OT - The Faux Christian, Anti-Obama, Religious Right

[JohnGavin]

This video can be taken as proof that there are still dangerous
factions out there.
These words must be heard to be believed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2n7vSPwhSU

[Jenn]

In article
<db77b62b-351c-4866...@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,

That this church is tax exempt is a travesty.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Frank Berger]

That any churches are tax exempt is a travesty, is it not?

[graham]

"Jenn" <jennconduct...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS...@news.eternal-september.org...

That ANY church is tax exempt is a travesty!

[Jenn]

In article <PIydnV8WpJq2qCHS...@supernews.com>,

Well, yes, but unexempting those churches that blatantly do politics
would be a great place to start.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[basnperson]

On May 22, 8:53 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
> > In article

> > <db77b62b-351c-4866-bc98-860633b86...@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,

> > JohnGavin <dagd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> This video can be taken as proof that there are still dangerous
> >> factions out there.
> >> These words must be heard to be believed.
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2n7vSPwhSU
>
> > That this church is tax exempt is a travesty.
>
> That any churches are tax exempt is a travesty, is it not?

right. all religious institutions should be taxed.

AB

[Frank Berger]

Left wing nut, just for balance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzULHEhDh5c

[Frank Berger]

As I understand it the law prohibits pastors recommending voting for a
particular candidate, but allows taking positions on issues. Which can
amount to the same thing, as in this case.

[Jenn]

In article <_NmdnQRbgp-mqiHS...@supernews.com>,

Did someone deny that there are nuts on all sides? Is that nut holding
a service in a tax exempt church?

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[basnperson]

I wonder....... should we take seriously such an idiot like that. I
just wonder how dangerous those morons are.......... there wil lalwyas
be bigots, that is a fact of life. Of course, that crap about the
fence is sickening.

AB

[Frank Berger]

Jenn wrote:
> In article <_NmdnQRbgp-mqiHS...@supernews.com>,
> "Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jenn wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <db77b62b-351c-4866...@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
>>> JohnGavin <dag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This video can be taken as proof that there are still dangerous
>>>> factions out there.
>>>> These words must be heard to be believed.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2n7vSPwhSU
>>>
>>> That this church is tax exempt is a travesty.
>>
>> Left wing nut, just for balance:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzULHEhDh5c
>
> Did someone deny that there are nuts on all sides?

Nope. Did someone say that someone said that?

>Is that nut holding a service in a tax exempt church?

No. So?

[Frank Berger]

If churches lost their tax-exempt status, wouldn't they become even more
politicized? They would no longer have to fear losing their tax-exempt
status.

[Jenn]

In article <adSdndkHjdiS0CHS...@supernews.com>,

Who cares? I don't cares if they are politicized, I just don't want
them to do it on my dime.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Jenn]

In article <J8GdnZi8Zas81iHS...@supernews.com>,

That's what we're talking about.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Frank Berger]

I don't either. But then there are a lot of things the government does on
my dime that I don't want done.

[td]

Said the pot to the kettle.

TD

[td]

On May 23, 1:20 am, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jenn wrote:

> > In article <adSdndkHjdiS0CHSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dn...@supernews.com>,

> > "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Jenn wrote:

> >>> In article <_NmdnQRbgp-mqiHSnZ2dnUVZ_j-dn...@supernews.com>,

> >>> "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Jenn wrote:
> >>>>> In article

> >>>>> <db77b62b-351c-4866-bc98-860633b86...@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,

> >>>>> JohnGavin <dagd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> This video can be taken as proof that there are still dangerous
> >>>>>> factions out there.
> >>>>>> These words must be heard to be believed.
>
> >>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2n7vSPwhSU
>
> >>>>> That this church is tax exempt is a travesty.
>
> >>>> Left wing nut, just for balance:
>
> >>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzULHEhDh5c
>
> >>> Did someone deny that there are nuts on all sides?  Is that nut
> >>> holding a service in a tax exempt church?
>
> >> If churches lost their tax-exempt status, wouldn't they become even
> >> more politicized?  They would no longer have to fear losing their
> >> tax-exempt status.
>
> > Who cares?  I don't cares if they are politicized, I just don't want
> > them to do it on my dime.
>
> I don't either.  But then there are a lot of things the government does on
> my dime that I don't want done.

So go somewhere else.

TD

[herman]

It's a pretty safe bet this Worley pastor will be caught doing footsy
sex in a public restroom anytime soon.

"Can you imagine," he says, "kissing a man?"

It takes him so long to recover from this retorical question one can
imagine what's going on in his mind.

Many of these RW gay bashers are fighting their own natural urges.

[Mark S]

On May 22, 7:35 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> If churches lost their tax-exempt status, wouldn't they become even more
> politicized?  They would no longer have to fear losing their tax-exempt
> status.

Wouldn't it be better to be honest about the fact that many are
already politicized, to take away their tax-exempt status and let them
say whatever they will?

I think that would be better than the situation now, where people
pretend to be apolitical and then scream religious persecution when
their political activities come to light.

I can see why the churches would like to continue as they are now,
because religion is all about pretending and make believe, so
pretending you're being apolitical when you're being overtly political
is something the religious are predisposed to doing.

Besides, why should religion have the leg up in competing in the
marketplace of ideas that comes in the form of tax-exempt status? The
SCOTUS has already ruled that money is equivalent to free speech.
Following that logic, churches paying taxes should be the equivalent
of freedom of religion.

[Kip Williams]

I'd think with any institution, there's a size below which perhaps they
shouldn't — and by size, I mean an amount of money taken in. No doubt
this would lead to accounting legerdemain, but in principle, I'm
thinking we should let the little ones by.


