Members Jugghaid Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by burdizzos Damn Juggs, read the trhead.Rudy threatened to pull public funding for a museum that showed some art that was considered offensive to some in the religious community.bholder's definition of fascism differs vastly from yours. I did read the thread, and I saw nothing in it that showed where his stance bordered on fascism in any way shape or form. Doesn't matter whose "definition" we are talking about. That's why I asked. Nothing he posted shows me any version of fascism whatsoever, regardless of how loose someone interprets that term. Here's the definition: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition How does pulling public funding from an art exhibit = that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted November 14, 2006 Moderators Share Posted November 14, 2006 Fascism would have been Giuliani suggesting that the public burn the artwork in question and the pubic following his suggestion. Wasn't this the artwork that somebody took dumps and formed it in different patterns or was this the one with Christ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by ThudMaker I gave you plenty. 35-40 million. Add 35-40 million into the economy. Do the math, man! Where did I suggest criminalizing abortion? I merely suggested it's not good for the economy. What ever happened to changing peoples minds instead of changing the law? More people should keep them by giving for adoption either to agencies or relatives etc. If you want to get an abortion, I can't stop you. Golly Gee Willakers, how libertarian of me. I will, however, call you out for misrepresenting what I have posted. In 1998 alone, the victims of Roe v. Wade would have contributed approximately $1.7 billion to Medicare and $7.4 billion to Social Security. These contributions could provide the average monthly benefit to over 785,000 retired workers for the entire year. Note that these numbers are calculated for workers aged 16-24, who are less likely to be employed and who work fewer hours and earn less money than they would in a matter of time. The economic effects of abortion will be magnified in the coming years as those children and millions more killed by abortion would have completed their education, found full-time employment, become established in their careers, and started their own families. 2001 Article. By now the number is at 45 million so 35-40 million potential workers to support 785,000 retirees. How much faster will we have to breed to support hese 45-50 million once they retire? At the present ratio we will need to have an additional $2billion people + to eventually support these people in their retirement. I better get {censored}ing!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by ThudMaker Fascism would have been Giuliani suggesting that the public burn the artwork in question and the pubic following his suggestion. But thankfully we are one step closer to getting Hitler mentioned in the thread and related to someone we don't agree with! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by lug But thankfully we are one step closer to getting Hitler mentioned in the thread and related to someone we don't agree with! Where's Jazzy when ya need him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted November 14, 2006 Moderators Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by Jugghaid so 35-40 million potential workers to support 785,000 retirees. How much faster will we have to breed to support hese 45-50 million once they retire? At the present rate we will need to have an additional $2billion people + to eventually support these people in their retirement. Come on, Juggy. . . . .That's 16-24 year olds. How much do they make? They haven't had the opportunity to become a 1%er and have vast amounts of gear like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by ThudMaker Come on, Juggy. . . . .That's 16-24 year olds. How much do they make? They haven't had the opportunity to become a 1%er and have vast amounts of gear like you. Still. The point stands. What they contribute, especially considering their economic demographic and the statistical data showing their potential income on average would make me think that it would cost more to support them over their lifetime than they will produce over a lifetime. I'm sure someone has probably done a study like this by now and crunched the #s. I'll see if I can find anything. oh, and I have a guy who works for me who's 23. He made $18,000 last month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted November 14, 2006 Moderators Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by Jugghaid Still. The point stands. What they contribute, especially considering their economic demographic and the statistical data showing their potential income on average would make me think that it would cost more to support them over their lifetime than they will produce over a lifetime. I'm sure someone has probably done a study like this by now and crunched the #s. I'll see if I can find anything. I think you're looking at the number's incorrectly. That's a 1998 figure for only those medical procedures performed in 1998, not the entire 35-40 million that had occurred from 1973 thrugh 1998. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by ThudMaker I think you're looking at the number's incorrectly. That's a 1998 figure for only those medical procedures performed in 1998, not the entire 35-40 million that had occurred from 1973 thrugh 1998. That still strnegthens my point. Based on those figures you are needing 51 people to support 1 retiree. It only gets worse as the #s go up. It's an extremely short-sighted economic plan. Something our government is very guilty of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted November 14, 2006 Moderators Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by Jugghaid That still strnegthens my point. Based on those figures you are needing 51 people to support 1 retiree. It only gets worse as the #s go up. It's an extremely short-sighted economic plan. Something our government is very guilty of. Yes, but that was just looking at what they would pay into FICA, not all the jobs created when they eventually build homes and buy cars. FICA, being the disaster it is, is another discussion all together. Saying these "neverborns" are better for the economy as "neverborns" is my issue. IOW, how much does the Reproductive Rights industry really contribute to FICA / our economy? Is it as much as these "neverborns" would have contributed? I don't think so. [sarcasm]Further, if data suggests that the people having abortions are poor and single, why are the poor and single allowed to breed? I mean if they are poor and single, the offspring will never amount to anything.[/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members burdizzos Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by ThudMaker I gave you plenty. 