Questions Republicans just can't answer

I think it undeniable that drug addiction is the consequence of a choice to imbibe addictive drugs. Without that choice there is no imbibing of addictive drugs. Without such imbibing there is no such addiction.

While I have not encountered any confirmable evidence that choice has worked the same way in a high percentage of homosexual unions, I also have not encountered any confirmable evidence that a high percentage of homosexual unions are caused by flaws in their genes. I'm open to persuasion by such confirmable evidence.

ican, People make dumb choices all the time. That some become addicted is a disease, not a choice.

Are you trying to tell all of us that 100% of your choices are always smart ones? You are unique on this planet.

Do you understand anything about tobacco addiction? Each package has a warning: Smoking can cause cancer.

I agree with Ican on this one. One doesn't become addicted to smoking or drugs by doing it once (Yes there are some drugs that are addictive after doing it once, but most drug users do not start at this point). It is often poor decisions made numerous times.

jpinM, Yes, it's a choice to drink, smoke or use drugs. Most humans try anything once to experience whatever it is others find so attractive. Your conclusion that people should not even try it once is unrealistic.

I did not make that conclusion. I concluded that they do not become addicted by making that decision once. but rather by making the same decision multiple times. Anyone can choose how much and how often they want to drink or do drugs. Those that choose to do it often become drug addicts.

Hiomosexuality and drug addiction, if regarded as vices are not "vices" that are similar in kind....as we have seen above.
Drug use is a choice.
Repeated drug use is also a choice.
The impending addiction is not a choice, but is the result of several choices that preceeded it.
Homosexuality, by most estimates, is not a choice.

If it was a choice, then homosexuality, and similarily, heterosexuality, could be learned or unlearned, cured or caused.

Ash, this is a great example of not answering the question:



Okay, it's nice that you've written a well-thought out paragraph on the problem but it doesn't address the question. And it isn't a 'beat your wife' style question, either.

The question was, 'what is the plan.' I understand that it may not be clear what the plan is, and that's okay. But the Republicans assume a posture in which they know what the plan is, and the Dems don't, continually, when the truth is that neither side has a plan.

This thread was spurred by the continual condescending and sneering attitudes that I see from those on the right when others question their assumptions and presumptions regarding their ability to successfully wage this war. You hear 'Dems have no plans, no ideas' but the truth is that on many pressing issues of our day, the Republicans don't have a plan either. So don't pretend as if you do.

Pretty words and well-thought out rhetoric don't transalate into competence or authority.

Cycloptichorn

And this



Is absolutely ridiculous. Fear is the number one card played by the current administration - fear of terrorists, fear of gays, fear of Liberals. Try actually paying attention to the rhetoric used.

Cycloptichorn

Illegal Drug Use

(Data are for U.S. for year indicated)

Prevalence

Percent of persons 12 years of age and over with any illicit drug use in the past month: 8.2 (2003)

Percent of persons 12 years of age and over with marijuana use in the past month: 6.2 (2003)

Percent of persons 12 years of age and over with any nonmedical use of a psychotherapeutic drug in the past month: 2.7 (2003)

Source: Health, United States, 2005, table 66

More data

Use of selected substances by high school seniors, tenth-,and eight graders, 1980-2004 Health, United States, 2005, table 67

Related links

National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
National Institute on Drug Abuse

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information

National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA)=www.cdc.gov/node.do/id/0900f3ec800075d3 - 37k Link.

At the end of Clinton's second term, 2000, the tax rate on high incomes was 39.6%, the tax rate on medium incomes was 28%, and the tax rate on low incomes was 15%. In the second year of Bush's first term, 2003, the tax rate on high incomes was reduced to 35%, on medium incomes was reduced to 25%, and the tax rate on low incomes was reduced to 10%. Also in 2003, tax rates on capital gains were cut uniformly for everyone.

My major objection is with the so-called progressive income tax . I think such graduated tax rates are a violation of what is required for a republic to be long lived. I think that prohibition of majorities discriminating against minorities is as necessary for a republic to be long lived as is prohibition of minorities discriminating against majorities.

