Discord,
I'll get back to you later on that "why are there more conservatives in the service" issue. I have an idea as to why too but its something I don't have time to go into until tonight. But I do admit, some flaws do fall back on the liberal side. But not what you might think. I'll explain later

Ebbertt--Haven't you noticed that Info understands little of what he spouts off on? If he tried to become a Contitutional lawyer his brain would explode!
Can't wait till he comes back later to educate us further. I think he's starting to ignore me on purpose now!

I once had an English professor who had attended
Berkley during the 60's. She was from Ohio and was rather middle of the road politically. Well, one day some student organization at Berkley organized a boycott of classes to show their disagreement with the US involvement in Vietnam. The group held a protest vigil outside of many classroom buildings. Well, my professor wanted to go to class as she had to turn in a research paper. On her way to enter the building she was confronted by several angry students who were attempting to persuade her that she needed to join their protest since they were protesting for the "freedoms of the oppressed citizens of Vietnam". She stated that she had to go turn in a paper to a professor in the building. She was hit on the head with a wooden slat used to support one of the protest signs. She was knocked unconscious and came to in the hospital. She still has a scar on the side of her forehead from where she was struck.

Now, the reason I mention this is that Info seems to be exhibting similiar personality traits. He doesn't have a great deal of facts and also doesn't appear to respect any arguments he disagrees with, regardless of how well-supported they may be. Instead, he uses some ill-conceived logic fallacies and gross generalizations coupled with sweeping over-simplification to discredit anyone who doens't support him. Further, he seems to be rather antagonistic when confronted with a different opinion.

Why is it that most people I have met who are "libera" don't respect those who disagree with them?

P.S. According to an ABC News/Gallup poll a few months back, more than 60% of Americans consider themselves neither liberal nor conservative, but rather moderate. Which shouldn't come as any surprise considering how both Gore and Bush staked the middle ground as their own and the vote was thus extremely close.

Sorry, if I am stepping on anyone's argument by injecting facts. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Info... As a conservative, wouldn't you by what you say your ideals are, want to hold the power to vote just like you want to have your power to keep and bare arms?... Or am I sensing a contradiction here?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Unfortunately, you are apparently not sensing very much at all. I have stated repeatedly that I AM NOT A CONSERVATIVE! This contradiction you see is because my (and others') statements are blurred and twisted by your extreme bias before they reach your brain. I have not said I was a conservative, so how can I contradict myself by saying something against conservatives? You break people into too broad of a grouping. It seems that you see people as your group, the good guys, and then everyone else. You are lumping me in with a group I don't belong to, simply because I disagree with you. You have to understand that there is nothing wrong with me disagreeing with you, and arguing. It doesn't make me part of this "Evil Them" fantasy group you seem to have created. People will never agree on everything, get over it.

AND FROM NOW ON, read my posts before telling me what I am. Again, you have never met me, you cannot tell me my motivations or what group I belong to. Catching a recurring theme here? Speak only for your own interior motivations, you don't know anyone else's.

As to the electoral college system, Ebbertt was right, you seem to take a little bit of information you get from perusing, and consider yourself an expert. Marty started my rebuttal. Your understanding of the election process, and the very make up of our country, is high school, at best. Allow me to explain.

This nation was not formed as one nation, with states existing for geographic convenience. It was formed by a UNION of SEPARATE STATES. For a long time, people would say the United States ARE a democracy, not IS a democracy. The states were, are, and always will be, independent entities with rights and powers the federal government cannot touch. The United States is not one whole entity, it is a powerful organism created by the agreed merger of all the states. Technically, the confederate states did have the right to secede before the War between the states. (don't wanna start another debate here, maybe a new topic later)

Now, recognizing that the states needed to keep their measure of independence, the founders knew that popular voting would never be viable. Ever notice you register to vote by state? You do not vote as a citizen of the United States, you vote as a resident of whatever state you register in, voting for who should run the UNION. Popular vote would allow less than a fifth of the states to determine who leads the UNION. This would never work, and states would never agree. Electoral voting is the best system there is, allowing states, regardless of population, to have equal voice in the choice of who leads the UNION of states. You do not vote for the country, you vote for the state, and then the states vote for the country. To popular vote is to deny equal status to a majority of states.
Your statements show you do not have a clear understanding of the importance of states in our UNION, and do not understand the way the system works. If you do not understand a system, how can you say it is poor and unfair?

Being a historian, I have studied this in great detail, several different times. I have classes devoted purely to this subject of state vs. federal. It took the founders decades to work out the current system, through trial and error. What are your qualifications to denounce a system you don't even understand, and make recommendations for the country, when you obviously don't even understand the basic nature of the country?

NYC, nice point, a bit more of the "if you don't agree with us, you can't have anything worth saying to hell with you" syndrome being evident. But what can you do, it WAS Berkeley.

Info, I would look forward to hearing your belief as to why more conservatives are in the military, but frankly, you aren't in the military, and if you are going to make another comment about their motivations and beliefs, prepare for me to be insulted, and quite pissed. You had better word it right and make sure not to make any of these sweeping, broad comments, and you should have empirical data to back it up. I take slander against the military personally. But if it is fact based and specific, I'll be glad to hear it. I am tired of your hearing simple opinions based off of little fact.

