PDA

View Full Version : Rise in teenage pregnancy


noonereal
01-26-2010, 05:57 PM
After a 20 year drop in teen pregnancy rates, the rates are now rising.
It is believed that the rise of the religious right and there "abstinence only" approach is responsible.
What do you think?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012503957.html?hpid=topnews

finnbow
01-26-2010, 06:47 PM
It is believed that the rise of the religious right and there "abstinence only" approach is responsible.

I have the sneaking suspicion that the "horizontal tango" may have been involved.:D

HatchetJack
01-26-2010, 07:13 PM
Hell they need to read the labels

Government warning (1) Women should not drink alcoholic beverages because of the risk
of pregnancy

Fast_Eddie
01-26-2010, 09:10 PM
It is believed that the rise of the religious right and there "abstinence only" approach is responsible.

2005 and 2006- you think? Like so many policies from that era, it was bad for America, but they felt superior for doing it! Woo hoo! Why hasn't Obama fixed this yet! His fault now! Throw him out!

Boreas
01-26-2010, 09:47 PM
"The cause of the increase is the subject of debate. Several experts blamed the increase in teen pregnancies on sex-education programs that focus on encouraging abstinence. Others said the reversal could be due to a variety of factors, including an increase in poverty, an influx of Hispanics and complacency about AIDS, prompting lax use of birth control such as condoms."

"Influx of Hispanics?"

Man, these nativists get their licks in everywhere now.

John

Fast_Eddie
01-26-2010, 11:09 PM
Yeah. It's the Hispanics. And the blacks. If it wasn't for the Hispanics and the blacks America would be perfect. And the Jews, of course. The Hispanics, blacks and Jews. Oh, the Muslims. That goes without saying. Don't need them. If it was just a country of whites... well, the fucking Catholics. We don't need them. And the liberals...

BlueStreak
01-27-2010, 12:04 AM
It wasn't me! I never touched that lying little bitch!:D

Dave

BlueStreak
01-27-2010, 12:07 AM
After a 20 year drop in teen pregnancy rates, the rates are now rising.
It is believed that the rise of the religious right and there "abstinence only" approach is responsible.
What do you think?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012503957.html?hpid=topnews

Of course "abstinence" is to blame. Telling teenages not to have or even think about sex, is as good as telling them not to have pimples or mood swings.

Dave

BlueStreak
01-27-2010, 12:10 AM
"The cause of the increase is the subject of debate. Several experts blamed the increase in teen pregnancies on sex-education programs that focus on encouraging abstinence. Others said the reversal could be due to a variety of factors, including an increase in poverty, an influx of Hispanics and complacency about AIDS, prompting lax use of birth control such as condoms."

"Influx of Hispanics?"

Man, these nativists get their licks in everywhere now.

John


And what really makes me nuts is that they even call themselves "nativists" when they are of European descent. There is only one race in this country that can truly call themselves "natives". And guess what? They AREN'T white.

Dave

BlueStreak
01-27-2010, 12:12 AM
Yeah. It's the Hispanics. And the blacks. If it wasn't for the Hispanics and the blacks America would be perfect. And the Jews, of course. The Hispanics, blacks and Jews. Oh, the Muslims. That goes without saying. Don't need them. If it was just a country of whites... well, the fucking Catholics. We don't need them. And the liberals...

Of course, Ed. Haven't you realized by now, that everytime something fucked up happens, it HAD to someone other than a WASP that did it? Geez, where is your mind?:confused:

Dave

Writewing
01-27-2010, 01:19 AM
Why is anyone to blame for stupid horny kids doing stupid horny activities?
I think its pretty small minded to blame a group that said avoiding sex was the best way to eliminate both pregnancy and disease because it pure and simple is the only affective way. Its stupid kids, bad parents, the breakdown of the nuclear family, pop culture and many other things so to say a message of saying dont have sex is to blame is in my opinion a whistle past the graveyard attitude. Girls dress like whores, rap music says sex is great, television shows show a teenager far too much adult material, the internet is not monitored and on down the list it goes but many say the single biggest thing is somebody saying "wait till your older, married, more mature" is the true problem?.....................bullshit.

Boreas
01-27-2010, 01:33 AM
:confused:

Dave

Do you want to be called George or Eric now? ;)

John

Grumpy
01-27-2010, 03:24 AM
Its been a while, but im gonna disagree with you. I think its because of bad parents.

d-ray657
01-27-2010, 06:16 AM
Kids (and adults) receive so many conflicting messages today that it is difficult to filter things out. Sex sells products, pervades entertainment, and is losing much of its intimacy. While my sons have a more modern view than their old fashioned parents, even they are incredulous about the concept of "friends with benefits." I think sex education should have a balanced approach. It is the parent's role to impart the moral perspective on sex (and the more practical details as well) Sex education programs should provide information on the physiological and emotional risks present with under age sex, and stress that the risks are even greater with unprotected sex. Wouldn't it also be great for sex education to include lessons on how separate the sex used to sell a product with the actual merits of the product.

Regards,

D-Ray

rickr15
01-27-2010, 07:06 AM
[QUOTE=noonereal;17785]After a 20 year drop in teen pregnancy rates, the rates are now rising.
It is believed that the rise of the religious right and there "abstinence only" approach is responsible.
What do you think?



Blaming a political party for teenagers humping sounds about as silly as any theory I've heard yet. Sounds more like a hormone and parenting issue.

noonereal
01-27-2010, 07:13 AM
[QUOTE=noonereal;17785]After a 20 year drop in teen pregnancy rates, the rates are now rising.
It is believed that the rise of the religious right and there "abstinence only" approach is responsible.
What do you think?



Blaming a political party for teenagers humping sounds about as silly as any theory I've heard yet. Sounds more like a hormone and parenting issue.

Like it or not it does seem to be the reason. Education makes a difference.

merrylander
01-27-2010, 07:17 AM
As the friendly neighbourhood WASP I agree with the hrizontal tango as the cause.

Fast_Eddie
01-27-2010, 09:00 AM
Blaming a political party for teenagers humping sounds about as silly as any theory I've heard yet.

Interesting post. I agree. I think most here would agree.

But if you look back, the thread and the story are not about teenagers having sex. It's about teen pregnancy. We all know that isn't the same thing. But your post is very interesting in that you're employing a strategy that politicians use all the time to mess with us. You're subtly but significantly changing the subject, making it look as if the rest of us are making an absurd argument by mischaracterizing the argument we're making.

It's effective rhetoric as has been demonstrated again and again. Unfortunately, it's not very productive. It is by definition an effort to avoid the issue and that never leads to a solution. We've seen this in the health care debate. No one wants huge, government run health care and no one wants costs to go up. So opponents attack those things rather than the acual plan being proposed.

Take care,

Ed

finnbow
01-27-2010, 09:02 AM
As usual, Rob and I are right with the "horizontal tango" attribution.:D I think the assertion of "abstinence only education" being the cause is just as shallow as any other attribution of cause based on political ideology. Anytime there is an uptick or downtick in some statistic, both sides see it as an opportunity to assign blame. Until there's some sort of regression analysis evaluating results of the various types of sex education, while holding all other variables constant, this is nothing but political rock-throwing. I would like to be able to attribute it to a single factor, particularly one as misguided as the "teaching abstinence," but it can't be done.

doucanoe
01-27-2010, 09:05 AM
AIDS is on the rise again also. What are we going to attribute this to?

RC

finnbow
01-27-2010, 09:06 AM
AIDS is on the rise again also. What are we going to attribute this to?

RC

Unprotected sex and IV drug use. Other than that, it's all speculation.

Fast_Eddie
01-27-2010, 09:16 AM
AIDS is on the rise again also. What are we going to attribute this to?

RC

Clearly Reagan's fault.

doucanoe
01-27-2010, 09:17 AM
Unprotected sex and IV drug use. Other than that, it's all speculation.


Drop the IV drug use and I think we have the answer to why teen pregnancy is on the rise.

RC

Fast_Eddie
01-27-2010, 09:18 AM
As usual, Rob and I are right with the "horizontal tango" attribution.:D I think the assertion of "abstinence only education" being the cause is just as shallow as any other attribution of cause based on political ideology. Anytime there is an uptick or downtick in some statistic, both sides see it as an opportunity to assign blame. Until there's some sort of regression analysis evaluating results of the various types of sex education, while holding all other variables constant, this is nothing but political rock-throwing. I would like to be able to attribute it to a single factor, particularly one as misguided as the "teaching abstinence," but it can't be done.

You make your point well. I guess I have to agree to a point. The right answer is "we don't have enough information to say". But I would stop short of saying there is no merrit in the argument that changes in education didn't have any effect. It's a reasonable conclusion, but one that is not supported by any additional information.

Hey, what do you know? Maybe the answer isn't at either extreme but somewhere in the middle. Couldn't be, could it?

rickr15
01-27-2010, 09:18 AM
Clearly Reagan's fault.

Nancy or Ron?

Fast_Eddie
01-27-2010, 09:19 AM
Nancy or Ron?

[D] All of the above.

doucanoe
01-27-2010, 09:20 AM
Clearly Reagan's fault.

Yup, it's gotta be that. It only makes sense ;)


RC

Boreas
01-27-2010, 09:25 AM
AIDS is on the rise again also. What are we going to attribute this to?

RC

In one sentence? ;)

John

doucanoe
01-27-2010, 09:27 AM
In one sentence? ;)

John


That might be a tall order indeed :)

RC

noonereal
01-27-2010, 11:49 AM
As usual, Rob and I are right with the "horizontal tango" attribution.:D I think the assertion of "abstinence only education" being the cause is just as shallow as any other attribution of cause based on political ideology. Anytime there is an uptick or downtick in some statistic, both sides see it as an opportunity to assign blame. Until there's some sort of regression analysis evaluating results of the various types of sex education, while holding all other variables constant, this is nothing but political rock-throwing. I would like to be able to attribute it to a single factor, particularly one as misguided as the "teaching abstinence," but it can't be done.

I don't know if the change in sex undercation under Bush should be minimized.
I agree that there is no way to be sure what the primary factors in the rise are but it does seem more than just partisan banter.
Our "culture" was shifted backward under Bush and it absolutely has a dramatic effects on many things. My guess is that this would be one. Clearly fewer kids would not have been a likely result of his social policies.

noonereal
01-27-2010, 11:50 AM
AIDS is on the rise again also. What are we going to attribute this to?

RC

seems to me a cultural shift away from free needles and protected shift would have a negative effect

noonereal
01-27-2010, 11:52 AM
Unprotected sex and IV drug use. Other than that, it's all speculation.

I had not read this when I posted.

it's not a coincidence.

noonereal
01-27-2010, 11:53 AM
Yup, it's gotta be that. It only makes sense ;)


RC

what do you think the reason may be?

rickr15
01-27-2010, 12:14 PM
I don't know if the change in sex undercation under Bush should be minimized.
I agree that there is no way to be sure what the primary factors in the rise are but it does seem more than just partisan banter.
Our "culture" was shifted backward under Bush and it absolutely has a dramatic effects on many things. My guess is that this would be one. Clearly fewer kids would not have been a likely result of his social policies.

I don't see how his policys make a difference one way or the other. Most kids today know what causes pregnancy by 10 or younger.

You have Jr. high school girls dressing like pole dancers and videos showing how great sex is. What the hell do think is gonna happen?

I suspect a lot more pregnancys happened back in the good old days than were ever let on about. You all know "Susie" who went away for awhile to stay with relatives in Denver. Hormones and sex have been going on long before there was ever a Republican party to blame. Will still be long after.

finnbow
01-27-2010, 12:21 PM
I don't know if the change in sex undercation under Bush should be minimized.
I agree that there is no way to be sure what the primary factors in the rise are but it does seem more than just partisan banter.
Our "culture" was shifted backward under Bush and it absolutely has a dramatic effects on many things. My guess is that this would be one. Clearly fewer kids would not have been a likely result of his social policies.

I agree wholeheartedly BTW that Bush's assistance to Africa for AIDS prevention being contingent upon an "abstinence" message was immorality in the guise of morality. As for abstinence education being a causal factor for increased pregnancies, I'm unconvinced. I'd like to believe in this negative relationship in that it comports with my feelings about the moralistic wing of the GOP, but I think the issue is way too complex to assert primacy for any of its causal factors.

