Lucky...

HUH? Look, I want to make my points and exchange ideas and learn, I don;t know what you're talking about, just make a point. Again, enough ridiculous pettiness, please make your point about elderly having their benies cut. If off the top of your head or you heard, don't waste your time. I'd like to learn someting substantive.

Me too, bro, I'm glad we can keep this all friendly. It wasn't that long ago that I paired GHWB with the other 2 clowns, now I see he was much like Clinton, GWB and Reagan were virtually carbon copies. It was hard to seperate him, as he fathered GWB and VP/succeeded Reagan, but he was great, did a great job in Desert Storm too and on top of that he was a great WWII hero; he exemplified the Greatest Generation. OTOH, coward Ronnie and coward GWB not only blew the economy, but they were worthless in their respective wars. Not that you have to be an honorable warrior to be a good pres, but that's important to me that a person serve honorably. Yea, his short time and 2 of 3 major indexes are waaaay positive. I can't see what's so hard to believe that Obama can't fix things, he's off to a great start. I think that supports my point, he didn't shoot his wad and buy his way back into + numbers, he's leaking it out there for staying power. Radical changes are a sign of the right, but they have 'Boom-and-bust' characteristics. IOW's how many of Bush's indicators were stable or had staying power? The little success he had was as a result of the stolen money from the mortgage industry. Then it petered out and we were left dead. Look at what Obama can do with the money he has to distribute as is neccessary. Let's say there was a surplus after the economy and jobs are stable, he would return it, Bush would have given it away. It appears you are, am I wrong? It's not who is spending, it's what they are doing with it. Bailing out the banks and auto indust is brilliant. Actually I would have prefered to let the banks fail and buy their mortgage notes thriu the gov, butthe anti-socialist folks would scream. Tell me where he's wasted the money and what you think he should have done. Make sure and give me a cause and effect. IOW's, what happens if we let the big 3 die, ripple, etc. No, I'm against matching the world in military spending, Im all for moderate social spending as the benefit makes it's way back into the economy and is a benefit to all citizens. Also, again, you can't just ask for a mulligan with this mess he inherited, it might cost 1 or 2 trillion to fix teh banks, auto industry and whatever else. That's a cost he inherited, do you agree? I think Obama did himself a disservice by fixing things so fast, this recession was several times worse than the 1990 recession yet it seems to be fixing way quicker, so we think it wasn't as bad. Check GDP numbers then and now, check unemp numbers then and now; this is waaaay wrose than before, yet 2 of the 3 indexes are basically fixed. I bet the market is 12k by year's end. The GDP will be +4 to +5 then but unemp will be 9ish still. Not very often, only every day Peace.

But I'm a nappy-headed ho, sorry you're offended by that, I just feel that way about myself. Just be glad you were able to use the term, "dead reckoning" in a post; how long has it been?

I agree, I know you do - after all, come the Glorious Revolution, it'll be even cheaper. Just shoot Granny in the head when she can't work anymore. You can't reply with any data or support so now you have to quote small parts of my sentences. Sad. I agree, let's give all Americans the best we can, spare no expense. Glad we're on teh same page.

