- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> > > And of course, no one ever loses their job, or finds themselves in a
> > > ten-year recession (1980-90).

> > What 10 year recession? We haven’t had anything remotely like a 10 year
> > recession since the 1930s. The recession of 1978-1983 lasted 5 years,
after
> > that we had a period of 27 uninterrupted quarters of economic growth –
which
> > at that time was an all time record. We then had a 16 month hiccup and
then
> > Clinton took advantage of a recovery that began under George Bush in
1991
> > and lasted until 2000.

> Elsewhere the dimwitted myers argued that the Bush recession was caused by
> his increase in taxes.  Then the dimwit claimed the Clinton tax increase
did
> nothing for the recovery.  These comments were made in almost the same
> sentence and definately profiles a true dimwit,  liar and distorter.  A
tax
> increase in 1990 can’t be responsibile for a recession and then a tax
> increase in 1993 can’t be also responsible for a recovery.  How can liars
be
> so blantent about their lies unless the are wingnuts and loons talking to
> wingnuts and loons.  People like myers are so used to talking Dumbaughese
> that has the loons shaking their heads yes that they forget how stupid it
> looks to people with IQ’s over 80.

Check the stats yourself moron. (www.census.org) in 1991-1992 real wages
FELL after the tax increase of 1990 (we entered a small recession). In 1994
real wages FELL after the tax increase of 1993, no one has identified a
recession in that period but the fact is that real income FELL after each
tax increase. Since the recovery was already in place in 1992, how are you
claiming that a tax increase of 1993 resulted in a recovery? You aren’t
lying, your are just plain stupid.

> > Since the recovery and economic growth started nearly 11 months BEFORE
> > Clinton took office you are giving him credit for a recovery that he had
> > nothing to do with. As far as your assertion that his tax increase of
1993
> > gave prosperity….. in 1993 there was a 12 month break in increasing
real
> > wages and median income (US Census Bureau – Historical Income Tables)
and in
> > 1997 on there was a decided increase in the rate of change of
income…….
> > Clinton’s tax increase seemed to have cost people, the Republican’s
taking
> > of Congress and welfare reform seemed to have helped……

> How stupid is the above lie myers?

What is the lie?  Are you claiming that the governments figures are wrong?
Because anyone can verify them with a java capable browser. If you can prove
your point, do so. Otherwise continue to humor us with your own brand of
stupidity.

news:S6Xc7.97719$dd1.12222704@typhoon.neo.rr.com…

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> "Gary Lantz" wrote
> > When someone wants a book,  Amazon.com delivers right on time.  When no
> one
> > wants such ignorance myers delivers more than any man should possess.
How
> > stupid is he?  He still thinks it take to people to make a baby,  while
> the
> > world is debating stem cell research.

> Stem-cell research has to do with cell-level manipulation for cures for
> various diseases. It STILL takes 2 people to make a baby, a man and a
woman.

> > It is no small wonder that myers will
> > continue to be fired until he ends up living with one of his kids on
> > welfare.

> Since you haven’t gotten the 1st fact right why stop there…….

Again myers,  if there were only loons and wingnuts in this world you would
be near the bottom of that list as well.

news:tnaf27fugt87db@corp.supernews.com…

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> Glen Smith <ozarkhe…@home.com> wrote in message
> news:LL%c7.227246$Q9.61678822@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com…
> > Glenn: Located in the Beautiful Missouri Ozarks
> > "Ulysses" <sala…@scn.org> wrote in message
> > news:b1403989.0108100705.2189fa4b@posting.google.com…
> > > Once again Glen Smith demonstrates the truth of Einstein’s comment
> > > that the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has
> > > limitations.

> > Typical democrat response; insult anyone who disagrees with you.

> No,  most of the time anyone receives insults is because of the ignorance
of
> the comments.  When you continue to show a retarded level of understanding
> of the issues,  like Rush Dumbaugh,  you get insults.  That is why the
> fatman does not appear with guests or on legitimate TV panels where his
> ignorance can be pointed out.  And that is why he made up the idea that if
> you are receiving insults it was because the other person had no response.
> When the other person has no time for the dimwits.

I see.  Because I don’t agree with you, I am ignorant and show a ‘retarded
level of understanding of the issues".

Do you feel that you have an in-depth understanding of the issues?  If so,
how did you attain that level of understanding?

Or do you have no time because you perceive me to be a dimwit?

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> > > My comment below:

> > > "Glen Smith" <ozarkhe…@home.com> wrote in message
> > <news:CtIc7.225659$Q9.60756618@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com>…
> > > > Glenn: Located in the Beautiful Missouri Ozarks
> > > > "Ulysses" <sala…@scn.org> wrote in message
> > > > news:b1403989.0108091556.6ab93709@posting.google.com…
> > > > > "SWMyers" <swmy…@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > >  <news:JLAc7.96918$dd1.12002891@typhoon.neo.rr.com>…
> > > > > > "Ulysses" wrote
> > > > > > > > The fact that we have to HAVE a welfare system to take care
of
> > > >  people is
> > > >  a
> > > > > > > > disgrace. Some people genuinely need assistance and we
should
> > give
> > > >  it to
> > > > > > > > them freely as they recover their lives and get restarted,
but
> > we
> > > >  don’t
> > > >  owe
> > > > > > > > ANYONE a free ride and we certainly don’t owe someone with
> > > >  self-inflicted
> > > > > > > > problems. The children are blameless in this but giving the
> > parents
> > > >  money
> > > > > > > > teaches them and their kids that mistakes are profitable
> instead
> > of
> > > > > > > > mistakes.

