Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: For Gary (mostly)
172 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
GaryN
Sep 14, 2012, 4:53:49 PM9/14/12
to
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in
news:slrnk571gj....@mbp55.local:
> My mom sent me this today and it made me think of you, Gary.
Why Thankyou Darling <Big Wet Kisses>. Nice to know someone cares.
> A British Perspective......
>
> BY JOHN CLEESE
>
> The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in
> Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to
> "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to
> "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit
> Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out.
> Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody
> Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance"
> warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.
And again when Blair was in power. But only specifically describing Blair.
> The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's
> get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the
> reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for
> the last 300 years.
And the Welsh and the Irish. Generally better to have them inside the tent
pissing out, etc, etc. Mostly we try to keep them more pissed off with
someone else than with us.
> The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its
> terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in
> France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by
> a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively
> paralyzing the country's military capability.
They have a large capability in materiele (can't be arsed to do the slanty
thing over that last e). Just the soldiers and tank crews run away if
anyone shoots at them.
> Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly"
> to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain:
> "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."
Yup. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Camillo
> The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful
> Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also
> have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."
German threat levels might need one in the middle "Invest Psychotic Nutters
into Positions of Power". Why do they always do that?
The best soldiers and equipment available (apart from Britain of course),
and some of the best generals, squandered because the fruitloop in charge
is, well, a fruitloop.
> Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only
> threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.
Yeah. But who wants Belgium anyway?
> The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to
> deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new
> Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
Not really fair - it was a storm that did most of the damage to the Armada.
Mind you quite a few pissed off sailors ended up in Scotland and Ireland
which might explain a bit.
> Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries"
> to "She'll be right, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain:
> "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and
> "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use
> of the last final escalation level.
"Barbie me a Prawn, I'll be back for breakfast" - Oz "Ace" Rimmer..:-)
> John Cleese - British writer, actor and tall person
>
> A final thought - “Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting
> aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC."
What I can't work out is why everyone is getting all upset over this film
degrading Buddah, or Muhammed, or whoever.
I haven't seen it and I don't really give a shit unless they come round my
gaff.
<TiC>If they are all so keen to rid the world of Western Decadence why are
they all moving into my neighbourhood?
gary
--
.Sig file abducted by aliens.
I was bored with changing it every week anyway but as a last gasp...
"And if California slides into the ocean,
like the mystics and statistics say it will,
I predict this motel will be standing,
until I pay my bill"
Warren Zevon, from "Desperados Under The Eaves"
news:slrnk571gj....@mbp55.local:
> My mom sent me this today and it made me think of you, Gary.
Why Thankyou Darling <Big Wet Kisses>. Nice to know someone cares.
> A British Perspective......
>
> BY JOHN CLEESE
>
> The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in
> Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to
> "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to
> "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit
> Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out.
> Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody
> Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance"
> warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.
And again when Blair was in power. But only specifically describing Blair.
> The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's
> get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the
> reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for
> the last 300 years.
And the Welsh and the Irish. Generally better to have them inside the tent
pissing out, etc, etc. Mostly we try to keep them more pissed off with
someone else than with us.
> The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its
> terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in
> France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by
> a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively
> paralyzing the country's military capability.
They have a large capability in materiele (can't be arsed to do the slanty
thing over that last e). Just the soldiers and tank crews run away if
anyone shoots at them.
> Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly"
> to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain:
> "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."
Yup. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Camillo
> The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful
> Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also
> have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."
German threat levels might need one in the middle "Invest Psychotic Nutters
into Positions of Power". Why do they always do that?
The best soldiers and equipment available (apart from Britain of course),
and some of the best generals, squandered because the fruitloop in charge
is, well, a fruitloop.
> Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only
> threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.
Yeah. But who wants Belgium anyway?
> The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to
> deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new
> Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
Not really fair - it was a storm that did most of the damage to the Armada.
Mind you quite a few pissed off sailors ended up in Scotland and Ireland
which might explain a bit.
> Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries"
> to "She'll be right, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain:
> "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and
> "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use
> of the last final escalation level.
"Barbie me a Prawn, I'll be back for breakfast" - Oz "Ace" Rimmer..:-)
> John Cleese - British writer, actor and tall person
>
> A final thought - “Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting
> aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC."
What I can't work out is why everyone is getting all upset over this film
degrading Buddah, or Muhammed, or whoever.
I haven't seen it and I don't really give a shit unless they come round my
gaff.
<TiC>If they are all so keen to rid the world of Western Decadence why are
they all moving into my neighbourhood?
gary
--
.Sig file abducted by aliens.
I was bored with changing it every week anyway but as a last gasp...
"And if California slides into the ocean,
like the mystics and statistics say it will,
I predict this motel will be standing,
until I pay my bill"
Warren Zevon, from "Desperados Under The Eaves"
Nigel Stapley
Sep 14, 2012, 6:52:08 PM9/14/12
to
Lewis wrote:
> My mom sent me this today and it made me think of you, Gary.
>
> My mom sent me this today and it made me think of you, Gary.
>
> A British Perspective......
>
> BY JOHN CLEESE
>
> The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria
> and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved."
> Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or
> even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the
> blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been
> re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the
> British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when
> threatened by the Spanish Armada.
>
Reminds me of a headline from a couple of days ago on the website of the
>
> BY JOHN CLEESE
>
> The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria
> and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved."
> Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or
> even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the
> blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been
> re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the
> British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when
> threatened by the Spanish Armada.
>
socialist blogger Dave Osler (http://www.davidosler.com/ if you want):
"TUC: Building for a Winter of Mild Petulance"
(Notes for aliens:
TUC - Trades Union Congress
The period from late '78 into '79 came to be called "The Winter Of
Discontent" because a lot of public-service workers pissed off at having
to have their wages fall behind living costs to bail the country out of
economic problems not of their own making (1) took some strike action.
This has since been used to frighten millions of Brits into not voting
for anything remotely left-wing ever since - nor even the Labour Party.)
(1) I know, you can't imagine anything like that happening nowadays.
--
Regards
Nigel Stapley
www.thejudge.me.uk
<reply-to will bounce>
Nigel Stapley
Sep 14, 2012, 6:53:42 PM9/14/12
to
GaryN wrote:
>
> And the Welsh and the Irish. Generally better to have them inside the tent
> pissing out, etc, etc. Mostly we try to keep them more pissed off with
> someone else than with us.
>
We can always be relied to upon to fight amongst ourselves: north v.
>
> And the Welsh and the Irish. Generally better to have them inside the tent
> pissing out, etc, etc. Mostly we try to keep them more pissed off with
> someone else than with us.
>
south, urban v. rural, Welsh-speaking v. non-Welsh-speaking, etc., etc.
How they must laugh in London.
steveski
Sep 14, 2012, 7:14:52 PM9/14/12
to
Nigel Stapley wrote:
[snippage]
> This has since been used to frighten millions of Brits into not voting
> for anything remotely left-wing ever since - nor even the Labour Party.)
Is the Labour party even *remotely* left wing these days? I mourn.
--
Steveski
[snippage]
> This has since been used to frighten millions of Brits into not voting
> for anything remotely left-wing ever since - nor even the Labour Party.)
--
Steveski
Nigel Stapley
Sep 14, 2012, 8:52:27 PM9/14/12
to
and cut public spending to placate the IMF and its Chicago-school
ideologues.
That's why I made the distinction between 'left wing' and 'the Labour
Party'.
Chris Zakes
Sep 14, 2012, 9:02:33 PM9/14/12
to
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:53:49 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
caused GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> to write:
(snip)
>What I can't work out is why everyone is getting all upset over this film
>degrading Buddah, or Muhammed, or whoever.
Maybe it's because far too many Muslims are, at heart, very insecure
about their religion. Note the brouhaha a few years ago about the
Danish Mohammed cartons, or about Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic
Verses" back in the late 1980s.
Insults that most people would respond to with "Yeah, right, whatever"
are taken *far* too seriously, which suggests that those believers
aren't very secure in their belief, so they need to violently defend
it to prove their faith.
Or maybe it's because any excuse to attack America is considered a
good one.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
--
Be careful what you wish for, it may have a very long job description.
-Puck Curtis
caused GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> to write:
(snip)
>What I can't work out is why everyone is getting all upset over this film
>degrading Buddah, or Muhammed, or whoever.
about their religion. Note the brouhaha a few years ago about the
Danish Mohammed cartons, or about Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic
Verses" back in the late 1980s.
Insults that most people would respond to with "Yeah, right, whatever"
are taken *far* too seriously, which suggests that those believers
aren't very secure in their belief, so they need to violently defend
it to prove their faith.
Or maybe it's because any excuse to attack America is considered a
good one.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
--
Be careful what you wish for, it may have a very long job description.
-Puck Curtis
GaryN
Sep 14, 2012, 10:29:42 PM9/14/12
to
Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote in
news:3JednahnXrX4KM7N...@brightview.co.uk:
> GaryN wrote:
>
>>
>> And the Welsh and the Irish. Generally better to have them inside the
>> tent pissing out, etc, etc. Mostly we try to keep them more pissed
>> off with someone else than with us.
>>
>
> We can always be relied to upon to fight amongst ourselves: north v.
> south, urban v. rural, Welsh-speaking v. non-Welsh-speaking, etc.,
> etc.
>
> How they must laugh in London.
>
Only problem with the M25 is that they didn't build the inside wall 50'
high, close all in/off ramps and knock down all mobile comms towers
inside.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082340/
Then sell it to the <generic>wogs as a nuclear weapons test site.
I wish.
news:3JednahnXrX4KM7N...@brightview.co.uk:
> GaryN wrote:
>
>>
>> And the Welsh and the Irish. Generally better to have them inside the
>> tent pissing out, etc, etc. Mostly we try to keep them more pissed
>> off with someone else than with us.
>>
>
> We can always be relied to upon to fight amongst ourselves: north v.
> south, urban v. rural, Welsh-speaking v. non-Welsh-speaking, etc.,
> etc.
>
> How they must laugh in London.
>
high, close all in/off ramps and knock down all mobile comms towers
inside.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082340/
Then sell it to the <generic>wogs as a nuclear weapons test site.
I wish.
GaryN
Sep 14, 2012, 10:37:30 PM9/14/12
to
Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:75k758dba535udh96...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:53:49 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> to write:
>
> (snip)
>
>>What I can't work out is why everyone is getting all upset over this
>>film degrading Buddah, or Muhammed, or whoever.
>
> Maybe it's because far too many Muslims are, at heart, very insecure
> about their religion. Note the brouhaha a few years ago about the
> Danish Mohammed cartons, or about Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic
> Verses" back in the late 1980s.
> Insults that most people would respond to with "Yeah, right, whatever"
> are taken *far* too seriously, which suggests that those believers
> aren't very secure in their belief, so they need to violently defend
> it to prove their faith.
Nah. I think it's because they do actually believe in their faith.
But.
Do Muslim terrorists take time out 5 times a day to go to a Mosque?
If not they are not Muslims.
> Or maybe it's because any excuse to attack America is considered a
> good one.
Works for everyone else:-)
USia is just so arrogant that someone has to hit it.
gary - wanders off to find a dumb American tourist to mug.
news:75k758dba535udh96...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:53:49 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> to write:
>
> (snip)
>
>>What I can't work out is why everyone is getting all upset over this
>>film degrading Buddah, or Muhammed, or whoever.
>
> Maybe it's because far too many Muslims are, at heart, very insecure
> about their religion. Note the brouhaha a few years ago about the
> Danish Mohammed cartons, or about Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic
> Verses" back in the late 1980s.
> Insults that most people would respond to with "Yeah, right, whatever"
> are taken *far* too seriously, which suggests that those believers
> aren't very secure in their belief, so they need to violently defend
> it to prove their faith.
But.
Do Muslim terrorists take time out 5 times a day to go to a Mosque?
If not they are not Muslims.
> Or maybe it's because any excuse to attack America is considered a
> good one.
USia is just so arrogant that someone has to hit it.
gary - wanders off to find a dumb American tourist to mug.
GaryN
Sep 14, 2012, 10:52:06 PM9/14/12
to
Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote in
news:stidnTuI1qKnTM7N...@brightview.co.uk:
> steveski wrote:
>> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>
>> [snippage]
>>
>>> This has since been used to frighten millions of Brits into not
>>> voting for anything remotely left-wing ever since - nor even the
>>> Labour Party.)
>>
>> Is the Labour party even *remotely* left wing these days? I mourn.
>>
>
> No - nor has it been since about 1976 when Denis Healey turned chicken
> and cut public spending to placate the IMF and its Chicago-school
> ideologues.
>
> That's why I made the distinction between 'left wing' and 'the Labour
> Party'.
>
properly but Private Eye cover for their 50th anniverrrrsary may
provvider some amusement.
Got one of those old fashioned papery thingys over in the box from
theprinter that crapped out.
If I could staaaand upp I'd be able to get the re
Ah Fuck it - I can't find an electronic file - someone else do it.
gary
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Sep 15, 2012, 12:15:53 AM9/15/12
to
On 2012-09-14 18:53:42 -0400, Nigel Stapley said:
> GaryN wrote:
>
>>
>> And the Welsh and the Irish. Generally better to have them inside the
>> tent pissing out, etc, etc. Mostly we try to keep them more pissed off
>> with someone else than with us.
>>
>
> We can always be relied to upon to fight amongst ourselves: north v.
> south, urban v. rural, Welsh-speaking v. non-Welsh-speaking, etc., etc.
>
> How they must laugh in London.
I doubt they think about the Welsh enough to laugh at them.
> GaryN wrote:
>
>>
>> And the Welsh and the Irish. Generally better to have them inside the
>> tent pissing out, etc, etc. Mostly we try to keep them more pissed off
>> with someone else than with us.
>>
>
> We can always be relied to upon to fight amongst ourselves: north v.
> south, urban v. rural, Welsh-speaking v. non-Welsh-speaking, etc., etc.
>
> How they must laugh in London.
--
Now available on Amazon or B&N: One-Eyed Jack.
Greg Kraft could see ghosts. That didn't mean he could stop them...
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Brian Howlett
Sep 15, 2012, 4:19:34 AM9/15/12
to
On 15 Sep, GaryN wrote:
> Private Eye cover for their 50th anniverrrrsary may provvider some amusement.
This one?
> Private Eye cover for their 50th anniverrrrsary may provvider some amusement.
<http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers.php?showme=1300>
If things don't change, they'll stay the same...
--
Brian Howlett - Email to From: address deleted unseen
-------------------------------------------------------------
People who live in glass houses should undress in the dark...
Nigel Stapley
Sep 15, 2012, 5:21:56 AM9/15/12
to
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On 2012-09-14 18:53:42 -0400, Nigel Stapley said:
>
>> GaryN wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And the Welsh and the Irish. Generally better to have them inside the
>>> tent pissing out, etc, etc. Mostly we try to keep them more pissed
>>> off with someone else than with us.
>>>
>>
>> We can always be relied to upon to fight amongst ourselves: north v.
>> south, urban v. rural, Welsh-speaking v. non-Welsh-speaking, etc., etc.
>>
>> How they must laugh in London.
>
> I doubt they think about the Welsh enough to laugh at them.
>
>
This can be borne out by the level of comments whenever The Guardian's
> On 2012-09-14 18:53:42 -0400, Nigel Stapley said:
>
>> GaryN wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And the Welsh and the Irish. Generally better to have them inside the
>>> tent pissing out, etc, etc. Mostly we try to keep them more pissed
>>> off with someone else than with us.
>>>
>>
>> We can always be relied to upon to fight amongst ourselves: north v.
>> south, urban v. rural, Welsh-speaking v. non-Welsh-speaking, etc., etc.
>>
>> How they must laugh in London.
>
> I doubt they think about the Welsh enough to laugh at them.
>
>
"Comment Is Free" section prints pieces about Scotland and (far less
often) about Wales. The Scotland pieces attract hundreds of comments,
ones about Wales a couple of dozen at the most. And most of them are a
variety of sneers (I have catalogued this phenomemononon here:
http://www.thejudge.me.uk/Rants/Rants_archive_09.htm#06_02_09 , here:
http://www.thejudge.me.uk/Rants/Rants_archive_09.htm#15_02_09 , and
here: http://www.thejudge.me.uk/Rants/Rants_archive_09.htm#16_02_09 ).
Nigel Stapley
Sep 15, 2012, 5:26:28 AM9/15/12
to
Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:53:49 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> to write:
>
> (snip)
>
>> What I can't work out is why everyone is getting all upset over this film
>> degrading Buddah, or Muhammed, or whoever.
>
> Maybe it's because far too many Muslims are, at heart, very insecure
> about their religion. Note the brouhaha a few years ago about the
> Danish Mohammed cartons, or about Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic
> Verses" back in the late 1980s.
> Insults that most people would respond to with "Yeah, right, whatever"
> are taken *far* too seriously, which suggests that those believers
> aren't very secure in their belief, so they need to violently defend
> it to prove their faith.
>
> Or maybe it's because any excuse to attack America is considered a
> good one.
>
I have what I call "the theory of parallel development" on this.
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:53:49 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> to write:
>
> (snip)
>
>> What I can't work out is why everyone is getting all upset over this film
>> degrading Buddah, or Muhammed, or whoever.
>
> Maybe it's because far too many Muslims are, at heart, very insecure
> about their religion. Note the brouhaha a few years ago about the
> Danish Mohammed cartons, or about Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic
> Verses" back in the late 1980s.
> Insults that most people would respond to with "Yeah, right, whatever"
> are taken *far* too seriously, which suggests that those believers
> aren't very secure in their belief, so they need to violently defend
> it to prove their faith.
>
> Or maybe it's because any excuse to attack America is considered a
> good one.
>
Consider that Islam is about 650 years younger than Christianity. Then
consider how Christianity was behaving 650 years ago, especially towards
non-Christians or non-the-'right'-sort-of-Christians.
Adjusted for the acceleration of technology, that would put the
development of Islam today somewhere in the Crusades-to-heretic-burning
stage. So they're coming on quite nicely really. Another 50 years or so
and they may just have reached the opening innings of The Enlightenment.
Alec Cawley
Sep 15, 2012, 7:34:13 AM9/15/12
to
GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
> Do Muslim terrorists take time out 5 times a day to go to a Mosque?
>
> If not they are not Muslims.
Not true. They only have to pray, not go to a mosque. Many Muslims carry or
> Do Muslim terrorists take time out 5 times a day to go to a Mosque?
>
> If not they are not Muslims.
keep around a prayer mat so that they can pray wherever they are. It is not
uncommon for them to stop and pray on the pavement as they are on the way
somewhere.
Walter Bushell
Sep 15, 2012, 8:18:37 AM9/15/12
to
In article <75k758dba535udh96...@4ax.com>,
This one where and Mo's body double Moses and Jesus sing "Respect"
Tags: respect, self-regard, temper tantrums, violence
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:53:49 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> to write:
>
> (snip)
>
> >What I can't work out is why everyone is getting all upset over this film
> >degrading Buddah, or Muhammed, or whoever.