Grumpy
01-27-2010, 12:22 PM
Its on the rise cause they are paying more then ever per kid. Its way of life, to a crap load of people..

rickr15
01-27-2010, 12:23 PM
Its on the rise cause they are paying more then ever per kid. Its way of life, to a crap load of people..

You mean the 3rd generation proffesionals?

Boreas
01-27-2010, 12:24 PM
The reasons are almost certainly complex but an important first step in figuring this out is to look at what has changed in our society contemporaneously with the changing teen pregnancy rate. I would submit that three major contributors are:

1. Ignoring "safe sex" education in favor of abstinence only. When you fail to teach kids the proper ways to be safe in their sexual encounters (after all, why bother if they're not going to have sex in the first place) they are totally unprepared when hormones and emotion get the upper hand on indoctrination. A high percentage of adolescents have always and will always experiment with sex. Abstinence only education will not change that.

2. The social disruption and dislocation brought about by our economic crisis. Ad our economy has worsened over the last several decades financial instability has created huge amounts of stress in our families. This introduces an element of instability which takes a toll on family cohesion and the nurturing and teaching of children by their parents. Too busy, too tired, too stressed. Leave it to the schools and churches.

3. The coarsening of our culture. People are rapidly losing the ability to relate to one another with respect and dignity. We hate those who are not like us or who don't think/believe as we do and are far from shy about communicating that in the most contemptuous of ways. We dismiss, ridicule and condemn those with whom we differ with cheap and vicious attacks. this is "top to bottom". Our leaders and mentors show each other nothing but contempt. Why should we treat them any differently? When they tell us about safe sex or abstinence why should we pay any heed to it?

John

noonereal
01-27-2010, 12:37 PM
Its on the rise cause they are paying more then ever per kid. Its way of life, to a crap load of people..

sorry Grumpy but this is a very stereotyped invalid post.

out of character as well

Grumpy
01-27-2010, 12:47 PM
Not as out of character as you may think. Now remember I did not accuse one race or another with my statement above. I think all races are pretty damn guilty of suckling off that tit for way too long.

And again before I am lumped in to the uncaring, racist catagory, know that I am not preaching the cutting off of assistance. Far from it. They should be training and educating these people and mandating a cut off date for the free rides they have been on. Not to mention mandatory drug testing.

Unlimited public assistance has done nothing but bred generations who know how to do nothing else.

doucanoe
01-27-2010, 12:50 PM
what do you think the reason may be?


I blame Magic Johnson. ;) That may not be as far off as it sounds actually. Magic and many others with the aid of advanced HIV meds are not dying like they were initially. I would have to believe that the less talk about it along with the seeming drop in AIDS infection (US) and individuals infected living longer, make people do what they are unfortunately prone to do.

1) Convince themselves that the risk no longer exists or has been greatly reduced.
2) Reinforces the belief that AIDS is something that happens to others and not themselves.

As far as Teen pregnancy goes,the whole notion that some emphasize abstinence has pushed up the rate is ridiculous IMO. If you are going to accept that, you might as well add the damaging effects of the images and situations presented on TV/cable and rewarding teens having babies financially as being a contributing factors also.

RC

finnbow
01-27-2010, 12:53 PM
I think the most valid point made in the whole article is:

"It could be a lot of things coming together," said Rebecca Maynard, a professor of economics and social policy at the University of Pennsylvania. "It could be we just bottomed out, and whenever you are at the bottom, it tends to wiggle around. This may or may not be a sustained rise."

The rate jumped 3% (in 2006). It's not clear to me that this variation is statistically significant enough for any grand assertions to be floated. It dropped every year from 1990-2005. If any of our hypotheses are correct, why did the rates continue to drop for the first 5 years of Bush before bumping up? Why did the drop under Clinton and continue to drop for 5 years under Bush when their respective stances on "abstinence only education" were quite different? Opinion makers should have the "balls" to admit they don't yet know what the deal is, rather than slinging mud at the other side at the first sign of a blip in the statistical curve.

noonereal
01-27-2010, 12:58 PM
Not as out of character as you may think. Now remember I did not accuse one race or another with my statement above. I think all races are pretty damn guilty of suckling off that tit for way too long.

And again before I am lumped in to the uncaring, racist catagory, know that I am not preaching the cutting off of assistance. Far from it. They should be training and educating these people and mandating a cut off date for the free rides they have been on. Not to mention mandatory drug testing.

Unlimited public assistance has done nothing but bred generations who know how to do nothing else.

I never said anything about race. I was thinking of the stereotyping that is routinely done of the poor. Anyway, I do not see them as sucking on the tit way to long. I have never met a person on government assistance who was happy about it. The key is indeed education, here we agree.
I don't see it as a free ride as life on welfare is hell.
I would never support mandatory drug tests. I just don't see how one human can set standards for another.
What has "breed" generations of folks needing assistance is not because life is so good on public assistance.

noonereal
01-27-2010, 01:02 PM
As far as Teen pregnancy goes,the whole notion that some emphasize abstinence has pushed up the rate is ridiculous IMO.

we can disagree and get along. ;)

If you are going to accept that, you might as well add the damaging effects of the images and situations presented on TV/cable and rewarding teens having babies financially as being a contributing factors also.

RC

I agree. When you see the Palin kid making a six figure income just for getting knocked up you have to wonder what went wrong in society.

noonereal
01-27-2010, 01:03 PM
I think the most valid point made in the whole article is:

"It could be a lot of things coming together," said Rebecca Maynard, a professor of economics and social policy at the University of Pennsylvania. "It could be we just bottomed out, and whenever you are at the bottom, it tends to wiggle around. This may or may not be a sustained rise."

The rate jumped 3% (in 2006). It's not clear to me that this variation is statistically significant enough for any grand assertions to be floated. It dropped every year from 1990-2005. If any of our hypotheses are correct, why did the rates continue to drop for the first 5 years of Bush before bumping up? Why did the drop under Clinton and continue to drop for 5 years under Bush when their respective stances on "abstinence only education" were quite different? Opinion makers should have the "balls" to admit they don't yet know what the deal is, rather than slinging mud at the other side at the first sign of a blip in the statistical curve.


agree, but certainly it is rational to think Bush policy has contributed.

Boreas
01-27-2010, 01:04 PM
I suspect a lot more pregnancys happened back in the good old days than were ever let on about. You all know "Susie" who went away for awhile to stay with relatives in Denver.

True but that stopped in the '60s. The "Sexual Revolution" reduced the stigmatization of the "unwed mother" so that very few were concealed by locking girls away until they gave birth.*

The thing we're seeing her is an increase in the last couple of decades, not the last half century.

*Catholic Ireland being the exception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_Asylum

John

doucanoe
01-27-2010, 01:06 PM
I agree. When you see the Palin kid making a six figure income just for getting knocked up you have to wonder what went wrong in society.

I don't know anything about that but I will say this, the world is a much bigger place than Palin's kid. When it's all said and done, even though you seem to be obsessed by it, I don't think the teen population at large is paying that close attention ;)

RC

finnbow
01-27-2010, 01:08 PM
agree, but certainly it is gratifying to think Bush policy has contributed.

Fixed it for ya. :D BTW, I'm guilty as well.

Boreas
01-27-2010, 01:08 PM
As far as Teen pregnancy goes,the whole notion that some emphasize abstinence has pushed up the rate is ridiculous IMO.

RC

Okay, why? Several of us have attempted to explain why this is part of the problem. Now come on and do the same from your side.

I think you Righties ought to watch the Monty Python "Argument Clinic" sketch. ;)

John

noonereal
01-27-2010, 01:09 PM
Fixed it for ya. :D BTW, I'm guilty as well.

lol....

noonereal
01-27-2010, 01:12 PM
I don't know anything about that but I will say this, the world is a much bigger place than Palin's kid. When it's all said and done, even though you seem to be obsessed by it, I don't think the teen population at large is paying that close attention ;)

RC

Hard to not be aware.
The GOP through Sarah and her brood tried to redefine what a respected American family and their values were.
This acceptance of failed parenting is not my idea of family values.


and kids do notice.

doucanoe
01-27-2010, 01:12 PM
Okay, why? Several of us have attempted to explain why this is part of the problem. Now come on and do the same from your side.

I think you Righties ought to watch the Monty Python "Argument Clinic" sketch. ;)

John



Statistical ebb and flow. Glaciers and the climate in general do the same.

RC

Boreas
01-27-2010, 01:13 PM
If any of our hypotheses are correct, why did the rates continue to drop for the first 5 years of Bush before bumping up?

Gradual implementation of revised curricula to reflect Administration goals?

Pig through the python phenomenon as children improperly trained as pre- and early adolescents became sexually active?

John

noonereal
01-27-2010, 01:17 PM
Gradual implementation of revised curricula to reflect Administration goals?


John

just as with the economy

nothing turns on a dime

piece-itpete
01-27-2010, 01:20 PM
I'm surprised no one blamed the rotten filth we spoon feed the kids nowadays.

Or am I an old fuddy-duddy?

Pete

Boreas
01-27-2010, 01:29 PM
I'm surprised no one blamed the rotten filth we spoon feed the kids nowadays.

Or am I an old fuddy-duddy?

Pete

You mean things like BGH in McDonald's hamburgers that produces early onset puberty?

John

Grumpy
01-27-2010, 02:50 PM
I never said anything about race. I was thinking of the stereotyping that is routinely done of the poor. Anyway, I do not see them as sucking on the tit way to long. I have never met a person on government assistance who was happy about it. The key is indeed education, here we agree.
I don't see it as a free ride as life on welfare is hell.
I would never support mandatory drug tests. I just don't see how one human can set standards for another.
What has "breed" generations of folks needing assistance is not because life is so good on public assistance.


Have you ever stood behind someone in line at the grocery store and watched them pay with food stamps ? Not such an uncommon occurance.

Only to watch them get in to their brand new Caddy ? Happens to me damn near every time I go grocery shopping here. And this predates the economic meltdown by years.

Writewing
01-27-2010, 03:26 PM
Do we really think kids are only getting a "dont do it period" message? I doubt that kids are not being exposed to safe sex practice, with condoms, pills and other shots and such. to blame a message as a reason is just as silly as thinking that message would work.

Fast_Eddie
01-27-2010, 03:30 PM
Have you ever stood behind someone in line at the grocery store and watched them pay with food stamps ?

Yes, many times. Grew up in Brown County Ohio- lots of folks on food stamps.

Only to watch them get in to their brand new Caddy ?

Well, no. Never seen that. I have seen them walk several miles carrying bags because they didn't have a car. I'd give them a lift if I knew them.

Can't say I see food stapms often here in Denver, so it's been a few years. Maybe things are different than they were back then.

noonereal
01-27-2010, 03:31 PM
Only to watch them get in to their brand new Caddy ? Happens to me damn near every time I go grocery shopping here. And this predates the economic meltdown by years.

yes and it never bothered me.

not sure how it is relevant except that often people feel that in order to receive food stamps others should be near dead.

what bothers me is when that Caddy (usually a BMW or Mercedes) pulls into a handicapped parking spot and has no handicapped plates.

I know I should not but I always complment the driver on getting a great parking spot. :D

noonereal
01-27-2010, 03:32 PM
Do we really think kids are only getting a "dont do it period" message? I doubt that kids are not being exposed to safe sex practice, with condoms, pills and other shots and such. to blame a message as a reason is just as silly as thinking that message would work.

:confused:

Boreas
01-27-2010, 03:44 PM
I know I should not but I always complment the driver on getting a great parking spot. :D

I just smile at them as I walk by exaggerating my actual slight limp.

John

doucanoe
01-27-2010, 03:48 PM
My wife is a RN for a major health care provider. She see's first hand what this is all about and how the system works. For those who are just speculating or basing their opinion on what makes them feel good believing, I suggest they find a way to sit for a few of days at a Nurse Treatment station or even Triage. I believe they might come away with a little different view of things. I have, for a day anyway.