NYC, 60%? More than I thought in the middle. Why, that means that the majority can't possibly be liberal, doesn't it? But maybe the moderates are internally motivated to be liberal. In fact, I read a sentence last year, and based off that, I'll say I know they are all motivated to be liberal, and they all best represent thousands of people from all kinds of different backgrounds. (Hey, that sounds a little silly and far fetched, doesn't it?)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Marty Givens:
<strong>Ctc-I read that article you posted but I don't see where you got the idea that the military was going to become unrecognizable with the changes he is purporting.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Marty,

I'm not sure what changes you're expecting not to notice that the carrier as it exists has been the defining feature of the Navy since prior to WWII. Without the current conflagaration of carriers the Navy will resemble itself in the same way it resembles the pre-War of 1812 Navy or the Navy of the Confederates States. Same thing with the Air Force, only think props to jets (the Wright Brothers to Chuck Yeager).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29137-2002Apr10.html

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Discord:
<strong>how many regular, civilian people would die to save someone not in their immediate family?
[QUOTE]</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It has happened regularly throughout times of strife and warfare. Humans (and elephants to a certain extent) have the unique capability of extending very personal emotions beyond the adoption of orphans onto the backs of others. Humans many times have seen perceived injustice and taken the mantle of vengeance onto themselves in order to demand retribution at the point of a sword. In every army in every society throughout human civilization people have taken up the call for arms for reasons other than their immediate family. Hell, the last reason I joined was for my family! I joined because I was attracted to the adventure of it all. I couldn't have cared less who I was fighting for. I was following my most base and selfish nature. Give me a gun and a cause to wrap my actions around and I was off and running.

Do you believe that the lowliest foot soldier of the Taliban or Al Queda is carrying a rifle and putting himself at risk for his family? If he is it's only in the most theoretically remote way. His family would be better off with him at home earning a living. People put themselves at risk of death, or worse, because it is in our nature to follow hare-brained ideas as if they are God's personal recusal.

I joined purely for service. I could never do a job where the goal was personal, advancement of myself. I have to serve. And most other people in the military are out there to serve, it might not have been their original reason, but it usually either changes, or they get out of the military.

When I say civilians, I don't mean people before they join the military. I mean people who don't join at all. Yes, many people throughout history go of to war for other people, but the percentage of humans who fight for others is far less than the amount of people who stay home and let battles be fought for them. Most regular, non-service people, would sit at home and try to ride out the troubled times, instead of figthing or helping. During the Revolutionary War, most towns would switch between Pro-British, and Pro-American, depending on which sides' soldiers were in the town that day. In women's self defense classes, they teach you if you are getting raped, yell "Fire!" instead of "Help Rape!" Know why? Because the average person will not come help someone getting raped, but they will flock to a fire, TO WATCH. I could remind you of the woman, I think her named was Katherine Genovese, who was stabbed 36 times on her apartment stoop, and cried for help for two or three hours before dying. All her NEIGHBORS (they knew her!) said they heard her, but didn't "want to get involved." Every now and then some extraordinary person, or person in an extraordinary situation, will risk themselves for people they don't know, but those are the exceptions. The only people who sign up to do it regularly, and for little benefits, are those in the services or law enforcement.

And Al-Qaeda and Taliban are not soldiers or warriors (my opinion). They are not fighting to make things better. They are deluded, or brainwashed, or simply wrapped up in lies spun by their leaders, dreams of the paradise that will come when they win. They are fighting because the leaders have duped them, and the leaders fight, regardless of what they say, for POWER. They want to be in charge, they don't care who they kill to do it, they don't care what happens to everyone else, as long as they HAVE POWER.

Many do care about other people, but I am just saying it will take us a lot more evolving before every sees the species as one whole family to protect, and care about the survival of the species, instead just their survival, or their family's (gene lines') survival. Hell, maybe we need some evil alien race to come try to wipe us out, that'll bring us together.

Just heard this on the news this morning. State employees are calling for an FBI investigation of the NC state Democratic National Party. Apparently, the DNP is requiring or forcing political contributions to be made to the party to get high level promotions and raises that the employees deserve anyway. Yet another white collar crime!!! If this is worse than drug dealing (I still think that is a stupid sentiment, but it's opinion), then I guess things are really bad in the democratic party of NC. Seems the FBI might have already been investigating on their own for two years.

And from what I've seen from living here, the Democrats of NC are very liberal. Hmmm.....

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Discord:
<strong>And Al-Qaeda and Taliban are not soldiers or warriors (my opinion). They are not fighting to make things better. They are deluded, or brainwashed, or simply wrapped up in lies spun by their leaders, dreams of the paradise that will come when they win. They are fighting because the leaders have duped them, and the leaders fight, regardless of what they say, for POWER. They want to be in charge, they don't care who they kill to do it, they don't care what happens to everyone else, as long as they HAVE POWER. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This floors me!

What does this say about the people who followed President Bush&#8217;s call for shopping as the patriotic response to 9/11?

It doesn't explain the Chechnyans, Palestinians, or any other of the foreign nationals fighting with the Al Queda and Taliban. And it assumes it isn't possible for a rational and thinking person to believe in a religion as fervently as they seem to (and if that&#8217;s true you must also lump in the Puritans, Calvinists, and all of the people in Middle Ages, for that matter&#8212;there&#8217;s a long list of Christian fanatics who can fall into this&#8212;as being equally deluded and brainwashed).

People following Bush's call to shop was not delusion. It was actually a good idea, people shopping would one: get them out of their houses where they were hiding afraid, and two: help the economy, which needed it. A strong economy helps the nation.

Don't know much about the Chechnyens, did they use terrorism? Palestinians, well, purposely killing women, children, non-combatants, that is not war, those are not soldiers or warriors. Yes Israeli tropps end up killing non-combatants, but as collatreral damage, it is not their goal. Palestian terrorists are trained from childhood to be suicide bombers, and they are lured with lies of becoming martyrs. They never choose, they are indoctrinated, and they are doing it for martyrdom and heaven for themselves, not to help their cause. If they really thought about it, they'd fight like Ghandi, no violence, which would leave the Israelis with their back to the wall, since they can't fight peaceful resistance with violence. Either that, or they need to fight a straight out conventional war. As long as they persist in terrorist attacks, I will not give them the respect of being soldiers and warriors fighting for a just cause. The way they fight perverts their cause.

