View Full Forums : He's human!
Panamah
09-15-2005, 01:57 PM
This simply reminds me of myself....
Although you'd think the president wouldn't have to ask permission of his Secretary of State. :p
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4249646.stm
Bush 'caught short' at UN summit
The note was written during UN summit talks
Enlarge Image
It's a situation anyone could find themselves in - having to answer the call of nature in the middle of an important meeting.
But when you are the US president, at a gathering of more than 150 world leaders, it is even more tricky.
While talk at the UN world summit was focused on terrorism and internal reform, George W Bush appeared to have been caught short.
And, he is said to have turned to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for advice.
"I think I may need a bathroom break? Is this possible?" a Reuters news agency photographer caught him writing in a note to Ms Rice.
The photograph, and Mr Bush's apparent request for permission to pee, has been the subject of discussion on a number of satirical websites.
President Bush was among monarchs, presidents and prime ministers for the opening of the three-day summit, marking the 60th anniversary of the UN.
In a speech, he urged the UN to pursue meaningful reforms to allow it to meet modern challenges and said the US was committed to helping overcome poverty.
Another thing the cameras caught was the weird senator from Oklahoma, Tom Coburn, who made a tearful, impassioned speech during Roberts hears, was also caught doing a crossword puzzle during said hearings.
Stormhaven
09-15-2005, 02:32 PM
It's probably a good thing I'm not in an official office. I'd fall asleep during all those meetings.
Arienne
09-15-2005, 04:11 PM
It's probably a good thing I'm not in an official office. I'd fall asleep during all those meetings.*grin* I have a very dear friend who can fall asleep faster than you can blink an eye and take 5 and 10 minute "cat naps" anywhere he is. He used to sleep during our corporate staff meetings when we were discussing issues that didn't affect him. But he's one of those people who can get ANYthing done and makes it look effortless, so the fact that he snores wasn't a real problem. :D
I think we caught him on camera a few times, too.
I'd just love to know what message Rice wrote back to the President. You can make up your own punchlines :).
Scirocco
09-15-2005, 04:52 PM
"I told you to go before we left!"
Panamah
09-15-2005, 05:55 PM
"Tie it in a knot!"
Cantatus
09-15-2005, 08:59 PM
The funny thing, though, was how they captioned the photo. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050914/ids_photos_ts/r404176213.jpg) They make it sound like he's writing something incredibly profound, when it's just him asking permission to go to the bathroom. It makes me wonder if they even read what he was writing before posting it.
I have to say, it humbles him knowing that even the President of the United States needs to ask to go to the bathroom every once in a while. ;)
Another thing the cameras caught was the weird senator from Oklahoma, Tom Coburn, who made a tearful, impassioned speech during Roberts hears, was also caught doing a crossword puzzle during said hearings.
Where's that picture?
oddjob1244
09-15-2005, 09:29 PM
I wonder what else they have pictures of! "Here is the president looking through documents about area 51."
Aidon
09-15-2005, 10:07 PM
"You can always claim the French are hiding WMD's in the head, Mr. President"
Panamah
09-15-2005, 11:48 PM
The funny thing, though, was how they captioned the photo. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050914/ids_photos_ts/r404176213.jpg) They make it sound like he's writing something incredibly profound, when it's just him asking permission to go to the bathroom. It makes me wonder if they even read what he was writing before posting it.
I have to say, it humbles him knowing that even the President of the United States needs to ask to go to the bathroom every once in a while. ;)
Where's that picture?
It was on Daily show, apparently captured on CSPAN. I haven't looked for it online yet.
Arienne
09-15-2005, 11:51 PM
Does it scare anyone else that he doesn't sound sure that he needs a potty break but only *thinks* he may need one? Ya know... there are some things in life you just HAVE to know. :(
Panamah
09-15-2005, 11:55 PM
The Daily Show video of the crossword puzzle is on Comedy Central, looked for "Heavy Vetting". :D
Kryttos Arcadia
09-16-2005, 12:00 AM
his speech 2nite was nauseating.. he just HAD to bring up sept 11th again
Panamah
09-16-2005, 11:24 AM
Kryttos, I just can't watch the man any longer. I leave fingernail marks on the arms of my sofa. It isn't good for the furniture or my blood pressure.
