Why not declare a war against...

[Cactus Jack]

[iceman5]

"iceman, there was a study done by two Chicago sociologists a few years ago that drew a direct connection to a falling crime rate coinciding with the Rowe v. Wade decision."

Are you saying that crime dropped after abortions were legallized? If so then you just proved my point. Less kids..less crime..less poverty. Even moreso about less unwanted kids.

[Jarren]

[Cactus Jack]

[Dumb Snowman]

[Cactus Jack]

In the early 80's, I read a book by Wm. P. Simon, former Treasury Sec. under Ford--a very solid conservative Republican--entitled A Time for Truth. An amazing book by an amazing guy.

He said that if you were to give the INCREASE in the budgeted amount for poverty programs, the amount of money that had grown from the original funding, it would amount to $4,000 for each man, woman and child living in poverty. That would be $32,000/yr for a family of 4. That was in 1980 (approx.) In 1980, $32k would buy you a pretty good house! God knows what that amount would be now! Trust me, there would be NO poor people if the money budgeted to poverty programs were given directly to the people the programs were "supposed" to help.

His point in the book was that "income distribution" which we hear so much about--"tax the rich and feed the poor"--is actually a transfer of wealth from the upper and lower classes to the middle class. He submitted that the great percentage of those receiving a governement check--60% of the ENTIRE working population--was middle class. It was a revelation to me that still reverberates a quarter of a century later in me.

I'd revise his statement, now, adding a bureaucratic class in place of middle-class, as the middle-class outside of those receiving government largesse has largely disappeared.

Numbers. Or "lies, damn lies, and statistics." It's easy to see numbers and think you know what the numbers mean. While the numbers are accurate but the conclusions are flawed. We have spent more and more on poverty programs without reducing the number of poor people. Most of the money flows to the bureaucratic class. This is not what anyone but they had in mind. The question is, who is They? If you can answer that one, you have named the enemy of the people...ALL of the people outside of Them.

CJ

[Jarren]

Snowman, I didn't realize that they had a lot of those programs.

I have been poor, very poor, in my life but never used government aid, I just worked my ass off to get not so poor

However i still think the system is flawed and that there should be consequences to abusing it, at the very least being cut off.

[iceman5]

[Jarren]

[iceman5]

your not saying people can't have kids, your saying people on welfare can't get benefits unless they conform to our terms.

Exactly. And given the study that CJ cited which I didnt even know about, I would say my idea is pretty damned good.

[Molina]

I don't know where I heard this, it might be BTP though I think it was elsewhere, but apparently there is a measurable effect of the Roe vs Wade case. That is, people who are pro-choice are obviously more likely to have abortions and as a result, less children. Pro-lifers obviously do not have abortions.

Since children often (somewhat disturbingly IMO) have the same general values and 'big opinions' there are likely to be greater proportions of pro lifers in each successive generation.

Now I'm aware that measuring any kind of public opinion is bloody difficult in terms of accuracy, however whatever I read noted that since the initial ruling in the 70's pro-life supporters have increased in numbers.

Then again I've spoken to a few Americans in the past and they've passed on tales of ridiculously emotive, shocking and graphic school lessons that have 'discussed' the pro life/choice camps.

Molina

EDIT - maybe this Roe vs Wade effect is pretty well known in the US, but as a Brit I found it pretty interesting when I heard about it a while ago

[Stoneburg]

Here's a funny thing... which isn't really that funny. We have a simmilar discussion here in Sweden. Our right wing parties like to talk about people who are cheating the welfare system. Nothing new really, it's always been a popular strategy to attack the weakest groups. The way they talk about these welfare cheaters you'd think they make up.. what? 50% of the welfare money? 25%? At least 10-20% right? Turns out it's more like 1-2%. So because 1-2% of the money is going to cheaters we should stop giving everyone help?

The figures may be different in the US, maybe you can find some reliable, non-partisan numbers on it. Maybe it's twice as many cheaters in the US! Maybe it's five times as many! It would still not even amount to 10%, so would that really be such a huge problem?

I don't know about you, but it makes ME ask why are we hearing so much about this? Who stands to gain from building an opinion against people on welfare, making them out to be cheaters and parasites even though 99% of them are entitled to the help they're getting? Worth to think about? I know I was taught critical thinking in school...

And yep, I'm a socialist. I like the idea of public schools, I think we all benefit from everyone having the opportunity to learn to read and write. I'm also a huge fan of the idea that everyone should be able to go to a hospital when they get sick or injured, whether they have money or not. If you agree you're at least a little bit socialist too. It's more like a sliding scale. I wouldn't want everything to be owned collectively, but I do like the idea of a democratic society having control over the most important parts of the infrastructure. I don't mind buying a sandwhich or a car from a businessman, but I don't want Ken Lay taking care of me when I get sick.

[emmasdad]

[Stoneburg]

[MVPSPORTS]

He prolly got 1000 hardons stealin everyones money... then blew a gasket when he had to take a pill to get it up for the ole wifey...

As Stone said... good riddance to bad rubbish...