> > > > > > > To Republicans of the dittohead stripe, ALL assistance is a
> "free
> > > > > > > ride" for "self-inflicted problems".  I can tell it’s been a
> while
> > > > > > > since you saw an economic downturn of any significance (you
can
> > thank
> > > > > > > the Dems for that).

> > > > > > No you are marching to some socialist, left-leaning, liberal
> dogma.
> > I
> > > >  DARE
> > > > > > you to find a conservative that would say that ALL assistance is
a
> > free
> > > > > > ride. The last 3 economic downturns have ALL been caused by
> > Democrat-led
> > > > > > policies (the 1977-1983 recession was a product of Jimmy Carter
> and

> > > > > > Congressional policies, the 1991-1992 recession was a direct
> result
> > of
> > > >  the
> > > > > > raised "new taxes" deal struck between George Bush and Congress
to
> > "pay
> > > >  down
> > > > > > the debt", and the 2000-2001 recession was triggered largely by
> > > >  inactivity
> > > > > > of those at the top. I thank Clinton for the fact that he did
> > nothing of
> > > >  any
> > > > > > economic significance for 7 years and didn’t screw it up sooner,
> but
> > an
> > > > > > economic stimulus package (like a tax cut) was called for as the
> > economy
> > > > > > started to falter over a year ago.

> > > > > > > Some might say the problem is the inability of a single woman
> (or
> > man)
> > > > > > > to make a sufficient living to support a child or two.  The
> result
> > of
> > > > > > > 25 years of declining average real wages (although under
> Clinton,
> > it
> > > > > > > actually rose for four years of his term, first time in 25
> > years!).

> > > > > > You need to do a little more research, real wages rose during
> > Reagan’s
> > > >  2nd
> > > > > > term to their highest point in history. There was then an 8 year
> > > >  relative
> > > > > > decline and real wages rose AFTER the 1996 elections, wages
didn’t
> > reach
> > > > > > 1989′s level until nearly October of 1999 and then only for MOST
> > > >  demographic
> > > > > > segments.

> > > > > No, you’re in error.  Not surprising, since you post in
> > > > > alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.  What rose during the Reagan administration
> was
> > > > > Real Family Income.  You can increase your real family income by
> > > > > sending your daughter out to the street to earn money as a
> prostitute.

> > > > > Not a good indicator of working class health.

> > > > > But don’t believe me.  Check the stats yourself, you moron.  Real
> > > > > Average Wages.

> > > > > > The average wage in this country is nearly $30,000 – so the
> average
> > > >  person
> > > > > > in this country CAN support a child or two (some support an
entire
> > > >  family on
> > > > > > ONE person earning that wage). Median household income is around
> > $50K
> > > > > > (averaging 1.6 working adults per household).

> > > > > You should look up the definition of average.  You should also
look
> up
> > > > > the definition for median.  Perhaps, once you do, you’ll see your
> > > > > error.  Perhaps not.  It is, afterall, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.

> > > > >  You are attempting to make
> > > > > > your point using generalities and haven’t been able to close
your
> > > >  argument.
> > > > > > The point is, if you are making less money than you need to
> support
> > > > > > yourself – what stupidity would make you think that adding
another
> > mouth
> > > >  to
> > > > > > feed would solve ANY of those problems?  Someone that is single
> has
> > no
> > > > > > reason to bring a baby into the world if they cannot take care
of
> > their
> > > >  own
> > > > > > needs or their own needs and those of the child. Someone that is
> > married
> > > >  and
> > > > > > has circumstances change to the point where they are now a
single
> > parent
> > > > > > might have a case that they need assistance. The 1st party to
> > provide
> > > >  that
> > > > > > assistance should be the father and/or the father’s family (they
> > should
> > > >  have
> > > > > > a stake in their child and grandchild) and the mother’s family
> > (either
> > > >  they
> > > > > > raised an idiot or they should have a stake in the child’s
future)
> > THEN
> > > > > > society has a stake – to provide assistance, to allow someone to
> > > >  regroup, to
> > > > > > prepare them for the unique challenges that they will face and
> allow
> > all
> > > > > > parties to do their best.

> > > > > And of course, no one ever loses their job, or finds themselves in
a
> > > > > ten-year recession (1980-90).

> > > > > > > Anyway, I’m surprised you put up with this.  I suggest you go
> > > > > > > someplace where these slackers don’t get assistance.  Like
> > Honduras,
> > > > > > > or Afganistan.  Russia’s pretty good right now.  Of course,
they
> > have
> > > > > > > people who starve to death in the streets and that sort of
> thing,
> > but,
> > > > > > > hey!! who told THEM to be born into the working class, eh?

> > > > > > Rather than offer a potential solution or provide your own
> analysis
> > why
> > > > > > don’t you make a couple of strawman arguments and insult the
> > > >  intelligence of
> > > > > > anyone reading this thread? Do you HAVE an idea of your own or
do
> > you
> > > >  simply
> > > > > > parrot back the nonsensical mantra that we should all depend on
> > > >  government
> > > > > > for our needs?  Assistance is fine and should be provided when
it
> > > >  doesn’t
> > > > > > require confiscatory policies on those people that work hard,
> follow
> > the
> > > > > > rules, and take responsibility for their own actions. Dependence
> is
> > as
> > > >  bad
> > > > > > as any other mind-numbing drug.

> > > > > Working class people, in the great majority, work hard, follow the
> > > > > rules, and take responsibility for our own actions.  One of our
> > > > > actions is to make sure the government provides good economic
> > > > > conditions for ourselves by voting and engaging in politics.  We
> also
> > > > > force the government and our labor unions to provide "insurance"
for
> > > > > the difficult spots in our life.