I wrote: But didn't have the knowledge too. Show me a time when a major federal tax cut led to a positive result. That's not an insult, just a call to address my request for data, it's apparent that he didn't have the knowledge to respond. Furthermore, I believe that was to the other poster that was kissing your ass with mad props, he posted his on top, so it came out weird - a few people respond like that. Please, when ya get time, I'm looking for an answer: show me tax cuts gone good / tax increases gone bad. All I ask is that you use major federal cuts/increases and don't be abstract or look at a 1-month period, look at a stretch so the data has a larger sample size. Fair enough. With what? Find one what? Kinda ambiguous; tell me what you want. It's all those things. Federal outlays (spending) are established on an annual basis. The preseident submits a proposal to the House (since 1921), the House drafts a bill, if tehy pass it it goes to teh Senate, if they pass it it goes to the president for signing or veto. If funds are needed mid-year, as with Iraq, they draft a seperate measure that I believe starts with the House, most spending bills do, then it goes on up. Taxes are seperate random bills, but I think they can be piggybacked on the federal annual budget. They are sporadic in nature and may be rapid-fire or have long stretches inbetween them. Anyway, so we spend, we tax and common sense would dictate that the difference is what beccomes the deficit or surplus. But it isn't exact, it's close sometimes, but that's the essence. So is it the debt? The debt is just the main symptom of too much spending or not enough taxing. The point I'm making is that when tax cuts are entered into, all hell breaks loose. Hoover cut em early, Reagan did, GWB did as well. Look at the result. Reagan and GWb also spent thru their ass, so is it the spending or the taxing? I think both. I've heard arguments that it's primarily one or the other, but I think it's moot and ridiculous. The key here, if your a rich person, is to get the poor and MC to buy into this horseshit that cutting taxes creates relief for all classes. I just ask for an example; enough chalkboard economics, let's put it to the test and make observations. Yes, remember the Dems were teh warmongers in teh last century, but they did it because they loved wars. The neo-cons today create pseudo enemies to justify spending massive amounts on the Military Industrial Complex teh great Eisenhower warned us against. Reagan is the best example of a loser that did that to us, the USSR was just trying to eat and wipe their ass, Reagan made us believe they wanted to attack. Who's teh bigger idiot: Reagan or his followers. See, this is where conservatives reveal their incompassion. They don't know or care who's hurting, they just want to deny and dismiss all claims as frivalous. A guy on here said he drove by DES or whatever he called his welfare office, and said he can see the wheels on teh cars cost more than his car, hence it's all fraud. Not sure how to argue with that illogic. Then someone else piped in and posted a 64-page article about how blacks are more likely to buy jewelry and bling, but it only went as low as $39k/yr, so that wasn't talking poverty. In case you can't see, it's deny, then find a reason to justify it. Again, blind incompassion. What's really funny is when one of them ends up in a wheelchair, they become one of the biggest champions for social svs.

I agree, let's give all Americans the best we can, spare no expense. Glad we're on teh same page.

The rich? There are roughly 45 million people uninsured in the US. That leaves about 300 million who are insured. Are you saying that all 300 million of those are rich? And about 26% I beleive w/o looking it up, are insured thru MEdicare/Medicaid. What % are insured theru their employer with such horrible insurance that they pay $500 off the top for a family of 4 in premium copay and then deductibles on top of that. And then the HMO death squads decide if they can disallow them when they make a major claim. Only a very small % actually have comprehensive insurance but there are many that want to disallow most fromhaveing complete, comprehensive insurance, they people I call COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVES. Nice fuzzy math tho.

Was Bush your messiah?

WHO, GPI, UN, hell, they're all out to get us. Show me data of your then. Oh, you don't know how to look it up? Sorry, it's not that hard anymore, used to be. And your complexities are that you don't use any data? Very complex. Since you guys make the same claims, I use the same data that you refuse or are otherwise unablt to impeach. Then you apparently aren't brave enough to address me, so you 3rd party it; bizzare. I guess if you could address teh data you would. Oh, and much of the other data about presidential butchering of our economy is from the US Gov.... I guess they're all liberals against you too.

-Actually no, the point was that "fairness in financial contribution" aspect of the data; you were unsure of what that meant. Yea, the WHO and their black helicopters above your house. And the global Peace Index authors, they're as well America-haters. The UN hates us too, since we had a disagreement and told to fuck off, now Sweden joined for the first time ever to vote against us....they're also evil folks with their blond hair and their neighbors with their funny, unAMerican wooden shoes. Basically, THEY'RE ALL WRONG AND WE'RE RIGHT GOD DAMNIT. It was another world organization that used a set of criteria and made a list of peaceful to not so peaceful countries using criteria, just like WHO. Everyone that disagrees with you or your factually insignificant opinion is full of shit, has a poor methodology or some other form of ill-rules. If an American nationalist group were to say we're golden, then you agree; ends justify the means. See, here's what the US does: - Since 1992, the United States has exported more than $142 billion dollars worth of weaponry to states around the world.[1] The U.S. dominates this international arms market, supplying just under half of all arms exports in 2001, roughly two and a half times more than the second and third largest suppliers - U.S. weapons sales help outfit non-democratic regimes, soldiers who commit gross human rights abuses against their citizens and citizens of other countries, and forces in unstable regions on the verge of, in the middle of, or recovering from conflict. - U.S.-origin weapons find their way into conflicts the world over. The United States supplied arms or military technology to more than 92% of the conflicts under way in 1999 - 1998-2001, over 68% of world arms deliveries were sold or given to developing nations, where lingering conflicts or societal violence can scare away potential investors.[4] And they call us unfriendly????? Shall we resume the WHO's, a worldwide respected organization, their data? Health Level - (France - 3), (US - 24), (UK - 14), (Canada - 12) Health Distribution - (France - 12), (US - 32), (UK - 2), (Canada - 18) Responsiveness Level - (France - 16-17), (US - 1), (UK - 26?27), (Canada - 7?8) Responsiveness Distribution - (France - 3?38), (US - 3?38), (UK - 3?38), (Canada - 3?38) Fairness in financial contribution - (France - 26?29), (US - 54?55), (UK - 8?11), (Canada - 17?19) Overall goal attainment - (France - 6), (US - 15), (UK - 9), (Canada - 7) Health expenditure per capita in $ - (France - 4), (US - 1 - most expensive), (UK - 26), (Canada - 10) On level of Health - (France - 4), (US - 72), (UK - 24), (Canada - 35) Overall health system performance - (France - 1), (US - 37), (UK - 18), (Canada - 30) Basically, Mike, you admit yiou don't do data, you just conjure your opinion an are good with it. I post data, reliable, objective, respected data and you dismiss it because you don't liketeh outcome.

