OT: N'Sync AstroNOT!!!
Eddie Hill
MOSCOW (AP) -- 'N Sync singer Lance Bass has been asked to leave Russia's
cosmonaut training program and will not be the world's third space tourist,
a Russian space official said Tuesday.
Sergei Gorbunov, spokesman for the Russian Space Agency, said the decision
to end negotiations with Bass was made in connection with "crude violations"
of his contract.
Gorbunov said Bass, who had hoped to fly to the International Space Station
aboard a Russian Soyuz rocket on Oct. 28, would be leaving Russia's Star
City within the next few hours.
"It's over," Gorbunov said.
The U.S. pop star had been granted numerous deadline extensions after
failing to come up with the $20 million needed to secure his seat. Bass'
supporters have blamed paperwork problems for the delay.
Bass began training in July at Star City, and just returned to Russia on
Sunday after spending a week at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston with
the other two crew members.
Jeff Manbar, president of Mir-Corp, which had been working on behalf of
Bass, continued to express optimism Tuesday that the mission would go ahead.
"It is a little dramatic to say he was kicked out," said Manbar, who added
that he was headed into another meeting with Russian space officials to
discuss the payment details.
"He was training at Star City yesterday. He is not training today, but he
will be back there probably tomorrow or the day after."
Gorbunov said that in place of Bass, the Russians would likely send up a
cargo container with extra equipment needed on the International Space
Station. Gorbunov said the container has already been prepared and is ready
to go.
Bass, 23, would have been the youngest person yet in space.
Vin
bah, he'll still go up
and if he doesn't thats too bad, he seemed like a genuine space enthusiast,
went to space camp and everything. he would have been good for nasa,
more interest = more money
Eddie Hill
"Vin" <bja...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jY3d9.3143$YR2.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >hahahah. the li'l boy got booted.
>
> bah, he'll still go up
> and if he doesn't thats too bad, he seemed like a genuine space
enthusiast,
> went to space camp and everything. he would have been good for nasa,
> more interest = more money
>
more interest = more money? how's that??? does nasa make money on
donations now? no. they get their money from taxes. and that money's been
cut down considerably by republican interests. we can afford this stupid
missile defense program, but we can't work on space travel.
i'm still not thrilled on this space tourist nonsense. on one hand it makes
money to fund research, but on the other it's rather annoying that some rich
little snot like the n'sync boy can buy his way into space when everyone
else has to work at it. and still probably won't get to go.
eddie
Vin
>donations now? no. they get their money from taxes. and that money's been
>cut down considerably by republican interests. we can afford this stupid
>missile defense program, but we can't work on space travel.
eddie, if nasa had great ratings everytime a shuttle went up and there's
as much public interest as there was 30 years ago then nasa would be getting
a hell of a bigger chunk of the budget every year.
>i'm still not thrilled on this space tourist nonsense. on one hand it makes
>money to fund research, but on the other it's rather annoying that some rich
>little snot like the n'sync boy can buy his way into space when everyone
>else has to work at it. and still probably won't get to go.
he's not paying for it, never was.
pepsi and some network and shit like that are paying for it.
at least it's not fred durst
Eddie Hill
> >more interest = more money? how's that??? does nasa make money on
> >donations now? no. they get their money from taxes. and that money's
been
> >cut down considerably by republican interests. we can afford this stupid
> >missile defense program, but we can't work on space travel.
>
> eddie, if nasa had great ratings everytime a shuttle went up and there's
> as much public interest as there was 30 years ago then nasa would be
getting
> a hell of a bigger chunk of the budget every year.
>
i don't buy it. there was public interest 30 years ago because we were
spending all that money to show up the russians. we had to justify it
somehow. we can't do such amazing things on the budget their is now.
and, public opinion doesn't drive the budget. if it did the defense budget
would be a lot smaller.
> >i'm still not thrilled on this space tourist nonsense. on one hand it
makes
> >money to fund research, but on the other it's rather annoying that some
rich
> >little snot like the n'sync boy can buy his way into space when everyone
> >else has to work at it. and still probably won't get to go.
>
> he's not paying for it, never was.
> pepsi and some network and shit like that are paying for it.
oh, that makes it all the better
eddie
Hometown Chachi
If Chris Cornell paid to go into space, I don't think you would be bitching.
>
> eddie
>
>
>
--
AMDM Futbol Ambassador: Please support Major League Soccer. Our National
Team thanks you.
"one day you'll see her and you'll know what I mean"
*Nickel Creek*
"freedom to fly is only second to the wisdom to stay grounded"
*atomic jo*
Vin
>spending all that money to show up the russians. we had to justify it
>somehow. we can't do such amazing things on the budget their is now.
>
>and, public opinion doesn't drive the budget. if it did the defense budget
>would be a lot smaller.
it sure as hell justified shrinking it
Eddie Hill
"Hometown Chachi" <soulphis...@yahooMON.com> wrote in message
news:3D74F031...@yahooMON.com...
>
> If Chris Cornell paid to go into space, I don't think you would be
bitching.
>
speculation
and you're wrong. new name, same nonsense.
why does no trust anyone's motives anymore? cynical bastards.
and why the new name?
Eddie Hill
when did the defense budge shrink? what, like 5% under clinton? and the
republicans raised a hell of a fit. the cold war ended, and the budget
stayed huge. HUGE!!!! we should cut that puppy in half. at least. and
tax johnG's buddies a reasonable rate. progressive taxes, baby. then we'd
have tons of money and could afford to have national health care like the
civilized countries already do.
eddie w hill
>
Laurie Hester
Love your ideas, but before we spend all that money on health care, we
should get rid of the deficit, then we will be able to afford health
care AND tax cuts.
Laurie
>
> >
JohnG
news:H1vJz...@news.boeing.com...
>
> we should cut that puppy in half. at least. and
> tax johnG's buddies a reasonable rate. progressive taxes, baby.
Why am I being brought into this conversation when I had nothing to do with
it? Keep me out of your astronaut games, please. :)
Our federal taxation system is progressive, BTW.
John
vin
>republicans raised a hell of a fit. the cold war ended, and the budget
>stayed huge. HUGE!!!! we should cut that puppy in half. at least. and
>tax johnG's buddies a reasonable rate. progressive taxes, baby. then we'd
>have tons of money and could afford to have national health care like the
>civilized countries already do.
i meant nasa
Eddie Hill
"Laurie Hester" <laurie...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:3D74E9C2...@rcn.com...
>
>
> Love your ideas, but before we spend all that money on health care, we
> should get rid of the deficit, then we will be able to afford health
> care AND tax cuts.
>
i think health care's more important then the deficit. we get health care
and start making payments on the deficit. we can do both, and people aren't
getting screwed by the insurance companies in the mean time.
think about it. what's the problem w/ the deficit? bond owners might not
get paid? is that it? they can wait. that's the same reason we keep
unemployment high, to keep inflation down so bond owners make more money.
screw that. put those people to work! it's not like they don't want to
work. that's right wing propaganda. there are always a ton more
applications for jobs then there are jobs. use tax money for public works.
get those people working. they'll spend their money on food and clothes and
housing. that stimulates the economy. it worked for FDR in the great
depression. we were coming out of it. slowly.
liberal democrats saved the world once in the last 100 years, we can do it
again, dammit!!!
eddie
> Laurie
>
Laurie Hester
Eddie Hill wrote:
>
> "Laurie Hester" <laurie...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:3D74E9C2...@rcn.com...
> >
> >
> > Love your ideas, but before we spend all that money on health care, we
> > should get rid of the deficit, then we will be able to afford health
> > care AND tax cuts.
> >
>
> i think health care's more important then the deficit. we get health care
> and start making payments on the deficit. we can do both, and people aren't
> getting screwed by the insurance companies in the mean time.
>
> think about it. what's the problem w/ the deficit?
The problem is, if we have $3 billion in taxes to spend, 1 of those
billions is going to pay interest on the debt. If we get out of debt,
then we have $3 billion to spend instead of $2 billion.
Imagine a person who is in credit card debt up to their eyeballs. They
have an income of $3000/month and $1000 is going to pay the minimum
payment (barely over the interest) on the credit cards. If they pay off
that debt, then they have $1000/month more to spend (on health care or
vacations).
It is silly to pay for health care first, when if you delay that for a
couple of years, pay off the debt with your newfound riches, then you
can afford the health care *and* a tax cut. If you never pay off the
debt, you will continue forever having to charge more taxes.
I don't understand why Republicans don't get this. They whine about
taxes, but don't understand that their policies cause us to have to pay
more and more interest, and therefore more and more taxes. Fucking
idiots!
Laurie
Eddie Hill
"JohnG" <john...@NOSPAMix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:al333l$nvi$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Eddie Hill" <eddieg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:H1vJz...@news.boeing.com...
> >
> > we should cut that puppy in half. at least. and
> > tax johnG's buddies a reasonable rate. progressive taxes, baby.
>
> Why am I being brought into this conversation when I had nothing to do
with
> it? Keep me out of your astronaut games, please. :)
hehe. because you're being too quiet, and the establishment wasn't being
represented in our discussion. =)
>
> Our federal taxation system is progressive, BTW.
not really. what's the lowest bracket? ~29? the highest? 37? not very
progressive. progressive would be from 10 to 70 or something. like the UK.
i'm all for that. it makes more sense. it also prevents this nonsense of
1% of the country having 40% of the wealth, or whatever it is.
the boat we're in now we'll need more then an income tax to get it straight.
we'll need a wealth tax. you think rich white boys screamed about the
estate tax, wait until they catch wind of the wealth tax proposal! =)
eddie
>
> John
>
>
Eddie Hill
"vin" <vin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cw8d9.3889$YR2.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
and i said that public opinion doesn't shape the budget. and i'm right.
eddie
>
vin
>billions is going to pay interest on the debt. If we get out of debt,
>then we have $3 billion to spend instead of $2 billion.
what kind of math is that? 33% interest.
The debt on your gov is owed at a very very low interest rate
>Imagine a person who is in credit card debt up to their eyeballs. They
>have an income of $3000/month and $1000 is going to pay the minimum
>payment (barely over the interest) on the credit cards. If they pay off
>that debt, then they have $1000/month more to spend (on health care or
>vacations).
$1000 at a 4% interest rate (gov rate is probably lower) would mean this person
earning $36,000 a year has a debt load of $300,000.00
Clearly your statistics are -far- from realistic because that would equal
a 1 to 10 ratio of income to debt. The US has 5 trillion in debt meaning
according to your stats, the US takes in a whopping $500 billion dollars a
year. Hell you guys take in what 2-3 trillion in income taxes alone?
A tad off I would say. But of course I know you weren't implying that
those were valid statistics, I just wanted to point out how invalid
your example was.
The deficit should be on the lower end of the priorities list, health care,
education, etc should always take precedence, it's common sense, and
your gov being in debt isn't exactly hurting them that bad. Just like
someone with a mortgage isn't hurting that bad, it's either that or no house.
And finally, your gov will never be deficit free, it won't happen.
Look back at the last 12 months and see how quickly your president can
spend money and completely reverse a budget trend.
Eddie Hill
>
>
> The problem is, if we have $3 billion in taxes to spend, 1 of those
> billions is going to pay interest on the debt. If we get out of debt,
> then we have $3 billion to spend instead of $2 billion.
>
> Imagine a person who is in credit card debt up to their eyeballs. They
> have an income of $3000/month and $1000 is going to pay the minimum
> payment (barely over the interest) on the credit cards. If they pay off
> that debt, then they have $1000/month more to spend (on health care or
> vacations).
>
> It is silly to pay for health care first, when if you delay that for a
> couple of years, pay off the debt with your newfound riches, then you
> can afford the health care *and* a tax cut. If you never pay off the
> debt, you will continue forever having to charge more taxes.
>
> I don't understand why Republicans don't get this. They whine about
> taxes, but don't understand that their policies cause us to have to pay
> more and more interest, and therefore more and more taxes. Fucking
> idiots!
>
i understand all that. here's what i'm saying... default on the bonds.
who's hurt?
eddie
> Laurie
>
>
Laurie Hester
I dunno, I would guess those who invested?
Laurie
>
> eddie
>
> > Laurie
> >
> >
Laurie Hester
vin wrote:
>
> >The problem is, if we have $3 billion in taxes to spend, 1 of those
> >billions is going to pay interest on the debt. If we get out of debt,
> >then we have $3 billion to spend instead of $2 billion.
>
> what kind of math is that? 33% interest.
I never said we were paying 33% interest. I'm saying that 1/3 of our
discretionary spending (that is, non-mandatory programs such as SS,
welfare, etc) is spent on interest on the debt.
> >Imagine a person who is in credit card debt up to their eyeballs. They
> >have an income of $3000/month and $1000 is going to pay the minimum
> >payment (barely over the interest) on the credit cards. If they pay off
> >that debt, then they have $1000/month more to spend (on health care or
> >vacations).
>
> $1000 at a 4% interest rate (gov rate is probably lower) would mean this person
> earning $36,000 a year has a debt load of $300,000.00
Again, learn to read. The $1000 is going for the minimum payment on
several credit cards, not interest only.
>
> Clearly your statistics are -far- from realistic because that would equal
> a 1 to 10 ratio of income to debt. The US has 5 trillion in debt meaning
> according to your stats, the US takes in a whopping $500 billion dollars a
> year. Hell you guys take in what 2-3 trillion in income taxes alone?
>
> A tad off I would say. But of course I know you weren't implying that
> those were valid statistics, I just wanted to point out how invalid
> your example was.
Learn to read before posting such nonsense. It'll be less embarrassing
for you.
Laurie
Laurie Hester
Eddie Hill wrote:
>
> "JohnG" <john...@NOSPAMix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:al333l$nvi$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
> > "Eddie Hill" <eddieg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:H1vJz...@news.boeing.com...
> > >
> > > we should cut that puppy in half. at least. and
> > > tax johnG's buddies a reasonable rate. progressive taxes, baby.
> >
> > Why am I being brought into this conversation when I had nothing to do
> with
> > it? Keep me out of your astronaut games, please. :)
>
> hehe. because you're being too quiet, and the establishment wasn't being
> represented in our discussion. =)
>
> >
> > Our federal taxation system is progressive, BTW.
>
> not really. what's the lowest bracket? ~29? the highest? 37? not very
> progressive. progressive would be from 10 to 70 or something. like the UK.
The top rate in the UK is 40%, and it isn't a bracket system. The first
x pounds is tax free, the next x pounds (a typical living wage) is taxed
at something like 26%, and over 30,000 pounds (I forget the exact
amount) is taxed at 40%. So if you make 40,000 pounds, part is taxed at
26% and part at 40%, with the actual tax rate calculated on the whole
being, well, I'll leave that to the math experts, but I paid less in
taxes over there than I do here, and that includes free medical care.
Laurie
Eddie Hill
>
>
> Eddie Hill wrote:
> >
> > i understand all that. here's what i'm saying... default on the bonds.