It would provide the ability to formulate an opinion (same or different) from a real life experience and not an Op-Ed piece written by whomever.

A dose of reality can change perception.

RC

Boreas
01-27-2010, 03:54 PM
A dose of reality can change perception.

RC

But the results aren't formulaic. I came away from my time in the Army with a much more egalitarian idea of race, ethnicity and social class. I know others who underwent much the same experience and came away with the exact opposite beliefs.

John

doucanoe
01-27-2010, 04:08 PM
But the results aren't formulaic. I came away from my time in the Army with a much more egalitarian idea of race, ethnicity and social class. I know others who underwent much the same experience and came away with the exact opposite beliefs.

John


I guess I should have been more clear. I wasn't referring to any of the above, just where we are at today in regard to how our what out ongoing social efforts have evolved into among other things.

You know, If I didn't know better, I might be offended by you assessment, John. But I do know better, right? ;)

RC

rickr15
01-27-2010, 04:11 PM
Yes, many times. Grew up in Brown County Ohio- lots of folks on food stamps.



Well, no. Never seen that. I have seen them walk several miles carrying bags because they didn't have a car. I'd give them a lift if I knew them.

Can't say I see food stapms often here in Denver, so it's been a few years. Maybe things are different than they were back then.

They don't give them stamps anymore. Too many were trading them for drugs. Now they get a debit card type deal.

noonereal
01-27-2010, 04:23 PM
My wife is a RN for a major health care provider. She see's first hand what this is all about and how the system works. For those who are just speculating or basing their opinion on what makes them feel good believing, I suggest they find a way to sit for a few of days at a Nurse Treatment station or even Triage. I believe they might come away with a little different view of things. I have, for a day anyway.

It would provide the ability to formulate an opinion (same or different) from a real life experience and not an Op-Ed piece written by whomever.

A dose of reality can change perception.

RC

Not sure how this fits into the thread. What are you saying.
(sorry if I am a bit slow following)

noonereal
01-27-2010, 04:26 PM
They don't give them stamps anymore. Too many were trading them for drugs. Now they get a debit card type deal.

methadone, food stamps and street drugs are (were) all bartered along with cash on the streets.


A bit off topiv but
the methadone program is a great example of a program that should be cut out completely.

rickr15
01-27-2010, 04:29 PM
what bothers me is when that Caddy (usually a BMW or Mercedes) pulls into a handicapped parking spot and has no handicapped plates.

:D

Get em a 250.00 ticket round these parts.

Boreas
01-27-2010, 04:33 PM
You know, If I didn't know better, I might be offended by you assessment, John. But I do know better, right? ;)

RC

I don't know why you would. (But then I've never really understood Republicans. ;)) All I'm saying is that people can look at the same set of facts and draw different conclusions. Prior experience colors perception. It wasn't addressed to any particular person or issue.

John

finnbow
01-27-2010, 05:31 PM
Have you ever stood behind someone in line at the grocery store and watched them pay with food stamps ? Not such an uncommon occurance.

Only to watch them get in to their brand new Caddy ? Happens to me damn near every time I go grocery shopping here. And this predates the economic meltdown by years.

How can this be? Reagan promised to get rid of "Welfare Queens."

doucanoe
01-27-2010, 07:30 PM
Not sure how this fits into the thread. What are you saying.
(sorry if I am a bit slow following)

Just kids having kids, kids having multiple kids, adults having kids, and more kids, and more kids. No fathers, multiple fathers, maybe even a known father, but they all have one thing in common, most are on the tit.

I have a very difficult time believing that discussing abstinence or providing truckloads of condoms would have much effect.


RC

noonereal
01-27-2010, 07:40 PM
Just kids having kids, kids having multiple kids, adults having kids, and more kids, and more kids. No fathers, multiple fathers, maybe even a known father, but they all have one thing in common, most are on the tit.

I have a very difficult time believing that discussing abstinence or providing truckloads of condoms would have much effect.


RC

thanks for breaking it down for me :)

If what you say istrue why would teen pregnancy rates have dropped so dramatically for 20 years then?
i think you sell sex education short

Grumpy
01-27-2010, 08:32 PM
How can this be? Reagan promised to get rid of "Welfare Queens."

He tried and then clinton helped do his part :)

d-ray657
01-27-2010, 09:34 PM
Do we really think kids are only getting a "dont do it period" message? I doubt that kids are not being exposed to safe sex practice, with condoms, pills and other shots and such. to blame a message as a reason is just as silly as thinking that message would work.

The dangerous message is the message that is not directly addressing pregnancy prevention. It is the message that having sex is like having a beer and if you drink the right brand of beer you will get plenty of sex, or if you use the right brand of cell phone, or shampoo, or car. Or on the sitcoms, Hey I met a nice girl, I guess we'll spend the night in bed. It's a way of making sure the next generation of consumers comes along.

Regards,

D-Ray

finnbow
01-27-2010, 09:46 PM
How about this for the flip side (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8469532.stm)?

Boreas
01-27-2010, 10:29 PM
How about this for the flip side (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8469532.stm)?

Pretty funny, all things considered.

John

merrylander
01-28-2010, 07:37 AM
Has anyone ever considered that the pre-occupation with sex that exists here might be part of the problem? If the country could get its collective nose out of its crotch things would be much better.

Grumpy
01-28-2010, 07:41 AM
Detroit HS drop out rate of 27%, while the national average is closer to 8%. Looks like kids are choosing to stay home and screw, and then screw the system, then screw you and me.

noonereal
01-28-2010, 07:54 AM
Detroit HS drop out rate of 27%, while the national average is closer to 8%. Looks like kids are choosing to stay home and screw, and then screw the system, then screw you and me.

Do you think the average drop out in Detroit sees school as a path to success?

If they did you could put a dent in the problem.

These kids are screwing themselves, not you or I. We owe them more than a fall back on welfare.

Grumpy
01-28-2010, 08:17 AM
We owe them nothing more then the opportunity to better themselves. Not one cent more.

noonereal
01-28-2010, 08:40 AM
then we strongly disagree

it's advantageous to the betterment of our society

in other words besides being ethically obliged it is economically prudent

doucanoe
01-28-2010, 09:17 AM
What might be more economically prudent would be to financially encourage abortion over payout for how many babies you can pump out with no possible means of supporting them. It may be more ethical also.

One again, in a effort to be compassionate and help people in the short term, we have successfully created lifestyles of poverty that span generations. You have to help people, but part of helping them up is to provide not only financial support, but a means for them to better their situation. We have not done that.

RC

Boreas
01-28-2010, 09:44 AM
What might be more economically prudent would be to financially encourage abortion over payout for how many babies you can pump out with no possible means of supporting them. It may be more ethical also.

One again, in a effort to be compassionate and help people in the short term, we have successfully created lifestyles of poverty that span generations. You have to help people, but part of helping them up is to provide not only financial support, but a means for them to better their situation. We have not done that.

RC

That would require the repeal of the Hyde Amendment. Plus the Republicans would never ever agree to it. Their base would desert them in seconds.

John

Grumpy
01-28-2010, 10:07 AM
I definitely do not favor abortion to save money but I think I understand your point.

BlueStreak
01-28-2010, 10:27 AM
I definitely do not favor abortion to save money but I think I understand your point.


Nor do I. +1.

Dave

finnbow
01-28-2010, 10:30 AM
I definitely do not favor abortion to save money but I think I understand your point.

+2. In that vein, the hard-core anti-abortion crowd doesn't seem to be lining up in the inner cities to adopt.

merrylander
01-28-2010, 10:36 AM
+2. In that vein, the hard-core anti-abortion crowd doesn't seem to be lining up in the inner cities to adopt.

Of course not, all they want is to have the child born, they don't give a tinker's dam what happens after that.:rolleyes:

doucanoe
01-28-2010, 11:23 AM
I definitely do not favor abortion to save money but I think I understand your point.

I believe you do also. Personally, I have my own opinions on abortion but by the same token, I support a womens right to choose. That might seem to some like a weak position to take, but thats as definitive as I get on abortion.

I also don't advocate abortion to save cash either but if you could remove the politics from it, doing so would solve a lot of social and economic problems.


Finnbow:

You right. I don't see anybody lining up either. For me, I find it humorous (in a sad way) that one group seems to champion the "social program" and Pro-choice yet provides no end game other than hand outs, while the other champions "personal responsibility" and Pro-life yet seemingly provides no solution as to what to do with the kids.

RC

d-ray657
01-28-2010, 11:51 AM
Noone and Grumpy, int posts 80 and 81, it looks like you are actually agreeing about what needs to be done, but are using different rhetoric to advocate it. It seems like you both agree that public assistance should include a way to escape from the cycle of poverty.

Doucanoe, that appears to be part of your theme too. Your post also looks like an excellent example of how politics interferes with pragmatic solutions to problems.

If we numbskulls on a internet bulletin board can begin to look beyond political dogma to find solutions, even if it means the sacrifice of a sacred cow here an there, why can't those who are professionals worth millions do that. Oh yeah, they are worth millions, and millions more when they leave office.

Regards,

D-Ray

noonereal
01-28-2010, 11:56 AM
One again, in a effort to be compassionate and help people in the short term, we have successfully created lifestyles of poverty that span generations.



I know I am cynical but isn't the main reason welfare is doled out to keep civil rest?

doucanoe
01-28-2010, 11:56 AM
That would require the repeal of the Hyde Amendment. Plus the Republicans would never ever agree to it. Their base would desert them in seconds.

John


I'm not so sure about that. The Republicans still have yet to define themselves. If they do as far right, it may be the dawning of a new era of relevant independent moderates that hold the opinions of the majority of Americans. If this happens, the extremes far left and right will be dumped in the trash can where they belong.

I don't believe you have as many Americans on your side of the fence as you believe you do, but keep the faith brother! :)


RC

rickr15
01-28-2010, 12:04 PM
+2. In that vein, the hard-core anti-abortion crowd doesn't seem to be lining up in the inner cities to adopt.

I know a couple attempting to adopt. It is neither a cheap nor simple process.
Although I understand the state has an obligation to ensure the child gets a good home I think that the social agencys also see these kids as an asset to keep their own funding up.

rickr15
01-28-2010, 12:17 PM
I live here in the land of the Mormons. I find they have an interesting form of welfare. No one has to go without ever.
The local deacon keeps a warehouse that they all contribute to. Any Mormon in need can get food ,clothing ,or cash.


However if you get any of those things you owe the church X amount of hours of service in return.

If Govt welfare was more like that you would have no families in need and all those people contributing something, anything as a payback for the hand out would not be such a drain on society.

Problem is too many just want the hand out.

Boreas
01-28-2010, 12:33 PM
I'm not so sure about that. The Republicans still have yet to define themselves. If they do as far right, it may be the dawning of a new era of relevant independent moderates that hold the opinions of the majority of Americans. If this happens, the extremes far left and right will be dumped in the trash can where they belong.

First off, I'm sorry to learn that you seem to believe views that differ markedly from your own deserve only to be discarded. That's a pretty intolerant and narrow minded position.

Secondly, the Republican position on abortion has been utterly consistent for years. The idea of them reversing themselves is, quite frankly, absurd. Their base, particularly the Christian Right, would correctly see it as a betrayal. As a result, the Republicans will never embrace any government involvement in the provision of abortion services. Never.

I don't believe you have as many Americans on your side of the fence as you believe you do, but keep the faith brother! :)

RC

You may believe you know how many Americans I believe are on my side of the fence but I don't believe you know how many I believe are on my side of the fence.

At least, that's what I believe. :rolleyes:

John

noonereal
01-28-2010, 12:37 PM
Problem is too many just want the hand out.

I hear this all the time but still have not meat one person who makes this statement true.

Life on welfare is just not as many believe has been my experiance.

noonereal
01-28-2010, 12:38 PM
You may believe you know how many Americans I believe are on my side of the fence but I don't believe you know how many I believe are on my side of the fence.

At least, that's what I believe. :rolleyes:

John

I belive it too brother. :D

Boreas
01-28-2010, 12:44 PM
I live here in the land of the Mormons. I find they have an interesting form of welfare. No one has to go without ever.
The local deacon keeps a warehouse that they all contribute to. Any Mormon in need can get food ,clothing ,or cash.