Al-Qaeda and Taliban perverted their religion, they used it as an exuse for their actions, a rationalization for their quest to be in charge. Islam teaches that Christians and Jews are dhimmi people of the book, and are to be given great amounts of respect, and to be viewed as cousins who will eventually become brothers. Islam is used as a thin shield for their real motives, being in power. And I do group many of the Middle Age Christians in with them. The Crusade where began by Pope Urban the Second, why? Because people were beginning to notice the corruption in the church, and the Papalcy needed a BIG distraction to stay in power. Why did people go fight? Because the Pope told them if they killed Muslims, all their past sins were forgiven and they secured a spot in heaven. Not to save Europe, not to save Christians in the Holy Land (they slaughtered Christians and Jews by the thousands...), but to GET A SPOT IN HEAVENS. And it was started by a person who wanted to stay in power. The only Crusade I respect was the Spainish driving the moors out of their country, to regain freedom. To bad they tortured and killed thousands of Jews in the Inquisition after words.

People who truly follow their religions would never fight for these people, the motives and the methods are things that all the worlds major religions denounce.

See through their rationalizations. Religion is a veil, because they cannot just come out and say, "We want to be in Charge." If they really wanted to make their countries better, they work with us instead of trying to kill our innocent citizens. I say either fight a stand up, true war, or use peaceful methods, but quit being a bunch of cowards who have to lie about your motives and kill people who can't or don't fight back.

Ctc-Here&#8217;s some quotes from the article:

&#8220;Rumsfeld's review is likely to call on the Navy to stop building huge aircraft carriers and start designing a new, smaller carrier that is less vulnerable to missiles. "The big loser is the carrier," said one person familiar with the review.&#8221;

Now wouldn&#8217;t a smaller aircraft carrier still be a big boat that carries airplanes? And thus recognizable by the planes that are on it?

&#8220;The review is also likely to push the Air Force toward spending more on long-range bombers and unmanned aircraft, and less on short-range fighters, sources said. One Pentagon official said he expects that Rumsfeld eventually will ask the Air Force to buy fewer F-22s -- new fighter planes whose cost-effectiveness has been questioned -- but start acquiring them sooner.&#8221;

So there&#8217;s fewer F-22&#8217;s and more long range bombers-still sounds like the Air Force to me. I still don&#8217;t get where the &#8220;unrecognizable&#8221; part comes in.

Wrote Palestinians, meant Pakistanis (I don't have much empathy with the Palestinians who use terror, but I do think they have the qualities that make a good soldier/warrior).

Will respond later when I have more time...

INFO-A few more notes on true Conservatism and how it differs from your POV on Conservatives. Another hallmark of conservatism is allowing people to suffer the consequences of their own actions rather than shelter them from these consequences.

In San Francisco, each of "the homeless" gets paid hundreds of dollars a month for doing nothing more than gracing the fair citizens of that beautiful city with their presence. There was once a time when parents pointed out bums on the streets and told their children that this was what could happen to you if you didn't bother to learn the things you needed to know, and do the things you needed to do, to make it in life.

Today, children are taught to be "non-judgmental" and the media keep saying that these drug-ridden derelicts are "people just like us" who happened to fall on hard times -- even though study after study shows what a pious lie that is.

Conservatives understand that life is hard and sometimes &#8220;hunger is the teacher&#8221;.

Virtually every necessity of life is spoken of as something to which people have a "right" (sound familiar INFO?) -- meaning that it should be paid for by the taxpayers. In other words, nothing that you really need should require your own effort. Presumably the only point of working would be to get frivolous amenities.

Those who want a world without adversity, struggle or competition in effect want a world where the government plays Lady Bountiful with the taxpayers' money. With all the responsibilities of human beings removed from people's shoulders, the recipients become like livestock, fed and sheltered by their caretakers. That is a very self-flattering picture to those who want to be caretakers, but an insult to those who want to be human beings.
This being my belief I suppose I&#8217;m evil.

I hope I&#8217;m representing my fellow conservatives well so far.

Discord is a conservative he just doesn&#8217;t know it yet! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Marty Givens:
<strong>Those who want a world without adversity, struggle or competition in effect want a world where the government plays Lady Bountiful with the taxpayers' money. With all the responsibilities of human beings removed from people's shoulders, the recipients become like livestock, fed and sheltered by their caretakers. That is a very self-flattering picture to those who want to be caretakers, but an insult to those who want to be human beings.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Just to touch on what Marty said, in this kind of society (a socialist/communist/liberal paradise) there are two possible outcomes:

1) As more people come to rely totally upon the government for their well being, they have less incentive to work. This reduces the income to the government, creating a viscious cycle leading to a bankrupt government and overthrow.

2) As more people come to rely totally upon the government for their well being, they have less incentive to work. This cause an increasingly smaller portion of the population, that actually works, to shoulder the entire burden for the rest of society. Eventually, they will get pissed off and will overthrow the government.

Note: I did not say how long this will take, but it is an INEVITABLE outcome of a government such as the one you propose over and over, Info.

Matt

Good points about government control, I have nothing to add to that, just thought I'd give some kudos...

CtClaus, you're right, Palestinians do have the qualities to be good soldiers and warriors. They have strong determinations, and if they had the patience, they would have the qualities needed to pull off a Gandhi style resistance against Israel. If Israel used violence against peacefully resisting Palestinians, the world, especially including the US, would recoil and refuse to support Israel. But as it stands, they are being cowards, not warriors. Simple cowards.

And by Pakistani, I am assuming you mean the Pakistani fighting for control of the Kashmir region? (please correct if I'm wrong) That is a slightly different situation. The people there are not fighting for a nation, they already have one. It is a territorial dispute. The area is claimed by India and Pakistan. It is not one country controlled by another, with the indigenous people fighting for freedom. It is two people with countries of their own fighting for more land. But I do personally condemn the Pakistani and Indian fighters, they use terror tactics and bomb innocent people. I will never agree to that, but I am not going to say they should have out and out war, it would probably go nuclear. Last I heard, the governments were making advances to a peaceful solution.