>
> Maybe it's because far too many Muslims are, at heart, very insecure
> about their religion. Note the brouhaha a few years ago about the
> Danish Mohammed cartons, or about Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic
> Verses" back in the late 1980s.
> Insults that most people would respond to with "Yeah, right, whatever"
> are taken *far* too seriously, which suggests that those believers
> aren't very secure in their belief, so they need to violently defend
> it to prove their faith.
>
> Or maybe it's because any excuse to attack America is considered a
> good one.
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
<http://www.jesusandmo.net/>
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:53:49 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> to write:
>
> (snip)
>
> >What I can't work out is why everyone is getting all upset over this film
> >degrading Buddah, or Muhammed, or whoever.
>
> Maybe it's because far too many Muslims are, at heart, very insecure
> about their religion. Note the brouhaha a few years ago about the
> Danish Mohammed cartons, or about Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic
> Verses" back in the late 1980s.
> Insults that most people would respond to with "Yeah, right, whatever"
> are taken *far* too seriously, which suggests that those believers
> aren't very secure in their belief, so they need to violently defend
> it to prove their faith.
>
> Or maybe it's because any excuse to attack America is considered a
> good one.
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
This one where and Mo's body double Moses and Jesus sing "Respect"
Tags: respect, self-regard, temper tantrums, violence
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Walter Bushell
Sep 15, 2012, 8:20:08 AM9/15/12
to
In article
<1216571069369401463.10...@news.individual.net>,
But dying as a for the faith absolves all sins.
<1216571069369401463.10...@news.individual.net>,
daniel goldsmith
Sep 15, 2012, 8:31:22 AM9/15/12
to
On 2012-09-15, Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
> Chris Zakes wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:53:49 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> to write:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>> What I can't work out is why everyone is getting all upset over this film
>>> degrading Buddah, or Muhammed, or whoever.
<some snips>
> Chris Zakes wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:53:49 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> to write:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>> What I can't work out is why everyone is getting all upset over this film
>>> degrading Buddah, or Muhammed, or whoever.
> I have what I call "the theory of parallel development" on this.
> Consider that Islam is about 650 years younger than Christianity. Then
> consider how Christianity was behaving 650 years ago, especially towards
> non-Christians or non-the-'right'-sort-of-Christians.
>
> Adjusted for the acceleration of technology, that would put the
> development of Islam today somewhere in the Crusades-to-heretic-burning
> stage. So they're coming on quite nicely really. Another 50 years or so
> and they may just have reached the opening innings of The Enlightenment.
of the muslim world were of the same era, indeed, a very similar
technological, societal and developmental level, as the "Christian"
lands were at the time of the Crusades. In very many ways, they were
more advanced, but the overall society was remarably similar.
That kinda kills off your theory, as there is no parallell to be drawn
on the basis of two religious entities which were at the same stage
650 years ago, but have now diverged massively.
Even if you go back to the creation of the Islamic faith by Muhammed
and the ulemma in about 610CE, that religion took root in a society
600-odd years more advanced than that in which Christianity arose.
The dominant local powers were the by-then decadent Persian and Roman
(Byzantine) Empires, and when the Rashidun conquered the remants of
their powers, they adopted the laws, customs and technologies that
were extant - they didn't (as was alleged for centuries) tear it all
asunder and start from a tabula rasa.
In my own non-exhaustively researched opinion, the problems which
currently afflict Islam are far more recent in origin - to whit:
the discovery of oil in Araby. There really could not have been a
worse cess-pit of intolerance, religious hatred and sheer nastiness
in which the vast majority of the worlds oil could have been found.
The al-Saud dynasty have, in order to keep their own incomprehensibly
vast privilege, wealth and power, ushered in an era of stark and
poisonous ignorance in the Dar al-Islam, to the ruination of that
world and the rest besides. They use and abuse their position as the
wealthiest dogs in the pack to terrible effect - destroying Islamic
education across the world in favour of their home-based policy of
keeping people ignorant.
When all people have is their religion, that's going to cause a
violent reaction when you attack it.
--
Protected by their camouflage, the New International Militant Hedgehogs
__o __o __o __o (NIMH) Approach their Target
'/ '/ '/ '/ _____________________________________________________
*Daniel Goldsmith. Reply-to/Homepage in Headers*
GaryN
Sep 15, 2012, 10:36:08 AM9/15/12
to
Brian Howlett <news-s...@brianhowlett.me.uk> wrote in
news:9e1a80cf...@bhowlett.plus.net:
> On 15 Sep, GaryN wrote:
>
>> Private Eye cover for their 50th anniverrrrsary may provvider some
>> amusement.
>
> This one?
>
> <http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers.php?showme=1300>
>
> If things don't change, they'll stay the same...
Dat der bunny! Apologies for my net-search incompetence this morning but
the couple of co-codamol washed down with Glen-Hosaki to try and work out
the pain from the damaged shoulder had hit me rather hard.
At least I stayed reasonably on subject.
news:9e1a80cf...@bhowlett.plus.net:
> On 15 Sep, GaryN wrote:
>
>> Private Eye cover for their 50th anniverrrrsary may provvider some
>> amusement.
>
> This one?
>
> <http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers.php?showme=1300>
>
> If things don't change, they'll stay the same...
the couple of co-codamol washed down with Glen-Hosaki to try and work out
the pain from the damaged shoulder had hit me rather hard.
At least I stayed reasonably on subject.
Kevin Wells
Sep 15, 2012, 9:56:17 AM9/15/12
to
In message <75k758dba535udh96...@4ax.com>
claim to hate America that much always seem able to get hold of an
American flag.
Mind you I have a good business idea, set up a shop in the Middle East
with American flags pre-soaked in petrol.
--
Kev Wells http://riscos.kevsoft.co.uk/
http://kevsoft.co.uk/ http://kevsoft.co.uk/AleQuest/
ICQ 238580561
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Or maybe it's because any excuse to attack America is considered a
>good one.
>
Or to burn the American flag, what gets me about that is for people who
>
>Or maybe it's because any excuse to attack America is considered a
>good one.
>
claim to hate America that much always seem able to get hold of an
American flag.
Mind you I have a good business idea, set up a shop in the Middle East
with American flags pre-soaked in petrol.
--
Kev Wells http://riscos.kevsoft.co.uk/
http://kevsoft.co.uk/ http://kevsoft.co.uk/AleQuest/
ICQ 238580561
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
Chris Zakes
Sep 15, 2012, 10:44:35 AM9/15/12
to
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 21:29:42 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
that's downwind?
>Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote in
>news:3JednahnXrX4KM7N...@brightview.co.uk:
>
>> GaryN wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And the Welsh and the Irish. Generally better to have them inside the
>>> tent pissing out, etc, etc. Mostly we try to keep them more pissed
>>> off with someone else than with us.
>>>
>>
>> We can always be relied to upon to fight amongst ourselves: north v.
>> south, urban v. rural, Welsh-speaking v. non-Welsh-speaking, etc.,
>> etc.
>>
>> How they must laugh in London.
>>
>
>Only problem with the M25 is that they didn't build the inside wall 50'
>high, close all in/off ramps and knock down all mobile comms towers
>inside.
>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082340/
>
>Then sell it to the <generic>wogs as a nuclear weapons test site.
>
>I wish.
>
>gary
But wouldn't the fallout cause problems for any part of the country
>news:3JednahnXrX4KM7N...@brightview.co.uk:
>
>> GaryN wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And the Welsh and the Irish. Generally better to have them inside the
>>> tent pissing out, etc, etc. Mostly we try to keep them more pissed
>>> off with someone else than with us.
>>>
>>
>> We can always be relied to upon to fight amongst ourselves: north v.
>> south, urban v. rural, Welsh-speaking v. non-Welsh-speaking, etc.,
>> etc.
>>
>> How they must laugh in London.
>>
>
>Only problem with the M25 is that they didn't build the inside wall 50'
>high, close all in/off ramps and knock down all mobile comms towers
>inside.
>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082340/
>
>Then sell it to the <generic>wogs as a nuclear weapons test site.
>
>I wish.
>
>gary
that's downwind?
Lesley Weston
Sep 15, 2012, 10:59:29 AM9/15/12
to
On 09-14-12 12:31 PM, Lewis wrote:
> My mom sent me this today and it made me think of you, Gary.
>
> A British Perspective......
>
> BY JOHN CLEESE
<snip excellent piece>
> My mom sent me this today and it made me think of you, Gary.
>
> A British Perspective......
>
> BY JOHN CLEESE
>
> A final thought - “Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting
> aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC."
>
Nice!
> A final thought - “Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting
> aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC."
>
Lesley.
--
This address is real, but to reach me use leswes att shaw dott ca
Lesley Weston
Sep 15, 2012, 11:05:02 AM9/15/12
to
On 09-14-12 1:53 PM, GaryN wrote:
<snip>
> What I can't work out is why everyone is getting all upset over this film
> degrading Buddah, or Muhammed, or whoever.
>
> I haven't seen it and I don't really give a shit unless they come round my
> gaff.
It's a CIA plot, set up to destabilise the Arab countries. It's
remarkably successful so far. Or possibly a Mossad plot: Wossnam's brief
claim to be Israeli might have been a Freudian slip rather than a
dastardly clever obfuscation technique.
<snip>
> What I can't work out is why everyone is getting all upset over this film
> degrading Buddah, or Muhammed, or whoever.
>
> I haven't seen it and I don't really give a shit unless they come round my
> gaff.
remarkably successful so far. Or possibly a Mossad plot: Wossnam's brief
claim to be Israeli might have been a Freudian slip rather than a
dastardly clever obfuscation technique.
Lesley Weston
Sep 15, 2012, 11:08:10 AM9/15/12
to
pavement (sidewalk).
Alec Cawley
Sep 15, 2012, 11:39:23 AM9/15/12
to
Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 09-15-12 4:34 AM, Alec Cawley wrote:
>> GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Do Muslim terrorists take time out 5 times a day to go to a Mosque?
>>>
>>> If not they are not Muslims.
>>
>> Not true. They only have to pray, not go to a mosque. Many Muslims carry or
>> keep around a prayer mat so that they can pray wherever they are. It is not
>> uncommon for them to stop and pray on the pavement as they are on the way
>> somewhere.
>>
> Doing the required ritual washing first must be difficult on the pavement (sidewalk).
>
Wikipedia suggest that most sects regard washing once in the morning
> On 09-15-12 4:34 AM, Alec Cawley wrote:
>> GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Do Muslim terrorists take time out 5 times a day to go to a Mosque?
>>>
>>> If not they are not Muslims.
>>
>> Not true. They only have to pray, not go to a mosque. Many Muslims carry or
>> keep around a prayer mat so that they can pray wherever they are. It is not
>> uncommon for them to stop and pray on the pavement as they are on the way
>> somewhere.
>>
> Doing the required ritual washing first must be difficult on the pavement (sidewalk).
>
suffices provided that you avoid certain unpurifying actions such as
defecation or sex, after which a fresh wash is required. Which only amounts
to normal personal hygiene by my standards. Basically, it is an injunction
to keep yourself what we would regard as normally clean.
Lesley Weston
Sep 15, 2012, 11:39:48 AM9/15/12
to
On 09-15-12 5:31 AM, daniel goldsmith wrote:
> On 2012-09-15, Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>> Chris Zakes wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:53:49 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
>>> caused GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> to write:
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>>> What I can't work out is why everyone is getting all upset over this film
>>>> degrading Buddah, or Muhammed, or whoever.
>
> <some snips>
>
>> I have what I call "the theory of parallel development" on this.
>> Consider that Islam is about 650 years younger than Christianity. Then
>> consider how Christianity was behaving 650 years ago, especially towards
>> non-Christians or non-the-'right'-sort-of-Christians.
>>
>> Adjusted for the acceleration of technology, that would put the
>> development of Islam today somewhere in the Crusades-to-heretic-burning
>> stage. So they're coming on quite nicely really. Another 50 years or so
>> and they may just have reached the opening innings of The Enlightenment.
>
> Well, that's as may be but - and its a massive BUT - the civilizations
> of the muslim world were of the same era, indeed, a very similar
> technological, societal and developmental level, as the "Christian"
> lands were at the time of the Crusades. In very many ways, they were
> more advanced, but the overall society was remarably similar.
However, when it comes to religion a younger religion is more passionate
> On 2012-09-15, Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>> Chris Zakes wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:53:49 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
>>> caused GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> to write:
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>>> What I can't work out is why everyone is getting all upset over this film
>>>> degrading Buddah, or Muhammed, or whoever.
>
> <some snips>
>
>> I have what I call "the theory of parallel development" on this.
>> Consider that Islam is about 650 years younger than Christianity. Then
>> consider how Christianity was behaving 650 years ago, especially towards
>> non-Christians or non-the-'right'-sort-of-Christians.
>>
>> Adjusted for the acceleration of technology, that would put the
>> development of Islam today somewhere in the Crusades-to-heretic-burning
>> stage. So they're coming on quite nicely really. Another 50 years or so
>> and they may just have reached the opening innings of The Enlightenment.
>
> Well, that's as may be but - and its a massive BUT - the civilizations
> of the muslim world were of the same era, indeed, a very similar
> technological, societal and developmental level, as the "Christian"
> lands were at the time of the Crusades. In very many ways, they were
> more advanced, but the overall society was remarably similar.
than a well-established one. Practitioners, and more importantly
teachers, of the older one have had time to allow their religion to fit
in comfortably with real life. The newer one is still trying to make a
viable way of life, while the older one has worked it out long ago.
I've had the same idea as Nigel, and probably others have too. It means
that we only have to get through this bit for the next few hundred
years, and then the whole world will be comfortable again. Unless some
crazy starts yet another new religion of course.
become less and less important. This will remove the power base from
such unpleasant people as the Saudi royal family, forcing them, or more
likely their successors, to behave.
Jonathan Ellis
Sep 15, 2012, 12:55:48 PM9/15/12
to
"Nigel Stapley" <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote in message
news:stidnTuI1qKnTM7N...@brightview.co.uk...
> steveski wrote:
>> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>
>> [snippage]
>>
>>> This has since been used to frighten millions of Brits into not voting
>>> for anything remotely left-wing ever since - nor even the Labour Party.)
>>
>> Is the Labour party even *remotely* left wing these days? I mourn.
>>
>
> No - nor has it been since about 1976 when Denis Healey turned chicken and
> cut public spending to placate the IMF and its Chicago-school ideologues.
ITYM "was forced to cut public spending by the fact that there was no more
>> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>
>> [snippage]
>>
>>> This has since been used to frighten millions of Brits into not voting
>>> for anything remotely left-wing ever since - nor even the Labour Party.)
>>
>> Is the Labour party even *remotely* left wing these days? I mourn.
>>
>
> No - nor has it been since about 1976 when Denis Healey turned chicken and
> cut public spending to placate the IMF and its Chicago-school ideologues.
money anywhere to be had, borrowed or printed, and nobody would carry on
lending to a nation that was already mortgaged up to the hilt and unable to
pay its existing debts"
Basic economics: Further spending is not the way out of debt. It increases
it, not decreases it. If you, as a person, were so far in debt that you
weren't meeting the existing agreed-on repayments, then why should anybody
else lend you any more so you can spend yet more, and then fail to pay back
the new loans as well as the old? The same applies to nations as to people.
All this whole crap about "the banks aren't wanting to lend to businesses
any more" is froth to obscure the fact that, among they businesses they
don't want to lend to is HM Treasury because of years of overspending. And
thus even a government that WANTED to increase spending, couldn't.
The shit has yet to hit the fan as to how bankrupt we (along with the banks,
along with everyone else) REALLY are.
"I'm sorry, there really is no money"
-- Jonathan.
daniel goldsmith
Sep 15, 2012, 1:29:27 PM9/15/12
to
On 2012-09-15, Jonathan Ellis <jle3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Nigel Stapley" <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:stidnTuI1qKnTM7N...@brightview.co.uk...
>> steveski wrote:
>>> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>>
>>> [snippage]
>>>
>>>> This has since been used to frighten millions of Brits into not voting
>>>> for anything remotely left-wing ever since - nor even the Labour Party.)
>>>
>>> Is the Labour party even *remotely* left wing these days? I mourn.
>>>
>>
>> No - nor has it been since about 1976 when Denis Healey turned chicken and
>> cut public spending to placate the IMF and its Chicago-school ideologues.
>
> ITYM "was forced to cut public spending by the fact that there was no more
> money anywhere to be had, borrowed or printed, and nobody would carry on
> lending to a nation that was already mortgaged up to the hilt and unable to
> pay its existing debts"
>
> Basic economics: Further spending is not the way out of debt. It increases
> it, not decreases it. If you, as a person, were so far in debt that you
> weren't meeting the existing agreed-on repayments, then why should anybody
> else lend you any more so you can spend yet more, and then fail to pay back
> the new loans as well as the old? The same applies to nations as to people.
Depends on what you mean by "debt".
>
> "Nigel Stapley" <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:stidnTuI1qKnTM7N...@brightview.co.uk...
>> steveski wrote:
>>> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>>
>>> [snippage]
>>>
>>>> This has since been used to frighten millions of Brits into not voting
>>>> for anything remotely left-wing ever since - nor even the Labour Party.)
>>>
>>> Is the Labour party even *remotely* left wing these days? I mourn.
>>>
>>
>> No - nor has it been since about 1976 when Denis Healey turned chicken and
>> cut public spending to placate the IMF and its Chicago-school ideologues.
>
> ITYM "was forced to cut public spending by the fact that there was no more
> money anywhere to be had, borrowed or printed, and nobody would carry on
> lending to a nation that was already mortgaged up to the hilt and unable to
> pay its existing debts"
>
> Basic economics: Further spending is not the way out of debt. It increases
> it, not decreases it. If you, as a person, were so far in debt that you
> weren't meeting the existing agreed-on repayments, then why should anybody
> else lend you any more so you can spend yet more, and then fail to pay back
> the new loans as well as the old? The same applies to nations as to people.
In the present situation of the global economy, the restrictions on
expenditure caused by the doctrinaire application of Austrian Economic
Theory is creating the Second Great Depression. This is the laughable
concept that if you don't spend any money at all on anything, the
markets will magically supply you with money which you will have to
continue to not spend. This is what is, outside of economics classes,
called Bullshit.
Capital Expenditure by states creates individual wealth, which can then
e taxed, thus both recouping the expense and creating personal wealth,
which improves the economy, which permits further application to the
principle &c &c. This is why states should borrow for expenditure.
The same rules for personal expenditure simply do not apply to states.
