Who Are You Voting For In '04?

[AYoKoNA]

So was the Nazi regime in Germany for many years.....we all know what happened to them.

Sorry about that theArmy, but you gotta work on some of those Canadians to think like you

 

 

WOW is all i have to say howie i have responded to every single on of your posts reread the whole post and see when you stopped commenting about the rich vs poor

 

Furthermore as theArmy stated i couldn't have said it better myself

 

"Comparing the american government to the Nazis is just ludicrous. Its an ignorant crutch your using to avoid the true arguement.

 

Go spread your bleeding heart propaganda somewhere else."

 

To compare our gov't to Nazi's shows how off the wall you are..

[howie b]

Well this is going to be the first election that i am going to be able to vote in. I actully turn 18 on October 31st which is days away from the election. I will mostlikley vote for the democratic canadate. Which looks to be Howard Dean right now.

You better register THE DAY you turn 18....I'm not sure which state you are in, but in some states there are a certain number of days that you have to register in before the election.....In California it's 15

 

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_vr.htm

 

 

 

I hope you are able to vote.

[AYoKoNA]

once again you ignore my above post and evade the facts i have stated.

[howie b]

So was the Nazi regime in Germany for many years.....we all know what happened to them.   

Sorry about that theArmy, but you gotta work on some of those Canadians to think like you

 

 

WOW is all i have to say howie i have responded to every single on of your posts reread the whole post and see when you stopped commenting about the rich vs poor

 

Furthermore as theArmy stated i couldn't have said it better myself

 

"Comparing the american government to the Nazis is just ludicrous. Its an ignorant crutch your using to avoid the true arguement.

 

Go spread your bleeding heart propaganda somewhere else."

 

To compare our gov't to Nazi's shows how off the wall you are..

Please, show me what FACTS did you state?

 

 

To compare our gov't to Nazi's shows how off the wall you are..

 

 

How? Because I don't condone corruption and facism?

[AYoKoNA]

well since you can't search i will repost this long post of facts that you never responded too.

 

""And what I am saying is your comparing apples to oranges (rich vs poor).

 

#1 So long as all incomes are not identical, there will always be top and bottom 10 percents or 20 percents or any other percents. But these abstract categories do not contain the same people over time.

 

#2 If you are serious about considering the well-being of flesh and blood human beings, then you can talk about their real income per capita.

 

#3 Real income per capita has risen 50 percent over the same span of time when household income has remained virtually unchanged. How is this possible? Because households are getting smaller. The very fact that there are higher incomes enables more people to afford to go out and set up their own independent households.

 

#4 Most of those who are called "the rich" are just middle-class people whose taxes the politicians avoid cutting by giving them that name.

 

#5 An absolute majority of the people who were in the bottom 20 percent in 1975 have also been in the top 20 percent at some time since then. Most Americans don't stay put in any income bracket. At different times, they are both "rich" and "poor" -- as these terms are recklessly thrown around in the media.

 

#6 If you measure people's economic situation by how much time they have to work in order to earn enough to buy some product, the improvement is even more dramatic. Even where money prices have gone up substantially, the time it takes to earn that money has typically gone down.

 

A half-gallon of milk, for example, cost an average American ten minutes' work in 1970 but only 6 minutes' work in 1997. An air-conditioner that cost 45 hours' work in 1970 costs just 23 hours' work today.

 

 

These facts don't register in your head do they. All you see is more rich more poor, but the fact is is that the POOR HERE are not as poor as you think they are

THEY MAKE 10k A YEAR!!! What other country do YOU SEE A POOR PERSON MAKING THAT MUCH?

And they are making MORE AND MORE AS the YEARS COME!""

 

Furthermore what corruption and fascism goes on in this administration...

Please elaborate about your eronious argument.

 

Its funny the more and more you argue the less and less your argument becomes valid.

Nazi's, fascism, corruption gimme a break..,

Edited December 10, 2003 by AYoKoNA

[howie b]

#1 So long as all incomes are not identical, there will always be top and bottom 10 percents or 20 percents or any other percents. But these abstract categories do not contain the same people over time.

