Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
1549 said:The problem is that our society maintains a bottom class that faces rather sub-standard living conditions and is not contributing much to the economy. Taking away government aid will not solve the problem. Look at third world countries that have large lower classes. These people are not motivated by a lack of government aid, instead they suffer.
As I have stated from the beginning, taking some from the wealthy and redistributing it to the poor will create more spenders in our economy. It will also create better living conditions for the poor which will hopefully raise expectations and enable more to be successful in moving out of low income ghettos.
Kathianne said:You're just flat out wrong. The government at most gives 10 cents out of every dollar collected to help the poor, to the poor. The costs are part and parcel of a bureacracy, and the US government is the largest bureacracy in the world.
Putting that aside, more money to the poor will NOT change there low expectations, as you already have argued.
1549 said:The problem is that our society maintains a bottom class that faces rather sub-standard living conditions and is not contributing much to the economy. Taking away government aid will not solve the problem. Look at third world countries that have large lower classes. These people are not motivated by a lack of government aid, instead they suffer.
As I have stated from the beginning, taking some from the wealthy and redistributing it to the poor will create more spenders in our economy. It will also create better living conditions for the poor which will hopefully raise expectations and enable more to be successful in moving out of low income ghettos.
The problem is that our society maintains a bottom class that faces rather sub-standard living conditions and is not contributing much to the economy.
rtwngAvngr said:The goal is not to creat spenders, their active contribution in the work force is also needed. If we just need more spending, we can just let people who work spend their money on more and more frivolous items and let the underclass wither away. This is all based on your assertion that creating spenders is the goal. I know you've crafted your commie crap to try to sell it to fiscal conservatives, but it's a load.
1549 said:The wealthiest of people are not going to spend all of their money. People usually only spend up to a certain point. Even after financial reallocation the wealthy will still be wealthy, and will spend just as much. The point is that society will get more out of the more populated bottom portion of society.
dilloduck said:
You nailed it except there is no excuse for anyone who doesn't like where they are to just stay there and rot. Opportunities are available to anyone who wants to climb out of thier hole. You just want to make them more comfortable in poverty.
1549 said:That is where my point about environment and expectations comes into play. The opportunities are available, but not necessarily attainable because the environment of poverty only takes a person through two years of high school. People become satisfied with their environment to the point that they will only strive to maintain a place in it.
1549 said:I am not sure what your first point is referring to. My point is that the government needs to reallocate wealth to give the poor a better footing. You seem to be referring to charity. Charity alone can not help the poor, there are far too many, and it can only provide the most basic of living needs.
A program of reallocation probably could not stand completely by itself. Public housing needs updating and school funding needs to be reformatted so that inner-city schools can better meet the needs of the students. Right now inner-city teachers may be dedicated, but the facilities and technology are not adequate.
1549 said:That is where my point about environment and expectations comes into play. The opportunities are available, but not necessarily attainable because the environment of poverty only takes a person through two years of high school. People become satisfied with their environment to the point that they will only strive to maintain a place in it.
People become satisfied with their environment to the point that they will only strive to maintain a place in it.
Kathianne said:The poor do not need better footing, they need better schools and better community leadership insisting they educate their children, and to start shunning single parenthood, not necessarily in that order.
red states rule said:The bad week continues. Now documents have been found in Iraq that Zarqawi was using the libs and peace niks to help him.
He was using the liberal media to paint a picture how the US was losing
I am waiting for the libs to try and spin this.................
Text of al-Zarqawi Safe-House Document
Jun 15 8:58 AM US/Eastern
By The Associated Press
Text of a document discovered in terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's
hideout. The document was provided in English by Iraqi National
Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie:
___
The situation and conditions of the resistance in Iraq have reached a point that requires a review of the events and of the work being done inside Iraq. Such a study is needed in order to show the best means to accomplish the required goals, especially that the forces of the National Guard have succeeded in forming an enormous shield protecting the American forces and have reduced substantially the losses that were solely suffered by the American forces. This is in addition to the role, played by the Shi'a (the leadership and masses) by supporting the occupation, working to defeat the resistance and by informing on its elements.
As an overall picture, time has been an element in affecting negatively the forces of the occupying countries, due to the losses they sustain economically in human lives, which are increasing with time. However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance for the following reasons:
1. By allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against the resistance.
2. By undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements.
3. By undertaking a media campaign against the resistance resulting in weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population.
4. By tightening the resistance's financial outlets, restricting its moral options and by confiscating its ammunition and weapons.
5. By creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance and jeopardizing its attack operations, it has weakened its influence and internal support of its elements, thus resulting in a decline of the resistance's assaults.
6. By allowing an increase in the number of countries and elements supporting the occupation or at least allowing to become neutral in their stand toward us in contrast to their previous stand or refusal of the occupation.
7. By taking advantage of the resistance's mistakes and magnifying them in order to misinform.
Based on the above points, it became necessary that these matters should be treated one by one:
1. To improve the image of the resistance in society, increase the number of supporters who are refusing occupation and show the clash of interest between society and the occupation and its collaborators. To use the media for spreading an effective and creative image of the resistance.
2. To assist some of the people of the resistance to infiltrate the ranks of the National Guard in order to spy on them for the purpose of weakening the ranks of the National Guard when necessary, and to be able to use their modern weapons.