I think the Tibetans are personally some of the bravest, strongest, most determined people on the planet. How long has their nation been under the of the PRC? And yet they stick to their religion, they don't have a militant group that perverts their religion into a reason to kill innocent Chinese women and children (China does enough of that for them). They trust and have faith in the Dalai Lama, their religious leader, and they persist against great odds, working however they can within their true beliefs to free their country. I respect them. Those are people I would fight for, to free. They stick to their beliefs, and I would stick to my belief that some things are worth fighting for, though they'd probably ask me not to use violence...

Marty, I have conservative views on many things, I just prefer not to be labeled as part of a group. I hate -ism's and being an -ist. Just like my religion. I am not Christian or Jewish or Muslim, but I am not atheist either, since they believe just as strongly, and with as little proof, that there is absolutely no god. I don't know, I don't worry about it. I have no religion, one way or the other. I just do what I know in my heart is right.

By the way everyone, I'm going to start a post discussing some of the Israel Palestine stuff, keep an eye out, I'd like to hear other opinions/views!

Marty,
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Virtually every necessity of life is spoken of as something to which people have a "right" -sound familiar INFO?- -- meaning that it should be paid for by the taxpayers. In other words, nothing that you really need should require your own effort. Presumably the only point of working would be to get frivolous amenities.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If there is a "need" that cannot be met by means of income or earnings alone, then yes, to me, the government should intervene. In my opinion, those basic needs are defined as healthcare, education, and equal justice.

Even food and shelter can be put into that group as well. Most of us have the means for that most basic need, however, there are also many that don't, which is the reason we have food stamp and housing programs (which many in the service are on by the way).

These programs are not set up so that lazy people can be leaches on government funds. From what I know of food stamps and housing, there is a criteria (income requirement unless you're handicap) you must meet before qualifying for these services. So these people are clearly not lazy. But if some programs allow people to get these benefits for nothing, then it is clearly wrong. However, don't let those unfortunate situations take away from what the real focus should be, the needs of the low income poor.

So in closing, no, everyone should not be provided the basic necessities. Its those who clearly cannot attain them that should get them through government aid.

ebbertt,
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> As more people come to rely totally upon the government for their well being, they have less incentive to work. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Continuation from previous post: Government aid should come only to those who work and still can't afford basic needs like healthcare, which for me, is a human right). I think the incentive to work will actually be greater because people will actually feel like they have something a little more valuable to work with instead of turning to alternative sources for money (crime). But this concept I am talking about does not apply to those who do not work for no reason.

Those who cannot work (disabled) are obviously a separate case.

I agree that those who are handicapped or old, or invalid, should have help, but those who are capable of working, if they do not have enough to meet their basic needs, they are either not working hard enough, or not living within their means. Low income families should use birth control, buy inexpensive (relatively) cars, and not buy luxuries until they are making enough to buy those things and still have the necessities. Yes, you have to prove you are working to get food stamps, and have to prove you are looking for a job to get unemployment, but don't you think families with three or four kids could buy more basic necessities if they waited to have children? I'm not saying I know when people should have kids or not, but I think it is an injustice to the children and parents themselves not to wait until they can afford to properly support a larger family.

I know some people are trying hard, and are living within their means, and are honestly just stuck. But many others on government programs keep having kids when they can't support the ones they have, they buy TVs or other luxuries instead of food and necessities with their government checks. People must prioritize and live within their means, it is not the government's place to make up for peoples' mistakes, lack of foresight, and frivolousness. I have some family friends that started out flat broke, they got a cheap car, cheap apartment, slept on the floor, had nothing but the basic necessities, and lived that way for a couple years until they moved THEMSELVES up, and eventually, ran their own business, then got a nice car, nice house, and started having kids. And they never asked for anything from the government. If they could do it, why can't others? There was nothing special about them.

Health care and education seem to improve as your station in life improves, and your station in life improves the harder you work. I believe if you work hard enough, you can achieve any goal. Government funding takes away motivation to achieve for yourself. If the government provided no help at all, you'd see a lot more people working a lot harder, because they would know that they are the only ones who can improve their lives.

Rights, unfortunately, are not inalienable. People are alienated from their rights all the time. Life: two men in a raging ocean, one life preserver, which one has the right to live? Hell, simple accidents and time alienate us all from the right to life. Liberty: people lose their freedom all the time. Millions of Jews lost liberty in WWII, Tibet has no liberty, even though they did nothing wrong. Pursuit of happiness: well, technically, that originally meant owning land, but you can pursue it all you want, doesn't mean you have any right to have happiness (can the government fund that?). And healthcare: millions of people all over the world have no healthcare other than what they provide for themselves. Rights are not something you automatically have and cannot have taken away from you. They aren't something intertwined into your being at birth. Rights must be earned and fought for. Want life? Fight to stay alive against the raging ocean, exercise to stay healthy longer so time can't take your life as quickly. Liberty, fight any oppressors, earn the right to stay free by protecting yourself from future oppressors. Healthcare? Earn it by working hard enough to get into a job with a good company that has a good health plan, or work up to a good job that pays enough that you can afford it.

Nobody is given rights, they fight to earn them, and they fight to keep them. Anyone who is stronger and more determined than you can strip away your rights, unless you stop them.

Good post, Discord.

We don't see eye to eye on some of it, but still, a good post.

INFO-That was probably your most reasoned post so far. I agree that the truly poor (victims of circumstances beyond their control rather than victims of their own bad choices) deserve compassion and assistance (even from evil folks such as myself) but there are very few truly poor people.