Kip W

[Frank Berger]

Sure. Just like we've created a class of people who pay zero federal income
taxes and therefore have every incentive to vote for tax and spend
candidates, you want to create a class of people who pay no property taxes
and give them the same incentive structure at the local level. What the
hell is wrong with a fixed percentage of property value for everyone. The
little guys will still pay a lot less than the big guys. Of course in my
perfect world, the size of government would be so reduced as to make this
issue less important.

[MiNe 109]

In article <mKOdnXdAE-l03yPS...@supernews.com>,

One word: regressive.

[Frank Berger]

It's only regressive if you have the mind-set that a progressive tax
structure is "correct." Then you can label anything that isn't
"progressive" "regressive."

[William Sommerwerck]

>> One word: regressive.

> It's only regressive if you have the mind-set that a progressive
> tax structure is "correct." Then you can label anything that
> isn't "progressive" "regressive."

It's easy to find people (who would be considered "conservative" in the
modern sense) who approved of progressive taxation. Adam Smith, for one.
Also one of the Founding Fathers (I forget who, at the moment.)

Let's not forget that "people with money" (sometimes) create jobs. They
never create wealth.

[Mark S]

On May 24, 7:17 am, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Sure.  Just like we've created a class of people who pay zero federal income
> taxes and therefore have every incentive to vote for tax and spend
> candidates, you want to create a class of people who pay no property taxes
> and give them the same incentive structure at the local level.  What the
> hell is wrong with a fixed percentage of property value for everyone.  The
> little guys will still pay a lot less than the big guys.  Of course in my
> perfect world, the size of government would be so reduced as to make this
> issue less important.

Typical RW blather about the people who don't pay federal income
taxes. Frank doesn't mention that the reason they don't pay such taxes
are because they live in poverty.

On the other hand, these poor people do pay FICA taxes on 100% of
their income, whereas a person who earns $1mm a year pays FICA taxes
on only the first 10% of their income, while a person making $10-mm a
year pays FICA taxes on only the first 1% of their income. Where's
Frank's outrage about that lack of fairness?

And of course, those people who don't pay federal income taxes still
pay all kinds of other taxes, like sales tax, state and local taxes,
government fees, etc, ie: those regressive taxes that don't take into
consideration a person's ability to pay them. A driver's license costs
you the same whether you make $30k a year or $10-mm a year. Ditto the
taxes you pay on groceries, gasoline, cars or any other commodity you
purchase.

When it comes to big ticket items, the wealthy are always better off
than the poor, because their wealth secures them the very best credit
rating, which means that the APR on their credit cards is as low as it
can be, which hardly even matters as they can usually pay cash for
everything they want and avoid paying cc fees and interest altogether.
Surely Frank knows that the most-profitable demo for the cc companies
are the poor and lower-middle class, because those are the people with
limited access to credit, and who use credit to make ends meet, and
who often miss a payment or two a year which results in their APR
skyrocketing as they incur late fees etc that a wealthy person will
never see.

And being wealthy tends to work in your favor is and when things do
get personally tough. How else to explain an ass like Donald T. Rump
being able to stay monied and buying properties and ventures left and
right while going through bankruptcy proceedings numerous times? That
avenue certainly isn't open to the Average Joe who is trying to pay
his mortgage.

So why are conservatives so hing up on the bug-a-boo of people not
paying federal income tax? It's not like income tax is some kind of
hallowed tax that doesn't cause people pain in their pocketbooks. One
would think that people who have done well in this country would feel
great about paying income taxes that can be used to help the country
in general prosper. But, no. The more they are given, the greedier
they become. The more they are advantaged, the more they despise the
disadvantaged.

You know, if you were to offer the average wage earner the chance to
make a million bucks a year and pay a 90% tax rate, most people would
take that deal, because at the end of the year, they'd net $100,000 in
their pocket, and that's equal to more than twice what the average
family of four lives off a year in gross income. So it's hard for the
average person to see why the rich complain about having to pay a 39%
tax rate like they did under Clinton.

On the other hand, I can see why rich people like the idea of a flat
tax. Sure, pay 10% on a million and you've got $900,000 left over. Pay
that same 10% on the $43k a year you're trying to live on and you've
got $38,700 left. Frank somehow sees that as being "fair." Rational
and compassionate people would call that punitive.

So tell us, Frank, why do you hold the income tax up like it's some
Holy Grail of taxes among all of the taxes levied by our government?
What about it has anything to do with being anything other than
another ignorant talking point put out by conservatives like you who
believe the rest of the country doesn't get it?

[herman]

On 24 mai, 17:47, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:


>
> So why are conservatives so hing up on the bug-a-boo of people not
> paying federal income tax? It's not like income tax is some kind of
> hallowed tax that doesn't cause people pain in their pocketbooks. One
> would think that people who have done well in this country would feel
> great about paying income taxes that can be used to help the country
> in general prosper. But, no. The more they are given, the greedier
> they become. The more they are advantaged, the more they despise the
> disadvantaged.

Some time ago there was this research that apparently showed that
affluent people were, quite counterintuitively, more dishonest than
lower middle class people. And not just when it came to filing taxes
but also the mundane stuff like running red lights.

I thought that was illuminating.

[Mark S]

On May 24, 8:00 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>
> Let's not forget that "people with money" (sometimes) create jobs. They
> never create wealth.

The wealthy don't create jobs.

Consumers create jobs.

No business owner worth a damn is going to create a job unless they
need to do so to meet consumer demand. In fact, they would be fiscally
irresponsible to do so.

The reason that there are so few jobs these days has nothing to do
with the wealthy having plenty of money to "create jobs." The rich are
swimming in cash. The stock market is at an all-time high and
corporate profits are through the roof.

