jcd11235

To keep everybody spending and contributing to the economy. Relative to their income, which is the most important consideration, the poor person spends more. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

UN weapons inspectors were working fine in Iraq. It's unfortunate that the US did not give them time to finish their job before unnecessarily invading the country. I respectfully disagree with you. Clinton tried to get them in there for 5 years while Saddam played games. So, you're saying the weapons inspectors were wrong, and Iraq did have WMD? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You're confusing personal responsibility and social responsibility. Personal responsibility and social responsibility are not mutually exclusive. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The programs are not intended to eliminate poverty. They are intended to keep the poor people spending money in the economy so that the problem of poverty does not increase and spread. It looks like it's been working to do just that. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I know. It's arrogant of me to choose not to participate in a discussion with someone who doesn't demonstrate sufficient maturity. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I ignored your post due to the insults, not because your claims aren't easily refuted. If you want to make your points in a mature manner, I'll likely address them. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That's completely irrelevant to this discussion. Individuals can be responsible to society and still exercise their individual rights. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No, you didn't. You offered rhetoric. There's a big difference. Since you seem to be interested in throwing insults instead of having an objective discussion, I'll ignore the rest of your post. Have a good night. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I've answered them previously, but … >If the poor spend all the money they are given in what ways will it >help them? It helps them specifically by allowing them such things as food and shelter. It also keeps money moving in the economy, which benefits everyone. >In what form do rich people "save" their money, and why does this >result in a negative impact on the economy as a whole? Cash savings and some other investments (e.g. insurance companies) have reserve requirements. The money tied up in those requirements doesn't grow the economy. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

that's the part I don't get. So you're either saying that social programs such as welfare don't reward people for staying unemployed, or you're saying that these social programs are conservative agenda items. I'm saying that personal responsibility consists of more than just individuals looking out for number one. Personal responsibilities are responsibilities that I, personally, have. My personal responsibilities extend further than just myself and my family. I have personal responsibilities to society, as well. I don't see the Libertarian party being in favor of personal responsibility. They seem to be in favor of looking out for number one, everyone else be damned. That isn't a philosophy consistent with belief in personal responsibility. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

LOL I'm pretty sure you have me confused with someone else! Yes. That's why we have professions like engineers - people whose job it is to MAKE something more efficient. Correct word use seems to be a problem for you this evening. That would not be sufficient evidence to support your assertion. That's a much watered down version of your previous assertion. I agree; there is still poverty in the US. Can you prove that it wasn't a result of what the conservatives have done? Under whose budgets has the economic divide widened the most? But, can you show that it went to the same people? That's what you have to be able to show to prove your assertion. Exactly my point. Which have reserve requirements. The money that fulfills those reserve requirements is effectively removed from the economy. Yes, at a slower rate than if it were spent instead of saved. Again, think reserve requirements. Wrong. Spending money is the best way to keep the economy humming. Bingo. The economy stagnated because people didn't spend. Which worked. [Reply]Not perfect knowledge. The government will spend $300 on a hammer. Great market knowledge. No, they wouldn't. The accounting appears that way because of the way other costs are attributed to different items in the accounting. ??? WTF are you talking about? As do I. I also favor a society that believes in personal responsibility. That's why I typically vote liberal over conservative. The only thing I called you was counselor. I called strawmen the arguments you knocked down as though I had made them, despite that not being the case. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

"Fine" being the equivalent of the weapons inspectors saying Iraq didn't have weapons while Iraq actually had no weapons. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Why does money flow from poor to rich? If the poor spend all the money they are given in what ways will it help them? In what form do rich people "save" their money, and why does this result in a negative impact on the economy as a whole? When money is saved, it is subject to reserve requirements. That means that part of it is removed from the economy. When money is spent, it is all returned to the economy. It's why trickle down economics doesn't work. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That's where your rhetoric makes a departure from reality. What people are employed with welfare programs? Perhaps you should look up the definition of keep, counselor. That would be a much more accurate choice of words, with different meaning than your initial selection. Yes. Is efficiency something that is produced? An assertion for which I am sure you have credible evidence, yes? Not necessarily. Much of it may have otherwise been saved, which reduces the amount of money being spent in the economy. Money flows from poor to rich. For maximum economic benefit, money should be given to the poor, who will spend all of it, as opposed to given to the rich, who may spend part of it. Not true. The government has much more information than individuals tend to have. Rational behavior, while not assured, is more likely than with most individuals. Nice strawman. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

UN weapons inspectors were working fine in Iraq. It's unfortunate that the US did not give them time to finish their job before unnecessarily invading the country. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