> All this whole crap about "the banks aren't wanting to lend to businesses
> any more" is froth to obscure the fact that, among they businesses they
> don't want to lend to is HM Treasury because of years of overspending. And
> thus even a government that WANTED to increase spending, couldn't.
every red cent they had into those self same fecking banks. There's been
a socialised wealth transfer from states and individuals to banks of the
order of $13tn since 2008. That's the entire US sovereign debt.
> The shit has yet to hit the fan as to how bankrupt we (along with the banks,
> along with everyone else) REALLY are.
Ireland, the Banks will be protected until the very last drop of blood
is extracted from the populace in their interests.
> "I'm sorry, there really is no money"
December alone.
Walter Bushell
Sep 15, 2012, 1:43:06 PM9/15/12
to
In article <slrnk59enm...@ascraeus.bongley.net>,
severe.
We should have nationalized the banks if we needed to bail them out.
Why should the stockholders of broke companies be bailed out, and, of
course this meant ruin for other stockholders, not to mention
individuals.
daniel goldsmith <dg...@ascraeus.bongley.net.invalid> wrote:
> We can be as bankrupt as dedamned. As we've discovered to our cost in
> Ireland, the Banks will be protected until the very last drop of blood
> is extracted from the populace in their interests.
But Iceland went the other way and things while bad were much less
> We can be as bankrupt as dedamned. As we've discovered to our cost in
> Ireland, the Banks will be protected until the very last drop of blood
> is extracted from the populace in their interests.
severe.
We should have nationalized the banks if we needed to bail them out.
Why should the stockholders of broke companies be bailed out, and, of
course this meant ruin for other stockholders, not to mention
individuals.
R C Nesbit
Sep 15, 2012, 2:07:19 PM9/15/12
to
GaryN spoke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjoa3QazVy8&bpctr=1347638931
> What I can't work out is why everyone is getting all upset over this film
> degrading Buddah, or Muhammed, or whoever.
Because it is a really *really* crap film?
> degrading Buddah, or Muhammed, or whoever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjoa3QazVy8&bpctr=1347638931
GaryN
Sep 15, 2012, 2:12:38 PM9/15/12
to
Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:30595815jvrtpglgq...@4ax.com:
Kevin Wells
Sep 15, 2012, 1:18:59 PM9/15/12
to
In message <k325ev$ae6$1...@mud.stack.nl>
are it's best bits.
>
>Lesley.
Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On 09-14-12 1:53 PM, GaryN wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> What I can't work out is why everyone is getting all upset over this film
>> degrading Buddah, or Muhammed, or whoever.
>>
>> I haven't seen it and I don't really give a shit unless they come round my
>> gaff.
>
>It's a CIA plot, set up to destabilise the Arab countries. It's
>remarkably successful so far. Or possibly a Mossad plot: Wossnam's brief
>claim to be Israeli might have been a Freudian slip rather than a
>dastardly clever obfuscation technique.
I've seen the film and it is rubbish. Poorly acted badly filmed and they
>On 09-14-12 1:53 PM, GaryN wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> What I can't work out is why everyone is getting all upset over this film
>> degrading Buddah, or Muhammed, or whoever.
>>
>> I haven't seen it and I don't really give a shit unless they come round my
>> gaff.
>
>It's a CIA plot, set up to destabilise the Arab countries. It's
>remarkably successful so far. Or possibly a Mossad plot: Wossnam's brief
>claim to be Israeli might have been a Freudian slip rather than a
>dastardly clever obfuscation technique.
are it's best bits.
>
>Lesley.
>
--
Kev Wells http://riscos.kevsoft.co.uk/
http://kevsoft.co.uk/ http://kevsoft.co.uk/AleQuest/
ICQ 238580561
Discworld News http://disc.kevsoft.co.uk/
--
Kev Wells http://riscos.kevsoft.co.uk/
http://kevsoft.co.uk/ http://kevsoft.co.uk/AleQuest/
ICQ 238580561
Nigel Stapley
Sep 15, 2012, 2:46:16 PM9/15/12
to
Nigel Stapley
Sep 15, 2012, 2:49:11 PM9/15/12
to
Lesley Weston wrote:
> On 09-14-12 1:53 PM, GaryN wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> What I can't work out is why everyone is getting all upset over this film
>> degrading Buddah, or Muhammed, or whoever.
>>
>> I haven't seen it and I don't really give a shit unless they come
>> round my
>> gaff.
>
> It's a CIA plot, set up to destabilise the Arab countries. It's
> remarkably successful so far. Or possibly a Mossad plot: Wossnam's brief
> claim to be Israeli might have been a Freudian slip rather than a
> dastardly clever obfuscation technique.
>
The main perpetrator seems to be a virulently anti-Muslim Egyptian
> On 09-14-12 1:53 PM, GaryN wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> What I can't work out is why everyone is getting all upset over this film
>> degrading Buddah, or Muhammed, or whoever.
>>
>> I haven't seen it and I don't really give a shit unless they come
>> round my
>> gaff.
>
> It's a CIA plot, set up to destabilise the Arab countries. It's
> remarkably successful so far. Or possibly a Mossad plot: Wossnam's brief
> claim to be Israeli might have been a Freudian slip rather than a
> dastardly clever obfuscation technique.
>
Christian who has a fraud conviction in California. The producer seems
to be a previous perpetrator of softcore porn, and many of the actors
(who are now disassociating themselves from the 'production' on the
grounds that they were not told what the film was *really* about) are
former porn stars as well.
Bizarre scarcely begins to cover it.
Nigel Stapley
Sep 15, 2012, 3:05:22 PM9/15/12
to
Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> "Nigel Stapley" <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:stidnTuI1qKnTM7N...@brightview.co.uk...
>> steveski wrote:
>>> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>>
>>> [snippage]
>>>
>>>> This has since been used to frighten millions of Brits into not voting
>>>> for anything remotely left-wing ever since - nor even the Labour Party.)
>>> Is the Labour party even *remotely* left wing these days? I mourn.
>>>
>> No - nor has it been since about 1976 when Denis Healey turned chicken and
>> cut public spending to placate the IMF and its Chicago-school ideologues.
>
> ITYM "was forced to cut public spending by the fact that there was no more
> money anywhere to be had, borrowed or printed, and nobody would carry on
> lending to a nation that was already mortgaged up to the hilt and unable to
> pay its existing debts"
That view is, of course, the orthodox one we've had rammed down our
> "Nigel Stapley" <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:stidnTuI1qKnTM7N...@brightview.co.uk...
>> steveski wrote:
>>> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>>
>>> [snippage]
>>>
>>>> This has since been used to frighten millions of Brits into not voting
>>>> for anything remotely left-wing ever since - nor even the Labour Party.)
>>> Is the Labour party even *remotely* left wing these days? I mourn.
>>>
>> No - nor has it been since about 1976 when Denis Healey turned chicken and
>> cut public spending to placate the IMF and its Chicago-school ideologues.
>
> ITYM "was forced to cut public spending by the fact that there was no more
> money anywhere to be had, borrowed or printed, and nobody would carry on
> lending to a nation that was already mortgaged up to the hilt and unable to
> pay its existing debts"
throats for 35 years. The truth of it is that there was no compelling
reason for Healey to kiss the arse of the IMF.
>
> Basic economics: Further spending is not the way out of debt. It increases
> it, not decreases it. If you, as a person, were so far in debt that you
> weren't meeting the existing agreed-on repayments, then why should anybody
> else lend you any more so you can spend yet more, and then fail to pay back
> the new loans as well as the old? The same applies to nations as to people.
>
Thatcherism, namely that you not only *can* run a country's economy in
the same way that you would run a corner grocer's in Lincolnshire, but
that you *should* do so.
Apples and oranges.
We had all this out with that preening little tit Dunbar a few months
ago. I'd advise you to check out that thread (entitled "Electric cars
again") for what happened to him.
Message has been deleted
GaryN
Sep 15, 2012, 4:35:04 PM9/15/12
to
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote in
news:proto-EF869C....@news.panix.com:
Largely though, the whole being skint business mostly applies to cities.
Me and mine can just sod off to pleasant rural properties where we can
grow crops, breed animals and have enough firepower to discourage
visitors.
Watch the cities and the bankers burn from the comfort of a survival
enclave..:-)
Sounds good to me.
news:proto-EF869C....@news.panix.com:
Me and mine can just sod off to pleasant rural properties where we can
grow crops, breed animals and have enough firepower to discourage
visitors.
Watch the cities and the bankers burn from the comfort of a survival
enclave..:-)
Sounds good to me.
larry
Sep 15, 2012, 4:39:03 PM9/15/12
to
On 15/09/12 11:39 AM, Lesley Weston wrote:
> This too shall pass. As we develop and use alternative fuels, oil will
> become less and less important. This will remove the power base from
> such unpleasant people as the Saudi royal family, forcing them, or more
> likely their successors, to behave.
>
> Lesley.
>
We could do it faster by increasing our efficiency of use of petro-fuels
> This too shall pass. As we develop and use alternative fuels, oil will
> become less and less important. This will remove the power base from
> such unpleasant people as the Saudi royal family, forcing them, or more
> likely their successors, to behave.
>
> Lesley.
>
to match whatever the best-practice was for each application:
There's an agreement that the fleet corporate average will be 54.4.MPG
in 2025 - nice goal but it should be 2020 instead.
If VW can exceed that mark in their 2012 model passenger vehicles (not
hybrid,) then very one else is a slacker, n'est ce pas?
larry
Sep 15, 2012, 4:40:40 PM9/15/12
to
On 15/09/12 09:56 AM, Kevin Wells wrote:
> In message<75k758dba535udh96...@4ax.com>
> Chris Zakes<dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Or maybe it's because any excuse to attack America is considered a
>> good one.
>>
>
> Or to burn the American flag, what gets me about that is for people who
> claim to hate America that much always seem able to get hold of an
> American flag.
>
> Mind you I have a good business idea, set up a shop in the Middle East
> with American flags pre-soaked in petrol.
>
>
Supplied by the CIA?
> In message<75k758dba535udh96...@4ax.com>
> Chris Zakes<dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Or maybe it's because any excuse to attack America is considered a
>> good one.
>>
>
> Or to burn the American flag, what gets me about that is for people who
> claim to hate America that much always seem able to get hold of an
> American flag.
>
> Mind you I have a good business idea, set up a shop in the Middle East
> with American flags pre-soaked in petrol.
>
>
larry
Sep 15, 2012, 4:44:39 PM9/15/12
to
>
> The same rules for personal expenditure simply do not apply to states.
>
>> All this whole crap about "the banks aren't wanting to lend to businesses
>> any more" is froth to obscure the fact that, among they businesses they
>> don't want to lend to is HM Treasury because of years of overspending. And
>> thus even a government that WANTED to increase spending, couldn't.
>
> Poppycock. The only reason the states are broke is because they've put
> every red cent they had into those self same fecking banks. There's been
> a socialised wealth transfer from states and individuals to banks of the
> order of $13tn since 2008. That's the entire US sovereign debt.
>
>> The shit has yet to hit the fan as to how bankrupt we (along with the banks,
>> along with everyone else) REALLY are.
>
> We can be as bankrupt as dedamned. As we've discovered to our cost in
> Ireland, the Banks will be protected until the very last drop of blood
> is extracted from the populace in their interests.
>
>> "I'm sorry, there really is no money"
>
> Except for Bankers, who, in London alone, took $35bn in bonuses last
> December alone.
>
>
>
Did I mention how much I enjoy you having rejoined us?
> The same rules for personal expenditure simply do not apply to states.
>
>> All this whole crap about "the banks aren't wanting to lend to businesses
>> any more" is froth to obscure the fact that, among they businesses they
>> don't want to lend to is HM Treasury because of years of overspending. And
>> thus even a government that WANTED to increase spending, couldn't.
>
> Poppycock. The only reason the states are broke is because they've put
> every red cent they had into those self same fecking banks. There's been
> a socialised wealth transfer from states and individuals to banks of the
> order of $13tn since 2008. That's the entire US sovereign debt.
>
>> The shit has yet to hit the fan as to how bankrupt we (along with the banks,
>> along with everyone else) REALLY are.
>
> We can be as bankrupt as dedamned. As we've discovered to our cost in
> Ireland, the Banks will be protected until the very last drop of blood
> is extracted from the populace in their interests.
>
>> "I'm sorry, there really is no money"
>
> Except for Bankers, who, in London alone, took $35bn in bonuses last
> December alone.
>
>
>
Lesley Weston
Sep 16, 2012, 9:45:29 AM9/16/12
to
life more rational. Giving support to the idea that given a few hundred
years Islam will become as comfortable and undemanding as Christianity
has, for all but the loonies in either religion.
Lesley Weston
Sep 16, 2012, 9:49:10 AM9/16/12
to
On 09-15-12 1:39 PM, larry wrote:
> On 15/09/12 11:39 AM, Lesley Weston wrote:
>
>> This too shall pass. As we develop and use alternative fuels, oil will
>> become less and less important. This will remove the power base from
>> such unpleasant people as the Saudi royal family, forcing them, or more
>> likely their successors, to behave.
>>
>> Lesley.
>>
> We could do it faster by increasing our efficiency of use of petro-fuels
> to match whatever the best-practice was for each application:
That's true. Including insulating all buildings properly, which is an
> On 15/09/12 11:39 AM, Lesley Weston wrote:
>
>> This too shall pass. As we develop and use alternative fuels, oil will
>> become less and less important. This will remove the power base from
>> such unpleasant people as the Saudi royal family, forcing them, or more
>> likely their successors, to behave.
>>
>> Lesley.
>>
> We could do it faster by increasing our efficiency of use of petro-fuels
> to match whatever the best-practice was for each application:
achievable goal to set only a very few years ahead.
> There's an agreement that the fleet corporate average will be 54.4.MPG
> in 2025 - nice goal but it should be 2020 instead.
> If VW can exceed that mark in their 2012 model passenger vehicles (not
> hybrid,) then very one else is a slacker, n'est ce pas?
Lesley Weston
Sep 16, 2012, 9:51:21 AM9/16/12
to
On 09-15-12 10:18 AM, Kevin Wells wrote:
> In message <k325ev$ae6$1...@mud.stack.nl>
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 09-14-12 1:53 PM, GaryN wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> What I can't work out is why everyone is getting all upset over this film
>>> degrading Buddah, or Muhammed, or whoever.
>>>
>>> I haven't seen it and I don't really give a shit unless they come round my
>>> gaff.
>>
>> It's a CIA plot, set up to destabilise the Arab countries. It's
>> remarkably successful so far. Or possibly a Mossad plot: Wossnam's brief
>> claim to be Israeli might have been a Freudian slip rather than a
>> dastardly clever obfuscation technique.
>
> I've seen the film and it is rubbish. Poorly acted badly filmed and they
> are it's best bits.
Not Mossad then. They usually do the thing right.
> In message <k325ev$ae6$1...@mud.stack.nl>
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 09-14-12 1:53 PM, GaryN wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> What I can't work out is why everyone is getting all upset over this film
>>> degrading Buddah, or Muhammed, or whoever.
>>>
>>> I haven't seen it and I don't really give a shit unless they come round my
>>> gaff.
>>
>> It's a CIA plot, set up to destabilise the Arab countries. It's
>> remarkably successful so far. Or possibly a Mossad plot: Wossnam's brief
>> claim to be Israeli might have been a Freudian slip rather than a
>> dastardly clever obfuscation technique.
>
> I've seen the film and it is rubbish. Poorly acted badly filmed and they
> are it's best bits.
Lesley Weston
Sep 16, 2012, 10:02:49 AM9/16/12
to
of them can be sacrificed in the name of cost-effectiveness, bottom
line, and all the other sociopathic phrases so popular with right-wing
politicians. I much prefer character-driven fiction and drama, and
likewise I much prefer people-oriented politics.
larry
Sep 16, 2012, 11:44:45 AM9/16/12
to
and his group of Armageddon-rushers, according to one source overheard
on the radio.
Lesley Weston
Sep 17, 2012, 10:04:42 AM9/17/12
to
larry
Sep 17, 2012, 2:19:07 PM9/17/12
to
Apparently, the backers are a group of US 'christian' protestant
fundamentalists.
They've pulled other dumb acts before.
larry
Sep 18, 2012, 8:29:02 AM9/18/12
to
trail of opportunity, motive and method that leads elsewhere?
daniel goldsmith
Sep 18, 2012, 9:33:24 AM9/18/12
to
On 2012-09-18, larry <ssall...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17/09/12 10:04 AM, Lesley Weston wrote:
>> They were Mossad? Doesn't seem likely.
>>
>
> On 17/09/12 10:04 AM, Lesley Weston wrote:
>> They were Mossad? Doesn't seem likely.
>>
>
> I'm using Occam;s Razor - why postulate Mossad when there is a clear
> trail of opportunity, motive and method that leads elsewhere?
>
Ah! But you're not readjusting your Occam's Razor for the legendary
> trail of opportunity, motive and method that leads elsewhere?
>
deviousness of the Jews!
It makes perfect sense that the Mossad would engage an Egyptian
Coptic refugee to employ a has-been soft core pornographer, then
ensure that there was no exposure of the film at all, except
among american hard-right anti-semitic neo-nazis, *then* dub the
forgotten film into arabic and send it to Egyptian and Saudi
Salafaist Hardliners, having made sure that the Coptic Christian
and the pornographer would *both* say that the entire thing had
been organised and paid for by Jews, and to pretend that the Copt
was in fact an Israeli. The sheer cutzpah is *breathtaking*!
Thus, having provoked anti-israeli and anti-jewish hatred and
violence across three continents, the Mossad could go to their
masters in the Bilderberger-Freemason conspiracy and say "Have
we not done well?"
Lesley Weston
Sep 18, 2012, 10:37:18 AM9/18/12
to
Lesley Weston
Sep 18, 2012, 10:51:45 AM9/18/12
to
On 09-18-12 6:33 AM, daniel goldsmith wrote:
> On 2012-09-18, larry <ssall...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 17/09/12 10:04 AM, Lesley Weston wrote:
>>> They were Mossad? Doesn't seem likely.
>>>
>>
>> I'm using Occam;s Razor - why postulate Mossad when there is a clear
>> trail of opportunity, motive and method that leads elsewhere?
>>
> Ah! But you're not readjusting your Occam's Razor for the legendary
> deviousness of the Jews!
>
> It makes perfect sense that the Mossad would engage an Egyptian
> Coptic refugee to employ a has-been soft core pornographer, then
> ensure that there was no exposure of the film at all, except
> among american hard-right anti-semitic neo-nazis, *then* dub the
> forgotten film into arabic and send it to Egyptian and Saudi
> Salafaist Hardliners, having made sure that the Coptic Christian
> and the pornographer would *both* say that the entire thing had
> been organised and paid for by Jews, and to pretend that the Copt
> was in fact an Israeli. The sheer cutzpah is *breathtaking*!