> > who's hurt?
>
> I dunno, I would guess those who invested?
>
rich people. they're not concerned w/ us. why should we be concerned w/
them?
> Laurie
> >
> > eddie
vin
person
>> earning $36,000 a year has a debt load of $300,000.00
>
>Again, learn to read. The $1000 is going for the minimum payment on
>several credit cards, not interest only.
well, your whole argument was that the gov is being tied down by interest
payments, your gov doesnt have to make payments on the principle, only
the interest, and as you can see, the interest is very very negligable
in the grand scheme of things. without credit the world wouldn't go
round, countries need it as much as you or i.
and even if we factor in a principle repayment of 1% a month + interest
which is standard for major credit card high balances, that would mean that
this person spending $12,000.00 a year on credit card minimum payments
still has over $90,000 in credit card debt. i dont know anyone that
has $90,000 in credit card debt, do you?
Eddie Hill
he likes to be embarrased.
eddie
> Laurie
>
Eddie Hill
margret thatcher must have had some tax reform. the beatles moved to
america because they were being taxed at 90+%. (harrison's 'tax man' ...
"there's one for you, nineteen for me").
eddie
Laurie Hester
Well, I guess you just answered the question as to why the Republicans
love the deficit!
Laurie
>
> > Laurie
> > >
> > > eddie
Hometown Chachi
> "Hometown Chachi" <soulphis...@yahooMON.com> wrote in message
> news:3D74F031...@yahooMON.com...
>
>
>>If Chris Cornell paid to go into space, I don't think you would be
>
> bitching.
>
>
> speculation
>
> and you're wrong. new name, same nonsense.
It is not nonsense...the only reason people are bitter towards Lance
Bass is because he is in NSync. If a "real" musician did the exact same
thing, people would be shouting how "cool" it is.
>
> why does no trust anyone's motives anymore? cynical bastards.
>
> and why the new name?
got tired of the old one...plus it is part of a running joke from amdm.
Laurie Hester
vin wrote:
>
> >> $1000 at a 4% interest rate (gov rate is probably lower) would mean this
> person
> >> earning $36,000 a year has a debt load of $300,000.00
> >
> >Again, learn to read. The $1000 is going for the minimum payment on
> >several credit cards, not interest only.
>
> well, your whole argument was that the gov is being tied down by interest
> payments, your gov doesnt have to make payments on the principle, only
> the interest, and as you can see, the interest is very very negligable
> in the grand scheme of things. without credit the world wouldn't go
> round, countries need it as much as you or i.
We spend 11% of our spending on interest, or 1/4th of discretionary
spending, which includes the military, but not mandatory programs like
SS and Medicare. If we didn't have to pay it, we'd have lots more money
to spend on good things...or give tax cuts. It's a very significant
amount.
>
> and even if we factor in a principle repayment of 1% a month + interest
> which is standard for major credit card high balances, that would mean that
> this person spending $12,000.00 a year on credit card minimum payments
> still has over $90,000 in credit card debt. i dont know anyone that
> has $90,000 in credit card debt, do you?
I don't know what interest rates you're using. Most credit cards, other
than intro low interest deals, have an interest rate of 18-24%. If we
figure the interest on $50,000 at 18%, it comes to $750/month just for
interest. If someone has that kind of debt (and I assure you, it is
very common in this country) then yes, they might have lots of neat
stuff, but they are wasting a good 1/3 of their take-home pay on
interest every month.
I think it's an incredible waste of money, and our tax dollars in the
case of the federal govt.
Laurie
Laurie Hester
Eddie Hill wrote:
>
> "Laurie Hester" <laurie...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:3D7516BA...@rcn.com...
> > The top rate in the UK is 40%, and it isn't a bracket system. The first
> > x pounds is tax free, the next x pounds (a typical living wage) is taxed
> > at something like 26%, and over 30,000 pounds (I forget the exact
> > amount) is taxed at 40%. So if you make 40,000 pounds, part is taxed at
> > 26% and part at 40%, with the actual tax rate calculated on the whole
> > being, well, I'll leave that to the math experts, but I paid less in
> > taxes over there than I do here, and that includes free medical care.
> >
>
> margret thatcher must have had some tax reform. the beatles moved to
> america because they were being taxed at 90+%. (harrison's 'tax man' ...
> "there's one for you, nineteen for me").
>
> eddie
Yes, they did reduce the top rate significantly.
Laurie
JohnG
>
> hehe. because you're being too quiet, and the establishment wasn't being
> represented in our discussion. =)
>
Because my argument defends itself. :-)
>
> not really. what's the lowest bracket? ~29? the highest? 37? not very
> progressive.
Those are crap figures. People that make less than 6K pay no income taxes
and then the lowest rate from there is 10% to 15% to 27% to 30%(over 68K per
year) to 35%(over 132K per year) to 38.6%.(over 288K per year)
It's a relatively fair progressive system, in my opinion. We should not be
ashamed at our tax system when the alternative is to tax money made over a
certain leval at 90%, like it was in the 70's and 80's when people sheltered
ALL their income because the taxes were too high and every rich person
avoided all their taxes!!!
> it also prevents this nonsense of
> 1% of the country having 40% of the wealth, or whatever it is.
>
That's nonsense why? Those that have created wealth, jobs for many, and
companies(e.g. Bill Gates) deserve to enjoy the spoils of their success.
And I think it's the top 5% control 40% of the wealth, which is close to how
it's always been in this country.
> the boat we're in now we'll need more then an income tax to get it
straight.
> we'll need a wealth tax. you think rich white boys screamed about the
> estate tax, wait until they catch wind of the wealth tax proposal! =)
>
Blah,, blah, you and I both know there is so little chance of that happening
it's not even worth discussing. Ha ha, the wealth tax is going to go over
like a fart in church. . . .and the estate tax will be fully repealed in the
next 10 years. You can quote me on that one.
I was right about my stock market predictions two months ago when I called
the bottom and said the market was in a bottoming process and many called me
insane(vin remembers the conversation) so I have some credibility on this
subject.
Mr. Establishment is happy to defend his side.
Regards,
John
Jonas
you're getting those numbers from!?! That's just fuzzy math!"
Honestly, I was waiting for Barbara Bush to walk on stage, just so Dubya
could run to her and say, "Help me Mommy! They're using fuzzy math on me!"
--
Jonas
Don't come over here/
Piss on my gate/
Save it, just keep it off my wave
Eddie Hill
"JohnG" <john...@ix.netcom.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:21ed9.339$hh.1...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> "Eddie Hill" <eddieg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:H1vpp...@news.boeing.com...
> >
> > hehe. because you're being too quiet, and the establishment wasn't
being
> > represented in our discussion. =)
> >
>
> Because my argument defends itself. :-)
>
ah. you admit to representing the establishment now? we're making
progress.
> >
> > not really. what's the lowest bracket? ~29? the highest? 37? not
very
> > progressive.
>
> Those are crap figures. People that make less than 6K pay no income taxes
> and then the lowest rate from there is 10% to 15% to 27% to 30%(over 68K
per
> year) to 35%(over 132K per year) to 38.6%.(over 288K per year)
>
the 37 was close then. the other one was off.
> It's a relatively fair progressive system, in my opinion.
not mine.
>We should not be
> ashamed at our tax system when the alternative is to tax money made over a
> certain leval at 90%, like it was in the 70's and 80's when people
sheltered
> ALL their income because the taxes were too high and every rich person
> avoided all their taxes!!!
>
they still avoid them.
> > it also prevents this nonsense of
> > 1% of the country having 40% of the wealth, or whatever it is.
> >
>
> That's nonsense why? Those that have created wealth, jobs for many, and
> companies(e.g. Bill Gates) deserve to enjoy the spoils of their success.
what about the people that do all the actual work. you say that because
someone supplies capital they're entitled to live off the sweat of the brow
of others? i say that's BS. that's slavery, my friend. it may not be
slavery by whip and chains, but it's slavery. of a much worse kind, in my
opinion, because at least w/ the whips and chains you know what it was.
this way's just a big lie.
no. the capital should belong to the working class. afterall, today's
capital is the fruit of yesterday's work. who did the work? the workers.
your way (and the american way) ensures that a certain class of society will
always be in control.
and you and others defending this love to point out bill gates. he's the
exception, not the rule. for every one bill gates you can name i can name
you 100s of steve forbeses. or rockefellers. or kennedys.
do you think bill gates worked harder then your average coal miner? or
farmer? and yet plenty of them live in poverty. work doesn't get you
wealthy. luck does (usually in the form of who your dad is). and once you
have the wealth, unless you're incredibly stupid, you're not going to lose
it.
look at W's record. if you or i made the decisions he did we'd be fucked.
but he's president of the nation. why? his daddy.
> And I think it's the top 5% control 40% of the wealth, which is close to
how
> it's always been in this country.
>
it's always been that way, so it must be right. Ô
>
> > the boat we're in now we'll need more then an income tax to get it
> straight.
> > we'll need a wealth tax. you think rich white boys screamed about the
> > estate tax, wait until they catch wind of the wealth tax proposal! =)
> >
>
> Blah,, blah, you and I both know there is so little chance of that
happening
> it's not even worth discussing.
there's not much chance of us living to see equality between the races and
sexes either. but it's the right thing to do.
> Ha ha, the wealth tax is going to go over
> like a fart in church. . . .and the estate tax will be fully repealed in
the
> next 10 years. You can quote me on that one.
>
if it is repealed it's really a failure of the system. there's no way the
average american would support that if given all the facts. but the facts
aren't reported. what is reported is lies that the family farm will be lost
because of the estate tax. bullshit. the average 'family farm' isn't work
the $1 million or whatever that it takes to have the tax kick in. it's
there to redistribute the wealth.
> I was right about my stock market predictions two months ago when I called
> the bottom and said the market was in a bottoming process and many called
me
> insane(vin remembers the conversation) so I have some credibility on this
> subject.
>
i don't know what knowledge about the market (which i'll agree you know a
lot about) has to do w/ politics and social policy.
> Mr. Establishment is happy to defend his side.
>
i think you've done rather poorly, to be honest. your point hinges on the
argument that it's ok to take a large portion of the working class' labor
and hold it over their children.
and it won't last forever. eventually the people will have enough.
eventually the system will fail. they always do. generally VERY violently.
i'd just assume avoid that.
--
Eddi Che de las Colinas
> Regards,
>
> John
>
>
>
Vin
>spending, which includes the military, but not mandatory programs like
>SS and Medicare. If we didn't have to pay it, we'd have lots more money
>to spend on good things...or give tax cuts. It's a very significant
>amount.
Wanna know what most people do when they finnnally pay off that crazy
credit card debt? well hey, now they have $10,000 in unused credit,
within a couple of years they're back in debt. its no different for
a country, if the US was deficit free it would just be thought of
as a cushion not as something that had to be maintained at all costs.
The country would be back in debt within a decade, what was the point?
there was none. You switch presidents every 4-8 years, some people
like to save, some people like to spend. just like in real life,
it wouldn't work.
>I don't know what interest rates you're using. Most credit cards, other
>than intro low interest deals, have an interest rate of 18-24%. If we
>figure the interest on $50,000 at 18%, it comes to $750/month just for
>interest. If someone has that kind of debt (and I assure you, it is
>very common in this country) then yes, they might have lots of neat
>stuff, but they are wasting a good 1/3 of their take-home pay on
>interest every month.
hehe who the fuck pays over 10% interest on credit cards? 18-24% must
be for the really really really really really dumb people.
Any bank will give you a line of credit equal to your current debt load
at prime + 1-2% and consolidate all your debt for you so you only pay
5-6% interest. Why? because now instead of paying interest to sears, first
usa visa, citibank visa, walmart, etc.. you're paying alllll the interest
to them. god, theres so many stupid people out there.
Vin
>> companies(e.g. Bill Gates) deserve to enjoy the spoils of their success.
>
>what about the people that do all the actual work. you say that because
>someone supplies capital they're entitled to live off the sweat of the brow
>of others? i say that's BS. that's slavery, my friend. it may not be
>slavery by whip and chains, but it's slavery. of a much worse kind, in my
>opinion, because at least w/ the whips and chains you know what it was.
>this way's just a big lie.
oh here we go with your the 'janitor should make as much as bill gates'
the people that do the actual work make a proportional living based on how
important their -INDIVIDUAL- job is to the company. if you created the fucking
company, then that would make you the most important person now wouldnt it
read that again, INDIVIDUAL...
>do you think bill gates worked harder then your average coal miner?
no but he sure as hell worked smarter. something you dont seem to get
bill gates created his wealth, some people are given wealth. well
at some point along the line that wealth was created, why shouldn't
it be passed on in the family, the family fucking earned it.
no eddie says, "give me money! i want your money! i dont want to work for it.
YOU work for it, then share it with me, because im a stupid coal miner
and you had enough sense to know that coal mining isnt where the money is"
>or farmer? and yet plenty of them live in poverty. work doesn't get you
>wealthy. luck does (usually in the form of who your dad is). and once you
>have the wealth, unless you're incredibly stupid, you're not going to lose
>it.
your hatred for the wealthy is really just deep seeded jealousy and envy
and its more and more obvious everytime you go on these rants.
>> I was right about my stock market predictions two months ago when I called
>> the bottom and said the market was in a bottoming process and many called
>me
>> insane(vin remembers the conversation) so I have some credibility on this
>> subject.
this ones for john, maybe you didnt see what happened today? i stand by
my dow at 7000 within 6 months.
Eddie Hill
>
> Wanna know what most people do when they finnnally pay off that crazy
> credit card debt? well hey, now they have $10,000 in unused credit,
> within a couple of years they're back in debt. its no different for
> a country, if the US was deficit free it would just be thought of
> as a cushion not as something that had to be maintained at all costs.
>
> The country would be back in debt within a decade, what was the point?
> there was none. You switch presidents every 4-8 years, some people
> like to save, some people like to spend. just like in real life,
> it wouldn't work.
>
it worked more or less up until reagan. he made the deficit. wasted all
that money to defeat the communists, which almost certainly drew the cold
war out longer.
>
> >I don't know what interest rates you're using. Most credit cards, other
> >than intro low interest deals, have an interest rate of 18-24%. If we
> >figure the interest on $50,000 at 18%, it comes to $750/month just for
> >interest. If someone has that kind of debt (and I assure you, it is
> >very common in this country) then yes, they might have lots of neat
> >stuff, but they are wasting a good 1/3 of their take-home pay on
> >interest every month.
>
> hehe who the fuck pays over 10% interest on credit cards? 18-24% must
> be for the really really really really really dumb people.
>
about every credit card i know of is over 15% interest.
> Any bank will give you a line of credit equal to your current debt load
> at prime + 1-2% and consolidate all your debt for you so you only pay
> 5-6% interest. Why? because now instead of paying interest to sears, first
> usa visa, citibank visa, walmart, etc.. you're paying alllll the interest
> to them. god, theres so many stupid people out there.