35-40 million. Add 35-40 million into the economy. Do the math, man! Where did I suggest criminalizing abortion? I merely suggested it's not good for the economy. What ever happened to changing peoples minds instead of changing the law? More people should keep them by giving for adoption either to agencies or relatives etc. If you want to get an abortion, I can't stop you. Golly Gee Willakers, how libertarian of me. I will, however, call you out for misrepresenting what I have posted. In 1998 alone, the victims of Roe v. Wade would have contributed approximately $1.7 billion to Medicare and $7.4 billion to Social Security. These contributions could provide the average monthly benefit to over 785,000 retired workers for the entire year. Note that these numbers are calculated for workers aged 16-24, who are less likely to be employed and who work fewer hours and earn less money than they would in a matter of time. The economic effects of abortion will be magnified in the coming years as those children and millions more killed by abortion would have completed their education, found full-time employment, become established in their careers, and started their own families. 2001 Article. By now the number is at 45 million That sure does make a lot of unrealistic assumptions. Most people who are born poor are more likely to stay poor and contribute nothing. How much does someone who lives in poverty pay in taxes? Also, who foots the bill for unwanted children who are not adopted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members burdizzos Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by Jugghaid How does pulling public funding from an art exhibit = that? It doesn't, that was my point. bholder loves to draw comparisons between republicans and fascists, didn't you get the memo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by burdizzos It doesn't, that was my point. bholder loves to draw comparisons between republicans and fascists, didn't you get the memo? About the cover sheets on the TPS reports? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted November 14, 2006 CMS Author Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by lug But thankfully we are one step closer to getting Hitler mentioned in the thread and related to someone we don't agree with! Hey, I wasn't even *in* this discussion!! :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members burdizzos Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 I love this gem: In 1994, the public paid an average of $11,460 in assistance to a mother and child. The average amount of time that a person receives welfare is two years. A baby born in the United States in 1996 will participate in the labor force for 47 years, earning about $1 million and paying about $400,000 in taxes. In order for someone to pay $400k in taxes, they'd have to pay about $8500 per year over 47 years. To earn $1million over 47 years, you'd have to average an annual income of about $21k. At $21k per year, you pay about $2800 in income tax. Assuming that the person in question pisses all of their money away on items where there is a sales tax of 8%, to fail high, that amounts to another $1500. So, their total expenditure would be about half of the $8500 required to hit $400k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted November 14, 2006 Moderators Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by burdizzos I love this gem: Not including other taxes is an oversight on your part. If we weren't taxed that much, why is Tax freedom day in May? Gas tax, sin tax, sales tax, death tax . . . .I can point to your other post that there are a lot of American families forced to look in other countries for children to adopt at this point, do to the lack of avails here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members burdizzos Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by ThudMaker Gas tax, sin tax, sales tax, death tax . . . .I can point to your other post that there are a lot of American families forced to look in other countries for children to adopt at this point, do to the lack of avails here. I entered sales tax. Hell, I assumed an 8% sales tax rate and assumed that they'd spend every dime left over after the paid the federal gov't on taxable items and still came up short. Assuming they drive 15,000 miles per year and get 20 mpg at a cost of $3 per gallon and assuming that 50% of that is tax. Then the increased contribution is: $1125 Still well short assuming worst case tax scenario. According to AdoptionFacts.org There are 140,00 children adopted every year in the US. That really doesn't compare to the 1.3 million abortions that happen every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 What's all this who-ha aboot trickle-up economics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted November 14, 2006 Moderators Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by lug What's all this who-ha aboot trickle-up economics? Supposedly it's poor people who are getting abortions, and thank goodness, because we don't need any more poor people in our country. That's what illegal aliens are for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by ThudMaker Supposedly it's poor people who are getting abortions, and thank goodness, because we don't need any more poor people in our country. That's what illegal aliens are for. Ending poverty for US citizens by dropping border control....I LIKE IT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jonathan_matos5 Posted November 14, 2006 Author Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 if people stopped living so damn long we wouldnt have to worry about the unborn fetuses having to work and contribute into social security:mad: that is what you guys are argueing and it still isnt helping anything:thu: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted November 14, 2006 Moderators Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by jonathan_matos5 if people stopped living so damn long we wouldnt have to worry about the unborn fetuses having to work and contribute into social security:mad: that is what you guys are argueing and it still isnt helping anything:thu: Yep. Start the Reactor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jonathan_matos5 Posted November 14, 2006 Author Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by ThudMaker Yep. i dont want to open my mind:mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RIC N BACKER Posted November 15, 2006 Members Share Posted November 15, 2006 Originally posted by bholder I hope he does run. So I can watch him lose. The man's position on the arts borders on fascism. so you think the virgin Mary sculpted out of {censored} is ok? i am not a religous person and not roman Catholic but that was stupid and offensive. let me know what Jesus thinks about it if you meet him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RIC N BACKER Posted November 15, 2006 Members Share Posted November 15, 2006 Originally posted by jonathan_matos5 burdizzos are you also aware that many of the women who have abortions also end up having mental and psychological issues after the procedure. kinda like post partem dipression mixed with the guilty feeling of killing an innocent person for no reason. i rarely chime in on religous/political and abortion isssues. i know you said many women and that may be true. i felt i had to use this medical option.i can tell you i sometimes regret doing but mostly glad i did because i was so young and irressponsible at the time. i can also tell you the person or people involved do not have the feelings you discribe "killing an innocent person for no reason we had "our" reasons and are ok with that. do i think it was "right" nodo i think it was necessary at the time yes we have to live with our decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.