Taxing high income people, a minority, at a higher rate than the rate of taxing low income people, a majority, is a case of a majority discriminating against a minority. I think that is harmful to the viability of our republic and therefore is harmful to all current and future Americans. Therefore cutting the tax rate on high income people benefits all Americans including the majority.

The economic argument in support of lowering taxes, is irrefutable. The unemployment rate was decreasing under Clinton until shortly before Bush took office, when it began to increase. It increased substantially after Bush took office and continued the Clinton tax rates. However, soon after Bush reduced the tax rates in 2003, the unemployment rate began to drop to its current rate, which is equal to its low under Clinton. Also, as the economist Laffer and others predicted, the rate of annual increase in federal income accelerated after 2003. If the current rate of annual increase of federal income continues under the current tax plan, there is reason to seriously examine even more decreases in tax rates.

This reaction of our economy to tax decreases is easy to explain. By cutting tax rates, high, medium, and low income people will have more money to spend or invest. Clearly they can spend or invest their own money in ways that are more productive for our free enterprise economy than the ways the government currently spends their money for them.




First of all, the tax cuts have benefited everyone who earns an income, not just the rich. The claim that the Bush tax cuts only benefited the rich is pure pseudology (i.e., falsity or lies).

I don't know what is the specific distribution of job increases in our economy that has resulted from the tax cuts. All I know for sure is that the current unemployment rate is equal to the lowest it was during Clinton's term.



What is voodoo economics now? Originally that phrase was a false allegation by some about a kind of economics they did not understand and did not believe would work to the betterment of everyone. Now they should understand it and should know such economics does work to the betterment of everyone, and is therefore practical and not voodoo.

By the way, please don't forget that a 10% tax rate on a $1,000,000 income yields $100,000 in tax revenue, while a 10% tax rate on a $10,000 income yields only $1,000 in tax revenue.



I do not know how much the average American family benefited from Bush's tax cuts. I do know, that taxes for Americans earning $54,000 per year are paying at least a $1,000 a year less in income taxes than they were under Clinton's tax rates.



Federal income is rising rapidly each quarter. That will certainly help reduce our deficits and eventually produce budget surpluses. The most rapid way to reduce federal debt is to cut spending. In particular, cutting so-called federal entitlement programs will result in a major reduction in federal debt, through a major decrease in deficits, to the point that the government can obtain budget surpluses.

The most productive and immediate way to cut entitlement programs is to have the government buy private insurance for those in need of such, instead of the government providing its own money wasting insurance on those who could do better and cheaper for themselves on their own.

ican wrote: I do not know how much the average American family benefited from Bush's tax cuts. I do know, that taxes for Americans earning $54,000 per year are paying at least a $1,000 a year less in income taxes than they were under Clinton's tax rates.


It's obvious you don't know. Your answers show it. The average tax savings for the middle class was under $600 by some and $700 by others, but the ballpark is between $500 to $700. The rich have saved substantially more, and they have more tax shelters than anybody else. The biggest problem for the middle class is that our/their buying power decreased over Bush's tenure as president, because wages did not keep up with inflation. Most estimates I've seen show a loss of buying power between 2001 and 2005 for the middle class, while the wealthy have increased their income ten-fold.

C.I., I don't believe the intent of this thread is to pick apart the answers to Cycloptichorns questions. If you would like to answer the questions, feel free, but stop what you are doing. It's impolite and not appreciated.

I would hope the thread author would step in and say much the same.

Middle-Class Life Under Bush Republicans: Less Affordable and Less Secure


October 4, 2006

For millions of hard-working middle-class families, life under Republican rule has grown less affordable and less secure. President Bush's record of fiscal incompetence and mismanagement, and Republicans' close ties with special interests, have helped lead to both lower wages and skyrocketing costs for basic necessities like gas, health care, and college tuition. Unfortunately, instead of producing solutions to the problems facing the middle class, Bush Republicans are ignoring them and pushing for policies that will make matters even worse.