However if you get any of those things you owe the church X amount of hours of service in return.

This is a good thing. It would be a better thing, in my opinion, if the assistance were available to non-LDS folks. It might even be a recruitment tool for them. The LDS is very big on missionary work and proselytizing. If they were able to entice "gentiles" into their community service work they might find a lot of converts.

If Govt welfare was more like that you would have no families in need and all those people contributing something, anything as a payback for the hand out would not be such a drain on society.

Rather than volunteer work in exchange for charity, I've been in favor of a resurrection of the WPA for infrastructure projects, just like FDR did during the Great Depression. We could employ unemployed individuals in rebuilding existing infrastructure and also in creating new "green" infrastructure. People would have much needed work and gain marketable skills for later and our quality of life would be improved for generations.

John

doucanoe
01-28-2010, 01:06 PM
First off, I'm sorry to learn that you seem to believe views that differ markedly from your own deserve only to be discarded. That's a pretty intolerant and narrow minded position.

Secondly, the Republican position on abortion has been utterly consistent for years. The idea of them reversing themselves is, quite frankly, absurd. Their base, particularly the Christian Right, would correctly see it as a betrayal. As a result, the Republicans will never embrace any government involvement in the provision of abortion services. Never.



You may believe you know how many Americans I believe are on my side of the fence but I don't believe you know how many I believe are on my side of the fence.

At least, that's what I believe. :rolleyes:

John


Everyone has a voice, but I really believe that the voice of the majority has yet to be heard.


Time will tell I guess ;)

d-ray657
01-28-2010, 01:13 PM
Rather than volunteer work in exchange for charity, I've been in favor of a resurrection of the WPA for infrastructure projects, just like FDR did during the Great Depression. We could employ unemployed individuals in rebuilding existing infrastructure and also in creating new "green" infrastructure. People would have much needed work and gain marketable skills for later and our quality of life would be improved for generations.

John

That is another idea that should be attractive across the political spectrum. It is of course attractive to persons of all political stripes to see people work rather than be on the dole (except for some who find it serves their power interests to maintain a large underclass). Most of us have complaints about the infrastructure and see the need for improvement, no matter the color (green is a good one though). As far as those who favor accountability for tax dollars, doesn't it seem like a direct employment and training program would cut out many of the middlemen who always need a slice of the pie.

Of course the program is also attractive to the wild-eyed idealist, who might believe that politics could be overcome in such a practical way.:(

Regards,

D-Ray

Boreas
01-28-2010, 01:37 PM
Of course the program is also attractive to the wild-eyed idealist, who might believe that politics could be overcome in such a practical way.:(

Regards,

D-Ray

It happened once. It can happen again.

John

doucanoe
01-28-2010, 01:47 PM
That is another idea that should be attractive across the political spectrum. It is of course attractive to persons of all political stripes to see people work rather than be on the dole (except for some who find it serves their power interests to maintain a large underclass). Most of us have complaints about the infrastructure and see the need for improvement, no matter the color (green is a good one though). As far as those who favor accountability for tax dollars, doesn't it seem like a direct employment and training program would cut out many of the middlemen who always need a slice of the pie.

Of course the program is also attractive to the wild-eyed idealist, who might believe that politics could be overcome in such a practical way.:(

Regards,

D-Ray

I might be on board if we could insure that the effort would not be overwhelmed by the bloated and financially burdensome bureaucracy and inept management that would surely come with it :D

Thing is, don't we already have the small and medium sized business infrastructure to do this with minimal government involvement. If we wait too long, that option may fade away also. Lessing the tax burden for those who wish to follow the guidelines so they can hire and train would be great. These new workers would actually pay taxes, build homes and consume more thus supporting other non-relate business. This type of "middlemen" do need to get compensated for their efforts but don't we all ;) This country was built on small and medium sized business so maybe it's time we recognize the value in that.

I still have more faith in people than I do in government. Thats my own personal wild eyed idealist belief :)

rickr15
01-28-2010, 01:56 PM
I hear this all the time but still have not meat one person who makes this statement true.

Life on welfare is just not as many believe has been my experiance.

You must have lived a very sheltered life.
I have met more than one or two.
Maybe its just the places I hang out?

Boreas
01-28-2010, 01:58 PM
I might be on board if we could insure that the effort would not be overwhelmed by the bloated and financially burdensome bureaucracy and inept management that would surely come with it :D

You could read up on the WPA. It was a really amazing program and a wonderful example of the good that "big government" can do. It really looks like the ideal solution right now for a the myriad domestic problems we have right now. My only concern is that the obscene spending on our two wars would make such a program impossible.

John

d-ray657
01-28-2010, 02:02 PM
I might be on board if we could insure that the effort would not be overwhelmed by the bloated and financially burdensome bureaucracy and inept management that would surely come with it :D

Thing is, don't we already have the small and medium sized business infrastructure to do this with minimal government involvement. If we wait too long, that option may fade away also. Lessing the tax burden for those who wish to follow the guidelines so they can hire and train would be great. These new workers would actually pay taxes, build homes and consume more thus supporting other non-relate business. This type of "middlemen" do need to get compensated for their efforts but don't we all ;) This country was built on small and medium sized business so maybe it's time we recognize the value in that.

I still have more faith in people than I do in government. Thats my own personal wild eyed idealist belief :)

Actually, the apprentice training programs are very effective at doing this in conjunction with some small and medium business. Unfortunately, in many states, some employees get the benefits of membership without having to contribute to the costs.

Regards,

D-Ray

doucanoe
01-28-2010, 02:12 PM
You could read up on the WPA. It was a really amazing program and a wonderful example of the good that "big government" can do. It really looks like the ideal solution right now for a the myriad domestic problems we have right now. My only concern is that the obscene spending on our two wars would make such a program impossible.

John


I fear you may be right.

I'm not anti government to the extreme (I don't think) and the WPA did put people to work. The work was needed also. I would play hell trying to drive out to visit your part of the country if it didn't thats for sure.

Maybe that is all the more reason, with a plan certainly, find a way for existing business to do so and lessen the "start up" costs. Let everyone play to their strengths by letting bureaucrats be bureaucrats and seasoned business people do what they do best.

I would like to think that would be a huge win for everyone.

RC

Boreas
01-28-2010, 02:28 PM
Maybe that is all the more reason, with a plan certainly, find a way for existing business to do so and lessen the "start up" costs. Let everyone play to their strengths by letting bureaucrats be bureaucrats and seasoned business people do what they do best.

I would like to think that would be a huge win for everyone.

RC

One of the problems with private industry being the employer would be the "targeted" nature of the government's hiring practices for a WPA type program. In the '30s the WPA hired people who really needed the work because they were unemployed, single heads of households (particularly if they were women), minorities and so forth. If you turned the work over to private industry you'd have a hell of a time making sure that they hired the people most in need of the work.

There's also the training to consider. Private industry would tend to favor hiring a trained individual so as to avoid the trouble and expense of training. Government, on the other hand, would be much more ready to hire an unskilled worker and train her, because that results in a greater benefit to society as a whole.

John

noonereal
01-28-2010, 02:29 PM
<<<<<<<<<<You must have lived a very sheltered life.>>>>>>>>>

That brough a smile to my face. All I can say is I wish I had lead a sheltered life. :o


<<<<<<<<<<<<I have met more than one or two.
Maybe its just the places I hang out?>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I think so.;)

because if you were hanging around on welfare I am sure you would change your view

Boreas
01-28-2010, 02:47 PM
That brough a smile to my face. All I can say is I wish I had lead a sheltered life. :o

But doesn't the time you were living in the homeless shelter count as living a sheltered life? ;)

John

rickr15
01-28-2010, 03:01 PM
QUOTE=noonereal;18129

because if you were hanging around on welfare I am sure you would change your view Maybe to clarify I didn't say people were "Happy" to be on welfare. But many are too Damn lazy to get off it. Not all but many.

Never been on welfare but I grew up for a time in a very poor neighborhood where plenty was in evidence. Thats where I saw food stamps being sold for drugs. That where I saw families with 2 generations of welfare living in the same trailer and spending the government checks on booze and crap.

Nope my opinion is based on personal observation not speculation of how I wish it was.

doucanoe
01-28-2010, 03:04 PM
One of the problems with private industry being the employer would be the "targeted" nature of the government's hiring practices for a WPA type program. In the '30s the WPA hired people who really needed the work because they were unemployed, single heads of households (particularly if they were women), minorities and so forth. If you turned the work over to private industry you'd have a hell of a time making sure that they hired the people most in need of the work.

There's also the training to consider. Private industry would tend to favor hiring a trained individual so as to avoid the trouble and expense of training. Government, on the other hand, would be much more ready to hire an unskilled worker and train her, because that results in a greater benefit to society as a whole.

John

That is why you would provide incentives to do so. Some may not wish to comply but I would have to believe that others would be lining up to participate. That's the beauty of freedom to choose. If companies choose not to play along, no dollars spent. If they do, although it may be a few years down the road , success may follow.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that employing displaced but otherwise skilled workers would also be a great benefit to society as a whole also ;)

RC

noonereal
01-28-2010, 03:05 PM
Maybe to clarify I didn't say people were "Happy" to be on welfare. But many are too Damn lazy to get off it. Not all but many.

Never been on welfare but I grew up for a time in a very poor neighborhood where plenty was in evidence. Thats where I saw food stamps being sold for drugs. That where I saw families with 2 generations of welfare living in the same trailer and spending the government checks on booze and crap.

Nope my opinion is based on personal observation not speculation of how I wish it was.

the expression, "walk a mile in another's shoes." comes to mind

Boreas
01-28-2010, 03:17 PM
That is why you would provide incentives to do so. Some may not wish to comply but I would have to believe that others would be lining up to participate. That's the beauty of freedom to choose. If companies choose not to play along, no dollars spent. If they do, although it may be a few years down the road , success may follow.

Couldn't do it. What would you do, have a government bureaucracy devoted to verifying that each and every person employed under the program fit the profile? What would you do then, make the employer fire the people they hired inappropriately? Private employers would try to find ways to hire whomever the hell they wanted and still collect the incentive payments from the Government. They always have and they always will.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that employing displaced but otherwise skilled workers would also be a great benefit to society as a whole also ;)

RC

Nobody's saying skilled workers wouldn't have jobs. The private sector would gladly hire them. There will be other work for the private sector outside of the WPA type projects. After all, private industry didn't disappear in the '30s'. They manufactured the materials and equipment the government needed so the WPA was a benefit to the private sector too even though they may not have directly participated in the projects.

John

merrylander
01-28-2010, 03:39 PM
The advantages of growing up in a small town. Like most small towns we were aware of our neighbours affairs, not to be nosy, but just to there when help was needed. There was no 'welfare' per se, just good neighbours.

doucanoe
01-28-2010, 03:47 PM
Couldn't do it. What would you do, have a government bureaucracy devoted to verifying that each and every person employed under the program fit the profile? What would you do then, make the employer fire the people they hired inappropriately? Private employers would try to find ways to hire whomever the hell they wanted and still collect the incentive payments from the Government. They always have and they always will.



Nobody's saying skilled workers wouldn't have jobs. The private sector would gladly hire them. There will be other work for the private sector outside of the WPA type projects. After all, private industry didn't disappear in the '30s'. They manufactured the materials and equipment the government needed so the WPA was a benefit to the private sector too even though they may not have directly participated in the projects.

John


I would much rather see a government bureaucracy that is focused on verifying compliant hires than a government bureaucracy trying to run a business.

WPA and similar projects did a lot but we also need to focus on the 10% unemployed (I believe it to be much greater than that actually) that would bolster the economy just by the fact that they would be employed and consuming. As it stands, without addressing this, and soon, we are all in a world of hurt.

On a side (kinda) note... Correct me if I am wrong, but show me an economist (Keynesian or Supply Side) that stands behind raising taxes in a recession of this magnitude. We need a meaningful people and business stimulus the encourages job growth. This can only come in the form of tax reductions IMO. If you weave those incentives that to a WPA like program or other, we might get somewhere.