 

Unfortunately, they are NOT a "top 10 or 20% and bottom 10 or 20%." they are more like a top 1-3% and a bottom 90-95%, so once again, I will repost my post:

 

"If we divided the income of the US into thirds, we find that the top ten percent of the population gets a third, the next thirty percent gets another third, and the bottom sixty percent get the last third. If we divide the wealth of the US into thirds, we find that the top one percent own a third, the next nine percent own another third, and the bottom ninety percent claim the rest. (Actually, these percentages, true a decade ago, are now out of date. The top one percent are now estimated to own between forty and fifty percent of the nation's wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 95%.)"

 

 

#2 If you are serious about considering the well-being of flesh and blood human beings, then you can talk about their real income per capita.

 

 

How can you even CONSIDER that an indicator? The scale is skewed....The BILLIONS AND BILLIONS that those at the top make offset the death wages that those at the bottom make.....do you not understand how a scale works?....once again, I'll repost.

 

http://www.lcurve.org/

 

and that graph is for a family of MEDIAN income....it is multiples worse for someone at the bottom of the payscale.

 

 

 

#3 Real income per capita has risen 50 percent over the same span of time when household income has remained virtually unchanged. How is this possible? Because households are getting smaller. The very fact that there are higher incomes enables more people to afford to go out and set up their own independent households.

 

 

That is a natural occurrance for any advancing society....as technological/social/political advances are made, the households get smaller. Higher incomes mean nothing when the gap is widening, so again.....

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0113/p09s01-coop.html

 

 

#4 Most of those who are called "the rich" are just middle-class people whose taxes the politicians avoid cutting by giving them that name.

 

Call me stupid, but I don't even see the relevance of that argument, or what it gains!???????

 

#5 An absolute majority of the people who were in the bottom 20 percent in 1975 have also been in the top 20 percent at some time since then. Most Americans don't stay put in any income bracket. At different times, they are both "rich" and "poor" -- as these terms are recklessly thrown around in the media.

 

 

That is an absolute outright LIE. It is absolutely not possible, given the way the system works, that someone in the bottom 20% can rise to the top 20%. THERE IS NO LONGER SUCH A THING AS SOCIAL MOBILITY!! It is the "American (pipe)dream"

 

#6 If you measure people's economic situation by how much time they have to work in order to earn enough to buy some product, the improvement is even more dramatic. Even where money prices have gone up substantially, the time it takes to earn that money has typically gone down.

 

That is very true. Did you also know that the number of hours that we work has increased in that same period of time? We are uselessly working ourselves to the bone unecessarily.

 

http://www.simpleliving.net/timeday/in-the-news-april-12.asp

 

According to the International Labor Organization, Americans now work 1,978 hours annually, a full 350 hours - nine weeks - more than Western Europeans. The average American actually worked 199 hours more in 200 than he or she did in 1973, a period during which worker productivity per hour nearly doubled.

 

What happened? In effect, the United States as a society took all of its increases in labor productivity in the form of money and stuff instead of time. Of course, we didn't all get the money; the very poor earn even less in real terms that they did then, and the largest share of the increase went to the richest Americans.

 

The harmful effects of working more hours are being felt in many areas of society. Stress is a leading cause of heart disease and weakened immune systems. Consumption of fast foods and lack of time for exercise has led to an epidemic of obesity and diabetes. Many parents complain that they do not have enough time to spend with their children, much less become involved in their community. Worker productivity declines during the latter part of long work shifts.

 

 

HOW CAN YOU DENY THIS?!?!?!?!?

 

 

 

Anything else?

 

 

 

By contrast, over the past 30 years, Europeans have made a different choice - to live simpler, more balanced lives and work fewer hours. The average Norwegian, for instance, works 29 percent less than the average American - 14 weeks per year - yet this average income is only 16 percent less. Western Europeans average five to six weeks of paid vacation a year; we average two.

 

Work and consumption are not necessarily bad. But producing and consuming can become the focus of a person's life - at the expense of other values.

Edited December 10, 2003 by howie b

[AYoKoNA]

Howie you have much to learn...

""We are uselessly working ourselves for greed and self-satisfaction.""

 

NO ppl work more to achieve greater economic security in life and for their children. You totally missed all the points I gave, and went around them..

 

Then you say that I am a liar. Obviously you don't read credible sources, rather a website designed by some liberal.

 

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell020700.asp

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell020299.asp

 

This man, Thomas Sowell does not lie about anything. YOU CANT ACCEPT THE TRUTH..