In addition to tightening the squeeze on families, Republican policies have made our entire nation less secure economically. Republicans have pushed to increase our debt to nearly $9 trillion and have insisted on spending billions of dollars every year on budget-busting tax breaks for special interests and multi-millionaires.



The Bush Administration also continues to compromise our economic security by increasing our reliance on foreign investors in China, Japan, and Dubai. Democrats have fought to reduce America's dependence on foreign borrowing and foreign sources of oil, but the Republican majority, often at the behest of powerful special interests, repeatedly has blocked those efforts.



It's time for a new direction. Middle-class families, and our nation, deserve better. Democrats will continue to offer the solutions that will bring back the fiscal responsibility and broad economic opportunity for middle-class families achieved during the 1990's.




MIDDLE-CLASS FAMILIES SQUEEZED BY SKYROCKETING COSTS

Health care premiums have increased by over 80 percent. The cost of family health insurance has skyrocketed 81 percent since 2000. Premiums are rising twice as fast as wages and inflation. The typical family health insurance premium is now $11,480 a year compared with $6,348 in 2000. (Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust, 9/06) The number of Americans without health insurance rose to a record high in 2005. The number of uninsured Americans has increased every year since President Bush took office from 39.8 million in 2000 to 46.6 million in 2005. (U.S. Census Bureau, 8/29/06)

Gas prices have increased 70 percent. Prices at the gas pump jumped 70 percent from $1.47 per gallon the week President Bush took office in January 2001 to $2.31 in the latest week of energy price data. The average price for the summer was 87.5 percent higher than the average price for the summer of 2001. The monthly average price for August 2006 was 104 percent higher than the monthly average price for January 2001. The price for a barrel of oil has more than doubled during the Bush Administration from $30.63 in January 2001 to $61.40 in early September 2006. (Energy Information Administration, Household Vehicle Energy Use: Latest Data and Trends; Weekly Retail Gasoline and Diesel Prices, 10/2/06; Spot Prices for Crude Oil, 9/22/06) The average household with children will spend about $3,786 on transportation fuel costs this year, an increase of 99 percent or $1,883 over 2001 costs. (Energy Information Administration, Household Vehicle Energy Use: Latest Data and Trends; Short Term Energy Outlook, 9/12/06)

College education costs have risen by as much as 44 percent. Average tuition, fees, room, and board costs at four-year private universities have increased by $6,786 from $22,240 in the 2000-2001 academic year to $29,026 in the 2005-2006 academic year.Housing affordability has reached a 19-year low. Housing affordability has reached its lowest level since 1987. Median monthly home ownership costs, including mortgage payments, have increased over 49 percent since January 2001. (National Association of Realtors, 7/06) "Next year, $1 trillion worth of adjustable-rate mortgages -- about 11 percent of all outstanding mortgage debt -- is scheduled to readjust to a higher interest rate for the first time, according to LoanPerformance, a research company. This will come after more than $400 billion of readjustments this year. That means millions of homeowners will either have to refinance or shoulder an increase of perhaps 25 percent in their monthly payments." (Washington Post, 9/5/06) According to the Wall Street Journal, "Soaring house prices and higher mortgage rates have put homeownership out of reach for more people than at any time in more than a decade…Affordability has long been a problem for low-income home buyers. But as home prices have marched steadily higher in recent years, many buyers with healthier incomes also are being squeezed." (Wall Street Journal, 12/22/05)


MIDDLE-CLASS FAMILIES SQUEEZED BY DECLINING INCOME AND FEWER JOB OPPORTUNITIES

While families work harder, their wages continue to decline. Middle-class families are working harder and earning less today than they were at the start of the Bush Administration. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Since the end of the recession of 2001, a lot of the growth in GDP per person -- that is, productivity -- has gone to profits, not wages." (Wall Street Journal, 3/27/06) Median household income has declined $1,273 from $47,599 in 2000 to $46,326 in 2005. The real median earnings of both male and female full-time, full-year workers declined between 2004 and 2005 by 1.8 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively. (U.S. Census Bureau, 8/29/06) Median weekly earnings have fallen 0.9 percent since 2000 compared with 7.3 percent growth in the last five years of the Clinton Administration. At the same time that families have seen their real earnings decline, the productivity of the American worker is up 18.4 percent. Therefore, Americans have worked harder -- and more productively -- over the past five years and received none of the benefits of their hard work. (Bureau of Labor Statistics; Joint Economic Committee Democrats, 9/06)

Earnings for workers with college degrees declining. "Wage stagnation, long the bane of blue-collar workers, is now hitting people with bachelor's degrees for the first time in 30 years. Earnings for workers with four-year degrees fell 5.2 percent from 2000 to 2004 when adjusted for inflation, according to White House economists…Not since the 1970s have workers with bachelor's degrees seen a prolonged slump in earnings during a time of economic growth…trends for people with master's and other advanced degrees…have found that their inflation-adjusted wages were essentially flat between 2000 and 2004." (Los Angeles Times, 7/24/06)

Worst job creation record since Hoover Administration. Private sector job creation has been especially poor during the Bush presidency, with an average annual job growth rate of just 0.3 percent per year since 2001. Just 1.9 million private sector jobs have been created during the Bush presidency, compared with over 20 million private sector jobs during the Clinton presidency. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 9/1/06; Joint Economic Committee Democrats, 9/06) The manufacturing sector, often the source of jobs with good pay and benefits, has lost nearly 3 million jobs since the start of the Bush Administration. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 9/1/06) Nearly half of the jobs created since 2001 were part-time and freelance positions without benefits. (Los Angeles Times, 7/24/06) This slow pace of private sector job creation is particularly troubling given that we are so far into the economic recovery.

What'sa matter McG, don't like to see your compadre taken apart? I will continue to challenge false information every chance I get. That's what discussion forums all 'bout.

You challenge my posts, why can't I challenge ican's?

If you wish to answer the question, please do so.

While I don't have any desire to limit people's right to discuss,

I think it is appropriate to approach people's answers in a respectful and appropriate fashion.

Maybe we can try to pick just the major points of disagreement and stick with those; or perhaps we can through further questioning come to some sort of accord as was the case with JP and I a few pages back.

I agree that picking every single point and attacking that point isn't the intention of the thread.

More than anything else, I just want to know what the plan is to win in Iraq and the War on Terror. There is a perception that Republicans know this plan and Dems don't, I'm trying to challenge that perception by asking for specific details of the plan (which have yet to be provided, other than a minor effort by McG). The other questions were thrown in because you rarely see good answers to those questions either, and I thought it would be interesting to see what people had to say when laid out in a stark fashion; and also to highlight the fact that we tend to view each other in very black and white terms, even though there are large differences amongst members of the same group on various different topics. The answers to the Gay Marriage question provide a good example of this, and on the counter side, I am a Liberal who strongly supports fencing off the border and enforcing immigration laws. Maybe recognition of these things will help to break down our more stereotypical views of each other.

With the elections coming up, everyone's passions are inflamed (or maybe it's just me); but it's nice to know that the show will go on no matter what happens.

Cheers

Cycloptichorn

BUSH'S THREE OBJECTIVES WERE AND ARE JUSTIFIABLE REASONS FOR INVADING IRAQ

(1) Stop al-Qaeda from growing in Afghanistan and in Iraq;

(2) Exterminate al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and in Iraq;

(3) Replace the governments in Afghanistan and in Iraq with governments that will not tolerate/allow al-Qaeda to again obtain sanctuary in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Failure to accomplish these three objectives seriously risks multiple future al-Qaeda attacks on American non-combatants in the USA and throughout the world.

Failure to accomplish these three objectives seriously risks multiple future al-Qaeda attacks on other non-combatants in the USA and throughout the world and in the USA.

Bush's current tactics are failing and must be replaced with tactics that will succeed in achieving these objectives. Because these objectives are those which serve the real interests of all humanity, they must not be changed or abandoned. To either change or abandon these objectives would be irresponsible if not insane.

Bush's objectives are justifiable. Bush's current tactics for achieving these justifiable objectives are not justifiable.

ARE BUSH'S TACTICS WORKING?

IBC's Count of Civilians Killed in Iraq since 1/1/2003
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

UPDATE OF IRAQ'S VIOLENT NON-COMBATANT DEATHS BY MONTH

January 2006 .... = 1267; Total since January 1st 2003 = 1267 + 36,859 = 38126;
Feb 2006 .......... = 1287; Total since January 1st 2003 = 1287 + 38126 = 39413;
March 2006 ....... = 1538; Total since January 1st 2003 = 1538 + 39413 = 40951;
April 2006 ......... = 1287; Total since January 1st 2003 = 1287 + 40951 = 42238;
May 2006 .......... = 1417; Total since January 1st 2003 = 1417 + 42238 = 43655;
June 2006 ......... = 2089; Total since January 1st 2003 = 2089 + 43655 = 45744;
July 2006 ........... = 1194; Total since January 1st 2003 = 1194 + 45744 = 46938;
August 2006 ...... = 1195; Total since January 1st 2003 = 1195 + 46938 = 48133;
September 2006 . = 1407; Total since January 1st 2003 = 1407 + 48133 = 49540.


Estimates of Effects of Delayed Morgue Counts:
July = 1194 + 1000 = 2194 .............. 46938 + 1 x 1000
= 47938;
August = 1195 + 1000 = 2195 ......... 48133 + 2 x 1000
= 50133;
September = 1407 + 1000 = 2407 ... 49540 + 3 x 1000
= 52540.

UPDATE OF VIOLENT NON-COMBATANT DEATHS IN IRAQ PER MONTH AND TOTALS

1,168 per month; .... 52,540 in 45 months 01/01/2003 to 09/30/2006;.

4,738 per month; .. 625,424 in 132 months 01/01/1992 to 12/31/2002;

4,738 / 1,168 > 4.05;

1,024 per month; .... 36,859 in 36 months 01/01/2003 to 12/31/2005;

1,743 per month; .... 52,540 - 36,859 = 15,681 in 9 months 01/01/2006 to 09/30/2006;

4,738 / 1,743 > 2.71



HOW TO ACHIEVE THESE THREE OBJECTIVES

(1) Stop al-Qaeda from growing in Afghanistan and in Iraq;

(2) Exterminate al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and in Iraq;

(3) Replace the governments in Afghanistan and in Iraq with governments that will not tolerate/allow al-Qaeda to again obtain sanctuary in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

I cannot see victory occurring for humanity until and unless we abandon the notion that we are morally obligated to minimize casualties among those non-combatants in the vicinity of deliberate killers of non-combatants, while attempting to maximize casualties among deliberate killers of non-combatants. A far greater number of non-combatants will be killed if we fail, or are even slow, to exterminate the deliberate killers of non-combatants, than will die if we speedily exterminate the deliberate killers of non-combatants, while unavoidably killing some non-combatants in the vicinity of deliberate killers of non-combatants.

We cannot infallibly tell the difference between non-combatants and deliberate killers of non-combatants. We do not possess even fallible means to read the minds of non-combatants and deliberate killers of non-combatants alike. However, covert tactics will enable us to adequately learn where deliberate killers of non-combatants and/or their ordnance are located.

Consequently, I recommend we openly and widely announce our intention to exterminate, and then proceed to exterminate, the deliberate killers of non-combatants, even when exterminating them results in the unavoidable killing of non-combatants that happen to be in the vicinity of deliberate killers of non-combatants. This is exactly what we did in winning WWII in the fire bombing of Dresden and Hamburg Germany, and in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan. We thereby saved the lives of millions at the cost of the lives of hundreds of thousands.

By means of such tactics, we will succeed in getting a few non-combatants (maybe thousands) to escape the vicinity of deliberate killers of non-combatants, and even themselves exterminate a few deliberate killers of non-combatants (maybe thousands) in the process of escaping the vicinity of deliberate killers of non-combatants.


MORE LATER

I'll discuss the following sub-questions at a later time.