RC

Boreas
01-28-2010, 04:14 PM
I would much rather see a government bureaucracy that is focused on verifying compliant hires than a government bureaucracy trying to run a business.

It would be impossible to police effectively. Far better to make the ineffective bureaucracy unnecessary by having the Government as the employer.

WPA and similar projects did a lot but we also need to focus on the 10% unemployed (I believe it to be much greater than that actually) that would bolster the economy just by the fact that they would be employed and consuming. As it stands, without addressing this, and soon, we are all in a world of hurt.

Unemployment was far greater during the Depression.

The money people earned from the WPA and from private employers who benefited from WPA projects flowed back into the economy. I don't see that you really have an argument beyond just an overarching mistrust of Government. All the things you want to accomplish were accomplished through the WPA and could be accomplished by a similar program now.

On a side (kinda) note... Correct me if I am wrong, but show me an economist (Keynesian or Supply Side) that stands behind raising taxes in a recession of this magnitude. We need a meaningful people and business stimulus the encourages job growth. This can only come in the form of tax reductions IMO. If you weave those incentives that to a WPA like program or other, we might get somewhere.

RC

Paul Krugman and Richard Stiglitz, both of whom are Nobel laureates and who both believe more government spending is necessary and that rolling back the tax cuts for the rich are a legitimate means for generating the revenue to fund it. Also, Ben Stein, a lawyer and economist and sometimes darling of the Right. There are, of course, more but you only asked for one and I gave you three. ;)

John

doucanoe
01-28-2010, 07:42 PM
It would be impossible to police effectively. Far better to make the ineffective bureaucracy unnecessary by having the Government as the employer.

Wow, thats bordering on oxymoronic me thinks ;)



Unemployment was far greater during the Depression.

The money people earned from the WPA and from private employers who benefited from WPA projects flowed back into the economy. I don't see that you really have an argument beyond just an overarching mistrust of Government. All the things you want to accomplish were accomplished through the WPA and could be accomplished by a similar program now.

You are correct about my mistrust of government anyway. I also believe that my concerns are quite justified. Current government is a far cry from what it was in our New Deal era. I also realize the some can't see that.



Paul Krugman and Richard Stiglitz, both of whom are Nobel laureates and who both believe more government spending is necessary and that rolling back the tax cuts for the rich are a legitimate means for generating the revenue to fund it. Also, Ben Stein, a lawyer and economist and sometimes darling of the Right. There are, of course, more but you only asked for one and I gave you three. ;)

John

Thats too easy. What would like to see one that advocates raising taxes during a severe recession and the economic situation we find ourselves in currently as I stated.

Have not tax revenues increased every year since the Bush tax cuts in 2001? Ironically, our deficit continues to grow larger and larger at the same time. I do believe that everybody needs to pay their fair share but the definition of "rich" by earnings seems to be dropping. Everyone is a cheerleader until they realize that they are the rich.

At the risk of "spewing" right wing rhetoric and disregarding our current situation, what we have is a spending problem and not a lack of taxing problem. For tax and spenders, enough is never enough.

RC

Boreas
01-28-2010, 07:58 PM
You are correct about my mistrust of government anyway. I also believe that my concerns are quite justified. Current government is a far cry from what it was in our New Deal era. I also realize the some can't see that.

Your concerns are justified. I just think that handing the huge program that a 21st Century WPA over to the private sector raises even more concerns.

Thats too easy. What would like to see one that advocates raising taxes during a severe recession and the economic situation we find ourselves in currently as I stated.

They do.

Have not tax revenues increased every year since the Bush tax cuts in 2001? Ironically, our deficit continues to grow larger and larger at the same time. I do believe that everybody needs to pay their fair share but the definition of "rich" by earnings seems to be dropping. Everyone is a cheerleader until they realize that they are the rich.

We're talking about rolling back Bush's tax cuts for the top 2%. That's some pretty rich folks by anyone's standards.

At the risk of "spewing" right wing rhetoric and disregarding our current situation, what we have is a spending problem and not a lack of taxing problem. For tax and spenders, enough is never enough.

RC

Roosevelt spent us out of the Depression. He did so rather timidly at first and the results weren't really there. His critics told him that was because spending in a depression was the wrong approach. On the other hand, his advisers said that the problem was not enough spending. He listened to them, increased and expanded spending and things turned around. That's what it'll take this time.

John

Fast_Eddie
01-28-2010, 08:12 PM
This can only come in the form of tax reductions IMO.

What is the "right" level for taxes? We've lowered them several times in the last three decades and they are currently at historically low levels. Just curious, when will they be low enough? Is it is it even possible in your opinion for taxes to be too low? Where does the government get money and how should we repay the debt- and how will lowering our government's income time and again help?

Just wonderin'

Fast_Eddie
01-28-2010, 08:15 PM
I should add, when I say "what is the right level" I mean, show me something backed up with math. I've heard Republicans (and now Democrats) talk about tax cuts helping our economy forever but never seen a shred of math to back it up. Near as I can tell, Bush lowered taxes. Economy went to hell. Either they're not related or it didn't work.

BlueStreak
01-28-2010, 08:28 PM
What is the "right" level for taxes? We've lowered them several times in the last three decades and they are currently at historically low levels. Just curious, when will they be low enough? Is it is it even possible in your opinion for taxes to be too low? Where does the government get money and how should we repay the debt- and how will lowering our government's income time and again help?

Just wonderin'

I don't believe we ever really got any taxcuts. I think it's just a shell game. If the feds cut taxes they then cut funding to states, who then either raise taxes to compensate for the lost revenues or pass it on to the local govts who in turn levy higher taxes. Either that or the cut tax moves to some other "fee", stormwater, property tax, vehicle tags, plates, trash pickup or whatever.

My favorite example comes from our former Gov. James Gilmore (R) who rode into office promising to "eliminate the car tax". To keep a long story short, we still pay the tax and it's still 4%. We just pay 1/2 of it twice a year instead of all of it at once. Woo Hoo! My wallet feels nice and fat, boys, let me tell ya.....:rolleyes:

I believe once a tax is created, it never goes away. It merely changes form.

Dave

doucanoe
01-28-2010, 09:08 PM
I don't believe we ever really got any taxcuts. I think it's just a shell game. If the feds cut taxes they then cut funding to states, who then either raise taxes to compensate for the lost revenues or pass it on to the local govts who in turn levy higher taxes. Either that or the cut tax moves to some other "fee", stormwater, property tax, vehicle tags, plates, trash pickup or whatever.

My favorite example comes from our former Gov. James Gilmore (R) who rode into office promising to "eliminate the car tax". To keep a long story short, we still pay the tax and it's still 4%. We just pay 1/2 of it twice a year instead of all of it at once. Woo Hoo! My wallet feels nice and fat, boys, let me tell ya.....:rolleyes:

I believe once a tax is created, it never goes away. It merely changes form.

Dave


You are spot on, Dave. I can speak for only myself but thats what we got hit with here in MN and I would imagine most states reacted the same.


RC

Fast_Eddie
01-28-2010, 11:30 PM
Then you won't mind if we repeal the "Bush Tax Cuts" you didn't get. Write you member of Congress. They didn't get the memo.

And, once again, there is no math to back any of this up. I hear "cut taxes and the economy will improve" and "cut taxes and federal income will go up" but never see any math to back it up. If it's so certain to work, why hasn't the CBO published the figures? None of these Republicans or Tea Party folks have ever funded the study to prove it, or at least back up the assertion with some figures? It's the cornerstone of their campaign strategy. Wouldn't it hold more water if they had some cyphers to go along with the stump speech? I read ream after ream about how the health care proposal would make things better, but not a scrap of evidence for the decades old cry to lower taxes?

That doesn't seem at all odd to anyone?

Or how 'bout this - isn't it amazing that the very thing we need also happens to be super easy for politicians to sell? None of us were born yesterday- how many times in your life has the medicine been that easy to take? I don't know about you, but I've been in a financial jam or two. Never anything big, but when I was young I ran into lean days. I got out of it, but it was never easy. It always took work. In my experience, that's the nature of life.

And this is the one exception?

Boreas
01-29-2010, 12:09 AM
And, once again, there is no math to back any of this up. I hear "cut taxes and the economy will improve" and "cut taxes and federal income will go up" but never see any math to back it up.

All you really need is Laffer's napkin.

John

doucanoe
01-29-2010, 07:54 AM
Here is a .pdf of a Congressional Budget Office dated May 18, 2007.

Interesting analysis of revenue growth (anyway) during the period of 2003 to 2006. It even has tables and charts ;)

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf

A snip from it also...

"The Honorable Kent Conrad
Chairman
Committee on the Budget
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In response to your letter of May 11, 2007, the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) has reviewed the available data and analyzed the sources and underlying
causes of the growth in revenues since 2003. This analysis shows that the overall
increase in revenues as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) since 2003 is
disproportionately accounted for by increases in corporate income tax revenues.
Growth in Federal Tax Revenues From 2003 to 2006
Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or 35 percent, between fiscal
year 2003 and fiscal year 2006. CBO’s analysis of that increase in revenues since
2003 is necessarily preliminary because relevant data are not yet fully available.
CBO examined the available data using the commonly employed method of
analyzing the sources of revenue growth as a percentage of GDP. Had revenues
grown at the same rate as the overall economy between 2003 and 2006, federal
receipts would have increased by only $373 billion. The other $252 billion of the
actual increase in revenues represents growth in excess of GDP growth. As a
result, receipts as a share of GDP rose from 16.5 percent in 2003 to 18.4 percent
in 2006, an increase of 1.9 percentage points (see Table 1, attached)..."


RC

finnbow
01-29-2010, 08:05 AM
Here is a .pdf of a Congressional Budget Office dated May 18, 2007.

Interesting analysis of revenue growth (anyway) during the period of 2003 to 2006. It even has tables and charts ;)

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf

A snip from it also...

"The Honorable Kent Conrad
Chairman
Committee on the Budget
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In response to your letter of May 11, 2007, the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) has reviewed the available data and analyzed the sources and underlying
causes of the growth in revenues since 2003. This analysis shows that the overall
increase in revenues as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) since 2003 is
disproportionately accounted for by increases in corporate income tax revenues.
Growth in Federal Tax Revenues From 2003 to 2006
Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or 35 percent, between fiscal
year 2003 and fiscal year 2006. CBO’s analysis of that increase in revenues since
2003 is necessarily preliminary because relevant data are not yet fully available.
CBO examined the available data using the commonly employed method of
analyzing the sources of revenue growth as a percentage of GDP. Had revenues
grown at the same rate as the overall economy between 2003 and 2006, federal
receipts would have increased by only $373 billion. The other $252 billion of the
actual increase in revenues represents growth in excess of GDP growth. As a
result, receipts as a share of GDP rose from 16.5 percent in 2003 to 18.4 percent
in 2006, an increase of 1.9 percentage points (see Table 1, attached)..."


RC

That's all well and good. It stands to reason that corporate income tax revenue increases when GDP increases. I guess the real question is "What caused the GDP to increase?" While supply-siders will invariably argue that tax cuts (and only tax cuts) invariably lead to GDP growth, I'm not sure that the causality is all that clear. I believe that there are a lot more factors involved.

Grumpy
01-29-2010, 08:13 AM
Wanna know what chaps my ass. F'in story on Yahoo a few days ago about how 2009 will be the largest tax returns.

BULLSHIT.

Know how they figure ?

If you bought a car you get one. Dont know about you but this poor slob could not afford one.

Bought a house ? Who the hell could get a mortgage last year ? Not me

Remodeled your house ? Again who the hell had money for that ?

Put a kid through college ? Hell no my kids pay their own way !

All these things add up to the largest tax returns in our history. For who ??

Gotta love the shit they blow up your asses...

finnbow
01-29-2010, 08:49 AM
Wanna know what chaps my ass. F'in story on Yahoo a few days ago about how 2009 will be the largest tax returns.

BULLSHIT.

Know how they figure ?

If you bought a car you get one. Dont know about you but this poor slob could not afford one.

Bought a house ? Who the hell could get a mortgage last year ? Not me

Remodeled your house ? Again who the hell had money for that ?

