becomes very hard to change, and

so like having a native tongue but living in a foreign (different)

country that thought system is in a sense hard wired. only by teaching

the young to respect and what respect is by showing concern for humAN

development can we hope to advance as a collective productive people.

example

What would cause a revolution in Iraq? Educating the women and making

them equal. This would forever change the power structure in the

government because woman don't only have a silent role they are

expendable. If they learn respect for life and equality in terms of

status and being educated, they would no longer be fodder for

destruction. So the example was to illustrate the problem with

uneducated people here in America, did I mention my way of

communication is sometimes convoluted