Out of substantive things to talk about? Do you know the origin of that? Radio personality Don Imus said that about black girl basketball players, maybe it's a reminder of how ignorant people can be. Get back on topic. And you're making the ill-assumption that all indigent people are balck, that's a racist statement. Drop the ad hominems and get back to point, unless you're out of gas. Or next do we go to spelling issues, that's the normal transition.

But didn't have the knowledge too. Show me a time when a major federal tax cut led to a positive result.

No prob OK, if so, break it down for me; he allocated $X for what program. Then establish why it was wasteful and what we should have done. What you feel would have happened if he did or did not allocate the funds. Not really too much to ask. Well, Bush had to either bail out the banks or create a US banking system. Doing nothing would have been a replay of the Great Depression. So Bush gave away the first 350B and Obama the next. I think congressional support was virtually accross the board, we really can't fault the bailout, but we can blame who and / or what got us there. Wrong. The House was Dem run and the Senate was 49-49-2. 1 Indep was basically a Dem, the other, Lieberman pretended to be a Dem, but voted all pro-war when teh Dems didn't and wholly supported McCain in the general election, he was almost thrown out of the Dem caucus after the election until he promised to fly right. Also, Lieberman was elected by 2/3 registered Republicans. The Senate was split, the VP breaks some ties. Shall we also mention that before Jan 07, the last 2 years of Bush's terms, there was 1 veto and no overrides from congress. http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2006/07/20/congress-fails-to-override-bush-veto.htm After the Dems took the House in Jan 07 and tied the senate there were 11 more vetoes with 4 of them overridden. A 1:3 override ratio is pretty bad, but to say the Dem House and split Senate did nothing is incorrect, they did what they could. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes Clinton onlhy had 2 of 37 overridden and he had a Republican congress for his last 6 years. You have to go to Pierce and Andrew Johnson to find a pres with a higher ratio of veto / override. And to think, Bush virtually let congress run teh country w/o checcking him, so if he had a Dem congress ever, esp for 4 or more years, he would have been #1 instead of #3 on all-time veto overrides. SO to say the Dems are to blame or did nothing bush's last 2 years when they owned the House and tied the Senate is wrong. Your views, for what I can see, parrot the Republcian Party: tax cuts, social cuts, pro-military spending. Don't get distracted by that, let's talk the points. OK, I won't act as tho it's all of the sudden: http://www.industryweek.com/articles/the_2007_iw_u-s-_500_--_charts_and_tables_14144.aspx 1/2 way down teh page Automobiles are #4 and auto parts are #10, so I guess 2 in teh top 10 is kinda important. Yep and we're stuck with viable manufacturing, that sucks. 30B is kiddies play, don't you think? Bank bailouts for 700B+, 1 trillion for the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars...30B...you must be joking. The part that bothers me is that we refuse to read about history and that we think we can just pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and be ok. But of course McCain thought we were all just whiners. Ya know, most Republican politicians replulse me by simply looking at them, but it really isn't them, it's this template that says we can cut taxes and everything will be ok. Find me a major federal tax cut and show me where it worked out for the better. No microcosms, please, a major cut or find a major fed tax increase and show me how it fucked everything up. So it's the policies, not the people that are ugly. Show me recent Dems that have fucked everything up and how. We need to elect politicians that will raise taxes and cut spending, esp military spending as that helps a very small sector of society. I don't care which party, just that policy will work and has worked, please show me how it hasn't. What do ya mean, the Republican Party is wide open. They're so in trouble, they need to change their platform, not some other zealot with a bad haircut. Anyine can walk into the Repub Party tho, when Huckabee and Palin are teh front-runners, you got poop. As for your dream of the Libertarians, check yourself, you got 3% of the vote, Perot makes you guys look weak and he got 0 EV's. OK, so you blame Obama for the bailouts, do you think letting the banks go flat, having people run on them and the manufacturing base go to shit is a good idea? Most countries had fat bailouts/stimulus, but you think just quit whining and pulling ourselves up would be a good idea? You differ from all the logistic data and experts then, or you like teh movei, Mad Max and want to see it up close and personal. So Obama inherited an economy in its worst quarter, 3 of the previous 4 had been negative and increasing steeply and it's Obama's fault. As I asked, Reagan inherited 