Put a kid through college ? Hell no my kids pay their own way !

All these things add up to the largest tax returns in our history. For who ??

Gotta love the shit they blow up your asses...

+1. What bothers me is related. Congress is always tinkering with the tax code in order to control or influence our behaviour. As a result, we have this abomination called the Federal Tax Code. During tax season, I believe every Congressman should be locked in his office with a stubby pencil and a calculator and be forced to do his own taxes. No accountants, no Turbo Tax, nada - and penalize them harshly for any errors. That might help them realize what kind of f-cked up system they created.

merrylander
01-29-2010, 10:12 AM
Tell me about it, the first year here I looked at the 1040 and longed for the Canadian form, simplicity itself. It is bad enough that they tax you but then to inflict that torture is inhumane.

finnbow
01-29-2010, 10:34 AM
Tell me about it, the first year here I looked at the 1040 and longed for the Canadian form, simplicity itself. It is bad enough that they tax you but then to inflict that torture is inhumane.

To compound the ridiculousness, I read an an article the other day where there was some consideration being given to having the IRS having your tax form available online already filled out with the information that the gov't. already knows about you (everything from your W-2, withholding info, 1099 info, mortgage interest, etc) that you could just "tweak" with any additional specifics and the tax would be figured automatically. Sounds reasonable, huh? Intuit (makers of TurboTax) had a shit-fit conniption when they heard this. Result? Idea dead.:mad:

Fast_Eddie
01-29-2010, 11:39 AM
Here is a .pdf of a Congressional Budget Office dated May 18, 2007.


I appreciate the effort, but as others have stated, this is not directly a study of tax rates vs. revenue.

I just can't imagine that, if they really believe it, they RNC wouldn't fund a study that proves once and for all, or at least suggests in mathmatical terms, that lowering taxes increases revenue. I suspect the dirty secret is that they know the Laffer curve is true and they know we're too low on the scale. There is significant motivation to prove their point if they're right. It's one of the most concrete claims politicians have ever made. Yet no leaflet to pass out at the Tea Pary convention that explains how it works. "Trust us".

We say we don't trust them, and yet millions of Americans take them at their word on this- becasue they're telling them what they want to hear. "Fixing our economy is easy! You don't have to suffer at all, in fact, *lowering* your taxes actually gives us *more* money!"

Uh, yeah. And dropping out of school increases your odds of making a good living. I know it's true 'cause I know that one guy who did it. Oh, and fatty food is actully *good* for you! Eat what you want! And exercise will kill you! Sit and watch TV - that's the key to a long life!

Think I'll try this with my boss- Imagine a curve that shows hours worked vs. productivity. If you work 24 hours a day, you'll shut down. Shoot, do that for any period of time you'll actually die I guess. So at one end of the curve, 24 hours = zero productivity. On the other end of the curve is 0 hours worked = zero productivity. This sound familiar to anyone? I call it the Cushing Curve.

So I'll show my boss the Cushing Curve - might even draw it on a bar nap - and tell him this proves that I'm working too many hours. What do you think he'll say?

Pft. Keep buying what they're selling.

doucanoe
01-29-2010, 12:21 PM
I would sure like to see that same table showing spending in relation to revenue during that period. In fact, I believe I can find it.

By the way, here is Laffer's latest (I believe) comments regarding Obama's policies.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35341


RC

Grumpy
01-29-2010, 12:56 PM
I appreciate the effort, but as others have stated, this is not directly a study of tax rates vs. revenue.

I just can't imagine that, if they really believe it, they RNC wouldn't fund a study that proves once and for all, or at least suggests in mathmatical terms, that lowering taxes increases revenue. I suspect the dirty secret is that they know the Laffer curve is true and they know we're too low on the scale. There is significant motivation to prove their point if they're right. It's one of the most concrete claims politicians have ever made. Yet no leaflet to pass out at the Tea Pary convention that explains how it works. "Trust us".

We say we don't trust them, and yet millions of Americans take them at their word on this- becasue they're telling them what they want to hear. "Fixing our economy is easy! You don't have to suffer at all, in fact, *lowering* your taxes actually gives us *more* money!"

Uh, yeah. And dropping out of school increases your odds of making a good living. I know it's true 'cause I know that one guy who did it. Oh, and fatty food is actully *good* for you! Eat what you want! And exercise will kill you! Sit and watch TV - that's the key to a long life!

Think I'll try this with my boss- Imagine a curve that shows hours worked vs. productivity. If you work 24 hours a day, you'll shut down. Shoot, do that for any period of time you'll actually die I guess. So at one end of the curve, 24 hours = zero productivity. On the other end of the curve is 0 hours worked = zero productivity. This sound familiar to anyone? I call it the Cushing Curve.

So I'll show my boss the Cushing Curve - might even draw it on a bar nap - and tell him this proves that I'm working too many hours. What do you think he'll say?

Pft. Keep buying what they're selling.

Regardless of what you or I think of the man, I hope like hell he was wrong in his predictions.

merrylander
01-29-2010, 01:25 PM
Speaking of tea parties I see the two congresswomen bowed out.

Boreas
01-29-2010, 01:34 PM
Speaking of tea parties I see the two congresswomen bowed out.

Yes, they did, citing ethics considerations involving appearances in a for-profit event. The real reason, of course, is that a lot of Teabaggers are beginning to realize they're being played by big money, particularly big coal money from the Kochs and their surrogate Dick Armey.

I wonder whether our Sarah will bow out. She's not an office holder any longer so Congressional ethics aren't a concern but the Teabaggers seem a little miffed at her endorsing McCain. Maybe they won't like her raking a big honorarium off the top of the convention's take.

John

Fast_Eddie
01-29-2010, 02:05 PM
Regardless of what you or I think of the man, I hope like hell he was wrong in his predictions.

I'm not sure what predictions you're talking about. But as for the Laffer Curve, I am 100% sure he is right. As with the Cushing Curve, there is no argunig the fact that at 100% taxation, very few people would go to work. And at 0% the government would make no money. Those are simply facts.

All the Laffer curve "proves" is that the ideal tax rate falls in the narrow sweet spot somewhere between 0 and 100. Thanks for the insight Mr. Laffer. What it does not do, never did do, and has no formual to do is tell us where in that range is the right spot. Which means, when you think about it, that it doesn't tell us anything at all. It's a trick used to make a populist appeal and make it appear to be based on some sound economic theory.

Shoot, look at the curve. If you take the pictures at face value, they suggest that the ideal rate is somewhere around 50%. Anyone going to run around crying for a flat 50% tax because the Laffer curve says that's right? I doubt it.

doucanoe
01-29-2010, 03:31 PM
Boreas, I'm still waiting for yourself or someone else to show me were Krugman and Stiglitz are all about higher taxation in a recession like we are experiencing.

I have read Ben Stein comments regarding taxing the rich for revenues need to bolster our military might are well taken but once again, have nothing to do with my point.

I have also scoured through both Krugmans and Stiglitz stuff and yes, they seem to be progressive liberals who like higher taxes for all. Who, unlike Stein who is advocating focused taxes for a different reason all together.

Please show me one of these guys that recommends doing so (Article/Vid clip etc.) in spite of our current situation or a means to solve our recession

Thanks, RC

Fast_Eddie
01-29-2010, 03:48 PM
Boreas, I'm still waiting for yourself or someone else to show me were Krugman and Stiglitz are all about higher taxation in a recession like we are experiencing.

Sorry, got nothing for you. But I have a question.

You seem to be be advocating taking some extraordinary measures to provide tax relief during an economic situation like the one we're experiencing now. Am I getting that right?

And you seem to be saying that such a measure would stimulate the economy, correct?

You, uh, see where I'm going with this?

doucanoe
01-29-2010, 04:08 PM
Sorry, got nothing for you. But I have a question.

You seem to be be advocating taking some extraordinary measures to provide tax relief during an economic situation like the one we're experiencing now. Am I getting that right?

And you seem to be saying that such a measure would stimulate the economy, correct?

You, uh, see where I'm going with this?


To be honest Ed, I can't remember how this started :D


I guess if I am advocating anything, it would be leaving taxes where they are and to not burden the working class with spending that isn't necessary at the moment. As far as small and moderate sized business goes, provide tax incentives to stimulate an environment of hiring.

Not sure where you are going but I have become accustomed to that ;)

RC

Fast_Eddie
01-29-2010, 04:10 PM
To be honest Ed, I can't remember how this started :D


I guess if I am advocating anything, it would be leaving taxes where they are and to not burden the working class with spending that isn't necessary at the moment. As far as small and moderate sized business goes, provide tax incentives to stimulate an environment of hiring.

Not sure where you are going but I have become accustomed to that ;)

RC

Well, the plan I outlined sounds a lot like the Stimulus package. Figured you'd get that when I said "stimulate" given your chosen signature. And what you say here sounds a lot like what I heard in the State of the Union.

doucanoe
01-29-2010, 04:24 PM
Well, the plan I outlined sounds a lot like the Stimulus package. Figured you'd get that when I said "stimulate" given your chosen signature. And what you say here sounds a lot like what I heard in the State of the Union.

The Stimulus package has not stimulated much but a growth in government and pet projects. Even Krugman is saying that more or less.

I haven't heard much about how some of the talking points presented in the State of the Union address will be implemented. So at this point, it falls under, remains to be seen.


RC

noonereal
01-29-2010, 04:38 PM
The Stimulus package has not stimulated much but a growth in government and pet projects. Even Krugman is saying that more or less.

I haven't heard much about how some of the talking points presented in the State of the Union address will be implemented. So at this point, it falls under, remains to be seen.


RC

the stimulus was sold as a new century wpa project

i don't see or hear of anything it has done

Boreas
01-29-2010, 05:43 PM
Boreas, I'm still waiting for yourself or someone else to show me were Krugman and Stiglitz are all about higher taxation in a recession like we are experiencing.

Waiting is one thing and asking is another. You never asked. I'll work on finding something for you.

John

Boreas
01-29-2010, 05:46 PM
The Stimulus package has not stimulated much but a growth in government and pet projects.

5.7% GDP growth in the 4th quarter of 2009.

But the stimulus couldn't possible have anything to do with that. ;)

I haven't heard much about how some of the talking points presented in the State of the Union address will be implemented. So at this point, it falls under, remains to be seen.

I know and it's been two days already!!! :)

John

noonereal
01-29-2010, 05:49 PM
5.7% GDP growth in the 4th quarter of 2009.

But the stimulus couldn't possible have anything to do with that. ;)



I know and it's been two days already!!! :)

John

lmao :D

Fast_Eddie
01-29-2010, 07:11 PM
The Stimulus package has not stimulated much but a growth in government and pet projects. Even Krugman is saying that more or less.

Well you say so, so it is fact. So, with the "Bush Tax Cuts" still in effect, why didn't they stimulate the economy enough to keep us out of the recession? Do we get to pick and chose which we say did and didn't work? My guy's worked but your guy's failed.

Fast_Eddie
01-29-2010, 07:12 PM
5.7% GDP growth in the 4th quarter of 2009.

But the stimulus couldn't possible have anything to do with that. ;)



No, see, *that* was the Bush Tax Cuts finally working.

Boreas
01-29-2010, 07:41 PM
No, see, *that* was the Bush Tax Cuts finally working.

Right! That's what I said. Stimulus? Pfffft!

John

Grumpy
01-29-2010, 08:21 PM
I'm not sure what predictions you're talking about. But as for the Laffer Curve, I am 100% sure he is right. As with the Cushing Curve, there is no argunig the fact that at 100% taxation, very few people would go to work. And at 0% the government would make no money. Those are simply facts.

All the Laffer curve "proves" is that the ideal tax rate falls in the narrow sweet spot somewhere between 0 and 100. Thanks for the insight Mr. Laffer. What it does not do, never did do, and has no formual to do is tell us where in that range is the right spot. Which means, when you think about it, that it doesn't tell us anything at all. It's a trick used to make a populist appeal and make it appear to be based on some sound economic theory.

Shoot, look at the curve. If you take the pictures at face value, they suggest that the ideal rate is somewhere around 50%. Anyone going to run around crying for a flat 50% tax because the Laffer curve says that's right? I doubt it.


