tar

Willie71, Someone mentioned the Marxist line of each according to his need. You say no one is taking my retirement savings from me. Well I don't know about that. While I was working, I kept my 401 in near money market instruments. I earned very little that way, because of the many years of fed funds rates. What used to be possible with CDs earning 5 and 7 percent and saving accounts earning 3 and a half has not been possible in the years since the recession. Since I lost my job, I put my 401 under the care of a financial advisor. They have it invested in bonds and stocks and other instruments that will give me some growth and some protection of principle. I am already going pay income tax on the funds when I take them out. Now, if Bernie gets in, there may be attempts at getting at the principle and extracting wealth from the capital gains and interest that my investments might be making. You are after obscene wealth, but you have to be careful what kind of rules that you impose, they may very well prevent you from becoming wealthy and the may very well bankrupt a potential employer. Don't burden you children with debt is a fine goal. But you have to honor the flip side. Don't steal my child's inheritance, if there is anything left when I die. We already have installed oligarchy protection measures. See how well they work. It does not help jobs in this country if you put punitive measures in place on employers. I have witnessed and my wife has witnessed some large amount of IT spending going off shore. Free enterprise, sure. Free trade sure. But if the cost of an employee here becomes very high, and a lower cost employee can be found offshore, guess where the job is going to go? Promising good paying jobs is fine, but you have to likewise allow the resource usage and the pollution and allow industry to attract productive workers with perks. Promising everybody perks whether they are productive or not, is not likely to improve productivity. Or to allow a worker to gain some intrinsic value at work by seeing the benefits of their own effort and talent. One of Bernie's thoughts is to take money at a high rate from speculators. How exactly are you going to decide what is speculation and what is risk taking? And how is any innovative product ever going to be developed if nobody is taking a risk. One of the problems during the crash was mortgage insurers losing more money than they had to loose, and swaps between large financial institutions. The insurance allowed banks to give loans to people that might default. They packaged loans together and sold them to others, and such. When the loans defaulted the insurers paid. Until there were too many defaults and started having trouble getting liquid funds to pay off the people they had insured. People started getting scared and took their funds out of companies that were having trouble. This caused them to have more trouble. Like a run on the banks during the great depression. Leverage was too high. It is proper to ask the banks and insurance companies to keep more liquid funds and lower the rate of leverage on their loans and such. But the government doing this is different than the government choosing winners and losers and changing the rules in the middle of the game. Quantitative easing hurt savers. Saved the economy of the world, but hurt savers. Saved the skins of many a big boy. The same big boys that Bernie would like to extract a little from. But the fed is yet to unwind its balance sheet and who is going to gain and who is going to lose is yet to be seen. I am not in favor of changing the rules in the middle of the game. I have made too many life decisions in the last 50 years. I have saved too much in my wife's 401K. I have endured too much stress and taken too many punches inorder to keep a job and keep the quality of my company's products and services high, to be told that the money I saved and the insurance payments I have made (social security) and the taxes I have paid to federal state and local, to be told now that those things were not the right thing to do, for 50 years. And that somehow the wealth I have squirreled away for my retirement, and the debt I have accrued helping my daughters go to school is not mine and mine alone, A chicken in every pot, is a promise. You have to ask whose hen house is going to get raided to get that done. Regards, TAR

iNow, I have no doubt employees would vote for higher pay, better benefits, paid leave, healthcare for their children, free college for their children, a car allowance, free lunch on Tuesdays, free rehabilitation for their relative recovering from drug addiction, and an inhouse nursery for their small children, a gym to exercise in on extended break and a nap room for after lunch with a couch and earphones, free coffee and snacks and any number of other things that would make life more enjoyable. Some companies actually offer all these thing. But the employees are worth it to the employers. They produce something or offer something the employer sells for money. They add value. The value is not automatically in the hands of the employer. The employer might make it and not be able to sell it. Who pays for paid leave, then? Regards, TAR

you know, back in the 60s there was a counter culture revolution...anti establishment, like what is happening in the Sanders campaign and the Cruz campaign and the Trump campaign. People fed up with big business and wall street and the military industrial complex and the status quo. People started communes with the thought that everybody would give to the level of their capability and take consistent with their needs. Some worked out for a while. Others turned into cults. Drugs were usually involved. Illegal behavior usually encouraged. The things wound up failing because certain of the harder workers would find it unfair that someone else was not pulling their weight, and the things broke up over arguments of fairness. I have no interest in having my government take my earned income, and interest payment. None at all. This is not a commune. I signed up to live in a representative republic that believed in private property and personal responsibility and protection of the weak and protection of other peoples rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That includes allowing the talented and beautiful, rich and powerful to be talented and beautiful, rich and powerful, as long as they follow the rules of the land and look after it. We voted for "change" 8 years ago. How can Hilary be running on the same platform 8 years later? Change from what to what? Regards, TAR