21% interest, was that his fault? Get off the fence and quit posturing, it's ridiculous. Yea, and what Volcker did was to contract the money supply and drive unemp to 10.8%, I'm sure Reagan was proud as crusty diapers was known for shitting on the little guy. That was the wrong thing to do, cut taxes and contract the money supply to leave teh little guy w/o money or a job, that's why he was justifyably hated. The fed could have lowered the int rate some as they increased taxes on the rich and opened social programs; show me where that didn't work in the past. Ok an dthen we lose an industry and our GDP falls to shit. In case you haven't checked, that's all we have going for us is our GDP, we export death in military toys, create gate around teh world, but the world loves our open market and huge GDP, lose banks/autos and we become a veritable 3rd world country with a debt that exceeds our GDP. Obama's stimulus saved the GDP, next quarter will be well +. Please, I read that data all the time. Under Hoover he intially cut taxes and fucked the Bonus Army, etc. He started some projects like what was eventually called the Hoover Dam. Then his last year he opened it up with big tax increases and FDR blew out huge tax increases, the New Deals, SS, 1938 FLSA and a myriad of things that pulled us out. Under teh early GD years Hoover thought we could pull ourselves up by the bootstraps, his last year he realized that was idiotic neo-con ramble. Point is things were bad until he opened up social progs at the end and FDr did nothing but oipen those, they were the savior. Are you that desperate that you have to get semantic? The Party that inherited the economy and the running of the country in 1981 was Reagan, he represented the tax payers. They screwed it up by cutting taxes, esp for the rich and hugely increasing spending on the military to thwart the USSR, a country on the brink of internal fiscal disaster not giving a shit what we did anyway. Spending on things good for teh country is a positive, wasting on programs that will benefit only the top 5% is elitist, then compound that with tax cuts for the same and that is elitist pandering. That describes Reagan. Tell ya what, the Dem record for the last 28 years is great, not horrible for the years preceeding that. The Republican record since Eisenhower with the exception of GHWB for 4 years is absolute crap, so let's let Obama do his thing and grade him when it's over. All of his spending so far is as a result of saving the country from YOUR FAILED PRESIDENT; how is it that Republicans even have a voice here? The losers, the Republicans elected reps that fucked this country, the data is abundant and clear. The Dems had little representation and tried to fix it, but were then trumped. That defines the winners from teh losers. OH, Reagan didn't run under that brilliance too? In fact didn't he draw the template for GWB? At least when the Republican Party started to fall apart in the 1920's they had the sense to not overspend. Oh sure they are the same incompassionate group of thugs, but they were true fiscal conservatives. And didn't the Republican Congress run under that ideology too? I mean, they drew it up and GWB put blinder son and signed it, so it's more than presidential losers, it's Repub congressional losers too. BTW, those are neo-conservative ideals, neo = new. That's right and The Dems in congress reduced spending and increased taxes under both GHWB and CLinton, and these presidents signed it, why do we have to be redundant? Convolute the whole thing to mix the blame. How many times do we have to go thru this? I've posted all kinds of data, do I need to again? I wil, no prob. REAGAN: Cut taxes for the rich esp, jacked up spending 57% based upon annual federal budget. GHWB: Increased taxes to fend off Reagan's debt, lowered spending to 57% based upon annual federal budget., adjusted for 8 years. CLINTON: Increased taxes for the rich, cut spending to 27% based upon annual federal budget. GWB: Cut taxes for the rich esp, jacked up spending 56% based upon annual federal budget not counting Iraq/Afghanistan. So how is that both parties fault? It's not 100-0, but how is it not virtually all teh Repub fault? After facist Ronnie started the debt machine, it took GHWB and Clinton 12 years, major tax increases and spending / military cuts to level off the debt increase, then GWB came in and fucked it. The 1 descent Repub pres was voted out for raising taxes, the right thing to do. It's the Republican cut tax and overspend philospohy that stinks. How is anything he's doing an escape? How does spending more money let you escape from debt? *** It's an escape from this near depression that YOU GUYS seem to minimize as a little burble. You act as tho you handed off teh economy, washed your hands of it and now it all Obama's fault and mess.....oh gee, look at the spending, oh my God, he's out of control. I don't think you're young, but you act like a young kid not getting what Obama inherited. The last time there were that many neg GDP quarters, market slide, job losses it was the Great Depression, the other Republican gift.