I was referring to the link Ron posted above.

d-ray657
01-29-2010, 08:25 PM
Has anyone seen any evidence to show that tax cuts cause an increase in teen pregnancy? :rolleyes:

Regards,

D-Ray

doucanoe
01-29-2010, 08:40 PM
Well you say so, so it is fact. So, with the "Bush Tax Cuts" still in effect, why didn't they stimulate the economy enough to keep us out of the recession? Do we get to pick and chose which we say did and didn't work? My guy's worked but your guy's failed.


So our recession came about from the Bush tax cuts? Wow! I must have missed that one.

RC

doucanoe
01-29-2010, 08:59 PM
Waiting is one thing and asking is another. You never asked. I'll work on finding something for you.

John


Thanks, I honestly would like to see where one of them would be suggesting that raising taxes across the board in a recession would be beneficial and why.

Like I said, Steins comments don't apply.

By the way, I thought I did ask.

RC "Thats too easy. What would like to see one that advocates raising taxes during a severe recession and the economic situation we find ourselves in currently as I stated."

RC

Boreas
01-29-2010, 09:29 PM
Thanks, I honestly would like to see where one of them would be suggesting that raising taxes across the board in a recession would be beneficial and why.

Now, wait. I think you're changing the question. I don't think we were talking about across the board tax hikes. I'd be surprised if they believe that. I think they'd be more inclined to Stein's position of rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

Like I said, Steins comments don't apply.

The comment you came up with may not apply but I was speaking of remarks he made on Larry King Live earlier this week (or perhaps late last week) wherein he advocated rolling back Bush's tax cuts to help fund the recovery.

By the way, I thought I did ask.

RC "Thats too easy. What (I) would like to see (is) one that advocates raising taxes during a severe recession and the economic situation we find ourselves in currently as I stated."

RC

Okay, I thought you were just asking for a name so I gave you names.

John

Fast_Eddie
01-29-2010, 10:05 PM
So our recession came about from the Bush tax cuts? Wow! I must have missed that one.

RC

My point (which you also missed) is that you say the stimulus didn't work and offer exactly as much proof as I offer for the notion that the Bush tax cuts caused the recession.

Fast_Eddie
01-29-2010, 10:08 PM
Thanks, I honestly would like to see where one of them would be suggesting that raising taxes across the board in a recession would be beneficial and why.

Not sure what you two are on about, but I'm curious. Has, well, anyone suggested that we should be "raising taxes across the board in a recession"? Certainly no legislators. Certainly not Obama.

If it's a purely theoretical discussion, more power to you. But if you're suggesting that it reflects some policy proposal, it's as off base as protesting "government run health care".

Boreas
01-29-2010, 10:15 PM
Not sure what you two are on about, but I'm curious. Has, well, anyone suggested that we should be "raising taxes across the board in a recession"? Certainly no legislators. Certainly not Obama.

If it's a purely theoretical discussion, more power to you. But if you're suggesting that it reflects some policy proposal, it's as off base as protesting "government run health care".

No, it seems the question I was being asked underwent a little refinement after it was asked. I was initially asked whether there were any economists recommending "raising taxes during a severe recession" and the answer is "Yes".

Rolling back the Bush tax cuts has to be viewed as raising taxes and that's precisely what a number of economists have suggested. "Across the board" wasn't part of the original question. Furthermore, it ain't on anyone's agenda.

John

Fast_Eddie
01-29-2010, 10:50 PM
No, it seems the question I was being asked underwent a little refinement after it was asked. I was initially asked whether there were any economists recommending "raising taxes during a severe recession" and the answer is "Yes".

Rolling back the Bush tax cuts has to be viewed as raising taxes and that's precisely what a number of economists have suggested. "Across the board" wasn't part of the original question. Furthermore, it ain't on anyone's agenda.

John

Truth be told, I kinda thought that was the case.

So, what we know so far, Bush cut taxes and that was good for the economy. Then Obama caused the recession that started a year before he was elected by signing the stimulus package which lowered taxes.

Got it. Couldn't be more clear.

Fast_Eddie
01-29-2010, 10:53 PM
Think I'll try this with my boss- Imagine a curve that shows hours worked vs. productivity. If you work 24 hours a day, you'll shut down. Shoot, do that for any period of time you'll actually die I guess. So at one end of the curve, 24 hours = zero productivity. On the other end of the curve is 0 hours worked = zero productivity. This sound familiar to anyone? I call it the Cushing Curve.

So I'll show my boss the Cushing Curve - might even draw it on a bar nap - and tell him this proves that I'm working too many hours. What do you think he'll say?

Come on guys, nothing for the Cushing Curve? I thought that was pretty good.









Tough room.

Boreas
01-29-2010, 10:56 PM
Tough room.

We're waiting for the napkin. ;)

John

doucanoe
01-30-2010, 07:34 AM
No, it seems the question I was being asked underwent a little refinement after it was asked. I was initially asked whether there were any economists recommending "raising taxes during a severe recession" and the answer is "Yes".

Rolling back the Bush tax cuts has to be viewed as raising taxes and that's precisely what a number of economists have suggested. "Across the board" wasn't part of the original question. Furthermore, it ain't on anyone's agenda.

John



Oh, come on. This was my original statement:

"On a side (kinda) note... Correct me if I am wrong, but show me an economist (Keynesian or Supply Side) that stands behind raising taxes in a recession of this magnitude. We need a meaningful people and business stimulus the encourages job growth. This can only come in the form of tax reductions IMO. If you weave those incentives that to a WPA like program or other, we might get somewhere."

You came back with Krugman, Stieglitz and Stein for examples. My response was this:

"Thats too easy. What would like to see one that advocates raising taxes during a severe recession and the economic situation we find ourselves in currently as I stated."


I said "thats too easy" referring to the fact that I knew (krugman's anyway) wants to go after the "rich" in any economic situation, but None of them would be behind raising taxes (the people in general) where we are at today.

Coming from two differing viewpoints on taxation, I can understand you believing that I was taking about the Bush tax cuts but when I hear "Tax the Rich", I know that along with this my taxes will be raised shortly thereafter. I may not be defined as rich at the moment but I believe that to be temporary.

RC

doucanoe
01-30-2010, 07:41 AM
Truth be told, I kinda thought that was the case.

So, what we know so far, Bush cut taxes and that was good for the economy. Then Obama caused the recession that started a year before he was elected by signing the stimulus package which lowered taxes.

Got it. Couldn't be more clear.



Maybe you might read through the thread, Ed. I don't believe that believe that even said here or in other threads that Obama caused the recession. The Stimulus package has been deemed relatively ineffective by many including those on the left.

RC

merrylander
01-30-2010, 07:45 AM
Maybe you might read through the thread, Ed. I don't believe that believe that even said here or in other threads that Obama caused the recession. The Stimulus package has been deemed relatively ineffective by many including those on the left.

RC

Having lived through the Great one I find that those who believe it ws ineffective are wrong. I don't know about the rest of you but my income was into six figures before retirement and the Bush tax cuts got me enough for two packs of Marlboros per month so I don't think $10 is going to break anyone. It did get the leeches on top a big cut but since they contribute little or nothing to the economy so what?

noonereal
01-30-2010, 07:49 AM
Maybe you might read through the thread, Ed. I don't believe that believe that even said here or in other threads that Obama caused the recession. The Stimulus package has been deemed relatively ineffective by many including those on the left.

RC

how could it have been ineffective when it was thought we would enter a global depression without the stimulus and bank bail out?

Seems to me it was damn effective.

Problem is no one who caused this went to jail.

Boreas
01-30-2010, 09:39 AM
Oh, come on. This was my original statement:

"On a side (kinda) note... Correct me if I am wrong, but show me an economist (Keynesian or Supply Side) that stands behind raising taxes in a recession of this magnitude. We need a meaningful people and business stimulus the encourages job growth. This can only come in the form of tax reductions IMO. If you weave those incentives that to a WPA like program or other, we might get somewhere."

You came back with Krugman, Stieglitz and Stein for examples. My response was this:

"Thats too easy. What would like to see one that advocates raising taxes during a severe recession and the economic situation we find ourselves in currently as I stated."


I said "thats too easy" referring to the fact that I knew (krugman's anyway) wants to go after the "rich" in any economic situation, but None of them would be behind raising taxes (the people in general) where we are at today.

Coming from two differing viewpoints on taxation, I can understand you believing that I was taking about the Bush tax cuts but when I hear "Tax the Rich", I know that along with this my taxes will be raised shortly thereafter. I may not be defined as rich at the moment but I believe that to be temporary.

RC

You asked for the name of an economist who favored "raising taxes in a recession of this magnitude" so I gave you three. Then you said that you were "still waiting" for the statements from economists who support across the board tax increases in a recession.

Proof you never demanded of an assertion I never made.

I don't want to play any more. :)

John

Boreas
01-30-2010, 09:51 AM
Maybe you might read through the thread, Ed. I don't believe that believe that even said here or in other threads that Obama caused the recession. The Stimulus package has been deemed relatively ineffective by many including those on the left.

RC

Some people on the left have been critical of the stimulus. Some have said it targeted the wrong things or people. Others have said that the amount was too small and still others have made both criticisms but none I'm aware of have said it was ineffective. I mentioned this in another post (another thread?). The GDP for the 4th quarter of 2009 is up nearly 6%. How do you account for that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMsVuksrMSE&feature=player_embedded

Mark Zandi was an economic adviser to the McCain campaign.

John

Fast_Eddie
01-30-2010, 10:47 AM
Maybe you might read through the thread, Ed. I don't believe that believe that even said here or in other threads that Obama caused the recession. The Stimulus package has been deemed relatively ineffective by many including those on the left.

RC

I'm still waiting for the names, addresses and Social Security numbers of the people on the left who are saying Obama has done nothing good for the economy.

doucanoe
01-30-2010, 11:56 AM
You asked for the name of an economist who favored "raising taxes in a recession of this magnitude" so I gave you three. Then you said that you were "still waiting" for the statements from economists who support across the board tax increases in a recession.

Proof you never demanded of an assertion I never made.

I don't want to play any more. :)

John



I assumed (wrongly, I guess) that when someone speaks of raising taxes [/I] and not a focused tax increase that it would be understood to be a flat out tax increase. Meaning everybody.

-so-

Fair enough :D

RC

piece-itpete
02-03-2010, 08:57 AM
Well what do you know:

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/164/2/152?home

Pete

noonereal
02-03-2010, 09:18 AM
Well what do you know:

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/164/2/152?home

Pete

Wait a minute,

finnbow
02-03-2010, 09:19 AM
Well what do you know:

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/164/2/152?home

Pete

I saw that reported in yesterday's paper. It is comforting to know that money spent for this type of sex education seems to be working, at least to a degree. It still remains a bit discomforting to see that "The participants' mean age was 12.2 years ... and the probability of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up was 33.5% in the abstinence-only intervention and 48.5% in the control group."

If 1/3 of "abstinence-educated" 12-14 year olds are still having sex, it may not be a panacea, however.:( And it also stated that this type of sex education had no impact on condom use.

noonereal
02-03-2010, 09:26 AM
So what dose this study show is the advantage of abstinence only over pregnancy prevention classes?
and
How does this improve the transmission of diseases?

piece-itpete
02-03-2010, 10:12 AM
I heard this am that it says somewhere in there that almost 25% of kids were already having sex when enrolled.

Don't know about condom use, but less sex = less young girls pushing baby carriages (with no fathers) you'd think.

Pete

noonereal
02-03-2010, 10:23 AM
I heard this am that it says somewhere in there that almost 25% of kids were already having sex when enrolled.

Don't know about condom use, but less sex = less young girls pushing baby carriages (with no fathers) you'd think.

Pete

But I cannot understand if this is suggesting if this is perferable over Protected sex classes or just better than nothing?

doucanoe
02-03-2010, 11:32 AM
You know what might be the most effective, have them heavily promote a new MTV show...

"The Real World ~ Pimp ya Blow Job!, Yeah Boi !!!"

RC

BlueStreak
02-04-2010, 12:16 AM
I still say trying to keep teenagers from having sex is like trying to push a rope.
The best hope we have is the good old condom.