> > > > You mean that two or more generations living on welfare is a
> "difficult
> > > > spot"?

> > > Again, by living what can only be an extremely circumscribed life and
> > > listening to liars-in-the-pay-of-the-ruling-class, you’ve been misled.

> > And of course your job is to enlighten me.

> > You have absolutely no idea whether or not my life is ‘circumscribed’,
yet
> > you feel it is apprpriate to make such a generalization.

> > >  The average stay on WIC, which used to be the bulk of federal
> > > welfare, was 2.5 years.

> > Cite your reference.

Again I ask you to cite your reference.

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> > > However, if you insist on destroying jobs nationally, I have no
> > > objection to adopting the European scheme of paying workers adequately
> > > to sit on their asses.  The key word here is "adequate" which would
> > > include living expenses, full medical, educational expenses, pension
> > > benefits, etc.  I don’t see any reason the working class should suffer
> > > because of the decisions of the ruling class.

…

read more »

news:W0Yc7.97727$dd1.12231645@typhoon.neo.rr.com…

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> "Gary Lantz" wrote
> > > No you are marching to some socialist, left-leaning, liberal dogma. I
> DARE
> > > you to find a conservative that would say that ALL assistance is a
free
> > > ride. The last 3 economic downturns have ALL been caused by
Democrat-led
> > > policies (the 1977-1983 recession was a product of Jimmy Carter and
> > > Congressional policies, the 1991-1992 recession was a direct result of
> the
> > > raised "new taxes" deal struck between George Bush and Congress to
"pay
> > down
> > > the debt",

> > How stupid do you get myers?  You lie about the raised taxes  of the
Bush
> > Administration causing a recession,  in the face of Clinton’s tax
increase
> > that gave this country the greatest period of prosperity ever.  What a
> > stupid loon!

> Since the recovery and economic growth started nearly 11 months BEFORE
> Clinton took office you are giving him credit for a recovery that he had
> nothing to do with. As far as your assertion that his tax increase of 1993
> gave prosperity….. in 1993 there was a 12 month break in increasing real
> wages and median income (US Census Bureau – Historical Income Tables) and
in
> 1997 on there was a decided increase in the rate of change of
income…….
> Clinton’s tax increase seemed to have cost people, the Republican’s taking
> of Congress and welfare reform seemed to have helped……

How stupid is the above lie myers?

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> > and the 2000-2001 recession was triggered largely by inactivity
> > > of those at the top. I thank Clinton for the fact that he did nothing
of
> > any
> > > economic significance for 7 years and didn’t screw it up sooner, but
an
> > > economic stimulus package (like a tax cut) was called for as the
economy
> > > started to falter over a year ago.

> > What a dimwit myers.  Do you ever review your lies and distortions?

> I’m still waiting for you to provide some sort of data or reference to
back
> up your assertion.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html  shows all the information that
anyone with any understanding or intelligence needs to see the real story in
this country.  In 1998 there were 123,776,000 tax returns for a population
of around 260,000,000.  The bottom 92,832,000 average and AGI of $20,247 for
about 200,000,000 people  and the bottom 50%,  61,888,000 returns have an
average AGI of just $12,083 for over half the American population.  Now you
can come up with higher averages by including the Ultra rich with only those
making over $15,000 or some other arbitrary figure to show much higher
averages and a median income from just that group,  and lie about what that
indicates.  But that is what you do myers,  you lie.

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> > > > Some might say the problem is the inability of a single woman (or
man)
> > > > to make a sufficient living to support a child or two.  The result
of
> > > > 25 years of declining average real wages (although under Clinton, it
> > > > actually rose for four years of his term, first time in 25 years!).

> > > You need to do a little more research, real wages rose during Reagan’s
> 2nd
> > > term to their highest point in history. There was then an 8 year
> relative
> > > decline and real wages rose AFTER the 1996 elections, wages didn’t
reach
> > > 1989′s level until nearly October of 1999 and then only for MOST
> > demographic
> > > segments.
> > > The average wage in this country is nearly $30,000 – so the average
> person
> > > in this country CAN support a child or two (some support an entire
> family
> > on
> > > ONE person earning that wage). Median household income is around $50K
> > > (averaging 1.6 working adults per household). You are attempting to
make
> > > your point using generalities and haven’t been able to close your
> > argument.

> > Again more lies by myers.  You have been shown many times from the
> > Republican numbers that the bottom 75% of American tax return only
> averages
> > a AGI of $20,247 and that might be two people at least half of the time.

> Again, you use statistical summary data gathered to prove a completely
> unrelated point. You haven’t shown squat except that you can add and
> subtract and there are dogs that have achieved that skill.

And you have shown that you can lie about almost anything.

news:1VXc7.97726$dd1.12230171@typhoon.neo.rr.com…

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> "Ulysses" wrote
> > No, you’re in error.  Not surprising, since you post in
> > alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.  What rose during the Reagan administration was
> > Real Family Income.  You can increase your real family income by
> > sending your daughter out to the street to earn money as a prostitute.

> No, real wages rose an average of 4.3% from 1978 to 1998 if you were
college
> educated the average is 6.4%. (BLS – 1998 National Longitudinal Survey
Table
> 7.  Average annual percent growth in real hourly earnings from 1978 to
1998
> by educational attainment, sex, race, national origin, and age).
According
> to the US Census Bureau real wages fell from 1978-1983, then rose until
> 1989, then fell again until recovering it’s previous level in 1998. Median
> family income has been increasing in approximately the same patterns since
> 1978, reflecting an increasing trend for 2 income households since the
> 1960s.