iNow, Do you think any of those ways that Bernie wants to pay for his programs make any sense? One of the things that ideas like his lack, is the knowledge of game theory. People will and people do, find a way around any move made against them. If I had a wealthy father and he was going to soon die, I would make sure I had made arrangements to keep whatever wealth my family had accrued. I would have no interest in giving it to the government, and the government has no right to take it. It belongs to my family. My dad would have put it together, so I could live without worry and stress. That I could enjoy wealth and power and a good life. Just because my father is not rich is no validation of me wanting to take the wealth of another family for the benefit of mine. Ask yourself why people have money in offshore accounts in the first place, before you look at that money as yours. They put it there so the government would NOT steal it. Raising rates on the wealthy will just make them look for another way to handle things. When I was in college I switched majors from Philosophy to accounting. I failed cost accounting because I could not make sense of the arbitrary rules, and the whole thing seems a game between accountants and the IRS. Rules would change to extract more money and accountants would adjust things so that the letter of the law was followed but the tax payments would not increase. Why do you think anyone WANTS to pay more to the government, than they are already paying. Look again at all his ways of obtaining money. Charging interest on capital gains and interest income and such at a high rate is contrary people with a savings account, or an investment, or a 401K or a Roth IRA or any kind of savings or investment. Years ago interest rates one would get on a CD encouraged savings. A person could amass 600 thousand dollars over a life time, because of compound interest. A person could then live off the interest, and leave the principle to their children who would have a leg up on things. It is absolutely NOT fair to have sensible rules that encourage savings and responsibility and investment and delayed gratification and hard work and responsibility, and then, on a whim change the rules and say it does not matter to have done all those things, every body is going to get free healthcare, and free college, and you get to pay for it. Don't be surprised if you are not able to convince me that Bernie's plan is going to be good for savers and anybody whose financial plans are reliant on interest income. You know, you remind me of Japan's recent negative interest rates, that will charge a person for savings and pay people to borrow and spend. Good for the economy, maybe, but it makes no sense, no sense at all. The whole meaning of stored value and delayed gratification is turned on its ear. Don't expect me to vote for Bernie. And don't expect me to think his ideas anything less than stealing from the rich, to give to the poor. And to boot, he is going to charge payrole tax to pay for paid leave???? This does not even make any sense. The company pays you more, so you can pay payrole tax so you can take family leave and have the company pay you while you are out. Sure it not going to cost the government. Its an unfunded mandate. Paid for by the employer. How could anybody start a business and give another a job, under these circumstances? It is wrong, and does not have a chance to become law in this country. Not a chance. Regards, TAR

Phi, Democrats and Republicans have done reasonable things. As you point out. We have already had debates about income equality and such. Way before last year. Clinton is hailed as having a good economy. His first two years he had a democratic house and a democratic senate. He tried Hilary's one payer system and it did not pass his own congress. Clinton is hailed as having budget surpluses, but that was not until after the republicans took the house and the senate after his first two years. The republicans had both the house and senate for the 6 years, the last four of which had budget surplus. This is just talking about budget deficits, not talking about national debt, or promises to social security and such. Read the Wiki article on Bill Clinton's presidency. It includes a paragraph on Hilary's health care plan and its failure and the reasons. The reasons did not include a blocking teaparty And our problems with Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein did not start with George W. Bush. Somalia and Bin Laden blowing up stuff happened under Clinton's watch and the democrats had held the house and senate for many many years before. America's problems belong to us all. "In Clinton's 1998 State of the Union Address, he warned Congress that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was building an arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons: Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire gulf war. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.[152] Seeking to weaken Hussein's grip on power, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 into law on October 31, 1998, which instituted a policy of "regime change" against Iraq, though it explicitly stated it did not provide for direct intervention on the part of American military forces.[153][154] The administration then launched a four-day bombing campaign named Operation Desert Fox, lasting from December 16 to 19, 1998. At the end of this operation Clinton announced that "So long as Saddam remains in power, he will remain a threat to his people, his region, and the world. With our allies, we must pursue a strategy to contain him and to constrain his weapons of mass destruction program, while working toward the day Iraq has a government willing to live at peace with its people and with its neighbors."[155] American and British aircraft in the Iraq no-fly zones attacked hostile Iraqi air defenses 166 times in 1999 and 78 times in 2000.[156][157]" Regards TAR http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=665814 I said what happens after the wealthy are taxed until they are no longer the wealthiest. Sanders doesn't want to tax high income earners, he wants to tax billionaires. Many billionaires don't even have a salary. How does he intend to take wealth away from the wealthy, without destroying every idea of private property we have?

