Not model planes but absolutely fascinating statistics

[Steve Thompson]

I am a sick wacko with a horde of model airplanes.  Some of them are peaceful control line planes that belch combustion products and goo.  Some of them are evil RC planes that have no merit to society.  Statistically, I should be overweight, wear glasses and have a propensity to tinker.  At least my control line planes do not have toxic batteries that will kill the planet.  Sorry to be so controversial.  Statistically there are wacko trolls for every subject that cannot be swayed by trivial things like facts or logic. 

Pitts Off.

[Gerald Arana]

Paraphrasing:

Banning guns here because of excessive crime done irresponsibly somewhere else
 is like requiring me to get a vasectomy because my neighbor has too many kids.

Each of us is responsible for our own actions and the consequences. 

Crime is rampant because consequences are not taught, learned and enforced.

Right on Steve. I don't think I can agree more!

Jerry

[Mike Griffin]

   I am sorry for whatever I have contributed to in this, I thought my opinion was a fairly obvious, but apparently it "triggered" a few people who cannot tolerate anything but their own echo chamber.

     By all means, *do not let anyone (me or anyone else)* alter what you are doing, that allows others to get their way by tactics.  You did nothing wrong here, what other people do is what they do.

     Brett

Thank you Brett.  You are always the voice of reason.  This was not your fault and your contribution was very thoughtful and to the point of what I wanted to share with the content of the data.  Thank you. 

Mike

[Steve Helmick]

If it was up to me, I would straight off ban "Narcan". Read recently an interview of an OD survivor, who had been "saved" by Narcan three times...probably more by now. He stated that ODing was the best high ever. WTF? Why save somebody like that? You can bet that his family will cry a little, but also that they have completely given up on him.  Steve

[Gerald Arana]

     Well Steve, if you take the saw out of the equation, then the contractor can't cut wood, so why did you hire him in the first place? By your way of thinking, maybe the parents never should have had a child and take the baby out of the equation?? They don't sound like very smart people anyway and probably shouldn't be parents.

     There is nothing that is going to make you happy other than making the millions of us responsible people miserable by taking away more and more of our rights and liberties, and burdening us with more and more toothless laws and stupid regulations. That's the standard, liberal response. Blame other people for their own lack of foresight and responsibility.

Dan, you are hot today! All the "dumb" contractor has to do is UNPLUG the saw. DUH!

Jerry

[Gerald Arana]

Steve Dwyer would happily disarm if the law said so and in his mind this would be a good thing with positive results. He would follow the law. The law already says that murder is illegal. Why doesn't that stop people from murdering others? The law also prohibits gun ownership by convicted felons. Why doesn't that prevent repeat felons from carrying and using guns, after all it is the law? Liberals can't seem to grasp the fact that criminals DON'T CARE about what is legal or illegal. Your law means NOTHING to them. Liberals would disarm all law abiding citizens and leave us at the mercy of criminals and our government which isn't much different than a bunch of criminals these days.

Arlan, Look at Australia; took away most/all guns and crime spiked...................

JERRY

[Gerald Arana]

Dennis,

We could tally all the ways people are killed or die here, no question the statistics show cancer, flu, vehicle accidents, alcohol, tobacco to name a few are far greater than mass shootings, random street shootings, however, warrants further evaluation. We have to pick our battles.

The world looks at us as a country that the likes our guns, we have become the wild west all over again, it's a joke. A little effort would go along way on gun control, but unfortunately it will never happen. The far right will never allow it, they hate the left and want to keep the mass murder weapons in the hands of the public. This is another way to maintain instability and keep the chaos in front row. They find it easy to point the finger blaming the liberals and holding them accountable. In the meantime, think about this. There are probably at this very moment 200 nut cases across the country with closets full of high-powered weapons they acquired legally plotting the next event and how many they can kill. I honestly believe there are guys here that don't care about the number of killings to come. And when the next shooting takes place, they'll turn it around as always faulting the "hand wrenching" liberals holding them responsible for not "fixing" the people responsible. Fixing the sick wacko with the horde of guns he was legally allowed to acquire? Don't hold your breath on that one. But stay buckled up for the next shoot-up while they ignore it by tuning in lying Fox News.

And now we have the catchy phrase some here like to use, "you can't legislate evil", that's a clever one, I agree but you can legislate their tools of evil. People with an insular mentality are hopelessly lost in themselves and remain completely critical of others. It's a lost cause, "winning" is maintaining conflict, politicizing and just more finger pointing.

BUT HEY...If they get their way in November and the wrong guy is elected, we will not have to think about guns any longer. It'll be illegal to own them. Russia only allows rubber bullets, while China, North Korea and Hungry strictly oppose guns or automatic weapons. Dictators like staying alive. We'll then live in a country of disillusionment, often hearing the saying "I told you so".  Gun control, well, that'll be the tip of the iceberg, there will be many freedoms we lose we once enjoyed. But that's a whole different story. The ranting will certainly go on here I expect but I'm backing away they can have the last word there's no point in my participating any further.