> How you have overcome your own income shortcomings is your own business
and
> I really don’t care what you have forced your daughter to do.

> > Not a good indicator of working class health.

> > But don’t believe me.  Check the stats yourself, you moron.  Real
> > Average Wages.

> Checked and double checked, cross referenced between the Department of
> Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau. Now moron, do you
> want to explain why you pimped your daughter while your real wages WERE
> increasing?
> .>
> > > The average wage in this country is nearly $12,083 – so the average
> person
> > > in this country CAN support a child or two (some support an entire
> family on
> > > ONE person earning that wage). Median household income is around $20K
> > > (averaging 1.6 working adults per household).

> > You should look up the definition of average.  You should also look up
> > the definition for median.  Perhaps, once you do, you’ll see your
> > error.  Perhaps not.  It is, afterall, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.

> Great straw argument, see the above where I demonstrated not only a
> definition of average, but median and an ability to read a government
table.

> >  You are attempting to make
> > > your point using generalities and haven’t been able to close your
> argument.
> > > The point is, if you are making less money than you need to support
> > > yourself – what stupidity would make you think that adding another
mouth
> to
> > > feed would solve ANY of those problems?  Someone that is single has no
> > > reason to bring a baby into the world if they cannot take care of
their
> own
> > > needs or their own needs and those of the child. Someone that is
married
> and
> > > has circumstances change to the point where they are now a single
parent
> > > might have a case that they need assistance. The 1st party to provide
> that
> > > assistance should be the father and/or the father’s family (they
should
> have
> > > a stake in their child and grandchild) and the mother’s family (either
> they
> > > raised an idiot or they should have a stake in the child’s future)
THEN
> > > society has a stake – to provide assistance, to allow someone to
> regroup, to
> > > prepare them for the unique challenges that they will face and allow
all
> > > parties to do their best.

> > And of course, no one ever loses their job, or finds themselves in a
> > ten-year recession (1980-90).

> What 10 year recession? We haven’t had anything remotely like a 10 year
> recession since the 1930s. The recession of 1978-1983 lasted 5 years,
after
> that we had a period of 27 uninterrupted quarters of economic growth –
which
> at that time was an all time record. We then had a 16 month hiccup and
then
> Clinton took advantage of a recovery that began under George Bush in 1991
> and lasted until 2000.

Elsewhere the dimwitted myers argued that the Bush recession was caused by
his increase in taxes.  Then the dimwit claimed the Clinton tax increase did
nothing for the recovery.  These comments were made in almost the same
sentence and definately profiles a true dimwit,  liar and distorter.  A tax
increase in 1990 can’t be responsibile for a recession and then a tax
increase in 1993 can’t be also responsible for a recovery.  How can liars be
so blantent about their lies unless the are wingnuts and loons talking to
wingnuts and loons.  People like myers are so used to talking Dumbaughese
that has the loons shaking their heads yes that they forget how stupid it
looks to people with IQ’s over 80.

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> Things happen, people screw up, people divorce, and people (sometimes
> through no fault of their own) lose jobs. When people lose jobs they are
> covered by unemployment insurance (a fund that all employers pay into
> states) and can draw an income until they find a new job.

> > > Rather than offer a potential solution or provide your own analysis
why
> > > don’t you make a couple of strawman arguments and insult the
> intelligence of
> > > anyone reading this thread? Do you HAVE an idea of your own or do you
> simply
> > > parrot back the nonsensical mantra that we should all depend on
> government
> > > for our needs?  Assistance is fine and should be provided when it
> doesn’t
> > > require confiscatory policies on those people that work hard, follow
the
> > > rules, and take responsibility for their own actions. Dependence is as
> bad
> > > as any other mind-numbing drug.

> > Working class people, in the great majority, work hard, follow the
> > rules, and take responsibility for our own actions.  One of our
> > actions is to make sure the government provides good economic
> > conditions for ourselves by voting and engaging in politics.  We also
> > force the government and our labor unions to provide "insurance" for
> > the difficult spots in our life.

> MOST of the population, and in that I include white collar and blue collar
> workers, work hard and play by the rules and are adequately rewarded for
> their efforts. Government isn’t in the insurance business and can’t be
> trusted with money. They have proven time and again that "trust funds" and
> targeted revenue programs are thrown into general revenues and wasted
before
> being used for their intended purposes. If the National Highway Trust Fund
> were properly maintained and treated we would have the finest roads and
> bridges in the world. If the Airport taxes and fees were reserved for
> airports we wouldn’t have antiquated FAA equipment and massive delays. If
> your company or union used money the way government did the managers would
> be in prison. If your labor union wants to collect additional monies for
> additional unemployment benefits, cash reserves, retirement, etc. that’s
> great and I wish you well.

news:LL%c7.227246$Q9.61678822@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com…

> Glenn: Located in the Beautiful Missouri Ozarks
> "Ulysses" <sala…@scn.org> wrote in message
> news:b1403989.0108100705.2189fa4b@posting.google.com…
> > Once again Glen Smith demonstrates the truth of Einstein’s comment
> > that the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has
> > limitations.

> Typical democrat response; insult anyone who disagrees with you.

No,  most of the time anyone receives insults is because of the ignorance of
the comments.  When you continue to show a retarded level of understanding
of the issues,  like Rush Dumbaugh,  you get insults.  That is why the
fatman does not appear with guests or on legitimate TV panels where his
ignorance can be pointed out.  And that is why he made up the idea that if
you are receiving insults it was because the other person had no response.
When the other person has no time for the dimwits.