>
> Thus, having provoked anti-israeli and anti-jewish hatred and
> violence across three continents, the Mossad could go to their
> masters in the Bilderberger-Freemason conspiracy and say "Have
> we not done well?"
>
There you go then! Though I've never understood how the Freemasons come
> On 2012-09-18, larry <ssall...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 17/09/12 10:04 AM, Lesley Weston wrote:
>>> They were Mossad? Doesn't seem likely.
>>>
>>
>> I'm using Occam;s Razor - why postulate Mossad when there is a clear
>> trail of opportunity, motive and method that leads elsewhere?
>>
> Ah! But you're not readjusting your Occam's Razor for the legendary
> deviousness of the Jews!
>
> It makes perfect sense that the Mossad would engage an Egyptian
> Coptic refugee to employ a has-been soft core pornographer, then
> ensure that there was no exposure of the film at all, except
> among american hard-right anti-semitic neo-nazis, *then* dub the
> forgotten film into arabic and send it to Egyptian and Saudi
> Salafaist Hardliners, having made sure that the Coptic Christian
> and the pornographer would *both* say that the entire thing had
> been organised and paid for by Jews, and to pretend that the Copt
> was in fact an Israeli. The sheer cutzpah is *breathtaking*!
>
> Thus, having provoked anti-israeli and anti-jewish hatred and
> violence across three continents, the Mossad could go to their
> masters in the Bilderberger-Freemason conspiracy and say "Have
> we not done well?"
>
into such conspiracies. My grandfather (not the Jewish one) was
Worshipful Grand Master [1] of his Masonic lodge several times. He was
very pleased about this, and the rest of us tried to keep a straight
face whenever he talked about it, since we were fond of him. It seemed
to be mostly about meeting with his friends and chatting about business
while wearing that little apron, with the occasional Good Work and an
annual Ladies' Night; there didn't seem to be anything sinister going on
at all, but perhaps that was just his clever Welsh deviousness.
[1] AFAIK he never summoned any dragons. If he had it would have been
draig goch Cymru.
Alec Cawley
Sep 18, 2012, 2:23:08 PM9/18/12
to
Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> There you go then! Though I've never understood how the Freemasons come
> into such conspiracies. My grandfather (not the Jewish one) was
> Worshipful Grand Master [1] of his Masonic lodge several times. He was
> very pleased about this, and the rest of us tried to keep a straight face
> whenever he talked about it, since we were fond of him. It seemed to be
> mostly about meeting with his friends and chatting about business while
> wearing that little apron, with the occasional Good Work and an annual
> Ladies' Night; there didn't seem to be anything sinister going on at all,
> but perhaps that was just his clever Welsh deviousness.
>
But they have Secrets. That makes them a Conspiracy. And they are in
> There you go then! Though I've never understood how the Freemasons come
> into such conspiracies. My grandfather (not the Jewish one) was
> Worshipful Grand Master [1] of his Masonic lodge several times. He was
> very pleased about this, and the rest of us tried to keep a straight face
> whenever he talked about it, since we were fond of him. It seemed to be
> mostly about meeting with his friends and chatting about business while
> wearing that little apron, with the occasional Good Work and an annual
> Ladies' Night; there didn't seem to be anything sinister going on at all,
> but perhaps that was just his clever Welsh deviousness.
>
several countries, which makes them an International Conspiracy. And we all
know what International Conspiracies do. Or rather, we don't, but w know it
is No Good. And they must be in league with all the other International
Conspiracies, it Stands to Reason. So off they are not i league with
Mossad, they must be in league with Al Quaeda. Plus Bunderberg, which is
Secret and International and therefore another Sinister Conspiracy. And we
all know that there has to be an organisation left over h escaped Nazis. Ad
didn't the USSR fall over a bit too easily? Definitely something fishy
there - wall to wall secret bunkers across Siberia, I'll bet.
And your poor grandfather was just a front man they kept to throw everybody
off the scent. The very fact that you can see nothing suspicious show how
deviously clever they are.
larry
Sep 18, 2012, 4:20:34 PM9/18/12
to
On 18/09/12 09:33 AM, daniel goldsmith wrote:
> On 2012-09-18, larry<ssall...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 17/09/12 10:04 AM, Lesley Weston wrote:
>>> They were Mossad? Doesn't seem likely.
>>>
>>
>> I'm using Occam;s Razor - why postulate Mossad when there is a clear
>> trail of opportunity, motive and method that leads elsewhere?
>>
> Ah! But you're not readjusting your Occam's Razor for the legendary
> deviousness of the Jews!
>
> It makes perfect sense that the Mossad would engage an Egyptian
> Coptic refugee to employ a has-been soft core pornographer, then
> ensure that there was no exposure of the film at all, except
> among american hard-right anti-semitic neo-nazis, *then* dub the
> forgotten film into arabic and send it to Egyptian and Saudi
> Salafaist Hardliners, having made sure that the Coptic Christian
> and the pornographer would *both* say that the entire thing had
> been organised and paid for by Jews, and to pretend that the Copt
> was in fact an Israeli. The sheer cutzpah is *breathtaking*!
>
Given the american evangelical fundamentalist fringe, there is no need
> On 2012-09-18, larry<ssall...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 17/09/12 10:04 AM, Lesley Weston wrote:
>>> They were Mossad? Doesn't seem likely.
>>>
>>
>> I'm using Occam;s Razor - why postulate Mossad when there is a clear
>> trail of opportunity, motive and method that leads elsewhere?
>>
> Ah! But you're not readjusting your Occam's Razor for the legendary
> deviousness of the Jews!
>
> It makes perfect sense that the Mossad would engage an Egyptian
> Coptic refugee to employ a has-been soft core pornographer, then
> ensure that there was no exposure of the film at all, except
> among american hard-right anti-semitic neo-nazis, *then* dub the
> forgotten film into arabic and send it to Egyptian and Saudi
> Salafaist Hardliners, having made sure that the Coptic Christian
> and the pornographer would *both* say that the entire thing had
> been organised and paid for by Jews, and to pretend that the Copt
> was in fact an Israeli. The sheer cutzpah is *breathtaking*!
>
for outside provocateurs to get the same result. It might happen that
they will exceed even the vast american tolerance for street theatre
at some point and trigger a public lash-back (I'm making no book.) The
last lash-back against one of their own was with the Oklahoma federal
building bombing.
> Thus, having provoked anti-israeli and anti-jewish hatred and
> violence across three continents, the Mossad could go to their
> masters in the Bilderberger-Freemason conspiracy and say "Have
> we not done well?"
>
GaryN
Sep 18, 2012, 6:05:04 PM9/18/12
to
Alec Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote in
news:1381010864369684929.36...@news.individual.net:
I worked the bar at the Masons Meeting Hall (that's how secret they are)
in Oxford once and they do indeed have secrets.
Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists they're the same secrets that
every barman hears at 11pm from someone who's had a few and doesn't want
to leave.
news:1381010864369684929.36...@news.individual.net:
in Oxford once and they do indeed have secrets.
Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists they're the same secrets that
every barman hears at 11pm from someone who's had a few and doesn't want
to leave.
GaryN
Sep 18, 2012, 6:09:50 PM9/18/12
to
Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:k3a0ut$9jk$1...@mud.stack.nl:
Not yet, you have forgotten to add invisible aliens, MI9, global warming
[1], neo-nazis and druids! But so far so good..:-)
gary
[1]All those burning flags and the shouting must contribute.
news:k3a0ut$9jk$1...@mud.stack.nl:
[1], neo-nazis and druids! But so far so good..:-)
gary
[1]All those burning flags and the shouting must contribute.
larry
Sep 18, 2012, 6:29:28 PM9/18/12
to
larry
Sep 19, 2012, 7:32:43 AM9/19/12
to
Lesley Weston
Sep 19, 2012, 10:07:16 AM9/19/12
to
Lesley Weston
Sep 19, 2012, 10:12:11 AM9/19/12
to
an infiltrator, sabotaging from within.
jester
Sep 22, 2012, 10:40:58 AM9/22/12
to
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:31:22 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>My mom sent me this today and it made me think of you, Gary.
>
>A British Perspective......
>
>BY JOHN CLEESE
<snip>
Funny, but not by Mr Cleese:
<http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-484163.html>
<http://thejohncleese.com/forum/discussion/113/is-this-an-authentic-piece-by-john-cleese/p1>
--
Andy Brown
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
`
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>My mom sent me this today and it made me think of you, Gary.
>
>A British Perspective......
>
>BY JOHN CLEESE
<snip>
Funny, but not by Mr Cleese:
<http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-484163.html>
<http://thejohncleese.com/forum/discussion/113/is-this-an-authentic-piece-by-john-cleese/p1>
--
Andy Brown
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
`
ppint. at pplay
Sep 23, 2012, 4:52:19 PM9/23/12
to
- hi; in article,
<UdadnSj8qrPvTMnN...@brightview.co.uk>
un...@judgemental.plus.com "Nigel Stapley" charged:
and more likely to prove of interest to more afpers - if the
arguments were to concentrate on what is, or would constitute,
left-wing approaches to problems and possible programmes of
actions to put these into practice - and how the achievements
of these programmes, & their successes and failures, could be
measured - in the present circumstances, which are somewhat
different from those prevailing in the seventies.
>That view is, of course, the orthodox one we've had rammed down our
>throats for 35 years. The truth of it is that there was no compelling
>reason for Healey to kiss the arse of the IMF.
- crudities aside, this is both true and untrue: earnings by
financial services and similar, including banking, from over-
seas were systematically underestimated in ways not realised
at the time, giving rise to the appearance of a major balance-
of-payments deficit requiring public borrowing at a level the
commercial money markets felt would make spending cuts or a
devaluation - or both - necessary; so that's the way they bet,
and upped the effective interest rate they required to a level
that was unacceptably high. since devaluation was also judged
politically unacceptable by the government, that left only the
international monetary fund - and the political and economic
terms they set.
- but that prevailing belief, although now known to be mistaken,
is nevertheless what defined the actual economic circumstances
in which the government operated in the era of fixed (and only
rarely alterable) major and trading currency exchange rates.
- the practical measure of how much (and whether) a nation can
afford to borrow is the interest rate its government or national
bank is charged upon its borrowings. this is indicated by such
things as the size of the discount at which new issues of govern-
ment debt sells, the interest rate it has to offer people to
attract their savings, etc. public and institutional confidence
is somewhat less than entirely rational, but it is what deter-
mines the levels of interest nations are charged.
- this rate is currently extremely low, for the uk & for merkia,
inter alia, and has been for some considerable time.
>
>We had all this out with that preening little tit Dunbar a few months
>ago. I'd advise you to check out that thread (entitled "Electric cars
>again") for what happened to him.
- leaving out personal insults, which i for one should far, far
rather prefer, and bearing in mind that the right-wing programme
for recovery from economic depression has not worked in the past,
is currently still fixing fair to provoke violent unrest in two
eu countries - potentially more - as adult unemployment rises to-
wards 50% (or higher), holding out no prospects for any sizeable
recovery of the uk economy within the next six to eight years;
- and bearing in mind also that, whilst it took major deficit
public spending by several countries to pull the world economy
out of the recession, but that roosevelt's "new deal" programme
did not by itself provide sufficiently powerful a locomotive of
deficit spending investment to lift the merkin economy out of
the depression, let alone that of the whole world;
- what specific projects should the british (uk) and scottish
governments start up or expand, what industries should they
be looking to boost to increase employment, and therefore the
current buying power of (and tax income from) our population,
and at the same time increase the ability of our society to
create greater and more fairly widespread wealth in future?
- what series of public investments should the merkin, british,
german, canadadadian, french, polish, russian, chinese, indian,
brasilian, japanese, indonesian, xxxxian & kiwiiiian goverments
between them agree to undertake, to get the world economy back
on its feet again - without embarking on a world-wide arms build-
up leading up to a third world war to do so, in the way it took
the second world war and the preceding arms build-up to get us
out of the great depression?
- love, a ppint. not expecting a complete blueprint - but anyone
with a few ideas better than our current shower of (uk) crooks?
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"only two groups of people in society actually behave
in a completely logical, self-interested way: one of
these is economists themselves; the other is psychopaths."
- "the trap" - bbc2 18/3/07 [3/18/07 for merkins] 21:55 GMT
<UdadnSj8qrPvTMnN...@brightview.co.uk>
un...@judgemental.plus.com "Nigel Stapley" charged:
>>> steveski wrote:
>>>> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>>>>This has since been used to frighten millions of Brits into not voting
>>>>>for anything remotely left-wing ever since - nor even the Labour Party.)
>>>>Is the Labour party even *remotely* left wing these days? I mourn.
>>>No - nor has it been since about 1976 when Denis Healey turned chicken and
>>>cut public spending to placate the IMF and its Chicago-school ideologues.
>>ITYM "was forced to cut public spending by the fact that there was no more
>>money anywhere to be had, borrowed or printed, and nobody would carry on
>>lending to a nation that was already mortgaged up to the hilt and unable to
>>pay its existing debts"
- i think this thread would be less liable to turn rancorous,
>>>> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>>>>This has since been used to frighten millions of Brits into not voting
>>>>>for anything remotely left-wing ever since - nor even the Labour Party.)
>>>>Is the Labour party even *remotely* left wing these days? I mourn.
>>>No - nor has it been since about 1976 when Denis Healey turned chicken and
>>>cut public spending to placate the IMF and its Chicago-school ideologues.
>>ITYM "was forced to cut public spending by the fact that there was no more
>>money anywhere to be had, borrowed or printed, and nobody would carry on
>>lending to a nation that was already mortgaged up to the hilt and unable to
>>pay its existing debts"
and more likely to prove of interest to more afpers - if the
arguments were to concentrate on what is, or would constitute,
left-wing approaches to problems and possible programmes of
actions to put these into practice - and how the achievements
of these programmes, & their successes and failures, could be
measured - in the present circumstances, which are somewhat
different from those prevailing in the seventies.
>That view is, of course, the orthodox one we've had rammed down our
>throats for 35 years. The truth of it is that there was no compelling
>reason for Healey to kiss the arse of the IMF.
financial services and similar, including banking, from over-
seas were systematically underestimated in ways not realised
at the time, giving rise to the appearance of a major balance-
of-payments deficit requiring public borrowing at a level the
commercial money markets felt would make spending cuts or a
devaluation - or both - necessary; so that's the way they bet,
and upped the effective interest rate they required to a level
that was unacceptably high. since devaluation was also judged
politically unacceptable by the government, that left only the
international monetary fund - and the political and economic
terms they set.
- but that prevailing belief, although now known to be mistaken,
is nevertheless what defined the actual economic circumstances
in which the government operated in the era of fixed (and only
rarely alterable) major and trading currency exchange rates.
>
>> Basic economics: Further spending is not the way out of debt. It increases
>> it, not decreases it. If you, as a person, were so far in debt that you
>> weren't meeting the existing agreed-on repayments, then why should anybody
>> else lend you any more so you can spend yet more, and then fail to pay back
>> the new loans as well as the old? The same applies to nations as to people.
>
>No it *doesn't*. This is another one of the poisonous legacies of
>Thatcherism, namely that you not only *can* run a country's economy in
>the same way that you would run a corner grocer's in Lincolnshire, but
>that you *should* do so. Apples and oranges.
>> Basic economics: Further spending is not the way out of debt. It increases
>> it, not decreases it. If you, as a person, were so far in debt that you
>> weren't meeting the existing agreed-on repayments, then why should anybody
>> else lend you any more so you can spend yet more, and then fail to pay back
>> the new loans as well as the old? The same applies to nations as to people.
>
>No it *doesn't*. This is another one of the poisonous legacies of
>Thatcherism, namely that you not only *can* run a country's economy in
>the same way that you would run a corner grocer's in Lincolnshire, but
- the practical measure of how much (and whether) a nation can
afford to borrow is the interest rate its government or national
bank is charged upon its borrowings. this is indicated by such
things as the size of the discount at which new issues of govern-
ment debt sells, the interest rate it has to offer people to
attract their savings, etc. public and institutional confidence
is somewhat less than entirely rational, but it is what deter-
mines the levels of interest nations are charged.
- this rate is currently extremely low, for the uk & for merkia,
inter alia, and has been for some considerable time.
>
>We had all this out with that preening little tit Dunbar a few months
>ago. I'd advise you to check out that thread (entitled "Electric cars
>again") for what happened to him.
- leaving out personal insults, which i for one should far, far
rather prefer, and bearing in mind that the right-wing programme
for recovery from economic depression has not worked in the past,
is currently still fixing fair to provoke violent unrest in two
eu countries - potentially more - as adult unemployment rises to-
wards 50% (or higher), holding out no prospects for any sizeable
recovery of the uk economy within the next six to eight years;
- and bearing in mind also that, whilst it took major deficit
public spending by several countries to pull the world economy
out of the recession, but that roosevelt's "new deal" programme
did not by itself provide sufficiently powerful a locomotive of
deficit spending investment to lift the merkin economy out of
the depression, let alone that of the whole world;
- what specific projects should the british (uk) and scottish
governments start up or expand, what industries should they
be looking to boost to increase employment, and therefore the
current buying power of (and tax income from) our population,
and at the same time increase the ability of our society to
create greater and more fairly widespread wealth in future?
- what series of public investments should the merkin, british,
german, canadadadian, french, polish, russian, chinese, indian,
brasilian, japanese, indonesian, xxxxian & kiwiiiian goverments
between them agree to undertake, to get the world economy back
on its feet again - without embarking on a world-wide arms build-
up leading up to a third world war to do so, in the way it took
the second world war and the preceding arms build-up to get us
out of the great depression?
- love, a ppint. not expecting a complete blueprint - but anyone
with a few ideas better than our current shower of (uk) crooks?
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"only two groups of people in society actually behave
in a completely logical, self-interested way: one of
these is economists themselves; the other is psychopaths."
- "the trap" - bbc2 18/3/07 [3/18/07 for merkins] 21:55 GMT
Message has been deleted
larry
Sep 24, 2012, 6:11:06 AM9/24/12
to
On 23/09/12 04:52 PM, ppint. at pplay wrote:
>
> - what series of public investments should the merkin, british,
> german, canadadadian, french, polish, russian, chinese, indian,
> brasilian, japanese, indonesian, xxxxian& kiwiiiian goverments
>
> - what series of public investments should the merkin, british,
> german, canadadadian, french, polish, russian, chinese, indian,
> between them agree to undertake, to get the world economy back
> on its feet again - without embarking on a world-wide arms build-
> up leading up to a third world war to do so, in the way it took
> the second world war and the preceding arms build-up to get us
> out of the great depression?
>
>
> - love, a ppint. not expecting a complete blueprint - but anyone
> with a few ideas better than our current shower of (uk) crooks?