And Reagan and GWB, why immunize them? Oh, what has he borrowed? The auto-makers bailout? The stimulus started under Bush, as it was his mess after all. Maybe the Obama proposals are huge, but maybe you haven't seen the mess he inherited or are unwilling to acknowledge them. Seriously, you guys act as if he inherited a stumbling economy, he inherited the banking system total failure and the backbone of America, the auto industry, as it was in total failure about to fold up completely with maybe Ford struggling out. You guys really need to check yourselves, the country was about to fold up, 5 of the previous 6 quarters were neg GDP, and thinsg were just tanking. Can you attribute the bailout costs to Obama? It was like what, 3 months in when he bailed em out? That's a joke, I guess 21% interest was Reagan's fault too, since he inherited it. What a joke. What's your response, let em fail? Brilliant, they tried that once in 1929; how did it work out? Then Hoover got his head out and massively raised taxes his last year and things improved. By "losing side" I mean the party that inherited 900B total debt, cut taxes and blew spending thru the roof and trippled the debt. Then GHWB cut spending and raised taxes. CLinton followed and cut spending more and raised taxes. GWB came in and cut taxes dramatically and spent thru teh roof like Reagan. So there is no absolute, but statistically the mode indiccates that the practice of cutting taxes and increasing spending resides with the Republicans, the only distinction from this is with GHWB who acted like the Democrats. So the winners are the Dems and the losers are the Republicans. You follow conservative thinking, your side's ideologies (cut taxes and overspend) are the ones that got us here. The Dems ran COngress during GHWB's and Clinton tax increases, so that was a total Democratic move other than GHWB and the outcome was the debt increase was almost leveled off. The one defector, GHWB, raised taxes and was voted out by his party because of it. I understand you want to make a big grab bag, but if my party was the who's policies led to this kind of disaster I would too. Now let's dissect Obama's escape from this fiscal collapse he inherited and blame him. Ridiculous.

I'm gonna stay in Obamaland

It's kind of funny the way that works... Government keeps getting bigger, things keep getting worse... Did the government get bigger under Clinton? Spending was just about the sale as inflation and things got way better, so you may have a point. It appears that Dems want to maintain gov and Repubs want to grow gov. Well, I'd agree if we were discussing Clinton, but it seems the majority of both parties wants to grow government. So you want to have a discussion with blinders on? I like to use recent history and sometimes distant history to make my arguments. We can contrast policies from parties or from individuals and watch teh outcome. I understand you want to take a microcosm of 2 months and declare a statement.

Best thing I've read on here in a long, long time. ditto - I replaced the first sentence. waiting for someone to argue that it's one side not both.....it will happen here It predominantly the right if you consider the last 30 years. Altho GHWB did what the left does, he cut spending increases and increased taxes. Can you argue that Repubs in congress and Reagan and GWB aren't the villians? Show me major Democratic runaway spending and tax cutting , try not to use data from last week, last month, I'm talking major events that have time to factor out everything. Try not to view things as a microcosm, it's statistically insignificant.

Your timeline just isn't very good. Stock market crash = 1929 GD = immediately Hoover major tax increase his last year (1932) Unemployment 25%, GDP and market in the crapper FDR taking office = early 1933 Constant and immediate improvement from his 1st year, unemployment down every year and GDP up every year except 1937-38ish. http://home.earthlink.net/~gfeldmeth/chart.ww2.html Earliest US involvement in WWII 1940 with movement of ships, etc. Actual involvement wasn't until early 1942, congress allows for involvement day after Pearl Harbor. So your point is wrong, FDR's policies and largest of all time tax increases are what pulled us out of the GD, recovery was virtually done before the start of WWII. I know this is common myth to think WWII pulle dus out, but it's wrong. Tax increases and vast social programs did it.