Kryttos Arcadia
09-16-2005, 04:05 PM
lol, i know how you feel. I feel like throwing things at the TV when hes on
Aidon
09-17-2005, 12:18 AM
The man is more than nauseating.
He's pushed laws which permit US citizens to be imprisoned w/o trial or an attorney by a secret court.
He's embroiled us in an unpopular war against the wrong ****ing target.
He's squandered our money in order to repay political debts.
He's single handedly eliminating the middle class and expanding the lower class through tax cuts for the wealthy and support of industry in nations where their workers earn a buck a day.
He's attempting to eliminate our rights to just compensation for the negligence of others.
He's hampering social and scientific advancement by pandering to a bunch of intellectually negligible far right christian asshats.
Oh, and he does most of it while on vacation.
The man is downright derelict and bordering on actual evil.
Erianaiel
09-17-2005, 04:04 AM
The man is downright derelict and bordering on actual evil.
Nah, you know: Never attribute to malice that can sufficiently explained by incompetence
Eri
Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-17-2005, 12:45 PM
There is nothing wrong with tax cuts.
Nothing.
Aidon
09-17-2005, 03:23 PM
There is plenty wrong with cutting taxes while increasing spending.
His choice of what taxes to cut, and what programs to cut in order to pay for his war and tax benefits for the wealthy are another matter entirely.
Panamah
09-17-2005, 07:44 PM
Nah, you know: Never attribute to malice that can sufficiently explained by incompetence
But in the end, the results are the same!
Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-17-2005, 09:17 PM
His choice of what taxes to cut, and what programs to cut in order to pay for his war and tax benefits for the wealthy are another matter entirely.
The wealthy already pay the most taxes. You just want them to pay double that when they die, on already taxed assets.
The poor get subsidies already. And credits. I suppose you want to give them tax cuts too(when they don't even pay taxes).
Just because somebody is dead does not mean it is right to tax them again, on money they already paid taxes on.
Remove the tax exemption on sports and churches, make up the difference there. And it is more ethical anyways.
Fenmarel the Banisher
09-17-2005, 09:49 PM
Wow, this post went from humor to ranting in such a short time.
Aidon
09-17-2005, 11:18 PM
The wealthy already pay the most taxes. You just want them to pay double that when they die, on already taxed assets.
The poor get subsidies already. And credits. I suppose you want to give them tax cuts too(when they don't even pay taxes).
Just because somebody is dead does not mean it is right to tax them again, on money they already paid taxes on.
Remove the tax exemption on sports and churches, make up the difference there. And it is more ethical anyways.
The middle class (aka any family of four making over wait for it...a whopping $22,000 per year), are paying taxes they can ill afford, while corporations and their upper echelon are making money hand over fist and getting tax break after tax break, raping loopholes left and right, and basically screwing us all.
And most local level religious organizations are barely making ends meet as is, they can't afford to pay taxes.
Sports...well, I agree they should pay taxes, but it'll never happen.
Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-18-2005, 12:21 AM
The middle class (aka any family of four making over wait for it...a whopping $22,000 per year), are paying taxes they can ill afford, while corporations and their upper echelon are making money hand over fist and getting tax break after tax break, raping loopholes left and right, and basically screwing us all.
And most local level religious organizations are barely making ends meet as is, they can't afford to pay taxes.
Sports...well, I agree they should pay taxes, but it'll never happen.
A family of four making 22K a year is not going to pay any Federal Income taxes, and you know it. What they do pay is SSI, and those evil corporations are paying their other half. And the SSI is supposed to be their money, anyway; they are going to get it all back plus some(until the system implodes of course).
Aidon
09-18-2005, 10:36 AM
A family of four making 22,000 a year, in 2004, will be paying taxes at a 10% rate, if I understand it correctly. That, of course, doesn't include SS.