No, the reason there are so few jobs out there is because conservative
economic policies have transferred the wealthy of the many in the
middle class into the hands of the few very wealthy. What that means
is that the average consumer doesn't have the buying power to go out
and purchase goods and services that in the aggregate would lead to
more workers being needed to meet consumer demand. Concentrating the
wealth in the hands of the few doesn't help, because unless one is
truly perverse, nobody needs more than one or two homes or 3 or four
cars or one or two yachts to feel satisfied.

In other words, no wealthy person or even a million wealthy people
could ever buy enough shit for themselves to cause demand to spike to
the point where it creates jobs among the chattel. Which is why the
rich have their idle money sitting in low-risk investments, where any
profits made by making money off of money are taxed at a mere 15%,
rather than the higher rate that applies to the income earned by the
sweat of the Average Joe's brow. Frank has no problem with that,
either.

But what do the wealthy care? They're set. When the class warfare
starts as it has in Europe, and when the proletariate take to rioting
in the streets, the wealthy will simply fly off to their tropical
island and wait out the storm, secure in their smug satisfaction that
all would have been peachy keen and fair as could be if only everyone
in the lower classes had paid income tax, a belief held no more
strongly than by those among the wealthy who are able - with the help
of their lawyers and tax loopholes written into the law by their
political friends - to avoid paying any taxes themselves.

[Kip Williams]

Frank Berger wrote:
> Kip Williams wrote:
>> basnperson wrote:
>>> On May 22, 8:53 pm, "Frank Berger"<frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <db77b62b-351c-4866-bc98-860633b86...@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> JohnGavin<dagd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> This video can be taken as proof that there are still dangerous
>>>>>> factions out there.
>>>>>> These words must be heard to be believed.
>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2n7vSPwhSU
>>>>
>>>>> That this church is tax exempt is a travesty.
>>>>
>>>> That any churches are tax exempt is a travesty, is it not?
>>>
>>> right. all religious institutions should be taxed.
>>
>> I'd think with any institution, there's a size below which perhaps
>> they shouldn't — and by size, I mean an amount of money taken in. No
>> doubt this would lead to accounting legerdemain, but in principle, I'm
>> thinking we should let the little ones by.
>

> Sure. Just like we've created a class of people who pay zero federal
> income taxes and therefore have every incentive to vote for tax and

Not mentioned: they pay more of a percentage of their income in sales
and other taxes than those with larger incomes, so it's not like they're
not paying any taxes at all, as someone might suppose.

> spend candidates, you want to create a class of people who pay no
> property taxes and give them the same incentive structure at the local

I do? Tell me more about myself.

> level. What the hell is wrong with a fixed percentage of property value
> for everyone. The little guys will still pay a lot less than the big
> guys. Of course in my perfect world, the size of government would be so
> reduced as to make this issue less important.

Okay, then. Tax the fuck out of all the churches and see if I care.


Kip W

[Frank Berger]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> One word: regressive.
>
>> It's only regressive if you have the mind-set that a progressive
>> tax structure is "correct." Then you can label anything that
>> isn't "progressive" "regressive."
>
> It's easy to find people (who would be considered "conservative" in
> the modern sense) who approved of progressive taxation. Adam Smith,
> for one.

This mischaracterizes Smith, to some extent. He speculated that a property
tax, which would, of course, be zero for people who didn't own property
("the poor") and therefore would be regressive to that extent, was
acceptable. Elsewhere in the "Wealth of Nations" he favored a flat income
tax.

> Also one of the Founding Fathers (I forget who, at the
> moment.)
>
> Let's not forget that "people with money" (sometimes) create jobs.
> They never create wealth.

Then I guess we can just confiscate all their money. Many people with money
are successful entrepeneurs. Do you think entrepeuers create wealth? How
about speculators and middle-men? If you answer no, you would be wrong.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> Let's not forget that "people with money" (sometimes)
>> create jobs. They never create wealth.

> Then I guess we can just confiscate all their money. Many
> people with money are successful entrepeneurs. Do you
> think entrepeuers create wealth? How about speculators
> and middle-men? If you answer no, you would be wrong.

Wealth can only be created by labor -- that is, by work -- entropy
reduction. Simply putting up the money to start a business is not an act of
"labor" and does not in and of itself produce wealth.

Before you rush to write, think this through, paying particular attention to
the Labor Theory of Value, which Smith more or less agreed with.

[Frank Berger]

Mark S wrote:
> On May 24, 7:17 am, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sure. Just like we've created a class of people who pay zero federal
>> income taxes and therefore have every incentive to vote for tax and
>> spend candidates, you want to create a class of people who pay no
>> property taxes and give them the same incentive structure at the
>> local level. What the hell is wrong with a fixed percentage of
>> property value for everyone. The little guys will still pay a lot
>> less than the big guys. Of course in my perfect world, the size of
>> government would be so reduced as to make this issue less important.
>
> Typical RW blather about the people who don't pay federal income
> taxes. Frank doesn't mention that the reason they don't pay such taxes
> are because they live in poverty.
>

All of them? Who defines poverty?

> On the other hand, these poor people do pay FICA taxes on 100% of
> their income, whereas a person who earns $1mm a year pays FICA taxes
> on only the first 10% of their income, while a person making $10-mm a
> year pays FICA taxes on only the first 1% of their income. Where's
> Frank's outrage about that lack of fairness?
>

What do you think was the reason for setting it up that way? I haven't
thought about this and prepared to be outraged.

> And of course, those people who don't pay federal income taxes still
> pay all kinds of other taxes, like sales tax, state and local taxes,
> government fees, etc,

Really poor people don't pay that much in sales taxes, since at least where
I live food is exempt. And you don't pay sales tax on rent. Really poor
people are probably net beneficiaries of government, not net supporters.