Each year, the Bureau of Census publishes America's poverty rate, which has hovered around 14 percent for several decades. The impression given is that poverty for about 20 percent of Americans is hopelessly permanent. That's a conclusion easily reached when given a static portrait of our income distribution. W. Michael Cox, vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas and Richard Alm, a Dallas Morning News reporter, report on a dynamic portrait that comes from a University of Michigan Survey consisting of detailed data from a sample of 50,000 Americans collected since 1968.

Collecting income over time gives a startlingly different picture of income distribution than that given by Bureau of Census statistics. The University of Michigan study shows that only 5 percent of those in the bottom fifth of the income distribution in 1975 were still there in 1991. What happened to them? They moved up to the top three-fifths of the income distribution -- middle class or higher.

Even more amazing is that three out of 10 of the lowest income earners in 1975 moved up into the top fifth of income earners by 1991. Those who were poor in 1975 had an inflation-adjusted gain of $27,745 in average income by 1991. Workers who were in the top fifth of income earners in 1975 were better off in 1991 by an average of only $4,354.

Poverty is largely a transitory experience for people who are willing to work, as Labor Department data confirms. In the early '90s, the median duration of poverty was 4.2 months. Only a third of the 36 million Americans the Bureau of Census classifies as poor had been below the poverty line for 24 or more months. This boils down to a long-term poverty rate of 4 percent, compared to the overall official rate of 13.3 percent in 1997.

Blacks still earn less than whites, but black income rose as well. Adjusting for inflation, the proportion of black families earning more than $75,000 tripled since 1970 to 9 percent. In 1998, the overall poverty rate for blacks fell to 26.5 percent, the lowest it has ever been. The number of black-owned businesses stood at 620,912 in 1992, up 281 percent since 1967, with sales of $36 billion.

Cox and Alm give a mixed story for Hispanics. On the positive side, the number of Hispanic businesses rose from 100,000 in 1967 to 862,605 in 1992, with sales of $86 billion. Although many Hispanic families are making it up the economic ladder, the group's overall income hasn't kept pace with blacks or whites. One possible explanation is the continuing immigration waves of low-skilled, low-wage workers who are overwhelming the statistical gains of longer-term residential Hispanics who've improved their education and skills.

The income mobility that Cox and Alm point to is possibly one of the greatest features about our country: Just because you know where a person ended up in life is no guarantee that you can predict where he started. And knowing where a person starts out in life does not control where he ends up.

And that's just one of the many things that make this the Greatest Country on God's Green Earth!

Marty, excellent post. Perfect, empirical evidence that hard work in this country can improve your station in life, you just have to want it and work enough to get it. if them folks had stayed where they were and leeched off the governemtn, they wouldn't have moved up. Only those who condemn THEMSELVES to stay in the cycle are the ones who typically stay below poverty. I may be a little harsh in this, but I think whne people have problems, the ones they have to blame the most are themselves, either for causing the problems, or for wallowing in self pity and refusing to FIX the problem.

CtClaus, hey, thanks!

Marty,
I'm not talking about giving the poor money. I agree with you 100% that just giving money creates a clear incentive not to do anything. But food stamps and a basic Medicare system for working folks with no benefits and low incomes is a plan that requires no green loot given to them.

As far as education and justice, those are more about reform than they are about giving benefits to any one person or family.

But my idea of completely privatizing education and creating a 100% voucher system is the way to go. I strongly believe that the civilian market will do much better in this area than the government. But for a system like this to work, it would have to completely terminate the public school system and dedicate all funds to vouchers, letting the private industry do its work while the government just sets educational standards that must be met before considering a school an accredited institution.

Then the amount of aid received is similar to college financial aid. However, middle school is so much cheaper so it becomes a much more realistic task to fund.

Discord,
One thing you have to understand is that working hard doesn't necessarily get you more money?

If I pick up boxes all day, working harder and doing it faster won't get me much more money. But if I don't have any tools to go college or get a better job, then I'm stuck.

In the end, your 100% right, we have to work hard period! But because we are so wealthy as a country, isn't it practical that in TODAY's world, we can afford and should help people to make it out of poverty slightly faster?

Every generation has a goal of making life easier on the next. But some are born lucky enough to have a rock solid foundation provided by their ancestors while others do not. So I'm not saying it should be even in any way (that's communism), and I'm not saying that anyone should receive government money. People are born in classes and that is reality. What I am saying is that a fair opportunity is essential to success and if some can have it all while others can't, then there's something wrong there and we can and should find ways to help people without creating dependent Americans. Its not that hard to do if you design programs properly so the few won't take advantage.

INFO-Finally you and I agree on something. Vouchers are the way to go-without competition in public schools they are doomed to get worse. Unfortunantly Bush didn't push hard enough for this and the Democrats are totally against it since they have a huge backing from the teacher's unions.

Lets treasure the moment <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

No no no I say!!! What's with this "getting along"?? I want fighting to the death! LOL, just joking guys... kind of.

Matt

I dunno, gotta go with ebbertt's "kind of."

I agree education needs reform, but I don't know about complete privatization. I went to a private school (actually a military school, but still falls under private), and basically, if the kids don't wanna work, they're not gonna. Saw plenty of people of people fail there, despite better teachers and more help. In the end it is up to the individual. And most European countries have school funded all the way to undergraduate degrees, and last I heard, many of those countries have higher literacy rates than we do. I think (being as I'm in NC, where you don't even have to be able to pass a test or be trained as a teacher to get a job), the main thing we need is higher standards for teachers (one of the things that makes private schools different than public), and make their pay more equal to private school. But hey, complete privatization could work, I just worry about school books sponsored by Nike and Gatorade (anybody see the Simpson's episode where the school was bought by a toy company?)

Info, by working harder, I don't just mean doing your job harder, I mean working harder at LIFE. And yes, actually lifting your boxes faster and better than the guys next to you will get you somewhere, you move up to floor manager. A construction worker bolts a better rivet, he/she moves up to foreman, first of a small building, does well on that, moves up to a bigger building. I'm sure everyone's heard about stockboys and mailroom folks who worked up.

