jcd11235

I'm not sure how you would reach that conclusion based on my posts. Perhaps you missed the part where citizens have equal equity in their government regardless of how much they paid, and a fair distribution of government's liquid assets, based on equity, would not provide money relative to taxes paid, but rather relative to equity of government, i.e. equally per capita. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It's a bad analogy, because dinner at a restaurant is not typically priced variably, according to income. I two people pay different prices, they get different meals, i.e. they don't own equal shares of their dinner. A refund should be given according to the amount of equity owned in the dinner (pre-consumption). The government is not purchased that way. It is paid for according to income levels. However, those who pay more don't own more, significantly different from your dinner analogy. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Sure it is, they all had the same buffet. Then they would have paid equally. The government is not a buffet. Your analogy doesn't work. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Sure, and by that logic, saying that "dozens" of people voted for Obama would also be an "accurate and responsible description." I mean, dozens is clearly a subset of millions, isn't it? Yes, technically that would be accurate. However, since we know how many people voted for Obama, it would make sense to use a more precise descriptor. OTOH, we don't know how many people attended the demonstration on 9/12; there have been mixed reports. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Please, defend such a position. We (collective) have a very good understanding of what is causing global warming. Since the number of people who were in attendance is not known, and there were known efforts to overreport the turnout, saying tens of thousands was the more accurate and responsible description, since it is technically a superset of hundreds of thousands. Your first link had the search field in the upper right of the Web page. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

In your example, the patrons do not own the dinner equally. That is not the case with the government. Trickle down economics contributed to a "jobless recovery" under President Bush. In other words, the working class benefited the least from the recovery, since the investments made by the rich did not create jobs. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Did "fair and balanced" FOX give equal time discussing Ms. Dunn's other favorite philosopher, Mother Teresa? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I think its meaning is context dependent. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Medicare is insufficiently funded, but it's administration is more efficient that private insurers. (A private insurer, AIG, also found themselves with insufficient assets in the not so distant past.) Yes, it would appear so. You're confusing adequate funding with efficient administration. It's not terribly rare for companies to worry about short term profits at the expense of long term viability. Perhaps you've heard of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, AIG, etc.? Or they can just wait until taxpayers step in to save the companies. People influence politics often without having to wait for an election. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Please offer an example of a large private health insurance company that keeps its administrative costs down in the 2-5% range as Medicare does. Private industry suffers from inefficiencies as well. For example, CEO's and BOD's often act in the interest of bonuses and short term stockholder benefits, at the cost of long term benefit of the corporations. Neither the private sector nor the public sector is inherently more efficient than the other. There are examples of efficiency in both sectors. There are examples of inefficiency in both sectors. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Once the money is paid in as taxes, it is the government's money. As such, the fairest way to distribute it among the people is on a per capita basis, equally among all citizens, regardless of how much was paid in taxes. The most economically productive distribution would be to give it to people who are most likely to spend it immediately, i.e. the poor. Taxes we have paid do not belong to us. They belong to our government. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That's exactly my point. There is nothing about the private sector that makes it inherently more efficient than the public sector (or vice versa). Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That happens at all income levels, not just with the poor. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Personal feelings. I see. You used an objective approach. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

How did you reach that conclusion? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Yes, I thought it should - but I personally seen it several times in couple of places here. Likely it's pretty much the same way people are buying booze using foodstamps. It sounds like your complaint should be with the stores enabling the fraud, not the programs themselves. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You do know that WIC specifies specific products, right? No ice cream, no soda, no chips. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Perhaps it is questionable if you truly believe that the rich need new yachts (your example) as much as the poor need food and clothing. To me, the answer is pretty clear. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That method would completely miss those who most need the benefit as the funds are distributed, when the benefit of the infusion is greatest. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I think there might be a problem when he has to specify that he allows them to use his bathroom as a defense against racism. Obviously racism doesn't exist if blacks are allowed to use the same bathroom as whites. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It was not in Saddam's best interest to allow other countries to realize how weak Iraq was militarily. He had no real alternative to playing a game of cat and mouse with weapons inspectors to allow the possibility that he be perceived as having and hiding weapons. What kind of terrorism would that be? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Yes, the profits go back to Walmart. However, the money also goes to pay wages, suppliers, etc. A gain, some profit will come off the top and be diverted to the holders of the capital. Other portions will again go to pay for labor and supplies. Right. You offered an example of such. Social welfare exists primarily for the benefit of the whole of society, not just for the benefit of those receiving it. For example, unemployment insurance doesn't exist to offer incentive for not working (it has a limited duration to offer incentive to go back to work), it exists to make sure those who find themselves unemployed continue spending money in the economy to prevent the effects of the negative feedback loop that would otherwise be realized. I.e. Some people lose their jobs. They no longer spend the money they were spending while working. Companies realize reduced profits, and more people lose their jobs. People who still have jobs start worrying about their own job security and reduce their spending in order to prepare for their own potential job loss. Their reduced spending further reduces profits for companies, leading to more lost jobs. It becomes a vicious cycle. As opposed to what, allowing them to die? If those are the choices, then it empowers them by giving them the chance to recover and become a more productive member of society. Define horrible. I don't see anyone proposing a system in which everyone wins. However, it would be naïve to believe that economic winners don't win at the expense of economic losers. Since winning and losing are concepts relative to each other, without some sort of safety net for those who lose, the group of winners grows smaller and smaller. It is the safety nets that allow a capitalist market to be generally sustainable. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No, it is the most important aspect of the point. What matters is what percentage of money that is being received is being put back into the economy. Relative to their income, the poor spend more. That's why trickle down economics do not work. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It could have been successfully concluded. Iraq was cooperating at the time of the invasion. We now know that the only thing Saddam was trying to hide was the fact that he had no WMD. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Wars are not always for elimination. They are to obtain desired political end states. Presidents seem to like to declare a "War on insert noun here" without actually offering tools to eliminate anything. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!