> ie: those regressive taxes that don't take into
> consideration a person's ability to pay them. A driver's license costs
> you the same whether you make $30k a year or $10-mm a year. Ditto the
> taxes you pay on groceries, gasoline, cars or any other commodity you
> purchase.
>
> When it comes to big ticket items, the wealthy are always better off
> than the poor, because their wealth secures them the very best credit
> rating, which means that the APR on their credit cards is as low as it
> can be, which hardly even matters as they can usually pay cash for
> everything they want and avoid paying cc fees and interest altogether.

I guess it pays to get educated, work hard and become rich.

> Surely Frank knows that the most-profitable demo for the cc companies
> are the poor and lower-middle class, because those are the people with
> limited access to credit, and who use credit to make ends meet, and
> who often miss a payment or two a year which results in their APR
> skyrocketing as they incur late fees etc that a wealthy person will
> never see.
>

How do you know what I know? Most of what "I know" you disagree with
anyway.

> And being wealthy tends to work in your favor is and when things do
> get personally tough.

See above.

> How else to explain an ass like Donald T. Rump
> being able to stay monied and buying properties and ventures left and
> right while going through bankruptcy proceedings numerous times? That
> avenue certainly isn't open to the Average Joe who is trying to pay
> his mortgage.
>

I know average Joes who have gone though bancruptcy and recovered.

> So why are conservatives so hing up on the bug-a-boo of people not
> paying federal income tax?

Simply because it distorts voting incentives. It's not healthy.

>It's not like income tax is some kind of
> hallowed tax that doesn't cause people pain in their pocketbooks. One
> would think that people who have done well in this country would feel
> great about paying income taxes that can be used to help the country
> in general prosper. But, no. The more they are given, the greedier
> they become. The more they are advantaged, the more they despise the
> disadvantaged.
>
> You know, if you were to offer the average wage earner the chance to
> make a million bucks a year and pay a 90% tax rate, most people would
> take that deal, because at the end of the year, they'd net $100,000 in
> their pocket, and that's equal to more than twice what the average
> family of four lives off a year in gross income. So it's hard for the
> average person to see why the rich complain about having to pay a 39%
> tax rate like they did under Clinton.
>

How hard would a person who makes 75,000 work to get his income up to a
million if he was only going to net an additional 25,000. Do you have any
idea how *hard* most people who "make it" worked in order to succeed?

> On the other hand, I can see why rich people like the idea of a flat
> tax.

How do you explain that a lot of people who aren't rich favor a flat tax?
Though personally, I would be comfortable with a certain amount of
regressivity if it came with a drastic simplification of the tax code.

>Sure, pay 10% on a million and you've got $900,000 left over. Pay
> that same 10% on the $43k a year you're trying to live on and you've
> got $38,700 left. Frank somehow sees that as being "fair."

I'd call it "fair" by definition.

>Rational and compassionate people would call that punitive.
>

Same old demonization of people who disagree with you. Does it make you
feel all warm and fuzzy and superior? Who are you trying to convince?

> So tell us, Frank, why do you hold the income tax up like it's some
> Holy Grail of taxes among all of the taxes levied by our government?

I've looked and looked and can't find where I said anything like that.

> What about it has anything to do with being anything other than
> another ignorant talking point put out by conservatives like you who
> believe the rest of the country doesn't get it?

Of course, anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant, irrational and
uncompassionate. Have you considered cloning yourself?

[Frank Berger]

You wouldn't care to provide a citation, would you? Have you looked unto
the quality of the research? Is there any research that suggests a
different conclusion, or sheds light on why that might be? Since you were
"illuminated" I assume you could provide some insight. Is it that being a
crook helps you to get ahead (crime pays), or is it that somehow after you
become rich, even if you did it honestly, that you become a crook. I
suppose either explanation works. Which do you think is more persuasive? Or
are there other explanations for the finding? Maybe the middle class just
have less opportunity for corruption. The question just boggles the mind.

Where I used to work, we used to jokingly wonder if you had to be an asshole
to get promoted to officer, or if becoming an officer made you an asshole.
But we were just joking.

[Frank Berger]

Mark S wrote:
> On May 24, 8:00 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Let's not forget that "people with money" (sometimes) create jobs.
>> They never create wealth.
>
> The wealthy don't create jobs.
>
> Consumers create jobs.
>
> No business owner worth a damn is going to create a job unless they
> need to do so to meet consumer demand. In fact, they would be fiscally
> irresponsible to do so.
>

Bastards.

> The reason that there are so few jobs these days has nothing to do
> with the wealthy having plenty of money to "create jobs." The rich are
> swimming in cash. The stock market is at an all-time high and
> corporate profits are through the roof.
>
> No, the reason there are so few jobs out there is because conservative
> economic policies have transferred the wealthy of the many in the
> middle class into the hands of the few very wealthy. What that means
> is that the average consumer doesn't have the buying power to go out
> and purchase goods and services that in the aggregate would lead to
> more workers being needed to meet consumer demand. Concentrating the
> wealth in the hands of the few doesn't help, because unless one is
> truly perverse, nobody needs more than one or two homes or 3 or four
> cars or one or two yachts to feel satisfied.
>

You remember the story from 1993 about the increase in the federal excise
taxes on luxury yachts and the resulting decline in sales and loss of jobs
for people working in the boat industry, right?

> In other words, no wealthy person or even a million wealthy people
> could ever buy enough shit for themselves to cause demand to spike to
> the point where it creates jobs among the chattel. Which is why the
> rich have their idle money sitting in low-risk investments, where any
> profits made by making money off of money are taxed at a mere 15%,
> rather than the higher rate that applies to the income earned by the
> sweat of the Average Joe's brow. Frank has no problem with that,
> either.