But you're right, to radically climb the ladder, it takes more than just physical. I mean work harder in all ways, go to night classes or correspondence classes. Never stop searching for the better job, even if it's only a $0.25 raise in pay, it's still a step. Everyone has the tools to use them, it's whether they do or not, and whether they keep using them despite adversity and odds.

"People are born in classes and that is reality. What I am saying is that a fair opportunity is essential to success". Yes some people are born with the money their family earned, and people are born at different levels, but everyone has the opportunity to transcend. That is the wonderful thing about our country, and capitalism. It's not India, where it is almost impossible to leave your caste (short of reincarnation). Everyone has the opportunity, which makes our nation great, admirable and strong, and no one will make use of that opportunity for you, you have to work for yourself, in all ways and aspects. And that is what would make our people great and admirable and strong, that no matter how low they start, they pull themselves up, by the bootstraps. (Favorite saying from a great man, trust me.)

I think funds and help should only go to those who can't help themselves. Not those stuck for a little while (from Marty's post, 4.2 months is pretty quick for getting yourself out of poverty. What person isn't truly strong enough inside to survive 4 months without handouts?). Every little step is still a step, the important point is to keep taking the steps, and you accomplish more when you accomplish it on your own.

Sorry for all this, I'm just a huge believer in personal strength and doing for yourself.

Discord,
If there is a huge disparity between students succeeding in public school and students succeeding in private school, then you can't just blame it on the individual. There is obviously something wrong with the institution.

Personal responsibility is very important for adults, but we have to remember that when we are kids, we need to be guided, not be told that its all on us. And that is the responsibility of parents, teachers, counselors, etc. If there was no guidance, then we'd all be on drugs and be sleeping around without condoms.

In private school, more dedication is put on kids to succeed so when they make bad choices (normal), they nip it in the butt before it gets to be anything serious. In public school however, most times the kids are just hidden in the crowd and never get the attention they need. Who's fault is that?

In the end, you can't just blame the kid because if it was the other way around, many if the successful private school kids would have gone the same route.
------------------------------------------------------------
Good point on the success part. There are indeed many flaws in this country, but if your observant enough to look, try, and work hard, there are always ways around poverty.

Only thing I say is help those who can't help thenselves. Its the humane and responsible thing for us as American's to do.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by InfoSeeker:
<strong>Discord,
If there is a huge disparity between students succeeding in public school and students succeeding in private school, then you can't just blame it on the individual. There is obviously something wrong with the institution.

Personal responsibility is very important for adults, but we have to remember that when we are kids, we need to be guided, not be told that its all on us. And that is the responsibility of parents, teachers, counselors, etc. If there was no guidance, then we'd all be on drugs and be sleeping around without condoms.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Firstly, on the education side, that is not a sign that there is something wrong with the institution, necessarily. It is a sign that it should be looked into further to determine WHAT EXACTLY is the problem. Don't make generalizations, investigate and make specific recommendations. And no, "reform the shcool system" is not a specific recommendation. Something like "Raise pay & education requirements for teachers nationwide" is a specific recommanedation.

As for the second paragraph, that is a decidedly conservative view right there Info. In fact, it is one that I know I have made many times, as well as Marty & Discord. It is not the government's place to come in and guide the children, it is the community's job. Unfortunately for you, by making that statement you have contradicted what you have said numerous times so far in this debate.

Matt

PS - Part of the job of the community is to TEACH the children about personal responsibility. That is something that my teachers have done over the years and something I am forever grateful for.

Well, a few problems I see with education is horrible teaching, large classrooms, and no personal attention to child development. Those problems are obvious and need no endless research that cost money, time, and will come up with the same outcome. Basically, we need common sense intelligence to see what the problems are.

Now, we can remedy those problems and save the public school system, and you know what, it might work out ok. However, the private industry is so much better in this area than the government and you can see proof of that in many areas, so why not strive for the best instead of the quick patch ups in the public system? Just look at public colleges verse private ones. Or look at public high schools verse private high schools. Private is generally better.

As far as democrats and republicans go on education, your right, republicans are usually better because the teacher's union is not in their pocket. Another good case for why we need campaign finance reform. You heard Bush talk about teacher accountability while Gore talked about teacher recognition.

Info, maybe you mentioned this earlier and I just forgot, but think I'll ask anyway. If you are big into privatizing the school system (am I reading that right?), then how will the "less fortunate", also something you are big on helping out, going to afford to send students to a private school?

Matt

That's what a voucher is for, lol.

everyone gets them based on income. Isn't that assumed? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

Info, I'm gonna need some backing on the huge disparity between public school and private school performance. Just because of my experience, in my public high school (9 and 10 grade), out of graduating classes of 600 roughly, way more than 50% went to good, name schools, big state colleges like UNC and NC State, or Duke and service academies. In my private school (11 and 12 grade), the class ahead of me had 35 people, and like 4 went to real colleges, the rest either went to community college, or didn't go on to college. Out of my class of 31, about half of us went real colleges. I don't think the disparity is quite so black and white.

And you're right, the community has a part in raising and guiding kids, but sorry, I wouldn't be on drugs no matter what, I always thought that was a dumb *** route. And despite bad teachers, big classes, whatever, if a person wants to succeed, they will.

And more people I know who went to private schools, do drugs than people I know who went to public. Being from one, I can tell you you wouldn't believe the drug cultures some of thsoe schools have.

But hey, I think any improvement would help, either way the money is spent, as long as it works.

Damn, can't we go back to bashing each others political and personal views, and slinging thinly veiled insults at each other? This is getting too civilized, but I think the other topic I started is gonna break out into some fun stuff soon.