Erianaiel
09-21-2005, 02:03 PM
There is nothing wrong with tax cuts.
Nothing.
That really is a matter of perspective :)
If you are the recipient of a government program that got cut back or removed entirely because the tax cuts meant there was less money for such programs, then, yes I think you would be inclined to feel something was wrong with tax cuts.
E.g. if you ask the citizens of New Orleans if they would have wanted higher taxes and better protection, they would say yes now (and probably would have said no before the hurricane).
There is nothing inherently wrong with taxes either. The real question is what do we want our governments to spend money on, and how much. The taxes logically follow from that.
Eri
Jinjre
09-21-2005, 03:38 PM
Hrm. Well, I know the tax laws have changed, but when I was earning less than median income for a single person household, I paid taxes. Now, by "pay" what I mean is that the gov't with held some of my money, and at the end of the year, didn't give it back. The gov't took my money.
Now that I'm above the median income by a stretch, I actually don't pay much more in taxes (in total amount the gov't keeps) than I did before. My income has more than quintupled, but the amount of money the gov't keeps of mine is still about the same.
Guess what? I don't need that money now. I needed it back when I was broke. But because of Bush's tax cuts, and some prudent loophole using, the gov't isn't getting as much from me (expressed as a total percentage of my income) as they were before. Before they were getting about 8% of my gross income. Now it's under 2%.
So my income has gone up, but my tax burden hasn't. Hrm. I don't want my tax breaks. The flip side is that at least now I can take some of the money that would have gone to taxes and give it to people whom I think can make a real difference (like Habitat for Humanity). The unfortunate other flip side is that I can't exactly make a donation to the "please for the love of god would you fix the bridges" fund.
Speaking only for myself, I'd rather pay more taxes, but what I'd REALLY like is little check boxes for where my money is going. I'd love to say "infrastructure" on my tax return and have all my money go to fixing our infrastructure. Heck, they let us check off the box for donating to the political campaign funds...why not choose where our taxes go?
Stormhaven
09-21-2005, 03:41 PM
Answering Jinjre with a quote...
<i>A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it. -- <b>Agent K, Men in Black</b></i>
Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-21-2005, 04:32 PM
There is nothing inherently wrong with taxes either.
Taking the production of one person to give to someone who did not earn it. You better be awful careful what you are doing.
Taking the products of my work from me against my will, and giving to those who do not work, is morally and ethically tenuous.
There is nothing inherently right with taking money from someone who earned it, and giving it to another who did not.
Don't sugar coat what that is.
Nonchalant Liberal thinking that MY production and work belong to THEM or the government is slavery. Just because they say it is good does not make it so. 40% of the work that I do is going to other people, many of them whom do not work.
Panamah
09-21-2005, 04:33 PM
There is nothing inherently right with taking money from someone who earned it, and giving it to another who did not.
So inheritences should be buried with the dead! Hmmm... Good idea!
Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-21-2005, 04:42 PM
That is the problem with liberals they think that taking is the same as giving.
It is an ideological difference which is as clear as black and white.
vestix
09-21-2005, 05:08 PM
There is nothing inherently wrong with taxes either.
All taxes are evil. Some are necessary.
Panamah
09-21-2005, 05:38 PM
That is the problem with liberals they think that taking is the same as giving.
The problem is, conservatives think poor people should shut up and/or die. And that pot holes and crappy roads fix themselves. And that paying taxes for corporate welfare is good, but paying taxes for people welfare is bad.
Being poor is knowing exactly how much everything costs.
Being poor is thinking $8 an hour is a really good deal.
Being poor is Goodwill underwear.
Being poor is making lunch for your kid when a cockroach skitters over
the bread, and you looking over to see if your kid saw.
Being poor is relying on people who don't give a damn about you.
Being poor is not taking the job because you can't find someone you
trust to watch your kids.
And being poor is not having the $20.00 to put gas in the car, should you own one, to be able to escape from a category 4 hurricane.
Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-21-2005, 05:53 PM
Speaking as a poor person myself, to poor people.