I have no problem with a rich person doing absolutely anything legal with
his money. Probably a few things that aren't legal either, come to think of
it.

>
> But what do the wealthy care? They're set.

Really? All of them have tropical islands? How many people do you actually
think own tropical islands?

[Frank Berger]

Not mentioned, because it is a different issue. A I said before, isn't it
true that a poor person, spending almost all his income on food and rent,
pays virtually no sales tax at all? He does pay part of his landlord's
property tax embedded in his rent.

>
>> spend candidates, you want to create a class of people who pay no
>> property taxes and give them the same incentive structure at the
>> local
>
> I do? Tell me more about myself.

I drew that conclusion from what you said. It's an inevitable outcome.

>> level. What the hell is wrong with a fixed percentage of property
>> value for everyone. The little guys will still pay a lot less than
>> the big guys. Of course in my perfect world, the size of government
>> would be so reduced as to make this issue less important.
>
> Okay, then. Tax the fuck out of all the churches and see if I care.
>

Is that a challenge of some kind? Without having given it deep thought, I'm
inclined to think I wouldn't mind taxing church property.
Maybe an exemption for property that actual churches occupy and tax more
extensive holdings. The government gives us a tax deduction for donating to
churches. Does it make sense to tax their property on the other hand? As a
Libertarian, I often have to take "second best" positions on issues. Like I
don't think that government should be in the business of sanctioning
marriage, but they do. So I have to decide my position on gay marriage,
when I really don't think it should be a political issue in the first place.

>
> Kip W

[John Wiser]

"Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:_cKdneKcc6V_8iPS...@supernews.com...
> herman wrote:
[ne-ver mind!]\

> Where I used to work, we used to jokingly wonder if you had to be an
> asshole to get promoted to officer, or if becoming an officer made you an
> asshole. But we were just joking.

Hehe, little did you know...

JDW

[Frank Berger]

You mischaracterized Smith once already. Are you sure about this?

Do you really think there is no "value" to what an entrepeneur does?
Someone who has the skill and knowledge to actually identify a business
opportunity. To bring together the resources necessary so that labor can
make stuff. And don't forget that labor is a lot more poductive if it uses
capital. Try digging a hole without a shovel. A middle man? A supermarket
is a middle man. Would you prefer to have to visit farms and ranches to get
your food? Does the supermarket serve a productive purposes? I.E. create
wealth? Do you not have more time available for work and/or leisure because
you don't have to visit farms? Speculators are people who buy commodities
today in the hope of selling them at a profit tomorrow. This is the very
mechanism by which, in a bad crop year, there are crops to eat next year.
Without speculation, a crop failure this year can lead to starvation next
year. I can't think of a more valuable occupation.

Note that there are crooked speculators, middle-men and entrepeneurs. There
are also crooked doctors, assembly-line workers and, yes, commissars.

[MiNe 109]

In article <OpKdndVaiZw81CPS...@supernews.com>,
"Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:

> > One word: regressive.
>
> It's only regressive if you have the mind-set that a progressive tax
> structure is "correct." Then you can label anything that isn't
> "progressive" "regressive."

Still "regressive." If it's good enough for Adam Smith...

[MiNe 109]

In article
<5bebad06-0feb-428a...@x6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>,

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> You know, if you were to offer the average wage earner the chance to
> make a million bucks a year and pay a 90% tax rate, most people would
> take that deal, because at the end of the year, they'd net $100,000 in
> their pocket, and that's equal to more than twice what the average
> family of four lives off a year in gross income.

That 90% would only apply to income over a certain level, so the net
would be considerably higher.

Stephen

[Mark S]

On May 24, 10:20 am, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Typical RW blather about the people who don't pay federal income
> > taxes. Frank doesn't mention that the reason they don't pay such taxes
> > are because they live in poverty.
>
> All of them?  Who defines poverty?

The Feds through HHS and the Census. There are two different official
measurements.

A family of 4 subsisting on $23,050 is living in poverty. That was 15%
of the population in 2010. Add to them the number of people living in
relative poverty, and the number jumps to 42%.

> > On the other hand, these poor people do pay FICA taxes on 100% of
> > their income, whereas a person who earns $1mm a year pays FICA taxes
> > on only the first 10% of their income, while a  person making $10-mm a
> > year pays FICA taxes on only the first 1% of their income. Where's
> > Frank's outrage about that lack of fairness?
>
> What do you think was the reason for setting it up that way?  I haven't
> thought about this and prepared to be outraged.

The explanation I have heard is that the cap on taxable income is
based on what a person can be expected to receive in SS benefits,
which are also capped. The cap on income subject to FICA tax right now
is $106,800. The maximum monthly SS benefit for a person retiring in
2012 at age 66 is $2513. The idea being that if people are taxed
beyond the current $106,800 limit, they will see no benefit to
themselves (as far as their monthly SS check) from their higher
contributions to SS.

Of course, that is an arbitrary rule, because there are plenty of
people who pay into SS for decades and never see a red cent in
benefits because they die before they retire. I don't see the
government refunding all of those FICA taxes to the survivors of a
person who dies before reaching retirement age. And, of course, there
are those people who outlive the median age for SS recipients and draw
much more from the fund than they ever put in.

> > And of course, those people who don't pay federal income taxes still
> > pay all kinds of other taxes, like sales tax, state and local taxes,
> > government fees, etc,
>
> Really poor people don't pay that much in sales taxes, since at least where
> I live food is exempt. And you don't pay sales tax on rent. Really poor
> people are probably net beneficiaries of government, not net supporters.

But the really poor are only 15% of the populace. Your original post
complained that HALF of Americans don't pay any Federal income taxes.
Ergo, that remaining 35% of that half ARE paying a lot in sales taxes.
They may not be paying taxes on rent, but they're also not getting a
big fat Federal deduction for mortgage interest as is every
homeowner...or if you're rich, homes owner.