Discord,
I had the pleasure of seeing it from both sides. I went to catholic school all the way up till mid high school. But in between those years, financial problems put me in public school; Several public schools to be exact. So I went to what many considered the top public schools in the community. However, I saw the difference immediately. There were 1000s and 1000s of kids with so few teachers and counselors, who were horrible at their jobs anyway. So many kids were failing and slipping through the cracks and no one ever knew because they were just a # on a computer. Teachers actually slept in the classroom, some had their very own drug related problems or just didn't know the material very well, but overall, most just truly did not care.

They would send post cards to your home to let you know the days your child was absent from class. It might seem normal to many, but for me in private school, the teachers and even the principle were close friends with the parents, and if something was wrong, they'd be more than happy to make a phone call themselves and set up a private meeting. Nip the problem right in the butt so to speak.

In private school By around 7th grade I was taking college level courses and studying subjects like philosophy, psychology, and sociology that public school kids would never get. And we'd take trips all over the place to experience what we learned. Never once was a trip even mentioned in public school.

But overall, it was just such a huge disparity between the quality of education when comparing both experiences. Now, I realize that this does not constitute a huge generalization about all public education, however, its hard to see other schools as different when the ones I went to were the top public schools in New York. Not to mention the fact that these so called top public schools looked more like basements then schools.

I'm sure suburban public schools are much better, however, I see private schools as still being best. And with a voucher system set up for everyone, I see it producing a much smarter generation of Americans who's talents will be recognized at a much younger age.

Dude, I gotta say, you can't make generalizations about this from your experiences, cause being a military brat, I've been to schools in two countries and four states (different cities in those states too.) You went to a good damn private school and some crappy *** public schools. All of my public schools had field trips and teachers that cared, and the teachers in my public schools were closer to the community and parents than in my private school, probably cause all the students were from out of state.

The private school I went to and ones I visited only called the parents it the kid had already been failing for a while, if he was a severe discipline problem (I mean like police involved severe), or if the kid ran away (happened alot).

Maybe it's New York that sucks if the best public schools were that terrible. They aren't nearly that bad anywhere I've been.

And my friend here has a question, not to be rude, but I gotta ask. What seventh grader needs college philosophy, especially when they come out with such dismal typing and spelling skills? <img src="http://forums.off-topic.net/images/smilies/squint.gif" alt="" />

Oh yeah, if any teacher in any of my schools, public or private, slept in class or had a drug problem, they woulda gotten da boot.

Philosophy is not a prerequisite for developing work ethic (which is what schools seems to be leaning more toward these days). Philosophy is about thought, understanding our world and the universe, and developing thoughtful opinions as well as just general exploration of alternative ideas (what school used to be about until the economy stepped in). Seems like we give more importance to the "one exam fits all" concept and attendance then we actual give to learning.

I think a class on politics and the importance of voting should also couple that.

America is too ignorant these days now that the division of labor is splitting off into so many sub-micro branches. Seems like we’re all losing purpose and perspective. I guess that’s why religion holds more weight then ever in our lives today (as illogical as it is).

Sorry, school was not about the exploration of alternate ideas. School was about power. The rich could afford to send their kids to school, to learn reading, writing, and math, to run things. I think is to teachg children how to learn, and give them the basics they need to go on from there. Exploring alternative ideas is for graduate classes and think tanks. Schools are to teach the skills need to survive. What good is a society of philosphers who can explore all kinds of ideas, but can't operate the economy, run a business, or make the world go 'round? Some one has to be the Morlocks..
School has always been about teaching people how to do things, and giving them foundations. If you think the country is too ignorant in general, how is giving them philosophy in seventh grade gonna help when they haven't got the skills for basic survival in todays world down, or the thought pathways to truly understand the philosophy?

And people turning to religion when lost isn't illogical, it's why religion was invented (yes, I think it was invented by humans). To explain the things humans didn't understand, and to give purpose to people not strong enough to live for the sake of life.

Rational human beings have the responsibility of producing new rational human beings. If there is no thinking, then how will we be able to use the basic tools we learn in school. Basically, we need to apply our knowledge of writing, mathematics, and science all together in life which taps into philosophy. Its not about giving kids philosophy courses specifically in 7th grade. Its just about doing it in general. Or at least emphasizing it along the way so we don't just learn and learn, and never be able to apply. A generation of ignorant American's with fingers on the nuclear trigger is a scary thought.

I'm just saying I don't think a private school teaching philosphy and college level classes before high school is doing what it's supposed to, since the minds aren't generally ready, and have more basic things to learn first.

But mainly I was contesting the "developing thoughtful opinions as well as just general exploration of alternative ideas (what school used to be about until the economy stepped in)" schools are now pawns of the capitalist regime point. School was not about exploring ideas from the start, it was about learning skills to run things and be in charge.

And wouldn't it be better if we gave them the basics and then allowed them to develop their own philosophy?

Aside from what education is now and what it might have been intended to do, what SHOULD it be for in your own opinion? I say education is about learning, exploring, and developing oneself. But hey, we all know what my opinion is worth.

<<<And wouldn't it be better if we gave them the basics and then allowed them to develop their own philosophy?>>>

No one would be able to create the setting to do this. You know a better place to exercise thought than in a classroom? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

Boy has this taken on a life of it's own. It'll take me several days to catch up on reading it, now that I have returned from Russia.

It depends on what level of schooling you are talking about. Grade school should be mainly for teaching how to learn, how to think (in new and different as well as traditional ways), and mainly learning concrete skills for life. Yes, there should be times when free thought and discussion of just whatever subject comes up is the focus, but they should be times that are set aside once the other work is done. College and higer level classes should be for the more abstract, mental exploration of ideas.

Grade school should be for teaching things the people must know to work in today's world, then the people choose if they want to go on to higher education and expand their minds. Some people just want to work and don't really care about deep philosophical issues. They are not worried about mankind's destiny, they just want to work and live for the here and now. Should we force them to explore philosophy if they aren't going to use it? It should be thrown in a little bit in grade school, for the experience and exposure, (just like you end up learning a little of different types of math and literature), but it should not be the focus. Philosophy won't put bread on the table....