>
if you've got the credit to do it. and i doubt they'll do it for 5-6%.
john g?
eddie
>
Eddie Hill
> >> That's nonsense why? Those that have created wealth, jobs for many,
and
> >> companies(e.g. Bill Gates) deserve to enjoy the spoils of their
success.
> >
> >what about the people that do all the actual work. you say that because
> >someone supplies capital they're entitled to live off the sweat of the
brow
> >of others? i say that's BS. that's slavery, my friend. it may not be
> >slavery by whip and chains, but it's slavery. of a much worse kind, in
my
> >opinion, because at least w/ the whips and chains you know what it was.
> >this way's just a big lie.
>
> oh here we go with your the 'janitor should make as much as bill gates'
i never said that.
> the people that do the actual work make a proportional living based on how
> important their -INDIVIDUAL- job is to the company. if you created the
fucking
i'm not talking salary. i'm talking capital. although, there's absolutely
no way a CEO is worth a few million a year salary, while you're on the
subject.
> company, then that would make you the most important person now wouldnt it
> read that again, INDIVIDUAL...
>
>
> >do you think bill gates worked harder then your average coal miner?
>
> no but he sure as hell worked smarter. something you dont seem to get
actually, he got away w/ breaking some laws. if that's smart, then so be
it...
> bill gates created his wealth, some people are given wealth. well
> at some point along the line that wealth was created, why shouldn't
> it be passed on in the family, the family fucking earned it.
>
why shouldn't power be passed on in the family? let's have kings again.
no. hereditary politcal power didn't work. hereditary economic power
doesn't work either.
> no eddie says, "give me money! i want your money! i dont want to work for
it.
i work buddy. and i'm not complaining about not having money. i'm just
fine, thank you.
now, if you're done trying to make this a personal attack, kindly move back
to the issue.
> YOU work for it, then share it with me, because im a stupid coal miner
> and you had enough sense to know that coal mining isnt where the money is"
>
the coal miner's daddy probably couldn't afford to send him to college.
>
> >or farmer? and yet plenty of them live in poverty. work doesn't get you
> >wealthy. luck does (usually in the form of who your dad is). and once
you
> >have the wealth, unless you're incredibly stupid, you're not going to
lose
> >it.
>
> your hatred for the wealthy is really just deep seeded jealousy and envy
> and its more and more obvious everytime you go on these rants.
>
oh really? just like the blacks' hatred of the slave owners was jealousy?
and the peasants hatred of the aristocracy was jealousy? it's all clear
now. Ô
i hate people that have overinflated opinions of their importance. i hate
people that let their greed convince them it's ok to buy that second lexus
while their fellow man is starving. and then feel superior for it.
eddie
Vin
>
>> Any bank will give you a line of credit equal to your current debt load
>> at prime + 1-2% and consolidate all your debt for you so you only pay
>> 5-6% interest. Why? because now instead of paying interest to sears, first
>> usa visa, citibank visa, walmart, etc.. you're paying alllll the interest
>> to them. god, theres so many stupid people out there.
>>
>
>if you've got the credit to do it. and i doubt they'll do it for 5-6%.
>
>john g?
hehe man, ive never had a credit card with more than 10% interest rates,
i have 2 right now, one is fixed at 5.5% the other prime + 1.5%
no fees. you just have to shop around, you can get cards with intro
offers of 1.9% or 0% and flip them ever 6 months, any debt consolidation
company or bank/credit union that offers such a program will offer
you low rates for your debt.
I don't even carry a balance and it wasn't exactly terribly difficult
to find low rates, people are A. lazy and B.stupid
9% is a joke, anyone can get 9%, if you're paying 15-18%, man..
thats just dumb
Vin
>no way a CEO is worth a few million a year salary, while you're on the
>subject.
a good ceo is
i couldnt do the job
you couldnt do the job
the janitor couldn't do the job
100 janitors couldn't do the job.
>actually, he got away w/ breaking some laws. if that's smart, then so be
>it...
im not even going to go there, and btw this whole antitrust thing came
up post win95, microsoft was a fucking huge company well before win95
>why shouldn't power be passed on in the family? let's have kings again.
>no. hereditary politcal power didn't work. hereditary economic power
>doesn't work either.
its just money eddie
if people are easily corrupted or bought and sold,
then blame them, not the money.
>the coal miner's daddy probably couldn't afford to send him to college.
then the coal miner should have put himself through college, or
-tried- to become an entrepreneur. no see eddie, that would require risk,
and everday people aren't comfortable with risk. so they settle for
the guarantee, being a coal miner. is that their own fault? yes.
is it my problem? no. people put themselves through college EVERYDAY,
its not a big deal, it might not be harvard, but it'll get ya somewhere.
>oh really? just like the blacks' hatred of the slave owners was jealousy?
>and the peasants hatred of the aristocracy was jealousy? it's all clear
>now. Ô
you're comparing peoples free choice to either work for someone or work
for themselves (either to put themselves through school or start their
own business) to slavery? give me a break. everyone has a choice,
some people take the easy way. thats their choice, and they can live
with it.
>i hate people that have overinflated opinions of their importance. i hate
>people that let their greed convince them it's ok to buy that second lexus
>while their fellow man is starving. and then feel superior for it.
and a lot of people hate people that think its ok to buy that fancy computer
while their fellow man is starving. you're no better than those you criticize,
you're just a notch lower because you don't have AS much money.. in the
grand scheme of things, you make more money (which you 'waste' according
to your definition of wasting) than what? 5.5 billion people? and your
average lexus driver makes more money than what? 5.9 billion people?
yeah, you're one to judge.
aka chelsea corazon
Eddie Hill wrote:
>
> "Vin" <bja...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2Bed9.4429$YR2.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > your hatred for the wealthy is really just deep seeded jealousy and envy
> > and its more and more obvious everytime you go on these rants.
> >
>
> oh really? just like the blacks' hatred of the slave owners was jealousy?
> and the peasants hatred of the aristocracy was jealousy? it's all clear
> now. Ô
oh that's right eddie, you've been reading marx. i like the idea of having
a reading group, and everyone, who wants to, reads 'marx for dummies' at their
own pace and then pop in a discussion thread every now & then: i
wouldn't suggest
the original 'das kapital' because that's a heavy tome. the 'dummies'
books are
written in a simple enough style so that even the not-astronomically
i.q.'d (like
me) can grasp the principles.
i like the wealthy. i just don't like rich, inconsiderate, selfish
people who eat up the earth and ruin it for every other lifeform.
> i hate people that have overinflated opinions of their importance. i hate
> people that let their greed convince them it's ok to buy that second lexus
> while their fellow man is starving. and then feel superior for it.
in addition, how about the population explosion of low-mileage, polluting
suv's that's glutting american highways? i see range rovers parked on
every corner (as i walk to the bus stop.) a couple of weeks ago, i saw
a woman at the wheel of a humvee down in the little shopping community
near the
cafe where i sometimes work. she was double parked outside mcdonald's,
waiting for her 2 kids.
that's ridiculous. no one needs a humvee in an american urban/suburban
community. what is that quote again: 'i don't question our existence
i just question our modern needs'
it would be good if everyone (including me) were more responsible about
fulfilling what they think are their needs, before letting the
automatic spending reflex kick in. for instance, if someone can afford
to buy a range rover, why not invest in one of the far less polluting
gas/electric hybrid cars instead? or use some of their personal wealth
to put effective solar panels in their home, thus cutting their power
use immensely? i'm not at all wealthy, but then i have to stop and think
that just by virtue of making a living wage in the u.s.a., i'm automatically
wealthier than a huge percentage of people throughout the world. it would
be so nice to be able to be simply thankful, rather than burdened
with the knowledge that somewhere others are being hurt so that we can
live well. i've worked very hard in my life, but i have mixed feelings
about comfort, wealth and privilege.
chelsea
Eddie Hill
>
> I don't even carry a balance and it wasn't exactly terribly difficult
> to find low rates, people are A. lazy and B.stupid
>
> 9% is a joke, anyone can get 9%, if you're paying 15-18%, man..
> thats just dumb
>
i don't carry a balance, so it doesn't matter.
although, i don't believe that 9% figure.
help me out here, john
eddie
>
>
>
Eddie Hill
> >i'm not talking salary. i'm talking capital. although, there's
absolutely
> >no way a CEO is worth a few million a year salary, while you're on the
> >subject.
>
> a good ceo is
bullshit.
> i couldnt do the job
> you couldnt do the job
> the janitor couldn't do the job
> 100 janitors couldn't do the job.
>
bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. tell me what it is they do that makes them
worth that much. explain to me why when they crash companies they still get
their golden parachute? i know of at least one vice president that probably
has trouble tying his shoes in the morning. the guy's a moron. the only
reason he's got his job is he used to be in the navy, so we need the
contact.
> >actually, he got away w/ breaking some laws. if that's smart, then so be
> >it...
>
> im not even going to go there, and btw this whole antitrust thing came
> up post win95, microsoft was a fucking huge company well before win95
>
>
> >why shouldn't power be passed on in the family? let's have kings again.
> >no. hereditary politcal power didn't work. hereditary economic power
> >doesn't work either.
>
> its just money eddie
> if people are easily corrupted or bought and sold,
> then blame them, not the money.
>
that's extremely stupid. if the system makes it easy for people to be
corrupt, or in this case damn near demands it, then the system is flawed.
change that, because you can't change people.
you could apply your argument to "if kings were just more moral people
everything would work out."
they weren't. it didn't.
>
> >the coal miner's daddy probably couldn't afford to send him to college.
>
> then the coal miner should have put himself through college, or
> -tried- to become an entrepreneur.
right. after working a 12 hour day he can just drive the two hours to a
college, go to school, then drive home.
no, wait, he can't.
> no see eddie, that would require risk,
there's no risk in going to college.
> and everday people aren't comfortable with risk. so they settle for
> the guarantee, being a coal miner. is that their own fault? yes.
all economic underemployment is the individuals fault now????
> is it my problem? no. people put themselves through college EVERYDAY,
> its not a big deal, it might not be harvard, but it'll get ya somewhere.
>
and if everyone went to college that degree would be worthless. but that's
not my point. there are some people that can't put themselve through
college. and there are some people that just shouldn't because they're not
smart enough.
> >oh really? just like the blacks' hatred of the slave owners was
jealousy?
> >and the peasants hatred of the aristocracy was jealousy? it's all clear
> >now. Ô
>
> you're comparing peoples free choice to either work for someone or work
> for themselves (either to put themselves through school or start their
> own business) to slavery? give me a break. everyone has a choice,
> some people take the easy way. thats their choice, and they can live
> with it.
>
poor people chose to be poor. i see. they must like it.
> >i hate people that have overinflated opinions of their importance. i
hate
> >people that let their greed convince them it's ok to buy that second
lexus
> >while their fellow man is starving. and then feel superior for it.
>
> and a lot of people hate people that think its ok to buy that fancy
computer
> while their fellow man is starving. you're no better than those you
criticize,
> you're just a notch lower because you don't have AS much money.. in the
> grand scheme of things, you make more money (which you 'waste' according
> to your definition of wasting) than what? 5.5 billion people? and your
> average lexus driver makes more money than what? 5.9 billion people?
>
> yeah, you're one to judge.
>
so, you lose the argument and resort to personal attacks? sounds about
right for you.
eddie
>
>
>
JohnG
news:6Red9.6523$6i4.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> if you've got the credit to do it. and i doubt they'll do it for 5-6%.
>
> john g?
>
You can shop around but NO bank will loan an individual even close to a
little above the prime rate(currently 4.75%) to someone with large debts on
a variety of credit cards.(this type of risky lending is what is putting
Conseco and Providian out of business) Even GE or Merck wouldn't get that
type of rate, actually.
However, Vin is right in that people can consolidate their debt with one
institution which would afford them a chance to cut their interest rates by
1/3 to a 1/2 versus what they pay on their credit cards(10-12% versus, as
Hill said, 18-24%) and, yes, it's because of stupidity that they don't do
so.
People being stupid and companies making money on that stupidity isn't a new
phenomenon, though. There's a credit card commercial on TV now where a guy
rhetorically asks who is making money on his interest payments and the
commercial cuts to a bunch of monkeys pouring champagne all over themselves.
Sad, but true.
Regards,
John
Eddie Hill
"aka chelsea corazon" <kare...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3D75D6BC...@mindspring.com...> > news:2Bed9.4429$YR2.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>
> > > your hatred for the wealthy is really just deep seeded jealousy and
envy
> > > and its more and more obvious everytime you go on these rants.
> > >
> >
jealousy?
> > and the peasants hatred of the aristocracy was jealousy? it's all clear
> > now.
>
>
having
actually i read marx a long time ago. it's just all starting to make more
and more sense lately. what brought this on, i think, is i read howard
zinn's "a people's history of the US" was that on the suggested reading
list in the newsletter? i should check.... it shoulda been if it's not. i
came across it in maryland while looking for something to read to keep me
entertained. anyhow, it's a history book that concentrates more of the
people instead of the states. it talkes about the bread riots in the
revolutionary war. congress' refusal to fund american troops in the mexican
war. the socialist movement in the early 1900s. etc, etc, etc. it gives a
very different story then the normal history book, which largely ignores the
masses. i read it and some things that didn't make sense to me before
started to click...
> a reading group, and everyone, who wants to, reads 'marx for dummies' at
their
> own pace and then pop in a discussion thread every now & then: i
> wouldn't suggest
> the original 'das kapital' because that's a heavy tome. the 'dummies'
> books are
> written in a simple enough style so that even the not-astronomically
> i.q.'d (like
> me) can grasp the principles.
fair enough. i think the communist manifesto is a good starting place too,
though. and your local library will have that one (maybe not the 'dummies'
book). it's pretty short, and it gives a good summation of socialism.
> i like the wealthy. i just don't like rich, inconsiderate, selfish
> people who eat up the earth and ruin it for every other lifeform.
>
which is what generally happens, i'm afraid.
again, the people themselves aren't bad. just the system.
>
> > i hate people that have overinflated opinions of their importance. i
hate
> > people that let their greed convince them it's ok to buy that second
lexus
> > while their fellow man is starving. and then feel superior for it.
>
> in addition, how about the population explosion of low-mileage, polluting
> suv's that's glutting american highways? i see range rovers parked on
> every corner (as i walk to the bus stop.) a couple of weeks ago, i saw
> a woman at the wheel of a humvee down in the little shopping community
> near the
> cafe where i sometimes work. she was double parked outside mcdonald's,
> waiting for her 2 kids.
> that's ridiculous. no one needs a humvee in an american urban/suburban
> community. what is that quote again: 'i don't question our existence
> i just question our modern needs'
>
i agree w/ you 100% on that one.
> it would be good if everyone (including me) were more responsible about
> fulfilling what they think are their needs, before letting the
> automatic spending reflex kick in. for instance, if someone can afford
> to buy a range rover, why not invest in one of the far less polluting
> gas/electric hybrid cars instead? or use some of their personal wealth
> to put effective solar panels in their home, thus cutting their power
> use immensely? i'm not at all wealthy, but then i have to stop and think
> that just by virtue of making a living wage in the u.s.a., i'm
automatically
> wealthier than a huge percentage of people throughout the world. it would
and, of course, you also live in one of the more expensive countries in the
world. but, you're right. you're better off then most people. but that
doesn't mean we don't deserve change. after we get rid of our elite we can
help other countries overthrow theirs.
french revolution part II
> be so nice to be able to be simply thankful, rather than burdened
> with the knowledge that somewhere others are being hurt so that we can
> live well. i've worked very hard in my life, but i have mixed feelings
> about comfort, wealth and privilege.
>
i'm a slack ass and i have mixed feelings about all that too... ;)
eddie
> chelsea
JohnG
These days, you could find something close to low double digits if you
worked(work being the operative word) to consolidate your loans only because
rates are at 40 year lows. However, a person who is a credit risk wouldn't
waltz into a bank and guarantee they would get below 10%. Even margin rates
on stock borrowings are still around 7-8% and that money being borrowed is
backed up by assets and equity.
9% is a type of rate a person who doesn't need a loan can get because he's
not in debt or a credit risk in the first place.(e.g. the money is available
to those who generally don't need it. Sucks, doesn't it?)
Later,
John
JohnG
> suv's that's glutting american highways?
The people who feel it's their god given right to own a gas guzzling SUV(and
then complain about the price of oil) when it's completely unnecessary is
something that turns my stomach every day!
The HumVee is another whole story and I can't believe people feel it's
appropriate to be driving around in a fucking tank.
Later,
John
JohnG
>
>
> bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. tell me what it is they do that makes them
> worth that much.
Good CEOs create jobs, companies, and wealth(e.g. Microsoft made over 10,000
employees millionaires) and give people a chance to have financial security,
a pension(or 401(k)), and medical insurance for life. Not that ditch
diggers don't have their place, but a guy digging a ditch isn't creating
jobs or wealth for anyone.
It's not slavery, it's life and everyone has a choice.
Certain CEOs are bad. Certain lawyers are bad. Certain stockbrokers are
bad. Certain teachers are bad. Certain cops are bad. Certain doormen are
bad. Certain athletes are bad. Certain waiters are bad. Certain systems
analysts are bad. Certain engineers are bad. Certain entertainers are bad.
It doesn't mean we stop living in our capitalist society because there are a
few bad eggs out there in all industries.
Later,
john
Eddie Hill
> >
> > "Vin" <bja...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:nGgd9.5012$YR2.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> > >
> > > I don't even carry a balance and it wasn't exactly terribly difficult
> > > to find low rates, people are A. lazy and B.stupid
> > >
> > > 9% is a joke, anyone can get 9%, if you're paying 15-18%, man..
> > > thats just dumb
> > >
> >
> > i don't carry a balance, so it doesn't matter.
> >
> > although, i don't believe that 9% figure.
> >
>
> These days, you could find something close to low double digits if you
> worked(work being the operative word) to consolidate your loans only
because
not on a credit card. i thought vin was referring to credit cards. after
rereading it i realize he wasn't.
> rates are at 40 year lows. However, a person who is a credit risk
wouldn't
> waltz into a bank and guarantee they would get below 10%. Even margin
rates
> on stock borrowings are still around 7-8% and that money being borrowed is
> backed up by assets and equity.
>
> 9% is a type of rate a person who doesn't need a loan can get because he's
> not in debt or a credit risk in the first place.(e.g. the money is
available
> to those who generally don't need it. Sucks, doesn't it?)
>
yup.
hell, when ford was offering those insanely low interest rates last fall i
had to take one at 11%. why? because i don't have any credit history. and
i didn't want my parents to cosign because i wanted to get my own credit
history. so i just paid the loan off insanely fast. didn't hurt too bad.
i'm waiting for a full year to be up, then i'll fork over the rest and be
the proud owner of a ford mustang. =)
what kills me are student loans. i was paying 7 to 9% on a government
sponsored loan. what's the prime at? down to 4 something? insane.
eddie
> Later,
>
> John
>
>
Eddie Hill
> >
> >
> > bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. tell me what it is they do that makes
them
> > worth that much.
>
> Good CEOs create jobs, companies, and wealth(e.g. Microsoft made over
10,000
> employees millionaires) and give people a chance to have financial
security,
> a pension(or 401(k)), and medical insurance for life. Not that ditch
> diggers don't have their place, but a guy digging a ditch isn't creating
> jobs or wealth for anyone.
>
CEOs don't create anything. inventors create things. artists create
things. workers create things. CEOs push things around the board.
and financial security? yea, that's exactly what CEOs are doing now...
worrying about their workers financial security. Ô they're worrying about
making themselves more money.
and bad CEOs cost jobs, companies, and wealth. and they still their their
nice little severance packages.
> It's not slavery, it's life and everyone has a choice.
>
what is your choice? work in the system or starve. nice choice.
> Certain CEOs are bad. Certain lawyers are bad. Certain stockbrokers are
> bad. Certain teachers are bad. Certain cops are bad. Certain doormen
are
> bad. Certain athletes are bad. Certain waiters are bad. Certain systems
> analysts are bad. Certain engineers are bad. Certain entertainers are
bad.
> It doesn't mean we stop living in our capitalist society because there are
a
> few bad eggs out there in all industries.
>
no. we change our capitalist society because it's inheriently flawed in
that it takes the work of money and concentrates the benefits in the hands
of the few. we don't change because of bad CEOs, which are just to be
expected at some point.
once again, the flaw's in the system, not the men. which part don't you
believe? that the system's flawed? or that we should care?
eddie
> Later,
>
> john
>
>
Laurie Hester
I have excellent credit, and 5 credit cards, with daily offers for
more. 3 of the cards carry no balance, 1 I use for everything, even
food, and pay off every month (my airline mileage card) and one carries
the balance of my car loan, and that one I keep moving from card to card
to take advantage of the introductory rates, anywhere from 0% to 5.9%.
Most of my cards until the last couple of years, had a normal rate of
19%, but lately, they have all been offers for 12%. I've had one offer
of 7.9% for the life of a balance transfer, but why would I pay even
that when I can get 1.9% on an introductory offer?
Never, ever, have I seen a card with a *normal* (not balance transfer)
rate of less than 12%.
Laurie
Laurie Hester
My loans (for my sons) have just gone down to 4.8 and 5.2...
Laurie
>
> > Later,
> >
> > John
> >
> >
Eddie Hill
>
>
> Eddie Hill wrote:
> >
> > hell, when ford was offering those insanely low interest rates last fall
i
> > had to take one at 11%. why? because i don't have any credit history.
and
> > i didn't want my parents to cosign because i wanted to get my own credit
> > history. so i just paid the loan off insanely fast. didn't hurt too
bad.
> > i'm waiting for a full year to be up, then i'll fork over the rest and
be
> > the proud owner of a ford mustang. =)
> >
> > what kills me are student loans. i was paying 7 to 9% on a government
> > sponsored loan. what's the prime at? down to 4 something? insane.
> >
> > eddie
>
> My loans (for my sons) have just gone down to 4.8 and 5.2...
>
mine just did too. this summer.
> Laurie
> >
> > > Later,
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
Vin
>worth that much. explain to me why when they crash companies they still get
>their golden parachute? i know of at least one vice president that probably
>has trouble tying his shoes in the morning. the guy's a moron. the only
>reason he's got his job is he used to be in the navy, so we need the
>contact.
Oh I don't agree with them making fortunes when companies go down the tubes
or they don't do their job, I said GOOD ceos are hard to find but well
worth their pay. and theres a big difference between a ceo and some vice
president. boeing probably has about 500 different vice presidents.
>that's extremely stupid. if the system makes it easy for people to be
>corrupt, or in this case damn near demands it, then the system is flawed.
>change that, because you can't change people.
so lets get rid of guns, obviously having them legal is a flaw because
tens of thousands of people are being murdered in the streets every
year because of them. its not the guns that are flawed, its the people,
its not the guns that kill, its the people, but since we cant change
the people, we must get rid of the guns. right?
>you could apply your argument to "if kings were just more moral people
>everything would work out."
>they weren't. it didn't.
right and the PEOPLE chose to change the system, see, you're one of a
very small minority of people who thinks the current system is
severlely flawed and unfair and tantamount to slavery. You make your own life,
its that simple, thats the best part about living in north america, most people
are thankful for that.
>right. after working a 12 hour day he can just drive the two hours to a
>college, go to school, then drive home.
>no, wait, he can't.
?????? why woiuld he have to work a 12 hour day? and drive 2 hours?
move to the college town, hook up w/ some roomates for dirt cheap rent,
student loans, etc..
>all economic underemployment is the individuals fault now????
absolutely
>and if everyone went to college that degree would be worthless. but that's
>not my point. there are some people that can't put themselve through
>college. and there are some people that just shouldn't because they're not
>smart enough.
then too bad for them
>poor people chose to be poor. i see. they must like it.
yes eddie, they do. they are poor because of their actions,
their actions are their choices
>so, you lose the argument and resort to personal attacks? sounds about
>right for you.
so you skip the most important point of the post? sounds about right
for you. it wasnt a personal attack, it was me showing you how
you're really no better than the people you criticize, for the ssame reasons.
Eddie Hill
> >bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. tell me what it is they do that makes them
> >worth that much. explain to me why when they crash companies they still
get
> >their golden parachute? i know of at least one vice president that
probably
> >has trouble tying his shoes in the morning. the guy's a moron. the only
> >reason he's got his job is he used to be in the navy, so we need the
> >contact.
>
> Oh I don't agree with them making fortunes when companies go down the
tubes
> or they don't do their job, I said GOOD ceos are hard to find but well
> worth their pay. and theres a big difference between a ceo and some vice
> president. boeing probably has about 500 different vice presidents.
>
uh... more like 20 or 30 i'd say. this guy's one of the big ones on the top
level org chart. i've met our CEO too. didn't seem too bright to tell you
the truth...
>
> >that's extremely stupid. if the system makes it easy for people to be
> >corrupt, or in this case damn near demands it, then the system is flawed.
> >change that, because you can't change people.
>
> so lets get rid of guns, obviously having them legal is a flaw because
> tens of thousands of people are being murdered in the streets every
> year because of them. its not the guns that are flawed, its the people,
> its not the guns that kill, its the people, but since we cant change
> the people, we must get rid of the guns. right?
>
i'm all for licensing and registration. all for it.
this isn't a good analogy, by the way.
> >you could apply your argument to "if kings were just more moral people
> >everything would work out."
> >they weren't. it didn't.
>
> right and the PEOPLE chose to change the system, see, you're one of a
> very small minority of people who thinks the current system is
> severlely flawed and unfair
really? i can point you towad some polls that say 70% of the population
isn't happy w/ the government and/or business. roughly half of the country
is so disenfranchised that they don't even bother to vote anymore. i'd say
i'm not in the minority here, you are.
> and tantamount to slavery. You make your own life,
> its that simple, thats the best part about living in north america, most
people
> are thankful for that.
>
whoever told you that is your enemy. you're not free.
>
> >right. after working a 12 hour day he can just drive the two hours to a
> >college, go to school, then drive home.
> >no, wait, he can't.
>
> ?????? why woiuld he have to work a 12 hour day? and drive 2 hours?
> move to the college town, hook up w/ some roomates for dirt cheap rent,
> student loans, etc..
>
1. not everyone can get student loans
2. he's still got to work.
3. what about people that can't go to college?
> >all economic underemployment is the individuals fault now????
>
> absolutely
>
at which point i've decided it's pointless to debate this w/ you because
you're obviously clueless. maybe in a few years you'll grow up a little.
> >and if everyone went to college that degree would be worthless. but
that's
> >not my point. there are some people that can't put themselve through
> >college. and there are some people that just shouldn't because they're
not
> >smart enough.
>
> then too bad for them
>
>
> >poor people chose to be poor. i see. they must like it.
>
> yes eddie, they do. they are poor because of their actions,
> their actions are their choices
>
no one's poor because they're born into it? you're either blind or dumb.
or both.
> >so, you lose the argument and resort to personal attacks? sounds about
> >right for you.
>
> so you skip the most important point of the post? sounds about right
what did i skip?
> for you. it wasnt a personal attack, it was me showing you how
> you're really no better than the people you criticize, for the ssame
reasons.
>
how's that? i'm calling for change. i'm not in the 1% of the country
hoarding 40% of the wealth am i? know. i'm just another guy trying to make
ends meet. (actually, my ends meet pretty well. i'm just getting out of
debt)
eddie
>
JohnG
>
> what is your choice? work in the system or starve. nice choice.
>
Would you prefer to be living in another country with a better system? Is
so, why aren't you there and why are you choosing to allow yourself to be
stuck in 'the system' here?
Hill, you're being a little twisted about this subject so I'm not going to
comment on each individual point but don't forget one thing: You continue
to rip our capitalist structure and state it's flawed when MILLIONS of
people emigrate to the United States from ALL OVER THE WORLD every year
solely because of the opportunities our system offers them versus what they
have from where they are coming from.
And unless I'm missing something, I still don't see a mass of Americans
clamoring to run off to Cuba or Haiti. Do you?
Later,
John
Vin
>level org chart. i've met our CEO too. didn't seem too bright to tell you
>the truth...
There are bad ceos and good ones. The good ones deserve the millions, the
bad ones deserve considerably less, the criminal ones deserve jailtime.
>> so lets get rid of guns, obviously having them legal is a flaw because
>> tens of thousands of people are being murdered in the streets every
>> year because of them. its not the guns that are flawed, its the people,
>> its not the guns that kill, its the people, but since we cant change
>> the people, we must get rid of the guns. right?
>>
>
>i'm all for licensing and registration. all for it.
>this isn't a good analogy, by the way.
Yes it is, in one case you say change the system cos you can't change
the people, in the other you still can't change the people but you're
unwilling to radically change the system. Your completely irrational
when it comes to money.
>> right and the PEOPLE chose to change the system, see, you're one of a
>> very small minority of people who thinks the current system is
>> severlely flawed and unfair
>
>really? i can point you towad some polls that say 70% of the population
>isn't happy w/ the government and/or business. roughly half of the country
>is so disenfranchised that they don't even bother to vote anymore. i'd say
>i'm not in the minority here, you are.
And these polls suggest you move towards what? Just because people aren't
satisfied doesn't mean they want what you suggest. What is it you suggest
exactly? and find me a poll that asks if thats what people want.
Good luck.
I'm not happy with our current health care system in canada. What does
that tell you? Not very much. It doesn't mean I think we should abolish
the federal and prvincial health care system, it doesn't mean I think
we should privatise health care. But someone like you would probably
read it that way, because it's convenient for your argument. I just think
it needs more money. Show me your fucking polls
>> and tantamount to slavery. You make your own life,
>> its that simple, thats the best part about living in north america, most
>people
>> are thankful for that.
>>
>whoever told you that is your enemy. you're not free.
I am very free, find me a nation in this world where citizens enjoy
MUCH more freedom than Canadians/Americans.
>1. not everyone can get student loans
yes, everyone can, unless their parents are loaded.
for some its harder than others, but people give up to easily. = lazy
>2. he's still got to work.
he can work part time at nights or on weekends, plus 4 months off in
the summer. Everyone I know does it, can't be that fucking hard,
most only work in the summer, go treeplanting for 10 weeks and
they have enough money saved up for the year. It doesn't take much
money to live as a student. $30-40/week for food. Get some roomates
for dirt cheap rent. Hell work in the US in the summer and move to
Canada to study like tens of thousands of americans do every year
and you'll live like a king with the exchange rate. THERES NO EXCUSE.
People are just lazy and/or stupid.
>at which point i've decided it's pointless to debate this w/ you because
>you're obviously clueless. maybe in a few years you'll grow up a little.
Listen, if you want to live in buttfuck nowhere and complain that theres
no jobs, then I dont feel sorry for you. If you want to work, pack up
your bags. There's work everywhere, people just don't want to do it,
or don't want to relocate or don't want to be inconvenienced.
>> >poor people chose to be poor. i see. they must like it.
>> yes eddie, they do. they are poor because of their actions,
>> their actions are their choices
>no one's poor because they're born into it? you're either blind or dumb.
>or both.
Eddie. Do you have any idea how many people I lived with in college
residence that came to montreal with zero dollars and a suitcase?
They got loans, they worked shit jobs, they worked hard and now they're
fine. So you grow up in poverty? What difference does that make?
Most kids don't rely on mommy and daddy here to pay for school,
so they walk in with as much as the kid who grew up poor.
When you turn 17, its time to stop blaming your parents and time
to start making your own life.
>what did i skip?
>how's that? i'm calling for change. i'm not in the 1% of the country
>hoarding 40% of the wealth am i? know. i'm just another guy trying to make
>ends meet. (actually, my ends meet pretty well. i'm just getting out of
>debt)
no eddie but you're in the 10% of the world that makes 90% of the wealth.
isn't that unfair? you want change, why don't you start with yourself
if you're so concerned with the inequities of this world.
Eddie Hill
> "Eddie Hill" <eddieg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:H1x3J...@news.boeing.com...
>
> >
> > what is your choice? work in the system or starve. nice choice.
> >
>
> Would you prefer to be living in another country with a better system? Is
> so, why aren't you there and why are you choosing to allow yourself to be
> stuck in 'the system' here?
>
i'd prefer living in my country, but fixing the system. you're not going to
resort to the 'love it or leave it' argument, are you?
> Hill, you're being a little twisted about this subject so I'm not going to
> comment on each individual point but don't forget one thing: You continue
> to rip our capitalist structure and state it's flawed when MILLIONS of
> people emigrate to the United States from ALL OVER THE WORLD every year
> solely because of the opportunities our system offers them versus what
they
> have from where they are coming from.
>
> And unless I'm missing something, I still don't see a mass of Americans
> clamoring to run off to Cuba or Haiti. Do you?
immigration from western europe has all but stopped. while emigration to
western europe has not.
in the last hundred years 37.8 million people have come to the US and 11.8
million people have left.
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/aboutins/statistics/300.htm
and a list of destination countries is here:
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/aboutins/statistics/Est99.pdf
a lot of people go to mexico for whatever reason, but the next few countries
are modern socialist nations.
so, if america's so perfect, why would anyone leave?
but, that was never my point. my point was that the system could use
improvement. and i don't see you making a very convincing argument that i'm
not right about that.
cheers,
eddie
>
> Later,
>
> John
>
>
Eddie Hill
> >uh... more like 20 or 30 i'd say. this guy's one of the big ones on the
top
> >level org chart. i've met our CEO too. didn't seem too bright to tell
you
> >the truth...
>
> bad ones deserve considerably less, the criminal ones deserve jailtime.
>
i agree, except i don't think anyone deserves millionS. maybe the CEO of GE
or something deserves a few million, but not the hundreds of millions these
guys get. look at what W made to run all those oil companies into the
ground.
> >
> >i'm all for licensing and registration. all for it.
> >this isn't a good analogy, by the way.
>
> Yes it is, in one case you say change the system cos you can't change
> the people, in the other you still can't change the people but you're
> unwilling to radically change the system. Your completely irrational
> when it comes to money.
where did i say changed people? i've never said change people. when it
comes to economics i clearly want a system change. when it comes to gun
control i want a system change. i want more regulation on guns. that's the
system, vin. i'm being very consistent here.
> >
> >really? i can point you towad some polls that say 70% of the population
> >isn't happy w/ the government and/or business. roughly half of the
country
> >is so disenfranchised that they don't even bother to vote anymore. i'd
say
> >i'm not in the minority here, you are.
>
> And these polls suggest you move towards what? Just because people aren't
> satisfied doesn't mean they want what you suggest. What is it you suggest
> exactly? and find me a poll that asks if thats what people want.
> Good luck.
i can't find you polls that go into the broad scope of what i'm saying. but
i can find you polls that say people want national health care. or that
CEOs make too much money. or that defense spending should be cut. or that
it's the government's responsibility to take care of people who can't help
themselves. would those make you happy? which ones?
>
> I'm not happy with our current health care system in canada. What does
> that tell you? Not very much. It doesn't mean I think we should abolish
> the federal and prvincial health care system, it doesn't mean I think
> we should privatise health care. But someone like you would probably
> read it that way, because it's convenient for your argument. I just think
> it needs more money. Show me your fucking polls
>
no. because you're one person. you show me that most canadians aren't
happy w/ the system and i'll agree it needs to be changed. maybe not how,
but that's one poll. i'm citing several different topics. you can
interpret them to get the big picture.
> >>
> >whoever told you that is your enemy. you're not free.
>
> I am very free, find me a nation in this world where citizens enjoy
> MUCH more freedom than Canadians/Americans.
>
i didn't say anyone else was free either. just because you're closer to
free then palestinians or whatever doesn't make you free.
>
> >1. not everyone can get student loans
>
> yes, everyone can, unless their parents are loaded.
> for some its harder than others, but people give up to easily. = lazy
>
we've been over this topic. canada is different then the states. not
everyone can get the subsidized federal moneys. maybe you can put the thing
on your credit card at 20% interest.... but that's no good either.
> >2. he's still got to work.
>
> he can work part time at nights or on weekends, plus 4 months off in
> the summer. Everyone I know does it, can't be that fucking hard,
> most only work in the summer, go treeplanting for 10 weeks and
> they have enough money saved up for the year. It doesn't take much
> money to live as a student. $30-40/week for food. Get some roomates
> for dirt cheap rent. Hell work in the US in the summer and move to
> Canada to study like tens of thousands of americans do every year
> and you'll live like a king with the exchange rate. THERES NO EXCUSE.
> People are just lazy and/or stupid.
right. all poor people are lazy. we're back to you're either stupid or
blind.
1. if you go from the US and canada don't you have to pay out of country
tuition? isn't that extremely expensive?
2. did you put yourself through college by working? i doubt it. so you
don't know how hard it is.
>
> >at which point i've decided it's pointless to debate this w/ you because
> >you're obviously clueless. maybe in a few years you'll grow up a little.
>
> Listen, if you want to live in buttfuck nowhere and complain that theres
> no jobs, then I dont feel sorry for you. If you want to work, pack up
> your bags. There's work everywhere, people just don't want to do it,
> or don't want to relocate or don't want to be inconvenienced.
>
right. that's why there's unemployment? people don't want to work?
bullshit. for every job opening here there are hundreds of applications.
that comes straight from the guy that interviews people. granted this isn't
your average job. i read and article for a hotel in NY saying that they
posted 20 openings and had 1,000 people apply.
so i call BS to your little theory. there aren't jobs everywhere.
especially unskilled jobs. and you can't live on min. wage.
>
> Eddie. Do you have any idea how many people I lived with in college
> residence that came to montreal with zero dollars and a suitcase?
canada is not the US
> They got loans, they worked shit jobs, they worked hard and now they're
> fine. So you grow up in poverty? What difference does that make?
you're saying none, i guess. but you're wrong. why else are the majority
of people that are in poverty from families that were impoverished? a
variety of reasons. health and nutritional (if you're sick and malnourished
all the time your brain doesn't develop as well and you have trouble
learning/thinking), lack of educational opportunities (go to an inner city
school for 13 years and see if you're able to compete w/ kids from the
private schools out in the 'burbs), predjudices (that white guilt guy's
gonna read this and go off on me.. .but they are there.. they can be
overcome, but combined w/ all this other stuff it makes it harder. and most
impoverished people aren't white).
> Most kids don't rely on mommy and daddy here to pay for school,
> so they walk in with as much as the kid who grew up poor.
>
> When you turn 17, its time to stop blaming your parents and time
> to start making your own life.
>
>
> >what did i skip?
> >how's that? i'm calling for change. i'm not in the 1% of the country
> >hoarding 40% of the wealth am i? know. i'm just another guy trying to
make
> >ends meet. (actually, my ends meet pretty well. i'm just getting out of
> >debt)
>
> no eddie but you're in the 10% of the world that makes 90% of the wealth.
> isn't that unfair?
probably.
>you want change, why don't you start with yourself
> if you're so concerned with the inequities of this world.
>
let's look at those numbers. if the top 10% of the US has 80% of our wealth
that's 72% of the world's wealth. (.9*.8=.72) that means the rest of the
US (the other 90%) controls 18% of the world's weatlth. that means 9% of
the world is controlling 18% of the wealth. that's unfair, of course, but
no where near as bad as the guys at the top. take care of the worst
offenders first, then we'll worry about the middle class.
keeping it real through math,
eddie
>
>
Laurie Hester
They have the same system there as we do here. The few on the top of
the hierarchy own all the wealth and live off the slave labor. The
reason they come here is because the slave labor pays a little better
than at home. But they are not leaving a free system to come here; it's
the same system. It's the system Eddie and I don't like. There's no
where on Earth where you don't have to work for your food *and* the toys
of those on the top.
Laurie
>
> Later,
>
> John
vin
>comes to economics i clearly want a system change. when it comes to gun
>control i want a system change. i want more regulation on guns. that's the
>system, vin. i'm being very consistent here.
you're right i used the wrong words.
>i can't find you polls that go into the broad scope of what i'm saying. but
>i can find you polls that say people want national health care. or that
>CEOs make too much money. or that defense spending should be cut. or that
>it's the government's responsibility to take care of people who can't help
>themselves. would those make you happy? which ones?
all completely irrelevant, your argument is against capitalism,
and the vast divide between the uber wealthy and the rest of the world.
>no. because you're one person. you show me that most canadians aren't
>happy w/ the system and i'll agree it needs to be changed. maybe not how,
>but that's one poll. i'm citing several different topics. you can
>interpret them to get the big picture.
right, and my point is you can probably find me a million polls that
show that people are unhappy with a given situation and want change.
but none of those polls show how many people favor what forms of change.
i might not like my car but does that mean im ready to give it up and
walk to work? nope.
>i didn't say anyone else was free either. just because you're closer to
>free then palestinians or whatever doesn't make you free.
the fact that you have it better here than in any other country in the
world should show you that whatever your complaints are about the system
you're in, they're not very important considering that you have it better
than everyone else. you're like the guy who drives a porsche complaining
that he doesn't have a ferrari, meanwhile everyone else drives bicycle.
sorry bud, but your problems don't register very high.
>we've been over this topic. canada is different then the states. not
>everyone can get the subsidized federal moneys. maybe you can put the thing
>on your credit card at 20% interest.... but that's no good either.
so come to canada, a lot of people do, smart people, they come, they study
cheap, they go back.
>right. all poor people are lazy. we're back to you're either stupid or
>blind.
no they're either lazy or stupid.
>1. if you go from the US and canada don't you have to pay out of country
>tuition? isn't that extremely expensive?
for the harvard of canada, mcgill its about $4000.00 US a year
last i checked. for many other universities it's as low $1500.00 a year.
I'm sure there are cheap schools in the US.
>2. did you put yourself through college by working? i doubt it. so you
>don't know how hard it is.
My parents refused. So they paid my rent money. But then I worked during the
summer and saved up my money and the day I graduated I paid them back every
penny they gave me for rent, which they refused to take and eventually
put it in savings bonds under my name. So technically no I didn't, but
I did do the work. It wasn't a big deal.
>right. that's why there's unemployment? people don't want to work?
Yes I can see those laid off employees from silicon valley wanting to work.
They want to work and earn 50-100k per work doing the work they studied for.
Do they want to work in a factory? Tree plant? Do sales? Drive a cab?
Risk their savings on a new business idea? nope.
thats one reason why there's unemployment, people are fucking picky.
>> Eddie. Do you have any idea how many people I lived with in college
>> residence that came to montreal with zero dollars and a suitcase?
>
>canada is not the US
Move.
>you're saying none,
no only the lazy and stupid
>i guess. but you're wrong. why else are the majority
>of people that are in poverty from families that were impoverished? a
>variety of reasons. health and nutritional (if you're sick and malnourished
>all the time your brain doesn't develop as well and you have trouble
>learning/thinking),
>lack of educational opportunities (go to an inner city
>school for 13 years and see if you're able to compete w/ kids from the
>private schools out in the 'burbs), predjudices (that white guilt guy's
>gonna read this and go off on me.. .but they are there.. they can be
>overcome, but combined w/ all this other stuff it makes it harder. and most
>impoverished people aren't white).
therefore the stupid, like I've been saying all along. It's not their
fault they're stupid, I understand. But thanks for agreeing
>> no eddie but you're in the 10% of the world that makes 90% of the wealth.
>> isn't that unfair?
>probably.
>>you want change, why don't you start with yourself
>> if you're so concerned with the inequities of this world.
>let's look at those numbers. if the top 10% of the US has 80% of our wealth
>that's 72% of the world's wealth. (.9*.8=.72) that means the rest of the
>US (the other 90%) controls 18% of the world's weatlth. that means 9% of
>the world is controlling 18% of the wealth. that's unfair, of course, but
>no where near as bad as the guys at the top. take care of the worst
>offenders first, then we'll worry about the middle class.
No, point the finger at yourself before you point the finger at others.
When you're willing to make changes in your life and lead a less 'american'
lifestyle, then you can demand concessions from others. Until then you're just
a jealous hypocrite.
>
vin
>the hierarchy own all the wealth and live off the slave labor. The
>reason they come here is because the slave labor pays a little better
>than at home. But they are not leaving a free system to come here; it's
>the same system. It's the system Eddie and I don't like. There's no
>where on Earth where you don't have to work for your food *and* the toys
>of those on the top.
yeah uh maybe you don;t know this but here, anyone can be a bill
gates or warren buffet, in cuba, not anyone can be a fidel castro.
Eddie Hill
"vin" <vin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uMvd9.7179$7x5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >where did i say changed people? i've never said change people. when it
> >comes to economics i clearly want a system change. when it comes to gun
> >control i want a system change. i want more regulation on guns. that's
the
> >system, vin. i'm being very consistent here.
>
> you're right i used the wrong words.
>
>
> >i can't find you polls that go into the broad scope of what i'm saying.
but
> >i can find you polls that say people want national health care. or that
> >CEOs make too much money. or that defense spending should be cut. or
that
> >it's the government's responsibility to take care of people who can't
help
> >themselves. would those make you happy? which ones?
>
> all completely irrelevant, your argument is against capitalism,
> and the vast divide between the uber wealthy and the rest of the world.
>
so you want the CEOs make too much money bit? is that the one you want?
those'll be easy as hell to find.
and the rest of those topics are all symptoms of our system.
>
> >no. because you're one person. you show me that most canadians aren't
> >happy w/ the system and i'll agree it needs to be changed. maybe not
how,
> >but that's one poll. i'm citing several different topics. you can
> >interpret them to get the big picture.
>
> right, and my point is you can probably find me a million polls that
> show that people are unhappy with a given situation and want change.
> but none of those polls show how many people favor what forms of change.
>
either you give more money to the people on top or less. i think it'd be
obvious what they want.
> i might not like my car but does that mean im ready to give it up and
> walk to work? nope.
>
> >i didn't say anyone else was free either. just because you're closer to
> >free then palestinians or whatever doesn't make you free.
>
> the fact that you have it better here than in any other country in the
> world should show you that whatever your complaints are about the system
> you're in, they're not very important considering that you have it better
> than everyone else. you're like the guy who drives a porsche complaining
> that he doesn't have a ferrari, meanwhile everyone else drives bicycle.
>
that's one of the dumbest things you've said. by your logic if i cut off
your hand you should be happy because at least i didn't cut off your head.
truely idiotic.
> sorry bud, but your problems don't register very high.
>
they're not *MY* problems. they're everyone's problems.
>
> >we've been over this topic. canada is different then the states. not
> >everyone can get the subsidized federal moneys. maybe you can put the
thing
> >on your credit card at 20% interest.... but that's no good either.
>
> so come to canada, a lot of people do, smart people, they come, they study
> cheap, they go back.
>
answered below.
> >right. all poor people are lazy. we're back to you're either stupid or
> >blind.
>
> no they're either lazy or stupid.
>
i'm not arguing that anymore. i think it's safe to say i can't convince
you, because you're illogical. and you've lost credibility w/ anyone else
reading this debate. (except maybe some neo-fascist)
>
> >1. if you go from the US and canada don't you have to pay out of country
> >tuition? isn't that extremely expensive?
>
> for the harvard of canada, mcgill its about $4000.00 US a year
> last i checked. for many other universities it's as low $1500.00 a year.
> I'm sure there are cheap schools in the US.
>
and that's the rate for americans going to canada? 1500/year in the states
will get you into a community college. maybe.
> >2. did you put yourself through college by working? i doubt it. so you
> >don't know how hard it is.
>
> My parents refused. So they paid my rent money. But then I worked during
the
> summer and saved up my money and the day I graduated I paid them back
every
> penny they gave me for rent, which they refused to take and eventually
> put it in savings bonds under my name. So technically no I didn't, but
> I did do the work. It wasn't a big deal.
>
i'm frankly stunned that you made it through college w/ your reasoning
abilities. what'd you major in?
> >right. that's why there's unemployment? people don't want to work?
>
> Yes I can see those laid off employees from silicon valley wanting to
work.
> They want to work and earn 50-100k per work doing the work they studied
for.
> Do they want to work in a factory? Tree plant? Do sales? Drive a cab?
> Risk their savings on a new business idea? nope.
>
> thats one reason why there's unemployment, people are fucking picky.
>
you ignored the rest of that post about how all of these job openings are
getting TONS more applications then they can hire. i just want to point
that out. i don't expect you to have anything to add to it, i just wanted
to point that out.
and, we keep unemployment relatively high to keep inflation down. if
unemployment were low the going rate for labor would go up, and then prices
would go up, etc. the people who've invested in bonds and fixed bank loans,
etc wouldn't be happy. those are the people in charge. so inflation stays
low.
> >> Eddie. Do you have any idea how many people I lived with in college
> >> residence that came to montreal with zero dollars and a suitcase?
> >
> >canada is not the US
>
> Move.
>
why? i don't need to go to college.
plus, i don't think canada's going to give a subsidized education to
americans. and if you're any indication of the educational system up there,
well...
>
> >you're saying none,
>
> no only the lazy and stupid
>
right. all poor people are lazy and stupid, i forgot. Ô
i can rattle off 10 'poor' people off the top of my head that are 10x as
smart as you and work 100x as hard as you each and every day.
> >i guess. but you're wrong. why else are the majority
> >of people that are in poverty from families that were impoverished? a
> >variety of reasons. health and nutritional (if you're sick and
malnourished
> >all the time your brain doesn't develop as well and you have trouble
> >learning/thinking),
> >lack of educational opportunities (go to an inner city
> >school for 13 years and see if you're able to compete w/ kids from the
> >private schools out in the 'burbs), predjudices (that white guilt guy's
> >gonna read this and go off on me.. .but they are there.. they can be
> >overcome, but combined w/ all this other stuff it makes it harder. and
most
> >impoverished people aren't white).
>
> therefore the stupid, like I've been saying all along. It's not their
> fault they're stupid, I understand. But thanks for agreeing
>
first, stupid is not ignorant. second, what i said doesn't equate to stupid
(aside from point number 1 which is TOTALLY intolerable that we allow it to
continue in the richest country on earth). third, so you've now advocating
or condoning an underclass? nice.
>
> >> no eddie but you're in the 10% of the world that makes 90% of the
wealth.
> >> isn't that unfair?
> >probably.
> >>you want change, why don't you start with yourself
> >> if you're so concerned with the inequities of this world.
> >let's look at those numbers. if the top 10% of the US has 80% of our
wealth
> >that's 72% of the world's wealth. (.9*.8=.72) that means the rest of
the
> >US (the other 90%) controls 18% of the world's weatlth. that means 9% of
> >the world is controlling 18% of the wealth. that's unfair, of course,
but
> >no where near as bad as the guys at the top. take care of the worst
> >offenders first, then we'll worry about the middle class.
>
> No, point the finger at yourself before you point the finger at others.
> When you're willing to make changes in your life and lead a less
'american'
> lifestyle, then you can demand concessions from others. Until then you're
just
> a jealous hypocrite.
>
how am i a jealous hypocrite? since you're absolutely intent on making this
argument about me. (i'm not surprised. when it comes to the overall
social/political argument you've been soundly thumped again and again, so
it's time to change the argument to how i'm a hypocrite) what do i do that
makes me a hypocrite? do i pay people less money for their work then it's
worth? do i participate in activities to channel the labor of the majority
of americans into the hands of the few? (aside from not breaking the law to
avoid that, like not-paying taxes, i mean). go ahead and spell this out for
me.
Eddie Hill
utter bullshit.
just like anyone can be a eddie vedder or a picasso, huh?
bullshit. it's luck the draw.
>, in cuba, not anyone can be a fidel castro.
>
we're talking about america (and canada too), not cuba. follow along.
eddie
>
vin
>> gates or warren buffet
>
>utter bullshit.
>just like anyone can be a eddie vedder or a picasso, huh?
>bullshit. it's luck the draw.
everyone has the potential to be aything they want in america,
i don't care what you think, not everyone has the potential
to be heir to fidel castro.
>>, in cuba, not anyone can be a fidel castro.
>>
>
>we're talking about america (and canada too), not cuba. follow along.
no the comparison was between the US and haiti/cuba
Chaim
>From: wes4...@aol.com (Wes4dedi)
>Date: Wed, Sep 4, 2002 10:09 PM
>Message-id: <20020905020906...@mb-mn.aol.com>
>
>Maybe the Russian mafia will pay for Bin Laden and the american idol to
>sing a
>duet and go into space and not return.
Nah... that;s too godly a mission for "Atheist" russians to undertake, don't
you aghree :)
Or since the breakup of the Soviet Union, have they become a likeable Christian
nation again?
-Chaim
Wes4dedi
aka chelsea corazon
Eddie Hill wrote:
>
> what brought this on, i think, is i read howard
> zinn's "a people's history of the US" was that on the suggested reading
> list in the newsletter? i should check.... it shoulda been if it's not. i
> came across it in maryland while looking for something to read to keep me
> entertained. anyhow, it's a history book that concentrates more of the
> people instead of the states. it talkes about the bread riots in the
> revolutionary war. congress' refusal to fund american troops in the mexican
> war. the socialist movement in the early 1900s. etc, etc, etc. it gives a
> very different story then the normal history book, which largely ignores the
> masses. i read it and some things that didn't make sense to me before
> started to click...
i have no idea if it's on 'the reading list' since i'm not a member.
and that inside info is apparently kept top secret. however, thanks
for the suggestion,
noted, i'll look around the local bookstores for it.
> and, of course, you also live in one of the more expensive countries in the
> world. but, you're right. you're better off then most people. but that
> doesn't mean we don't deserve change. after we get rid of our elite we can
> help other countries overthrow theirs.
>
> french revolution part II
well i definitely don't want to be responsible for cutting off anyone's head.
--or any other body part. i prefer to be a member of 'the quiet revolution.'
hey, maybe that would be 'revolution #10.' hooky, no?
chelsea
SiR.B
>>i'm not talking salary. i'm talking capital. although, there's absolutely
>>no way a CEO is worth a few million a year salary, while you're on the
>>subject.
>
>a good ceo is
>i couldnt do the job
I may be wrong, Vin, but aren't you a CEO? Or do you mean you're just
not a good one?
Justin.
SiR.B
>i'm not arguing that anymore. i think it's safe to say i can't convince
>you, because you're illogical. and you've lost credibility w/ anyone else
>reading this debate. (except maybe some neo-fascist)
That assumes that he had credibility to begin with, which I believe is
an incorrect assumption.
>> My parents refused. So they paid my rent money. But then I worked during
>the
>> summer and saved up my money and the day I graduated I paid them back
>every
>> penny they gave me for rent, which they refused to take and eventually
>> put it in savings bonds under my name. So technically no I didn't, but
>> I did do the work. It wasn't a big deal.
>
>i'm frankly stunned that you made it through college w/ your reasoning
>abilities. what'd you major in?
Mummy's boy got a free ride through college, his rent paid for him,
and expects other people to travel across the country with $0 and a
suitcase (walk? hitchhike?) or *gulp*, to another country so as to
compete successfully in the system.
Is delusional appropriate?
Justin.
Ji-nay
Chelsea, honestly, what's with this "elitist" stuff you keep throwing
around? The list is not top secret, all you have to do is ask or check
Google. It took me all of about 15 seconds to find this post, courtesy
of Jett -
http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=g:thl2390522153d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8
&oe=UTF-8&selm=facjjug085hv9vv7fuou83pd7n2nocd687%404ax.com
-Jennifer
Ji-nay
> >
> > yes, everyone can, unless their parents are loaded.
> > for some its harder than others, but people give up to easily. =
lazy
> >
>
> we've been over this topic. canada is different then the states. not
> everyone can get the subsidized federal moneys. maybe you can put the
thing
> on your credit card at 20% interest.... but that's no good either.
Vin and I went through this a few months ago. Student loans in Canada
are not as easy to get as he seems to think they are. Not now, anyway.
-Jennifer
Eddie Hill
bounced for vinny
"Eddie Hill" <eddi...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:Yjwd9.7980$6i4.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "vin" <vin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >we've been over this topic. canada is different then the states. not
> > >everyone can get the subsidized federal moneys. maybe you can put the
> thing
> > >on your credit card at 20% interest.... but that's no good either.
> >
> > so come to canada, a lot of people do, smart people, they come, they
study
> > cheap, they go back.
> >
>
> answered below.
>
> > >right. all poor people are lazy. we're back to you're either stupid
or
> > >blind.
> >
> > no they're either lazy or stupid.
> >
>
> i'm not arguing that anymore. i think it's safe to say i can't convince
> you, because you're illogical. and you've lost credibility w/ anyone else
> reading this debate. (except maybe some neo-fascist)
>
> >
> > >1. if you go from the US and canada don't you have to pay out of
country
> > >tuition? isn't that extremely expensive?
> >
> > for the harvard of canada, mcgill its about $4000.00 US a year
> > last i checked. for many other universities it's as low $1500.00 a year.
> > I'm sure there are cheap schools in the US.
> >
>
> and that's the rate for americans going to canada? 1500/year in the state
s
> will get you into a community college. maybe.
>
> > >2. did you put yourself through college by working? i doubt it. so
you
> > >don't know how hard it is.
> >
> > My parents refused. So they paid my rent money. But then I worked during
> the
> > summer and saved up my money and the day I graduated I paid them back
> every
> > penny they gave me for rent, which they refused to take and eventually
> > put it in savings bonds under my name. So technically no I didn't, but
> > I did do the work. It wasn't a big deal.
> >
>
> i'm frankly stunned that you made it through college w/ your reasoning
> abilities. what'd you major in?
>
Eddie Hill
"SiR.B" <Si...@gimme.a.kiss> wrote in message
news:3d771996...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Eddie Hill blessed us with their presence, adding:
> >you, because you're illogical. and you've lost credibility w/ anyone
else
> >reading this debate. (except maybe some neo-fascist)
>
> an incorrect assumption.
>
LOL. you're probably right. but sometimes he makes sense, so i generally
give him the benefit of the doubt.
> >
> >i'm frankly stunned that you made it through college w/ your reasoning
> >abilities. what'd you major in?
>
> Mummy's boy got a free ride through college, his rent paid for him,
> and expects other people to travel across the country with $0 and a
> suitcase (walk? hitchhike?) or *gulp*, to another country so as to
> compete successfully in the system.
>
> Is delusional appropriate?
>
plenty of folks on the right wing think the same nonsense. sad, ain't it?
eddie
> Justin.
Eddie Hill
"Ji-nay" <igotfoots...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jrHd9.264880$Ag2.13...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
i remember that now.
thanks for the reminder.
vin: BOOM!
eddie
> -Jennifer
>
>
Eddie Hill
> >
> > what brought this on, i think, is i read howard
> > zinn's "a people's history of the US" was that on the suggested
reading
> > list in the newsletter? i should check.... it shoulda been if it's not.
i
> > came across it in maryland while looking for something to read to keep
me
> > entertained. anyhow, it's a history book that concentrates more of the
> > people instead of the states. it talkes about the bread riots in the
> > revolutionary war. congress' refusal to fund american troops in the
mexican
> > war. the socialist movement in the early 1900s. etc, etc, etc. it
gives a
> > very different story then the normal history book, which largely ignores
the
> > masses. i read it and some things that didn't make sense to me before
> > started to click...
>
>
> i have no idea if it's on 'the reading list' since i'm not a member.
> and that inside info is apparently kept top secret. however, thanks
> for the suggestion,
> noted, i'll look around the local bookstores for it.
you want my copy? i'm done w/ it. i'll send it to you if you promise to
give it to someone else when you're done.
i checked my newletter and it is, in fact, on the reading list.
interestingly enough. i came across it at a borders looking for something
else... i wonder if my subconscious remembered the list or not. oh well,
who cares, it was a good read.
>
> > and, of course, you also live in one of the more expensive countries in
the
> > world. but, you're right. you're better off then most people. but
that
> > doesn't mean we don't deserve change. after we get rid of our elite we
can
> > help other countries overthrow theirs.
> >
> > french revolution part II
>
> well i definitely don't want to be responsible for cutting off anyone's
head.
> --or any other body part. i prefer to be a member of 'the quiet
revolution.'
>
i've got no problem w/ violence against people who are hurting other people.
> hey, maybe that would be 'revolution #10.' hooky, no?
>
".....number 10, number 10, number 10..*sound of laughter*... take this
brother, may it serve you well. *horns*... *sound of paper being crumpled*
... number 10, number 10...."
might work.
eddie
> chelsea
Vin
>> are not as easy to get as he seems to think they are. Not now, anyway.
>>
>
>i remember that now.
>
>thanks for the reminder.
>
>vin: BOOM!
every single one of my friends thats at concordia got loans this year
so i dunno, doesn't seem too difficult
i assumed it was an ontario thing
why would you want to study in toronto anyways>? what a dump
Vin
>> >abilities. what'd you major in?
>>
>> Mummy's boy got a free ride through college, his rent paid for him,
>> and expects other people to travel across the country with $0 and a
>> suitcase (walk? hitchhike?) or *gulp*, to another country so as to
>> compete successfully in the system.
>>
>> Is delusional appropriate?
i must have missed this post, how did i get a free ride?
i worked exactly 20 hours a week, earning $9.75 an hour
setting up tables and chairs in the agora. After taxes I cleared
about $740/month. $200/month went to food, $220 which should have
gone to rent went in a savings account (i still earned it),
and the rest went to school supplies, books, registration,
bus passes, clothes, beer, etc..
I usually had about $100 left over every month, so really
I could have worked 15 hours a week and lived quite well.
Now had I been going to university I would have tuition
to pay, you can either get a student loan for $8,000
to cover your entire years expenses and tuition,
or you can work 20 hours a week and work part of the summer,
or just work the entire summer 60 hours/week.
I don't know one person who is having trouble paying for school.
And not one of them is being supported by their parents.
I just don't see what the big deal is, theres so many options
And why would people travel accross the county with 0$? get a job,
make some money, then go.
what the fuck is he talking about?
you're shifting into laurie mode justin
come back to the real world and stop being an idiot
Vin
>>i couldnt do the job
>
>I may be wrong, Vin, but aren't you a CEO? Or do you mean you're just
>not a good one?
nope
i just run a small business, i have 7 employees
i don't have 50,000 employees, i have no board of directors
i don't run a global empire
there -is- a difference.
Laurie Hester
Vin wrote:
>
> >> Vin and I went through this a few months ago. Student loans in Canada
> >> are not as easy to get as he seems to think they are. Not now, anyway.
> >>
> >
> >i remember that now.
> >
> >thanks for the reminder.
> >
> >vin: BOOM!
>
> every single one of my friends thats at concordia got loans this year
> so i dunno, doesn't seem too difficult
> i assumed it was an ontario thing
Isn't it obvious that those who do go to school are the ones who have
gotten the loans? Those who can't get the loans aren't at school, so
you wouldn't likely know them...
Laurie
Holtz
aka chelsea corazon wrote:
> i have no idea if it's on 'the reading list' since i'm not a member.
> and that inside info is apparently kept top secret. however, thanks
> for the suggestion,
> noted, i'll look around the local bookstores for it.
Someone sure has a chip on her shoulder. Stop complaining how exclusive the fan
club is, its not.
--
Holtz.
Remove BUDSELIGISTHEDEVIL to reply
My bootleg list,
http://www.tapetrader.com/Holtz
Vin
>> so i dunno, doesn't seem too difficult
>> i assumed it was an ontario thing
>
>Isn't it obvious that those who do go to school are the ones who have
>gotten the loans? Those who can't get the loans aren't at school, so
>you wouldn't likely know them...
the only people i know that arent in university are the people that failed
out or dropped out. i dont go to concordia, i met most of my montreal friends 6
years ago, long before they ever applied for university loans..
Eddie Hill
> >>a good ceo is
> >>i couldnt do the job
> >
> >I may be wrong, Vin, but aren't you a CEO? Or do you mean you're just
> >not a good one?
>
> nope
> i just run a small business, i have 7 employees
what kind of turnover do you have?
i have my theories...
eddie
Eddie Hill
i think you need to come back to the real world. i know a ton of people
that had trouble paying for school. i've known people that can't get a job.
shit, dude, the summer before my senior year in college i couldn't even get
an interview in rolla, mo. there was nothing. here i was about to get a
college degree and i couldn't even find a friggin' gas station that wanted
my help.
eddie
>
Vin
this is going to be hard to read
>> so you want the CEOs make too much money bit?
i dont understand
>> either you give more money to the people on top or less. i think it'd be
>> obvious what they want.
no ones -giving- money to the people on top, if they're getting illegal
tax breaks or bullshit subsidies than thats a different matter. but its
not like the gov took everyones money and doled out 50 billion to bill
gates. he earned it. he didn't steal it. he didnt put a gun to anyones head
the system is made so that any one of us can succeed, we all have the potential
to be rich right? look at warren buffet, 35 billion, he just invested in the
stock market, you want his money too?
people want change? so you think that if you took everyones fortunes in the
US and said, we're going to split it evenly among all of you, the popular
vote would be to do it right? you're probably right, because there'd be
a lot more people getting money out of it than people losing money.
BUT, take that same 150 million americans and tell them that they
unfairly make considerably more than 90% of the worlds population and
that you want to spread global wealth around, i wonder how keen they
would be on splitting their $50,000 with Jandu making $42 a year.
my point is, yes, bill gates and the rich guys are fucking rich, but
they didnt cheat their way in, they did what anyone else could have done,
they were just better. and even if you think its unfair that the system
-really- rewards the few, americans still do better than 90% of everyone
else on this planet, probably more like 95%. So like I said, you;'re
going to have a hard time finding sympathy for your cause "help the
american middle class worker" when there are 3 billion people who live
in poverty in this world that is unimaginable in north america.
>> that's one of the dumbest things you've said. by your logic if i cut off
>> your hand you should be happy because at least i didn't cut off your head.
>> truely idiotic.
no by that logic if you get in a major car accident and you break your leg,
you should be happy you didn't die.
>> you ignored the rest of that post about how all of these job openings are
>> getting TONS more applications then they can hire. i just want to point
>> that out. i don't expect you to have anything to add to it, i just wanted
>> to point that out.
yes eddie, you know what, the job for vice preisdent of human resources
over at GM, starting salary $100K/year gets a shitload of applications
and only one person gets the job. And the bottle cap plant just raised
it's starting salary from $10.50/hour to $11.50/hour because they still
have 10 open positions for the night shift and no one's calling.
We're talking about employing the poor, not employing the middle class.
the problem with middle class people is they aren't willing to work
if it doesn't pay them what their years of education supposedly owe them.
Go ask those silicon valley layoffs who aren't working, are they looking
for -work-? no, they're looking for work that pays 50-75K/year.
>> and, we keep unemployment relatively high to keep inflation down. if
>> unemployment were low the going rate for labor would go up, and then
>prices
>> would go up, etc. the people who've invested in bonds and fixed bank
>loans,
>> etc wouldn't be happy. those are the people in charge. so inflation
>stays
>> low.
im no economics whiz so im not going to touch this but im sure you're wrong.
higher interest rates = less borrowing = less spending = shittier economy.
there are tons of inflation adjusted income investment vehicles.
there are many ways to hedge against inflation or rising interest rates..
i dunno, john?
>> > no only the lazy and stupid
>> >
>> right. all poor people are lazy and stupid, i forgot. Ô
yes
>> i can rattle off 10 'poor' people off the top of my head that are 10x as
>> smart as you and work 100x as hard as you each and every day.
if they're poor, and don't like it, and can't seem to do anything about it,
they can't be very smart. if they're artists who knowingly give up financial
success so they can live a more fulfilling life, then thats
a different story. tell your friends to borrow 5 grand and open up
a hot dog stand or something, those things make a killing if you
man them yourself :)
>> first, stupid is not ignorant. second, what i said doesn't equate to
>stupid
>> (aside from point number 1 which is TOTALLY intolerable that we allow it
>to
>> continue in the richest country on earth). third, so you've now
>advocating
>> or condoning an underclass? nice.
irrelevant, your argument was about how rich people have too much money.
the fact that theres not enough money being put into education is not
bill gates problem, its your gov's. the fact that they see fit to
put billions into putting lasers in space is not warren buffets problem.
its every americans problem. and if you don't like it, do something about it.
its not their job to give up the fortunes they earned. its not the system
that enables people to amass such wealth that needs to be changed.
all that needs to be changed is your politicians.
>> how am i a jealous hypocrite? since you're absolutely intent on making
>this
>> argument about me. (i'm not surprised. when it comes to the overall
>> social/political argument you've been soundly thumped again and again, so
>> it's time to change the argument to how i'm a hypocrite) what do i do
>that
>> makes me a hypocrite? do i pay people less money for their work then it's
>> worth? do i participate in activities to channel the labor of the
>majority
>> of americans into the hands of the few? (aside from not breaking the law
>to
>> avoid that, like not-paying taxes, i mean). go ahead and spell this out
>for
>> me.
you don't like rich people whove stolen or cheated their way into money (ken
lay)
you don't like rich people who inherited their money (waltons, royals)
you don't like rich people who've earned their money (gates, ceos, lexus
drivers)
you don't like rich people period (warren buffet - im going to assume this one)
so its really just about the money and none of that other stuff
eddie, a ceo who makes 40 million dollars a year makes 1000 times more than
you do. there probably a couple thousand people out there that make 1000
times more than you do, yet you make 1000 times more money than billions
of people.
i just think your entire argument is silly. its extremely hypocritical,
because the only thing you dislike about these people is their money,
you don't care how they got it. and if you have a problem with them
and you don't have a problem with yourself. then you're a hypocrite,
or you're jealous, or you're both.
ps. i didnt proof read this so excuse any glaring typos :)
Vin
>that had trouble paying for school. i've known people that can't get a job.
>shit, dude, the summer before my senior year in college i couldn't even get
>an interview in rolla, mo. there was nothing. here i was about to get a
>college degree and i couldn't even find a friggin' gas station that wanted
>my help.
what the fuck is rolla, mo? obviously if you're in buttfuck nowhere you
might have trouble finding work. MOVE
if you live in a city, theres jobs, whether its door to door sales,
telemarketing, line work, etc.. theres no shortage of shitty jobs
no one wants to do.
its not that hard, people are too picky.
if your friends are having that much trouble, tell them to go treeplanting
for half the summer, there will always be a shortage of planters, work 60 hours
a week, no food or living expenses for 8 weeks, come home with 10-12 grand
if you work hard. its not easy, but its money.
Laurie Hester
Vin wrote:
>
> >> >i'm frankly stunned that you made it through college w/ your reasoning
> >> >abilities. what'd you major in?
> >>
> >> Mummy's boy got a free ride through college, his rent paid for him,
> >> and expects other people to travel across the country with $0 and a
> >> suitcase (walk? hitchhike?) or *gulp*, to another country so as to
> >> compete successfully in the system.
> >>
> >> Is delusional appropriate?
>
> i must have missed this post, how did i get a free ride?
> i worked exactly 20 hours a week, earning $9.75 an hour
> setting up tables and chairs in the agora. After taxes I cleared
> about $740/month. $200/month went to food, $220 which should have
> gone to rent went in a savings account (i still earned it),
> and the rest went to school supplies, books, registration,
> bus passes, clothes, beer, etc..
Oh, vin, remember this post?
From: Vin (bja...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Gapitty Gap why does everyone hate the gap
Newsgroups: alt.music.pearl-jam
Date: 2001-12-15 21:41:10 PST
<snip>
i have never and will never work for someone else, thats the way i like
it, if you don't like the system, make your own, if something goes
wrong you've got no one to whine about but yourself.
Okay, now I've caught you in an outright lie. So I can safely add liar
to the list.
Laurie
JohnG
> nope
> i just run a small business, i have 7 employees
> i don't have 50,000 employees, i have no board of directors
> i don't run a global empire
>
> there -is- a difference.
>
And no offense to small business owners everywhere, but I agree there is a
BIG difference between running a company with 6 employees and running a
global empire like McDonalds, IBM, or General Electric and having to answer
to a board, shareholders, and a myriad of investment banks.
Pulp Fiction: It's not in the same ballpark, it's not in the same league,
god damn, it's not even the same fucking sport!
Regards,
John
Vin
>it, if you don't like the system, make your own, if something goes
>wrong you've got no one to whine about but yourself.
>
>Okay, now I've caught you in an outright lie. So I can safely add liar
>to the list.
eh.. ive never considered working for my teacher to be a 'job', just something
i did after class for a couple hours.. just like most people who work as TA's
or RA's, don't consider it a job
i also picked strawberries when i was 12 for a couple months
call it a lie
i don't care what you think
i don't think anyone else does either
JohnG
>
> Chelsea, honestly, what's with this "elitist" stuff you keep throwing
> around?
I have no idea why she is on a crusade against the 'elitist' fan club but
there is clearly something going on with regards to the fan club and Chelsea
that we're missing because it doesn't make sense.
John
Vin
>> i just run a small business, i have 7 employees
>> i don't have 50,000 employees, i have no board of directors
>> i don't run a global empire
>>
>> there -is- a difference.
>>
>
>And no offense to small business owners everywhere, but I agree there is a
>BIG difference between running a company with 6 employees and running a
>global empire like McDonalds, IBM, or General Electric and having to answer
>to a board, shareholders, and a myriad of investment banks.
>
>Pulp Fiction: It's not in the same ballpark, it's not in the same league,
>god damn, it's not even the same fucking sport!
hehe exactly
Laurie Hester
Vin wrote:
>
> >i have never and will never work for someone else, thats the way i like
> >it, if you don't like the system, make your own, if something goes
> >wrong you've got no one to whine about but yourself.
> >
> >Okay, now I've caught you in an outright lie. So I can safely add liar
> >to the list.
>
> eh.. ive never considered working for my teacher to be a 'job', just something
> i did after class for a couple hours.. just like most people who work as TA's
> or RA's, don't consider it a job
Typical, even when you shove your face in a lie, you won't admit it...
you sound like Clinton... "a blow job isn't sex.."