>
> [drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
Certainly, Upgrading all our standards { building code | vehicle fleet
> on its feet again - without embarking on a world-wide arms build-
> up leading up to a third world war to do so, in the way it took
> the second world war and the preceding arms build-up to get us
> out of the great depression?
>
>
> - love, a ppint. not expecting a complete blueprint - but anyone
> with a few ideas better than our current shower of (uk) crooks?
>
> [drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
fuel consumption | emf exposure | etc } to what the best of the
international Best Practices is, would make a difference. Require the
relevant ISO certifications for government purchases. Grants-in-aid and
accelerated depreciation for the replacements/upgrades and removal of
the old. Introduce international certification of professional degrees
(an MD driving a taxi is unsupportable and unconscionable.)
Since the methane bubbles in the lakes in Alaska indicate that we have
now passed the climate tipping point, we should make provision for
emigration of climate refugees from the Mediterranean Basin. |
Bernard Peek
Sep 24, 2012, 6:51:56 AM9/24/12
to
On 23/09/12 21:52, ppint. at pplay wrote:
> - what specific projects should the british (uk) and scottish
> governments start up or expand, what industries should they
> be looking to boost to increase employment, and therefore the
> current buying power of (and tax income from) our population,
> and at the same time increase the ability of our society to
> create greater and more fairly widespread wealth in future?
One last big IT project. About 50% of public spending is on oversight,
> - what specific projects should the british (uk) and scottish
> governments start up or expand, what industries should they
> be looking to boost to increase employment, and therefore the
> current buying power of (and tax income from) our population,
> and at the same time increase the ability of our society to
> create greater and more fairly widespread wealth in future?
making sure that we get value for money and simultaneously ensuring that
we don't. Define what information the public sector has to provide, and
make sure that parliament or individual MPs authorise and justify any
additional expenditure. Plug individual parts of the public sector in to
the system so they know in advance what information they need to deliver
and how.
Apart from that freeze the total public sector salary bill for thirty
years. That includes the salary component of any payments to quangos or
for services bought by national or local government.
We need to reduce reliance on financial services. The UK is one of the
world centres in a few technology areas; software and biotechnology. So
pick a difficult objective in one of those areas, like preventing
dementia. Fund lots of small projects in the short term and some bigger
ones later. Include some blue-sky projects. Keep a tight hold on any
patents produced. (A big part of the UK's current problems started when
Lord Weinstock left GEC and Maggie threw the company to the wolves. It
had been kept afloat with military R&D.)
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
Nigel Stapley
Sep 24, 2012, 11:48:11 AM9/24/12
to
larry wrote:
> On 23/09/12 04:52 PM, ppint. at pplay wrote:
>
>>
>> - what series of public investments should the merkin, british,
>> german, canadadadian, french, polish, russian, chinese, indian,
>> brasilian, japanese, indonesian, xxxxian& kiwiiiian goverments
>> between them agree to undertake, to get the world economy back
>> on its feet again - without embarking on a world-wide arms build-
>> up leading up to a third world war to do so, in the way it took
>> the second world war and the preceding arms build-up to get us
>> out of the great depression?
>>
>>
>> - love, a ppint. not expecting a complete blueprint - but anyone
>> with a few ideas better than our current shower of (uk) crooks?
>>
>> [drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
>
> Certainly, Upgrading all our standards { building code | vehicle fleet
> fuel consumption | emf exposure | etc } to what the best of the
> international Best Practices is, would make a difference.
But that would "hurt the boddom line", so it won't be done. We are
> On 23/09/12 04:52 PM, ppint. at pplay wrote:
>
>>
>> - what series of public investments should the merkin, british,
>> german, canadadadian, french, polish, russian, chinese, indian,
>> brasilian, japanese, indonesian, xxxxian& kiwiiiian goverments
>> between them agree to undertake, to get the world economy back
>> on its feet again - without embarking on a world-wide arms build-
>> up leading up to a third world war to do so, in the way it took
>> the second world war and the preceding arms build-up to get us
>> out of the great depression?
>>
>>
>> - love, a ppint. not expecting a complete blueprint - but anyone
>> with a few ideas better than our current shower of (uk) crooks?
>>
>> [drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
>
> Certainly, Upgrading all our standards { building code | vehicle fleet
> fuel consumption | emf exposure | etc } to what the best of the
> international Best Practices is, would make a difference.
governed by short-termist politicians fronting for short-termist
corporations who peddle short-termist nostrums to populations who would
lose a memory contest with a goldfish.
--
Regards
Nigel Stapley
www.thejudge.me.uk
<reply-to will bounce>
Nigel Stapley
Sep 24, 2012, 11:51:42 AM9/24/12
to
Bernard Peek wrote:
> Apart from that freeze the total public sector salary bill for thirty
> years.
Thanks, Bernard. I've had real-terms wage cuts (i.e., sub-inflation
> Apart from that freeze the total public sector salary bill for thirty
> years.
increases where there have been increases at all) for years. Just what I
needed, a further erosion of my living standards until I retire.
(And, before you say that you're talking about the *overall* salary
bill, are you really in the Pollyanna League in thinking that the freeze
will be allowed to hit those who make the decisions about whose pay gets
frozen?)
Lesley Weston
Sep 24, 2012, 12:50:00 PM9/24/12
to
On 09-24-12 3:11 AM, larry wrote:
> On 23/09/12 04:52 PM, ppint. at pplay wrote:
>
>>
>> - what series of public investments should the merkin, british,
>> german, canadadadian, french, polish, russian, chinese, indian,
>> brasilian, japanese, indonesian, xxxxian& kiwiiiian goverments
>> between them agree to undertake, to get the world economy back
>> on its feet again - without embarking on a world-wide arms build-
>> up leading up to a third world war to do so, in the way it took
>> the second world war and the preceding arms build-up to get us
>> out of the great depression?
>>
>>
>> - love, a ppint. not expecting a complete blueprint - but anyone
>> with a few ideas better than our current shower of (uk) crooks?
>>
>> [drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
>
> Certainly, Upgrading all our standards { building code | vehicle fleet
> fuel consumption | emf exposure | etc } to what the best of the
> international Best Practices is, would make a difference. Require the
> relevant ISO certifications for government purchases. Grants-in-aid and
> accelerated depreciation for the replacements/upgrades and removal of
> the old. Introduce international certification of professional degrees
> (an MD driving a taxi is unsupportable and unconscionable.)
That last is indeed a good idea, but not because it's immoral to have an
> On 23/09/12 04:52 PM, ppint. at pplay wrote:
>
>>
>> - what series of public investments should the merkin, british,
>> german, canadadadian, french, polish, russian, chinese, indian,
>> brasilian, japanese, indonesian, xxxxian& kiwiiiian goverments
>> between them agree to undertake, to get the world economy back
>> on its feet again - without embarking on a world-wide arms build-
>> up leading up to a third world war to do so, in the way it took
>> the second world war and the preceding arms build-up to get us
>> out of the great depression?
>>
>>
>> - love, a ppint. not expecting a complete blueprint - but anyone
>> with a few ideas better than our current shower of (uk) crooks?
>>
>> [drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
>
> Certainly, Upgrading all our standards { building code | vehicle fleet
> fuel consumption | emf exposure | etc } to what the best of the
> international Best Practices is, would make a difference. Require the
> relevant ISO certifications for government purchases. Grants-in-aid and
> accelerated depreciation for the replacements/upgrades and removal of
> the old. Introduce international certification of professional degrees
> (an MD driving a taxi is unsupportable and unconscionable.)
MD driving a taxi or cleaning offices. It's a waste is all, when they
spent all those years learning to do something even more useful, and
when there is a shortage of doctors.
That said, most taxi-drivers in Vancouver seem to be Iranian fighter
pilots, which makes for some interesting, if terrifying, cab rides.
>
> Since the methane bubbles in the lakes in Alaska indicate that we have
> now passed the climate tipping point, we should make provision for
> emigration of climate refugees from the Mediterranean Basin. |
Oh goody! More cheap labour to exploit, so that Canadians, Brits etc.
> Since the methane bubbles in the lakes in Alaska indicate that we have
> now passed the climate tipping point, we should make provision for
> emigration of climate refugees from the Mediterranean Basin. |
who immigrated earlier don't have to do the shit jobs.
Lesley Weston
Sep 24, 2012, 12:59:44 PM9/24/12
to
On 09-24-12 3:51 AM, Bernard Peek wrote:
> On 23/09/12 21:52, ppint. at pplay wrote:
>
> > - what specific projects should the british (uk) and scottish
>> governments start up or expand, what industries should they
>> be looking to boost to increase employment, and therefore the
>> current buying power of (and tax income from) our population,
>> and at the same time increase the ability of our society to
>> create greater and more fairly widespread wealth in future?
>
> One last big IT project. About 50% of public spending is on oversight,
> making sure that we get value for money and simultaneously ensuring that
> we don't. Define what information the public sector has to provide, and
> make sure that parliament or individual MPs authorise and justify any
> additional expenditure. Plug individual parts of the public sector in to
> the system so they know in advance what information they need to deliver
> and how.
>
> Apart from that freeze the total public sector salary bill for thirty
> years. That includes the salary component of any payments to quangos or
> for services bought by national or local government.
A consumer society works only when the consumers can afford to consume.
> On 23/09/12 21:52, ppint. at pplay wrote:
>
> > - what specific projects should the british (uk) and scottish
>> governments start up or expand, what industries should they
>> be looking to boost to increase employment, and therefore the
>> current buying power of (and tax income from) our population,
>> and at the same time increase the ability of our society to
>> create greater and more fairly widespread wealth in future?
>
> One last big IT project. About 50% of public spending is on oversight,
> making sure that we get value for money and simultaneously ensuring that
> we don't. Define what information the public sector has to provide, and
> make sure that parliament or individual MPs authorise and justify any
> additional expenditure. Plug individual parts of the public sector in to
> the system so they know in advance what information they need to deliver
> and how.
>
> Apart from that freeze the total public sector salary bill for thirty
> years. That includes the salary component of any payments to quangos or
> for services bought by national or local government.
A large part of the population in civilised countries is on the
government payroll in one form or another. If you freeze their incomes,
while allowing the companies who make or provide the things they buy to
raise their prices, they become unable to consume. So you end up with
the Great Depression again, far worse than what been happening lately
and quite possibly leading to the total collapse of civilisation.
Quite apart from the dubious ethical aspects of your proposal.
Government employees, pensioners, people on disability etc. are
/people/. They're not just an expense.
larry
Sep 24, 2012, 1:30:34 PM9/24/12
to
Somehow getting off the rat-race of the quarterly financial results
would be a treat.
Nigel Stapley
Sep 24, 2012, 3:48:27 PM9/24/12
to
those who are not in the 'dynamic', 'thrusting' 'go-getting' private
sector as being nothing other than drag-anchors on the 'wealth
creators'. This has hardened into a view scarcely indistinguishable from
religious dogma. And, like religious dogma, it clings on despite the
observable fact that it has no basis in any reality that any
compassionate human being would wish to live in.
Bernard Peek
Sep 24, 2012, 5:26:47 PM9/24/12
to
On 24/09/12 20:48, Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>> Apart from that freeze the total public sector salary bill for thirty
>>> years. That includes the salary component of any payments to quangos or
>>> for services bought by national or local government.
>>
>> A consumer society works only when the consumers can afford to
>> consume. A large part of the population in civilised countries is on
>> the government payroll in one form or another. If you freeze their
>> incomes, while allowing the companies who make or provide the things
>> they buy to raise their prices, they become unable to consume. So you
>> end up with the Great Depression again, far worse than what been
>> happening lately and quite possibly leading to the total collapse of
>> civilisation.
That would be a problem if we just took money away from the public
>>> Apart from that freeze the total public sector salary bill for thirty
>>> years. That includes the salary component of any payments to quangos or
>>> for services bought by national or local government.
>>
>> A consumer society works only when the consumers can afford to
>> consume. A large part of the population in civilised countries is on
>> the government payroll in one form or another. If you freeze their
>> incomes, while allowing the companies who make or provide the things
>> they buy to raise their prices, they become unable to consume. So you
>> end up with the Great Depression again, far worse than what been
>> happening lately and quite possibly leading to the total collapse of
>> civilisation.
sector. Instead we can move it somewhere where it can do some good. This
doesn't take any money out of the economy and there's no reason to
suppose that this is going to have any negative effect on the economy.
It's still the same amount of money being spent.
We've got nearly half of the country's workers doing make-work as a
substitute for putting them on benefits. We can spread the same amount
of money and improve the life of people that don't get these handouts.
>>
>> Quite apart from the dubious ethical aspects of your proposal.
>> Government employees, pensioners, people on disability etc. are
>> /people/. They're not just an expense.
productive work the people as a whole benefit.
>>
>
> Ah, but you see the orthodoxy to which I referred previously regards all
> those who are not in the 'dynamic', 'thrusting' 'go-getting' private
> sector as being nothing other than drag-anchors on the 'wealth
> creators'. This has hardened into a view scarcely indistinguishable from
> religious dogma. And, like religious dogma, it clings on despite the
> observable fact that it has no basis in any reality that any
> compassionate human being would wish to live in.
pointing out that the public sector employs three times as many people
as it should, and so two-thirds of the salary bill is being wasted. In a
lot of cases it's being wasted by making a lot of people work very hard
at jobs that don't need doing or work twice as hard as they need to in
the jobs that do need doing.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
Nigel Stapley
Sep 24, 2012, 6:06:56 PM9/24/12
to
Bernard Peek wrote:
> On 24/09/12 20:48, Nigel Stapley wrote:
>
>
>>>> Apart from that freeze the total public sector salary bill for thirty
>>>> years. That includes the salary component of any payments to quangos or
>>>> for services bought by national or local government.
>>>
>>> A consumer society works only when the consumers can afford to
>>> consume. A large part of the population in civilised countries is on
>>> the government payroll in one form or another. If you freeze their
>>> incomes, while allowing the companies who make or provide the things
>>> they buy to raise their prices, they become unable to consume. So you
>>> end up with the Great Depression again, far worse than what been
>>> happening lately and quite possibly leading to the total collapse of
>>> civilisation.
>
> That would be a problem if we just took money away from the public
> sector. Instead we can move it somewhere where it can do some good.
Oh! And I *wonder* which sector that could possibly be?
> On 24/09/12 20:48, Nigel Stapley wrote:
>
>
>>>> Apart from that freeze the total public sector salary bill for thirty
>>>> years. That includes the salary component of any payments to quangos or
>>>> for services bought by national or local government.
>>>
>>> A consumer society works only when the consumers can afford to
>>> consume. A large part of the population in civilised countries is on
>>> the government payroll in one form or another. If you freeze their
>>> incomes, while allowing the companies who make or provide the things
>>> they buy to raise their prices, they become unable to consume. So you
>>> end up with the Great Depression again, far worse than what been
>>> happening lately and quite possibly leading to the total collapse of
>>> civilisation.
>
> That would be a problem if we just took money away from the public
> sector. Instead we can move it somewhere where it can do some good.
> This
> doesn't take any money out of the economy
Cayman Islands, Monaco, Liechtenstein, etc.
> and there's no reason to
> suppose that this is going to have any negative effect on the economy.
> It's still the same amount of money being spent.
wealthy. That's one reason why demand in the economy is depressed, and
why the recession has turned into a 'double-dip'. People of more limited
means will spend less because they don't know whether, for example, they
will still have a job in six months' time.
>
> We've got nearly half of the country's workers doing make-work as a
> substitute for putting them on benefits.
it to be defined as "something corporations can't make a profit out of"?
Is it to be defined as "something which doesn't add 'shareholder
value'"? Is it, in fact, defined as work which needs to be done, but
which the dynamic thrusters won't touch because there's little
opportunity to take a rake-off for themselves?
> We can spread the same amount
> of money and improve the life of people that don't get these handouts.
>>>
>>> Quite apart from the dubious ethical aspects of your proposal.
>>> Government employees, pensioners, people on disability etc. are
>>> /people/. They're not just an expense.
>
> They are people *and* an expense. If we can get any of them to do some
> productive work the people as a whole benefit.
enhances 'the boddom line', i.e. turns a profit? Is 'productivity'
simply to be considered as "that which can fit on a balance sheet"?
>
>>>
>>
>> Ah, but you see the orthodoxy to which I referred previously regards all
>> those who are not in the 'dynamic', 'thrusting' 'go-getting' private
>> sector as being nothing other than drag-anchors on the 'wealth
>> creators'. This has hardened into a view scarcely indistinguishable from
>> religious dogma. And, like religious dogma, it clings on despite the
>> observable fact that it has no basis in any reality that any
>> compassionate human being would wish to live in.
>
> I'm not suggesting that all public sector workers are parasites. Just
> pointing out that the public sector employs three times as many people
> as it should, and so two-thirds of the salary bill is being wasted.
Which jobs *don't* need doing? And I mean *real* examples, not the
standard froth about "One-legged, lesbian, five-a-day 'elf-n-safety
compliance officers", which is the stock in trade of commenters on news
websites.
Lesley Weston
Sep 25, 2012, 10:23:01 AM9/25/12
to
it's not his job to worry about the 47% of the population whose incomes
are so low that they don't pay income tax. Given that the threshold is
not all that generous, that means that almost half the people in the US
are living in poverty.
Lesley Weston
Sep 25, 2012, 10:59:03 AM9/25/12
to
On 09-24-12 2:26 PM, Bernard Peek wrote:
> On 24/09/12 20:48, Nigel Stapley wrote:
>
>
>>>> Apart from that freeze the total public sector salary bill for thirty
>>>> years. That includes the salary component of any payments to quangos or
>>>> for services bought by national or local government.
>>>
>>> A consumer society works only when the consumers can afford to
>>> consume. A large part of the population in civilised countries is on
>>> the government payroll in one form or another. If you freeze their
>>> incomes, while allowing the companies who make or provide the things
>>> they buy to raise their prices, they become unable to consume. So you
>>> end up with the Great Depression again, far worse than what been
>>> happening lately and quite possibly leading to the total collapse of
>>> civilisation.
>
> That would be a problem if we just took money away from the public
> sector. Instead we can move it somewhere where it can do some good. This
> doesn't take any money out of the economy and there's no reason to
> suppose that this is going to have any negative effect on the economy.
> It's still the same amount of money being spent.
But not by the same number of people. We already have some tiny
> On 24/09/12 20:48, Nigel Stapley wrote:
>
>
>>>> Apart from that freeze the total public sector salary bill for thirty
>>>> years. That includes the salary component of any payments to quangos or
>>>> for services bought by national or local government.
>>>
>>> A consumer society works only when the consumers can afford to
>>> consume. A large part of the population in civilised countries is on
>>> the government payroll in one form or another. If you freeze their
>>> incomes, while allowing the companies who make or provide the things
>>> they buy to raise their prices, they become unable to consume. So you
>>> end up with the Great Depression again, far worse than what been
>>> happening lately and quite possibly leading to the total collapse of
>>> civilisation.
