or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Thank you Mr. Bunning
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Thank you Mr. Bunning

post #1 of 94
Thread Starter 
You have handed the Democrats a huge win this fall, for this I want to thank you. The footage for the commercials is amazing, not even Stephen King could have come up with stuff like this.

Is this the winning Republican strategy?

Is Bunning the fall guy since he is retiring anyway and the Repubs walk away clean?

Joblessness is caused by people who don't want to work?
(This would mean Obama has saved the economy and people are just too lazy)

Should we abolish all unemployment benefits? Will it save our economy? Will it cause civil war?

How much damage can people do who have no means?
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #2 of 94
I don't know anything about this Bunning guy, but to your question "Should we abolish all unemployment benefits?" it should at least be recognized that unemployment benefits do, in effect, subsidize unemployment. I mean that's an economic fact. It's important that those who advocate these benefits realize this and the related consequences of it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #3 of 94
For this to be a win for Democrats, people would have to forget the state of the union promise to make jobs the highest priority.
post #4 of 94
Thread Starter 
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #5 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I don't know anything about this Bunning guy, but to your question "Should we abolish all unemployment benefits?" it should at least be recognized that unemployment benefits do, in effect, subsidize unemployment. I mean that's an economic fact. It's important that those who advocate these benefits realize this and the related consequences of it.

It subsides unemployment, but it does not encourage unemployment when there are no jobs to be had. I admit that there are problems with too generous unemployment benefits in normal times, it could encourage people to stay out of work - but these are not normal times.

If you cut off unemployment benefits now, people will start starving to death, and you will see a massive increase in crime.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #6 of 94
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

For this to be a win for Democrats, people would have to forget the state of the union promise to make jobs the highest priority.

Exactly. Jobs are the highest priority.
Because of this hold, a lot of people already have lost their jobs.

Bunning is doing the Democrats a huge favor. He is actively increasing jobless numbers.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #7 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Exactly. Jobs are the highest priority.
Because of this hold, a lot of people already have lost their jobs.

Bunning is doing the Democrats a huge favor. He is actively increasing jobless numbers.

How? Because the unemployed people losing their checks won't be buying stuff you mean?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #8 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

How? Because the unemployed people losing their checks won't be buying stuff you mean?

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/senator-jim...ory?id=9988737

Quote:
Since last Wednesday, Bunning has been blocking a vote on the $10 billion bill -- which also extends Cobra health benefits, pays doctors who serve Medicare patients, provides funding for highway projects and gives rural satellite TV subscribers access to network television -- because he insists it be paid for with cuts to other programs. Democrats have refused to go along with that.

Highway workers are being furloughed due to this bill being blocked. They are not losing their jobs, but the net effect is they are not being paid or working until this is worked out. Bunning is asking for the senate to pay for this some other way, such as by taking money from the stimulus funds, rather than simply passing additional spending and debt.

Not as simple as the original poster is making it seem. Bunning is causing problems for those who are unemployed, and have been for an extended period of time, but he is also trying to bring some fiscal responsibility to the process. Of course that makes him a self centered baby eating, puppy kicking, SOB...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #9 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/senator-jim...ory?id=9988737



Highway workers are being furloughed due to this bill being blocked. They are not losing their jobs, but the net effect is they are not being paid or working until this is worked out. Bunning is asking for the senate to pay for this some other way, such as by taking money from the stimulus funds, rather than simply passing additional spending and debt.

Not as simple as the original poster is making it seem. Bunning is causing problems for those who are unemployed, and have been for an extended period of time, but he is also trying to bring some fiscal responsibility to the process. Of course that makes him a self centered baby eating, puppy kicking, SOB...

Make your stand elsewhere and don't do it after voting for the trillion dollar unpaid tax cuts.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #10 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Make your stand elsewhere and don't do it after voting for the trillion dollar unpaid tax cuts.

I am sure that Bunning has an email address. Let him know how you feel...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #11 of 94
Paying people not to work is silly. Perhaps if they had saved 6 months' salary for a rainy day, they wouldn't need government handouts.
post #12 of 94
The stimulus was passed for a very specific reason. This was not one of them. To claim that we have already paid for these expeses because we paid for the stimulus is just like claiming that I have secured funding for the rent on my kid's apartment because I have secured funding for his college tuition. Don't steal the stimulus money. It needs to be used to stimulate in the way it was designed, and for the reasons it was passed in Congress. Don't do things half-assed and then whine when the result isn't what you expect.
post #13 of 94
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegmu View Post

Paying people not to work is silly. Perhaps if they had saved 6 months' salary for a rainy day, they wouldn't need government handouts.

Have you heard of "social security"?
Society has decided to pay people not to work when they are older. Maybe some younger folks can get a job instead.
Social Security is silly.

In the private sector:
Early retirement and severance pay very silly.

Historic context: The Roman civilization starting in ~1,000BC guaranteed food (bread) for its citizens.

I am trying to point out that helping your fellow countrymen is an ancient concept that pre dates christianity. Indeed all tribes since the beginning of mankind have afforded basic needs to their members.

Do you have 6 month worth of living in the bank?
Have you ever received a government handout as in tax refund check, public school education or such?
Are you using public transportation?
Have ever been in an airport or a train station?
Have you ever driven on a public road?
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #14 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

It subsides unemployment, but it does not encourage unemployment when there are no jobs to be had.

You are assuming there are no jobs to be had, at all. This is untrue. What there might be is jobs that pay less, have fewer benefits or are otherwise less desirable for the person to hold. But receiving unemployment benefits is discouraging them from even considering actually taking these jobs and doing some kind of work for their money.


Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I admit that there are problems with too generous unemployment benefits in normal times, it could encourage people to stay out of work - but these are not normal times.

This excuse has been used ad nauseum by people in Washington and those who support their actions to justify faulty and unworkable policies.


Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

If you cut off unemployment benefits now, people will start starving to death, and you will see a massive increase in crime.

This is conjecture and likely and improbable conclusion.


There are jobs to be had, but people getting unemployment have little incentive to even try them because they're getting unemployment.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #15 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You are assuming there are no jobs to be had, at all. This is untrue. What there might be is jobs that pay less, have fewer benefits or are otherwise less desirable for the person to hold. But receiving unemployment benefits is discouraging them from even considering actually taking these jobs and doing some kind of work for their money.

Do you have statistics to prove that? Because it contradicts what the US dept of labor says - number of job openings is down from 3.2 million to 2.5 million over the last year:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.htm

Which means to me that job openings are being filled. Also, there are 12 million official unemployed (which really means twice that) - not very many job openings, one for every 10 unemployed or so.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #16 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Do you have statistics to prove that? Because it contradicts what the US dept of labor says - number of job openings is down from 3.2 million to 2.5 million over the last year:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.htm

Which means to me that job openings are being filled. Also, there are 12 million official unemployed (which really means twice that) - not very many job openings, one for every 10 unemployed or so.

No, but there are certainly some. It much greater than zero. So now the question is how many of the 24M (est.) unemployed are receiving government unemployment benefits and how many of those could actually work in those 2.5M jobs but are refusing to because they are receiving unemployment benefits? I don't know the answer to that question and my guess is that you don't either. I think the answer is unknowable as long as they are receiving unemployment benefits. That's my point.

That unemployment benefits subsidize and help unemployment to persist is hardly a controversial idea. Think about how you would act if you had a butt-load of savings to cover living expenses for several months and you got fired or laid off. Would you necessarily jump at the very next job you heard of? Maybe, if it was the right fit. But if not, you have the opportunity to wait and look around. The exact same effect exists here.

Some key data points that would be helpful to this discussion include:

- The actual number of involuntarily unemployed
- The number of those who qualify under current rules for government unemployment benefits
- The number that are actually receiving government unemployment benefits and for how long
- Where those 2.5M job openings exist as compared to where the unemployed exist (geographically speaking)

I know some of this is available from the BLS, I don't have the time at this moment to dig through their data though. Maybe someone else does.

Here is a study (from Sweden) on this very question: http://ftp.iza.org/dp3570.pdf

From the conclusion:

Quote:
The evidence suggests that benefit generosity increases unemployment. We view this evidence as fairly robust since the estimates are similar across alternative specifications. The magnitudes involved are rather substantial and appear to be relatively high compared to estimates available elsewhere in the literature. The estimates suggest that an increase in the (actual) replacement rate of 5 percentage points contributes to increasing unemployment by 25 percent.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #17 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

It subsides unemployment, but it does not encourage unemployment when there are no jobs to be had. I admit that there are problems with too generous unemployment benefits in normal times, it could encourage people to stay out of work - but these are not normal times.

If you cut off unemployment benefits now, people will start starving to death, and you will see a massive increase in crime.

Crime hasn't gone up despite the increase in unemployment. It essentially disproves the hypotheses that unemployed people turn to crime.
post #18 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Crime hasn't gone up despite the increase in unemployment. It essentially disproves the hypotheses that unemployed people turn to crime.

True, and there are other problems with this theory including the inbuilt assumption that the only alternative for people is crime. There may be many alternatives they are not considering or pursuing because they don't really have to because they keep getting a check. Granted, some will be prompted to crime sooner and more easily than others, but it still assumes that they have run out of all other legal and peaceful alternatives.

Here is a not so old (a year ago) article that discusses this very question and suggests that even if there may sometimes be correlative changes in these rates (e.g., both increasing at the same time or both decreasing at the same time) there's at least some evidence that falsifies a direct and causal link between the two: http://bit.ly/dsw71G

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #19 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Crime hasn't gone up despite the increase in unemployment. It essentially disproves the hypotheses that unemployed people turn to crime.

That was not my hypothesis. My hypothesis was that unemployed people *who lose their benefits* turn to crime, which has not happened yet.

If it does spike, it will be pretty obvious - since crime has been dropping since 1950. Crime during the great depression was very bad, but that was mostly due to prohibition.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #20 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

That was not my hypothesis. My hypothesis was that unemployed people *who lose their benefits* turn to crime, which has not happened yet.

The problem with this hypothesis is twofold. First, not everyone receives these benefits to begin with and so it seems reasonable to assume that there would be a correlation (though possibly slightly softened) anyway due to these people. Second, you seem to ignore the possibility that the unemployed (including those who receive and then lose these benefits) have no other options besides crime or starving to death. What evidence do you have to support this assertion?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #21 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

The problem with this hypothesis is twofold. First, not everyone receives these benefits to begin with and so it seems reasonable to assume that there would be a correlation (though possibly slightly softened) anyway due to these people. Second, you seem to ignore the possibility that the unemployed (including those who receive and then lose these benefits) have no other options besides crime or starving to death. What evidence do you have to support this assertion?

Historically low job openings, historically high unemployment. If people were avoiding work, job opening numbers would be historically high, due to the massive increase in unemployment benefits being paid.

If you are right, once people fall off the end of the "extended unemployment benefit" window, they will get jobs. If I am right, they will turn to crime because normal jobs are not available.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #22 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The stimulus was passed for a very specific reason. This was not one of them. To claim that we have already paid for these expeses because we paid for the stimulus is just like claiming that I have secured funding for the rent on my kid's apartment because I have secured funding for his college tuition. Don't steal the stimulus money. It needs to be used to stimulate in the way it was designed, and for the reasons it was passed in Congress. Don't do things half-assed and then whine when the result isn't what you expect.

I don't know anything about this Bunning guy, but the 'Stimulus' as passed (in both the U.S. and Canada) was largely a lot of budgetary pork. If you feel there was a cohesive national economic strategy to the spending orgy known as the Stimulus, I would love to hear it.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #23 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

If you are right, once people fall off the end of the "extended unemployment benefit" window, they will get jobs.

My assertion is more along the lines that when these benefits end they will at least try harder or be willing to accept lesser job alternatives (or other options that may be available to them to support their life) whereas while the benefits continue they, at least somewhat, have an incentive to hold off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

If I am right, they will turn to crime because normal jobs are not available.

But, again, your prediction has built in assumptions which you have not provided support for. Chiefly it assumes that these people have no other options than to turn to crime or starve to death. What do you have to support this assumption? Furthermore what you are offering is a basic appeal to emotion (fear and/or pity) which goes: "If we don't give them money they'll be starving or stealing." (which is also a non sequitur by the way).

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #24 of 94
I've already demonstrated that there are not enough jobs to employ these people who would lose their benefits. What other alternatives are there?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #25 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I've already demonstrated that there are not enough jobs to employ these people who would lose their benefits. What other alternatives are there?

Geez, I didn't think this would be so hard. Obviously every individual's situation is unique but since we are talking about aggregates here we can safely brainstorm about possible options that some of those people might have before having to turn to crime or starving to death:

- selling personal possessions for money to feed themselves
- moving in with relatives or close friends to help share/reduce some costs
- bartering time/work or possessions for needed items like food
- finding charitable organizations that feed those who are in need (food banks)

And there are probably even more but this is a start. My point is you seem to be saying there are only four basic states: employed, unemployed and getting checks from the government, stealing or starving. Your assumption is that when the checks from the government come, people will resort to stealing or starving. My point is that this thinking is limited and ignores a spectrum of options that may be available to people to varying degrees.

P.S. You actually didn't demonstrate what you claim. Are there more than 2.5M getting benefits? If so then, yes, that claim is currently true. But it also rests on the assumption that the BLS's count of job openings is accurate. You've already claimed that their count of unemployed is off by 100%. What's to say their count of job openings isn't as well?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #26 of 94
The official numbers were 9.6 million people receiving benefits on Jan 1st. However, it looks like the government fudges the numbers a bit (real number 14 million or so).