You're right on what education should be, I just think it should be at different levels.

Flame, sorry, this kinda settled down. Go to the Yassir Arafat post I started, that one was getting good, if we can get william to come back in...

Speaking of Education...Flame...what were you doing in Russia. I have a chance to go to Moscow in the fall and spend either a week training with Spetznatz or fly a Mig-29, my choice. Has anybody on this forum done these? Any problems ?
You didn't know this was available to Americans ?
It wasn't until about 5 years ago.
Check out : www.incredible-adventures.com

Hey William, I knew you could pay to go fly MiG's, even knew that it was becoming a big fad for big time CEO's to buy their own de-mil'ed MiG's. But I didn't know you could go train with Spetznaz. Can we make a deal? If you can get me one of their knives, the ones with a one-shot gun hidden in the handle, I'll pay ya whatever it cost you plus $75 (open to negotiation).

william,

Yes, I know these are available to Americans. They have been available for many years now and the prices for some of the "adventures" is quite reasonable. Keep in mind that Moscow is more European than the rest of Russia.

I was in Russia to assist my fiancee with her visa, visit her family and return here to Houston area. I've been fascinated with Russia and Space since I was a kid.

Back to topic:

The primary difference between public and private schools is responsibility. Public schools (most) do not require teachers to be evaluated (tested) on there knowledge for teaching the subjects. This is part of the agenda of the NEA. It makes it very difficult to remove poor teachers or ensure the children are being taught the factual/correct information. Private schools require resumes and most require annual testing, training, etc. They are also evaluated on their teaching performance. Along with other options available in the private sector, the hiring and removal of teachers is easier. All government entities have this problem. Take this question: What is the difference between a career military person and a lifer? Career person is in the profession because of their desire while a lifer is a Little Insecure F@#$er Evading Reality!

Lest we not forget the responsibility of the children, their behavior, and correct actions/instruction. Public schools are restricted by the governmental agencies in their enforcement actions. All the politically correct BS that does not allow teachers to maintain good control and order in their classes. Private schools usually have well laid out behavior requirements and corrective actions. If the parents do not agree then they can go to another school. The teachers have better control of their classes.

It is not the size of the class but the ability to control the environment. When public schools are not allowed to enforce the rules then anarchy exists from the resulting chaos. I have been visiting a school and addressed some students about their behavior. Their response was to tell me that I should shut the f@#$ up because I couldn't do anything to them because of the law. When I responded that I wasn't a teacher and that those laws didn't apply then they became very silent. Let me add something here, the military services receive thousands of 18 y/o kids every week yet they can control these kids and teach them in very large groups. Teaching them highly technical and demanding subjects is easier because of the control the instructors have over the environment. The instructors are evaluated and have restrictions on their behavior too. How else could PJ and CCT teach young kids, full of piss and vinegar, their dangerous and highly technical professions!

Public schools can work if the teachers are qualified and are given the tools to control the environment to use those qualifications. This would be true education reform without costing a penny extra!

This is for INFO and any other liberal/democrats who want to respond.

INFO had a long post wherein he excoriated conservatives as evil and blah, blah, blah...(Which was EXPERTLY rebutted by yours truly <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> )
I want to come back now with a PERFECT example of a liberal democrat running for office who embodies the "evilness of liberalism"

Robert Reich, former Clinton Labor Secretary, currently running for Governor of MA. just released his tax forms and they show him to be a typical liberal hypocrit:

He made more than $1 million (evil rich guy-INFO!), he paid LESS than 10% of that to taxes (federal, state and local combined--someone get me the name of his accountant!), he GAVE LESS than ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT to charity.
What a truly PATHETIC individual.
(Compare this to GW, paid 30%+ to taxes and still gave more than 10% to charity)

Does he have INFO's vote? Or would he get it if INFO lived in MA?

This is typical of liberals in that he wants one standard to apply to all of us while he lives by an entirely different one.

(Sorry guys but this education debate is a serious sleep inducer!)

Generalizing based on one person? Aren't you the same guy who told me about my hasty generalizations on previous topics? Now, I don't know the details in this situation but assuming your right, it only proves that there are potentially bad apples on any tree. However, If you did the math and polled the large groups from both side (assuming they told you the truth about their income), I'm sure the outcome will be quite different. And if it wasn't, then your argument might be sound.

Here's my generalization: On an economic level, republicans generally fight for the haves while the democrats fight for the have nots. That alone shows that to be a democrat, it requires a selfless character that would make it less likely for there to be bad apples. Why? Because politicians who support the lower classes (dem.) are usually wealthy themselves (conflict of interest). And they can raise more money serving the republican right if money is all they cared about.

So as much as you ridiculously try to twist the truth and say that its the other way around, it is not. Republicans fight for the rich and they are usually rich themselves (direct personal interest). So regardless of whether certain policies on either side are right or wrong, intent is what I look at first.

I don't offer him up as a generalization of EVERY democrat, just as a perfect example of what is wrong with the typical democrat (especially Clintonian democrats!). But at least I offer up an example-something you have never done! Plus, I figure turn about is fair play--I take it you don't like it!

That what you look for is the "intent" of a person is sad, as the saying goes-"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I'd rather have good policies that come about through bad intentions than bad policies that come about from good ones (which is generally the case).

By saying:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> perfect example of what is wrong with the typical democrat </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">,

you are implying that this is normal amongst the entire party.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> But at least I offer up an example </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Very bad one! You use one person's story and claimed that what he allegedly did represents what the entire democratic party does.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> I'd rather have good policies that come about through bad intentions than bad policies that come about from good ones (which is generally the case). </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Good policies with bad intentions are ok. Its the politician with the bad intention that I will never trust.