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> > My comment below:

> > "Glen Smith" <ozarkhe…@home.com> wrote in message
> <news:CtIc7.225659$Q9.60756618@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com>…
> > > Glenn: Located in the Beautiful Missouri Ozarks
> > > "Ulysses" <sala…@scn.org> wrote in message
> > > news:b1403989.0108091556.6ab93709@posting.google.com…
> > > > "SWMyers" <swmy…@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >  <news:JLAc7.96918$dd1.12002891@typhoon.neo.rr.com>…
> > > > > "Ulysses" wrote
> > > > > > > The fact that we have to HAVE a welfare system to take care of
> > >  people is
> > >  a
> > > > > > > disgrace. Some people genuinely need assistance and we should
> give
> > >  it to
> > > > > > > them freely as they recover their lives and get restarted, but
> we
> > >  don’t
> > >  owe
> > > > > > > ANYONE a free ride and we certainly don’t owe someone with
> > >  self-inflicted
> > > > > > > problems. The children are blameless in this but giving the
> parents
> > >  money
> > > > > > > teaches them and their kids that mistakes are profitable
instead
> of
> > > > > > > mistakes.

> > > > > > To Republicans of the dittohead stripe, ALL assistance is a
"free
> > > > > > ride" for "self-inflicted problems".  I can tell it’s been a
while
> > > > > > since you saw an economic downturn of any significance (you can
> thank
> > > > > > the Dems for that).

> > > > > No you are marching to some socialist, left-leaning, liberal
dogma.
> I
> > >  DARE
> > > > > you to find a conservative that would say that ALL assistance is a
> free
> > > > > ride. The last 3 economic downturns have ALL been caused by
> Democrat-led
> > > > > policies (the 1977-1983 recession was a product of Jimmy Carter
and

> > > > > Congressional policies, the 1991-1992 recession was a direct
result
> of
> > >  the
> > > > > raised "new taxes" deal struck between George Bush and Congress to
> "pay
> > >  down
> > > > > the debt", and the 2000-2001 recession was triggered largely by
> > >  inactivity
> > > > > of those at the top. I thank Clinton for the fact that he did
> nothing of
> > >  any
> > > > > economic significance for 7 years and didn’t screw it up sooner,
but
> an
> > > > > economic stimulus package (like a tax cut) was called for as the
> economy
> > > > > started to falter over a year ago.

> > > > > > Some might say the problem is the inability of a single woman
(or
> man)
> > > > > > to make a sufficient living to support a child or two.  The
result
> of
> > > > > > 25 years of declining average real wages (although under
Clinton,
> it
> > > > > > actually rose for four years of his term, first time in 25
> years!).

> > > > > You need to do a little more research, real wages rose during
> Reagan’s
> > >  2nd
> > > > > term to their highest point in history. There was then an 8 year
> > >  relative
> > > > > decline and real wages rose AFTER the 1996 elections, wages didn’t
> reach
> > > > > 1989′s level until nearly October of 1999 and then only for MOST
> > >  demographic
> > > > > segments.

> > > > No, you’re in error.  Not surprising, since you post in
> > > > alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.  What rose during the Reagan administration
was
> > > > Real Family Income.  You can increase your real family income by
> > > > sending your daughter out to the street to earn money as a
prostitute.

> > > > Not a good indicator of working class health.

> > > > But don’t believe me.  Check the stats yourself, you moron.  Real
> > > > Average Wages.

> > > > > The average wage in this country is nearly $30,000 – so the
average
> > >  person
> > > > > in this country CAN support a child or two (some support an entire
> > >  family on
> > > > > ONE person earning that wage). Median household income is around
> $50K
> > > > > (averaging 1.6 working adults per household).

> > > > You should look up the definition of average.  You should also look
up
> > > > the definition for median.  Perhaps, once you do, you’ll see your
> > > > error.  Perhaps not.  It is, afterall, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.

> > > >  You are attempting to make
> > > > > your point using generalities and haven’t been able to close your
> > >  argument.
> > > > > The point is, if you are making less money than you need to
support
> > > > > yourself – what stupidity would make you think that adding another
> mouth
> > >  to
> > > > > feed would solve ANY of those problems?  Someone that is single
has
> no
> > > > > reason to bring a baby into the world if they cannot take care of
> their
> > >  own
> > > > > needs or their own needs and those of the child. Someone that is
> married
> > >  and
> > > > > has circumstances change to the point where they are now a single
> parent
> > > > > might have a case that they need assistance. The 1st party to
> provide
> > >  that
> > > > > assistance should be the father and/or the father’s family (they
> should
> > >  have
> > > > > a stake in their child and grandchild) and the mother’s family
> (either
> > >  they
> > > > > raised an idiot or they should have a stake in the child’s future)
> THEN
> > > > > society has a stake – to provide assistance, to allow someone to
> > >  regroup, to
> > > > > prepare them for the unique challenges that they will face and
allow
> all
> > > > > parties to do their best.

> > > > And of course, no one ever loses their job, or finds themselves in a
> > > > ten-year recession (1980-90).

> > > > > > Anyway, I’m surprised you put up with this.  I suggest you go
> > > > > > someplace where these slackers don’t get assistance.  Like
> Honduras,
> > > > > > or Afganistan.  Russia’s pretty good right now.  Of course, they
> have
> > > > > > people who starve to death in the streets and that sort of
thing,
> but,
> > > > > > hey!! who told THEM to be born into the working class, eh?

