Informative and truly amazing! y1 y1
Some of those statistics are just plain scary.
Bob Z.
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:
<snip list>
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!
you guys all have it right. I just added this song to my concert list, haven't used it yet but sure will at the next booking.
It's by Aaron Tippin and is on youtube. Here's the lyrics:
Well, if you ask me where I come from
Here's what I tell everyone
I was born by God's dear grace
In an extraordinary place
Where the stars and stripes and the eagle fly
It's a big ol' land with countless dreams
Happiness ain't out of reach
Hard work pays off the way it should
Yeah, I've seen enough to know that we've got it good
Where the stars and stripes and the eagle fly
There's a lady that stands in a harbor for what we believe
And there's a bell that still echoes the price that it cost to be free
I pledge allegiance to this flag
And if that bothers you, well, that's too bad
But if you got pride and you're proud you do
Hey, we could use some more like me and you
Where the stars and stripes and the eagle fly
Yes, there's a lady that stands in a harbor for what we believe
And there's a bell that still echoes the price that it cost to be free
No, it ain't the only place on earth
But it's the only place that I prefer
To love my wife and raise my kids
Hey, the same way that my daddy did
Where the stars and stripes and the eagle fly
Where the stars and stripes and the eagle fly
Where the stars and stripes and the eagle fly
Well said, Brett.
And I've heard some of these liberal morons pontificating on how we should feel sorry for these druggies and use our tax money to rehab them.
After all, it's not their fault they're addicts. They had a bad childhood (or some crap like that)
Informative and truly amazing! y1 y1
Some of those statistics are just plain scary.
Bob Z.
Here's the link to where the stars and stripes and eagles fly. I think I'm going to use it as my opening song and then do it again as my closing number. Just love it.
To be entirely accurate, I am all for helping people, it's just that we need to help people *before* they get on drugs. Claiming it's no big deal, or a "victimless crime", or whatever we do to minimize or normalize, is doing a great disservice to both society and the individuals. Making it a crime, making it clear from a young age is very much *is* a big deal, that it can definitely ruin or end you life, making drug use a shameful thing to be abhorred, that is helping someone. It won't stop it, but it will do everything that can practically done prior to it destroying someone's life.
Once they start, it's a much more iffy proposition to ever recover, and if they are irredeemable, they need to be kept away from the rest of us. Help them try to get off of it *once*, if that fails, prison, if that fails, 3 strikes, enjoy the big house forever. That's a terrible result, a tragedy, but you can't allow them to drag everyone else down.
Brett
This is thoughtful but the solutions that you are proposing have been done before. Your methods are a bit harsh and generalize the substances that need to be controlled.
The "three strikes you're out" policy did nothing to alleviate crime and ended up creating situations where people were sentenced to 25 years for stealing a slice of pizza.
It is important to note that the Sackler family (creators of Oxy Contin, which led to the opioid epidemic) didn't do any time. In fact, after a token financial hit they are doing quite well.
The issue is complex and crosses a lot of other issues. If you do some research you will find that it is generally accepted that substance abuse is a disease and that long term treatment and housing is much cheaper than sending someone to prison for life.
Good. 3 strikes proves you are not ever going to stop. Jail is the right place for you. And I am not sure what I am "generalizing", I made no specific mentions. But as long as we are at it, anything on any of the federal narcotics schedules, say, starting with schedule 1 (addictive and no medicinal value) - like marijuana. That is still illegal in any US state or territory by Federal law. Fentanyl, by the way, is not.
I agree that we had not done a great job before, due to various "forces" progressively watering down the criminal justice system using reasoning just like yours. In the places where your ideas have been fully embraced, it has been far worse, leading to widespread homelessness and people crapping in the middle of the street clustered around open-air drug markets.
Building more prisons would be a lot cheaper and vastly more effective. Give people a few tries, when the tries run out, then, write them off. What your idea leads to is an endless but growing cycle that is rapidly destroying any place it is tried. As noted, even the people of *Oregon*, dominated by extreme leftists and aged hippies, very quickly found that out and had to reverse it.