I think that poor people should go out and get a fricken job.
If you can't find a job in your area, MOVE!
If you can't find a job because you are dumb, tough sh1t outta luck.
Get more education. Go back to school, or stay in school the first time round.
If you don't like the schools in your area, MOVE!
If you can't find a job because you are lazy, sorry I am lazy too, I can't help you.
And stop fvcking, unless you want smart people who can control their reproductive tracts to start controlling yours, stop fvcking and expecting everyone else to care for your babies.
I will take care of my friends and family. They will take care of me.
I don't know you, I don't like you, stop fvcking and wanting me to take care of someone else's kids. I already have enough resentment about my end of the Social Contract, don't breach your end and spite me at the same time.
There is nothing in my Social Contract which says that I have to support your second or third illegitimate bastards. If you are too stupid to keep your legs crossed the second time, maybe you need your tubes tied.
If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.
(and if some stud is out there doggin and not paying, nueter him faster)
Erianaiel
09-21-2005, 06:07 PM
Taking the production of one person to give to someone who did not earn it. You better be awful careful what you are doing.
Taking the products of my work from me against my will, and giving to those who do not work, is morally and ethically tenuous.
There is nothing inherently right with taking money from someone who earned it, and giving it to another who did not.
Don't sugar coat what that is.
This is an agree to disagree point I think. But I would like to point out that most of the taxes we are paying in our respective countries go to other purposes. Things like bridges and other big infrastructural projects that cost a lot to construct them and a lot to maintain them. Tax money here frequently is the only convenient way to see them built. They benefit a lot of people but nobody can afford to build them Police forces (and the judicial branch in general) needs to be autonomous so they have to receive public financing. There needs to be a certain minimum access to education. Otherwise many children will be deprived of their chance to learn a profession simply because they were unlucky enough to be born in a poor neighbourhood. Scientific research. Not all of it can be applied or there will be hardly any progress. Space exploration and in general any extremely high risk project that have a potential benefit only in the very long term. Building, medicine (and other safety) regulation enforcement.
All these and more are most convenient when paid from tax money. In some case the risk of a conflict of interest is too great to accept anything else (imagine a system where police officers and judges are paid from the fines...)
In other cases the benefit is not immediately obvious but will lead to extreme expenses when neglected.
Nonchalant Liberal thinking that MY production and work belong to THEM or the government is slavery. Just because they say it is good does not make it so. 40% of the work that I do is going to other people, many of them whom do not work.
You are using the word 'liberal' almost as a curse word, which makes debating difficult. Also, not being an American makes it difficult for me to understand the nuances of what you are saying.
Still, one of the basic principles of having a government, is that it should provide protection of the powerless against the powerful. That is why there is police and an army. That is why children are protected by special laws and why we take care of the young and the infirm if they have no other recourse. It is also why there are all kinds of laws protecting the individual from organisations (including the government itself).
It is possible to disagree on who is in need of protection, and against what. That is a cultural and political choice that people make. E.g. the extreme poverty of the great depression increased the desire people had to be protected against economic disaster, leading to Roosevelt's New Deal. The economic hausse in the 90s gave everybody the chance to earn a decent income, and thus decreased the desire for protection.
Neither is right or wrong. It is merely a case of differing opinions of to what degree altruism should be enforced by the government. At the one extreme you have pure marxism, where everything is owned by society and people are given what they need. At the other end you have extreme capitalism, where compassion with others ends with the profit you can make off of them. In truth people can not live in either extreme so any society needs to strike a certain balance between a desire for security and a desire for independence.
Eri
Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-21-2005, 06:26 PM
You are using the word 'liberal' almost as a curse word
Of course it is.
Anyone who glibly and smugly wants to take my labor and give to someone who does not work(and does not want to work) deserves cursing. It demands it. It requires it.
It deserves a good spit, too.
You are lucky that I am a good little Social Contractor; because traditionally, stealing my time, liberties, and labor would require the exchange of small arms fire. ...I am a better shot than most Liberals.