Regards,
Dave

merrylander
02-04-2010, 07:20 AM
I still say trying to keep teenagers from having sex is like trying to push a rope.
The best hope we have is the good old condom.

Regards,
Dave

QFT !

piece-itpete
02-04-2010, 07:37 AM
Regardless of, well, the facts? :)

But I cannot understand if this is suggesting if this is perferable over Protected sex classes or just better than nothing?

The discussion I heard said compared to typical sex ed, you know, having grade schoolers put condoms on bananas etc :D

Pete

noonereal
02-04-2010, 08:01 AM
Regardless of, well, the facts? :)



The discussion I heard said compared to typical sex ed, you know, having grade schoolers put condoms on bananas etc :D

Pete

i read that nowhere but if true that would not surprise me because this is about kids who have sex not babies? right?

that is the problem with the media, real facts are hard to come by.

piece-itpete
02-04-2010, 10:21 AM
It sure doesn't help that we can't read the whole darn thing!

Pete

Boreas
02-04-2010, 10:36 AM
It sure doesn't help that we can't read the whole darn thing!

Pete

For instance, what was the control group, kids who received no sex education or some other form of sex education.

John

noonereal
02-04-2010, 10:41 AM
For instance, what was the control group, kids who received no sex education or some other form of sex education.

John

That has been my question John.

piece-itpete
02-04-2010, 11:46 AM
Read it very carefully (do all researchers talk that gibbilty-gook?).

Interventions

An 8-hour abstinence-only intervention targeted reduced sexual intercourse;

an 8-hour safer sex–only intervention targeted increased condom use;

8-hour and 12-hour comprehensive interventions targeted sexual intercourse and condom use;

and an 8-hour health-promotion control intervention targeted health issues unrelated to sexual behavior.

Participants also were randomized to receive or not receive an intervention maintenance program to extend intervention efficacy.



Outcome Measures The primary outcome was self-report of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were other sexual behaviors.

Results The participants' mean age was 12.2 years; 53.5% were girls; and 84.4% were still enrolled at 24 months.

Abstinence-only intervention reduced sexual initiation (risk ratio [RR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.96). The model-estimated probability of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up was 33.5% in the abstinence-only intervention and 48.5% in the control group. Fewer abstinence-only intervention participants (20.6%) than control participants (29.0%) reported having coitus in the previous 3 months during the follow-up period (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99).

Abstinence-only intervention did not affect condom use.

The 8-hour (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-1.00) and 12-hour comprehensive (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99) interventions reduced reports of having multiple partners compared with the control group. No other differences between interventions and controls were significant.

.-.-.-.

Pete

merrylander
02-04-2010, 12:14 PM
Talk about trying to polish a turd.

Boreas
02-04-2010, 12:35 PM
Talk about trying to polish a turd.

Ain't that the truth!

Think about it for a minute. Here we have an abstinence education program where the effectiveness is measured through the "self-reporting" of the students/subjects.

Take any group of 12 year olds, give them instruction aimed at discouraging a particular type of behavior and then two years later ask them whether they're still being good little boys and girls. Then use that as the sole basis for measuring the results of the program!

I'm still not seeing any reference to what the control group consisted of unless it's this:

"Participants also were randomized to receive or not receive an intervention maintenance program to extend intervention efficacy."

If that's it, the control would be the ones not receiving follow-up so the conclusions can only be said to address the efficacy of that follow-up, not the program as a whole.

If I'm right, I'm really disappointed in Penn. They're a good school and a good hospital.

John

noonereal
02-04-2010, 01:07 PM
Ain't that the truth!

Think about it for a minute. Here we have an abstinence education program where the effectiveness is measured through the "self-reporting" of the students/subjects.

Take any group of 12 year olds, give them instruction aimed at discouraging a particular type of behavior and then two years later ask them whether they're still being good little boys and girls. Then use that as the sole basis for measuring the results of the program!

I'm still not seeing any reference to what the control group consisted of unless it's this:

"Participants also were randomized to receive or not receive an intervention maintenance program to extend intervention efficacy."

If that's it, the control would be the ones not receiving follow-up so the conclusions can only be said to address the efficacy of that follow-up, not the program as a whole.

If I'm right, I'm really disappointed in Penn. They're a good school and a good hospital.

John

Very very astute observations John.

piece-itpete
02-04-2010, 01:09 PM
I'm here to help. :D Let's see if I can translate:

There are 4 groups here.

1) An 8-hour abstinence-only intervention targeted reduced sexual intercourse;

2) an 8-hour safer sex–only intervention targeted increased condom use;

3) 8-hour and 12-hour comprehensive interventions targeted sexual intercourse and condom use;

4) and an 8-hour health-promotion control intervention targeted health issues unrelated to sexual behavior.

Number 4 is the control group.

The results are large enough percentage-wise to matter. When they say "No other differences between interventions and controls were significant" that means only mentioned differences were observed, if unmentioned it was statistically equal (so the sex rate of 4 with no sex ed was the same as 2 and 3).

I think I've got it :)

Pete

Boreas
02-04-2010, 01:34 PM
I'm here to help. :D Let's see if I can translate:

There are 4 groups here.

1) An 8-hour abstinence-only intervention targeted reduced sexual intercourse;

2) an 8-hour safer sex–only intervention targeted increased condom use;

3) 8-hour and 12-hour comprehensive interventions targeted sexual intercourse and condom use;

4) and an 8-hour health-promotion control intervention targeted health issues unrelated to sexual behavior.

Number 4 is the control group.

Going back to your original link, I don't read it that way at all. What I get is either a 4-part program or, perhaps more likely, 4 distinct programs of instruction. The trouble here is the only group for which there is any data disclosed is Group 1, the "Just Say No" group. No mention of results from the condom use, sex & condom use or health instruction groups and no mention at all of a control group except to say that Group 1 scored better.

The "killer" for me, however, is the self-reporting deal. Completely unreliable data since the very nature of the curriculum forces the response from the students.

Of course, there's also the conclusion. It's that Abstinence Only "may have an important role" in preventing adolescent sexual intercourse. It doesn't even imply that AO is sufficient by itself as Christianists maintain.

John

piece-itpete
02-04-2010, 01:58 PM
It is entirely possible we have no idea what we're talking about :confused: :p

The report has piqued my curiosity and I'll spend more time tomorrow hopefully finding the details. Because it still looks goobitilygookish to me!

One thing though - what are they supposed to do, surgically attach spy cameras down there? :)

Pete

doucanoe
02-04-2010, 01:58 PM
"... It doesn't even imply that AO is sufficient by itself as Christianists maintain.

John



Your generalizations on this subject and so many others is why you will fail. You do realize that don't you?

RC

finnbow
02-04-2010, 02:03 PM
It is entirely possible we have no idea what we're talking about :confused: :p

Bingo, Pete. You can bet your butt that there will be competing studies to attempt to corroberate or refute this one. Stay tuned.

Boreas
02-04-2010, 02:06 PM
Your generalizations on this subject and so many others is why you will fail. You do realize that don't you?

RC

I don't think I generalized at all. I said "Christianists", (Right Wing fundamentalists), not Christians (of which I am one).

John

Boreas
02-04-2010, 02:12 PM
It is entirely possible we have no idea what we're talking about :confused: :p

The report has piqued my curiosity and I'll spend more time tomorrow hopefully finding the details. Because it still looks goobitilygookish to me!

One thing though - what are they supposed to do, surgically attach spy cameras down there? :)

Pete

I agree that we need more and clearer information. As to spy cameras, well, I agree there too. The only conclusive way to do a study of this sort is to use only girls and to both start and conclude with a gynecological exam. No way that's gonna happen, nor should it.

It might be useful, however, to track out of wedlock teen pregnancies and try to discern whether the girls (and their partners when known) received sex education and, if so, what kind. You could do this with regard to reported STD infections among teens too.

John

merrylander
02-04-2010, 02:16 PM
It is also quite possible that many young girls engage in pre-marital sex simply because they are starved for affection. What the hey, having children out of wedlock is fine for their heroes on the silver screen, no?

doucanoe
02-04-2010, 02:29 PM
I don't think I generalized at all. I said "Christianists", (Right Wing fundamentalists), not Christians (of which I am one).

John


I know what you said ( I quoted it). You just don't get what I mean. It's a small part of it but the coined terms and condescension are going to be the ultimate undoing of your peoples. I'm trying to say that in the most hospitable way possible ;)

I really do believe that.



RC

westgate
02-04-2010, 02:48 PM
hmmm, i tink da end of days and da rapchur are coming. da religionists are gonna git us.

where's my bumbershoot?

merrylander
02-04-2010, 03:26 PM
I know what you said ( I quoted it). You just don't get what I mean. It's a small part of it but the coined terms and condescension are going to be the ultimate undoing of your peoples. I'm trying to say that in the most hospitable way possible ;)

I really do believe that.

RC

Forgive me if I suggest that such behaviour is a two way street. More of a case of pot - kettle - black.:rolleyes:

doucanoe
02-04-2010, 04:25 PM
Forgive me if I suggest that such behaviour is a two way street. More of a case of pot - kettle - black.:rolleyes:


If you are referring to the far right, It's a two way street indeed.

RC

Boreas
02-04-2010, 09:10 PM
I know what you said ( I quoted it). You just don't get what I mean. It's a small part of it but the coined terms and condescension are going to be the ultimate undoing of your peoples. I'm trying to say that in the most hospitable way possible ;)

I really do believe that.

Do you not like the term Christianists? I think it fits the Right Wing fundamentalist Christians who oppose sex education beyond the "just say no" approach. I think it's a valid descriptor and don't see it as offensive or insulting in the least. Sorry if I hit a nerve.

Also, it bears repeating that your original objection was that the term was an over-generalization. It is not since it describes a particular subset of Christians who are trying to turn the country into a theocracy. Now it seems that you just find the term offensive, perhaps personally insulting. Neither was intended.


John

doucanoe
02-04-2010, 10:27 PM
I don't think fundamentalist Christians would wish to count me among them. Even though it sounds contradictory, I do think that all this sub-division terminology leads to generalization as a whole. I realize you personally did not come up with the term "Christainists" or any of the 'ist's for that matter and don't find it offensive as such. I have however, always sensed that making something a _'ist , even in a rational, honest conversation to have certain smugness and arrogance to it. I think a lot of conservatives feel we have enough defining "terms" for different groups and don't feel it necessary to just make up new ones as we go along. It just gets tiresome.

Not that it makes a difference one way or another, but I react much better to the use of Fundamentalist Christian's and do agree with you for the most part regarding that. Typing it out though, I just realized that it's much easier to use Christianists ;)

RC

BlueStreak
02-05-2010, 12:31 AM
I like the term my brother coined--"Christian Taliban". When I think of this it conjures up images of pickup trucks full of rednecks, wearing t-shirts bearing the faces of the FoxNews crew. Going around beating the crap out of people for failing to show up for Sunday Worship.

Regards,
Dave

noonereal
02-05-2010, 07:34 AM
I like the term my brother coined--"Christian Taliban". When I think of this it conjures up images of pickup trucks full of rednecks, wearing t-shirts bearing the faces of the FoxNews crew. Going around beating the crap out of people for failing to show up for Sunday Worship.

Regards,
Dave

:rolleyes:

more likely:

pickup trucks full of rednecks, wearing t-shirts bearing the faces of the FoxNews crew going around beating the crap out of people for feeding the poor



I have noticed that they don't get to upset when you miss church but as soon as you show any signs of social responseabilty they run for the guns.

merrylander
02-05-2010, 07:50 AM
All of this problem of terminology is really rather a waste of time. Frex, as a conservative I find the GOP's use of the term as a self description objectionable, but that won't stop them.

d-ray657
02-05-2010, 10:46 AM
All of this problem of terminology is really rather a waste of time. Frex, as a conservative I find the GOP's use of the term as a self description objectionable, but that won't stop them.

I've seen you mention that before. It's interesting. What is your definition of a true conservative? What is you definition of liberal? What classical political term would you use to describe the Hannity/O'Reilly spiel?

Regards,

D-Ray