Why in the world would you send the creators of OxyContin to jail?! They created a very effective painkiller that had and still has numerous legitimate medical uses. That it happens to have a tendency to be addictive is not disqualifying, a lot of medicines have that. It's a controlled substance that was over-prescribed, if anyone goes to jail it is the doctors that allowed their patients to be oversubscribed and become addicted. The people abusing it should get one chance at kicking it, but after that, they have shown themselves unable. Fentanyl, same thing, it is a very effective, but highly addictive and thus access should be carefully controlled.
Brett
The US states incarceration rate is 531 per 100,000, which is sixth behind American Samoa and just above Panama. This is well above any other nations that are part of what you like to describe as "western civilization". By your metric the US justice system is doing quite well.
You need to do some research on OxyContin, Purdue Pharma, and its cost on American society. Addiction is a disease.
What you propose is quite cynical and hasn't worked in the past.
I am not sure why I should care about that statistic. Criminals and those dangerous to the health of innocent people and society belong in jail.
The people who made an effective painkilling medicine are not responsible for someone abusing it and then increasingly more extreme drugs, The people behind OxyContin were not going around forcing it down everyone's throat againt their will. Any more than gun manufacturers are responsible for someone getting shot. Its the person who pulls the trigger, not the people making a perfectly legal product.
Addiction is a moral failing, and a failing of society to impress upon people the dangers of using drugs. If I were to grant it was a "disease", which I don't, then I would offer the cure and if someone failed to take it, then, yes, that is their fault.
I also note that your compassion for people deciding to avoid or refuse treatment or control of their disease seems pretty selective, because less than 3 years ago you demanding that people take forced medical treatment for a disease they didn't actually have, and were cheering on sequestering the diseased and the healthy alike for the good of society. And calling everyone who said it was an overreach a denialist and of spreading misinformation. This for something far less dangerous than drug addiction and for people who had done absolutely nothing wrong aside from living their lives.
Because people like you went out of your way to undermine it in your rush to show your great compassion.
What you propose is also being tried currently and has lead to this in very short order:
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/08/17/21/53359365-10923923-The_center_is_equipped_to_serve_up_to_100_people_at_a_time_who_a-a-27_1660767115782.jpg)
(https://www.healthht.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Mental-Health-hyxbwtssgkq.jpg)
Which has helped absolutely no one who is currently addicted - far from it, it makes it far worse - while also turning our cities to trash heaps for everyone else. Your compassion seems to ignore the vast majority of the other people who have not chosen to ruin their lives while accomodating and encouraging the perpetrators.
Brett
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
100% total,
None in Australia?
Until drug and gun manufacturers are held responsible for misuse on the streets and laws are created where having possession of either is completely criminal the insanity will continue.
Data and statistics are two different things.
Data is a listing of known factual numbers.
Statistics are projections made from data.
Statistics rely on formulas which are questionable at best.
Statistics will forecast the odds of a home run or a touchdown pass. But they do not prove the future.
Since I was the one who made the original post, I suppose I should state that the only intention was to share some statistics that I had read that I thought were interesting and revealing. Somehow, at some point, the thread took an ugly turn and drifted into something that it should not have. I guess what I was thinking that even with all of our warts, this country is still the best alternative on Earth as a place to dwell. I am truly sorry that it took the turn it did.
Mike
The answer lies with the source of the problem, the people. It may take generations, but people need to take responsibility for themselves and their families.