> > > > > Rather than offer a potential solution or provide your own
analysis
> why
> > > > > don’t you make a couple of strawman arguments and insult the
> > >  intelligence of
> > > > > anyone reading this thread? Do you HAVE an idea of your own or do
> you
> > >  simply
> > > > > parrot back the nonsensical mantra that we should all depend on
> > >  government
> > > > > for our needs?  Assistance is fine and should be provided when it
> > >  doesn’t
> > > > > require confiscatory policies on those people that work hard,
follow
> the
> > > > > rules, and take responsibility for their own actions. Dependence
is
> as
> > >  bad
> > > > > as any other mind-numbing drug.

> > > > Working class people, in the great majority, work hard, follow the
> > > > rules, and take responsibility for our own actions.  One of our
> > > > actions is to make sure the government provides good economic
> > > > conditions for ourselves by voting and engaging in politics.  We
also
> > > > force the government and our labor unions to provide "insurance" for
> > > > the difficult spots in our life.

> > > You mean that two or more generations living on welfare is a
"difficult
> > > spot"?

> > Again, by living what can only be an extremely circumscribed life and
> > listening to liars-in-the-pay-of-the-ruling-class, you’ve been misled.

> And of course your job is to enlighten me.

> You have absolutely no idea whether or not my life is ‘circumscribed’, yet
> you feel it is apprpriate to make such a generalization.

> >  The average stay on WIC, which used to be the bulk of federal
> > welfare, was 2.5 years.

> Cite your reference.

> > However, if you insist on destroying jobs nationally, I have no
> > objection to adopting the European scheme of paying workers adequately
> > to sit on their asses.  The key word here is "adequate" which would
> > include living expenses, full medical, educational expenses, pension
> > benefits, etc.  I don’t see any reason the working class should suffer
> > because of the decisions of the ruling class.

> The ruling class?  I assume you mean the voters?

> > However, now that all welfare is in the hands of the states, as soon
> > as any serious economic downturn occurs (any day now, judging from
> > Bush), the states will use up their block grants and inform the
> > indigent that there’s no more money, they can die in the streets.
> > Which they will.

> For the most part, the indigents will probably choose to do so.  But it is
> their decision.

> > > > Those are our actions.  We stand by them.

news:b1403989.0108100705.2189fa4b@posting.google.com…

> Once again Glen Smith demonstrates the truth of Einstein’s comment
> that the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has
> limitations.

Typical democrat response; insult anyone who disagrees with you.

> My comment below:

> "Glen Smith" <ozarkhe…@home.com> wrote in message

<news:CtIc7.225659$Q9.60756618@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com>…

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> > Glenn: Located in the Beautiful Missouri Ozarks
> > "Ulysses" <sala…@scn.org> wrote in message
> > news:b1403989.0108091556.6ab93709@posting.google.com…
> > > "SWMyers" <swmy…@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >  <news:JLAc7.96918$dd1.12002891@typhoon.neo.rr.com>…
> > > > "Ulysses" wrote
> > > > > > The fact that we have to HAVE a welfare system to take care of
> >  people is
> >  a
> > > > > > disgrace. Some people genuinely need assistance and we should
give
> >  it to
> > > > > > them freely as they recover their lives and get restarted, but
we
> >  don’t
> >  owe
> > > > > > ANYONE a free ride and we certainly don’t owe someone with
> >  self-inflicted
> > > > > > problems. The children are blameless in this but giving the
parents
> >  money
> > > > > > teaches them and their kids that mistakes are profitable instead
of
> > > > > > mistakes.

> > > > > To Republicans of the dittohead stripe, ALL assistance is a "free
> > > > > ride" for "self-inflicted problems".  I can tell it’s been a while
> > > > > since you saw an economic downturn of any significance (you can
thank
> > > > > the Dems for that).

> > > > No you are marching to some socialist, left-leaning, liberal dogma.
I
> >  DARE
> > > > you to find a conservative that would say that ALL assistance is a
free
> > > > ride. The last 3 economic downturns have ALL been caused by
Democrat-led
> > > > policies (the 1977-1983 recession was a product of Jimmy Carter and
> > > > Congressional policies, the 1991-1992 recession was a direct result
of
> >  the
> > > > raised "new taxes" deal struck between George Bush and Congress to
"pay
> >  down
> > > > the debt", and the 2000-2001 recession was triggered largely by
> >  inactivity
> > > > of those at the top. I thank Clinton for the fact that he did
nothing of
> >  any
> > > > economic significance for 7 years and didn’t screw it up sooner, but
an
> > > > economic stimulus package (like a tax cut) was called for as the
economy
> > > > started to falter over a year ago.

> > > > > Some might say the problem is the inability of a single woman (or
man)
> > > > > to make a sufficient living to support a child or two.  The result
of
> > > > > 25 years of declining average real wages (although under Clinton,
it
> > > > > actually rose for four years of his term, first time in 25
years!).

> > > > You need to do a little more research, real wages rose during
Reagan’s
> >  2nd
> > > > term to their highest point in history. There was then an 8 year
> >  relative
> > > > decline and real wages rose AFTER the 1996 elections, wages didn’t
reach
> > > > 1989′s level until nearly October of 1999 and then only for MOST
> >  demographic
> > > > segments.

> > > No, you’re in error.  Not surprising, since you post in
> > > alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.  What rose during the Reagan administration was
> > > Real Family Income.  You can increase your real family income by
> > > sending your daughter out to the street to earn money as a prostitute.

> > > Not a good indicator of working class health.

> > > But don’t believe me.  Check the stats yourself, you moron.  Real
> > > Average Wages.

> > > > The average wage in this country is nearly $30,000 – so the average
> >  person
> > > > in this country CAN support a child or two (some support an entire
> >  family on
> > > > ONE person earning that wage). Median household income is around
$50K
> > > > (averaging 1.6 working adults per household).