>
> > ie: those regressive taxes that don't take into
> > consideration a person's ability to pay them. A driver's license costs
> > you the same whether you make $30k a year or $10-mm a year. Ditto the
> > taxes you pay on groceries, gasoline, cars or any other commodity you
> > purchase.
>
> > When it comes to big ticket items, the wealthy are always better off
> > than the poor, because their wealth secures them the very best credit
> > rating, which means that the APR on their credit cards is as low as it
> > can be, which hardly even matters as they can usually pay cash for
> > everything they want and avoid paying cc fees and interest altogether.
>
> I guess it pays to get educated, work hard and become rich.

Like Mitt Romney's kids? Like Poppy Bush's son George, who got in the
best schools in the country based on who his dad was?

Your snarkiness might be abided were the conservatives in this country
not hell bent on dismantling the public education system and taking
away the opportunity for a decent education from many people in this
country whose only sin was in not being born with rich parents.

>
> > Surely Frank knows that the most-profitable demo for the cc companies
> > are the poor and lower-middle class, because those are the people with
> > limited access to credit, and who use credit to make ends meet, and
> > who often miss a payment or two a year which results in their APR
> > skyrocketing as they incur late fees etc that a wealthy person will
> > never see.
>
> How do you know what I know?  Most of what "I know" you disagree with
> anyway.

Well, if you happen to know these things, why not mention them in your
arguments? Why are these very salient factors left out of your
conservative economic scribblings?

>
> > How else to explain an ass like Donald T. Rump
> > being able to stay monied and buying properties and ventures left and
> > right while going through bankruptcy proceedings numerous times? That
> > avenue certainly isn't open to the Average Joe who is trying to pay
> > his mortgage.
>
> I know average Joes who have gone though bancruptcy and recovered.

Not the question. I've gone through a short sale on my last home
myself, which while not as bad as bankruptcy still puts a negative on
your credit rating for a few years. What I don't know is Average Joes
who have been afforded the opportunity to take out massive loans to
open and acquire businesses while going through bankruptcy, which is
what T. Rump has gone on numerous occasions.

> > So why are conservatives so hing up on the bug-a-boo of people not
> > paying federal income tax?
>
> Simply because it distorts voting incentives.  It's not healthy.

Wow. Now, THAT is lame.

> >It's not like income tax is some kind of
> > hallowed tax that doesn't cause people pain in their pocketbooks. One
> > would think that people who have done well in this country would feel
> > great about paying income taxes that can be used to help the country
> > in general prosper. But, no. The more they are given, the greedier
> > they become. The more they are advantaged, the more they despise the
> > disadvantaged.
>
> > You know, if you were to offer the average wage earner the chance to
> > make a million bucks a year and pay a 90% tax rate, most people would
> > take that deal, because at the end of the year, they'd net $100,000 in
> > their pocket, and that's equal to more than twice what the average
> > family of four lives off a year in gross income. So it's hard for the
> > average person to see why the rich complain about having to pay a 39%
> > tax rate like they did under Clinton.
>
> How hard would a person who makes 75,000 work to get his income up to a
> million if he was only going to  net an additional 25,000.  Do you have any
> idea how *hard* most people who "make it" worked in order to succeed?

Interesting that you mention $75k as that seems to be the threshold
for living comfortably beyond a middle-class income without incurring
the economic "problems" that occur as one earns more. Personally, I
was happy when my income was in the $75k range. When it eventually
moved higher and even doubled that in a couple of different years, I
was more than happy to pay a higher tax rate than I had at $75k. To
me, that's simply the price of citizenship. Plus, I had plenty of
money left over. I did not feel abused paying out $30,000 in taxes,
and I felt that I worked my ass off for that money.

I guess it comes down to what be considers to be "making it." If money
is your only barometer, well, then go join the Republic Party and look
down your highly monied nose at the rest of us. If making it means
being comfortable enough to not worrying about how you're gong to feed
your kids, then you don't need millions, at least in this country.

>
> > On the other hand, I can see why rich people like the idea of a flat
> > tax.
>
> How do you explain that a lot of people who aren't rich favor a flat tax?

Their either stupid, or they've drunk the conservative kool ade that
works against their own best interests.

> Though personally, I would be comfortable with a certain amount of
> regressivity if it came with a drastic simplification of the tax code.

Funny how conservatives rail against communism yet see nothing
communistic in the concept of a one-size-fits-all flat tax. Why is
that?

> >Sure, pay 10% on a million and you've got $900,000 left over. Pay
> > that same 10% on the $43k a year you're trying to live on and you've
> > got $38,700 left. Frank somehow sees that as being "fair."
>
> I'd call it "fair" by definition.

"And THAT is why you fail." - Yoda

> > What about it has anything to do with being anything other than
> > another ignorant talking point put out by conservatives like you who
> > believe the rest of the country doesn't get it?
>
> Of course, anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant, irrational and
> uncompassionate. Have you considered cloning yourself?

If you read what I actually wrote, I called the talking point
ignorant, not the people like you who throw around the talking point.

I've never said you are ignorant. Far from it. You're smart enough to
have convinced yourself that black is white and up is down when it
comes to economics.

[Kip Williams]

Frank Berger wrote:

> William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> Let's not forget that "people with money" (sometimes) create jobs.
>> They never create wealth.
>
> Then I guess we can just confiscate all their money. Many people with

Yes, we can either kill them and take everything they have, or let them
do whatever the hell they want.

> money are successful entrepeneurs. Do you think entrepeuers create
> wealth? How about speculators and middle-men? If you answer no, you
> would be wrong.

Hey, where'd the middle go? It used to be around here somewhere!