>
> That would be a problem if we just took money away from the public
> sector. Instead we can move it somewhere where it can do some good. This
> doesn't take any money out of the economy and there's no reason to
> suppose that this is going to have any negative effect on the economy.
> It's still the same amount of money being spent.
percentage of the population owning a huge percentage of that
population's wealth. Each of that tiny minority can only consume so much
in one lifetime, even including dissolving pearls in wine [1], so if it
shrinks even further and the majority become even less able to buy
things, then manufacturers will be casting their pearls on stony ground,
if the reader sees what we mean.
>
> We've got nearly half of the country's workers doing make-work as a
> substitute for putting them on benefits.
And buying things. Only food, rent and other essentials, but still
> We've got nearly half of the country's workers doing make-work as a
> substitute for putting them on benefits.
they're spending.
> We can spread the same amount
> of money and improve the life of people that don't get these handouts.
in general they go to the people who need them. Taking them away and
giving them instead to people who don't need them is not good business,
as well as being unethical.
Besides, can you support your claim that half the country's work
doesn't need to be done? Even Romney is backpedalling frantically on a
statement not nearly so tendentious.
>
>
>>>
>>> Quite apart from the dubious ethical aspects of your proposal.
>>> Government employees, pensioners, people on disability etc. are
>>> /people/. They're not just an expense.
>
> They are people *and* an expense. If we can get any of them to do some
> productive work the people as a whole benefit.
If consumers don't consume because they can't and (according to you)
>
>>>
>>> Quite apart from the dubious ethical aspects of your proposal.
>>> Government employees, pensioners, people on disability etc. are
>>> /people/. They're not just an expense.
>
> They are people *and* an expense. If we can get any of them to do some
> productive work the people as a whole benefit.
they don't do any work either, then we might as well set up the
euthanasia programme right now and save a pooload of money. But who is
going to run it, if you've exterminated all government employees?
>
>>>
>>
>> Ah, but you see the orthodoxy to which I referred previously regards all
>> those who are not in the 'dynamic', 'thrusting' 'go-getting' private
>> sector as being nothing other than drag-anchors on the 'wealth
>> creators'. This has hardened into a view scarcely indistinguishable from
>> religious dogma. And, like religious dogma, it clings on despite the
>> observable fact that it has no basis in any reality that any
>> compassionate human being would wish to live in.
>
> I'm not suggesting that all public sector workers are parasites.
Shouldn't you have answered that with "No offence", or perhaps "Present
>>>
>>
>> Ah, but you see the orthodoxy to which I referred previously regards all
>> those who are not in the 'dynamic', 'thrusting' 'go-getting' private
>> sector as being nothing other than drag-anchors on the 'wealth
>> creators'. This has hardened into a view scarcely indistinguishable from
>> religious dogma. And, like religious dogma, it clings on despite the
>> observable fact that it has no basis in any reality that any
>> compassionate human being would wish to live in.
>
> I'm not suggesting that all public sector workers are parasites.
company excepted"? If you're willing to concede that Nigel is not a
parasite [2], why won't you extend that courtesy to his colleagues?
> Just
> pointing out that the public sector employs three times as many people
> as it should,
the popular press.
> and so two-thirds of the salary bill is being wasted. In a
> lot of cases it's being wasted by making a lot of people work very hard
> at jobs that don't need doing or work twice as hard as they need to in
> the jobs that do need doing.
one person do the work of three while reducing that one person's salary
is already in effect. I've been that one person, and I can assure you it
makes for a lot of stress, quite apart from the obvious drawback that it
reduces productivity by two thirds. In the private sector that just
means fewer consumables get made, but in the public sector it means not
enough nurses, teachers, people to administer benefits, people to
collect the money from those fortunate people who are rich enough to pay
taxes [4], people to fix the roads...
>
[1] That must have been some pretty nasty wine.
[2] I'm sure he feels really grateful about that.
[3] A quaint, archaic concept, but still.
[4] But not of course from those whose income is /above/ a certain
threshold.
Bernard Peek
Sep 25, 2012, 2:45:27 PM9/25/12
to
On 24/09/12 23:06, Nigel Stapley wrote:
> Bernard Peek wrote:
>> On 24/09/12 20:48, Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> Apart from that freeze the total public sector salary bill for thirty
>>>>> years. That includes the salary component of any payments to
>>>>> quangos or
>>>>> for services bought by national or local government.
>>>>
>>>> A consumer society works only when the consumers can afford to
>>>> consume. A large part of the population in civilised countries is on
>>>> the government payroll in one form or another. If you freeze their
>>>> incomes, while allowing the companies who make or provide the things
>>>> they buy to raise their prices, they become unable to consume. So you
>>>> end up with the Great Depression again, far worse than what been
>>>> happening lately and quite possibly leading to the total collapse of
>>>> civilisation.
>>
>> That would be a problem if we just took money away from the public
>> sector. Instead we can move it somewhere where it can do some good.
>
> Oh! And I *wonder* which sector that could possibly be?
Well we could use it to pay off some of the defecit, or we can invest it
> Bernard Peek wrote:
>> On 24/09/12 20:48, Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> Apart from that freeze the total public sector salary bill for thirty
>>>>> years. That includes the salary component of any payments to
>>>>> quangos or
>>>>> for services bought by national or local government.
>>>>
>>>> A consumer society works only when the consumers can afford to
>>>> consume. A large part of the population in civilised countries is on
>>>> the government payroll in one form or another. If you freeze their
>>>> incomes, while allowing the companies who make or provide the things
>>>> they buy to raise their prices, they become unable to consume. So you
>>>> end up with the Great Depression again, far worse than what been
>>>> happening lately and quite possibly leading to the total collapse of
>>>> civilisation.
>>
>> That would be a problem if we just took money away from the public
>> sector. Instead we can move it somewhere where it can do some good.
>
> Oh! And I *wonder* which sector that could possibly be?
elsewhere.
>
>> This doesn't take any money out of the economy
>
> Except for that substantial proportion of it which will end up in the
> Cayman Islands, Monaco, Liechtenstein, etc.
>
>> and there's no reason to suppose that this is going to have any
>> negative effect on the economy. It's still the same amount of money
>> being spent.
>
> The wealthy spend a far lower proportion of their income than the less
> wealthy. That's one reason why demand in the economy is depressed, and
> why the recession has turned into a 'double-dip'. People of more limited
> means will spend less because they don't know whether, for example, they
> will still have a job in six months' time.
>
>>
>> We've got nearly half of the country's workers doing make-work as a
>> substitute for putting them on benefits.
>
> How do you get to that figure, and what do you regard as 'make-work'? Is
> it to be defined as "something corporations can't make a profit out of"?
> Is it to be defined as "something which doesn't add 'shareholder
> value'"? Is it, in fact, defined as work which needs to be done, but
> which the dynamic thrusters won't touch because there's little
> opportunity to take a rake-off for themselves?
>
>
>> We can spread the same amount of money and improve the life of people
>> that don't get these handouts.
>
> Like Romney's 53%?
>
>
>>>>
>>>> Quite apart from the dubious ethical aspects of your proposal.
>>>> Government employees, pensioners, people on disability etc. are
>>>> /people/. They're not just an expense.
>>
>> They are people *and* an expense. If we can get any of them to do some
>> productive work the people as a whole benefit.
>
> Again, how do you define 'productive'. Is it merely something which
> enhances 'the boddom line', i.e. turns a profit? Is 'productivity'
> simply to be considered as "that which can fit on a balance sheet"?
>
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, but you see the orthodoxy to which I referred previously regards all
>>> those who are not in the 'dynamic', 'thrusting' 'go-getting' private
>>> sector as being nothing other than drag-anchors on the 'wealth
>>> creators'. This has hardened into a view scarcely indistinguishable from
>>> religious dogma. And, like religious dogma, it clings on despite the
>>> observable fact that it has no basis in any reality that any
>>> compassionate human being would wish to live in.
>>
>> I'm not suggesting that all public sector workers are parasites. Just
>> pointing out that the public sector employs three times as many people
>> as it should, and so two-thirds of the salary bill is being wasted.
>
> OK, Milton; which two-thirds (by your reckoning) should we get rid of?
> Which jobs *don't* need doing? And I mean *real* examples, not the
> standard froth about "One-legged, lesbian, five-a-day 'elf-n-safety
> compliance officers", which is the stock in trade of commenters on news
> websites.
customers were local authorities, about a dozen of them. Each one sent
around someone to audit us, every month or two. Each audit took up a
full day. As a result we had a very expensive manager tied up with
filling in the forms before, during and after each audit. It took about
a third of his time.
None of those audits did anything that our ISO9000 audit hadn't already
covered. And I'm sure that when those auditors got back to their offices
they filled in more forms. Multiply that by the thousands of training
centres up and down the country and you get thousands of people doing
make-work. Then of course there's the jobcentres, vast numbers of people
employed just to make life awkward for claimants.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
Nigel Stapley
Sep 25, 2012, 3:00:49 PM9/25/12
to
Bernard Peek wrote:
> On 24/09/12 23:06, Nigel Stapley wrote:
>> Bernard Peek wrote:
>>> On 24/09/12 20:48, Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Apart from that freeze the total public sector salary bill for thirty
>>>>>> years. That includes the salary component of any payments to
>>>>>> quangos or
>>>>>> for services bought by national or local government.
>>>>>
>>>>> A consumer society works only when the consumers can afford to
>>>>> consume. A large part of the population in civilised countries is on
>>>>> the government payroll in one form or another. If you freeze their
>>>>> incomes, while allowing the companies who make or provide the things
>>>>> they buy to raise their prices, they become unable to consume. So you
>>>>> end up with the Great Depression again, far worse than what been
>>>>> happening lately and quite possibly leading to the total collapse of
>>>>> civilisation.
>>>
>>> That would be a problem if we just took money away from the public
>>> sector. Instead we can move it somewhere where it can do some good.
>>
>> Oh! And I *wonder* which sector that could possibly be?
>
> Well we could use it to pay off some of the defecit, or we can invest it
> elsewhere.
As I said below; 'invest' in the sense of 'pile up offshore' because,
> On 24/09/12 23:06, Nigel Stapley wrote:
>> Bernard Peek wrote:
>>> On 24/09/12 20:48, Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Apart from that freeze the total public sector salary bill for thirty
>>>>>> years. That includes the salary component of any payments to
>>>>>> quangos or
>>>>>> for services bought by national or local government.
>>>>>
>>>>> A consumer society works only when the consumers can afford to
>>>>> consume. A large part of the population in civilised countries is on
>>>>> the government payroll in one form or another. If you freeze their
>>>>> incomes, while allowing the companies who make or provide the things
>>>>> they buy to raise their prices, they become unable to consume. So you
>>>>> end up with the Great Depression again, far worse than what been
>>>>> happening lately and quite possibly leading to the total collapse of
>>>>> civilisation.
>>>
>>> That would be a problem if we just took money away from the public
>>> sector. Instead we can move it somewhere where it can do some good.
>>
>> Oh! And I *wonder* which sector that could possibly be?
>
> Well we could use it to pay off some of the defecit, or we can invest it
> elsewhere.
let's face the bitter truth, no government in thrall to economic
orthodoxy is going to insist that the money be spent in the UK.
>
>>
>>> This doesn't take any money out of the economy
>>
>> Except for that substantial proportion of it which will end up in the
>> Cayman Islands, Monaco, Liechtenstein, etc.
>
> How?
beneficiaries of throwing our money at the private sector - have devised
or used a wide variety of dodging schemes to make sure that they pay as
little tax here as possible whilst maximising the amount they can stash
offshore.
>
>>
>>> and there's no reason to suppose that this is going to have any
>>> negative effect on the economy. It's still the same amount of money
>>> being spent.
>>
>> The wealthy spend a far lower proportion of their income than the less
>> wealthy. That's one reason why demand in the economy is depressed, and
>> why the recession has turned into a 'double-dip'. People of more limited
>> means will spend less because they don't know whether, for example, they
>> will still have a job in six months' time.
>
> The wealthy spend pretty much 100% of their income just like everyone else.
anything like as high a proportion of their income as those of us lower
down. For one thing, they don't need to in order to live very
comfortably indeed; and secondly, as already described, they pile the
rest of it where no tax regime can touch it or where - at the very least
- it will most emphatically *not* circulate in the wider national economy.
Remember that wealth is like manure; it does the most good the more you
spread it about, but if you pile it up in one place, it just stinks to
high heaven. This is what is happening now, and is the main reason why
the economy is, at best, stagnant.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> We've got nearly half of the country's workers doing make-work as a
>>> substitute for putting them on benefits.
>>
>> How do you get to that figure, and what do you regard as 'make-work'? Is
>> it to be defined as "something corporations can't make a profit out of"?
>> Is it to be defined as "something which doesn't add 'shareholder
>> value'"? Is it, in fact, defined as work which needs to be done, but
>> which the dynamic thrusters won't touch because there's little
>> opportunity to take a rake-off for themselves?
>>
>>
>>> We can spread the same amount of money and improve the life of people
>>> that don't get these handouts.
>>
>> Like Romney's 53%?
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite apart from the dubious ethical aspects of your proposal.
>>>>> Government employees, pensioners, people on disability etc. are
>>>>> /people/. They're not just an expense.
>>>
>>> They are people *and* an expense. If we can get any of them to do some
>>> productive work the people as a whole benefit.
>>
>> Again, how do you define 'productive'. Is it merely something which
>> enhances 'the boddom line', i.e. turns a profit? Is 'productivity'
>> simply to be considered as "that which can fit on a balance sheet"?
>
> Productive in this context means it generates exports.
your definition, that is *not* 'productive? Words almost fail me.
ppint. at pplay
Sep 25, 2012, 4:03:52 PM9/25/12
to
- hi; in article, <cLydnTnBvY9CBf3N...@wightman.ca>,
ssall...@gmail.com "larry" elaborated:
not necessarily to be starting under the current uk govern-
ment; i suspect the best that can be hoped for as regards
merkin politics is the re-election of barack obama: but that's
not so dusty - he & his administration've had the sense to do
rather more of the direct intervention the economic situation
requires, than have the eu, the chinese or the uk governments
so far.
the tories've pretty much restricted themselves to transfer-
ring public (largely tax) money to the banks, who've by and
large used this to rebuild their capital, rather than resuming
lending: one effect of this is to render pointless the very low
interest rates they could afford to pass on to businesses; and
worse, the low interest rates are greatly reducing the amounts
older people dependant upon income from their savings can afford
to spend. since the banks're also very reluctant to lend to
first-time and other relatively low-income house-buyers, asking
deposits as high as 25% of the house price, both the housing
market and the building industry remain more or less stagnant.
so, seemingly paradoxically, it strikes me that the economic
situation might well be improved significantly by interest rates
being slowly and steadily raised by two to three per cent in all.
>Somehow getting off the rat-race of the quarterly financial results would
>be a treat.
- indeed; but commercial enterprises need to see a return on the
investment in them commensurate with both the perceived risk and
the time it takes to repay (not necessarily literally: it may be
the perceived increased value of their enterprise) the investors.
elsewise, commercial funding will head elsewhere, and that will
usually suffice to vitiate the positive effects of public economic
intervention.
so, proposed alternatives must be compatible with our present,
mixed economy and not require a command economy, to be practical;
but this does not, i think, mean that no alternatives are possible.
- love, ppint.
"Incipient Doldrums."
- roger thomas, 19/3/97 (3/19/97 for merkins)
ssall...@gmail.com "larry" elaborated:
> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>> larry wrote:
>>>Certainly, Upgrading all our standards { building code | vehicle fleet
>>>fuel consumption | emf exposure | etc } to what the best of the inter-
>> larry wrote:
>>>Certainly, Upgrading all our standards { building code | vehicle fleet
>>>national Best Practices is, would make a difference.
>>
>>But that would "hurt the boddom line", so it won't be done. We are
>>governed by short-termist politicians fronting for short-termist
>>corporations who peddle short-termist nostrums to populations who would
>>lose a memory contest with a goldfish.
>
>I understood the challenge as 'life not-as-we-know-it.'
- up to a point, yes; it has to be reachable from here, but
>>
>>But that would "hurt the boddom line", so it won't be done. We are
>>governed by short-termist politicians fronting for short-termist
>>corporations who peddle short-termist nostrums to populations who would
>>lose a memory contest with a goldfish.
>
>I understood the challenge as 'life not-as-we-know-it.'
not necessarily to be starting under the current uk govern-
ment; i suspect the best that can be hoped for as regards
merkin politics is the re-election of barack obama: but that's
not so dusty - he & his administration've had the sense to do
rather more of the direct intervention the economic situation
requires, than have the eu, the chinese or the uk governments
so far.
the tories've pretty much restricted themselves to transfer-
ring public (largely tax) money to the banks, who've by and
large used this to rebuild their capital, rather than resuming
lending: one effect of this is to render pointless the very low
interest rates they could afford to pass on to businesses; and
worse, the low interest rates are greatly reducing the amounts
older people dependant upon income from their savings can afford
to spend. since the banks're also very reluctant to lend to
first-time and other relatively low-income house-buyers, asking
deposits as high as 25% of the house price, both the housing
market and the building industry remain more or less stagnant.
so, seemingly paradoxically, it strikes me that the economic
situation might well be improved significantly by interest rates
being slowly and steadily raised by two to three per cent in all.
>Somehow getting off the rat-race of the quarterly financial results would
>be a treat.
investment in them commensurate with both the perceived risk and
the time it takes to repay (not necessarily literally: it may be
the perceived increased value of their enterprise) the investors.
elsewise, commercial funding will head elsewhere, and that will
usually suffice to vitiate the positive effects of public economic
intervention.
so, proposed alternatives must be compatible with our present,
mixed economy and not require a command economy, to be practical;
but this does not, i think, mean that no alternatives are possible.
- love, ppint.
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"Incipient Doldrums."
- roger thomas, 19/3/97 (3/19/97 for merkins)
Message has been deleted
Lesley Weston
Sep 26, 2012, 10:48:00 AM9/26/12
to
On 09-25-12 1:15 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <k3seo8$21de$1...@mud.stack.nl>
> That is completely ridiculous, and not at all true.
>
Which is not true? Romney's announcement, which has been all over the
media for days, or my conclusion that 47% is almost half?
> In message <k3seo8$21de$1...@mud.stack.nl>
>
Which is not true? Romney's announcement, which has been all over the
media for days, or my conclusion that 47% is almost half?
Lesley Weston
Sep 26, 2012, 11:05:58 AM9/26/12
to
On 09-25-12 11:45 AM, Bernard Peek wrote:
> On 24/09/12 23:06, Nigel Stapley wrote:
>> Bernard Peek wrote:
>>> On 24/09/12 20:48, Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Apart from that freeze the total public sector salary bill for thirty
>>>>>> years. That includes the salary component of any payments to
>>>>>> quangos or
>>>>>> for services bought by national or local government.
