26 Sep 06
Originally posted by WulebgrNonsense. Only those who have made up their minds in ad vance that any differences in average IQ scores are solely due to environmental factors hold that view. But they never dispute the fact that negroes appear to have a genetic advantage in athletic activities.
Folks that understand statistical theory are usually pretty clear that Herrnstein and Murray do it badly.
You just live in a world of make-believe.
26 Sep 06
Originally posted by slappy115lucrative? Go on welfare and see how "lucrative" your lifestyle is. Do you even know how much money you get per month on welfare? Don't think you'll be doing much shopping at Tiffany's in your new lucrative lifestyle.
In today's society, it is a much more lucrative business to lay on your back and pop out babies rather than work for a living.
You want to rant on about hand-outs, try the multi-trillion dollar hand outs that are given to the oil and coal mining industry each year... or ENRON anyone? You know how much state and Federal money went to finance that boondoggle? How bout the billions given to the agricultural industry just so your bag of milk costs 3 bux instead of 5. Or the Billions spent paying farmers to NOT grow crops so that the there isn't a big excess of grains and vegetables just to keep a "sustainable" price in the US market, even though people around the world are starving because their land is no longer farmable, due in part to global warming...the US being of course the largest emitter of Green house gases.
But then again, like most people, I guess alot of you find it easy to pick on the poor who don't have anything but a terrible life.
If the US cut off welfare entirely and returned that money back to the taxpayers in the form of a tax cut, do you know how much money the average American would receive? Less than 50 bux. You can't even part with 50 bux to help millions of your own countrymen live a lifestlye that will never even come close to the one you enjoy. Pathetic. But then again, that's the American dream..Survival of the Richest!
26 Sep 06
Originally posted by PhilodorThe Bell Curve was great news for those of us, like me, that believe IQ scores are a crap simplification of what is commonly described as intelligence.
Nonsense. Only those who have made up their minds in ad vance that any differences in average IQ scores are solely due to environmental factors hold that view. But they never dispute the fact that negroes appear to have a genetic advantage in athletic activities.
You just live in a world of make-believe.
It provides an interesting perspective for those that are willing to draw conclusions on other comparisions based on statistical correlation with IQ scores.
26 Sep 06
Originally posted by uzlessI don't know about the welfare benefits in the USA or Canada, but those in the UK are generous and easily come by. So much so that thousands who could work choose not to.
lucrative? Go on welfare and see how "lucrative" your lifestyle is. Do you even know how much money you get per month on welfare? Don't think you'll be doing much shopping at Tiffany's in your new lucrative lifestyle.
You want to rant on about hand-outs, try the multi-trillion dollar hand outs that are given to the oil and coal mining industry each year ...[text shortened]... njoy. Pathetic. But then again, that's the American dream..Survival of the Richest!
I am not talking about the genuinely severely disabled whose benefits could well be enhanced if there were not so many scroungers, including undesirable immigrants, living at the taxpayer's expense.
26 Sep 06
Originally posted by PhilodorHerrnstein and Murray are quite careful to keep their focus upon certain correlations, meekly suggesting that environmental factors are likely the cause, rather than genetic ones (so as to avert the charges of racism to which they were subjected, nevertheless). Indeed, as in Murray's earlier Losing Ground, the real agenda was to indict social policies that he believes nurture a counterproductive social environment for impoverished minorities. Also, as in Losing Ground, the post-hoc fallacy runs rampant, the research is thin, and the analysis is fatally flawed. Murray's career would have ended decades ago if not for the fact that his unscholarly pablum comforts those who made up their minds in advance that social services to the economically disadvantaged are counter-productive.
Only those who have made up their minds in ad vance that any differences in average IQ scores are solely due to environmental factors hold that view.
26 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by Philodorlast I heard the British rate was 600 pounds/mth? Canada is about $600-800/mth depending on how many kids you have.
I don't know about the welfare benefits in the USA or Canada, but those in the UK are generous and easily come by. So much so that thousands who could work choose not to.
I am not talking about the genuinely severely disabled whose benefits could well be enhanced if there were not so many scroungers, including undesirable immigrants, living at the taxpayer's expense.
To put that into perspective...a 1 bedroom apt in Toronto is $1000/mth. Most other small cities are about $500/mth.
Edit: That's not to confuse the WELFARE rate with our UNEMPLOYMENT rate. In Canada, if you lose your fulltime job, you are given about 70% of your pay for 1 year to help supplement you while you find another job. After 1 year you are put on the standard welfare rate if you still havent found a job.