Dan,
You have made many points I cannot argue with, some a bit facetious but for the most part most well made. Many of the people's difficulties today are the result of the moral breakdown in society. Much of which I feel we can take responsibility for as leaders, parents, teachers, pastors etc. who have turned their heads allowing the formidable to slip off into trouble. Unfortunately, many of these poor cases are now young adults that have become hopelessly lost without the ability to find a direction out. This is our world today, it's not a pretty picture but what is the solution? I brought up drugs and guns which obviously got your attention. Too many simply look at these two major problems in our country today and decidedly conclude to quote your statement "the answer lies with the people", I really struggle with this. Do you really actually think the people can solve either of these issues? We've certainly had enough time since incidents like Sandy Hook to do so and have made no progress. I recall the analogy someone used once, the contractor leaves for lunch leaving his circular saw plugged in on the floor. The curious two-year-old left alone briefly crawls over and turns the saw on slicing off its fingers. Are you going to say it's the child's fault? We have friends living in Spain that look at the USA and see the number of mass shootings that occur every year. Do you know how many mass shootings they had in Spain last year? ZERO and why, because they don't allow the public to own guns. Society can't fix its problem out of a paper bag. Most of these shooters have the minds of children and we're going to ty to figure them out? Good luck with that. Hey, I like guns, I own my dad's rifle he bought as a kid in the 20s. Would I give it up if the law said I couldn't own it to hopefully see an end to the senseless shootings? You betcha I would. Would we ever really eliminate all gun ownership? Probably not but the number of shootings would go down if some effort was made to limit the quantities and availability to the crazies. And the contractor in my opinion should do jail time for his utter carelessness.
Steve
Well Dan as I re read your input I searched for a solution and don't see one. A lot of finger pointing as usual, the standard conservative right response. Take the contractor's circular saw out of the equation and the accident would not have happened. Or perhaps the parents should have run around policing his tools when he breaks. And it's too bad all the kids on the day of the SH killings didn't have the flu and stayed home or they closed the school. Sounds like you'd be happy if we blamed the parents for the murder of their kids for sending them that day?? Give me something better that works and I'll go away happy.
Calvin Coolidge, the 29th president of The United States, said:"All problems cannot be solved by legislation"
He is the only politician in history to ever make such a statement.
An overwhelming percentage of voters, which I would not dare to estimate, are convinced that the opposite is true.
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...GOD HELP US!!!
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.
Calvin Coolidge reduced the Federal Pubic Debt from $25 Billion to $16 Billion. He is the only US president who ever reduced the debt.
You cannot reduce public (or family) debt by giving everybody everything they want.
He did not have any friends because politicians make friends by throwing money around.
FDR made A LOT friends by spending America into permanent debt and dying with the USA $260 Billion in the hole. Lots of people love FDR because he gave them stuff.
Now even so-called "conservatives" drop a trillion a year and liberals go for two.
9 billion debt reduction/great depression. Nice trade off.
Calvin Coolidge was unpopular because he sucked.
FDR had a major fiscal problem. It was called World War II.
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.
It's interesting that somebody started this thread to stimulate political talk, and it works.
Answer: Abortion, gun control, narcotics, deporting illegal aliens, expensive medical care, homeless, poverty, covid, and global warming.
Question: Name nine things that people argue about but the government cannot and will not change no matter who wins the elections.
Unfortunately, there are a large number of people who are not capable of critical thought, logic, reason and just plain common sense and act strictly on their emotions and what they think they are entitled to.
I have found over the years that if you are conservative, and I am in most things, that a liberal does not want to hear your opinion. What they want to hear, is their opinion coming out of your mouth.
Mike
Had I known that this initial post was going to be twisted the way it was, I would never have put it up. It will not happen again I can promise you that.
Unfortunately, there are a large number of people who are not capable of critical thought, logic, reason and just plain common sense and act strictly on their emotions and what they think they are entitled to.
I have found over the years that if you are conservative, and I am in most things, that a liberal does not want to hear your opinion. What they want to hear, is their opinion coming out of your mouth.
Until drug and gun manufacturers are held responsible for misuse on the streets and laws are created where having possession of either is completely criminal the insanity will continue.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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. R%%%% Steve
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. R%%%% Steve
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
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.
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. R%%%% Steve
Conservative principles seem to work.
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!
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!
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/
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.Like I said, It's hard to take you leftists seriously when you say something so stupid.
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.
.. 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
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.
It could be that you cannot comprehend complex thought. Stupid is as stupid does.Why don't you tell us what makes that a racist statement.
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."
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!?!
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.
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?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.
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.
In your arrogance you prefer dystopia over policies that, while not perfect, have had a generally positive outcome for the average American.
....and then predictably they call someone a racist.
The formula of taxation is not the problem.
The problem is the spending and giving away of money that does not actually exist.
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