Regards,

Steve

Steve D., Do you know why we have a second amendment? If not I'll tell you.  It's to protect us against the government! Period.

Jerry

[Brett Buck]

If it was up to me, I would straight off ban "Narcan". Read recently an interview of an OD survivor, who had been "saved" by Narcan three times...probably more by now. He stated that ODing was the best high ever. WTF? Why save somebody like that? You can bet that his family will cry a little, but also that they have completely given up on him.  Steve

     If he was only hurting himself, then, I would suggest that is just their decision. The fact that while endlessy repeating this cycle, they breed crime, degeneracy, public disturbances, and various degenerates demanding we turn decent society upside down to accommodate them is the real issue here.

     Some people insist we accommodate them to the extreme detriment of everyone else, and drag us all down with them. That might look like "compassion" for the less fortunate, but punishes everyone who conduct themselves properly. Of course, it's not compassionate to the druggies, either, all it does is indulge them and keep them in the cycle forever.

      Same with most everything the left ever does "for" the less-fortunate - it makes them into heroic figures and, effectively, traps them with no way out.  That's not compassion, that's pandering. So their witless championing of these people doesn't help, it hurts them, it's just a gesture and lip service.

      Those leading the charge live in safe enclaves and don't have to deal with the consequences, other, decent, poor people have these filthy bums living next to them while those in charge do nothing to help.

     Audie Murphy got hooked on painkillers from his war wounds. You know how he got over it? He locked himself in a hotel room for a week with no drugs and toughed it out. That is what heroes look like.

      Brett

[Jim Carter]

WOW!  This has been a fairly interesting read.  Might I throw a suggestion out there for everyone's, both liberal and conservative, consideration?  When it comes to the myriad law breakers, which seem to be the general consensus focus; push for a law which decrees that anyone found guilty of breaking a law, will be summarily, humanely and irreversibly medically blinded.  This sentencing law would be enforced, regardless of race, color, creed, sex, religion or color of toenails!!

Harsh? No, because for the liberal thinkers in society, these persons would then be taught brail and instructions as to how to care for themselves with opportunities provided for honest, useful work.  For the conservative proponents of society, nationwide then has no need to worry about societal safety.  You see, the myriad of violations and crimes are already on the books local, state and federal, not to mention international law!!  Activities involving trafficking of human beings, illegal drug manufacturing and its use, robberies, burglaries, thefts of any kind, rapes, child sex, sex outside of marriage, vehicular traffic violations of any kind such as speeding or running a stoplight, etcetera would all be subject to this sentence.  Illegal drug use becomes almost nil, prison populations would drop to near zero and politicians wouldn't dare be caught in or sanctioning illegal activities, construction contractors would trip over themselves trying to be honest, all of our young children and really people of all ages would quickly understand that there are activities and boundaries in life that cannot and must not be breeched.  What do y'all think?

My only caviot would be that lhe law cannot be applied retroactively!!

[Mike Griffin]

If it was up to me, I would straight off ban "Narcan". Read recently an interview of an OD survivor, who had been "saved" by Narcan three times...probably more by now. He stated that ODing was the best high ever. WTF? Why save somebody like that? You can bet that his family will cry a little, but also that they have completely given up on him.  Steve

Steve, to your point.  In the early 80's, I was a Paramedic and practiced in Little Rock, Arkansas where I was living at the time.  We carried Narcan on the unit and this was before you could just buy it at Walgreens.  We got a call for a drug overdose one night and when we arrived at the scene, the man was going into cardiac arrest and I administered Narcan and he came out of the coma almost immediately.  We literally saved his life.  You know what he did?  He got extremely pissed off and cussed us out for ruining his "high". 

This was not an uncommon response for a drug addict.  When you are in that kind of profession, you see the worst of humanity.

Mike

[Dennis Leonhardi]

Dennis,

We could tally all the ways people are killed or die here, no question the statistics show cancer, flu, vehicle accidents, alcohol, tobacco to name a few are far greater than mass shootings, random street shootings, however, warrants further evaluation. We have to pick our battles.

The world looks at us as a country that the likes our guns, we have become the wild west all over again, it's a joke. A little effort would go along way on gun control, but unfortunately it will never happen. The far right will never allow it, they hate the left and want to keep the mass murder weapons in the hands of the public. This is another way to maintain instability and keep the chaos in front row. They find it easy to point the finger blaming the liberals and holding them accountable. In the meantime, think about this. There are probably at this very moment 200 nut cases across the country with closets full of high-powered weapons they acquired legally plotting the next event and how many they can kill. I honestly believe there are guys here that don't care about the number of killings to come. And when the next shooting takes place, they'll turn it around as always faulting the "hand wrenching" liberals holding them responsible for not "fixing" the people responsible. Fixing the sick wacko with the horde of guns he was legally allowed to acquire? Don't hold your breath on that one. But stay buckled up for the next shoot-up while they ignore it by tuning in lying Fox News.

