America - The Official Thread

[ledhed]

Since 1964 when then President Johnson started the " new society " programs and declared war on poverty the United States has spent over 6 trillion dollars in money " transfered " from the middle class and the rich . What have we gotten for this money ? WTF is a trillion anyway ...all I want is a hamburger when I am hungry right ?
Six trillion bucks ... I am trying to locate a source to confirm this so called " common knowlage " I'll post it when I find it .

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Since 1964 when then President Johnson started the " new society " programs and declared war on poverty the United States has spent over 6 trillion dollars in money " transfered " from the middle class and the rich . What have we gotten for this money ? WTF is a trillion anyway ...all I want is a hamburger when I am hungry right ?
Six trillion bucks ... I am trying to locate a source to confirm this so called " common knowlage " I'll post it when I find it .

$6 trillion is a lot of money. Over 40 years, that's about $150 billion every year. Pennies in comparison to the current USA's GDP -- 1.25% of our current GDP to be specific. It would make more sense to get the average GDP figure since 1964, but I don't have the time...

 

[ledhed]

the thing is it wealth redistributed from the haves to the have nots . AND what has been accomplished ? How far have poverty rates been brought down ? 4 to 5 % ? from ' 64 ?
Granted with the programs in place that we have now the type and depth of that poverty is not as severe ...but...its still poverty and I believe the goal is to eradicate it or reduce it to almost insignificant ( if your poor any is significant to YOU ) levels .

When do you admit you need to do something else ? Some thing better ? Or do you say " there are always going to be poor people tough **** " ?

 

[Danoff]

$6 trillion is a lot of money. Over 40 years, that's about $150 billion every year. Pennies in comparison to the current USA's GDP -- 1.25% of our current GDP to be specific. It would make more sense to get the average GDP figure since 1964, but I don't have the time...

Yea, $150 billion dollars is pennies...

That's almost 10 times NASA's annual budget. An order of magnitude more than we spend on the space program. It also covers all of the off-budget military expenses in Iraq.

There are something like 37 million people in poverty currently. If we just GAVE them each an equal share of that money, it would amount to a salary boost of over $4000/year.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Yea, $150 billion dollars is pennies...

That's almost 10 times NASA's annual budget. An order of magnitude more than we spend on the space program.

I knew you were a rocket scientist! It's all starting to make sense...

The above NASA example, the mention of space in both this thread and the "I'm Done Trying Hard" thread... 💡

It also covers all of the off-budget military expenses in Iraq.

There are something like 37 million people in poverty currently. If we just GAVE them each an equal share of that money, it would amount to a salary boost of over $4000/year.

So then why don't we do that then?

 

[Danoff]

So then why don't we do that then?

Because they're not actually trying to help people. They're trying to skim off the top and get votes. That's it. That's why charity is much more efficiently provided privately.

 

[ledhed]

Who would pay the social workers and the bureaucrats ?

 

[Delirious]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/03/scotus.preview/index.html

Bush nominates Harriet Miers to Supreme Court

Thoughts? Conclusions?

 

[Joey D]

Not to sound cliche, but its good they are getting more women in government. I mean come on how many times has a women ever been wrong .

 

[JacktheHat]

Just out of interest...

I found out the other day that the 'Special Advisor on Sexual Health Issues' for George Bush's administration used to be the 'Special Advisor on Sexual Health Issues' for....








The Vatican.

 

[FoolKiller]

Just out of interest...

I found out the other day that the 'Special Advisor on Sexual Health Issues' for George Bush's administration used to be the 'Special Advisor on Sexual Health Issues' for....


The Vatican.

I can't find anything on him. What's his name?

 

[JacktheHat]

I can't find anything on him. What's his name?

To be honest, I don't know. The information came from a Labour MP who claimed to have met him at a UN meeting.

 

[Swift]

Ok, what's the deal with the supreme court nominees? John Roberts, I think he'll do a good job and not legislate from the bench.

Then you have Harriet Miers. She withdrew from the running for whatever reason(I think she wussed out)

And now we have Judge Samuel Alito.

Now, I have nothing against Judge Samuel Alito. I'm just annoyed that the President feels "obligated" to put a woman and/or latino/hispanic person in that spot. What does that have to do with the persons ability to interpret the constitution of the United States?

This is political correctness at it's lowest(or highest depending on point of view) point. I just wish that people would drop the whole race/gender thing when it came to important appointments like this.

I think Judge Samuel Alito is a fine choice for the seat. I just wish he was picked because of his record alone, not his record with the added bonus of ethnisity.👎

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Ok, what's the deal with the supreme court nominees? John Roberts, I think he'll do a good job and not legislate from the bench.

Then you have Harriet Miers. She withdrew from the running for whatever reason(I think she wussed out)

And now we have Judge Samuel Alito.

Now, I have nothing against Judge Samuel Alito. I'm just annoyed that the President feels "obligated" to put a woman and/or latino/hispanic person in that spot. What does that have to do with the persons ability to interpret the constitution of the United States?

This is political correctness at it's lowest(or highest depending on point of view) point. I just wish that people would drop the whole race/gender thing when it came to important appointments like this.

I think Judge Samuel Alito is a fine choice for the seat. I just wish he was picked because of his record alone, not his record with the added bonus of ethnisity.👎

Alito wasn't picked because of his race. He was picked for his extremist ultra-conservative views -- his records prove that. I do not believe he is the right choice for the supreme court.