Kalest MoonGlade
09-21-2005, 07:28 PM
Some welfare is good. The current state of welfare is a BS handout that need's to be tossed into the ocean with all the people on it. China has it right with limiting people on how many children they can have.
I have no problems for people on welfare who, are old and social security isn't enough (which it isn't), single mom's who are divorced and limited to 1 or 2 children, or people who are here as legal citizens.
It should not be the responisbility of the american people to take care of drug addicts, people that don't have respect for our laws (which includes work visa's and illegal immigration), and as Fyyr put it so well, people that can't keep there leg's closed.
Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-22-2005, 01:54 AM
Erianaiel,
If I forgot to mention it sooner....
Welcome.
(I love your posts btw).
/smile
Aidon
09-22-2005, 09:37 AM
That is the problem with liberals they think that taking is the same as giving.
It is an ideological difference which is as clear as black and white.
The problem with fiscal conservatives is that they think anyone less fortunate than they are is shiftless, stupid, lazy and unworthy of society's compassion.
The fact is a single parent with but one child could work two 2 minimum wage jobs and still fall beneath the poverty line.
Aidon
09-22-2005, 09:48 AM
If you can't find a job in your area, MOVE!
With what? They are poor. Are they supposed to put their chest of drawers on their back and hitch a ride for their family to a 'better' area and then hope they can find a job while they live under an overpass for a month while waiting for their first check?
If you can't find a job because you are dumb, tough sh1t outta luck.
Get more education. Go back to school, or stay in school the first time round.
And yet, we're reducing low interst federal student loan subsidies hand over fist, while the Republican Governor here in Ohio decided to release the limits on State tuition and our tuition has skyrocketted.
If you don't like the schools in your area, MOVE!
See above.
If you can't find a job because you are lazy, sorry I am lazy too, I can't help you.
Despite popular conservative belief the vast majority of those people requiring aid are not shiftless and lazy.
And stop fvcking, unless you want smart people who can control their reproductive tracts to start controlling yours, stop fvcking and expecting everyone else to care for your babies.
I'll agree with this...in theory. I rather suspect we'd have widely differing views on how to correct the situation, however.
I will take care of my friends and family. They will take care of me.
If only that were so for everyone in an unfortunate situation.
I don't know you, I don't like you, stop fvcking and wanting me to take care of someone else's kids. I already have enough resentment about my end of the Social Contract, don't breach your end and spite me at the same time.
There is a cost for your freedom to hold those less fortunate than yourself in distain. The alternative is that those with nothing rise up against those with no compassion for their plight.
There is nothing in my Social Contract which says that I have to support your second or third illegitimate bastards. If you are too stupid to keep your legs crossed the second time, maybe you need your tubes tied.
If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.
Again, I agree with this, in theory (except the tube tying suggestion)
Aidon
09-22-2005, 09:54 AM
Of course it is.
Anyone who glibly and smugly wants to take my labor and give to someone who does not work(and does not want to work) deserves cursing. It demands it. It requires it.
It deserves a good spit, too.
You are lucky that I am a good little Social Contractor; because traditionally, stealing my time, liberties, and labor would require the exchange of small arms fire. ...I am a better shot than most Liberals.
Conversely anyone willing to let his fellow countrymen starve or work for wages far insufficient to support himself and his family deserves to be taken out back and beaten with the hose.
And Uncle Sam (and Id Software) taught this liberal how to pick people off at 800 meters just about every time.
Panamah
09-22-2005, 10:25 AM
As far as poor people having children, I agree. Its a problem. But with the current government, and popular religions, being against birth control, sex education, and abortion, what can you do? Some of these women become mothers in high school... in fact, lots of them do. Really hard to break out of the cycle of poverty when you've got a kid, no education, no partner. I really have to salute how many of these women work their butts sometimes to get educated and try to get a better life for their kids.
I think the solution for poverty is making it harder to fail. Make it easier to get a good education, make it easier to not have children until later in life, make it easier to be healthy so you can work, make it easier to find work that pays decently -- and I think a part of that means stopping illegal immigration, because wages for low skilled labor gets depressed and competition for those sorts of jobs is high.