And now we have the catchy phrase some here like to use, "you can't legislate evil", that's a clever one, I agree but you can legislate their tools of evil. People with an insular mentality are hopelessly lost in themselves and remain completely critical of others. It's a lost cause, "winning" is maintaining conflict, politicizing and just more finger pointing.

BUT HEY...If they get their way in November and the wrong guy is elected, we will not have to think about guns any longer. It'll be illegal to own them. Russia only allows rubber bullets, while China, North Korea and Hungry strictly oppose guns or automatic weapons. Dictators like staying alive. We'll then live in a country of disillusionment, often hearing the saying "I told you so".  Gun control, well, that'll be the tip of the iceberg, there will be many freedoms we lose we once enjoyed. But that's a whole different story. The ranting will certainly go on here I expect but I'm backing away they can have the last word there's no point in my participating any further.

Regards,

Steve

Steve: Yada, yada yada.  With all due respect: If no one - even the police - can LEGALLY own guns, how will YOU stop the 99% who use ILLEGAL guns to commit crime?  IT'S A SIMPLE QUESTION!

Dennis

[Brett Buck]

We literally saved his life.  You know what he did?  He got extremely pissed off and cussed us out for ruining his "high".


This was not an uncommon response for a drug addict.  When you are in that kind of profession, you see the worst of humanity.

   That was my premise above - once they get addicted, the person is incapable of thinking straight and they cannot make rational evaluations or decisions. That's why it is addictive. So, to get anywhere, (aside from extraordinary cases like Audie Murphy) *someone has to make decisions for them*. This is the real evil of the "drugs are legal" crowd, and why adopting that almost immediately caused a human catastrophe. The fact that it drags us all down with them is just a side effect.

    Again, even *Oregon*, the land of the aging limousine liberal, figured it out in a little over a year.

     I would add that, as far as anyone knows, your druggie could have been a perfectly reasonable and worthwhile person before he started. I knew plenty of people back in high school who were intelligent, decent, and had very bright futures who had that all destroyed by starting drug use. One guy, smartest and nicest guy I knew then, was last seen in the infield at Keenland  race track (horses), begging for money to get high. A completely wasted life. That's why I am so passionate about it, I have seen a dozen or so cases just like that from personal experience.

     Anything we do to encourage, enable, permit, to go easy on, whatever, people getting on drugs is doing them a great disservice and immoral, bordering on evil. This is why I get incensed when those who do it or play it down while claiming to be morally superior great humanitarians who "care about the downtrodden", as was going on above.

    I would add that most of those people, including Steve and the others who are offering dangerous non-solutions, probably actually believe wha they are saying, so they are not actually evil or trying to intentionally hurt people. They hurt people through illogic and ludicrous dogma. They have been fed this nonsense all their lives, and in their zeal, think that attempting to run roughshod over everyone demonstrates their great zeal for humanity while the rest of us don't care.

      Brett

[Dennis Leonhardi]

If it was up to me, I would straight off ban "Narcan". Read recently an interview of an OD survivor, who had been "saved" by Narcan three times...probably more by now. He stated that ODing was the best high ever. WTF? Why save somebody like that? You can bet that his family will cry a little, but also that they have completely given up on him.  Steve

Right on, Steve!

True story: A fireman friend who doubles as an EMT in a major city reported an individual who came to the fire station asking if he could buy a case of Narcan in preparation for a party.

As others have aptly pointed out here, this behavior is NOT harmless to society.  Why do we even make an effort to stop the logical outcomes?

Dennis

[Dennis Leonhardi]

Is it a coincidence that states with the right to carry have lower rates of crime?

I'm in Wyoming - crime rates here are pretty low.  You never know if the guy you're thinking of robbing might be armed ...  Our legislature, in fact, just put a bill on the Governor's desk that would eliminate all Gun-Free Zones in the state.

Our high schools here in town have shooting ranges and Junior ROTC programs.  This is the most family, military and veteran-friendly environment I can imagine.

Conservative principles seem to work.  We have no personal income, corporate income or franchise taxes.  Our sales tax rate is 4%.  Voters (including me) in the county I live in voted to add another 1%, which helps support city services and provides more than 2 million dollars to worthy non-profits.  That "fifth cent" was approved by voters nearly 50 years ago and will likely continue into the foreseeable future.

Should tax collections stop today, the state has a surplus that would allow it to continue functioning as-is for just over a year.

Can any other state make that claim?  Can any municipality with strict gun laws match our low crime rate?

Just asking for a friend, of course.

Dennis

PS: Our legislature also abolished funding for the DEI Department at the University of Wyoming.  Enough of trying to divide us even more!

[Brett Buck]

Conservative principles seem to work. 

   Of course, and in the cases (like Steve and Joseph appear to claim earlier), the "fail" only when they are watered down by the ever-insistent wails of torment from the left.