> > > You should look up the definition of average.  You should also look up
> > > the definition for median.  Perhaps, once you do, you’ll see your
> > > error.  Perhaps not.  It is, afterall, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.

> > >  You are attempting to make
> > > > your point using generalities and haven’t been able to close your
> >  argument.
> > > > The point is, if you are making less money than you need to support
> > > > yourself – what stupidity would make you think that adding another
mouth
> >  to
> > > > feed would solve ANY of those problems?  Someone that is single has
no
> > > > reason to bring a baby into the world if they cannot take care of
their
> >  own
> > > > needs or their own needs and those of the child. Someone that is
married
> >  and
> > > > has circumstances change to the point where they are now a single
parent
> > > > might have a case that they need assistance. The 1st party to
provide
> >  that
> > > > assistance should be the father and/or the father’s family (they
should
> >  have
> > > > a stake in their child and grandchild) and the mother’s family
(either
> >  they
> > > > raised an idiot or they should have a stake in the child’s future)
THEN
> > > > society has a stake – to provide assistance, to allow someone to
> >  regroup, to
> > > > prepare them for the unique challenges that they will face and allow
all
> > > > parties to do their best.

> > > And of course, no one ever loses their job, or finds themselves in a
> > > ten-year recession (1980-90).

> > > > > Anyway, I’m surprised you put up with this.  I suggest you go
> > > > > someplace where these slackers don’t get assistance.  Like
Honduras,
> > > > > or Afganistan.  Russia’s pretty good right now.  Of course, they
have
> > > > > people who starve to death in the streets and that sort of thing,
but,
> > > > > hey!! who told THEM to be born into the working class, eh?

> > > > Rather than offer a potential solution or provide your own analysis
why
> > > > don’t you make a couple of strawman arguments and insult the
> >  intelligence of
> > > > anyone reading this thread? Do you HAVE an idea of your own or do
you
> >  simply
> > > > parrot back the nonsensical mantra that we should all depend on
> >  government
> > > > for our needs?  Assistance is fine and should be provided when it
> >  doesn’t
> > > > require confiscatory policies on those people that work hard, follow
the
> > > > rules, and take responsibility for their own actions. Dependence is
as
> >  bad
> > > > as any other mind-numbing drug.

> > > Working class people, in the great majority, work hard, follow the
> > > rules, and take responsibility for our own actions.  One of our
> > > actions is to make sure the government provides good economic
> > > conditions for ourselves by voting and engaging in politics.  We also
> > > force the government and our labor unions to provide "insurance" for
> > > the difficult spots in our life.

> > You mean that two or more generations living on welfare is a "difficult
> > spot"?

> Again, by living what can only be an extremely circumscribed life and
> listening to liars-in-the-pay-of-the-ruling-class, you’ve been misled.

And of course your job is to enlighten me.

You have absolutely no idea whether or not my life is ‘circumscribed’, yet
you feel it is apprpriate to make such a generalization.

>  The average stay on WIC, which used to be the bulk of federal
> welfare, was 2.5 years.

Cite your reference.

> However, if you insist on destroying jobs nationally, I have no
> objection to adopting the European scheme of paying workers adequately
> to sit on their asses.  The key word here is "adequate" which would
> include living expenses, full medical, educational expenses, pension
> benefits, etc.  I don’t see any reason the working class should suffer
> because of the decisions of the ruling class.

The ruling class?  I assume you mean the voters?

> However, now that all welfare is in the hands of the states, as soon
> as any serious economic downturn occurs (any day now, judging from
> Bush), the states will use up their block grants and inform the
> indigent that there’s no more money, they can die in the streets.
> Which they will.

For the most part, the indigents will probably choose to do so.  But it is
their decision.

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> > > Those are our actions.  We stand by them.

> > No you are marching to some socialist, left-leaning, liberal dogma. I
DARE
> > you to find a conservative that would say that ALL assistance is a free
> > ride. The last 3 economic downturns have ALL been caused by Democrat-led
> > policies (the 1977-1983 recession was a product of Jimmy Carter and
> > Congressional policies, the 1991-1992 recession was a direct result of
the
> > raised "new taxes" deal struck between George Bush and Congress to "pay
> down
> > the debt",

> How stupid do you get myers?  You lie about the raised taxes  of the Bush
> Administration causing a recession,  in the face of Clinton’s tax increase
> that gave this country the greatest period of prosperity ever.  What a
> stupid loon!

Since the recovery and economic growth started nearly 11 months BEFORE
Clinton took office you are giving him credit for a recovery that he had
nothing to do with. As far as your assertion that his tax increase of 1993
gave prosperity….. in 1993 there was a 12 month break in increasing real
wages and median income (US Census Bureau – Historical Income Tables) and in
1997 on there was a decided increase in the rate of change of income…….
Clinton’s tax increase seemed to have cost people, the Republican’s taking
of Congress and welfare reform seemed to have helped……

> and the 2000-2001 recession was triggered largely by inactivity
> > of those at the top. I thank Clinton for the fact that he did nothing of
> any
> > economic significance for 7 years and didn’t screw it up sooner, but an
> > economic stimulus package (like a tax cut) was called for as the economy
> > started to falter over a year ago.

> What a dimwit myers.  Do you ever review your lies and distortions?

I’m still waiting for you to provide some sort of data or reference to back
up your assertion.

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> > > Some might say the problem is the inability of a single woman (or man)
> > > to make a sufficient living to support a child or two.  The result of
> > > 25 years of declining average real wages (although under Clinton, it
> > > actually rose for four years of his term, first time in 25 years!).