In some ways, I think Katrina shone the spotlight onto the real moral outrage in this country, that we've been doing so little in the last 40 years to help our own poor. That no one really gives a damn about them anymore and our national priorities suck when we can turn a blind eye to that and go "liberate" another country and give millions (billions?) to OIL companies in one of the hugest corporate welfare schemes ever devised. How about liberating our own poor people?
Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-23-2005, 02:32 AM
[QUOTE]The problem with fiscal conservatives is that they think anyone less fortunate than they are is shiftless, stupid, lazy and unworthy of society's compassion.
I do not think that way.
The fact is a single parent with but one child could work two 2 minimum wage jobs and still fall beneath the poverty line.
So, he or she should have thought about that before having the kid. I had to. She should not have gotten pregnant in the first place.
Dude, I don't know who you know who is poor. But I am poor, and many of my friends are poor. Many of them are on public assistance. Your image of paint peeling water dripping rooms and starving children is not what poor people are like. It is not like that. Working poor have nice ****, compared to no ****.
Maybe she should think about getting a different job that pays more if she does not like the one she has, or needs more money. That is what everyone else has to do.
I have a girl friend who I met at WalMart last year, she makes 10 bucks an hour, CSM. She has one boy. She has a nice 2 bedroom apartment. She is my karaoke partner and she is able to blow a hundred bucks on drinks for me if she wishes(has twice in two weeks). She's got video games, a 17 inch laptop, a new home entertainment setup, and a fully stocked bar. She and her son are not starving with roaches and mildew on the dripping ceiling.
I don't know were the poor live that you think of when you think of people who are poor, but I entirely suggest to them that they MOVE!
Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-23-2005, 02:34 AM
And Uncle Sam (and Id Software) taught this liberal how to pick people off at 800 meters just about every time.
I know that you got just enough Libertarian in you, that when the Revolution comes, I want you on my side.
heehe
ps, I am only scoped out to 400 yards.
Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-23-2005, 02:43 AM
With what? They are poor. Are they supposed to put their chest of drawers on their back and hitch a ride for their family to a 'better' area and then hope they can find a job while they live under an overpass for a month while waiting for their first check?
Ya, I have friends who have done that.
And yet, we're reducing low interst federal student loan subsidies hand over fist, while the Republican Governor here in Ohio decided to release the limits on State tuition and our tuition has skyrocketted.
Education is one of the areas where spending is ACTUALLY an investment. Society inherently becomes better when people become smarter. Amoung all the spending a government can do, this is the one that turns a profit. It makes much more for that society than it costs.
Despite popular conservative belief the vast majority of those people requiring aid are not shiftless and lazy.
No, you just don't take into consideration that some people just can't get better jobs. You can't force employers to hire people for which the are not skilled or literate enough to do the work.
If only that were so for everyone in an unfortunate situation.
There is nothing wrong with BOOTSTRAPS and LEG-UPS,,,everyone needs them. But when they have become multi-birth or multi-generational, then there needs to be a stop-gap built into the system.
There is a cost for your freedom to hold those less fortunate than yourself in distain. The alternative is that those with nothing rise up against those with no compassion for their plight.
I am poor, but I recognize that I will not always be such. They need to stay in school, they need to go to school, they need to get better jobs, or make for themselves better jobs if they want to get ahead.
Again, I agree with this, in theory (except the tube tying suggestion)
In all likelihood I know more people like this than you do. I have coffee with them.
Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-23-2005, 03:00 AM
As far as poor people having children, I agree. Its a problem. But with the current government, and popular religions, being against birth control, sex education, and abortion, what can you do?
1) Develop further oocyte crygenics technology and banks.
2) Make the abortion pills free for the taking.
3) Make the morning after pill free for the taking.
4) Tubal ligation should be free for the asking.
Tubal ligation is not a permanant procedure. It is reversible. When the woman decides that she is financial viable enough to sustain rearing her children, then it should be reversed free of charge. She, and she alone, can and will be able to choose when she has children. Not nature, and not men.