 

[Swift]

Alito wasn't picked because of his race. He was picked for his extremist ultra-conservative views -- his records prove that. I do not believe he is the right choice for the supreme court.

Extremest? Would you care to elaborate please?

And yes, part of the reason is that he's a "minority".

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Extremest? Would you care to elaborate please?

And yes, part of the reason is that he's a "minority".

No, it's not because he's a minority -- that's a myth.

Business leaders should hail President George W. Bush’s nomination of Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the US Supreme Court

In his 15 years on the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, Alito repeatedly has upheld the rights of companies to enforce the terms of their contracts... He’s also favored corporate defendants when there is a question about how to apply federal regulations and has been tough on plaintiffs accusing companies of committing securities fraud

full Forbes article here

US v. Rybar
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
Doe v. Groody

There's more, but by now you should get the idea.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051031/31alito.htm

LePage's v. 3M Corp <<< another case

 

[Swift]

No, it's not because he's a minority -- that's a myth.

Just like Harriet Miers nomination had nothing to do with her being a woman. yeah, right.

full Forbes article here

US v. Rybar
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
Doe v. Groody

There's more, but by now you should get the idea.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051031/31alito.htm

Ok, you think he was wrong in the Planned Parenthood case? He said that the husbands of pregnant women should be notified about the wife getting an abortion. How is that NOT reasonable? If you're married you should do that anyway(outside of physically or mentally abusive marriages).

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Ok, you think he was wrong in the Planned Parenthood case? He said that the husbands of pregnant women should be notified about the wife getting an abortion. How is that NOT reasonable? If you're married you should do that anyway(outside of physically or mentally abusive marriages).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103100707.html

 

[Swift]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103100707.html

I didn't say what does shumer think. I asked what YOU think.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I didn't say what does shumer think. I asked what YOU think.

I believe his decisions are designed to make law -- not interpret. He's pro-business, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty etc... as a result, there's less "balance" on the SC. He's not the right person for the job.

 

[Swift]

I believe his decisions are designed to make law -- not interpret. He's pro-business, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty etc... as a result, there's less "balance" on the SC. He's not the right person for the job.

So, he's not a democrat/liberal and that makes him not right for the job?

That case about messing with children in school is a perfect case where he upheld the constitution and put the responsibility back to the parents of said children.

Also, what do you think about his decision with notifying husbands about their wives getting abortions?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

So, he's not a democrat/liberal and that makes him not right for the job?

Correct. There needs to be balance in the courts. Sandra Day O'Conner was a swing voter. Ideally, all SC justices should be swing voters but that's not reality. With Scalia, Thomas and Alito on the bench, the SC will take a sharp turn to the "right".

That case about messing with children in school is a perfect case where he upheld the constitution and put the responsibility back to the parents of said children.

Which case was that?

Also, what do you think about his decision with notifying husbands about their wives getting abortions?

I think it's wrong.

 

[Swift]

Correct. There needs to be balance in the courts. Sandra Day O'Conner was a swing voter. Ideally, all SC justices should be swing voters but that's not reality. With Scalia, Thomas and Alito on the bench, the SC will take a sharp turn to the "right".

Well, that's fine with me.

Which case was that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Alito#First_Amendment

I think it's wrong.

So if you were married and your wife just got an abortion without even telling you, that would be cool with you? That pretty much defeats some of the basic tenants of marriage.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Alito#First_Amendment

Which specific case are you talking about? There's so many on that page!

So if you were married and your wife just got an abortion without even telling you, that would be cool with you?

Personally, no -- I wouldn't be cool with that. But I don't see why it has to be legislated.

 

[Swift]

Which specific case are you talking about? There's so many on that page!

Uh the one that it links to specifically. Dealing with the First Amendment.

Personally, no -- I wouldn't be cool with that. But I don't see why it has to be legislated.

Almost everything about healthcare is legislated. Right down to what the gov't will and won't pay for. So, yeah, I think that's a good law. But at the same time, it wasn't his law, he simply believed the law made sense according to the state constitution.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Uh the one that it links to specifically. Dealing with the First Amendment.

There are 6 cases dealing with the 1st amendment...

 

[Swift]

There are 6 cases dealing with the 1st amendment...

My Bad. The very first one.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

The very first one.

That case about messing with children in school is a perfect case where he upheld the constitution and put the responsibility back to the parents of said children.

Yes, here he upheld the constitution -- but his bias is clear.

 

[Danoff]

I can't really complain about anything in his record other than the law requiring wives to tell their husbands about abortions.

He actually rejected a partial birth abortion ban in New Jersey on the grounds that it was unconstitutional - which is encouraging. But he was doing it from a point of view of precedent... he wouldn't necessarily do the same thing on the supreme court.

Other than that he seems like a fine choice - though I would have preferred Janice Brown.

 

[Swift]

I can't really complain about anything in his record other than the law requiring wives to tell their husbands about abortions.

Why is that such a big deal? They are married. A legal binding commitment to each other. I can see it, maybe, if they aren't married, but in this case it simply makes sense. If the wife agreed to the sex with a man, then what gives her the right to make the decision without her husband.

Yes, here he upheld the constitution -- but his bias is clear.

Bias...I would say he is consistant.