    BTW, after having listened and experienced it a lot of the last 40+ years first-hand, I think can explain this phenomenon. Although you will feel dumber from having heard it. To the left, those who fail in life only fail because we haven't "helped" them enough. Essentially, they are the victims of the rest of us trying to live our lives as independent and successful people. The corollary being you can only be successful by victimizing someone else. Well, if you are victimizing people, you deserve to pay the price for that, the more successful, the more you pay, and the more guilty you are. If you fail to feel guilty or object, then, this is just more of you refusing to take responsibility for the damage you have caused.

     Note that, stripped of the rhetoric, is more-or-less Marx and Engles' premise, that "class" differences can only be solved by punishing the "higher" classes who are guilty and allowing free reign to those in "lower" classes, and taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Everyone is equal, once you handicap the successful so they can stop exploiting the unsuccessful.

     The flaw with this is so obvious that I won't bother to belabor it. You can see how this actually works out in practice after 100 years of the same cycle, where all of the socialist/facist/Marxist states almost immediately degenerate into a dictatorship, where those proclaiming to be mere citizens who manage to get in charge live in a class divided more extremely than it was in Medieval Europe or any monarchy.

The founding principles of the USA took a completely different approach, of course, at least in principle eliminating classes. It took about 100 years to clean up the vile exceptions (slavery) but that was more-or-less the same story in the rest of the world outside the middle east and another hundred years to actually get all the legal discrimination off the books.

    I note also that there have always been those trying to undermine this principle and they have been very active since the early 1900's. Relevant to this thread, the people trying to undermine us have systematically infiltrated the educational system, trying to badmouth the most successful system ever devised and now to *create* the class warfare that was designed out from the begining. Once you have class warfare, you can then swoop in with the chosen solution. This is in progress right now.

     In another way, society has failed these people, too, by allowing people like Steve to slip through the system with these toxic ideas. They can't think of any other solutions because they don't bother to understand the problem, that has already defined for them, so every situation (train wrecks, open-air drug dens, gun deaths, etc)  is hammered into the same framework, and can only lead to one "solution". This is how he can say, probably with perfect sincerity, that the people who make an excellent pain-killer that various degenerates can abuse are somehow guilty and should go to jail.


      Brett

[Ken Culbertson]

I will not comment on how I feel about this thread since it would just be a repeat of what Brett just posted.  One of his points near the end made me go back and read some earlier posts.  So, I pose a question to Steve regarding the Contractor's saw story.  Are you actually saying that it was the saw manufacturer's fault?  Why not Edmond Michel for inventing it?  No, lets make it a Federal Case since he was awarded a patent.  Oh wait, the power company and Edison, can't leave them out.  Inanimate objects do not cause problems, people cause problems.    Most conservatives that I know would react to that story by getting the kid to the hospital, cleaning up the saw, scolding the contractor for leaving it plugged in, then doing whatever they could for the kid long term.  The leftist would sue the manufacturer of the saw resulting in a settlement requiring the manufacturer to put another tag on the saw's power cord telling you to not leave it plugged in unattended and pay the kids legal fees.  Justice is served but guess what - the kid couldn't read.  Is it any wonder that most lawyers are Democrats.

Ken 

[pmackenzie]

I cannot site the source but I have spot checked some of these and they are accurate:  The length of life was the one that blew me away:

Earth's population is approximately 7.8 billion people. For most people, that's a large number, that's all.
However, if you count the world's 7.8 billion people as 100% human, these percentages become clearer.
From 100% of people on Earth:

11% are in Europe
5% is in North America
9% - in South America
15% - in Africa
60% are in Asia
49% live in villages.
51% - In cities
12% speak Chinese
5% in Spanish
5% in English
3% speak Arabic
3% in hindi
3% in bengali
3% in Portuguese
2% in Russian
2% in Japanese
62% in their own language
77% have housing
23% have nowhere to live.
21% of people eat in excess
63% can eat as much as they want
15% of the people are malnourished
The daily cost of living for 48% of people is less than $2.
87% of people have clean drinking water
13% either do not have clean drinking water or have access to a contaminated water source.
30% have internet access
70% do not have internet access
7% received higher studies
93% of people never went to college or university.
83% can read
17% of people are illiterate.
33% are Christians
22% are Muslims.
14% are Hindus
7% are Buddhists
12% - Other Religions
12% have no religious beliefs.
26% live for less than 14 years
66% have died between the ages of 15 and 64.
8% of people over 65 years of age.
If you have a place to stay, eat healthy food and drink clean water, have a mobile phone,
you can travel on the internet and you graduated from a college or university, you're in a small privileged group.
(In the category of less than 7%)
OUT OF 100% OF THE WORLD'S PEOPLE, ONLY 8% LIVE TO BE 65 YEARS OLD.
If you are over 65 years old, be content and grateful. Seize life, seize the moment. You didn't leave this world before you turned 65, like 92% of people who have died because of health. Cherish every moment you have left!