Kip W

[Kip Williams]

Frank Berger wrote:
> Kip Williams wrote:

>> Frank Berger wrote:

>>> Sure. Just like we've created a class of people who pay zero federal
>>> income taxes and therefore have every incentive to vote for tax and
>>
>> Not mentioned: they pay more of a percentage of their income in sales
>> and other taxes than those with larger incomes, so it's not like
>> they're not paying any taxes at all, as someone might suppose.
>
> Not mentioned, because it is a different issue. A I said before, isn't

Tax is tax, and they're getting taxed, though you chose to act as though
there's no resemblance.

> it true that a poor person, spending almost all his income on food and
> rent, pays virtually no sales tax at all? He does pay part of his
> landlord's property tax embedded in his rent.

Who spends "almost all" their income on food and rent? Are they supposed
to go around naked and never buy anything they can't eat?

(And how can he be poor if they have a TV!? Why, kings would have killed
for such a wondrous device 500 years ago. Therefore, they're all rich!)

>>> spend candidates, you want to create a class of people who pay no
>>> property taxes and give them the same incentive structure at the
>>> local
>>
>> I do? Tell me more about myself.
>
> I drew that conclusion from what you said. It's an inevitable outcome.

Outcomes aren't intentions. Do you intend to perhaps kill people
whenever you get in your car? Do you intend to possibly murder factory
workers in the third world when you buy something at a discount?

This mysterious deduction reminds me of a bully in another newsgroup I
used to put up with. If I said "I like yellow," he'd extrapolate that to
my position on something else and accuse me of being inconsistent.
Apparently, everything has a dollar value in his mind, and the dollar
values are the basis for every decision.


Kip W

[Frank Berger]

Did you see my other post about Adam Smith?

[Frank Berger]

Mark S wrote:
> On May 24, 10:20 am, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Typical RW blather about the people who don't pay federal income
>>> taxes. Frank doesn't mention that the reason they don't pay such
>>> taxes are because they live in poverty.
>>
>> All of them? Who defines poverty?
>
> The Feds through HHS and the Census. There are two different official
> measurements.
>
> A family of 4 subsisting on $23,050 is living in poverty. That was 15%
> of the population in 2010. Add to them the number of people living in
> relative poverty, and the number jumps to 42%.
>

How much sales tax do you think a family of 4 subsisting on $23,050 pays?

>>> On the other hand, these poor people do pay FICA taxes on 100% of
>>> their income, whereas a person who earns $1mm a year pays FICA taxes
>>> on only the first 10% of their income, while a person making $10-mm
>>> a year pays FICA taxes on only the first 1% of their income. Where's
>>> Frank's outrage about that lack of fairness?
>>
>> What do you think was the reason for setting it up that way? I
>> haven't thought about this and prepared to be outraged.
>
> The explanation I have heard is that the cap on taxable income is
> based on what a person can be expected to receive in SS benefits,
> which are also capped.

Oh, so it's fair.

> The cap on income subject to FICA tax right now
> is $106,800. The maximum monthly SS benefit for a person retiring in
> 2012 at age 66 is $2513. The idea being that if people are taxed
> beyond the current $106,800 limit, they will see no benefit to
> themselves (as far as their monthly SS check) from their higher
> contributions to SS.
>


> Of course, that is an arbitrary rule, because there are plenty of
> people who pay into SS for decades and never see a red cent in
> benefits because they die before they retire. I don't see the
> government refunding all of those FICA taxes to the survivors of a
> person who dies before reaching retirement age.

If I die before my wife,she gets all my SS.

>And, of course, there
> are those people who outlive the median age for SS recipients and draw
> much more from the fund than they ever put in.
>
>
>
>>> And of course, those people who don't pay federal income taxes still
>>> pay all kinds of other taxes, like sales tax, state and local taxes,
>>> government fees, etc,
>>
>> Really poor people don't pay that much in sales taxes, since at
>> least where I live food is exempt. And you don't pay sales tax on
>> rent. Really poor people are probably net beneficiaries of
>> government, not net supporters.
>
> But the really poor are only 15% of the populace. Your original post
> complained that HALF of Americans don't pay any Federal income taxes.



> Ergo, that remaining 35% of that half ARE paying a lot in sales taxes.

You don't know that it's "a lot." Obiously, people with enough income to
buy more than food and shelter will pay some sales tax.

> They may not be paying taxes on rent,


> but they're also not getting a
> big fat Federal deduction for mortgage interest as is every
> homeowner...or if you're rich, homes owner.
>




>>
>>> ie: those regressive taxes that don't take into
>>> consideration a person's ability to pay them. A driver's license
>>> costs you the same whether you make $30k a year or $10-mm a year.
>>> Ditto the taxes you pay on groceries, gasoline, cars or any other
>>> commodity you purchase.
>>
>>> When it comes to big ticket items, the wealthy are always better off
>>> than the poor, because their wealth secures them the very best
>>> credit rating, which means that the APR on their credit cards is as
>>> low as it can be, which hardly even matters as they can usually pay
>>> cash for everything they want and avoid paying cc fees and interest
>>> altogether.
>>
>> I guess it pays to get educated, work hard and become rich.
>
> Like Mitt Romney's kids? Like Poppy Bush's son George, who got in the
> best schools in the country based on who his dad was?
>

Of all rich people, do you know how many inherited and how many earned it?
Why didn't you list the Kennedy's, I wonder.

> Your snarkiness might be abided were the conservatives in this country
> not hell bent on dismantling the public education system and taking
> away the opportunity for a decent education from many people in this
> country whose only sin was in not being born with rich parents.
>

That's a complete lie. Those of us who would like to replace the public
school system with privately operated schools and education subsidies for
the poor take that position in order to deliver higher-quality education to
the poor than public education provides.
Some of the strongest support for educational vouchers comes from the inner
cities. Many inner city dwellers look on public education as a tool that
white people use to keep them subjugated.