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/gov...nemployment-32
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #27 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I don't know anything about this Bunning guy, but the 'Stimulus' as passed (in both the U.S. and Canada) was largely a lot of budgetary pork. If you feel there was a cohesive national economic strategy to the spending orgy known as the Stimulus, I would love to hear it.

Pork or not, the stimulus as passed, was an itemized list of expenditures and program budgets, each with its own cost. It was not just a "slush fund" where things could just be taken out when you need them. The only way the stimulus could have been used to fund these programs would be to cancel one of the items already quantified for funds. If Bunning wants to cancel something specific as listed in the stimulus, he should present a new bill to do so. If he doesn't know what to cancel, he can't just say he's taking money from "something we haven't determined yet" with the intention to cancel something later. He did not do his homework or he would have said exactly what part of the stimulus the money should come from, and presented an alternate bill to the funding extension that includes the appropriate budget cut.
post #28 of 94
That's a fair point.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #29 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Do you have 6 month worth of living in the bank?

Yes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Have you ever received a government handout as in tax refund check, public school education or such?

Tax refund is NOT a government handout ... it's returning your own money to you because they withheld more than they were due! (and "No" to the public ed question, although I still have to pay the tax bill for it, even though we don't use it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Are you using public transportation?

No

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Have ever been in an airport or a train station?

Airports are not funded by income taxes/general funds... but by "user fees" ... a tax by another name.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Have you ever driven on a public road?

Yes... though I've driven through open fields that were smoother and had fewer potholes. And again, much of the funding does not come from income taxes/general funds, but from user fees in the form of a gasoline tax (among other fees).


So... what was the point of the questions?
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #30 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Tax refund is NOT a government handout ... it's returning your own money to you because they withheld more than they were due! (and "No" to the public ed question, although I still have to pay the tax bill for it, even though we don't use it.

A family of 4 making less than $25K or so will get back more than they pay in federal taxes.
post #31 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

A family of 4 making less than $25K or so will get back more than they pay in federal taxes.

Yet another screwed up "hole" in the IRS code that needs to be eliminated/fixed.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #32 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

A family of 4 making less than $25K or so will get back more than they pay in federal taxes.

"In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Under $50k: 63,500,000 69.5% won't pay a dime

$50-100k: 5,700,000 won't pay a dime

$100-$500k: 736,000 won't pay a dime

Over $1m: 6,000 won't pay a dime."
~ http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...ill-pay-0.html
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #33 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

A family of 4 making less than $25K or so will get back more than they pay in federal taxes.

A family of four earning $25k is pretty fucking hungry.
post #34 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

"In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Under $50k: 63,500,000 69.5% won't pay a dime

$50-100k: 5,700,000 won't pay a dime

$100-$500k: 736,000 won't pay a dime

Over $1m: 6,000 won't pay a dime."
~ http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...ill-pay-0.html

And as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, we can only see this number rise. It is not evidence that the poor are getting anything they don't deserve. It is evidence that salaries and profits are disgustingly unbalanced.
post #35 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, we can only see this number rise. It is not evidence that the poor are getting anything they don't deserve. It is evidence that salaries and profits are disgustingly unbalanced.

Balanced by what measure? The happy utopian yippee skippy scale?

You can't fall from grace without having paradise in the beginning. Please point to the time and place where all the salaries and profits were UNdisgustingly balanced and people were happy and joyous.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #36 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

A family of four earning $25k is pretty fucking hungry.

Prove it.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #37 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Prove it.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml
post #38 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by solarein View Post

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml

Congratulations. You've just proven that the kids get free lunch and breakfast 180 days a year.

How does that make them hungry again?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #39 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Balanced by what measure? The happy utopian yippee skippy scale?

You can't fall from grace without having paradise in the beginning. Please point to the time and place where all the salaries and profits were UNdisgustingly balanced and people were happy and joyous.

I feel like I need a stronger word than absurd here. What you're saying is absolutely asinine. You know very well that the ratio of CEO salaries to those of the average worker have shot through the roof in the last two decades. In fact, I'd say that this post of yours is rather hugely condescending. Ironic, huh? I though that was liberal territory? Unless there's a liberal deep down inside you trying to claw it's way out. There's always hope, right?




http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshot...hots_20060621/

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #40 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Congratulations. You've just proven that the kids get free lunch and breakfast 180 days a year.

How does that make them hungry again?

Condescending post #2 in this thread.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Thank you Mr. Bunning