No idea if these stats are real, but not sure how you get from 8% of the earth's population being over 65 to 92% dying before they get there, but that is not correct.
Those 92% are still alive, just not 65 years old yet.
You have to go quite far down the list of countries to get to one where life expectancy is less than 65.
https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/

[Joseph Lijoi]

Is it a coincidence that states with the right to carry have lower rates of crime?

I'm in Wyoming - crime rates here are pretty low.  You never know if the guy you're thinking of robbing might be armed ...  Our legislature, in fact, just put a bill on the Governor's desk that would eliminate all Gun-Free Zones in the state.

Our high schools here in town have shooting ranges and Junior ROTC programs.  This is the most family, military and veteran-friendly environment I can imagine.

Conservative principles seem to work.  We have no personal income, corporate income or franchise taxes.  Our sales tax rate is 4%.  Voters (including me) in the county I live in voted to add another 1%, which helps support city services and provides more than 2 million dollars to worthy non-profits.  That "fifth cent" was approved by voters nearly 50 years ago and will likely continue into the foreseeable future.

Should tax collections stop today, the state has a surplus that would allow it to continue functioning as-is for just over a year.

Can any other state make that claim?  Can any municipality with strict gun laws match our low crime rate?

Just asking for a friend, of course.

Dennis

PS: Our legislature also abolished funding for the DEI Department at the University of Wyoming.  Enough of trying to divide us even more!

Wyoming is unique. You have a low crime rate because there is nothing to shoot at. The population of Wyoming is less than the city of Detroit. You don't have to worry about "dividing us even more" or DEI because your population is 90 percent white.

Wyoming is not a conservatives state. You threw out a conservative representative who delivered much to your state because she defended the constitution.

[Paul Smith]

No idea if these stats are real, but not sure how you get from 8% of the earth's population being over 65 to 92% dying before they get there, but that is not correct.
Those 92% are still alive, just not 65 years old yet.
You have to go quite far down the list of countries to get to one where life expectancy is less than 65.
https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/

The absence of Australia from the population on continents brings the whole list into question.
Unless the population of Australia is less that .5% of the world.

[Joseph Lijoi]

Love it, Joseph.  Kinda like drive-by shootings: throw out a line here and there, drive away.

You need to look at current history: Coolidge is looking better every day.

Incidentally, FDR didn't have a war problem - the American public did.  Too many wanted to pursue an isolationist course to the end of time.

Dennis

Sounds like you are making a dog whistle racist comment comparing me to a criminal drive by shooter. I thought that we were discussing Calvin Coolidge not gun control.
 
The attempt to rehabilitate Calvin Coolidge has been ongoing since Reagan and conservative talking heads started it. This attempt was to revive failed ideas of the far right like Laissez Faire hyper capitalism or the gold standard. Other ideas in this spectrum are Reaganomics (or as GHW Bush called it voo doo economics) and the mythical Laffer curve.

Clinton had the last surplus. He was able to achieve this with moderate tax increases on the wealthy and spending cuts. GW Bush pissed this away, claiming that his tax cuts would pay for themselves (ask Arthur Laffer). They didn't. Just like Reagan. Just like Trump.

Isolationism is another bad idea that was once popular and is seeing a revival. The irony is that conservatives like Ronald Reagan wouldn't touch this form Trumpist isolationism with a ten foot pole.     

[Arlan McKee]

Sounds like you are making a dog whistle racist comment comparing me to a criminal drive by shooter.   

Like I said, It's hard to take you leftists seriously when you say something so stupid.

[pmackenzie]

The absence of Australia from the population on continents brings the whole list into question.
Unless the population of Australia is less that .5% of the world.

They are in the list at 10th

edit - unless you meant the original list of stats?  Since we don't know the source, we don't know how what was to be included was decided.
Perhaps put together by a flat-earther, some of whom are of the opinion that Australia does not actually exist

[Ken Culbertson]

.. failed ideas of the far right like Laissez Faire hyper capitalism or the gold standard....and the mythical Laffer curve.

Before I respond I would like to know what your background is in economics. 

Ken

[Dennis Leonhardi]

Joseph Lijoi - when you read back your posts, can you understand it's kinda hard to take you seriously because of your inconsistencies?

Sounds like you are making a dog whistle racist comment comparing me to a criminal drive by shooter

In almost the same breath you imply that Wyoming has a low crime rate because " your population is 90 percent white."  Who's being racist?

You write "Wyoming is not a conservatives state" because we sent Liz Cheney packing.  Please name one January 6th participant who was charged with, and found guilty of, insurrection.  Just ONE.  And surely you're aware that appeals courts are now tossing convictions on silly charges that in no way applied to those participants?

Coolidge.  He probably should have and could have done more to help American farmers in particular.  He believed - as many of us do - that our Federal Government should be limited and much left to the power - and discretion - of the States.

But FACT: he left office as a very popular and much-admired President.  YOU are among the revisionists of history who want to blame him principally for the market crash - and its consequences - that occurred after he left office.  Is he to blame for the severe drought that devastated American agriculture too?