For many/most, it is. It is not available to everyone. Not for everyone that does not otherwise have access, they haven't. It was be smarter from a fiscal perspective to replace the sidewalk if the cost is cheaper than fixing the old one. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I believe that your problem is in treating taxes as their own universe and not interrelated with other activities. For example, let's say you tax at 50% of incomes above $50k per year. (Al Gore himself said if a person makes $50k per year for 20 years that person has made a million dollars). Now, what do you do with it? Is it simply removed from the economy? Or is it put back into the economy? If it is simply removed then the economy will suffer. If it is put back, how it is put back into the economy is important. For example, is it put into the space program - which contracts with private manufacturers and keeps people employed? Or is it put into welfare programs, which keep people unemployed? That's where your rhetoric makes a departure from reality. They spend the money on goods and services, pumping the money back into the economy. That's only true if everyone has perfect information and everyone behaves rationally. Neither is true in reality. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Everyone should have access to those things, and, according to the UDHR, has a right to have access to those things. That does not imply that the government should provide all of those things to everyone. It does imply that the government has a responsibility to step in when people are unable to provide those things for themselves. In many cases, the government does this, but far too many people fall through the cracks. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I disagree. The steps you listed that we have taken are not sufficient to meet the requirements (i.e. Article 25 of the UDHR uses the word the word everyone). Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that the examples you used are not, in reality, indicative of our responsibilities, and that Congress would not be acting in a manner contradictory to the Constitution to remedy that situation (i.e. meeting the prerequisite for an international treaty to be the supreme law of the land). I'm sorry if my wording wasn't clear on that point. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

There are many people in the US that do not qualify for government heathcare, nor can they afford coverage at current prices. (Even if they qualified but aren't signed up, signing them up would result in funding shortages, leaving the problem to remain.) That needs to be remedied. Congress has the power to remedy that, with or without the UDHR under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I wasn't being facetious at all. of course you were - it's a common tactic - be proud, it was played flawlessly Don't be facetious. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I wasn't being facetious at all. You said the discussion was about the choices people make, and the thread is about a four month old infant. I inferred from your statement that the four month old infant made a lifestyle choice detrimental to his health, and was curious about what that choice may have been. Apparently your statement was merely an attempt to dodge someone else's question. Fair enough. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

"Tens of thousands of fresh American troops are now on the move in Afghanistan, led by a new commander and armed with a counterinsurgency plan that builds on the lessons of Iraq. But can U.S. forces succeed in a land long known as the 'graveyard of empires'? And can the U.S. stop the Taliban in neighboring Pakistan, where U.S. troops are not allowed and the government is weak?" Did anyone watch Obama's War on FRONTLINE? (Direct link to video) It painted a pretty unflattering picture of our progress in what they called the longest war in United States' history. As they presented it, a victory for the US in Afghanistan will be nearly impossible, and will require things to happen which are outside the control of the military. One requirement is a significant reduction of corruption by the government led by Karzai. With its current levels of corruption, including an inability or unwillingness to hold free and fair elections, it is not viewed as a clearly superior alternative to the Taliban shadow government that is in place in Afghanistan. Another requirement is an end to Pakistan's unofficial support for the Taliban. ISI, (Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence) sees the Taliban as a proxy force for protecting Pakistani interests inside Afghanistan, much as they viewed other mujahideen extremist groups, with CIA support, as tools of foreign policy during the Soviet War in Afghanistan. One particularly interesting quote from Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.): There seems to be some sort of presumption that Afghanistan is jihad central, that if we can simply succeed in pacifying Afghanistan that the problem of violent Islamic radicalism goes away. It won't. All we care about is that al Qaeda not use the place as a sanctuary, and you don't have to occupy the country in order to prevent that from happening. Regarding a COIN strategy, Lt. Col. John Nagl says: By classic counterinsurgency measures, success in Afghanistan would require 600,000 counterinsurgents. We're well below half that right now. So the current international forces on the ground, after a huge increase in American forces in 2009, which is not yet complete -- we're at about 100,000 internationals. We've got about 80,000 Afghan army, we've got about 60,000 Afghan police, for a total of 250,000 counterinsurgents. This implies that even if General McChrystal gets the 40,000 additional troops he's asking for, there will still be less than half of the troops necessary to successfully carry out a counter insurgency mission. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I identified the error to which I referred. That's the one. I can't read your mind. Perhaps you could provide a credible source regarding those "two separate covenants." Sorry, but wordlingo.com and absoluteastronomy.com hardly seem credible w/r/t to this topic. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a constitutive document of the United Nations Charter. As signatories of the United Nations, a legally binding treaty, the United States is legally bound to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You'll find that the two covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, are separate from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!