It's kind of funny the way that works... Government keeps getting bigger, things keep getting worse... Did the government get bigger under Clinton? Spending was just about the sale as inflation and things got way better, so you may have a point. It appears that Dems want to maintain gov and Repubs want to grow gov.

The stimulus package isn't within this deficit you're talking about? He voted for the stimulus last year, so there is no correlation to the 2010 budget? Not true, shall I go to Reagans's mess in teh early 80's or GHWB's mess in the early 90's and show you that the GDP turns around before unemployment drops? It's typical for the GDP to flip and then jobs to follow 1-3 years later. Can we get out of grade school economics? Considering Obama has been in office for a few months it's not. Furthermore, here's another measure of teh economy: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^DJI 2 of the 3 major indexes has turned STARKLY positive in just 8 months. Hmmm, what did your hero do in 8 months? Cut taxes for the rich which paved the way for the $5 trillion debt increase, gave away the surplus and did nothing while 911 happened. Bizzare how you could fault Obama whether you like GWB or not. Yep, but then we won't know the entire Obama admin's success for several years either, but you're willing to drive a stake thru his heart now. Maybe live by your own words. Yes. http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings/2009 http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=7585729&page=1 Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands rated at the top of the list, ranking first, second and third, respectively. Outside Europe, New Zealand and Canada landed at Nos. 8 and 6, respectively. The U.S. did not crack the top 10. Switzerland placed seventh and Belgium placed tenth. Oh shocker. Even greasy-greedy-grubby Forbes didn't have the US in there

Longer and with more qualityl the American way - have money you deserve more. Rich people get organ transplants sooner (Mickey Mantle, Alonzo Mourning, etc), gte preferential treatment in all aspects of life, even cort for serious crimes. Yep, not a classist place at all.

and now the choice is a national health service so 45,000 lives can be saved... Reminds me of the argument about the death penalty error rate being 1 or 2%. Conservatives say it's negligible, liberals care about the 1 or 2%. And conservatives run teh rhetoric about liberty and protections via the US Const. COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM: Care for the rich to ensure they stay that way.

We've had a society with less gov intervention and how has it turned out? High crime / murder rate Most indebted nation of all time Millions of people w/o healthcare List goes on, and on........ INSANITY: Doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome

Ever wonder why liberals make unfounded generalizations? Politicians from both parties do both things. Doesn't make either of them right for pointing it out, just makes them both wrong. The side that's losing usually tries to make it purely a systemic issue, the winners illustrate the contrast. Here are more specific data for you to chew on: SPENDING: Reagan increased by 57% in 8 years GHWB increased by 42% (adjusted for 8 years) Clinton increased by 27% in 8 years GWB increased by 56% in 8 years (not counting Iraq) ANNUAL DEBT INCREASE: Reagan increased debt by 250B/yr GHWB increased debt by 250B/yr Clinton increased debt by 187B/yr (last year was 33B as it declined every year) GWB increased debt by 400B/yr Give me the topic and I'll provide the data; that's why I'm here. Are these too general for you? IS teh sample size too small? 28 years. Can't we infer from this data that Republicans have dropped a big poopy on us? Or do we have to wait for them to drive us all the way into the ground?

All this empirical evidence, I'm going to burn my science books He isn't writing a scholary paper, he's reporting what he has seen. I've seen the same thing. And here is some empirical evidence that suggests he is right: http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/erik.hurst/research/race_consumption_qje_submission.pdf I'm not going to read all 64 pages as you didn't, but this is more about raace than it is about class. The abstract states: Using nationally representative data on consumption, we show that Blacks and Hispanics devote larger shares of their expenditure bundles to visible goods (clothing, jewelry, and cars) than do comparable Whites. I don't argue with that and they kinda draw an inverse relationship as how poor minorities tend to spend more than do those in higher classes, but does it state that these poorer minorities are on welfare and use that money to by bling, all that establishes it that there is a problem with enforcement of abuse, not that we should exclude all minorities from needed welfare, opr needy whites for that matter. This article is more about race than about welfare abuse. In fact, page 45, and I'm suuuuuure you got that far, illustrates family incomes from 57k to 39k, hardly welfare territory. So your article has purely to do with disposal of incomes from families not receiving welfare vs welfare recipients who abuse the system, as the topic actually is. Besides, if you look at page 54 I think they are refering to Sanford and Son. Your data does nothing to establish that welfare recipients are abusing gov support by buying jewelry and 22's for their Escalade. If so, explain.