Aidon
09-23-2005, 10:05 AM
Ya, I have friends who have done that.
I can see a single person, or even a married couple doing that, but to ask a family with children to do so is a cold, evil thing.
Education is one of the areas where spending is ACTUALLY an investment. Society inherently becomes better when people become smarter. Amoung all the spending a government can do, this is the one that turns a profit. It makes much more for that society than it costs.
No, you just don't take into consideration that some people just can't get better jobs. You can't force employers to hire people for which the are not skilled or literate enough to do the work.
That's why education should be free at a national level (with reasonable restrictions..can't have the Gov. paying for Mr. Career Student to get 7 degrees). Every person in America should be able to get a 2 or 4 year degree on the Gov. dole.
Further, as part of unemployment, there should be Gov. subsidized retraining/schooling. When Bob the Millworker is out of work because CAFTA sent his job to Guatamala, if he can't find another Millworking job...part of his severence/unemployment package and benefits should include retraining in another field. That won't help everyone (you can retrain all you want, at age 50 you are pretty well screwed if you need to find a new job in a new field).
In all likelihood I know more people like this than you do. I have coffee with them.
Perhaps, but I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't so.
Panamah
09-23-2005, 01:01 PM
The cheapeast way to get women to stop having children is to educate the hell out of them. They get good jobs, find fulfilling work and they don't want to have 16 children.
Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-23-2005, 06:55 PM
The cheapeast way to get women to stop having children is to educate the hell out of them. They get good jobs, find fulfilling work and they don't want to have 16 children.
The cost of all but 1(the first) of my 4 solutions are actually extremely inexpensive.
The cost of the pills are really really cheap. A few dollars parts cost.
The cost of the tubal ligation is less than one months food stamps.
Spend the money on educations, absolutely. But if she finds some college boy/man and wants to, how can I say this delicately, assure his commitment to her for 18 years,,,my solutions provide the stop gap for that behavior as well.
Some of the most stupid behavior I have ever seen from grown-ups was at college. Going to university, in and of itself, does not mean that babies are not being conceived there, prematurely.
Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-23-2005, 06:56 PM
Every person in America should be able to get a 2 or 4 year degree on the Gov. dole.
Yes.
Lobenderbaum
09-28-2005, 09:52 PM
Now that I'm above the median income by a stretch, I actually don't pay much more in taxes (in total amount the gov't keeps) than I did before. My income has more than quintupled, but the amount of money the gov't keeps of mine is still about the same.
Guess what? I don't need that money now. I needed it back when I was broke. But because of Bush's tax cuts, and some prudent loophole using, the gov't isn't getting as much from me (expressed as a total percentage of my income) as they were before. Before they were getting about 8% of my gross income. Now it's under 2%.
If you really want to pay more taxes, the IRS will not stop you. In fact you can actually donate money to the general fund without revealing your identity. It is generally reffered to as the IRS Guilt Fund. I encourage everyone reading this who makes too much money to either do that or just help someone out who needs it.
As far as earmarking money for the gov't, don't even try. That is what charities are for. They are generally more effective then the Gov't is at helping people. Wouldn't you rather help people than an organization whose guiding principle on money management is: "If you have any money spend it. If you don't have any money, spend it anyway."??
Lobenderbaum
09-28-2005, 10:13 PM
China has it right with limiting people on how many children they can have.
Then you must agree that China, being the world LEADER in sucidies among women (per capita) is also "having it right". Forced abortions is a good idea too? China has almost nothing right. Occasionally they will notcie an American they can use as a tool as they have done in relatively recent memory (my memory may be longer than yours). But don't let that persuade you to start singing their praises about anything.
Tinsi
09-28-2005, 10:42 PM
The wealthy already pay the most taxes.
Every time I hear this (well, read this), it makes me shake my head and think "You say that like 1. it's a surprise and 2. it's a BAD thing - who else should be paying most?"
vBulletin v3.0.0, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.