3. To reorganize for recruiting new elements for the resistance.
4. To establish centers and factories to produce and manufacture and improve on weapons and to produce new ones.
5. To unify the ranks of the resistance, to prevent controversies and prejudice and to adhere to piety and follow the leadership.
6. To create division and strife between American and other countries and among the elements disagreeing with it.
7. To avoid mistakes that will blemish the image of the resistance and show it as the enemy of the nation.
In general and despite the current bleak situation, we think that the best suggestions in order to get out of this crisis is to entangle the American forces into another war against another country or with another of our enemy force, that is to try and inflame the situation between American and Iraq or between America and the Shi'a in general.
Specifically the Sistani Shi'a, since most of the support that the Americans are getting is from the Sistani Shi'a, then, there is a possibility to instill differences between them and to weaken the support line between them; in addition to the losses we can inflict on both parties. Consequently, to embroil America in another war against another enemy is the answer that we find to be the most appropriate, and to have a war through a delegate has the following benefits:
1. To occupy the Americans by another front will allow the resistance freedom of movement and alleviate the pressure imposed on it.
2. To dissolve the cohesion between the Americans and the Shi'a will weaken and close this front.
3. To have a loss of trust between the Americans and the Shi'a will cause the Americans to lose many of their spies.
4. To involve both parties, the Americans and the Shi'a, in a war that will result in both parties being losers.
5. Thus, the Americans will be forced to ask the Sunni for help.
6. To take advantage of some of the Shia elements that will allow the resistance to move among them.
7. To weaken the media's side which is presenting a tarnished image of the resistance, mainly conveyed by the Shi'a.
8. To enlarge the geographical area of the resistance movement.
9. To provide popular support and cooperation by the people.
The resistance fighters have learned from the result and the great benefits they reaped, when a struggle ensued between the Americans and the Army of Al-Mahdi. However, we have to notice that this trouble or this delegated war that must be ignited can be accomplished through:
1. A war between the Shi'a and the Americans.
2. A war between the Shi'a and the secular population (such as Ayad 'Alawi and al-Jalabi.)
3. A war between the Shi'a and the Kurds.
4. A war between Ahmad al-Halabi and his people and Ayad 'Alawi and his people.
5. A war between the group of al-Hakim and the group of al-Sadr.
6. A war between the Shi'a of Iraq and the Sunni of the Arab countries in the gulf.
7. A war between the Americans and Iraq. We have noticed that the best of these wars to be ignited is the one between the Americans and Iran, because it will have many benefits in favor of the Sunni and the resistance, such as:
1. Freeing the Sunni people in Iraq, who are (30 percent) of the population and under the Shi'a Rule.
2. Drowning the Americans in another war that will engage many of their forces.
3. The possibility of acquiring new weapons from the Iranian side, either after the fall of Iran or during the battles.
4. To entice Iran towards helping the resistance because of its need for its help.
5. Weakening the Shi'a supply line.
The question remains, how to draw the Americans into fighting a war against Iran? It is not known whether American is serious in its animosity towards Iraq, because of the big support Iran is offering to America in its war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Hence, it is necessary first to exaggerate the Iranian danger and to convince America and the west in general, of the real danger coming from Iran, and this would be done by the following:
1. By disseminating threatening messages against American interests and the American people and attribute them to a Shi'a Iranian side.
2. By executing operations of kidnapping hostages and implicating the Shi'a Iranian side.
3. By advertising that Iran has chemical and nuclear weapons and is threatening the west with these weapons.
4. By executing exploding operations in the west and accusing Iran by planting Iranian Shi'a fingerprints and evidence.
5. By declaring the existence of a relationship between Iran and terrorist groups (as termed by the Americans).
6. By disseminating bogus messages about confessions showing that Iran is in possession of weapons of mass destruction or that there are attempts by the Iranian intelligence to undertake terrorist operations in America and the west and against western interests.
Let us hope for success and for God's help.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/15/D8I8LJBG0.html
Friday, June 16, 2006
Democrats In the Breach [Jonah Goldberg]
Got this from a lobbyist friend and close Congress-watcher late yesterday:
House D caucus voted to strip Billy Jefferson of his Ways and Means
seat. The vote was 99-58 which is hardly overwhelming and don't
underestimate for a moment how pissed off black Congressmen/women are.
On the heels of the Steny/Murtha mess, there are some deep fissures in
the caucus. Infighting, internecine strife, ah yes.......
Me: Well, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. But it seems to me that with Bush seemingly getting his act together, the order of the universe demands that the Dems start to fall apart. About a month ago I wrote somewhere around here that the Tony Snow appointment might be remembered as the start of the administration's turn around. I think this week may be remembered as the start of the Democrats, if not quite implosion, than at least it's major fumble. YearlyKos annointed the blogosphere lefties, Hillary got booed, John Kerry flip-flopped again, coming out in favor of a bug out and saying he was wrong about the war, Pelosi announced she's giving up on the "culture of corruption" mantra, Murtha retracted his bid to run for Majority Leader, this Billy Jefferson thing, etc. And, of course, last week the Democrats didn't take Duke Cunningham's seat.
I wish I could be happier for the Republicans, but they still vex me to distraction. What was it Kissinger said of the Iran-Iraq war? "Pity only one of them can lose."
Update: I see Michael Novak is on the same page.
Posted at 8:12 AM