(Incidentally, government and businesses spent more in the first 6 months of 1930 than in the first 6 months of 1929, yet consumers spent 10% less.  How's that big-government spending working out?)

FACTS: Coolidge -
 - Restored trust in the White House following the Harding scandals
 - Was a very strong supporter of civil rights
 - Appointed African Americans to government positions
 - Was a strong supporter of women's suffrage
 - Signed into law the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which granted U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans
 - Presided over 7 years of prosperity, peace, and balanced budgets

You write that Clinton managed a surplus, but GW Bush "pissed it away".  GW Bush had a war ... oh, wait a minute, you only allow that as an excuse for FDR ...

Just curious Joseph, while we're at it - can you find anything in the Constitution that justifies the Department of Education?  Obamacare?  The Department of Energy?  That dictates businesses or government must create "high-paying Union jobs?"

We've reached a point where half of all Americans depend on some level of government for their income.  I'm betting I'm not the only one here who finds that frightening!

Dennis

PS: A quote from one of our favorite Democratic Presidents regarding taxation - or was he a Republican!?!

[Dennis Leonhardi]

I'm still waiting for gun control advocates to answer a simple question: If no one - even the police - can LEGALLY own guns, how will YOU stop the 99% who use ILLEGAL guns to commit crime?

Dennis

[Joseph Lijoi]

I read Brett Buck posts.

[Joseph Lijoi]

Like I said, It's hard to take you leftists seriously when you say something so stupid.

It could be that you cannot comprehend complex thought. Stupid is as stupid does.

Why don't you ask the poster what he meant by "Love it, Joseph.  Kinda like drive-by shootings: throw out a line here and there, drive away."

[Arlan McKee]

It could be that you cannot comprehend complex thought. Stupid is as stupid does.

Why don't you ask the poster what he meant by "Love it, Joseph.  Kinda like drive-by shootings: throw out a line here and there, drive away."

Why don't you tell us what makes that a racist statement.

[Joseph Lijoi]

Joseph Lijoi - when you read back your posts, can you understand it's kinda hard to take you seriously because of your inconsistencies?

In almost the same breath you imply that Wyoming has a low crime rate because " your population is 90 percent white."  Who's being racist?

You write "Wyoming is not a conservatives state" because we sent Liz Cheney packing.  Please name one January 6th participant who was charged with, and found guilty of, insurrection.  Just ONE.  And surely you're aware that appeals courts are now tossing convictions on silly charges that in no way applied to those participants?

Coolidge.  He probably should have and could have done more to help American farmers in particular.  He believed - as many of us do - that our Federal Government should be limited and much left to the power - and discretion - of the States.

But FACT: he left office as a very popular and much-admired President.  YOU are among the revisionists of history who want to blame him principally for the market crash - and its consequences - that occurred after he left office.  Is he to blame for the severe drought that devastated American agriculture too?

(Incidentally, government and businesses spent more in the first 6 months of 1930 than in the first 6 months of 1929, yet consumers spent 10% less.  How's that big-government spending working out?)

FACTS: Coolidge -
 - Restored trust in the White House following the Harding scandals
 - Was a very strong supporter of civil rights
 - Appointed African Americans to government positions
 - Was a strong supporter of women's suffrage
 - Signed into law the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which granted U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans
 - Presided over 7 years of prosperity, peace, and balanced budgets

You write that Clinton managed a surplus, but GW Bush "pissed it away".  GW Bush had a war ... oh, wait a minute, you only allow that as an excuse for FDR ...

Just curious Joseph, while we're at it - can you find anything in the Constitution that justifies the Department of Education?  Obamacare?  The Department of Energy?  That dictates businesses or government must create "high-paying Union jobs?"

We've reached a point where half of all Americans depend on some level of government for their income.  I'm betting I'm not the only one here who finds that frightening!

Dennis

PS: A quote from one of our favorite Democratic Presidents regarding taxation - or was he a Republican!?!

Like the state of Wyoming you are unique.

I'm not going to waste my time discussing the relative merits of FDR vs Calvin Coolidge. There is no comparison. The arrival of Trump has improved every past presidents ranking. Trump does fine in your book even when he is kissing Victor Orbans ass.

I have to go to work. Enjoy your Social Security.

[Ken Culbertson]

I read Brett Buck posts.

Then you probably don't understand a word you are reading.  Conservative economics require a certain level of "Cause & Effect" intelligence.  Not much different from trimming a plane.  You apparently have very little.  Let me throw this at you.  When I was in graduate school (pre Regan and Laffer) we had access to the economic modeling program used by treasury.  One assignment was to evaluate the current tax structure and make recommendations to improve government net revenue.  Our group was the only one to actually improve revenue.  We did it by replacing the progressive tax rates with regressive rates.  I doubt you would understand this and politically it was a non-starter, but it worked. 
 