Laurie
Eddie Hill
> >bounced for vinny
>
> this is going to be hard to read
>
> >> so you want the CEOs make too much money bit?
>
> i dont understand
>
well, you snipped it all to hell. i'll give you the benefit of the doubt
and assume you did that because it was unreadable from all the forwards.
but, you asked me to prove that people are unhappy w/ the system, i gave you
a list of polls showing dissatisfaction in certain areas and asked which
polls you wanted to see, you said you didn't see how any of them would prove
that people thought the people on the top had too much wealth. so i said
the bit above. would that prove it to you?
>
> >> either you give more money to the people on top or less. i think it'd
be
> >> obvious what they want.
>
> no ones -giving- money to the people on top,
you're right. they're taking it.
>if they're getting illegal
> tax breaks or bullshit subsidies than thats a different matter. but its
> not like the gov took everyones money and doled out 50 billion to bill
ever heard of corporate welfare?
and who controls the government? corporations. money buys elections.
something like 90% of the elections in 2000 went to the candidate who spent
the most money on advertising. including the presidential election.
> gates. he earned it. he didn't steal it. he didnt put a gun to anyones
head
> the system is made so that any one of us can succeed, we all have the
potential
> to be rich right?
no. no more then saying we all have the potential to be rock stars or
famous artists.
>look at warren buffet, 35 billion, he just invested in the
> stock market, you want his money too?
>
me personally? no, not really.
you don't get it. wealth is created by workers who make things. to take
raw materials and make things. or those who perform services. it's not
created by those who plan. that's all the elite are, planners. and because
they're in charge they give themselves way too much of the wealth. that's
what it boils down to.
> people want change? so you think that if you took everyones fortunes in
the
> US and said, we're going to split it evenly among all of you, the popular
> vote would be to do it right?
probably not. and we're not robbing the rich here, it's just giving wealth
to the people who created it.
>you're probably right, because there'd be
> a lot more people getting money out of it than people losing money.
>
yes. the average familiy income is something like $45k or $50k /year. most
people don't make that though.
> BUT, take that same 150 million americans and tell them that they
> unfairly make considerably more than 90% of the worlds population and
> that you want to spread global wealth around, i wonder how keen they
> would be on splitting their $50,000 with Jandu making $42 a year.
>
as i pointed out before, most americans are only consuming 18% of the
resources. 9% of the world's population. so we'd have to take a cut of
exactly half to be on the level. i can't even fathom how that'd change the
economy... there'd be a TON more consumers world wide for products that
americans make, that's for sure. the system would just have to be changed
so that the elite couldn't suck back up all the money.
> my point is, yes, bill gates and the rich guys are fucking rich, but
> they didnt cheat their way in, they did what anyone else could have done,
> they were just better. and even if you think its unfair that the system
> -really- rewards the few, americans still do better than 90% of everyone
that's a misleading. i explained the proper stats before.
> else on this planet, probably more like 95%. So like I said, you;'re
> going to have a hard time finding sympathy for your cause "help the
> american middle class worker" when there are 3 billion people who live
> in poverty in this world that is unimaginable in north america.
>
not the middle class. the middle class has no room to complain. it's the
poor who are being hurt. fuck the middle class. they're the ones that
allow the elite to exist. the lower classes killed the elite in france.
then the middle class took over and did the same garbage.
>
> >> that's one of the dumbest things you've said. by your logic if i cut
off
> >> your hand you should be happy because at least i didn't cut off your
head.
> >> truely idiotic.
>
> no by that logic if you get in a major car accident and you break your
leg,
> you should be happy you didn't die.
>
i'd be happy i didnt' die, yes. but i'd still be pissed about my leg. you
can be both at the same time, you know.
>
> >> you ignored the rest of that post about how all of these job openings
are
> >> getting TONS more applications then they can hire. i just want to
point
> >> that out. i don't expect you to have anything to add to it, i just
wanted
> >> to point that out.
>
> yes eddie, you know what, the job for vice preisdent of human resources
> over at GM, starting salary $100K/year gets a shitload of applications
> and only one person gets the job. And the bottle cap plant just raised
> it's starting salary from $10.50/hour to $11.50/hour because they still
> have 10 open positions for the night shift and no one's calling.
>
and, of course, both examples i gave you were entry level jobs. one for
middle class engineers, the second for lower class hotel workers. the
nonsense about human resources managers is BS, and not worthy of my time.
> We're talking about employing the poor, not employing the middle class.
i was, you're not.
> the problem with middle class people is they aren't willing to work
> if it doesn't pay them what their years of education supposedly owe them.
> Go ask those silicon valley layoffs who aren't working, are they looking
> for -work-? no, they're looking for work that pays 50-75K/year.
>
once again, fuck the middle class.
>
> >> and, we keep unemployment relatively high to keep inflation down. if
> >> unemployment were low the going rate for labor would go up, and then
> >prices
> >> would go up, etc. the people who've invested in bonds and fixed bank
> >loans,
> >> etc wouldn't be happy. those are the people in charge. so inflation
> >stays
> >> low.
>
> im no economics whiz so im not going to touch this but im sure you're
wrong.
> higher interest rates = less borrowing = less spending = shittier economy.
higher interest rates = more money for people who invested. and they're the
ones who set the rates (banks, etc)
> there are tons of inflation adjusted income investment vehicles.
> there are many ways to hedge against inflation or rising interest rates..
>
yes there are, but you can't argue high inflation hurts the rich more then
the poor. if you're poor you don't have money in bonds or fixed rate loans
being devalued. if you're rich you do. if you're poor and there's more
jobs then people (that's what's causing the inflation, remember?) you can
get a higher paying job, or a raise to keep you at your old job, and adjust.
> i dunno, john?
>
>
there's been nobel prize winning work on this subject.
>
> >> > no only the lazy and stupid
> >> >
> >> right. all poor people are lazy and stupid, i forgot. Ô
>
> yes
can i get you to repeat that one more time for the record? i just like you
to say it because it makes the rest of the stuff you're saying, which
otherwise seems *almost* reasonable, look less credible.
>
> >> i can rattle off 10 'poor' people off the top of my head that are 10x
as
> >> smart as you and work 100x as hard as you each and every day.
>
> if they're poor, and don't like it, and can't seem to do anything about
it,
> they can't be very smart. if they're artists who knowingly give up
financial
> success so they can live a more fulfilling life, then thats
> a different story. tell your friends to borrow 5 grand and open up
> a hot dog stand or something, those things make a killing if you
> man them yourself :)
>
right. there are tons of places to put a hot dog stand in rural america.
and if you're paying on the land you can't just get up and leave it (i know
that's where you're going next)
> >> first, stupid is not ignorant. second, what i said doesn't equate to
> >stupid
> >> (aside from point number 1 which is TOTALLY intolerable that we allow
it
> >to
> >> continue in the richest country on earth). third, so you've now
> >advocating
> >> or condoning an underclass? nice.
>
> irrelevant, your argument was about how rich people have too much money.
which is directly tied to a permanent underclass. and you said that's fine.
right there up above. well,.. it was above, then you snipped it.
> the fact that theres not enough money being put into education is not
> bill gates problem, its your gov's. the fact that they see fit to
which is ran by people like bill gates.
> put billions into putting lasers in space is not warren buffets problem.
> its every americans problem.
the military/industrial complex likes it that way. and they really don't
care too much what you or i think about it.
> and if you don't like it, do something about it.
can't. i don't have enough money to buy a senator. all i can do is help
spread the information about what's going on and hope a mass of people rise
up against it.
> its not their job to give up the fortunes they earned. its not the system
not earned. took.
> that enables people to amass such wealth that needs to be changed.
> all that needs to be changed is your politicians.
>
bullshit. politicians have been changed every two years for the last 226
years and every year we have the same system. looks to me like changing the
politicians isn't an effective way to get anything done.
it's amazing to me that you think you know my motivation. you do not. if
it was just jealousy at people who had more money i'd have went to med
school. or i'd go back to law school. engineers w/ law degrees get paid
MAD cash because there's so few of them, and they're needed more and more in
courtrooms of our increasingly high tech society.
> eddie, a ceo who makes 40 million dollars a year makes 1000 times more
than
> you do. there probably a couple thousand people out there that make 1000
> times more than you do, yet you make 1000 times more money than billions
> of people.
>
who makes $40 a year?
you're not very good at math, are you?
> i just think your entire argument is silly. its extremely hypocritical,
> because the only thing you dislike about these people is their money,
no. i dislike tons of other things. the fact that they manipulate the
common people so that we don't have nationalized health care. the fact that
wars are manufactored to send the lower class to their death, all to foster
a feeling of national unity to draw attention away from class injustices.
the fact that justice is directly related to the amount of money you have.
etc, etc, etc. all these are linked to money because money is power.
> you don't care how they got it. and if you have a problem with them
> and you don't have a problem with yourself. then you're a hypocrite,
> or you're jealous, or you're both.
>
i'm neither.
>
> ps. i didnt proof read this so excuse any glaring typos :)
>
like i can type or spell worth shit...
eddie
Eddie Hill
> >i think you need to come back to the real world. i know a ton of people
> >that had trouble paying for school. i've known people that can't get a
job.
> >shit, dude, the summer before my senior year in college i couldn't even
get
> >an interview in rolla, mo. there was nothing. here i was about to get a
> >college degree and i couldn't even find a friggin' gas station that
wanted
> >my help.
>
> what the fuck is rolla, mo? obviously if you're in buttfuck nowhere you
> might have trouble finding work. MOVE
where i went to college. ...couldn't really move... the college is kinda
big and likes to be in one place. sorry, man.
to answer your question though, it's about 90 minutes southwest of St Louis
>
> if you live in a city, theres jobs, whether its door to door sales,
> telemarketing, line work, etc.. theres no shortage of shitty jobs
> no one wants to do.
>
> its not that hard, people are too picky.
> if your friends are having that much trouble, tell them to go treeplanting
> for half the summer, there will always be a shortage of planters, work 60
hours
> a week, no food or living expenses for 8 weeks, come home with 10-12 grand
> if you work hard. its not easy, but its money.
>
>
i don't pretend to know what everyone should do. i'm not all knowing like
you.
i do however recognize things that people shouldn't be allowed to do,
because it hurts other people. that's where your insight dries up, it
seems.
eddie
>
>
>
Vin
>you sound like Clinton... "a blow job isn't sex.."
a blow job isn't sex
if someone says 'i had sex with jenny last night"
you think that means jenny gave that person head?
i doubt it
however, i believe the quote was 'sexual relations' and
not just sex, which is short for sexual intercourse.
a blowjob would fall under sexual relations.
Laurie Hester
Laurie
Vin
>> might have trouble finding work. MOVE
>
>where i went to college. ...couldn't really move... the college is kinda
>big and likes to be in one place. sorry, man.
>
>to answer your question though, it's about 90 minutes southwest of St Louis
>
yeah, i would have gone to college in a city, more opportunity
you go to school in a small town, you deal with it, your problem
no one said you had to go to school in rolla
>i don't pretend to know what everyone should do. i'm not all knowing like
>you.
you say theres no jobs, i say theres jobs if you look for em
>i do however recognize things that people shouldn't be allowed to do,
>because it hurts other people. that's where your insight dries up, it
>seems.
how does being rich hurt other people? they didnt hurt anyone to get rich?
are they hurting people because the money they have could be used to help
out other people so you're claiming they're hurting people because
of their inaction or greed?
god dont tell me you wanna go down that path.
Vin
strange, i thought i was talking about bill clinton
Eddie Hill
> >i have never and will never work for someone else, thats the way i like
> >it, if you don't like the system, make your own, if something goes
> >wrong you've got no one to whine about but yourself.
> >
> >Okay, now I've caught you in an outright lie. So I can safely add liar
> >to the list.
>
> eh.. ive never considered working for my teacher to be a 'job', just
something
> i did after class for a couple hours.. just like most people who work as
TA's
> or RA's, don't consider it a job
>
the TAs i know sure consider it a job. they don't grade papers and
supervise labs for the fun of it, that's for sure.
i know i didn't help out w/ a CAD class for my own happiness. explaining to
freshman how to draw lines on computers isn't my idea of a fullfilling
activity.
eddie
Eddie Hill
"Laurie Hester" <laurie...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:3D7780E2...@rcn.com...
>
>
> Vin wrote:
> >
> > >i have never and will never work for someone else, thats the way i like
> > >it, if you don't like the system, make your own, if something goes
> > >wrong you've got no one to whine about but yourself.
> > >
> > >Okay, now I've caught you in an outright lie. So I can safely add liar
> > >to the list.
> >
> > eh.. ive never considered working for my teacher to be a 'job', just
something
> > i did after class for a couple hours.. just like most people who work as
TA's
> > or RA's, don't consider it a job
>
> you sound like Clinton... "a blow job isn't sex.."
>
for the record, a blow job isn't sex.
but, yea... wasn't it vin that was ripping on justin for changing the
meaning of words to suit his needs? i do believe it was.
eddie
> Laurie
Laurie Hester
Vin wrote:
>
> >Way to avoid admitting you lied... you're getting quite good at this.
>
> strange, i thought i was talking about bill clinton
No, here is what I said, if you dare to respond...
Vin wrote:
>
> >i have never and will never work for someone else, thats the way i like
> >it, if you don't like the system, make your own, if something goes
> >wrong you've got no one to whine about but yourself.
> >
> >Okay, now I've caught you in an outright lie. So I can safely add liar
> >to the list.
>
> eh.. ive never considered working for my teacher to be a 'job', just something
> i did after class for a couple hours.. just like most people who work as TA's
> or RA's, don't consider it a job
Typical, even when you shove your face in a lie, you won't admit it...
Laurie
Eddie Hill
> >> what the fuck is rolla, mo? obviously if you're in buttfuck nowhere you
> >> might have trouble finding work. MOVE
> >
> >where i went to college. ...couldn't really move... the college is kinda
> >big and likes to be in one place. sorry, man.
> >
> >to answer your question though, it's about 90 minutes southwest of St
Louis
> >
>
> yeah, i would have gone to college in a city,
there are no good engineering schools in the missouri cities. well.. wash
U, but that's insanely expensive.
> more opportunity
> you go to school in a small town, you deal with it, your problem
> no one said you had to go to school in rolla
>
see above
>
> >i don't pretend to know what everyone should do. i'm not all knowing
like
> >you.
>
> you say theres no jobs, i say theres jobs if you look for em
>
>
> >i do however recognize things that people shouldn't be allowed to do,
> >because it hurts other people. that's where your insight dries up, it
> >seems.
>
> how does being rich hurt other people? they didnt hurt anyone to get rich?
> are they hurting people because the money they have could be used to help
> out other people so you're claiming they're hurting people because
> of their inaction or greed?
>
because they have money that was generated by someone else. you don't think
that lack of money hurts people?
eddie