>>>>>
>>>>> A consumer society works only when the consumers can afford to
>>>>> consume. A large part of the population in civilised countries is on
>>>>> the government payroll in one form or another. If you freeze their
>>>>> incomes, while allowing the companies who make or provide the things
>>>>> they buy to raise their prices, they become unable to consume. So you
>>>>> end up with the Great Depression again, far worse than what been
>>>>> happening lately and quite possibly leading to the total collapse of
>>>>> civilisation.
>>>
>>> That would be a problem if we just took money away from the public
>>> sector. Instead we can move it somewhere where it can do some good.
>>
>> Oh! And I *wonder* which sector that could possibly be?
>
> Well we could use it to pay off some of the defecit, or we can invest it
> elsewhere.
>
"Defecit" would be derived from the same root as "defecation"?
> On 24/09/12 23:06, Nigel Stapley wrote:
>> Bernard Peek wrote:
>>> On 24/09/12 20:48, Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Apart from that freeze the total public sector salary bill for thirty
>>>>>> years. That includes the salary component of any payments to
>>>>>> quangos or
>>>>>> for services bought by national or local government.
>>>>>
>>>>> A consumer society works only when the consumers can afford to
>>>>> consume. A large part of the population in civilised countries is on
>>>>> the government payroll in one form or another. If you freeze their
>>>>> incomes, while allowing the companies who make or provide the things
>>>>> they buy to raise their prices, they become unable to consume. So you
>>>>> end up with the Great Depression again, far worse than what been
>>>>> happening lately and quite possibly leading to the total collapse of
>>>>> civilisation.
>>>
>>> That would be a problem if we just took money away from the public
>>> sector. Instead we can move it somewhere where it can do some good.
>>
>> Oh! And I *wonder* which sector that could possibly be?
>
> Well we could use it to pay off some of the defecit, or we can invest it
> elsewhere.
>
>>
>>> This doesn't take any money out of the economy
>>
>> Except for that substantial proportion of it which will end up in the
>> Cayman Islands, Monaco, Liechtenstein, etc.
>
> How?
You'd have to ask the super-rich. They know how, as is made apparent
>>> This doesn't take any money out of the economy
>>
>> Except for that substantial proportion of it which will end up in the
>> Cayman Islands, Monaco, Liechtenstein, etc.
>
> How?
whenever one of them falls.
<snip>
>>> We've got nearly half of the country's workers doing make-work as a
>>> substitute for putting them on benefits.
>>
>> How do you get to that figure, and what do you regard as 'make-work'? Is
>> it to be defined as "something corporations can't make a profit out of"?
>> Is it to be defined as "something which doesn't add 'shareholder
>> value'"? Is it, in fact, defined as work which needs to be done, but
>> which the dynamic thrusters won't touch because there's little
>> opportunity to take a rake-off for themselves?
>>
>>
>>> We can spread the same amount of money and improve the life of people
>>> that don't get these handouts.
>>
>> Like Romney's 53%?
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite apart from the dubious ethical aspects of your proposal.
>>>>> Government employees, pensioners, people on disability etc. are
>>>>> /people/. They're not just an expense.
>>>
>>> They are people *and* an expense. If we can get any of them to do some
>>> productive work the people as a whole benefit.
>>
>> Again, how do you define 'productive'. Is it merely something which
>> enhances 'the boddom line', i.e. turns a profit? Is 'productivity'
>> simply to be considered as "that which can fit on a balance sheet"?
>
> Productive in this context means it generates exports.
the rich, of course) was malnourished and short of all essentials
because everything had to be exported. I prefer a definition of
"productive" as "useful": helping everybody to achieve a decent life.
>
>>>> Ah, but you see the orthodoxy to which I referred previously regards
>>>> all
>>>> those who are not in the 'dynamic', 'thrusting' 'go-getting' private
>>>> sector as being nothing other than drag-anchors on the 'wealth
>>>> creators'. This has hardened into a view scarcely indistinguishable
>>>> from
>>>> religious dogma. And, like religious dogma, it clings on despite the
>>>> observable fact that it has no basis in any reality that any
>>>> compassionate human being would wish to live in.
>>>
>>> I'm not suggesting that all public sector workers are parasites. Just
>>> pointing out that the public sector employs three times as many people
>>> as it should, and so two-thirds of the salary bill is being wasted.
>>
>> OK, Milton; which two-thirds (by your reckoning) should we get rid of?
>> Which jobs *don't* need doing? And I mean *real* examples, not the
>> standard froth about "One-legged, lesbian, five-a-day 'elf-n-safety
>> compliance officers", which is the stock in trade of commenters on news
>> websites.
>
> Back when I was running training courses for the unemployed
"Buck up your ideas! Pull up your socks! You only have yourself to blame!"
>>>> Ah, but you see the orthodoxy to which I referred previously regards
>>>> all
>>>> those who are not in the 'dynamic', 'thrusting' 'go-getting' private
>>>> sector as being nothing other than drag-anchors on the 'wealth
>>>> creators'. This has hardened into a view scarcely indistinguishable
>>>> from
>>>> religious dogma. And, like religious dogma, it clings on despite the
>>>> observable fact that it has no basis in any reality that any
>>>> compassionate human being would wish to live in.
>>>
>>> I'm not suggesting that all public sector workers are parasites. Just
>>> pointing out that the public sector employs three times as many people
>>> as it should, and so two-thirds of the salary bill is being wasted.
>>
>> OK, Milton; which two-thirds (by your reckoning) should we get rid of?
>> Which jobs *don't* need doing? And I mean *real* examples, not the
>> standard froth about "One-legged, lesbian, five-a-day 'elf-n-safety
>> compliance officers", which is the stock in trade of commenters on news
>> websites.
>
> Back when I was running training courses for the unemployed
> our
> customers were local authorities, about a dozen of them.
> Each one sent
> around someone to audit us, every month or two. Each audit took up a
> full day. As a result we had a very expensive manager tied up with
> filling in the forms before, during and after each audit. It took about
> a third of his time.
>
> None of those audits did anything that our ISO9000 audit hadn't already
> covered. And I'm sure that when those auditors got back to their offices
> they filled in more forms. Multiply that by the thousands of training
> centres up and down the country and you get thousands of people doing
> make-work. Then of course there's the jobcentres, vast numbers of people
> employed just to make life awkward for claimants.
>
number of people to be actually useful to claimants if that were their
mandate instead, so it comes to the same thing.
Chris Zakes
Sep 26, 2012, 6:11:42 PM9/26/12
to
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:23:01 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
(snip)
>Indeed. See Mitt Romney's campaign, where he has just announced that
>it's not his job to worry about the 47% of the population whose incomes
>are so low that they don't pay income tax. Given that the threshold is
>not all that generous, that means that almost half the people in the US
>are living in poverty.
>
>Lesley.
May I suggest you read Romney's entire statement *in context* rather
than the snippets most media outlets have quoted? It's being spun and
misinterpreted by the liberal media about as much as Obama's "you
didn't build that" line is being spun and misinterpreted by the
conservative media.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
--
You can find complaints as far back as Socrates about how things aren't like they
were in "the good old days" and how the world is going to Hell in a handbasket.
Either Hell is a lot farther away than we thought, or that handbasket is moving
*really* slowly.
caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
(snip)
>Indeed. See Mitt Romney's campaign, where he has just announced that
>it's not his job to worry about the 47% of the population whose incomes
>are so low that they don't pay income tax. Given that the threshold is
>not all that generous, that means that almost half the people in the US
>are living in poverty.
>
>Lesley.
than the snippets most media outlets have quoted? It's being spun and
misinterpreted by the liberal media about as much as Obama's "you
didn't build that" line is being spun and misinterpreted by the
conservative media.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
--
You can find complaints as far back as Socrates about how things aren't like they
were in "the good old days" and how the world is going to Hell in a handbasket.
Either Hell is a lot farther away than we thought, or that handbasket is moving
*really* slowly.
Free Lunch
Sep 26, 2012, 7:51:52 PM9/26/12
to
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 17:11:42 -0500, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
wrote in alt.fan.pratchett:
>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:23:01 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>
>(snip)
>
>>Indeed. See Mitt Romney's campaign, where he has just announced that
>>it's not his job to worry about the 47% of the population whose incomes
>>are so low that they don't pay income tax. Given that the threshold is
>>not all that generous, that means that almost half the people in the US
>>are living in poverty.
>>
>>Lesley.
>
>May I suggest you read Romney's entire statement *in context* rather
>than the snippets most media outlets have quoted? It's being spun and
>misinterpreted by the liberal media about as much as Obama's "you
>didn't build that" line is being spun and misinterpreted by the
>conservative media.
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
He was being dismissive of many of the people who are expected to vote
for him, people who work, but don't have to pay income taxes. That is
the 47% that he allegedly doesn't care about.
I've seen much of the video. It's one rich guy saying what he things
other rich guys want to hear. He sounds pretty comfortable being
condescending about the working poor.
wrote in alt.fan.pratchett:
>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:23:01 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>
>(snip)
>
>>Indeed. See Mitt Romney's campaign, where he has just announced that
>>it's not his job to worry about the 47% of the population whose incomes
>>are so low that they don't pay income tax. Given that the threshold is
>>not all that generous, that means that almost half the people in the US
>>are living in poverty.
>>
>>Lesley.
>
>May I suggest you read Romney's entire statement *in context* rather
>than the snippets most media outlets have quoted? It's being spun and
>misinterpreted by the liberal media about as much as Obama's "you
>didn't build that" line is being spun and misinterpreted by the
>conservative media.
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
for him, people who work, but don't have to pay income taxes. That is
the 47% that he allegedly doesn't care about.
I've seen much of the video. It's one rich guy saying what he things
other rich guys want to hear. He sounds pretty comfortable being
condescending about the working poor.
larry
Sep 26, 2012, 7:54:50 PM9/26/12
to
On 26/09/12 06:11 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:23:01 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>
> (snip)
>
>> Indeed. See Mitt Romney's campaign, where he has just announced that
>> it's not his job to worry about the 47% of the population whose incomes
>> are so low that they don't pay income tax. Given that the threshold is
>> not all that generous, that means that almost half the people in the US
>> are living in poverty.
>>
>> Lesley.
>
> May I suggest you read Romney's entire statement *in context* rather
> than the snippets most media outlets have quoted? It's being spun and
> misinterpreted by the liberal media about as much as Obama's "you
> didn't build that" line is being spun and misinterpreted by the
> conservative media.
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
All we got up here was the raw footage from the (not very
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:23:01 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>
> (snip)
>
>> Indeed. See Mitt Romney's campaign, where he has just announced that
>> it's not his job to worry about the 47% of the population whose incomes
>> are so low that they don't pay income tax. Given that the threshold is
>> not all that generous, that means that almost half the people in the US
>> are living in poverty.
>>
>> Lesley.
>
> May I suggest you read Romney's entire statement *in context* rather
> than the snippets most media outlets have quoted? It's being spun and
> misinterpreted by the liberal media about as much as Obama's "you
> didn't build that" line is being spun and misinterpreted by the
> conservative media.
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
sophisticated,) recorder of what Romney said. Love the Internet. There
was apparently, from what you indicate, a series of spins applied by the
various factions but it didn't drift over the border much.
We just assumed that it was a presidential candidate reassuring his base
constituency that he wasn't going to go rogue if he was elected.
Normal US election behaviour. Romney was the governor of Mass's and did
a serviceable and workman-like job; I'd like to think he would be more
competent than the younger Bush and at least as competent as the elder
if elected.
Free Lunch
Sep 26, 2012, 8:10:20 PM9/26/12
to
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 19:54:50 -0400, larry <ssall...@gmail.com> wrote
in alt.fan.pratchett:
But he has told the GOP that everything he did in Mass, he would now
refuse to do.
in alt.fan.pratchett:
refuse to do.
Message has been deleted
larry
Sep 27, 2012, 7:45:33 AM9/27/12
to
larry
Sep 27, 2012, 8:33:45 AM9/27/12
to
On 25/09/12 04:03 PM, ppint. at pplay wrote:
> - hi; in article,<cLydnTnBvY9CBf3N...@wightman.ca>,
> ssall...@gmail.com "larry" elaborated:
>> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>> larry wrote:
>>>> Certainly, Upgrading all our standards { building code | vehicle fleet
>>>> fuel consumption | emf exposure | etc } to what the best of the inter-
>>>> national Best Practices is, would make a difference.
>>>
>>> But that would "hurt the boddom line", so it won't be done. We are
>>> governed by short-termist politicians fronting for short-termist
>>> corporations who peddle short-termist nostrums to populations who would
>>> lose a memory contest with a goldfish.
>>
>> I understood the challenge as 'life not-as-we-know-it.'
>
> - up to a point, yes; it has to be reachable from here, but
> not necessarily to be starting under the current uk govern-
> ment; i suspect the best that can be hoped for as regards
> merkin politics is the re-election of barack obama: but that's
> not so dusty - he& his administration've had the sense to do
> - hi; in article,<cLydnTnBvY9CBf3N...@wightman.ca>,
> ssall...@gmail.com "larry" elaborated:
>> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>> larry wrote:
>>>> Certainly, Upgrading all our standards { building code | vehicle fleet
>>>> fuel consumption | emf exposure | etc } to what the best of the inter-
>>>> national Best Practices is, would make a difference.
>>>
>>> But that would "hurt the boddom line", so it won't be done. We are
>>> governed by short-termist politicians fronting for short-termist
>>> corporations who peddle short-termist nostrums to populations who would
>>> lose a memory contest with a goldfish.
>>
>> I understood the challenge as 'life not-as-we-know-it.'
>
> - up to a point, yes; it has to be reachable from here, but
> not necessarily to be starting under the current uk govern-
> ment; i suspect the best that can be hoped for as regards
> merkin politics is the re-election of barack obama: but that's
> rather more of the direct intervention the economic situation
> requires, than have the eu, the chinese or the uk governments
> so far.
> the tories've pretty much restricted themselves to transfer-
> ring public (largely tax) money to the banks, who've by and
> large used this to rebuild their capital, rather than resuming
> lending: one effect of this is to render pointless the very low
> interest rates they could afford to pass on to businesses; and
> worse, the low interest rates are greatly reducing the amounts
> older people dependant upon income from their savings can afford
> to spend. since the banks're also very reluctant to lend to
> first-time and other relatively low-income house-buyers, asking
> deposits as high as 25% of the house price, both the housing
> market and the building industry remain more or less stagnant.
> so, seemingly paradoxically, it strikes me that the economic
> situation might well be improved significantly by interest rates
> being slowly and steadily raised by two to three per cent in all.
>
When the interest rates are raised, both the equity and bond markets
> requires, than have the eu, the chinese or the uk governments
> so far.
> the tories've pretty much restricted themselves to transfer-
> ring public (largely tax) money to the banks, who've by and
> large used this to rebuild their capital, rather than resuming
> lending: one effect of this is to render pointless the very low
> interest rates they could afford to pass on to businesses; and
> worse, the low interest rates are greatly reducing the amounts
> older people dependant upon income from their savings can afford
> to spend. since the banks're also very reluctant to lend to
> first-time and other relatively low-income house-buyers, asking
> deposits as high as 25% of the house price, both the housing
> market and the building industry remain more or less stagnant.
> so, seemingly paradoxically, it strikes me that the economic
> situation might well be improved significantly by interest rates
> being slowly and steadily raised by two to three per cent in all.
>
will fall in response (bonds are sold at discount from face and the
increased interest expense will decrease net profit,) assuming that the
economy is still in the chamber pot.
OTOH, who is going to undertake an interest-free loan knowing their
payments are going to be substantially larger later?
The story of the Tiger Rider does come to mind. :-)
>> Somehow getting off the rat-race of the quarterly financial results would
>> be a treat.
>
> - indeed; but commercial enterprises need to see a return on the
> investment in them commensurate with both the perceived risk and
> the time it takes to repay (not necessarily literally: it may be
> the perceived increased value of their enterprise) the investors.
> elsewise, commercial funding will head elsewhere, and that will
> usually suffice to vitiate the positive effects of public economic
> intervention.
> so, proposed alternatives must be compatible with our present,
> mixed economy and not require a command economy, to be practical;
> but this does not, i think, mean that no alternatives are possible.
>
What you say is true but it serves society to have patient and strategic
investors rather than this frantic velocity of trading on the slightest
twitch. Perhaps we should eliminate the exemption of VAT to provide a
speed bump (sleeping policeman, you call them?) If there were a way of
practically doing it, introducing a small tax on unemployed corporate
cash, designated to reduce the national debt, might be considered.
Lesley Weston
Sep 27, 2012, 9:36:14 AM9/27/12
to
On 09-26-12 7:18 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <k3v4j0$h52$1...@mud.stack.nl>
> Your statement that almsot half the people in the US are living in poverty.
>
> For example, I have a friend who is retired. He owns his house free and
> clear (worth about 750,000) and has not car payments on his 14yo car. He
> has close to $1,000,000 in investments. His income, since retiring, is
> about $24,000 a year. He is not living in poverty, but he is also not
> paying income taxes.
>
$24,000 is about what we have and we also pay no income tax. We also pay
no rent, mortgage or car payments, and neither of us smokes or drinks
(now). With considerable care we can manage to eat a nutritious diet,
mostly because we cook everything, including bread, from scratch, where
possible using things that are in season or that we grew or collected
and froze down ourselves. We can also run our 24-year-old car and pay
our utility bills (we're very careful about saving power), and even pay
for the occasional almost-free concert or visit to the Art gallery on
Entry-by-donation Night ($5 each), or to McDonald's.
However, most of our clothes come from thrift shops and rummage sales,
and books, music and movies from the Library. Vacations, even a few days
near home, are a dream from the past, and when this car dies (it can't
be long now), it won't be replaced. We have a wonderful all-in-one
mixer/blender/food processor that we got years ago from a rummage sale
for $10, and that we use almost every day. It's on its last legs, and a
replacement would cost hundreds of dollars just for the mixer part
without the rest, so it won't be replaced either, which will make our
nutritious diet that much harder to maintain.
So we're not really living in poverty in terms of malnutrition and
inadequate shelter, but it's a very limited lifestyle with a lot of hard
work in it, and with virtually no discretionary spending at all. If
almost half the population of the US is living like this, it's hardly
surprising that the economy is stagnating at best.
What we don't have is $1,000,000 (or anything at all) in investments.
If we did, we would be paying taxes on the income from it. Your friend
must have a remarkably good accountant, and of course the means to pay a
remarkably good accountant. Unless the situation in the US is even worse
than it appears, and people with that much money can legally escape
paying taxes.