Ken

[Joseph Lijoi]

Then you probably don't understand a word you are reading.  Conservative economics require a certain level of "Cause & Effect" intelligence.  Not much different from trimming a plane.  You apparently have very little.  Let me throw this at you.  When I was in graduate school (pre Regan and Laffer) we had access to the economic modeling program used by treasury.  One assignment was to evaluate the current tax structure and make recommendations to improve government net revenue.  Our group was the only one to actually improve revenue.  We did it by replacing the progressive tax rates with regressive rates.  I doubt you would understand this and politically it was a non-starter, but it worked. 
 
Ken

Worked for who? You raised revenue. What was the effect on the quality of life of the population?

Instead of insulting my intelligence, why don't you explain the efficacy of "conservative" economics in regards to the quality of life of the population.

What era of "conservative" economics are you proposing? Are you proposing Calvin Coolidge era economic policy or Richard Nixon era economic policy?

Do you propose dissolution of the Federal Reserve and a return to the Gold Standard? Do you propose some kind of financial regulation or none at all?

Do you think the GI bill was worth the investment or should we let the market determine what we should do with 5 million returning soldiers?

How about the auto industry bailout of 2009? While the ideal may have been to let the industry take responsibility for its actions and be bought by the Chinese, how does that effect the quality of life of Americans?

In your arrogance you prefer dystopia over policies that, while not perfect, have had a generally positive outcome for the average American.
 

   
 

[Ken Culbertson]

Worked for who? You raised revenue. What was the effect on the quality of life of the population?

Instead of insulting my intelligence, why don't you explain the efficacy of "conservative" economics in regards to the quality of life of the population.

What era of "conservative" economics are you proposing? Are you proposing Calvin Coolidge era economic policy or Richard Nixon era economic policy?

Do you propose dissolution of the Federal Reserve and a return to the Gold Standard? Do you propose some kind of financial regulation or none at all?

Do you think the GI bill was worth the investment or should we let the market determine what we should do with 5 million returning soldiers?

How about the auto industry bailout of 2009? While the ideal may have been to let the industry take responsibility for its actions and be bought by the Chinese, how does that effect the quality of life of Americans?

In your arrogance you prefer dystopia over policies that, while not perfect, have had a generally positive outcome for the average American.
 

   
 

Please explain how any of your rant has anything to do with my post?  It is obvious that you do not understand how lowering taxes on the investing class raises revenue to the government.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of life, that is on the spending side.  You also clearly do not understand that taxes on the poor and middle classes are not raised in this exercise.  Oh, I forgot to add in out model corporate taxes were eliminated entirely.  That should really set you off.

Ken

[Brett Buck]

In your arrogance you prefer dystopia over policies that, while not perfect, have had a generally positive outcome for the average American.
 

 

    The problem with what you are saying is that what you consider "positive" really isn't.   Look at the photos I posted above, that is the real-life example of "dystopia", and it is 100% the result of just one profoundly stupid left-wing idea. Just one!  Take other examples, see what has happened, I suggest Seattle, Portland and Chicago as case studies.

     Thats because what you value is not the same as what the rest of us value. That's why you are perpetually angry, because you cannot stand the notion that *other people have ideas, too*. If someone doesn't agree with you, your solution is to try to get some power structure to force everyone to act the way you think they should.   

     Of course you ignore the obvious implications of your actions, taken to the logical conclusion, which screws you just as much as the rest of us. And the obvious evidence that when you and the like-minded get even a little bit of what you want, it *immediately*, and I mean days/weeks, it turns to complete disaster. You ignore this because you presume, since your "ideas" are "so obviously correct", that the bad outcomes are because you didn't get your way entirely and completely. You never look at a situation and say, "we tried this and it instantly turned to sh*t ,we must have been wrong". That is the hallmark characteristic of irrational behavior.

    Slightly off topic, but as a perfect example - the Cochran Review. This was a scientific study of the utility of masks on the spread of Wuhan Flu (which the left has called COVID-19). Conclusion - masks of any type appear to have made absolutely no difference.  This after many previous studies, all of which came to the same conclusion (and some of which were previously linked here) The reaction, and I am not kidding, this was the headline - "We know masks work, so what went wrong with the Cochran Review?" "Believe the Science", unless it disagrees with our most sacred dogma, in which case, start digging through it for flaws.

    Same story with The Mueller Report, the report said that no American helped the Russians undermine the election. Well, surely that can't be true so lets dig through the appendices and find excuses to dismiss the conclusion to we can maintain our preconceived notion.

   That's just an example, you can find similar examples about decrimininalizing drugs and being shocked that use went through the roof and there were people selling drugs in dens on the streets, defunding the police and then being amazed crime went through the roof, etc.   Same with the absolutely endless defense of socialism/communist ideas despite the 100% record of failure.   

    Virtually every idea the left holds has the effect of undermining people who have excelled as individuals, stealing their money and giving it to those who have failed out of your strange notion of "fairness". Those people object to that notion, and have never done anything aside from work hard and make their own way. Some of them are spectacularly successful, and you see them as villains.

