Steve Forbes: No Limit To Freedom
Alan Furman
TonyGrundon <tonyg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Steve Forbes wants to protect the American Dream. I'd gladly see him
>thru to the presidency. Its about returning control of education to the
>parents, letting people plan for their own retirement, and letting
>people live their lives.
>
>http://www.intellectualactivist.com/tia/interview/interview_forbes.html
>http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/compassion.shtml
It's about human sacrifice -- torturing sick and dying people because
Steve Forbes and his fellow Drug War Nazis don't approve of the medicine
they (or their physicians) have chosen.
It's about a police state with the world's highest incarceration rate,
Eichmann-style raids, looting of property at the State's whim, the
annihilation of financial privacy, a record number of wiretaps, and $500
million a year spent on uniformed thugs in South American who drive
peasants into the arms of Commie terrorists.
It's about demonizing peaceful people over what they do with their own
bodies (where property rights START -- or they don't mean shit). It's
about whipping the public up into such a state of hysteria and hate that
the gun grabbers can exploit it for their own purposes without working
up a sweat. An electorate terrified of hemp plants growing in closets
will crap its collective pants, on cue, over firearms.
The tyranny, brutality, corruption, and waste of drug prohibition have
been going on since 1914. There is no way an honest man can evade the
truth of its evil and claim to be for the PRINCIPLE of liberty. Steve
Forbes spent $150,000 out of his own pocket trying to defeat a
statewide medicinal cannabis initiative in the Northwest. He is just
another vile statist politician either exploiting people's hatred of
their neighbors for political gain -- or else carrying on a crusade out
of his own insane personal zealotry. Either way, I have less than zero
use for him as an elected official.
--
LIBERTARIAN PARTY http://www.lp.org The Partnership for a Free America
|"There's no way to rule innocent men...When there aren't enough criminals, |
| one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes |
| impossible to live without breaking laws." -- Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged_ |
TonyGrundon
thru to the presidency. Its about returning control of education to the
parents, letting people plan for their own retirement, and letting
people live their lives.
http://www.intellectualactivist.com/tia/interview/interview_forbes.html
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/compassion.shtml
--
----------------------- ### -----------------------------
Visit the Tony Grundon archives->
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3005
The best of Reason, Reality, and Ayn Rand.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Mark Penman
one of these sods who wouldn't pitch the 2nd
Amendment overboard in exchange for a total
ban on abortion, or even green meat like
"prayer in schools".
--
Mark Penman
Website (Laissez Firearm): http://www.ipass.net/~mpenman
E-Mail: mpe...@ipass.net
S741799
Steve is a marginally intelligent Xcian Coalition whore !!!!
Tell us about Steve's work experience beyond jobs Daddy got him ?
del Valle
S741799 wrote in message <19990627155316...@ng-cs1.aol.com>...
>OH PLEASE !!!!!!!
>Steve is a marginally intelligent Xcian Coalition whore !!!!
And you're an unintelligent Christian hater.
>Tell us about Steve's work experience beyond jobs
>Daddy got him ?
And your work experience beyond jobs your Daddy
got for you is?
Your resentment, envy and greed for the unearned
is showing -- it's ugly and reveals your low character
and questionable morals. Let go of your envy for what
other people have and you'll be a much happier person.
---
Republicans believe tax payers are people too.
p@u.c
TonyGrundon <tonyg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Steve Forbes wants to
buy the White House.
'Nuff said.
--
Patrick Crotty
e-mail: prcrotty at midway.uchicago.edu
Jacob Matthew Cook
<p@u.c> wrote in message news:FE1tt...@midway.uchicago.edu...
Not that I am going to vote for Steve Forbes, but I will have to give him
the fact that he is using his own money to finance his campaign. You can't
say that for the others. In fact, an argument can be made that Gore is
using tax money to finance his. Air Force 2 is a nice little campaign tool
if you ask me.
S741799
Nevertheless, Forbes has the same chance of election as Danny Quayle, except
that Quayle is more qualified !
Thorley J Winston
mpe...@ipass.net wrote:
> After extensive research, I've still not turned up
> one of these sods who wouldn't pitch the 2nd
> Amendment overboard in exchange for a total
> ban on abortion, or even green meat like
> "prayer in schools".
The only thing I've found about Forbes with regards to the RTKBA was
while speaking at an event after the Columbine shooting, he said that he
was opposed to any attempt to create any policy during a tragedy since
it would be based on emotion and not reason.
At his website www.forbes2000.com he says this:
"The Second Amendment — Steve Forbes believes that all law-abiding
American citizens have a Constitutional right to legally protect
themselves, their loved ones and their property. He supports the Second
Amendment right to keep and bear arms. He supports the national instant
check system to prevent felons from purchasing guns. He supports
automatic jail time for any criminal who attempts to buy a gun, and
automatic jail time for anyone possessing a gun in the commission of a
crime."
--
""Power worship blurs political judgement because
it leads, almost unavoidably, to the belief that
present trends will continue. Whoever is winning
at the moment will always seem to be invincible."
--George Orwell
TonyGrundon
al...@shell.ncal.verio.com (Alan Furman) wrote:
>
> It's about human sacrifice -- torturing sick and dying people because
> Steve Forbes and his fellow Drug War Nazis don't approve of the
medicine
> they (or their physicians) have chosen.
I don't see how Forbes is a threat to Medical Marijuana. The movement
seems to be gaining popular support. Even if he becomes president, how
can he block the movement from succeeding? I seem to recall John
Stossel doing a prime time program in favor of legalization as an
example of the movement's popularity.
> It's about demonizing peaceful people over what they do with their own
> bodies (where property rights START -- or they don't mean shit).
From what I had heard, Forbes primary disagreement with drug
legalization is that the general public still has to pick up the
medical costs for drug addicts. With our current socialized medical
system, how much will it cost the taxpayer to treat drug addicts? Let
me make it clear that I do support drug legalization, but under a more
rational healthcare system...
People may have the right to act foolishly with their own bodies, but
not at my financial expense..
> Steve
> Forbes spent $150,000 out of his own pocket trying to defeat a
> statewide medicinal cannabis initiative in the Northwest.
Did he defeat it? Once again, I don't see him as a major threat to a
movement that is gaining in popularity and has its own cash flow to
reckon with. I see Forbes position on marijuana as primarily a
"packaging" issue. Forbes is trying to appeal to more religious
voters, and he knows that drug abuse is a hot button. I seem to
recall a certain Libertarian candidate who in 1996 had sections of his
book which explicitly appealed to segregationist racists. What was
that if not packaging?
> He is just
> another vile statist politician either exploiting people's hatred of
> their neighbors for political gain
He is a reformer. The majority of his platform is for sweeping
reform. He has the guts to take on Social Security. Nuff said.
What people need to think about is: Despite minor blemishes, don't
Forbes numerous proposals for major reform make him the ideal candidate?
Maybe when the Libertarians have the guts to go to a retirement state
like Arizona and tell people they are going to end Social Security (as
Forbes did in '96), then I'll consider them...
> --
> LIBERTARIAN PARTY http://www.lp.org The Partnership for a
Free America
Who in 1996 nominated a man whose primary support came from Southern
bigots who want to overturn the Civil Rights Act
> |"There's no way to rule innocent men...When there aren't enough
criminals, |
> | one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it
becomes |
> | impossible to live without breaking laws." -- Ayn Rand, _Atlas
Shrugged_ |
>
--
----------------------- ### -----------------------------
Visit the Tony Grundon archives->
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3005
The best of Reason, Reality, and Ayn Rand.
p@u.c
Jacob Matthew Cook <jmc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
><p@u.c> wrote in message news:FE1tt...@midway.uchicago.edu...
>> In article <7l44ag$d66$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> TonyGrundon <tonyg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >Steve Forbes wants to
>>
>> buy the White House.
>>
>> 'Nuff said.
>> --
>> Patrick Crotty
>> e-mail: prcrotty at midway.uchicago.edu
>>
>
>Not that I am going to vote for Steve Forbes, but I will have to give him
>the fact that he is using his own money to finance his campaign.
Why should this be considered virtuous? There are many, many people
in this country who are more intelligent than Forbes, who are more
knowledgeable of current issues than Forbes, who are more charismatic
than Forbes, who are more moral than Forbes, who are harder-working
than Forbes, who are more sympathetic than Forbes to the needs of
all Americans, and who in general would make far better presidents
than Forbes. But Forbes is richer than them, and therefore has a
much better chance of becoming President, or at least being a major
influence in the election. And he is merely an extreme case of the
general state of campaign finance: you have to spend a fortune of
either your own money or someone else's in order to have a chance
of being elected. The system is thus skewed towards people who are either
personally wealthy or willing to prostitute themselves for those who are,
thus making it nearly impossible for voices to be heard which don't toe
the corporate-capitalist line. Elections are based not on ideas, and only
superficially on the personal qualities of the candidates, but on who can
raise the most money. The Founding Fathers would be appalled. Why aren't
you?
Jacob Matthew Cook
I rather a man use his own funds than use taxpayer services like Mr. Gore.
Air Force 2's operation can be pretty expensive. Especially when it is used
to campaign.
I also enjoy seeing a candidate who isn't supposed to be doing another job
paid by taxpayers (ie: Texas Governor) while he is campaigning. Can
anybody honestly tell me how this man can effectively run for President AND
perform the functions of Governor? I know that if I decided to run for
public office, my employer sure as hell wouldn't pay my salary when
campaigning took too much time away from work. So how is it that a
politician can?
Mr. Forbes and all of his money didn't get him to square one last election,
it probably won't get him there again. I don't see why you are concerned
with Forbes's deep pockets when GW Bush will probably have the most
expensive campaign ever. Frankly I don't see why deep pockets are a problem
to anybody. If you were citing possible bribery, then I would agree with
you, but you can't, since Mr. Forbes is using his own money (Unless you are
saying that he is bribing himself :-). Also, buying a campaign does not buy
an election. You still have a vote. In fact, you have the same number of
votes (one) as anybody in this country. To say that these men are buying an
election is like saying that Camel forces people to smoke with advertising.
If you, or any other American, votes for an individual because he was on TV
the most, well then they (or you, if the shoe fits) are just downright
stupid and deserve to get the schmuck that they (or you) voted for.
I will give you a couple of examples in my state (Minnesota) where money
didn't win elections:
1) Paul Wellstone: I can't stand his politics, but he ran a campaign
with little or no funding. He taught political science at a local college,
so he made next to nothing. He conducted nearly his entire innaugural
campaign from the back of a green schoolbus. He beat a long time incumbant
senator who is an icon in Minnesota.
2) Jesse Ventura: He didn't have support from either major party in
the state, so he got support from the reform party. He didn't take a single
contribution of over fifty dollars, so he owed no "allegiance" to others.
He also beat a pair of state icons. One of whom just won the state several
hundred million dollars in a tobacco settlement, and the other who has
renovated downtown St. Paul as its mayor.
In both cases, the opponent had very deep pockets and a lot of resources
devoted to winning the seat in question. However, the people in the state
paid attention to things other than television advertising to make their
decision. In fact, advertising had, if anything, a negative impact upon the
people who paid to air them. After all, they didn't win, did they?
In essence you are saying that people aren't discriminating voters and this
is why we get poor representation. Am I right? That people are more likely
to vote based upon sound bytes presented in television and radio ads? If
this is the case, then your beef should be with the people and not with the
politicians.
This is a cultural problem rather than a campaign finance problem. People,
for the most part, are too lazy to determine who is the best candidate
themselves. So they let advertisers and campaign directors decide for them
by blindly following their commercials. These people were born and raised
to make their own decisions. It is their own fault for voting by arbitrary
bits of information. Unfortunately, to remedy this, we would either have to
take extreme amounts of time to educate these idiots, shoot them, or change
the entire democratic process. I don't like my choices here, but I will
take the first. In fact, that is what I am trying to accomplish here. I
find the last two alternatives unacceptable.
Jacob Matthew Cook
p@u.c
>Mr. Forbes and all of his money didn't get him to square one last election,
>it probably won't get him there again.
Not exactly true; Forbes won several primaries. And though he didn't win
the election, he was able to become a major candidate and wield a lot
of influence over the campaign solely because of his wealth. He certainly
had a much greater shot at getting elected than would someone from the
middle class who attempted to finance his or her own campaign.
>I don't see why you are concerned
>with Forbes's deep pockets when GW Bush will probably have the most
>expensive campaign ever. Frankly I don't see why deep pockets are a problem
>to anybody. If you were citing possible bribery, then I would agree with
>you, but you can't, since Mr. Forbes is using his own money (Unless you are
>saying that he is bribing himself :-).
Bush and Forbes both represent the decadence of our current campaign
system. Bush has managed to attract more donations from powerful
interests in a shorter period of time than has any other presidential
candidate in history, despite having said virtually nothing of substance
about his views on current political issues or what his legislative agenda
would be. Forbes, though perhaps less prone to being bribed since
he's financing his own campaign, is where he is today politically because
he is rich, not because he would make a particularly good President.
Both men are taking advantage of, and strengthening, an electoral
system which effectively bars candidates of great ideas but modest
financial means from having a significant chance at victory.
[. . .]
>This is a cultural problem rather than a campaign finance problem. People,
>for the most part, are too lazy to determine who is the best candidate
>themselves. So they let advertisers and campaign directors decide for them
>by blindly following their commercials. These people were born and raised
>to make their own decisions. It is their own fault for voting by arbitrary
>bits of information. Unfortunately, to remedy this, we would either have to
>take extreme amounts of time to educate these idiots, shoot them, or change
>the entire democratic process. I don't like my choices here, but I will
>take the first. In fact, that is what I am trying to accomplish here. I
>find the last two alternatives unacceptable.
While I would be the first to agree that Americans are not as politically
aware as they should be, I don't think that you can lay all blame for
the current mess at the feet of the public. In general, you can't vote
for people who not only aren't on the ballot but whom you've never even
heard of. Just as with markets, the power of consumer/voter choice is
limited by the available range of products/candidates. The rule is
that people seeking higher office who do not have access to huge amounts
of money will be unable to buy television and radio airtime, will gain
virtually no media coverage, and will remain unknown to the voting
public. Money determines visibility, which is essential to having
any shot at winning. There are a lot of people out there like me who
would eagerly vote for a presidential candidate with social-democratic
beliefs, but that option is not available to us (though you'll sometimes
see obscure left-wing third parties listed on the ballot, their lack of
visibility -- again, a direct function of their lack of money -- means
that you don't know anything about them and you can't make an informed,
let alone coordinated, choice).
Occasionally, someone like Ventura or Wellstone will win despite not
having mountains of money, but these are the exceptions to the rule.
Studies have been done which show a direct correlation between how
much a candidate for national office spends and how likely it is that
he or she will win the election. It is only going to get worse, unless
some third party opposed to the current system manages to gain sufficient
political power to change it, even without exploiting it. I believe
that this can be done, but that's another debate.
Doug Semonche
TonyGrundon <tonyg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>From what I had heard, Forbes primary disagreement with drug
>legalization is that the general public still has to pick up the
>medical costs for drug addicts. With our current socialized medical
>system, how much will it cost the taxpayer to treat drug addicts? Let
>me make it clear that I do support drug legalization, but under a more
>rational healthcare system...
If your child becomes a felon I have to pick up the
jail costs, if your child becomes a single parent
I have to pick up the welfare costs, obviously
you need to consult me when you make any decison
regarding your children and if I see you in the
supermarket parenting in the wrong way I should
be able to call in the authorities to protect
me against huge liability should you not correct
your ways ASAP.
Overweight people will get a dressing down by
me when they are in line nearby at McD's,
and of course I can prohibit them French Fries
(Ronald lettuce for fatty here). People
who spend the evening watching TV will
have to report why they do not spend the
evening studying some subject which will
provide them enhanced job security, after
all their foolish choice taking TV when
they could be studying caused them to
need unemployment insurance payments and
medicare or free clinic care (at my cost)
of they are ever unemployed.
Rotondi
Doug Semonche wrote:
If I understand the intent of Doug's comment, he is saying
that Tony's statement that he supports legalization of drugs,
seems to be a farce. It's negated by his qualification that
he only supports it under some other health care system,
which he leaves undefined.
I have to agree. Your statement Tony is a bit hollow
or at least not presented as well as it could be.
And by the way Tony, "socialized medical system". If you
need hyperbole to support your position, than it might
be that your postition is weak, or you simply can't
adequately defend it. It shouldn't be necessary to make
up your own definitons. Currently, if a country doesn't
have a national health care program (and there is not point
in getting into semantics, if you need examples
to help, take any other industrialized country but South Africa)
in the real world, it's simply not called socialized. This isn't a
statement of position or support, just common convention.
> >> Steve
> >> Forbes spent $150,000 out of his own pocket trying to defeat a
> >> statewide medicinal cannabis initiative in the Northwest.
> >
> >Did he defeat it?
This seems to be a rather ludicrous criterion for evaluating
a politician's position: did he or she succed or not. Hell, given
the failure rate of most politicians, there would be little
reason to be against many of them using your criterion.
> Once again, I don't see him as a major threat to a
> >movement that is gaining in popularity
Is this another of your criteria? As long as a movement
is gaining in popularity (and I'd sure love to see the objective
criteria you'd suggest could be used to determine this
for any particular "movement") a politician's position is again
ignored.
To me, it sounds like a lot of rationalization and double talk.
> and has its own cash flow to
> >reckon with. I see Forbes position on marijuana as primarily a
> >"packaging" issue. Forbes is trying to appeal to more religious
> >voters, and he knows that drug abuse is a hot button.
Gee, should we ignore a politician's integrity as well.
> I seem to
> >recall a certain Libertarian candidate who in 1996 had sections of his
> >book which explicitly appealed to segregationist racists. What was
> >that if not packaging?
Spin doctor, it sounds like racism to me (though I don't know of this
particular case or what was actually written).
> >> He is just
> >> another vile statist politician either exploiting people's hatred of
> >> their neighbors for political gain
> >
> >He is a reformer. The majority of his platform is for sweeping
> >reform. He has the guts to take on Social Security. Nuff said.
> >
> >What people need to think about is: Despite minor blemishes, don't
> >Forbes numerous proposals for major reform make him the ideal candidate?
By definition, no.
TonyGrundon
Rotondi <rou...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> If I understand the intent of Doug's comment, he is saying
> that Tony's statement that he supports legalization of drugs,
> seems to be a farce. It's negated by his qualification that
> he only supports it under some other health care system,
> which he leaves undefined.
I thought it was pretty obvious. I am talking about a private
healthcare system. Is that a clear enough definition? We can't have
medical freedom if taxpayers have to pay for others negligence of their
own health.
>
> I have to agree. Your statement Tony is a bit hollow
> or at least not presented as well as it could be.
Perhaps the "hollowness" is within yourself. Try following my original
reasoning.
> And by the way Tony, "socialized medical system". If you
> need hyperbole to support your position, than it might
> be that your postition is weak, or you simply can't
> adequately defend it.
I seem to be defending it pretty well.
> It shouldn't be necessary to make
> up your own definitons. Currently, if a country doesn't
> have a national health care program (and there is not point
> in getting into semantics, if you need examples
> to help, take any other industrialized country but South Africa)
> in the real world, it's simply not called socialized. This isn't a
> statement of position or support, just common convention.
Double-talk. You are definitely a master of the sneer Roundy. Not
surprising for someone who does not even use their own name.
Your misrepresentation of my position is becoming boring. Find someone
else to practice your random attacks on buddy.
-Excess deleted-
TonyGrundon
d...@nic.com (Doug Semonche) wrote:
> In article <7l98tr$2ko$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> TonyGrundon <tonyg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >From what I had heard, Forbes primary disagreement with drug
> >legalization is that the general public still has to pick up the
> >medical costs for drug addicts. With our current socialized medical
> >system, how much will it cost the taxpayer to treat drug addicts?
Let
> >me make it clear that I do support drug legalization, but under a
more
> >rational healthcare system...
>
> If your child becomes a felon I have to pick up the
> jail costs,
It is is your own interest to support jails and the legal system.
> if your child becomes a single parent
> I have to pick up the welfare costs,
And Forbes has always been outspoken against welfare.
> you need to consult me when you make any decison
> regarding your children and if I see you in the
> supermarket parenting in the wrong way I should
> be able to call in the authorities to protect
> me against huge liability should you not correct
> your ways ASAP.
Not far from the truth. We are becoming a police state where everyone
is supposed to parent everyone else's child. We have laws that mandate
seat belts and sexual harrassment courses for toddlers. "It takes a
village". The principle behind all this loss of freedom is that
government wants to start at the root of freedom, by removing the
freedom to control your own money.
>
> Overweight people will get a dressing down by
> me when they are in line nearby at McD's,
> and of course I can prohibit them French Fries
> (Ronald lettuce for fatty here).
Ralph Nader proposed a special tax on fast food restaurants to cover
medical costs. I didn't hear massive public outcries from the same
people who are calling Steve Forbes the devil.
I don't understand what Forbes has done to make him so evil. These
people will sit by when Nader wants to protect people from themselves
by destroying business, but when Forbes comes out against medical
marijuana they get all in arms.
brian_n...@yahoo.com
>
> I don't understand what Forbes has done to make him so evil.
It's not what he's done; it's what he hasn't done. Forbes
has never had to worry where his next Ferrari is coming from.
His view of reality is distorted, and he can never represent
the populace. His ambition to represent the folk he lords
over is evil. He's just another Ross Perot billionaire
whacko who thinks politics is cool.
> When Forbes comes out against medical
> marijuana they get all in arms.
Anyone who speaks out against medpot is closed-minded
and a potential enemy of liberty. Forbes is all for
free trade when it comes to entrenched interests, but
when it comes to some sick, desparate minority he has
little interest in freedom.
brian_n...@yahoo.com
>
> Your [not Brian] resentment, envy and greed for the unearned
> is showing -- it's ugly and reveals your low character
> and questionable morals. Let go of your envy for what
> other people have and you'll be a much happier person.
Gee, we can care for the needy with those words.
Do you have as much liberty as Forbes? Is your libertarian
bent not an envy of those who have more liberty than you?
"Let go of your envy for what other people have, and you'll
be a much happier person."
TonyGrundon
1) Forbes is only for the rich.
This is obviously contradicted by his positions which favor the middle-
class employee. The flat tax, medical savings accounts, and private
retirement accounts are all aimed at a general working class person.
Secondly this is contradicted by his supporters and volunteers. The
man has an impressive organization made up of middle-class voters.
2) Forbes is a single issue candidate:
Which single issue are we talking about? Medical Savings Accounts?,
Private Retirement Accounts? The man has a host of positions on
everything from foreign policy to returning schools to local control of
the parents. The media prefers to cover him as an "economics only"
guy, but people who do their research will know better.
3) Forbes is trying to buy the election.
Once again, a fallacy. Senator Rockefeller wasn't able to buy the
presidency. Either were countless other wealthy men from publishers to
Perot.
--
Feel free to repost this or send it to friends.
----------------------- ### -----------------------------
Visit the Tony Grundon archives->
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3005
The best of Reason, Reality, and Ayn Rand.
dhe...@atlantic.net
>"del Valle" <mid...@jps.not> wrote:
>>
>> Your [not Brian] resentment, envy and greed for the unearned
>> is showing -- it's ugly and reveals your low character
>> and questionable morals. Let go of your envy for what
>> other people have and you'll be a much happier person.
>
>Gee, we can care for the needy with those words.
>Do you have as much liberty as Forbes? Is your libertarian
>bent not an envy of those who have more liberty than you?
>"Let go of your envy for what other people have, and you'll
>be a much happier person."
>
If you don't envy what others have then you are a poor biological
specimen. That is how mates are chosen in the human race.
The only reason the US doesn't have a Gestapo is that the
FBI, BATF, DEA, EPA etc. can't speak German.
j...@antisocial.com
> If you don't envy what others have then you are a poor biological
> specimen. That is how mates are chosen in the human race.
?????? Maybe you and your mate chose each other this way, but not me and
mine. Can we knock off the broad, pseudo-Darwinian, Anthropology 101
generalizations about mating habits and materialism?
Jeb Hagan
tHewHiz
Isn't that exactly what Steve wants us to do, knock off the matting
habits of materialism... I mean he has most of the material he needs,
if he can keep that circle smaller, he will have more power in the
Village he lives in....
Wealth is best defined by the numbers of people who do not have it
than it is by those who do. What good is a Billion dollars if everone
has a billion.
Flat tax = Everbody pays 15% of their annual income.
Does this means the 5 % of people who own and control 95% of the
nations wealth pay only 5% of the nations debt. The 95% who own the
remaining 5% of the nations wealth pay 95% of the Nations debt.
No wonder Steve likes the FLAT TAX.......
Jim F.
TonyGrundon
Forbe's flat tax proposal. Try going to his site at www.forbes2000.org
and educating yourself on his positions before you make silly
accusations like this. Forbes is not trying to limit the number of
millionares, although that is a goal of the Democrats.
Regardless if you are looking for Steve Forbes motivation for being
president, consider that he regards Ronald Reagan as his role model.
He wants to complete what he regards as Reagan's unfinished business.
In article <378376b3....@news.ionet.net>,
wy...@isonet.net (tHewHiz) wrote:
> Isn't that exactly what Steve wants us to do, knock off the matting
> habits of materialism... I mean he has most of the material he needs,
> if he can keep that circle smaller, he will have more power in the
> Village he lives in....
>
> Wealth is best defined by the numbers of people who do not have it
> than it is by those who do. What good is a Billion dollars if everone
> has a billion.
>
> Flat tax = Everbody pays 15% of their annual income.
> Does this means the 5 % of people who own and control 95% of the
> nations wealth pay only 5% of the nations debt. The 95% who own the
> remaining 5% of the nations wealth pay 95% of the Nations debt.
> No wonder Steve likes the FLAT TAX.......
>
> Jim F.
>
--
brian_n...@yahoo.com
>
> If you are looking for Steve Forbes motivation for being
> president, consider that he regards Ronald Reagan as his
> role model.
Just when I thought my opinion of Forbes couldn't get any
lower, now the spectre of Voodoo Economics is resurrected.
tHewHiz
Yea I had no Idea Forbes wanted to spend more money on his Product
(increase spending) and Lower what he charges for his services (TAX
CUTS).....HAs anybody ever explained to him what caused teh
deficiet..GEEZ I'm no economic genius but if your going to spend more
money in stands to reason your going to have to bring more money in.
The only thing worse than Voodoo economics was the trickle down
theory... Anyone here ever been out in a cow pasture and watch what
TRICKELS down from the fatted Calf after it has had it's water and
Feed...Thats exactly what BUSH wanted Americans to settle for and
incidently that is what his economic package gave us....
At least Steve isn't trying to sell us Yellow river 2....
Jim F.
TonyGrundon
MediaLink department. Visit MediaLink at
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/.
The looting of our retirement savings in the Social Security system
takes place because of altruism. The system rests on the dictum that
you must surrender your own interests for the sake of others. You are
not paying for your retirment — but for your neighbor's.
Is Social Security Moral?
The Looting of Our Retirement Savings Is the Product of Altruism
By Robert W. Tracinski
President Clinton has announced that the precarious Social Security
system can be saved by giving it first claim on future federal
surpluses. His top priority, he told the nation, is to ensure that
"Social Security will be there when you need it."
But Mr. Clinton was addressing the wrong question. The fundamental
issue is not whether Social Security can be salvaged — but whether it
should be.
Imagine that you are 25 years old, and a salesman offers you the
following: In exchange for 7.5 percent of your salary for the rest of
your working life — plus a matching premium from your employer — you
will receive a monthly retirement pension. Upon further questioning,
however, you learn that the total payments you could reasonably expect
to get would be much less than what you paid in (and substantially less
than what you could have gotten through a simple savings account).
Further, you discover that your money will not even be invested,
but will be "loaned" to the salesman's brother-in-law to buy a car, to
his neighbor to pay for college, to the local YMCA to renovate its
basketball court. You will thus be paid, you realize, not from any
returns generated by your funds, but directly from contributions by new
"investors." And what if there aren't enough new "investors"? Simple,
the salesman explains: Your benefits will be cut.
No rational person would buy into this Ponzi scheme. Yet that is
precisely what Social Security is: The payout on retirees'
"investments" is made directly from fresh premiums coming in.
This is not news to most people. The destructive fraud inherent in
Social Security has long been observed by numerous commentators.
Nonetheless, Washington refuses to consider any fundamental alternative
to it. Why? Why is such a dishonest program — one that would result in
a prison sentence if launched by a private citizen — viewed as
untouchable?
It is surely not for economic reasons. Like any scam, Social
Security is clearly a financial disaster for its alleged beneficiaries.
Its "trust fund" is a fiction, with the money being spent as soon as it
comes in. Today's middle-aged workers will, upon retirement, receive
negative returns on their money. For example (in terms of constant 1993
dollars), a worker born in 1955, who makes just over $24,000 a year,
will receive Social Security benefits totaling $268,000 less than what
he and his employer paid in.
Economically, therefore, Social Security represents only a
colossal loss of wealth. What keeps this program alive is something
else: the morality behind it.
Consider the main argument leveled against any attempt to
privatize Social Security. If we were left to manage our retirement
savings on our own, it is claimed, some would fail to plan at all (or
would invest foolishly), and would have nothing left for old age.
What this really means is that, in order to protect the
irresponsible investors from their own folly, the responsible ones must
have their savings ravaged. It means that those who are capable of
planning for their future must be sacrificed for those who, supposedly,
are not. This is an egregious injustice.
Social Security rests on the dictum that you must surrender your
interests for the sake of others. It is a system of altruism, under
which all are sacrificed to all. It is not your retirement that you are
paying for, but your neighbor's — or your neighbor's parents' — just as
your neighbor's children will be forced to pay for yours.
This viciously patronizing dictum regards people as essentially
feeble-minded and helpless, unable to anticipate the requirements of
old age. The government, therefore, must save them from themselves.
How? By not allowing anyone to make his own decisions.
On this premise — one must ask — what area of life would be exempt
from the intrusion of paternalistic government planners?
The tragic irony is that Washington, the epitome of blind short-
sightedness, is "rescuing" us from our presumed stupidity — with a
scheme so ruinous that only an outright idiot would willingly
participate in it.
With the collapse of Social Security looming, now is the time to
start privatizing. It is time to reject the premise of self-sacrifice
and to assert the individual's moral right to pursue his own self-
interest. It is time to move to a voluntary system under which each
individual is allowed to plan his own financial future with the money
he himself has earned.
Only then can we look forward to genuine retirement security — the
security that comes from relying on our own thought and effort, not on
the dishonest promises of a bankrupt, parasitic government program.
Robert W. Tracinski is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in
Marina del Rey, CA; http://www.aynrand.org
In article <3783A45D...@speedchoice.com>,
William Maslen <wma...@speedchoice.com> wrote:
> Millions and millions of people lack the education to understand p/e
ratios,
> selling short, etc etc and even if their broker (robber) calls and
asks
> permission to make moves, they won't understand, and will just
blindly trust
> him ( After all the gov't set this up didn't it? He must be okay.)
>
> Do you really want your retirement funds invested in the market with
no FDIC?
> No guarantee of broker honesty? No guarantee the money will be there
when you
> need it?
--
----------------------- ### -----------------------------
Visit the Tony Grundon archives->
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3005
The best of Reason, Reality, and Ayn Rand.
William Maslen
Even in this quote from your article their basic motivation shows through. They want to answer to no morality. Here is the clip:
What keeps this program alive is something else: the morality behind it.
The people opposed to this program are opposed to the morality of taking care of our elders and the less fortunate among us, and they don't even bother trying to disguise the fact.
Their economic arguments are not even necessarily true. How much you receive from the program depends on when you retire, what options you select ( such as surviving spouse benefits ) and how long you happen to live. Most people probably select the surviving spouse option and they ( or their survivors ) certainly usually receive [more] than they paid in. Lower wage people also have a good chance of receiving more than they paid. Certainly people who earn so much they max out every year and quit paying in may not receive what they paid in, but then again they may, depending on how long they survive. But that is the very definition of a compassionate social program. Those folks usually have many more resources to retire on than just Soc. Sec.
Ayn Rand, and the greedy bunch who love her so, would like to go back to the days before we had Soc. Sec. You got to invest your own money for your own retirement then too. Take care of yourself and screw everyone else. Thing was ... in those days most elderly people had to rely on living with their children in their old age. Thats why in 3rd world countries the birth rate is so high. Children are regarded as their Old Age Insurance. It's all they've got. Ayn Rand's afficianados think it would be wonderful to have things like that in this country too. That way those of us who have been successfull can keep everything we've got and not have to pay to help those who didn't make it the way we have.
Take your Ayn Rand and stick it where the sun don't shine.
Michael A. Clem
> On Wed, 07 Jul 1999 08:31:25 -0500, j...@antisocial.com wrote:
>
> >dhe...@atlantic.net wrote:
> >
> >> If you don't envy what others have then you are a poor biological
> >> specimen. That is how mates are chosen in the human race.
> >
> >?????? Maybe you and your mate chose each other this way, but not me and
> >mine. Can we knock off the broad, pseudo-Darwinian, Anthropology 101
> >generalizations about mating habits and materialism?
> >
> Isn't that exactly what Steve wants us to do, knock off the matting
> habits of materialism... I mean he has most of the material he needs,
> if he can keep that circle smaller, he will have more power in the
> Village he lives in....
>
> Wealth is best defined by the numbers of people who do not have it
> than it is by those who do. What good is a Billion dollars if everone
> has a billion.
>
> Flat tax = Everbody pays 15% of their annual income.
> Does this means the 5 % of people who own and control 95% of the
> nations wealth pay only 5% of the nations debt. The 95% who own the
> remaining 5% of the nations wealth pay 95% of the Nations debt.
> No wonder Steve likes the FLAT TAX.......
>
> Jim F.
I'm not terribly fond of the flat tax, though I think it would be an
improvement over the progressive tax. But do the math! If everybody pays
the same rate, the people who make more money pay more money, especially if
most of those tax loopholes disappear, so the 5% of people who allegedly own
and control 95% of the wealth will be paying a heck of a lot more than 5% of
the debt!
--Mike Clem
tHewHiz
Yea I agree but they will be paying a whole lot less than the 95% of
the wealth they own and control.
That is why what I call Parity. It is alot closer to true Parity and
it illustrates the problem with what FORBES calls PARITY.
If they really want parity, make them come up with a Flat tax that is
based on the amount of Wealth your income represents.
Since my wealth represents (approx) .0000000000000000000000000000001
of the nations wealth, I would pay a tax of
0000000000000000000000000000001 of the nations debt. If Bill Gates
total income represents .25 of the nations wealth he would pay .25 of
it's debt.
The primary problem with my idea, is it virtually assures Congress a
Blank check, since tax revenues would be based on Debt. We really
don't want that now do we :-))), reguardless which Party controls it.
I really don't excpect the thought to be embraced or even really
support the idea, myself for the above mentioned reasons. I was just
using it to point out the absurdity of what FORBES calls PARITY.
Jim F.
dhe...@atlantic.net
The only parity is if each individual, man, woman and child pays the
exact same tax.
brian_n...@yahoo.com
>
> The only parity is if each individual, man, woman and
> child pays the exact same tax.
The only parity is if everyone has the same income.
The only parity is if everyone has the same purchasing power.
S741799
Steve ranks right up there, no, probably surpasses, Danny Quayle !!!!!!!!
This guy is a clown. God I love him !!!!
tHewHiz
>The only parity is if each individual, man, woman and child pays the
>exact same tax.
>
*Yea right*
Jim F.
dhe...@atlantic.net
Everyone gets the same 0.002 soldiers and the same 2.7 miles of
highway etc. Everyone should pay the same.
tHewHiz
What a Fallicy, the problem is everyone doesn't get the same 0.002
soldiers, since Money equals political power. Where and why those
soldiers are utilized is so disparingly different for those who
control 95% of the wealth and those who control the remaining 5%.
If you wish to discuss who those 0.002 soldiers themselves are, I
would be glad to. I suspect the topic would enlighten us all with just
some of the problems of the Viet-nam VETERAN and the NG participants,
political organization that provided an outlet for those differences.
As far as roads go, I'm sure the roads in Front of the top 5% who
control 95% of the nations wealth are often times still Dirt, many may
be graveled or even some of those top 5%, who are lucky enough to live
on a paved road, find them so full of Potholes, a front-end alignment
is something they've heard of but reguard as a waste of there emense
amount of money.
Jim F.
dhe...@atlantic.net
Everyone does get the same 0.0002 soldiers. some people just do a
better job with their resources.
>If you wish to discuss who those 0.002 soldiers themselves are, I
>would be glad to. I suspect the topic would enlighten us all with just
>some of the problems of the Viet-nam VETERAN and the NG participants,
>political organization that provided an outlet for those differences.
>
You want to discuss being a VN veteran with me? LOL.
Where were you stationed and in which service. USMC 67-71
Let's see you walk the walk. I'll show you my bullet holes if you
show me yours.
>As far as roads go, I'm sure the roads in Front of the top 5% who
>control 95% of the nations wealth are often times still Dirt, many may
>be graveled or even some of those top 5%, who are lucky enough to live
>on a paved road, find them so full of Potholes, a front-end alignment
>is something they've heard of but reguard as a waste of there emense
>amount of money.
>
>Jim F.
The only reason the US doesn't have a Gestapo is that the
Joshua Scott
www.primarydiner.com a new site that is focusing on the 2000 presidential
race and has a ton of information on all the candidates
Alan Furman <al...@shell.ncal.verio.com> wrote in message
news:7l498n$1oh$1...@shell1.ncal.verio.com...
> In article <7l44ag$d66$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> TonyGrundon <tonyg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >Steve Forbes wants to protect the American Dream. I'd gladly see him
> >thru to the presidency. Its about returning control of education to the
> >parents, letting people plan for their own retirement, and letting
> >people live their lives.
> >
> >http://www.intellectualactivist.com/tia/interview/interview_forbes.html
> >http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/compassion.shtml
>
> It's about human sacrifice -- torturing sick and dying people because
> Steve Forbes and his fellow Drug War Nazis don't approve of the medicine
> they (or their physicians) have chosen.
>
> It's about a police state with the world's highest incarceration rate,
> Eichmann-style raids, looting of property at the State's whim, the
> annihilation of financial privacy, a record number of wiretaps, and $500
> million a year spent on uniformed thugs in South American who drive
> peasants into the arms of Commie terrorists.
>
> It's about demonizing peaceful people over what they do with their own
> bodies (where property rights START -- or they don't mean shit). It's
> about whipping the public up into such a state of hysteria and hate that
> the gun grabbers can exploit it for their own purposes without working
> up a sweat. An electorate terrified of hemp plants growing in closets
> will crap its collective pants, on cue, over firearms.
>
> The tyranny, brutality, corruption, and waste of drug prohibition have
> been going on since 1914. There is no way an honest man can evade the
> truth of its evil and claim to be for the PRINCIPLE of liberty. Steve
> Forbes spent $150,000 out of his own pocket trying to defeat a
> statewide medicinal cannabis initiative in the Northwest. He is just
> another vile statist politician either exploiting people's hatred of
> their neighbors for political gain -- or else carrying on a crusade out
> of his own insane personal zealotry. Either way, I have less than zero
> use for him as an elected official.
>
>
>
>
> --
> LIBERTARIAN PARTY http://www.lp.org The Partnership for a Free
America
Michael A. Clem
>
>
>
> As far as roads go, I'm sure the roads in Front of the top 5% who
> control 95% of the nations wealth are often times still Dirt, many may
> be graveled or even some of those top 5%, who are lucky enough to live
> on a paved road, find them so full of Potholes, a front-end alignment
> is something they've heard of but reguard as a waste of there emense
> amount of money.
>
> Jim F.
Another reason to stop expecting the government to build and maintain roads. Housing
editions and industrial parks would be good places to start privatizing.
-Mike Clem
Rotondi
TonyGrundon wrote:
> In article <377CD338...@pitt.edu>,
> Rotondi <rou...@pitt.edu> wrote:
> >
> > If I understand the intent of Doug's comment, he is saying
> > that Tony's statement that he supports legalization of drugs,
> > seems to be a farce. It's negated by his qualification that
> > he only supports it under some other health care system,
> > which he leaves undefined.
>
> I thought it was pretty obvious. I am talking about a private
> healthcare system. Is that a clear enough definition? We can't have
> medical freedom if taxpayers have to pay for others negligence of their
> own health.
> I have to agree. Your statement Tony is a bit hollow
Yes, it is obvious. Your statement is hollow.
> > And by the way Tony, "socialized medical system". If you
> > need hyperbole to support your position, than it might
> > be that your postition is weak, or you simply can't
> > adequately defend it.
>
> I seem to be defending it pretty well.
Duh?
> > It shouldn't be necessary to make
> > up your own definitons. Currently, if a country doesn't
> > have a national health care program (and there is not point
> > in getting into semantics, if you need examples
> > to help, take any other industrialized country but South Africa)
> > in the real world, it's simply not called socialized. This isn't a
> > statement of position or support, just common convention.
>
> Double-talk. You are definitely a master of the sneer Roundy.
Double-talk? That's very good. For you, common English
is double-talk. Very impressive there Tony.
"sneer Roundy"? Again, common English would help
here Tony boy.
> Not
> surprising for someone who does not even use their own name.
What?! Yes, you're doing quite well there Tony. And whose
name am I using?
You need to get out a little more Tony--if that is allowed.
> Your misrepresentation of my position is becoming boring.
Impressive. Really.
del Valle
William Maslen <wma...@speedchoice.com> wrote in message
news:3784F706...@speedchoice.com...
>As far as I'm concerned when you quote the Ayn Rand
>Institute you have just totally discredited your argument.
>You might as well quote the Institute for the Preservation
>of Greed.
Let me educate you about "greed", dear boy. Greed is the
desire for the unearned. That is what makes greed differ from
the ambition to achieve. It's why greed is morally reprehensible,
while you and I cashing our *earned* paychecks is good.
(You do earn your own keep, don't you???) And it's why
greed is the basic motive of the welfare statist, loafing
welfare recipient, and lobbyist employing corporate welfare
recipient. Ayn Rand opposed these behaviors. Thank you
for validating my sig again. Remember, when the Left's
ignorance ends, the Left itself will end.
---
All excuses for socialism depend on censorship of
information to appear plausible.
TonyGrundon
1948, when we nominated a governor from a big state who had no message.
Guess what happened? The biggest upset in political history," Forbes
said in an interview in Iowa.
In 1948, Republicans nominated New York Gov. Thomas Dewey, who lost to
President Harry Truman
--
----------------------- ### -----------------------------
Visit the Tony Grundon archives->
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3005
The best of Reason, Reality, and Ayn Rand.
tHewHiz
Hello do you really think the Top 5% has an equal number of the
children in the U.S. Military as the remaining 95% do. What planet are
you living on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as your assertion that they utilize their resources better.
I'll call your ill informed Bluff as I show my cards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I lead with a trip in "Aces" that says they Have more resources to
use a , a pair of "Jacks" that says they presently have two
Presidential canidates that are not Beholding to the Public because
all their funds have come either from themselves in the one case or
"PRIVATE" sources in the other.
Now I know their are a few hands out there that could beat this but
I'll remind every one I threw away a King, owning the Political Party
known as the GOP (based on Lopsided amounts of Campaign donations), a
Queen, controlled the Political party in Power that Named the majority
of the Cheif Justices and many other High ranking judges\officials,
and a 10, Owned the majority of the Press.
Throwing these cards away was a gutsy move and I would've held these.
I was playing Jacks or better and I just didn't think I would draw the
Ace of spades. I was sure another JACK would pop up But as this
election pointed out so far, I was wrong However, the Ace of spades
was the first card I drew.
Lets see what you got !!!!
>>If you wish to discuss who those 0.002 soldiers themselves are, I
>>would be glad to. I suspect the topic would enlighten us all with just
>>some of the problems of the Viet-nam VETERAN and the NG participants,
>>political organization that provided an outlet for those differences.
>>
>
>You want to discuss being a VN veteran with me? LOL.
>Where were you stationed and in which service. USMC 67-71
>Let's see you walk the walk. I'll show you my bullet holes if you
>show me yours.
100% SC.... Permanate and total
>>As far as roads go, I'm sure the roads in Front of the top 5% who
>>control 95% of the nations wealth are often times still Dirt, many may
>>be graveled or even some of those top 5%, who are lucky enough to live
>>on a paved road, find them so full of Potholes, a front-end alignment
>>is something they've heard of but reguard as a waste of there emense
>>amount of money.
>>
>>Jim F.
>
>The only reason the US doesn't have a Gestapo is that the
>FBI, BATF, DEA, EPA etc. can't speak German.
It's funny you draw parrellels to Gestapo and our Government, since
the GOP has historically matched so many of the very same things the
NAZI's did... You may be own to something My friend.
All due respect Sir, I would be remisted if I did not say, I
respectfully disagree with you...
k
JIm F.
dhe...@atlantic.net
>On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 20:41:02 GMT, dhe...@atlantic.net wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 19:37:56 GMT, wy...@isonet.net (tHewHiz) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 12:30:57 GMT, dhe...@atlantic.net wrote:
<snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The only parity is if each individual, man, woman and child pays the
>>>>>>exact same tax.
>>>>>>
>>>>>*Yea right*
>>>>>
>>>>Everyone gets the same 0.002 soldiers and the same 2.7 miles of
>>>>highway etc. Everyone should pay the same.
>>>
>>>What a Fallicy, the problem is everyone doesn't get the same 0.002
>>>soldiers, since Money equals political power. Where and why those
>>>soldiers are utilized is so disparingly different for those who
>>>control 95% of the wealth and those who control the remaining 5%.
>>>
>>Everyone does get the same 0.0002 soldiers. some people just do a
>>better job with their resources.
>
>Hello do you really think the Top 5% has an equal number of the
>children in the U.S. Military as the remaining 95% do. What planet are
>you living on.
>
Not sends the same number of children has the same number of soldiers.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>As far as your assertion that they utilize their resources better.
>I'll call your ill informed Bluff as I show my cards.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I lead with a trip in "Aces" that says they Have more resources to
>use a , a pair of "Jacks" that says they presently have two
>Presidential canidates that are not Beholding to the Public because
>all their funds have come either from themselves in the one case or
>"PRIVATE" sources in the other.
>
>Now I know their are a few hands out there that could beat this but
>I'll remind every one I threw away a King, owning the Political Party
>known as the GOP (based on Lopsided amounts of Campaign donations), a
>Queen, controlled the Political party in Power that Named the majority
>of the Cheif Justices and many other High ranking judges\officials,
>and a 10, Owned the majority of the Press.
>
>Throwing these cards away was a gutsy move and I would've held these.
>I was playing Jacks or better and I just didn't think I would draw the
>Ace of spades. I was sure another JACK would pop up But as this
>election pointed out so far, I was wrong However, the Ace of spades
>was the first card I drew.
>
>Lets see what you got !!!!
This doesn't make any sense in the discussion. Want to try again.
Each person gets the same resources and should pay the same tax.
>>>If you wish to discuss who those 0.002 soldiers themselves are, I
>>>would be glad to. I suspect the topic would enlighten us all with just
>>>some of the problems of the Viet-nam VETERAN and the NG participants,
>>>political organization that provided an outlet for those differences.
>>>
>>
>>You want to discuss being a VN veteran with me? LOL.
>>Where were you stationed and in which service. USMC 67-71
>>Let's see you walk the walk. I'll show you my bullet holes if you
>>show me yours.
>100% SC.... Permanate and total
>
>
>>>As far as roads go, I'm sure the roads in Front of the top 5% who
>>>control 95% of the nations wealth are often times still Dirt, many may
>>>be graveled or even some of those top 5%, who are lucky enough to live
>>>on a paved road, find them so full of Potholes, a front-end alignment
>>>is something they've heard of but reguard as a waste of there emense
>>>amount of money.
>>>
>>>Jim F.
>>
>>The only reason the US doesn't have a Gestapo is that the
>>FBI, BATF, DEA, EPA etc. can't speak German.
>It's funny you draw parrellels to Gestapo and our Government, since
>the GOP has historically matched so many of the very same things the
>NAZI's did... You may be own to something My friend.
>
And this means what? I don't see a bit of difference between the Dems
and the Repubs. I'm not and have never been a GOP supporter.
>All due respect Sir, I would be remisted if I did not say, I
>respectfully disagree with you...
>
>k
>
>JIm F.
The only reason the US doesn't have a Gestapo is that the
tHewHiz
>On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:42:54 GMT, wy...@isonet.net (tHewHiz) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 20:41:02 GMT, dhe...@atlantic.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 19:37:56 GMT, wy...@isonet.net (tHewHiz) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 12:30:57 GMT, dhe...@atlantic.net wrote:
>
>
><snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The only parity is if each individual, man, woman and child pays the
>>>>>>>exact same tax.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>*Yea right*
>>>>>>
>>>>>Everyone gets the same 0.002 soldiers and the same 2.7 miles of
>>>>>highway etc. Everyone should pay the same.
>>>>
>>>>What a Fallicy, the problem is everyone doesn't get the same 0.002
>>>>soldiers, since Money equals political power. Where and why those
>>>>soldiers are utilized is so disparingly different for those who
>>>>control 95% of the wealth and those who control the remaining 5%.
>>>>
>>>Everyone does get the same 0.0002 soldiers. some people just do a
>>>better job with their resources.
>>
>>Hello do you really think the Top 5% has an equal number of the
>>children in the U.S. Military as the remaining 95% do. What planet are
>>you living on.
>>
>
>Not sends the same number of children has the same number of soldiers.
Thanx for that concetion!!!! For that reason alone they should Pay
more taxes.
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>As far as your assertion that they utilize their resources better.
>>I'll call your ill informed Bluff as I show my cards.
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>I lead with a trip in "Aces" that says they Have more resources to
>>use a , a pair of "Jacks" that says they presently have two
>>Presidential canidates that are not Beholding to the Public because
>>all their funds have come either from themselves in the one case or
>>"PRIVATE" sources in the other.
>>
>>Now I know their are a few hands out there that could beat this but
>>I'll remind every one I threw away a King, owning the Political Party
>>known as the GOP (based on Lopsided amounts of Campaign donations), a
>>Queen, controlled the Political party in Power that Named the majority
>>of the Cheif Justices and many other High ranking judges\officials,
>>and a 10, Owned the majority of the Press.
>>
>>Throwing these cards away was a gutsy move and I would've held these.
>>I was playing Jacks or better and I just didn't think I would draw the
>>Ace of spades. I was sure another JACK would pop up But as this
>>election pointed out so far, I was wrong However, the Ace of spades
>>was the first card I drew.
>>
>>Lets see what you got !!!!
>
>This doesn't make any sense in the discussion. Want to try again.
>Each person gets the same resources and should pay the same tax.
Hello the discussion is utilization of resources.
With money being the Primary requirment to have a Voice in America, I
can easily see how the top 5% would like everyone to beleive we are
all equal in our freedom to utilize our immediate resources at hand.
To wit, I must agree, I am equally free to donate $35.00 so, I can
have a voice in American Politics. Just as the rich are equal to
donate $35.00. to what ever party they so desire, PARITY, (to coin a
phrase of my deceased Grand-mother, My hinny)
Set the level of Pvt. donation at a level that even those Americans
that work for Minimum wage can Donate a portion of their available
resources to. Then you will see Parity in Politics. Parity that
reflects an equal Voice, Mono-to-Mono, for every indivual man and
woman of voting age in America today. Util that happens, Parity is an
insult to my intelligence and has it exist today a RICH man's scheme
to further defame the Progress we working people have made over the
Years.
The top 5% would, I'm sure, would further stipulate the amount of
resources at hand is irrelevent. It is the way tehy Utilize the
resources they have that makes the difference. These thoughts are
merely putting a Voice to just how arrogant they are.
I'm still waiting for your reply concerning even the basic tenets, I
had set forth earlier.
What's wrong still haven't found any top 5% of the people, living on
roads still made of dirt, gravel, or even those roads that are paved,
are so full of Pot Holes, a Front-end alignment is veiwed as a waste
of their income.
I know your still looking up in a dictionary what is a POT HOLE,
RIGHT...being well Versed in the merits of LOOPHOLES, you think you've
just stumbled into a new form of slang, concerning the variety of ways
you can circumvent the Constitution.
I was merely pointing out the disparingly lack of Parity between say
myself and the top 5% in the amount of resources at our disposal.
Since the strata alone is unsurmountable, it is ascinide to even
pursue a discussion about Parity, since it does not exist in benefits
recieved. The truth is without the concept of Parity being so
deliciously warped and laced within the confines of the FLat Tax, the
Flat Tax will fall on it's face.
However, my message was presented, I doubt you would've heard it,
since, I suppose, your already a supporter of Forbes.
If it's any constilation, my Younger Brother, who is a clerk at a
Local grocery store, honestly beleives the only fair Tax, is a sales
tax, likes Forbes. HOwever, the rest of my family blaims our father
and my Uncle for this. When we were young, he and my uncle were
painting the house and they had left the Lid off the paint, he and my
cousin, (both barely three), were found setting at the can, eating
the Pudding. (true story)
Yes, this supporter of Steve Forbes and Flat taxes is also a supporter
of the sales tax. He understands concretely the way they work. They
are according to him created to "tax Mono-to-Mono", since he doesn't
understand some of the more complex idea's, eg, Progressive taxation,
he fails to see how he is a person who is most afflicted by them.
according to him, He and Steve Forbes are then Equal in the way they
are taxed.
A Parity Tax finds support amoungst America's lowest paid workers, who
have eaten Lead Paint as children. Is fairly scary when you think
about it. It is a good thing that mean old U.S. Government regulated
the Paint industry and forced them to move on and stop using Lead in
their Paint manufacturing.
(snip)
>>>>As far as roads go, I'm sure the roads in Front of the top 5% who
>>>>control 95% of the nations wealth are often times still Dirt, many may
>>>>be graveled or even some of those top 5%, who are lucky enough to live
>>>>on a paved road, find them so full of Potholes, a front-end alignment
>>>>is something they've heard of but reguard as a waste of there emense
>>>>amount of money.
>>>>
>>>>Jim F.
I can see by reading your signature that they are getting a lot of
Bang for their Bucks.....
Jim F.
del Valle
>>Everyone gets the same 0.002 soldiers and the
>>same 2.7 miles of highway etc. Everyone should
>>pay the same.
>
>What a Fallicy, the problem is everyone doesn't get
>the same 0.002 soldiers, since Money equals political
>power.
That's a good argument for (a) defunding the Left
because political power should not go to certain groups
at tax payer expense and (b) shrinking the rest of
government a whole bunch too because when government
is too small to use as a weapon against competitors
or to need defending from, the money in politics
pseudo-problem will wither away.
The person whose inability to spell "fallacy" (or use the
spell checker in his newsreader -- is he a fan of Dan Quayle?)
show he's a victim of politician run government schools
ought to want to spare himself further political plundering
but is too unlearned to figure it out.
---
All excuses for social democracy depend on censorship of
information to appear plausible.
tHewHiz
wrote:
>
>>>Everyone gets the same 0.002 soldiers and the
>>>same 2.7 miles of highway etc. Everyone should
>>>pay the same.
>>
>>What a Fallicy, the problem is everyone doesn't get
>>the same 0.002 soldiers, since Money equals political
>>power.
>
>That's a good argument for (a) defunding the Left
>because political power should not go to certain groups
>at tax payer expense
I agree Lets outlaw all Private money from all sources. Lets outlaw
all SOft money, contributions. If not that then lets at least reduce
the total amount you can donate to say $35.00, a once a year total, to
either soft money add campaign to a political Action group or an
individual canidate of choice but you can not do both, so even the
Minimum wage earners can have a Voice in the politics of this country.
>and (b) shrinking the rest of
>government a whole bunch too because when government
>is too small to use as a weapon against competitors
>or to need defending from, the money in politics
>pseudo-problem will wither away.
The only thing I see reducing in this scenerio is the roles Organized
religions and Big Buisness gets to play in their desires to re-write
our constitution.
>The person whose inability to spell "fallacy" (or use the
>spell checker in his newsreader -- is he a fan of Dan Quayle?)
actually in defense of my States education system, I dropped out of
H.S. Got a Job hauling garbage in my Home town...worked my way to
adulthood, then Joined the Military...
>show he's a victim of politician run government schools
>ought to want to spare himself further political plundering
>but is too unlearned to figure it out.
I don't see myself as a victim, I find it refreshing that you equate
in-ability to spell to victimization. You may find it annoying, your
sarcastic attacks are merely greeted as fodder for my desire to keep
sharing my views. God I love so demonizing you, I really think you
ought to bring back literacy test for Voting.
Jim F.
dhe...@atlantic.net
>On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:04:41 GMT, dhe...@atlantic.net wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:42:54 GMT, wy...@isonet.net (tHewHiz) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 20:41:02 GMT, dhe...@atlantic.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 19:37:56 GMT, wy...@isonet.net (tHewHiz) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 12:30:57 GMT, dhe...@atlantic.net wrote:
>>
>>
>><snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The only parity is if each individual, man, woman and child pays the
>>>>>>>>exact same tax.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>*Yea right*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Everyone gets the same 0.002 soldiers and the same 2.7 miles of
>>>>>>highway etc. Everyone should pay the same.
>>>>>
>>>>>What a Fallicy, the problem is everyone doesn't get the same 0.002
>>>>>soldiers, since Money equals political power. Where and why those
>>>>>soldiers are utilized is so disparingly different for those who
>>>>>control 95% of the wealth and those who control the remaining 5%.
>>>>>
>>>>Everyone does get the same 0.0002 soldiers. some people just do a
>>>>better job with their resources.
>>>
>>>Hello do you really think the Top 5% has an equal number of the
>>>children in the U.S. Military as the remaining 95% do. What planet are
>>>you living on.
>>>
>>
>>Not sends the same number of children has the same number of soldiers.
>Thanx for that concetion!!!! For that reason alone they should Pay
>more taxes.
Because each get the same services provided by government each should
pay the same tax. What you want is for rich people to pay $1million
for a Pinto and poor people to pay $10 for the same car.
<snip>
>>This doesn't make any sense in the discussion. Want to try again.
>>Each person gets the same resources and should pay the same tax.
>Hello the discussion is utilization of resources.
>
The same resources for each person. Each person get the same
government provided resources. It is how you use them that counts.
If both of us inherit $1million and you invest wisely and 10 yrs.
later you have $100 million and I blow mine on wine, women and song
and 10yrs later I have $0.38 that is poor use of the resource. But
that isn't your problem.
>With money being the Primary requirment to have a Voice in America, I
>can easily see how the top 5% would like everyone to beleive we are
>all equal in our freedom to utilize our immediate resources at hand.
>
>To wit, I must agree, I am equally free to donate $35.00 so, I can
>have a voice in American Politics. Just as the rich are equal to
>donate $35.00. to what ever party they so desire, PARITY, (to coin a
>phrase of my deceased Grand-mother, My hinny)
>
>Set the level of Pvt. donation at a level that even those Americans
>that work for Minimum wage can Donate a portion of their available
>resources to. Then you will see Parity in Politics. Parity that
>reflects an equal Voice, Mono-to-Mono, for every indivual man and
>woman of voting age in America today. Util that happens, Parity is an
>insult to my intelligence and has it exist today a RICH man's scheme
>to further defame the Progress we working people have made over the
>Years.
>
>The top 5% would, I'm sure, would further stipulate the amount of
>resources at hand is irrelevent. It is the way tehy Utilize the
>resources they have that makes the difference. These thoughts are
>merely putting a Voice to just how arrogant they are.
>
>I'm still waiting for your reply concerning even the basic tenets, I
>had set forth earlier.
>
What does any of that have to do with the miles of hwy you get from
the government?
>What's wrong still haven't found any top 5% of the people, living on
>roads still made of dirt, gravel, or even those roads that are paved,
>are so full of Pot Holes, a Front-end alignment is veiwed as a waste
>of their income.
>
>I know your still looking up in a dictionary what is a POT HOLE,
>RIGHT...being well Versed in the merits of LOOPHOLES, you think you've
>just stumbled into a new form of slang, concerning the variety of ways
>you can circumvent the Constitution.
>
>I was merely pointing out the disparingly lack of Parity between say
>myself and the top 5% in the amount of resources at our disposal.
We are only talking about resources furnished by the government.
>Since the strata alone is unsurmountable, it is ascinide to even
>pursue a discussion about Parity, since it does not exist in benefits
>recieved. The truth is without the concept of Parity being so
>deliciously warped and laced within the confines of the FLat Tax, the
>Flat Tax will fall on it's face.
>
>However, my message was presented, I doubt you would've heard it,
>since, I suppose, your already a supporter of Forbes.
>
You don't seem to be following the discussion. A flat tax is no
better than what we have. Like wise a sales tax. The only tax that
has parity is a per capita tax, because that is the definition of
parity
par·i·ty1 (p²r“¹-t¶) n., pl. par·i·ties. 1. Equality, as in amount,
status, or value.
Now if you want to pay yours in bushels of wheat and I pay mine in
gold that can still be parity if I could buy your wheat with my gold
or the converse.
<snip>
You just don't seem to be able to understand what is being provided at
what cost. Should your steak cost $100 per lb. and mine $3 per lb.
Everyone gets the same services from government and everyone should
pay exactly the same. If the cost is too high for the poor man then
the amount per person is too high and government should get by on less
money.
If you make the tax $1000 per person (man, woman and CHILD) and that
is too much for Joe poor then the tax should be lowered to $500.
Government spending should go down from $280,000,000,000 which is
about what $1000 per would give to 140,000,000,000.
The right fix isn't to charge more because you want more roads but to
do with the mile of roads that you can afford with the provided money.
tHewHiz
Sorry wife is Buddist we rarely eat steak...
>
>Everyone gets the same services from government and everyone should
>pay exactly the same. If the cost is too high for the poor man then
>the amount per person is too high and government should get by on less
>money.
Every one does not get the same services from the government..
A rich news paper man Builds a rodeo areana twenty miles away from an
intrastate in my State. The state just approved funds to extend a
circle around our city to bring together some of teh suburban towns.
The rich newspaperman begins his brand of "News" and the slant of his
paper. The Governor who had been pushing the Interstate circle and
telling the Rich man the present day road to his Rodeo Arena is
sufficient. Suddenly finds himself under indictment (eventually found
innocent), and all of a sudden the Highway we approved, is somehow
turned into a Toll road and The rich guy gets a 6 lane extension from
the interstate hiway that ends at his Rodio Arena.
1940 a group of "enterprising" people that included this same Richman,
sttarted buying up properties that were mostly cowpastures, resistist
was futile as they would use the gov't to condemn homes, if necessary,
in this same area, so they can move in and buy them, at a below cost
price.
Tear everything down and I do me everything, just prior to WW II. This
area is later awarded an Air Base known as Tinker AFB, and the
surrounding site becomes known as Mid West and Del City's. They got
extreemly rich knowing where this Base was going to be built before
hand. NOt only from the base itself but also from the cities that grew
up around it. Now do you HONESTLY wish to imply they did not know this
was coming.
You HONESTLY BELEIVE THE RICH people and teh poor people get the same
services.....
>
>If you make the tax $1000 per person (man, woman and CHILD) and that
>is too much for Joe poor then the tax should be lowered to $500.
>Government spending should go down from $280,000,000,000 which is
>about what $1000 per would give to 140,000,000,000.
*YAWN*
>The right fix isn't to charge more because you want more roads but to
>do with the mile of roads that you can afford with the provided money.
>The only reason the US doesn't have a Gestapo is that the
>FBI, BATF, DEA, EPA etc. can't speak German.
Yea, mean while the roads to my place look like, I live in Belgrade
right now.....
Jim F.
James A. Donald
tHewHiz) wrote:
> I agree Lets outlaw all Private money from all sources. Lets outlaw
> all SOft money,
"Soft money" is money spent by private individuals, or groups that are
not part of the official political apparatus, to promote their views.
Thus a proposal to ban soft money is a proposal to ban private
citizens from participating in politics, a proposal to restrict
political activity only to those properly authorized by the state to
engage in it, a proposal to abandon the substance of democracy,
replacing it with direct rule by a self perpetuating elite, while
retaining the superficial form of democracy.
You assume that private individuals are morally degenerate, and if
allowed to influence politics they will do evil, but the state is
morally superior, and the state should regulate the state without
meddling from mere mortals.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
vOHMfQIsVoMSCNpQpxNwLC2TPlzoDl3NJgfk1fUD
4UrJZQiDuiEwF1AVEmRXJ+EI7dRq4PFiI4GMqfQOQ
------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
TonyGrundon
Yes like all those other "greedy" people that made this country great:
Edison, The Wright brothers, Henry Ford, the founder of Sears, etc.
All the people that made our standard of living possible were the
"greedy".
Miguel O'Pastel
of what it was in the fifties.
M
TonyGrundon wrote in message <7mg0h8$ql0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
|In article <3784F706...@speedchoice.com>,
|Yes like all those other "greedy" people that made this country great:
|Edison, The Wright brothers, Henry Ford, the founder of Sears, etc.
|All the people that made our standard of living possible were the
|"greedy".
|
Jafo
Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
>The greedy are the ones who have decreased our standards of living
>to half of what it was in the fifties.
It is? We all had computers, VCRs, and cars with air conditioning
back in the fifties? We could fix broken heart valves back then?
--
~ Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo/
TonyGrundon
politicians. "Greed" is such a variable word.
In article <OfAIl3bz#GA.120@cpmsnbbsa03>,
"Miguel O'Pastel" <heresl...@you.kid> wrote:
> The greedy are the ones who have decreased our standards of living
to half
> of what it was in the fifties.
Miguel O'Pastel
measure quality of life.
M
Jafo wrote in message <379a903c...@news1.cheetah.net>...
|As viewed from alt.california on Tue, 13 Jul 1999 22:59:06 -0700,
|Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
|
|>The greedy are the ones who have decreased our standards of living
|>to half of what it was in the fifties.
|
Miguel O'Pastel
prime motivation for "business" Universal US corruption is a corollary.
M
TonyGrundon wrote in message <7mijlf$njm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
|Sounds like you are talking about the Democrats, or other power-greedy
|politicians. "Greed" is such a variable word.
|
|
|In article <OfAIl3bz#GA.120@cpmsnbbsa03>,
| "Miguel O'Pastel" <heresl...@you.kid> wrote:
|> The greedy are the ones who have decreased our standards of living
|to half
|> of what it was in the fifties.
rrcrumb
out of the USA ?
HISPANICS:
The biggest materialists on the planet Earth,
You all want refrigerators and washing machines and new cars.
Bwahahahhahahahhahahhaha
.....hehhehehehhhahhahahahhahahahhahahah !!!!!!!
Miguel O'Pastel <heresl...@you.kid> wrote in message
news:OyYgXUjz#GA.219@cpmsnbbsa05...
> These benefits are not shared by half of us. Gadgets are not the way we
> measure quality of life.
> M
>
> Jafo wrote in message <379a903c...@news1.cheetah.net>...
> |As viewed from alt.california on Tue, 13 Jul 1999 22:59:06 -0700,
> |Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
> |
> |>The greedy are the ones who have decreased our standards of living
> |>to half of what it was in the fifties.
> |
Nopalito
"rrcrumb" <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Then how come all you numbnut Hispanics hate to be thrown
> out of the USA ?
Yo, crumb, careful with those macros. Neither Jafo nor Miguel have
identified themselves as "Hispanics."
> HISPANICS:
> The biggest materialists on the planet Earth,
> You all want refrigerators and washing machines and new cars.
You're confusing "HISPANICS" with "Americans."
> Bwahahahhahahahhahahhaha
> .....hehhehehehhhahhahahahhahahahhahahah !!!!!!!
And now you're braying like 'food, last person I thought you'd emulate.
Try Saint John's Wort, man. That Thorazine is doing a number on 'ya!
- Dean
Miguel O'Pastel
new tv.
M
rrcrumb wrote in message <8S6j3.19640$0b2.1...@news1.mia>...
|Then how come all you numbnut Hispanics hate to be thrown
|out of the USA ?
|
|HISPANICS:
|The biggest materialists on the planet Earth,
|You all want refrigerators and washing machines and new cars.
|
|
rrcrumb
I will be surprised if he is not Hispanic.
Meanwhile I will I will figure that he is.
Nopalito <nopa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7mj4ss$v26$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8S6j3.19640$0b2.1...@news1.mia>,
> "rrcrumb" <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Then how come all you numbnut Hispanics hate to be thrown
> > out of the USA ?
>
> Yo, crumb, careful with those macros. Neither Jafo nor Miguel have
> identified themselves as "Hispanics."
>
> > HISPANICS:
> > The biggest materialists on the planet Earth,
> > You all want refrigerators and washing machines and new cars.
>
Jafo
rrcrumb wrote:
>Then how come all you numbnut Hispanics hate to be thrown
>out of the USA ?
>
>HISPANICS:
>The biggest materialists on the planet Earth,
>You all want refrigerators and washing machines and new cars.
>
>Bwahahahhahahahhahahhaha
>.....hehhehehehhhahhahahahhahahahhahahah !!!!!!!
Is there some reason why you felt you had to single out Hispanics,
when they had nothing to do with the thread? Kinda hoping for one
o' them newfangled washing machines yourself?
bobsun
Miguel O'Pastel wrote in message ...
>These benefits are not shared by half of us. Gadgets are not the way we
>measure quality of life.
>M
And what metric did you use to calculate that the "standard of living" is
half of what it was in the 50s? Or was that just rhetoric bullshit with
nothing to back it up?
bobsun
>
>Jafo wrote in message <379a903c...@news1.cheetah.net>...
>|As viewed from alt.california on Tue, 13 Jul 1999 22:59:06 -0700,
>|Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
>|
>|>The greedy are the ones who have decreased our standards of living
>|>to half of what it was in the fifties.
>|
>|It is? We all had computers, VCRs, and cars with air conditioning
>|back in the fifties? We could fix broken heart valves back then?
>|
bobsun
Miguel O'Pastel wrote in message ...
>prime motivation for "business" Universal US corruption is a corollary.
>M
So it is US corruption and business greed that has reduced the standard of
living by 50%? I say that US "corruption" and business greed has increased
the standard of living by 100% since the 50s. Now, don't you feel so much
better with this great piece of news? Aren't you glad that you live in a
country with such corruption and greed? Would you trade it for the
corruption and greed present in, say, China or Japan or Mexico? I would
guess not! Right?
bobsun
>TonyGrundon wrote in message <7mijlf$njm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>|Sounds like you are talking about the Democrats, or other power-greedy
>|politicians. "Greed" is such a variable word.
>|
>|
>|In article <OfAIl3bz#GA.120@cpmsnbbsa03>,
>| "Miguel O'Pastel" <heresl...@you.kid> wrote:
>|> The greedy are the ones who have decreased our standards of living
>|to half
>|> of what it was in the fifties.
>|> M
>|>
>|> TonyGrundon wrote in message <7mg0h8$ql0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>|> |In article <3784F706...@speedchoice.com>,
>|> | William Maslen <wma...@speedchoice.com> wrote:
>|> |>
>|> |> As far as I'm concerned when you quote the Ayn Rand Institute you
>|> |have just
>|> |> totally discredited your argument. You might as well quote the
>|> |Institute for
>|> |> the Preservation of Greed.
>|> |
>|> |Yes like all those other "greedy" people that made this country
>|great:
>|> |Edison, The Wright brothers, Henry Ford, the founder of Sears, etc.
>|> |All the people that made our standard of living possible were the
>|> |"greedy".
>|> |
>|> |--
>|> |----------------------- ### -----------------------------
>|> | Visit the Tony Grundon archives->
>|> | http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3005
>|> | The best of Reason, Reality, and Ayn Rand.
>|> |
>|> |
>|> |Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>|> |Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>|>
>|>
>|
>|--
>|----------------------- ### -----------------------------
>| Visit the Tony Grundon archives->
>| http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3005
>| The best of Reason, Reality, and Ayn Rand.
>|
>|
Miguel O'Pastel
I was there and one person with a job could easily support a family of four
very well in the fifties. It was not necessary to enslave both partners to
do it either.
M
M
bobsun wrote in message <7mjsmo$7g5$2...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
|
|Miguel O'Pastel wrote in message ...
|>These benefits are not shared by half of us. Gadgets are not the way we
|>measure quality of life.
|>M
|
|And what metric did you use to calculate that the "standard of living" is
|half of what it was in the 50s? Or was that just rhetoric bullshit with
|nothing to back it up?
|
|bobsun
|>
|>Jafo wrote in message <379a903c...@news1.cheetah.net>...
|>|As viewed from alt.california on Tue, 13 Jul 1999 22:59:06 -0700,
|>|Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
|>|
|>|>The greedy are the ones who have decreased our standards of living
|>|>to half of what it was in the fifties.
|>|
Miguel O'Pastel
M
bobsun wrote in message <7mjsmp$7g5$3...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
|
|Miguel O'Pastel wrote in message ...
|>It ain't variable or relative where I come from. Greed has always been
the
|>prime motivation for "business" Universal US corruption is a corollary.
|>M
|
|
|So it is US corruption and business greed that has reduced the standard of
|living by 50%? I say that US "corruption" and business greed has increased
|the standard of living by 100% since the 50s. Now, don't you feel so much
|better with this great piece of news? Aren't you glad that you live in a
|country with such corruption and greed? Would you trade it for the
|corruption and greed present in, say, China or Japan or Mexico? I would
|guess not! Right?
|
|bobsun
|
|
|>TonyGrundon wrote in message <7mijlf$njm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
|>|Sounds like you are talking about the Democrats, or other power-greedy
|>|politicians. "Greed" is such a variable word.
|>|
|>|
|>|In article <OfAIl3bz#GA.120@cpmsnbbsa03>,
|>| "Miguel O'Pastel" <heresl...@you.kid> wrote:
|>|> The greedy are the ones who have decreased our standards of living
|>|to half
|>|> of what it was in the fifties.
tHewHiz
wrote:
> --
>tHewHiz) wrote:
>> I agree Lets outlaw all Private money from all sources. Lets outlaw
>> all SOft money,
>
>"Soft money" is money spent by private individuals, or groups that are
>not part of the official political apparatus, to promote their views.
>
>Thus a proposal to ban soft money is a proposal to ban private
>citizens from participating in politics, a proposal to restrict
>political activity only to those properly authorized by the state to
>engage in it, a proposal to abandon the substance of democracy,
>replacing it with direct rule by a self perpetuating elite, while
>retaining the superficial form of democracy.
>
>You assume that private individuals are morally degenerate, and if
>allowed to influence politics they will do evil, but the state is
>morally superior, and the state should regulate the state without
>meddling from mere mortals
Actually, I knew this was constitutionally wrong when I posted it and
all though, it is wrong (now even by my own admission), I posted it
any way. As far as what I think about the morality of individuals, you
could only be half again as wrong, if you had said the complete
opposite, eg, I think all individual are morally good.
I think "adult" human morality runs the entire spectrium of
possabilities and I think the state reflects the mirror image of this
reality.
Since I beleive the assumption, that individual morality runs the
entire spectrium of possabilities, in our society. It would be better
served for those individuals (myself included) to make every attempt
possabile to ensure every Moral possability that is not in direct
conflict to the survival of our Great Union, to continue to have Fair
and Equal representation in our legislative, judicial, and exectutive,
branches of office.
This is an awsome task, when as life dictates to us in many ways
(admittedly not all), the amount of Voice each Strata has, is not
equal.
>
> --digsig
> James A. Donald
> 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
> vOHMfQIsVoMSCNpQpxNwLC2TPlzoDl3NJgfk1fUD
> 4UrJZQiDuiEwF1AVEmRXJ+EI7dRq4PFiI4GMqfQOQ
>
> ------
>We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
>of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
>right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
In today's world True Power comes from the wallet, Once while having a
heated disagreement with my teenage son, concerning why, I always had
the last say, and maintained absolute Veto power in this house, and
although I try to maintain a Pseudo-form of what I call, Auto-cratic
(Authoriatarian\Democracy).
I merely took out my wallet, laid it on the table, pointed at it and
said, It is not because I have absolutly cornered the market of always
Knowing what is Right & Wrong, it is because I OWN THE CONTENTS INSIDE
MY WALLET and You my friend, (I really said that <g>) thirst for them.
Money is power not the superfical morality of right and wrong. The sad
part in today's Political market is we've confused the Power of Money
with superior morale's and the Constitutional right to Keep it that
way.
Jim F.
David J. P. Long
>These benefits are not shared by half of us. Gadgets are not the way we
>measure quality of life.
Ok, so how would *you* define it?
+----/|-------------------------------------+-------------------+
| | | djl...@wildwizards.net \ Last upd:6/4/99 |
| / | djl...@msn.com \ |
| ( ) http://www.wildwizards.net \ ICQ# 8976662 |
+--`--' ----------------------------------------+---------------+
The Devil's Advocate©
<heresl...@you.kid> wrote:
>Real wages have declined. This is from the AFL-CIO and other sources. Also
>I was there and one person with a job could easily support a family of four
>very well in the fifties. It was not necessary to enslave both partners to
>do it either.
Isn't part of the reason though because people consume more than they
did in the fifties? For example, back then it was unheard of to have
more than one television in a household. Now we have one in the living
room, the kids have to have one each in their room, a small one in the
kitchen, maybe one in the car, plus a computer on top of that. But
then I don't know, maybe these days, 5 tvs cost what 1 tv would have
back then when adjusted for inflation.
--
regards,
The Devil's Advocate
"Your Warrant Is In Question"
http://surf.to/advocate
Thomas A. Bolig
>> I agree Lets outlaw all Private money from all sources. Lets
outlaw
>> all SOft money,
>
>"Soft money" is money spent by private individuals, or groups that
are
>not part of the official political apparatus, to promote their
views.
Actually, "soft money" is money spent by *official* political
apparatus to promote their views but not their candidates; the
donation sources can be both individual or groups. E.G. DNC
commercials criticizing GOP policies or GOP 'pro-family'
commercials. These may *support* their particular party's
candidate(s) but are not directly supportive of "candidate X" which
would be 'hard money'. It is this spending that the much of the
anti-soft money is aimed at.
The GOP - as a whole - has opposed the above cuts on the grounds
that it leaves organized 'non-political' groups free to end-run the
definition of 'soft money'. E.G. The labor unions spent huge bucks
on TV and print commercials on the 'need to protect union laws',
criticizing 'those in Congress' (GOP) that work against bill#<> ...
etc. sometimes even showing pictures of 'pro' and 'anti' congress
critters but no names. Thus it is not 'hard money' nor 'soft money'
(maybe it should be called really-mushy money...).
Other Tom
PS
"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right
to be taken seriously." --- Hubert H. Humphrey (US Sen, VP)
brian_n...@yahoo.com
>
> In today's world True Power comes from the wallet.
Well, that's up to us. If we choose to we can dismantle
government and leave economics as the only power medium
in its place. Or we can respect the legacy of formal
democracy, in which case power comes not from the wallet,
but from the people. A hybrid of capitalism and democracy
is probably best, and I'd prefer that hybrid were Euro-style
social democracy.
rrcrumb
That's why.
I look at a person's remarks in a cultural/ethnic context
if that is what they post in.
Jafo <jafo@_cheetah.net> wrote in message
news:378f40ff...@news1.cheetah.net...
Blanc
> Why don't you ask Miguel and clear it up?
>
> I will be surprised if he is not Hispanic.
> Meanwhile I will I will figure that he is.
Why does it matter?
Constantinople
<378c97fc...@news.ionet.net>:
>In today's world True Power comes from the wallet, Once while
>having a heated disagreement with my teenage son, concerning
>why, I always had the last say, and maintained absolute Veto
>power in this house, and although I try to maintain a Pseudo
>-form of what I call, Auto-cratic (Authoriatarian\Democracy).
>
>I merely took out my wallet, laid it on the table, pointed at it
>and said, It is not because I have absolutly cornered the market
>of always Knowing what is Right & Wrong, it is because I OWN THE
>CONTENTS INSIDE MY WALLET and You my friend, (I really said that
><g>) thirst for them.
A distinction might be made between influencing your son by being
generous with the wealth you created, and influencing someone by
pointing a gun at his head. If you offer me $100 for the shirt
on my back, I'll give it to you, but I won't consider myself to
be under your power. If you point a gun at my head and demand my
shirt, I will consider myself to be under your power, and I'll
wish you dead.
James A. Donald
> Actually, "soft money" is money spent by *official* political
> apparatus to promote their views but not their candidates;
Untrue: The "soft money" that got the Democrats so upset was the
"Harry and Louise" ads on the Clinton health plan.
The Shays-Meehan bill proposes to ban soft money contributions to
political parties, which is what you are calling soft money, and it
also proposes to limit private financial support for the discussion of
political issues where such discussion "refers to a clearly identified
candidate." I am pretty sure the Harry and Louise ads clearly
identified the "CLINTON health plan". Similarly federal regulators
have claimed that any complaint about tax issues in Forbe's magazines
is advocacy for a certain presidential candidate and constitutes
campaign expenditures by that candidate.
The reason the Republicans hate Shays-Meehan is that it probably would
have made the "Harry and Louise" ads illegal, but probably would not
have made the advertising blitz by organized labor attacking the
Contract With America and the GOP's stand on Social Security and
Medicare illegal, since that was not a clearly identified candidate,
but a clearly identified party.
Even though the AFL-CIO's ads were ostensibly about issues, there is
no doubt that they were aimed at helping Democrats regain control of
the House.
The reason we still have freedom of speech is that whenever the
Democrats issue a soft money bill, it aims at silencing the right but
not the left, and vice versa when the Republicans issue a soft money
bill. When they "compromise" then we are really going to be in
trouble.
The term "soft money" was originally used by the right to refer
exclusively to spending by trade unions to promote certain political
points of view among their members, and primarily reflected efforts by
the right to defund the left. They were not worried about spending
that indirectly promoted Clinton's agenda, but rather spending that
directly promoted Marxism and general attacks on the bourgeoisie.
Back in the 1950s, "soft money" often meant "thinly laundered Moscow
gold" if the right was using the word, and "red baiting" if the left
was using the word.
In 1994 non party political groups became more important in campaigns,
and the term soft money was used by incumbent politicians seeking to
curtail the power of these non party groups.
The predominant usage today is to refer to any spending that promotes
views that makes incumbent politicians look bad. The democrats want
to stop conservative groups from issuing scorecards that tell the
public how politicians really voted, but do not want to restrain the
unions from doing similar things.
The primary targets of today's "soft money" regulators are
issue-related television and radio advertising that became a
significant factor in campaigns beginning in 1994 when independent
term-limits, tax reform, and conservative religious groups ran ads to
alert voters to candidates' positions on various issues. In 1996,
unions and environmental organizations responded by making extensive
use of such issue advertising.
The proposed soft money laws are a result of the escalation of non
party interventions into elections.
The practical effect and intention behind "soft money" limits is to
limit the influence and power of political groups that are not party
political, for example unions, the NRA, tax reform groups, etc, to
stop such groups from meddling in mainstream politics.
In other words, to make politics off limits for everyone except
professional, and preferably incumbent, politicians.
One can easily imagine laws that could be enforced in a way that would
make the political playing field more equal.
The trouble is that such laws will be passed and enforced by people
with a very strong interest in making the political playing field less
equal, and in practice soft money laws are invariably applied to the
advantage of incumbents and the disadvantage of challengers, to the
advantage of the state and the disadvantage of the individual, and to
the advantage of the long established vested interest and the
disadvantage of the new interest.
> The GOP - as a whole - has opposed the above cuts on the grounds
> that it leaves organized 'non-political' groups free to end-run the
> definition of 'soft money'.
The word soft money has a well established definition. The
Shays-Meehan bill only bans some soft money expenditures, but not
others. This is of course impossible, since one can readily go
around it by a mere accounting trick.
Then of course, the politicians who found the Harry and Louise ads so
outrageous will proclaim they need a law to fix this "loophole". All
private expenditures on political activity will be subjected to ad
hoc, case by case, scrutiny to see if they are bona fide, or a use of
the "loophole". (The supreme court has rejected this sort of
regulation about a hundred or so times, but new regulations along the
same lines are passed with great frequency.)
As the Democrat leader in the house proclaimed:
"What we have is two important values in conflict: freedom of
speech and our desire for healthy campaigns in a healthy
democracy. You can't have both."
You can see that his definition of "healthy campaign" means a campaign
in which the incumbents and professional politicians have control of
what is said.
> E.G. The labor unions spent huge bucks
> on TV and print commercials on the 'need to protect union laws',
> criticizing 'those in Congress' (GOP) that work against bill#<> ...
> etc. sometimes even showing pictures of 'pro' and 'anti' congress
> critters but no names. Thus it is not 'hard money' nor 'soft money'
> (maybe it should be called really-mushy money...).
It is soft money, and all politicians call it soft money, but the
Shays-Meehan does not ban it. In my opinion, and I expect the supreme
court's opinion, it would be just as unconstitutional if it did ban
it.
Shays-Meehan is an attempt to revise the constitution by creep, to
find a law against soft money whose violation of free speech is
sufficiently small and innocuous that the supremes let it through, and
then endlessly expand that precedent, because almost any act of
political speech will be a "loophole".
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
ocvSxH9ctWbnmvN+vduRplsjiMFGt8gV9JqDcE09
4nDn0DhSd30zntsgWVPMp3IXlZSfqdVt9tjLvm28s
------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
Miguel O'Pastel
car every year and take the kids on vacation almost anywhere in the US.
Europe was too expensive then. In current Yuppie enclaves like Alameda and
the Haight Ashbury, blue collar people owned those 4 bedroom Victorian
homes. Police and firemen and factory workers had summer cabins on the
Russian River or near Tahoe or Yosemite.
M
The Devil's Advocate© <--nojunk--s...@excite.com> wrote in message
<378f84fa...@news.earthlink.net>...
bobsun
Miguel O'Pastel wrote in message ...
Also
>I was there and one person with a job could easily support a family of four
>very well in the fifties. It was not necessary to enslave both partners
to
>do it either.
That's bull. The AFL_CIO sources say just the opposite.
bobsun
>M
>
>bobsun wrote in message <7mjsmo$7g5$2...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>|
>|Miguel O'Pastel wrote in message ...
>|>These benefits are not shared by half of us. Gadgets are not the way we
>|>measure quality of life.
>|>M
>|
>|And what metric did you use to calculate that the "standard of living" is
>|half of what it was in the 50s? Or was that just rhetoric bullshit with
>|nothing to back it up?
>|
>|bobsun
>|>
>|>Jafo wrote in message <379a903c...@news1.cheetah.net>...
>|>|As viewed from alt.california on Tue, 13 Jul 1999 22:59:06 -0700,
>|>|Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
>|>|
>|>|>The greedy are the ones who have decreased our standards of living
>|>|>to half of what it was in the fifties.
>|>|
>|>|It is? We all had computers, VCRs, and cars with air conditioning
>|>|back in the fifties? We could fix broken heart valves back then?
>|>|
bobsun
Miguel O'Pastel wrote in message <##yyfivz#GA.470@cpmsnbbsa02>...
>That is correct and a factory worker with a family of four could buy a new
>car every year and take the kids on vacation almost anywhere in the US.
>Europe was too expensive then. In current Yuppie enclaves like Alameda and
>the Haight Ashbury, blue collar people owned those 4 bedroom Victorian
>homes. Police and firemen and factory workers had summer cabins on the
>Russian River or near Tahoe or Yosemite.
>M
The problem is that Mr. O'Pastel is quoting data from the planet Nirvana.
Here on planet Earth the situation for a family of four in the fifties was:
The owned a 1000 sqft bungalow, with a 30 yr mortgage, if they were lucky.
More likely, they lived in a 500 sqft rented flat.
They owned a used '49 ford with 40 000 miles. It was almost worn out because
cars only lasted 50K miles then.
They likely watched a B&W TV at their neighbors, as they couldn't afford
one, unless they were at the high end of the working class.
They rarely went to a doctor, because they couldn't afford it, and there was
no medical insurance.
They went on a vacation to a rented cabin, with an outdoor toilet and a
water pump, for a week. They only had 2 weeks vacation
They didn't send there children to college - it was too expensive, and there
were no forms of aid available.
They only ate meat twice a week - it was too expensive.
Entertainment consisted of a saturday nite movie, or getting drunk at the
local bar.
All of this is taken directly from the very "other sources" that Mr.
O'Pastel quoted - look them up!
It is obvious from these sources that I am correct - the standard of living
has increased by 100% or more! All of this due to the very elements in our
society that Mr. O'Pastel blamed for his mythical 50% reduction in the
standard of living.
Now, why not admit that you were in error, and that America, and business
greed is truely a godsend?
bobsun
>The Devil's Advocate© <--nojunk--s...@excite.com> wrote in message
><378f84fa...@news.earthlink.net>...
>|On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 23:07:45 -0700, "Miguel O'Pastel"
>|<heresl...@you.kid> wrote:
>|
>|>Real wages have declined. This is from the AFL-CIO and other sources.
>Also
>|>I was there and one person with a job could easily support a family of
>four
>|>very well in the fifties. It was not necessary to enslave both partners
>to
>|>do it either.
>|
Richard H. Langill
forty years the average would be somehwere in the vicinity of $85-90,000
annually nowadays. The unions haven't been doing their job which
probably accounts for the drop in membership over the years.
If males were earning wages like that many women wouldn't have to work
to be able to have all the things that are somehow considered
necessities today and the children wouldn't have to come home to an
empty house after school. Of course, a lot of things would cost a lot
more than they currently do so is the trade-off worth it? Dick in
Plainfield.
Rick Mays
"Now, why not admit that you were in error, and that America, and
business
greed is truly a godsend?"
Forgive me for my initiating the debate and furor I am about to.
However this issue disturbs me to no end. Bobson you have fell
victim to the liberals wordsmithing that Clinton is the National
poster boy.
Greed. Greedy is the welfare recipient who sits on their ass and
says, I deserve my check.
Greed is the tax structure than penalizes the wealthy, who pay a
majority of the tax burden, because they have more than me.
Greed is a very negative word. But you used it within a
statement to make a positive point. Conservatives are very
susceptible to using the terms that the liberals dictate and
nothing we say can therefore be a positive. This is the mastery
of the polled society that we live in. A better way for the
conservatives to make your statement is : that America and
ambitious business practices are truly a godsend.
Rick Mays
Lets go sailing
The Devil's Advocate©
<rlan...@cyberportal.net> wrote:
>If male wage-earners' wages had kept up with inflation for the past
>forty years the average would be somehwere in the vicinity of $85-90,000
>annually nowadays.
Wow, is this true??? How did you come to this fact?
>The unions haven't been doing their job which
>probably accounts for the drop in membership over the years.
>If males were earning wages like that many women wouldn't have to work
>to be able to have all the things that are somehow considered
>necessities today and the children wouldn't have to come home to an
>empty house after school. Of course, a lot of things would cost a lot
>more than they currently do so is the trade-off worth it? Dick in
>Plainfield.
My question, is is it economically feasible for the average wage to be
$85-90,000?
David J. P. Long
>Real wages have declined. This is from the AFL-CIO and other sources. Also
At face value, I wouldn't trust anything the AFL-CIO says. However,
when looked at in certain statistical ways, you're right that wages,
in some ways have declined.
>I was there and one person with a job could easily support a family of four
>very well in the fifties. It was not necessary to enslave both partners to
>do it either.
However, you're looking at a very interesting time in world history.
The US was the only industrialized nation that hadn't been bombed to
rubble in World War Two. Europe and Japan were still trying to build
their infrastructure while we were the only guys in town selling
machinery.
We practically had a monopoly on it.
Look what happened when Europe and Japan started "catching up".
Now, about 1 person supporting 4.. Well, that's all well and good as
long as everyone is playing by the same rules. The biggest of those
rules was that the wife, generally, didn't work.
When women started entering the workforce en masse, you'll notice that
a little later, property prices starting going up. This was from the
new dual-income families looking to 'trade up' on their piece of The
American Dream.
Well, enough of that goes on and you start re-writing the rules.
Nowadays, you NEED that second income to be able to afford a house
because "everyone else is doing it".
Arthur L. Rubin
>
> In current Yuppie enclaves like Alameda and
> the Haight Ashbury, blue collar people owned those 4 bedroom Victorian
> homes.
That was an aberation, due to the fact that, in the 60s,
nobody wanted the Victorian homes, and the hippies could therefore
afford them (at 2-3 people per room).
I can neither confirm nor disconfirm the rest of your post at the
present time; I'm just adding a little historical trivia. My wife
and I recently visited San Francisco, and that was one of the
tidbits the tour bus driver through out.
--
Arthur L. Rubin 216-...@mcimail.com
Miguel O'Pastel
M
bobsun wrote in message <7mmio3$55k$2...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
|
|Miguel O'Pastel wrote in message <##yyfivz#GA.470@cpmsnbbsa02>...
|>That is correct and a factory worker with a family of four could buy a new
|>car every year and take the kids on vacation almost anywhere in the US.
|>Europe was too expensive then. In current Yuppie enclaves like Alameda
and
|>the Haight Ashbury, blue collar people owned those 4 bedroom Victorian
|Now, why not admit that you were in error, and that America, and business
|greed is truely a godsend?
|
|bobsun
|
|
|>The Devil's Advocate© <--nojunk--s...@excite.com> wrote in message
|><378f84fa...@news.earthlink.net>...
|>|On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 23:07:45 -0700, "Miguel O'Pastel"
|>|<heresl...@you.kid> wrote:
|>|
|>|>Real wages have declined. This is from the AFL-CIO and other sources.
|>Also
|>|>I was there and one person with a job could easily support a family of
|>four
|>|>very well in the fifties. It was not necessary to enslave both
partners
|>to
|>|>do it either.
|>|
|>|Isn't part of the reason though because people consume more than they
|>|did in the fifties? For example, back then it was unheard of to have
|>|more than one television in a household. Now we have one in the living
|>|room, the kids have to have one each in their room, a small one in the
|>|kitchen, maybe one in the car, plus a computer on top of that. But
|>|then I don't know, maybe these days, 5 tvs cost what 1 tv would have
|>|back then when adjusted for inflation.
|>|
Miguel O'Pastel
that is beginning to change with reform movements among the rank and file.
M
M
Richard H. Langill wrote in message <378EDA...@cyberportal.net>...
|If male wage-earners' wages had kept up with inflation for the past
|forty years the average would be somehwere in the vicinity of $85-90,000
|annually nowadays. The unions haven't been doing their job which
Miguel O'Pastel
M
Rick Mays wrote in message <93211228...@news.remarQ.com>...
|Bobson said
|
|"Now, why not admit that you were in error, and that America, and
|business
Miguel O'Pastel
M
David J. P. Long wrote in message <378ed367....@news.mv.com>...
|"Miguel O'Pastel" <heresl...@you.kid> wrote:
|
|>Real wages have declined. This is from the AFL-CIO and other sources.
Also
|
|At face value, I wouldn't trust anything the AFL-CIO says. However,
|when looked at in certain statistical ways, you're right that wages,
|in some ways have declined.
|
|>I was there and one person with a job could easily support a family of
four
|>very well in the fifties. It was not necessary to enslave both partners
to
|>do it either.
|
Rick Mays
liberals who try to deter ambition by calling it greed.
The greedy are those who demand their fair share and sit on their
ass to get it!!!
Miguel O'Pastel
ever been a liberal.
M
Rick Mays wrote in message <93215906...@news.remarQ.com>...
Miguel O'Pastel
there was a general belief that no one should pay more than 25% of their
income for housing. People were turned down for mortgages that were higher
than this. The housing resources have massively shifted hands. The expense
of housing is ridiculous and should be regulated.
M
David J. P. Long wrote in message <378f36b2....@news.mv.com>...
|"Richard H. Langill" <rlan...@cyberportal.net> wrote:
|
|>If male wage-earners' wages had kept up with inflation for the past
|>forty years the average would be somehwere in the vicinity of $85-90,000
|>annually nowadays. The unions haven't been doing their job which
|
|...and how expensive do you think a loaf of bread would be if the
|average wage was as high as you mentioned?
|
|>probably accounts for the drop in membership over the years.
|
|Actually, there are several reason for the drop in membership - chief
|among them are layoffs.
|
|>If males were earning wages like that many women wouldn't have to work
|>to be able to have all the things that are somehow considered
|>necessities today and the children wouldn't have to come home to an
|>empty house after school. Of course, a lot of things would cost a lot
|>more than they currently do so is the trade-off worth it? Dick in
|
|Well, we might want to start reducing the tax burden. I pay more in
|taxes than my wife makes on her job. But thanks to a variety of
|influences, housing is a HUGE expense and, typically, that's why a lot
|of people need that second wage-earner - to pay the mortgage (or the
|rent which pays the landlord's mortgage).
Rick Mays
After reading your posts, I am truly confused, your ideas seem to
be socialistic, which is a liberal philosophy.
Miguel O'Pastel
Socialists intensely dislike liberals because the try to reform capitalism
rather than destroy it. I think it will be a combination of socialism and
capitalism that we see in the future the process is out of human hands so it
doesn't matter what we want. We must deal with what the forces of history,
economics and nature give us to deal with. I assume that all humans will
become corrupt with power so checks and balances in the form of collective
bargaining are absolutely necessary in all countries including the
"socialist" ones.
M
Rick Mays wrote in message <93218996...@news.remarQ.com>...
David J. P. Long
tHewHiz
Devil's AdvocateŠ) wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 23:07:45 -0700, "Miguel O'Pastel"
><heresl...@you.kid> wrote:
>
>>Real wages have declined. This is from the AFL-CIO and other sources. Also
>>I was there and one person with a job could easily support a family of four
>>very well in the fifties. It was not necessary to enslave both partners to
>>do it either.
>
>Isn't part of the reason though because people consume more than they
>did in the fifties? For example, back then it was unheard of to have
>more than one television in a household. Now we have one in the living
>room, the kids have to have one each in their room, a small one in the
>kitchen, maybe one in the car, plus a computer on top of that. But
>then I don't know, maybe these days, 5 tvs cost what 1 tv would have
>back then when adjusted for inflation.
>
>--
>
>regards,
>The Devil's Advocate
>
>"Your Warrant Is In Question"
> http://surf.to/advocate
>
Wow when You flood the Market place with twice the labor pool needed
to produce the goods, labor suddenly becomes less marketable as a
bargaining tool or as an asset. Consumption of goods, is not the
answer, to the equation.
Not only did the Baby Boomer generation do just that (have twice as
many men available for jobs), those numbers quadruapiled the original
numbers of available hours of man power, for labor, by
de-sexation & de-racialazation of the work force available, also.
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not only were there twice as many men born available for work after
maturation of the Baby boomers, but Now, all their sisters wanted Jobs
too. While upon a glance the de-racialazation of the work force could
be argued as a wash, as it also created a demand for goods where there
had been one lacking. That same argument is found to be in-ept when
discussing the de-sexualization of the work force. The true winners in
Women joining the work force were the industrilist or owners of big
Buisness.
Do you really want to understand what happened, ask your self this, as
an employer.
What would you do at the bargaining table, if all of a sudden 2/5ths,
of America's work force were removed from the work force. Those people
who are removed from the work force are content to stay home and at
the same time, all American families were able to sustain their
present level of buying power, in the market place.
Your name does not have to be Sherlock Holms to see the impact of the
de-sexualization of the workforce and it's overall impact on the
buying power within the average American Home.
Jim F.
Polar Bear
bobsun <bob...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7mmio3$55k$2...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
> The owned a 1000 sqft bungalow, with a 30 yr mortgage, if they were lucky.
> More likely, they lived in a 500 sqft rented flat.
My Family was considered middle income and our house (built in 1912) was
about
1800 sq. ft. and was purchased in 1947 for $6,000.
> They owned a used '49 ford with 40 000 miles. It was almost worn out
because
> cars only lasted 50K miles then.
The family car was a used 1951 Dodge, before that it was a 1941 Dodge. And
you
are wrong about how long they lasted. Our '51 had 80,000 on it when we
traded
in '55 for a '53 Dodge.
> They likely watched a B&W TV at their neighbors, as they couldn't afford
> one, unless they were at the high end of the working class.
We had a B&W 19" in the living room. Most had B&Ws by '54-'55.
> They rarely went to a doctor, because they couldn't afford it, and there
was
> no medical insurance.
Didn't have to go to the Doctor as they still made house calls. My family
was a family
of 5, 2 boys and a girl. My parents didn't miss getting our teeth taken
care of and
our medical was never a problem. I am sure that it was expensive but we
made due.
>
> They went on a vacation to a rented cabin, with an outdoor toilet and a
> water pump, for a week. They only had 2 weeks vacation
We vacationed at the Redwoods, south of San Francisco, for about a week
in a tent cabin with an "ice box" but we had running water and an indoor
toilet.
> They didn't send there children to college - it was too expensive, and
there
> were no forms of aid available.
You are right here... college was expensive. I was the only child to attend
college and that wasn't until I served my due in the military, then the VA
paid for my education.
> They only ate meat twice a week - it was too expensive.
That is utter BS!! We ate well... fresh vegetables, ham, steak, roasts,
chicken
and pork. We had fresh lettuce, straight from the field to the grocers',
that is
more than you can get today.
> Entertainment consisted of a saturday nite movie, or getting drunk at the
> local bar.
Entertainment consisted of a Saturday afternoon movie, a ball game on Sunday
and TV in between. Of course, there was always the radio and the local
swimming pool and bowling alley ($0.15 per lane). The movie was $0.09,
$0.05
for popcorn, soda and candy bar. A kid could go to the movies for $0.25 and
have a penny left over for 5 malted milk balls.
> All of this is taken directly from the very "other sources" that Mr.
> O'Pastel quoted - look them up!
All of this from my experiences growing up in the '50s in a rural, Central
California coastal town of about 10,000 population. In 1957, Vandenberg
AFB was built and the general standard of living went up considerably.
> It is obvious from these sources that I am correct - the standard of
living
> has increased by 100% or more! All of this due to the very elements in our
> society that Mr. O'Pastel blamed for his mythical 50% reduction in the
> standard of living.
Life in the '50s was much simpler and the purchasing power of the dollar was
a whole lot more than it is today. Taxes (all) were much lower and
government
intervention was almost nill. We had 3 black families in town and they were
considered middle class as well. Although our town was considered a farming
community, we had the support industries for a major highway and we had the
Union Sugar plant and the Douglas & Union Oil refineries. We also had the
Airox plant and a Cessna Assembly plant.
There was very little crime to speak of. We left the keys in our cars,
houses
were never locked (I didn't have a key to the house until I went into the
service in 1960), and if you lost your wallet, it would be returned with the
money still in it. You could leave your portable radio on the beach and
come
back an hour later and it would still be there. You could walk at night...
anywhere...
with no fear.
> Now, why not admit that you were in error, and that America, and business
> greed is truely a godsend?
>
> bobsun
>
>
> >The Devil's Advocate© <--nojunk--s...@excite.com> wrote in message
> ><378f84fa...@news.earthlink.net>...
tHewHiz
>wy...@isonet.net (tHewHiz) wrote:
>>
>> In today's world True Power comes from the wallet.
>
>Well, that's up to us. If we choose to we can dismantle
>government and leave economics as the only power medium
>in its place.
or we can legitamise this process by designing Tax codes to
re-distribute the wealth so that it, is able to float back up to the
top, again only to be to "stored" then pulled back into the general
economy to be re-distributed again, through taxation.
> Or we can respect the legacy of formal
>democracy, in which case power comes not from the wallet,
>but from the people.
In an idealistic community where we all have equal power but until
Utopia exist, we can do better.
>A hybrid of capitalism and democracy
>is probably best, and I'd prefer that hybrid were Euro-style
>social democracy.
Perhaps but the turn over and instability of many of the European
social democracies are IMO inferior to our model.
I think we are on the right course now. However, I also think we
should continue to evaluate and tweek our scources of Power through
the Tax code and regulations of our industries and Unions.
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Jim F.
tHewHiz
I'm sorry I think we are talking about two different things???
Jim F.
bobsun
Bobsun
Rick Mays wrote in message <93211228...@news.remarQ.com>...
>Bobson said
>
>"Now, why not admit that you were in error, and that America, and
>business
bobsun
Miguel O'Pastel wrote in message <#tuBj07z#GA.210@cpmsnbbsa03>...
>You are obviously making these things up. For what reason, I do not know.
>M
I'm making things up??
I sited EXACTLY the same sources that you did and supplied the same proof!
In fact, I was describing my relatives' experiences as working class
families in the fifties. They now live with a much nore comfortable standard
of living than they did at that time. Your whole criticism is based on a
few tidbits of misinformation. You have no basis for your position of a
declining standard of living. If you have some facts to back up your
position, supply them! Otherwise, my contention that the standard of living
has doubled is just as valid as yours, that it has halved.
bobsun
>bobsun wrote in message <7mmio3$55k$2...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>|
>|Miguel O'Pastel wrote in message <##yyfivz#GA.470@cpmsnbbsa02>...
>|>That is correct and a factory worker with a family of four could buy a
new
>|>car every year and take the kids on vacation almost anywhere in the US.
>|>Europe was too expensive then. In current Yuppie enclaves like Alameda
>and
>|>the Haight Ashbury, blue collar people owned those 4 bedroom Victorian
>|>homes. Police and firemen and factory workers had summer cabins on the
>|>Russian River or near Tahoe or Yosemite.
>|>M
>|
>|
>|The problem is that Mr. O'Pastel is quoting data from the planet Nirvana.
>|Here on planet Earth the situation for a family of four in the fifties
was:
>|
>|The owned a 1000 sqft bungalow, with a 30 yr mortgage, if they were lucky.
>|More likely, they lived in a 500 sqft rented flat.
>|
>|They owned a used '49 ford with 40 000 miles. It was almost worn out
>because
>|cars only lasted 50K miles then.
>|
>|They likely watched a B&W TV at their neighbors, as they couldn't afford
>|one, unless they were at the high end of the working class.
>|
>|They rarely went to a doctor, because they couldn't afford it, and there
>was
>|no medical insurance.
>|
>|They went on a vacation to a rented cabin, with an outdoor toilet and a
>|water pump, for a week. They only had 2 weeks vacation
>|
>|They didn't send there children to college - it was too expensive, and
>there
>|were no forms of aid available.
>|
>|They only ate meat twice a week - it was too expensive.
>|
>|Entertainment consisted of a saturday nite movie, or getting drunk at the
>|local bar.
>|
>|All of this is taken directly from the very "other sources" that Mr.
>|O'Pastel quoted - look them up!
>|
>|It is obvious from these sources that I am correct - the standard of
living
>|has increased by 100% or more! All of this due to the very elements in our
>|society that Mr. O'Pastel blamed for his mythical 50% reduction in the
>|standard of living.
>|
>|Now, why not admit that you were in error, and that America, and business
Thomas Cagle
Forbes is about as electable as Ebeneezer Scrooge. At least Ol'
Ebeneezer had a personality.
Tom C
zone 5
Jafo
Thomas Cagle wrote:
>Forbes is about as electable as Ebeneezer Scrooge. At least Ol'
>Ebeneezer had a personality.
By 2000, we'll have had eight years of personality. Next time, we
should just settle for somebody whose ideas are right, and skip the
personality.