Willie71, You wanted me to answer you in particular. You, who believe a conservative is impervious to fact and reason. I have in the last 30 pages given you plenty of reason, based on all the facts linked to and discussed on this thread and available to anyone in America paying an insurance premium, paying taxes and walking the streets of the land. It is a fact that I live in a country with people of different faiths, different colors, different philosophies, different areas of expertise, different wills, desires and hopes. But I have to look for that way of being that is best for me, and consistent with the wills, desires and hopes of those around me. I can for instance not be for contras killing women and children, and against Shiites killing Sunni with Iran's backing, and Sunni killing Americans for Islam, and still be for the 82nd airborne, and proud that I helped the Shiites against Saddam, and still wish that Saddam's secular rule of Iraq had gone better. Your arguments against billionares and creationists and homophobes do not work against billionares, creationists and homophobes. If you want the world to work for everybody, you have to include everybody in your calculations, and choose your friends and choose your enemies. Obvious enemies, that have declared war on you and would kill you, are much more of a threat to you, then a billionaire, that probably makes your world work and gives you the technology and power that you have, that is a fellow citizen, or that at least is a fellow citizen of mine. A rich, powerful American is my rich powerful guy. I lobby him to do what is best for America. There is a certain neglect of fact and reason that a socialist in a socialist country exhibits when looking at America. America is not yet socialist. Bernie wants a revolution, and wants to take back America from the super wealthy. Rubio want to take the country back from the liberal progressives who currently tell everyone they are devoid of compassion, reason and intellect and desire the power in the country to be in the hands of an intellectual elite, that draws its populace power from single women, idealistic youth, or anybody that needs government transfer payments to survive. Rubio would say that socialists fail, when they run out of other peoples money. I am not going to vote for Rubio when the republican primary comes to my town in NJ. I am not going to vote for Trump or Cruz or the teaparty. Perhaps Kasich or Paul. If I was a democrat I would not have a choice. The big votes on both the democrat side and the republican side were for ideals and people I do not completely agree with. Some things good, some things bad. Some things unrealistic, some things possible but not really workable without huge unintended consequences. Like you can't keep a Muslim from coming into the country, and you can't have republicans, the drug companies and the Iranians as enemies if you are to be the president of the United States. The issues of the world need attention. ISIS needs defeating. We have to use less fossil fuel and more renewable energy. Institutional racism in the U.S. has to be continually dissuaded. The crazy guy in North Korea needs to be watched. The problem with America is not the Republican party. The problem with America is not the Democratic party. The problem with America is that nobody feels they are in control of the county and everybody feels that they need to take the country back from somebody. Well, my point in this thread, is we already have the county. All of us. Nobody has stolen it from us, it was, is and will be ours. We have to together make sure it prospers and continues. Vote socialist if that will make you happy. Vote fascist if that will make you happy. Vote for a sensible moderate if that will make you happy...but if your candidate is trying to take America back from somebody, consider that they are talking about other Americans who already love the place and will protect their way of live with every ounce of their being. Nobody wants to loose their vision of America. Remember though, that EVERYBODY else has a vision as well. Regards, TAR was thinking about something last night lets say we raise the minimum wage to 15 dollars and a big mac doubles in price fewer people eat big macs the place goes out of business and the single mom loses her job lets say we tax the wealthiest americans until they are no longer the wealthiest americans...then what?

Willie71, Overtone and Ten Oz, Facts are facts, opinions are opinion. You can spin a set of facts any way you want. I have no doubt that global warming deniers are wrong, I have no doubt that there is income inequality. I have no doubt that creationists are wrong. I have no doubt that the equations of relativity work. But the theories and beliefs of conservatives as in the ones I depicted as the platform I would support, and that I view as the Republican stance can be held by a person such as me who does not deny any facts. You guys often characterize my stances as if I am holding them because I am a fearful deluded ignorant fool. And you ask me to prove that ideas I do not hold are true, to prove I am a conservative, and therefore wrong. I did not like the government shutdowns, because its my country that is getting shut down, but the republicans obstructing progress is only a problem if you want progress in the form the other side of the isle is pushing. If you will not be talked to, and if concessions will not be made to you to make your side somewhat happy with the deal than obstructing "progress" is exactly what you need to do to get listened to. Each of the platform lines I put down, you said the Republicans don't believe in, or don't act like they believe in, and you bring up some talking point that I might well have some objection to. Like saying the republicans are not for a strong defense, and forgetting the base closures and drawdowns of nuclear weapons and such that were pushed much to the chagrin of the republican party. Or saying that the Republicans previously wanted healthcare and now don't want it because a black man wants it, when you are forgetting that the arguments for bringing healthcare to children and the aged, and to vets are something that everybody wants, while bringing healthcare to able bodied men and women is not a human right, and not financially feasible. People have to take care of themselves, responsible for themselves. Take care of the children you bring onto this Earth. Smaller government is something that nobody has really been able to achieve. Programs, and agencies, once established are very hard to unwind. I remember years ago hearing about a convention of WIC directors. Not a convention of WIC agents, but just directors. We are a big country. Any little thing multiplied by every community becomes rather huge, rather quickly. Equating the military or the interstate system (in terms of government spending) to an entitlement program is not reasonable. Private insurance is just that. You protect yourself against big expenses, or accidents, or trees falling on your roof and such, by paying a premium. Actuaries figure out what the chances of something happening are, and what would be a fair premium to make some money and protect everybody from the loss, by pooling the risk. It is not mandatory to protect yourself in this manner. It is your choice. Pay a little every month, or don't pay anything, and risk paying huge amounts if the thing happens. Collision insurance is not mandatory. Liability insurance is. You can't drive unless you indemnify yourself against damaging somebody else. Health insurance is no different. You pool with other people and spread out the risk. Not according to Obama care however. It was started to lower health care costs. But it has managed to raise them. It started out meaning to force employers to give their workers healthcare insurance, and when it was realized that employers did not want to pay for peoples healthcare, everybody started hiring part time so they didn't have to take care of the health care. Now that the Obamacare doesn't work to reduce healthcare costs, the insurance companies and drug companies are blamed and the republican party is demonized for not letting the government set drug prices. There are plenty of facts concerning how much healthcare now costs as compared to prior Obamacare, and these facts are ignored. The only argument Phi has for universal health care is that other countries have made it work. He ignores the fact that many of these countries are socialist, and we have not made the decision yet to be a socialist country. If there are people that don't want to go that way, it is liable to make people that don't want to go that way vote to block going that way. This is no proof of being creationist, homophobe, or a bigot. Less government interference with businesses, I listed as a common thread that runs through many of the republican party's objections to liberal progressive programs, that put a burden on the small businessman or land owner, or corporation, that establishes basically an unfunded mandate, that cost the business with no refund. Like making the businessman pay for healthcare, or taking land for a bird sanctuary, or making a firm hold classes or meet this or that criteria or suffer loss of government business or face high fines and loss of license and such. Much of the current regulatory aim is on Wall Street. Most of wall street is most likely as capable and trustworthy as my financial advisor. There are as well people that are not fiduciaries and game the market. I did some of this myself. Mostly lost money, but the system requires people to gauge value and invest in money making concerns. This is good for our national wealth, good to get things done, good to have capital for large projects, good for employment, good for technology, good for increasing the quality of life of everybody. The top 1 percent are not our enemies. The right to bear arms makes a guy feel like he has control and can come to his country's aid should there be civil unrest or foreign invasion. Personally it is fine to own a firearm to protect yourself against drug addicts, crazy people, muggers, rapists, rabid dogs and bears. No handgrenades and artillery pieces are required. But we already have laws to keep bad people from getting firearms. And any fact checking individual can look at recent history and see that anytime more stringent gun control laws are suggested, the amount of guns on the street goes up, because every buys a gun while they still can. So if people don't need guns because the police and the army have them and will protect us from dangers, domestic and foreign then we should trust our police and military. The fight against global terrorism is that pacifists go about in a different manner than war mongers. We have the power to make peace with Assad and join him in going into Raqqa and digging ISIS out of their tunnels. We just need the will to do it. Overtone, I have you pegged exactly, and I do not agree that Bush caused all our problems. He might have commited the original sin in invading Iraq and dismantling the Sunni Guard, but Iran backed the Shiite resistance to our troops, and Maliki lost an election held by a secular Iraq and Obama reversed the result and installed Maliki a second time. That was Obama's decision. - You spout the same anti-American propaganda that I fought against on Guardian talk, after 9/11. I realized I had enemies on 9/ll that wanted to kill me and destroy my way of life. I still like my way of life, and will still die to protect it. You say the Republican party has done everything wrong and nothing right in the last 50 years. I think they did many many things right, and continue to do them right. I will not let you say that the people I have loved and respected and relied upon, that have protected me, and my way of life, for the last 50 years are the biggest problem with America, when they are exactly the folks, the party that has been on my side for the last 50 years. I think you are wrong. I think you are a self hating American, I think you are a socialist and a pacifist. I think you do not care about maintaining my way of life. Regards, TAR

found this http://news.yahoo.com/military-suicide-often-young-white-men-guns-181126521.html

well wait, what is relevant enough to consider? Lets say the average pool is 31,000 gallons and the population of the U.S. is 318,000,000. I didn't check my figuring but at 75,040 drops per gallon and 768 drops per teaspoon, I think each of us is worth about 7 and a half drops. 886 people under VA care that served in Iraq and Iran period service commited suicide. That is over 10 teaspoonns, not just a drop. Suicide rates are measured in 1 per 100,0000 so we are already talking in 10s of thousands of a percent. To increase the suicide rate in white males from 8.6 per 100000 to 9.6 per 100000 wouldprobably take less than a cup. (so to speak, I did not figure) The Iraq and Iran (I meant Afghanistan, not Iran) operations took place over the time period we are talking about, that has seen a rise in white male suicides inconsistent with the rise in other populations. Might be relevant. another statistic I remember seeing is that the rate of suicide for highschool graduates is less than that for drop outs as is my want, I put two and two together and get 8.83, but in the Army there were people in trouble with the law that joined instead of going to jail, and people that had not gone to college and people who did not have a high school degree I got a 98.5 out of 100 on the entrance test. I learned later that the cutoff score to get into the Army was 16. If the Army attracts people that have a higher suicide rate to begin with, getting your legs blown off to boot might contribute to the 38 per 100,000 rate for vets.

but won't male vet suicide increase the number of male white suicides? And does not the increase in suicide rates for females vets as compared to females in general suggest that being a vet might provide some reason to kill yourself as compared to a similar population that had not served?

"So it is not that Schlafly, or other conservatives as sophisticated as he, can't make an argument. Rather, the problem is that when Schlafly makes an argument, it's hard to believe it has anything to do with real intellectual give and take. He's not arguing out of an openness to changing his mind. He's arguing to reaffirm what he already thinks (his "faith"), to defend the authorities he trusts, and to bolster the beliefs of his compatriots, his tribe, his team. Liberals (and scientists) have too often tried to dodge the mounting evidence that this is how people work. Perhaps because it leads to a place that terrifies them: an anti-Enlightenment world in which evidence and argument don't work to change people's minds. But that response, too, is a form of denial—liberal denial, a doctrine whose chief delusion is not so much the failure to accept facts, but rather, the failure to understand conservatives. And that denial can't continue. Because as President Obama's first term has shown—from the healthcare battle to the debt ceiling crisis—ignoring the psychology of the right has not only left liberals frustrated and angry, but has left the country in a considerably worse state than that." How is this conclusion any different than what I have been saying in the last 30 pages?

Thread, Just lost a post. Not in the mood to reconstruct it. Getting tired of being blamed for misunderstanding other people's motivations and thinking, and being blamed for mischaracterizing other people's points...while being barraged by blanket statements disparaging my intentions, or the intentions of a priest or a businessman, or a general or an average American living in peace and prosperity in the suburbs, or on the f farm. I do however have my images of some of you, that I have constructed over many posts from you on many subjects. I know a little from where you are speaking. Each of you a different place, but there are some places where you come to other's defense and some places where you come automatically to reject the thinking of another poster. Sometimes you lump. We all do it. We recognize agreement and we recognize disagreement and we tend to put thoughts into other people's heads that they never had. But the idea of having the same thought as another is crucial to communication. That is what symbols and language are about. If you think I am mischaracterizing your statements and intent, just imagine how badly you are misunderstanding mine...and more importantly for this thread, how badly you are mischaracterizing the intentions of your enemies. Regards, TAR There are a lot of cities in America, that bustle during the day, and the same streets are ghost towns at night. The people that make the place live during the day, go home, across the bridge, across the tracks, up into the hills or down into the valleys, or whatever. Often, or at least in the case of a few cities, where I have been, it is not particularly safe to walk around at night, on the same streets that were civilized during the day. What do I mean to say, when I say this? What ill intentions would you figure I was harboring, to say this? What demons are you preparing to construct, to explain the causes of this phenomenon?

Ten Oz, My assumptions about what people mean may often be wrong. I do my best to understand people. I have been studying the meaning behind language as an endeavor for the last four years. I have had some insights about the world and objective and subjective reality, and the difference between having an idea that works in your head, and having an idea that works in the waking world. 29 percent of the people that exist in the waking world are the people that Overtone needs to defeat to have her ideas that are in her head work. This is not realistic. Regards, TAR

Ten Oz, I was not ignoring you a bit. You called the ideas of the federalist group crap and I pointed out that by calling their ideas crap you are calling any ideas that I have along those lines crap as well. I happen to think that dependency does not help a person climb out of poverty and there are other ways we should address poverty that we are not. If we were doing it right, and have been trying to do it right for 50 years, and it is not yet done, then maybe we need a workshop that looks into the other ideas. How is this not hearing what you are saying? Phi wants universal healthcare. Maybe that is a good way to go, maybe it is not, but the last bill does not do the job. Willie71 thinks its the republicans that are letting the insurance companies gouge Americans, and he thinks my example of what happened to me at the sports medicine place is proof of this? It was the sports medicine place charging the obscene rate of 500 dollars for an hour at the gym with a helper and a few measurements of movement angle. I was out of network so the insurance company had nothing what so ever to do with it. Regards, TAR no one needs to take the time to explain their ideas to me unless they are also open to me pointing out where their idea is weak

I was a philosophy major for a while and learned to think from a brilliant man who was also a family friend and is now Scholar in residence at a university. I have critical thinking skills. I was not responding to what Phi said, I was responding to what he is saying. Talking about my philosophy professor reminded me of a time I was in a room with my dad and that professor and two other philosophy professors...four of the most intelligent people I have ever known. They were having a conversation and I realized they were talking about two different thing at the same time, and then I saw it was three things. I do not know the other levels they may have been conversing on as well. We have a lot of arguments going on here at once in this thread. What somebody says and what somebody has said and is saying is all in play.

Phi, When and if. People with critical thinking skills may outnumber rich people, but I think most people that are rich have critical thinking skills, or they would not have been able to accumulate and maintain more than about minimum wage. Here your argument is saying that people who don't like Obamacare, people in the military industrial complex, people in corporate America and Wall Street are devoid of critical thinking skills. I think that claim can be proved false. Just using common sense, one would ascribe a required thinking ability to businessmen and generals and leaders of industry and finance. And if I were to trust and respect, good bosses and good generals, and good business men and good financial advisors, then I am not being devoid of critical thinking skills to do so. I voted for Lautenburg and respect Corey Booker. This might in your mind give me critical thinking skills. I voted for some Republican house and senate members as well. Matter of fact I spoke to Lautenburg in person for about 10 minutes one time at a McGovern event, and I have written him letters that he has responded to. One was a letter about letting cameras cover the goings on in the house and senate. This was before c-span began covering the house. I have a bachelors degree and credits toward an EE. I have an IQ that used to be 142 that is now probably down in the low 130s. I for years was technical support and was primary technical lead on several successful products and an excellent troubleshooter and problem solver answering third level hotline calls, helping expert techs solve difficult problems. I HAVE critical thinking skills. Yet I am a republican. The critical thinking skills argument does not work. Regards, TAR

but wait charonY the number of females affected by combat is not large enough to significantly effect the numbers of female suicides in general, where the numbers of males affected by combat might be a greater percentage of overall males and therefore play a more significant factor in the overall male white suicide rate The fact that female vets suicide at a higher rate than females in general would support the part of the guess that says being a vet could increase your suicide rate. Only thing left to show, is that there is a reason why white males would be vets with an issue in the last number of years.

Ten Oz, From your link. "Over the past twenty-five years, Democratic gains in the electorate have come from increases in the number of voters who are people of color and single women, but Democrats have lost support among white voters overall. The result is a startling urban/rural divide, with the Democratic base increasingly concentrated in cities—as evidenced by the fact Jimmy Carter in 1976 won 1,711 counties, nearly three times the 693 counties won by Obama in his comparably close win in 2012. This inefficient distribution of Democratic votes explains why even impartial redistricting will strongly favor Republicans. Indeed, the district skew was already in place by 1996, when Bill Clinton ran behind his national share of the popular vote in 55 percent of districts despite Democrats having drawn most of them—exactly the same share of districts where Obama trailed his national average in 2012." If the democrats drew the lines, you cannot blame the republicans for being unfair. If the cities normally go democrat and the county normally goes republican, then the "fair" draw of districts completely city and districts completely country would result in several city districts receiving overwhelmingly city votes, and all the county districts receiving overwhelmingly country votes. To balance out the situation, democrats, who usually get the black and single women vote, drew some lines out into the country and the suburbs to spread out the power of the college and inner city poor vote to the rural and suburban districts. So that the number of city votes could win three districts for the democrats rather than just the one where the college and working poor lived. So what is "fair" to the populace? If the majority of the country is white and rural and older, why should the lines be drawn to the benefit of the black and city and younger? I would say, because we respect the rights of the minority in the first place and want to make it fair. If such lines, because of changing demographics and opinion, should cause instead the Republicans to win the house, then the problem is not Gerrymandering. The problem, for the democrats is that their gerrymandering backfired, and now the claim is that rigging the system for the benefit of the minority is unfair? Regards, TAR Phi, But you allow only the elite, with critical thinking skills, equal to yours to be allowed to run the place. This argument would defeat the argument that the populace should not allow the top 1 percent to run the county. You can not both argue the top 1 percent should run the country and also argue the top 1 percent should not. Regards, TAR what the freaking heck was that neg rep for?

Ten Oz, Views on Abortion was a litmus test. Any number of issues, down through the years has caused the congress to reject or accept nominations. It is the fact that you call it "some of their crap", as if they are not intelligent people with valid arguments, and good judgement and intentions, that validates my argument in this thread that the problem is not the Republican party, but that you think the Repubican Party is full of crap and the Republicans think the Democrats are full of crap. Fox viewers get offended at what MSNBC commentators say about Republicans, and MSNBC viewers get offended at what Fox commentators say about their heroes. However, my insight into this situation, and my argument throughout the thread, is that each of us has their own position on any number of spectrums. Whether its Male or Female, Black or White, Settler or Indian, rich or poor, weak or strong, pacifist or war monger, union or management, house of lords or house of commons, capitalist or communist...we all have our views, we all have our background, we all have our strengths and weaknesses, we all have our hopes and dreams and we all have a will, and judgement and a certain amount of power and people we want to see win and people we want to see lose. The promise of America is to live in a country where each can worship their own god and pursue happiness, protected by the law from each others interference in that pursuit. We are supposed to pledge our honor and our wealth to the continuation of the nation, with these aspirations. It is false for a Republican to think a Democrat does not have these values. It is false for a Democrat to think a Republican does not have these values. We are each Americans, and should respect the other and the other's rights. Regards, TAR Regards, TAR

Thread, Another thought. I heard that vets are experiencing problems with suicide. I am wondering how this has effected the number of white male deaths by suicide. Just speculating here, but if the higher rates of white male suicides, correlate to any particular population of veterans, as in that have a certain rank, or that participated in a certain action, or that have received a certain injury or had seen a certain facet of war or police action that others had not seen, we might find the source of the issue. Regards, TAR

it is interesting to me that the last two national elections has shifted control of both the house and the senate to the Republicans and the only thing this means to liberals is that the republicans are misguided dupes I think as scientists, you might look for other more reasonable explanations. Ten Oz, From your link. "On the topic of poverty, liberals claim the moral high ground. Their response includes federal and local interventions including entitlements, higher taxes, and a generally bigger and more active government. Despite liberals' insistence to the contrary, conservatives and libertarians also care about the poor, but they have their own ideas about how to lift people out of poverty. This symposium will explore these ideas." There is indeed more than one way to skin a cat. And indeed, if you think about it, if entitlements were indeed the way to do it 50 years of entitlements should have done the trick. Regards, TAR

Ten Oz, Well wait, I might not know what being a federalist means. I took it as simply a point of view thing were the spectrum was a battle between centralized control and control at the state level. That is that a federalist would argue that the land in Oregon should belong to the people of the U.S. and state's right leaning individual would argue that the land belongs to the people living on it. This battle is not an evil vs good battle, but one of point of view. Much like conservative and progressive, the battle is not between good and evil but between the benefits of maintaining the status quo, and the benefits of progress and discovery. The one is not bad and the other good. In my former company I lived through many lay offs and cutbacks and many absorptions of other firms. There was a constant battle between centralization and local control. Were should the power lay? In the hands at the top? Or where the rubber meets the road. Should the federal government have control of the range or should the rancher? Should the federal government have control of my health care, or should I? Willie71, We cross posted, but I explained in a small paragraph what can happen when the force of the law, the powerful force of the Federal government gets written in to laws that are intended to help drug addicts recover and become productive members of society and get all fouled up, because nobody knows what is the spirit of the law and what is the intent of the law, and everbody just does things that don't make sense, but that follow the letter of the law. If the spirit behind the law is to get poor and homeless people healthcare then what was wrong with the free clinics of the 60s. If the spirit of the law is to prevent people from being bankrupted by a family medical emergency, then that is what private insurance was for in the first place. Even under our new system there are four levels of coverage you pay more, to protect yourself against the big expenses. I don't know the formulae but my wife selected the Gold c that cost more, but has a lower deductible better matching percentage after the deductible and a closer cap on total expenditure in a year, where the company will pay everything after but this does not include hearing aids or glasses or dental or if you get care outside the network or are on a ship more than half a day from port...and whatever other complicating factors you might throw in Still the wealthy are better protected because they have better coverage because they paid for it. At my work, listening to all the plans and the HSA and FSA and the out of network and in network and eye care and prescription medication rules and what would happen this way or that and when yu would lose money if you didn't use it, and everything else, made my head spin. And ANY selection I made, would have left me paying more for healthcare than I had paid in previous years, for the same healthcare coverage I had already. So I went with my wife's company plan where the company chipped in some more, and made better deals, and was in a different state that may have had different rules. In ANY case, without a job and a company to chip in, the monthly costs are very high. I think we paid like 800 a month to cover our daughter who was too old to be under us. And under the new rules you get fined if you don't buy insurance, as if that makes any sense. If you don't have the money to pay for healthcare, why would you have money to buy insurance against high expenses... and where are you supposed to get the money to pay the fine? From the government that leveed the fine? Anyway, you are in Canada, your system might be more sensible. Regards, TAR Ten Oz, The framers of our constitution were people in the top 10 percent of intelligence and probably people in the top 1 percent of wealth and power. They did a good job with the thing. They balanced individual rights against the rights of the collective. They didn't count women and slaves equal to freemen but we are working out those kinks as we go along. The meat of the thing though was well thought out. The balance of power between the people that make the laws and the people that enforce the laws and the people that make sure the laws are just. Each branch has certain powers over the other branches. And in the congress the houses are structured for a reason. The house of representatives to reflect the will of the population and the senate to reflect the will of each state. Each with two senators regardless of their population. The will of the minority is given consideration in our system, in both spirit and letter. Regards, TAR

Ten Oz, If you were a federalist you would not mind having a federalist judge. I think in this discussion, saying things like "get our courts back" is quite making my point in this thread. Only your kind of judge is the proper kind of judge. It is my government too. I remember telling myself I just have to put up with a few more months of Obama and then I would get my county back. Then he got reelected. So I have to do it your way for another year ye t and then hopefully Kasich or Paul or Biden or somebody I can stand will be in charge. Not that I don't think Obama is not a pragmatic and intelligent, charismatic and reasonable President who represents me fine in the eyes of the world, but I don't like his politics, I don't like his healthcare system and I agree that he legislates when he should be enforcing the laws of the land and this is the overreach that the standard republican line talks about. If we are looking for a particular kind of president, or a particular kind of court, or a particular kind of congress before we consider the country ours, then we will have an indefinite wait. Because then either you will be waiting, or someone that thought differently than you would be waiting, forever. Regards, TAR Phi, What do you think about a system that causes a sports medicine place, to submit a 500 dollar bill to my carrier for an hour visit that they charged me 40 dollars for and when I asked what they would have charged me if I had no insurance, they said 75 dollars a visit? Is that not arbitrary and goofy and is not the nonsense forced or allowed by the new law? If cottage industries like sports medicine facilties spring up in response to the lsw demanding coverage for 'rehabilitation", then it is difficult to know if the intent of the law, is hitting its mark, or whether the letter of the law is causing waste and obscene charges for simple inexpensive stuff. Regards, TAR

Ten Oz, "We" already have our country. Who ever is in power, the rest of us are still here, and still Americans. If you were in power you would have to represent me and my beliefs and do things in my name, as that you would be the Head of State, and the person that was me, to the world. Regards, TAR Hilary hates Republicans, Drug Companies and the Iranians. What if you are an Iranian, and the manager of department in a drug company. Would Hilary be a good president for you? Would she faithfully enforce the laws of the United States that would protect you and your firm?

I certainly do rub shoulders with racists as I do with drug addicts and stupid people and uneducated people and people with any number of takes on the world. People often have reasons to look at things differently than someone else. That is why we have elections. That is why we shun people doing it differently than we would like. But you can not legislate morality, you can just make laws that you don't want people to break. This is highly touchy area though, and some people have strong feelings about things and it is dangerous to tell people how they ought to be toward someone else. But all the racists that I rub shoulders with are not white. And some blacks actually hate whites and would steal from a white or get over on a white person, with no regret. I am in a funny position in my life, where I quit my job because my boss was making it unrewarding for me to continue working under the conditions he was instituting. It may have been due to my age, the situation that had developed. Perhaps he was forcing me out, but I quit and can't get unemployment, because I quit, and can't find employment, for a year now. Maybe, because I am 62. It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of age, but everybody does it. Nobody wants to hire their father or grandfather. Can't take direction. Too set in my ways. Bad teeth. Bad knees. Bad ankle. Low T. Too emotional. Not as sharp as a used to be...what ever. If on the other hand I see an angry looking black man or a black man with a crazed drugged look in his eyes walking toward me, I might cross the street and not be a racist. If I recognized the black guy as my neighbors son, I would stop and help him home and see what was the matter. I was quite against Wallace at the time, because of his racism. I don't think however that racism is a litmus test to be a republican and I shun those who act as if it is a requirement. If not liking the idea of anal sex makes me intolerant, then perhaps I am a bit of a homophobe, but that does not mean I have to like anal sex to be a good person. Or that if I liked anal sex I would be an automatic democrat. I would still fight ISIS so that the gay people I know and love would not be thrown off buildings. Or even those gay people who I don't know. And I would get in a serious fight with anyone dragging a black man behind a pick up truck.