    Several of us are trying to point out the gaping flaws in your reasoning and how you may have come to it, Your response is to get even angrier, and start accusing everyone of everything in an increasingly irrational spew.   You haven't made anything resembling reasonable arguments about what you want to do could actually function, vaguely talking about "helping people" and operating on the assumption that if anyone disagrees with your version of "helping" or points out that its about as helpful as a meteorite strike based on the results, they don't care and are thoughtless and careless people who deserve your contempt and should be stopped by any means.

     Brett

[Arlan McKee]

....and then predictably they call someone a racist.

[Paul Smith]

The formula of taxation is not the problem.
The problem is the spending and giving away of money that does not actually exist.

[Brett Buck]

....and then predictably they call someone a racist.

   
   Interestingly, I while abhor racism as much as anyone (as both immoral and in diametric opposition to the founding principles),  their ridiculous and profligate spew of calling anyone disagreeing with them as a "racist" has watered it down so much it means nearly nothing. "Racist Dog Whistle" is a classic - well, no one actually said it but "we just know", somehow, that it's racist.

    Same with "facist", which at least has some historical basis. The facists and communists were the mortal enemies in Europe in the 30's, competing over who was going to be the standard-bearer for "state first" socialism. Both were still worthless socialists, of course and both always lead to oppressive dictatorships and in practice are hardly any different. Today the left uses "facist" as "anyone I want to bad-mouth" without even the tiniest clue what it means.

   Also, using the "predictable" part, keeping with the example - who (on the political spectrum) predicted disastrous effects on the poor, the addicted, the homeless by legalizing hard drugs. It was done, and immediately, our predictions came true right down the line. The left was stunned speechless, unfortunately only briefly, at the results.

     Was this because they are incapable of predicting the results of their policies, even when they are as blatantly obvious as this? I hope that's all it was, because the alternative is even uglier - that they knew something like this would happen and did it anyway, showing a murderous disregard for the lives of the people they were ostensibly trying to help.

    Apply the same to any other leftist desires - defund the police or BLM riots, for examples - and see who suffered the most. Either they are incompetent and naive to be so far off on their predictions, or they are doing it on purpose which is downright evil. I prefer to believe the former, I don't think they are evil. But either way, every single result indicates that we shouldn't pay any attention to them.

     Brett

[Brett Buck]

The formula of taxation is not the problem.
The problem is the spending and giving away of money that does not actually exist.

  Those are different sides of the same coin, optimizing tax revenue can be used to buy down the debt or reduce the deficit. The problem is always how to maximize the tax without destroying the rest of the economy. Like most things the answer is blatantly obvious, but also predictably, the same people with the same stupid ideas always come back with the worst possible solution.

     Brett

[Gary Dowler]

   
   Interestingly, I while abhor racism as much as anyone (as both immoral and in diametric opposition to the founding principles),  their ridiculous and profligate spew of calling anyone disagreeing with them as a "racist" has watered it down so much it means nearly nothing. "Racist Dog Whistle" is a classic - well, no one actually said it but "we just know", somehow, that it's racist.

    Same with "facist", which at least has some historical basis. The facists and communists were the mortal enemies in Europe in the 30's, competing over who was going to be the standard-bearer for "state first" socialism. Both were still worthless socialists, of course and both always lead to oppressive dictatorships and in practice are hardly any different. Today the left uses "facist" as "anyone I want to bad-mouth" without even the tiniest clue what it means.

   Also, using the "predictable" part, keeping with the example - who (on the political spectrum) predicted disastrous effects on the poor, the addicted, the homeless by legalizing hard drugs. It was done, and immediately, our predictions came true right down the line. The left was stunned speechless, unfortunately only briefly, at the results.

     Was this because they are incapable of predicting the results of their policies, even when they are as blatantly obvious as this? I hope that's all it was, because the alternative is even uglier - that they knew something like this would happen and did it anyway, showing a murderous disregard for the lives of the people they were ostensibly trying to help.

    Apply the same to any other leftist desires - defund the police or BLM riots, for examples - and see who suffered the most. Either they are incompetent and naive to be so far off on their predictions, or they are doing it on purpose which is downright evil. I prefer to believe the former, I don't think they are evil. But either way, every single result indicates that we shouldn't pay any attention to them.

     Brett

Stated perfectly, though I am inclined to assign a little more intentional nature to their actions, mainly because they otherwise demonstrate a little more cunning and planning than I would expect from someone not acting deliberately.

Gary

[Brett Buck]

Stated perfectly, though I am inclined to assign a little more intentional nature to their actions, mainly because they otherwise demonstrate a little more cunning and planning than I would expect from someone not acting deliberately.

Gary

   To each his own of course, but to be entirely clear - I do not think that Steve and Joseph, or anyone outside a small select set of individuals, actually starts out to cause harm to anyone, or has any intent aside from pursuing their own beliefs. The beliefs and thought process underlying them, if any, is where I have a huge problem and I am incredulous that such cognitive dissonance could be shoved aside. But they are not, as far as I can tell, bad people.

      Brett