Canada has about 2 million people on welfare and I think England has something like 2.7 million. The US has about 20 million. (the avg/country is 5% )
26 Sep 06
Originally posted by uzlessWhere do you get your figure of 50 bucks from. I know I would get a hell of a lot more back than 50 bucks if they would cut out all of the social programs, medicaid, foreighn aid and the rest of the crap they blow the money on. The Government is supposed to use the money for roads, schools not to feed some lazy a$$ed individual to sorry to work.
lucrative? Go on welfare and see how "lucrative" your lifestyle is. Do you even know how much money you get per month on welfare? Don't think you'll be doing much shopping at Tiffany's in your new lucrative lifestyle.
You want to rant on about hand-outs, try the multi-trillion dollar hand outs that are given to the oil and coal mining industry each year ...[text shortened]... njoy. Pathetic. But then again, that's the American dream..Survival of the Richest!
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by WulebgrOkay I want you to show me exactly where in Article 1 of the US Constituion where it states that the Legislative Branch of the United States of America has the authority given to them by the Constitution to take money from one person and give it to another. You show me that and you win. Otherwise I would step back and look at your own ignorance about the Constitution.
You are making a distinction that the authors of those words did not make.
My point, of course, was that your statement that welfare is unconstitutional only serves to reveal that you are ignorant regarding the Constitution. Rather, you offer right-wing propaganda devoid of a knowledge of history and law. You advocate public policy based on those things t ...[text shortened]... tory assuredly is not. If your ilk continue to prevail, it will be the end of the United States.
Furthermore, I don't care about what public opinion is nor do I care about the "right-wing propaganda" that you speak of. It all comes down to what's mine is mine and what yours is yours not what's mine is yours and what's yours is yours.
And by the way, the US's government is suppose to be by the people for the people not for the minority at the expense of the majority.
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by slappy115section 8:
Okay I want you to show me exactly where in Article 1 of the US Constituion where it states that the Legislative Branch of the United States of America has the authority given to them by the Constitution to take money from one person and give it to another. You show me that and you win.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
What do I win?
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by slappy115Firstly I think welfare is a pretty good thing.
LOL, I'm not middle class. We don't own a home. We rent and under current requirements qualify to be on welfare. Just because we meet the requirements, it does not mean that we are. I'll starve to death before I will be a burden on someone else, especially someone I don't know. Furthermore, I can shoot back or did you forget that?
It provides a safety net for those who lose their jobs (it can happen to any of us), to provide us with some income so that we don't become destitute before we have the chance to find another job.
That's the theory anyway. In practice, many of the people who claim are not looking for a job, many have never had a job, many have never contributed to the system.
Secondly, why would you be burdening someone else to claim your benefit?
You have paid into the system after all, and are more entitled to it than lazy scroungers or recent immigrants who take, take, take from the system without contributing anything.
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by WulebgrA brand new shiny rec!
section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
What do I win?
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by slimjimI was talking just about welfare.
Where do you get your figure of 50 bucks from. I know I would get a hell of a lot more back than 50 bucks if they would cut out all of the social programs, medicaid, foreighn aid and the rest of the crap they blow the money on. The Government is supposed to use the money for roads, schools not to feed some lazy a$$ed individual to sorry to work.
You would get back more money if medicaid, foreign aid, and other social programs such as food stamps for those without food, homeless shelters for those without homes, social security for seniors, the public school system, daycare and every other social program you don't use personally were eliminated.
Vote Republican again next year..you just might get it. Of course, then you'd have to be in the top 10% of income earners in the US in order to receive much of the tax cuts that follow since most US tax cuts benefit the richest 10% the most.
hey, if you earn more than 100K per year...congrats, you'll be in for a few grand. If you earn less, well, you'll be able to buy some extra beer at the pub on the weekend.
I guess it's a win/win situation for you then.
27 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by slappy115a Constitutional Amendment ,the Sixteenth Amendment, enacted in 1913 --- to get a tax on income in the US.
In fact, I will never post another thing about welfare if someone can tell me why I have to pay for someone else? And don't give me that crap about, "Cause that's where your taxes go to."
Just one point based on fact and not opinion.
What you are asking really is for a justification of "the welfare state" as it has come to be known basically since WW2. That is a long explanation but it's founded on these basic principles:
-a guarantee of minimum standards.. including a minimum income;
- social protection in the event of insecurity;
The idea is that in a civilized modern society, no citizen of that society should suffer a life not worth living. It was founded on the principle that all life is important and that while some may prosper, some will flounder. As a society we can only hope that those who flounder will one day gain, or re-gain, their ability to contribute to society. Until that day comes, our society will maintain a minimum level of support in the attempt that these individuals do not fall further. If we do not maintain that level of support, it speaks more to our character than it does to those we support.
Our justice system is based on the same principle; that we hold out hope you can be re-introduced into society after a period of time. We will incarcerate you, but at some point you will be released if you can prove you can contribute to society....unless you live in Texas; then we just fry your ass.