> In message <k3v4j0$h52$1...@mud.stack.nl>
>
> For example, I have a friend who is retired. He owns his house free and
> clear (worth about 750,000) and has not car payments on his 14yo car. He
> has close to $1,000,000 in investments. His income, since retiring, is
> about $24,000 a year. He is not living in poverty, but he is also not
> paying income taxes.
>
$24,000 is about what we have and we also pay no income tax. We also pay
no rent, mortgage or car payments, and neither of us smokes or drinks
(now). With considerable care we can manage to eat a nutritious diet,
mostly because we cook everything, including bread, from scratch, where
possible using things that are in season or that we grew or collected
and froze down ourselves. We can also run our 24-year-old car and pay
our utility bills (we're very careful about saving power), and even pay
for the occasional almost-free concert or visit to the Art gallery on
Entry-by-donation Night ($5 each), or to McDonald's.
However, most of our clothes come from thrift shops and rummage sales,
and books, music and movies from the Library. Vacations, even a few days
near home, are a dream from the past, and when this car dies (it can't
be long now), it won't be replaced. We have a wonderful all-in-one
mixer/blender/food processor that we got years ago from a rummage sale
for $10, and that we use almost every day. It's on its last legs, and a
replacement would cost hundreds of dollars just for the mixer part
without the rest, so it won't be replaced either, which will make our
nutritious diet that much harder to maintain.
So we're not really living in poverty in terms of malnutrition and
inadequate shelter, but it's a very limited lifestyle with a lot of hard
work in it, and with virtually no discretionary spending at all. If
almost half the population of the US is living like this, it's hardly
surprising that the economy is stagnating at best.
What we don't have is $1,000,000 (or anything at all) in investments.
If we did, we would be paying taxes on the income from it. Your friend
must have a remarkably good accountant, and of course the means to pay a
remarkably good accountant. Unless the situation in the US is even worse
than it appears, and people with that much money can legally escape
paying taxes.
Lesley Weston
Sep 27, 2012, 9:46:00 AM9/27/12
to
On 09-26-12 3:11 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:23:01 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>
> (snip)
>
>> Indeed. See Mitt Romney's campaign, where he has just announced that
>> it's not his job to worry about the 47% of the population whose incomes
>> are so low that they don't pay income tax. Given that the threshold is
>> not all that generous, that means that almost half the people in the US
>> are living in poverty.
>>
>> Lesley.
>
> May I suggest you read Romney's entire statement *in context* rather
> than the snippets most media outlets have quoted?
I did, and watched the video. He may well be wrong in his facts (I hope
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:23:01 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>
> (snip)
>
>> Indeed. See Mitt Romney's campaign, where he has just announced that
>> it's not his job to worry about the 47% of the population whose incomes
>> are so low that they don't pay income tax. Given that the threshold is
>> not all that generous, that means that almost half the people in the US
>> are living in poverty.
>>
>> Lesley.
>
> May I suggest you read Romney's entire statement *in context* rather
> than the snippets most media outlets have quoted?
he is), but that is what he said, and that is what what he said means.
> It's being spun and
> misinterpreted by the liberal media about as much as Obama's "you
> didn't build that" line is being spun and misinterpreted by the
> conservative media.
Lesley Weston
Sep 27, 2012, 9:50:27 AM9/27/12
to
memeing on Facebook just now showing Obama on the phone saying "Cancel
all my campaigning appearances. I'll let Mitt do them for me."
Robert Carnegie
Sep 27, 2012, 9:51:22 AM9/27/12
to
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 2:36:15 PM UTC+1, Lesley Weston wrote:
> So we're not really living in poverty in terms of malnutrition
> and inadequate shelter, but it's a very limited lifestyle with
> a lot of hard work in it, and with virtually no discretionary
> spending at all. If almost half the population of the US is living
> like this, it's hardly surprising that the economy is stagnating
> at best.
>
> What we don't have is $1,000,000 (or anything at all) in investments.
> If we did, we would be paying taxes on the income from it. Your friend
> must have a remarkably good accountant, and of course the means to pay
> a remarkably good accountant. Unless the situation in the US is even
> worse than it appears, and people with that much money can legally
> escape paying taxes.
I think this is a distinction between taxing income and taxing wealth.
> So we're not really living in poverty in terms of malnutrition
> and inadequate shelter, but it's a very limited lifestyle with
> a lot of hard work in it, and with virtually no discretionary
> spending at all. If almost half the population of the US is living
> like this, it's hardly surprising that the economy is stagnating
> at best.
>
> What we don't have is $1,000,000 (or anything at all) in investments.
> If we did, we would be paying taxes on the income from it. Your friend
> must have a remarkably good accountant, and of course the means to pay
> a remarkably good accountant. Unless the situation in the US is even
> worse than it appears, and people with that much money can legally
> escape paying taxes.
If someone has the good fortune to have a good fortune, or a very nice
house, should there be a high tax on it when it's just sitting there
being valuable, or should only the gaining of wealth be taxed?
In practice, this question has different answers given in different
contexts, sometimes as a simultaneous self-contradiction. But for
instance, the provision of common-good services to households, such as
garbage collection and sweeping the streets, may be based upon an
assessment of how nice, or rather how valuable, their house is.
This can mean that a house that is in itself similar, but that is in a
better or worse neighbourhood, may be charged more or charged less.
And you may be not taxed for having money, but taxed for leaving it to
your children when you die.
Nigel Stapley
Sep 27, 2012, 11:44:46 AM9/27/12
to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qDoFIlAxoTE
(from 02:10 in)
larry
Sep 27, 2012, 4:20:50 PM9/27/12
to
Chris Zakes
Sep 27, 2012, 5:24:15 PM9/27/12
to
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 06:51:22 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
laser caused Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> to write:
>On Thursday, September 27, 2012 2:36:15 PM UTC+1, Lesley Weston wrote:
>> So we're not really living in poverty in terms of malnutrition
>> and inadequate shelter, but it's a very limited lifestyle with
>> a lot of hard work in it, and with virtually no discretionary
>> spending at all. If almost half the population of the US is living
>> like this, it's hardly surprising that the economy is stagnating
>> at best.
>>
>> What we don't have is $1,000,000 (or anything at all) in investments.
>> If we did, we would be paying taxes on the income from it. Your friend
>> must have a remarkably good accountant, and of course the means to pay
>> a remarkably good accountant. Unless the situation in the US is even
>> worse than it appears, and people with that much money can legally
>> escape paying taxes.
>
>I think this is a distinction between taxing income and taxing wealth.
>
>If someone has the good fortune to have a good fortune, or a very nice
>house, should there be a high tax on it when it's just sitting there
>being valuable, or should only the gaining of wealth be taxed?
Hereabouts we pay property taxes every year on our house. About half
laser caused Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> to write:
>On Thursday, September 27, 2012 2:36:15 PM UTC+1, Lesley Weston wrote:
>> So we're not really living in poverty in terms of malnutrition
>> and inadequate shelter, but it's a very limited lifestyle with
>> a lot of hard work in it, and with virtually no discretionary
>> spending at all. If almost half the population of the US is living
>> like this, it's hardly surprising that the economy is stagnating
>> at best.
>>
>> What we don't have is $1,000,000 (or anything at all) in investments.
>> If we did, we would be paying taxes on the income from it. Your friend
>> must have a remarkably good accountant, and of course the means to pay
>> a remarkably good accountant. Unless the situation in the US is even
>> worse than it appears, and people with that much money can legally
>> escape paying taxes.
>
>I think this is a distinction between taxing income and taxing wealth.
>
>If someone has the good fortune to have a good fortune, or a very nice
>house, should there be a high tax on it when it's just sitting there
>being valuable, or should only the gaining of wealth be taxed?
of it goes to the local school board, the rest goes to the city or
county. People with certain disabilities or who are over 65 are
charged a lower rate than young, healthy property owners. And folks
who rent aren't charged property tax directly, but I presume a portion
of their rent monies are used by the landlord to pay *his* property
taxes.
The tax is based on an appraisal done by the county, and there are
procedures to contest an appraisal (I know they exist, but I've never
had to deal with them.)
Walter Bushell
Sep 27, 2012, 5:45:30 PM9/27/12
to
In article <o8g968pdnu0tb647n...@4ax.com>,
Rome fell, England had the industrial revolution which was hell for
the displaced peasants. 30 years war, 100 years war, plagues and so on.
Floods and famines in China and India etcetera innumerable. Do I need
to mention the 30's depression and WW I & II? China's Great Leap
Forward?K Khmer Rouge, which is not a type of makeup.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can find complaints as far back as Socrates about how things aren't like
> they
> were in "the good old days" and how the world is going to Hell in a
> handbasket.
> Either Hell is a lot farther away than we thought, or that handbasket is
> moving
> *really* slowly.
Ah, but the world or pieces of it go to hell and return. Athens fell,
> You can find complaints as far back as Socrates about how things aren't like
> they
> were in "the good old days" and how the world is going to Hell in a
> handbasket.
> Either Hell is a lot farther away than we thought, or that handbasket is
> moving
> *really* slowly.
Rome fell, England had the industrial revolution which was hell for
the displaced peasants. 30 years war, 100 years war, plagues and so on.
Floods and famines in China and India etcetera innumerable. Do I need
to mention the 30's depression and WW I & II? China's Great Leap
Forward?K Khmer Rouge, which is not a type of makeup.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
GaryN
Sep 27, 2012, 5:48:34 PM9/27/12
to
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in
news:slrnk67dqs....@mbp55.local:
> In message <k3v4j0$h52$1...@mud.stack.nl>
>>>> Indeed. See Mitt Romney's campaign, where he has just announced
>>>> that it's not his job to worry about the 47% of the population
>>>> whose incomes are so low that they don't pay income tax. Given that
>>>> the threshold is not all that generous, that means that almost half
>>>> the people in the US are living in poverty.
>>>
>>> That is completely ridiculous, and not at all true.
>>>
>> Which is not true? Romney's announcement, which has been all over the
>> media for days, or my conclusion that 47% is almost half?
>
> Your statement that almsot half the people in the US are living in
> poverty.
>
poverty by anyone's standards. Even if it's not proper money (£) it's
not poverty.
Since 9/8/'12 I've recieved exactly £139.78 from emergency benefits due
to cock-ups in the benefit system here depriving me of the correct
benefits. I'm not a scrounger or any of that 'Workshy' shit - I'm just
very ill, mostly housebound. I'd rather be working but can't.
2 months on, call it $250, for *EVERYTHING*. Try it, then tell me about
poverty.
gary
--
.Sig file abducted by aliens.
I was bored with changing it every week anyway but as a last gasp...
"And if California slides into the ocean,
like the mystics and statistics say it will,
I predict this motel will be standing,
until I pay my bill"
Warren Zevon, from "Desperados Under The Eaves"
news:slrnk67dqs....@mbp55.local:
> In message <k3v4j0$h52$1...@mud.stack.nl>
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 09-25-12 1:15 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <k3seo8$21de$1...@mud.stack.nl>
>>> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>> On 09-25-12 1:15 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <k3seo8$21de$1...@mud.stack.nl>
>>> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Indeed. See Mitt Romney's campaign, where he has just announced
>>>> that it's not his job to worry about the 47% of the population
>>>> whose incomes are so low that they don't pay income tax. Given that
>>>> the threshold is not all that generous, that means that almost half
>>>> the people in the US are living in poverty.
>>>
>>> That is completely ridiculous, and not at all true.
>>>
>> Which is not true? Romney's announcement, which has been all over the
>> media for days, or my conclusion that 47% is almost half?
>
> poverty.
>
> For example, I have a friend who is retired. He owns his house free
> and clear (worth about 750,000) and has not car payments on his 14yo
> car. He has close to $1,000,000 in investments. His income, since
> retiring, is about $24,000 a year. He is not living in poverty, but he
> is also not paying income taxes.
I would argue that $24K a year and $1mil investments is not living in
> and clear (worth about 750,000) and has not car payments on his 14yo
> car. He has close to $1,000,000 in investments. His income, since
> retiring, is about $24,000 a year. He is not living in poverty, but he
> is also not paying income taxes.
poverty by anyone's standards. Even if it's not proper money (£) it's
not poverty.
Since 9/8/'12 I've recieved exactly £139.78 from emergency benefits due
to cock-ups in the benefit system here depriving me of the correct
benefits. I'm not a scrounger or any of that 'Workshy' shit - I'm just
very ill, mostly housebound. I'd rather be working but can't.
2 months on, call it $250, for *EVERYTHING*. Try it, then tell me about
poverty.
gary
--
.Sig file abducted by aliens.
I was bored with changing it every week anyway but as a last gasp...
"And if California slides into the ocean,
like the mystics and statistics say it will,
I predict this motel will be standing,
until I pay my bill"
Warren Zevon, from "Desperados Under The Eaves"
A Willis
Sep 27, 2012, 6:35:26 PM9/27/12
to
In message <XnsA0DBE804637B0...@216.196.109.145>, GaryN
<webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> writes
give you ESA until they assess you? Is there any reason why they won't
give you statutory sick pay?
--
A Willis (Ali from #afp) - Reply-to is valid but afpers works better
Currently wishing I had enough money to arrange for "V for Vendetta"
to be projected onto the Houses of Parliament on November 5th.
<webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> writes
>I would argue that $24K a year and $1mil investments is not living in
>poverty by anyone's standards. Even if it's not proper money (£) it's
>not poverty.
>
>Since 9/8/'12 I've recieved exactly £139.78 from emergency benefits due
>to cock-ups in the benefit system here depriving me of the correct
>benefits. I'm not a scrounger or any of that 'Workshy' shit - I'm just
>very ill, mostly housebound. I'd rather be working but can't.
>
>2 months on, call it $250, for *EVERYTHING*. Try it, then tell me about
>poverty.
Gary, is this because you can't get JSA cos you're ill, and they won't
>poverty by anyone's standards. Even if it's not proper money (£) it's
>not poverty.
>
>Since 9/8/'12 I've recieved exactly £139.78 from emergency benefits due
>to cock-ups in the benefit system here depriving me of the correct
>benefits. I'm not a scrounger or any of that 'Workshy' shit - I'm just
>very ill, mostly housebound. I'd rather be working but can't.
>
>2 months on, call it $250, for *EVERYTHING*. Try it, then tell me about
>poverty.
give you ESA until they assess you? Is there any reason why they won't
give you statutory sick pay?
--
A Willis (Ali from #afp) - Reply-to is valid but afpers works better
Currently wishing I had enough money to arrange for "V for Vendetta"
to be projected onto the Houses of Parliament on November 5th.
GaryN
Sep 27, 2012, 7:51:17 PM9/27/12
to
A Willis <newsgr...@asphalt.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:yIHYC4Wu...@asphalt.demon.co.uk:
> In message <XnsA0DBE804637B0...@216.196.109.145>, GaryN
> <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> writes
>>I would argue that $24K a year and $1mil investments is not living in
>>poverty by anyone's standards. Even if it's not proper money (Ł) it's
>>not poverty.
>>
>>Since 9/8/'12 I've recieved exactly Ł139.78 from emergency benefits
up for WCA[2] home visit, can't have covering ESA until I have a WCA
despite my GP[2.5] and a major teaching hospital saying I'm not fit for
work. ATOS still failing to make apointment after 2 months. Next
hospital appointment tomorrow/today.
Can't claim JSA[3] because I'm signed off, can't claim IS[4] because I'm
not providing proof that I have no other means of supporting myself.
Back to snaring rabbits and pheasants, shooting pigeons with a handbow,
running nightlines for carp, and pinching veg from the local allotments
if I want to eat (can crap in the woods in the dark if the diarreah gets
bad - probably the only poacher to go out with a bogroll in his pocket).
At least if I get caught at any of that they have to feed you in prison!
My landlord is currently being relaxed about the problem of overdue rent
but that can't last forever.
But not to worry, got my local MP involved. Got a call from his
secretary/legal advisor who called the area Jobcenter Plus office who,
in her words, "Seem a little confused about what is going on". Oh Good!
And there is no SSP now so they won't do that.
gary
Footnotes for leftpondians and other foreigners (apart from the ones
living here).
[1]Employment Support Allowance.
[2]Work Capability Assessment.
[2.5]Doctor.
[3]Job Seekers Allowance.
[4]Income Support.
And ATOS are a Cheese-eating surrender monkey company engaged by our
beloved government to say everyone is capable of work unless clinically
dead.
news:yIHYC4Wu...@asphalt.demon.co.uk:
> In message <XnsA0DBE804637B0...@216.196.109.145>, GaryN
> <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> writes
>>I would argue that $24K a year and $1mil investments is not living in
>>not poverty.
>>
>>Since 9/8/'12 I've recieved exactly Ł139.78 from emergency benefits
>>due to cock-ups in the benefit system here depriving me of the correct
>>benefits. I'm not a scrounger or any of that 'Workshy' shit - I'm
>>just very ill, mostly housebound. I'd rather be working but can't.
>>
>>2 months on, call it $250, for *EVERYTHING*. Try it, then tell me
>>about poverty.
>
> Gary, is this because you can't get JSA cos you're ill, and they won't
> give you ESA until they assess you? Is there any reason why they won't
> give you statutory sick pay
ESA[1] suspended due to assorted cockups regarding ATOS failing to turn
>>benefits. I'm not a scrounger or any of that 'Workshy' shit - I'm
>>just very ill, mostly housebound. I'd rather be working but can't.
>>
>>2 months on, call it $250, for *EVERYTHING*. Try it, then tell me
>>about poverty.
>
> Gary, is this because you can't get JSA cos you're ill, and they won't
> give you ESA until they assess you? Is there any reason why they won't
> give you statutory sick pay
up for WCA[2] home visit, can't have covering ESA until I have a WCA
despite my GP[2.5] and a major teaching hospital saying I'm not fit for
work. ATOS still failing to make apointment after 2 months. Next
hospital appointment tomorrow/today.
Can't claim JSA[3] because I'm signed off, can't claim IS[4] because I'm
not providing proof that I have no other means of supporting myself.
Back to snaring rabbits and pheasants, shooting pigeons with a handbow,
running nightlines for carp, and pinching veg from the local allotments
if I want to eat (can crap in the woods in the dark if the diarreah gets
bad - probably the only poacher to go out with a bogroll in his pocket).
At least if I get caught at any of that they have to feed you in prison!
My landlord is currently being relaxed about the problem of overdue rent
but that can't last forever.
But not to worry, got my local MP involved. Got a call from his
secretary/legal advisor who called the area Jobcenter Plus office who,
in her words, "Seem a little confused about what is going on". Oh Good!
And there is no SSP now so they won't do that.
gary
Footnotes for leftpondians and other foreigners (apart from the ones
living here).
[1]Employment Support Allowance.
[2]Work Capability Assessment.
[2.5]Doctor.
[3]Job Seekers Allowance.
[4]Income Support.
And ATOS are a Cheese-eating surrender monkey company engaged by our
beloved government to say everyone is capable of work unless clinically
dead.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages