Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: alan w who wrote (3927)	6/29/2001 11:07:05 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

I'm saying without Democratic(ie Socialistic) intervention, our poverty level would be much lower. I understand your point. But for your point to be true, that would imply that the US is more socialist than the other countries on the list. So the US is more socialist than that socialist cesspool the UK? [as McGowan quaintly puts it.] Tell me this, how much welfare is there in Sweden, Germany or Norway? Do they have generations of welfare recipients? Just curious. Interesting question. I've never seen that data. I would imagine that Germany after the re-unification had horrendous numbers. I hear the Brits throw around the same rhetoric about people on the dole that I heard in the US about people on welfare. Except for the multi-genenerational point. I haven't heard that here. I also hear the Brits complain a lot about rampant crime spinning out of control. I wish the US had their crime rate. I do recall seeing a long while ago some US statistics on the multi-generational aspect of welfare. I can't even grossly recall the actual numbers, but while you could grab a number of families and identify them as in that category, the general statistic was that it was a myth. The bulk of the welfare recipients got off welfare in less than a few years. An aside on rhetoric. I find it interesting that while the conservatives here are something totally different politicially than the conservatives in the States, they have latched on to exactly the same catch phrases during their campaign season. Word for word. I can tell you also that the campaign period is a 5 week period before the election. What a relief that was to not be bombarded with campaign ads for an entire year. In other words, we'll give you $800 per month because we know you're too stupid to survive on you own. Just keep voting for us. Sound a little like a socialist cesspool to you? It might. But the less educated population is less likely to vote at all. Those numbers have always favored the more educated of the population. I don't believe there is anything out there, statistically, to suggest that an uneducated person is more likely to vote if they are on welfare. I think that you'll find that education and income are the chief factors that correlate to voting. So I can find me a toothless fat lady whose family has been on welfare for generations and make one good commercial, but I don't think I'll get many votes out of it. The stats don't back it up. [I'm assuming that you'll buy into the notion that welfare recipients are less educated.] Dave Ellen of course will reject all those stats, because they don't agree with his perception of welfare. And McGowan will accuse me of promoting socialism. Charleymane will ask "Which is the Republican position?" If jlallen were here, he would say, "It's obvious to everyone how ignorant you are." If I can turn the table a bit. What happens when I promise to reduce the marriage penalty. Now I'm addressing a larger group of the population. Most importantly the educated and married group. Am I buying votes? Of course not. I'm just making things fair by reducing the penalty. Pick your words carefully and you can make a lot of people believe lots of things. People generally don't examine things that they want to believe. Note that no one on this thread has ever challenged the statement that the US has the highest GDP in the world or suggested that the number cannot be calculated. No one is going to challenge the statement that there is a marriage penalty or that taxes are unfair. On the other hand, if they disagree with the stat, they'll find a misplaced comma and declare nothing can be believed. jttmab