> > You need to do a little more research, real wages rose during Reagan’s
2nd
> > term to their highest point in history. There was then an 8 year
relative
> > decline and real wages rose AFTER the 1996 elections, wages didn’t reach
> > 1989′s level until nearly October of 1999 and then only for MOST
> demographic
> > segments.
> > The average wage in this country is nearly $30,000 – so the average
person
> > in this country CAN support a child or two (some support an entire
family
> on
> > ONE person earning that wage). Median household income is around $50K
> > (averaging 1.6 working adults per household). You are attempting to make
> > your point using generalities and haven’t been able to close your
> argument.

> Again more lies by myers.  You have been shown many times from the
> Republican numbers that the bottom 75% of American tax return only
averages
> a AGI of $20,247 and that might be two people at least half of the time.

Again, you use statistical summary data gathered to prove a completely
unrelated point. You haven’t shown squat except that you can add and
subtract and there are dogs that have achieved that skill.

> No, you’re in error.  Not surprising, since you post in
> alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.  What rose during the Reagan administration was
> Real Family Income.  You can increase your real family income by
> sending your daughter out to the street to earn money as a prostitute.

No, real wages rose an average of 4.3% from 1978 to 1998 if you were college
educated the average is 6.4%. (BLS – 1998 National Longitudinal Survey Table
7.  Average annual percent growth in real hourly earnings from 1978 to 1998
by educational attainment, sex, race, national origin, and age).  According
to the US Census Bureau real wages fell from 1978-1983, then rose until
1989, then fell again until recovering it’s previous level in 1998. Median
family income has been increasing in approximately the same patterns since
1978, reflecting an increasing trend for 2 income households since the
1960s.

How you have overcome your own income shortcomings is your own business and
I really don’t care what you have forced your daughter to do.

> Not a good indicator of working class health.

> But don’t believe me.  Check the stats yourself, you moron.  Real
> Average Wages.

Checked and double checked, cross referenced between the Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau. Now moron, do you
want to explain why you pimped your daughter while your real wages WERE
increasing?
.>

> > The average wage in this country is nearly $30,000 – so the average
person
> > in this country CAN support a child or two (some support an entire
family on
> > ONE person earning that wage). Median household income is around $50K
> > (averaging 1.6 working adults per household).

> You should look up the definition of average.  You should also look up
> the definition for median.  Perhaps, once you do, you’ll see your
> error.  Perhaps not.  It is, afterall, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.

Great straw argument, see the above where I demonstrated not only a
definition of average, but median and an ability to read a government table.

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

>  You are attempting to make
> > your point using generalities and haven’t been able to close your
argument.
> > The point is, if you are making less money than you need to support
> > yourself – what stupidity would make you think that adding another mouth
to
> > feed would solve ANY of those problems?  Someone that is single has no
> > reason to bring a baby into the world if they cannot take care of their
own
> > needs or their own needs and those of the child. Someone that is married
and
> > has circumstances change to the point where they are now a single parent
> > might have a case that they need assistance. The 1st party to provide
that
> > assistance should be the father and/or the father’s family (they should
have
> > a stake in their child and grandchild) and the mother’s family (either
they
> > raised an idiot or they should have a stake in the child’s future) THEN
> > society has a stake – to provide assistance, to allow someone to
regroup, to
> > prepare them for the unique challenges that they will face and allow all
> > parties to do their best.

> And of course, no one ever loses their job, or finds themselves in a
> ten-year recession (1980-90).

What 10 year recession? We haven’t had anything remotely like a 10 year
recession since the 1930s. The recession of 1978-1983 lasted 5 years, after
that we had a period of 27 uninterrupted quarters of economic growth – which
at that time was an all time record. We then had a 16 month hiccup and then
Clinton took advantage of a recovery that began under George Bush in 1991
and lasted until 2000.
Things happen, people screw up, people divorce, and people (sometimes
through no fault of their own) lose jobs. When people lose jobs they are
covered by unemployment insurance (a fund that all employers pay into
states) and can draw an income until they find a new job.

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> > Rather than offer a potential solution or provide your own analysis why
> > don’t you make a couple of strawman arguments and insult the
intelligence of
> > anyone reading this thread? Do you HAVE an idea of your own or do you
simply
> > parrot back the nonsensical mantra that we should all depend on
government
> > for our needs?  Assistance is fine and should be provided when it
doesn’t
> > require confiscatory policies on those people that work hard, follow the
> > rules, and take responsibility for their own actions. Dependence is as
bad
> > as any other mind-numbing drug.

> Working class people, in the great majority, work hard, follow the
> rules, and take responsibility for our own actions.  One of our
> actions is to make sure the government provides good economic
> conditions for ourselves by voting and engaging in politics.  We also
> force the government and our labor unions to provide "insurance" for
> the difficult spots in our life.

MOST of the population, and in that I include white collar and blue collar
workers, work hard and play by the rules and are adequately rewarded for
their efforts. Government isn’t in the insurance business and can’t be
trusted with money. They have proven time and again that "trust funds" and
targeted revenue programs are thrown into general revenues and wasted before
being used for their intended purposes. If the National Highway Trust Fund
were properly maintained and treated we would have the finest roads and
bridges in the world. If the Airport taxes and fees were reserved for
airports we wouldn’t have antiquated FAA equipment and massive delays. If
your company or union used money the way government did the managers would
be in prison. If your labor union wants to collect additional monies for
additional unemployment benefits, cash reserves, retirement, etc. that’s
great and I wish you well.