 

Then you go on with your tangent that real income per capita doesn't matter, and it is a natural occurance...

IN NO COUNTRY besides AMERICA has REAL INCOME PER CAPITA ROSE 50% in that span of time.

 

Furthermore YOUR FACTS ARE SKEWED along with YOUR SCALE. PPL ARENT Always in the same percentage, they are at the bottom as they begin your careers.

 

So much to learn howie, you need a better EDUCATION!

And DONT CALL MY SOURCES LIES, THESE ARE REPUTABLE PPL with extensive ARTICLES IN NEWS AND BOOKS. Obviously you don't know who Thomas Sowell or LARRY ELDER IS

 

AND BTW POINTING To other COUNTRIES facts that have less work hrs, and other social systems, only SHOWS WHY WE HAVE THE GREATEST ECONOMY IN THIS WORLD TODAY, just backs my argument more . Yea lets compare our economy to Norwegia or Western Europeans. Which Economy is stronger.... Yea I figured you could answer that yourself..

Edited December 10, 2003 by AYoKoNA

[howie b]

LMAO!!!! You say YOUR sources are credible???? Uhh, everyone take a look at that wonderful neutral source of his....

 

www.jewishworldreview.com

 

I think that's laughable that you accuse me of being one sided with my sources and you choose the jewish world review as a source!!??!?!?

 

 

Since you seem to hold your "GDP Per capita" argument so near and dear to you, maybe you should take a look at this.....

 

http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/gdp_country_desc.php

 

 

Hmm, that looks like Luxembourg stomping all over US .....Now....Scandenavian, wealthy, high per cap. GDP, OODLES OF SOCIAL PROGRAMS....lets take a look at the major political parties in Luxembourg:

 

Political parties and leaders: Christian Social People's Party or CSV [Erna HENNICOT-SCHOEPGES]; Luxembourg Socialist Workers' Party or LSAP [ben FAYOT]; Democratic Party or DP [Lydie Wurth POLFER]; Action Committee for Democracy and Pension Rights [Roby MEHLEN]; the Green Alternative [Abbes JACOBY]; other minor parties

 

 

Also, take a look at ranks 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, ect.....now, none of these countries are socialist....no REAL socialst country currently, or previously has existed. What do these countries all have in common though? MORE SOCIAL PROGRAMS! they have realized the real benefit of security for all, and have made STEPS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION....it's just a matter of time.

 

 

Oh yeah...that warms the soul.

 

 

I really feel bad for you....you hold so dear to you a system that you know is not right that you will stop at NOTHING to defend it.....Deep down, you want to face the reality that this kind of a system is MUCH better overall, but you are so stubborn you won't admit it.

 

YOU are the one who needs to go back to school my young friend.

Edited December 10, 2003 by howie b

[andrusk]

hey mods. you should rename this thread "Howie B and Ayokona duke it out!"

[howie b]

You know what, when it comes down to it though, I like this. It's clean (for the most part....*ahem*), healthy discussion. I feel passionate about this, and I don't feel the need to censor myself. This is raw honesty and that is admirable at the very least.

[AYoKoNA]

did i say my source was neutral.....

NO I SAID IT WAS CREDIBLE BECAUSE YOU SAID IT WAS "LIES ALL LIES"

Ofcourse its conservative... but CREDIBLE

You need to understand the difference between Credible and Neutral!

 

Furthermore did i stutter...

I SAID REAL INCOME PER CAPITA

not "Gross Domestic Product"

Lemme get you some definitions so you understand the difference rather than throwing those terms around how YOU SEE FIT...

 

GDP- the total value of goods and services produced in a country over a period of time.

 

RDI- Real disposable income (RDI) per capita is the amount of income available to an individual for the purchase of goods and services and for personal savings, after taking into consideration taxes, transfers, and inflation.

 

Furthermore isn't it ironic how you oversee the U.S. as the #2 spot. How did they manage that huh!

AND U know what THE U.S. WOULD BE #1 in G.D.P. per capita, IF WE DIDN't have all the social PROGRAMS INSTITUTED by all YOU liberals.

[sykocus]

hey mods. you should rename this thread "Howie B and Ayokona duke it out!"

i like the "the armless man fist fight"