>>
>>> Surely Frank knows that the most-profitable demo for the cc
>>> companies are the poor and lower-middle class, because those are
>>> the people with limited access to credit, and who use credit to
>>> make ends meet, and who often miss a payment or two a year which
>>> results in their APR skyrocketing as they incur late fees etc that
>>> a wealthy person will never see.
>>
>> How do you know what I know? Most of what "I know" you disagree with
>> anyway.
>
> Well, if you happen to know these things, why not mention them in your
> arguments? Why are these very salient factors left out of your
> conservative economic scribblings?
>

What salient factors? If I state that poor people don't pay income tax nor
much sales tax, I don't need to mention that they do pay other taxes. Who
said they didn't? You're obfuscating.

Right, you have considered opinions. I produce "conservative economic
scribblings." Why not try, just once, to have an uncolored discussion?

>>
>>> How else to explain an ass like Donald T. Rump
>>> being able to stay monied and buying properties and ventures left
>>> and right while going through bankruptcy proceedings numerous
>>> times? That avenue certainly isn't open to the Average Joe who is
>>> trying to pay his mortgage.
>>
>> I know average Joes who have gone though bancruptcy and recovered.

I imagine Trump is talented at what he does and is more of a risk-taker than
most of us. He does appears to be an ass, but that has nothing to do with
anything.

>
> Not the question. I've gone through a short sale on my last home
> myself, which while not as bad as bankruptcy still puts a negative on
> your credit rating for a few years. What I don't know is Average Joes
> who have been afforded the opportunity to take out massive loans to
> open and acquire businesses while going through bankruptcy, which is
> what T. Rump has gone on numerous occasions.
>

If true, why do you think that is? Are people lending him money out of the
goodness of their hearts or because they think it's a good investment?

>
>>> So why are conservatives so hing up on the bug-a-boo of people not
>>> paying federal income tax?
>>
>> Simply because it distorts voting incentives. It's not healthy.
>
> Wow. Now, THAT is lame.
>

It's hard to know how to respond to a non-communicative statement.

Because *you* didn't mind paying higher taxes means that *everyone else*
shouldn't mind either, right?

> I guess it comes down to what be considers to be "making it." If money
> is your only barometer, well, then go join the Republic Party and look
> down your highly monied nose at the rest of us. If making it means
> being comfortable enough to not worrying about how you're gong to feed
> your kids, then you don't need millions, at least in this country.
>

You really don't think all Rs are rich and all Ds are not. So why do say
things that sound like you do? And we were talking about income and
poverty, not "happiness." You moved the goalposts as you ran out of
arguments.

>>
>>> On the other hand, I can see why rich people like the idea of a flat
>>> tax.
>>
>> How do you explain that a lot of people who aren't rich favor a flat
>> tax?
>
> Their either stupid, or they've drunk the conservative kool ade that
> works against their own best interests.
>

Uh huh.

>> Though personally, I would be comfortable with a certain amount of
>> regressivity if it came with a drastic simplification of the tax
>> code.
>
> Funny how conservatives rail against communism

Do you like communism?

> yet see nothing
> communistic in the concept of a one-size-fits-all flat tax. Why is
> that?

Because "one size fits all" would mean everbody pays the same amount, not
the same percentage.

>
>>> Sure, pay 10% on a million and you've got $900,000 left over. Pay
>>> that same 10% on the $43k a year you're trying to live on and you've
>>> got $38,700 left. Frank somehow sees that as being "fair."
>>
>> I'd call it "fair" by definition.
>
> "And THAT is why you fail." - Yoda
>

>
>>> What about it has anything to do with being anything other than
>>> another ignorant talking point put out by conservatives like you who
>>> believe the rest of the country doesn't get it?
>>
>> Of course, anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant, irrational and
>> uncompassionate. Have you considered cloning yourself?
>
> If you read what I actually wrote, I called the talking point
> ignorant, not the people like you who throw around the talking point.
>

Only people can be ignorant. "Points" can be right, wrong, or
indeterminate. They can't be ignorant.

And you can you distinguish between people who opinions have been reached
in a considered manner (even if wrong) and those who just throw around
talking points? You should know that that "talking point" charge is, well,
just a talking point. Not to mention that it's insulting. Do you intend to
insult? Or do you not realize that it is insulting? Do you not know that Ds
have talking points as well as Rs? And each accuse the other of doing it.
There are people who just regurgitate opinions they have learned elsewhere.
Who don't think analytically like you and I do (though I doubt you'll grant
me that). But what of it, they listen to people whose opinions resonate
with them and they repeat what they hear. So what? It doesn't make them
criminals. Not every thought has to be an original one.

> I've never said you are ignorant. Far from it. You're smart enough to
> have convinced yourself that black is white and up is down when it
> comes to economics.

Then I'm mentally ill.

[Frank Berger]

Kip Williams wrote:
> Frank Berger wrote:
>> Kip Williams wrote:
>>> Frank Berger wrote:
>
>>>> Sure. Just like we've created a class of people who pay zero
>>>> federal income taxes and therefore have every incentive to vote
>>>> for tax and
>>>
>>> Not mentioned: they pay more of a percentage of their income in
>>> sales and other taxes than those with larger incomes, so it's not
>>> like they're not paying any taxes at all, as someone might suppose.
>>
>> Not mentioned, because it is a different issue. A I said before,
>> isn't
>
> Tax is tax, and they're getting taxed, though you chose to act as
> though there's no resemblance.

Tax isn't tax. There are federal taxes and there are state taxes and there
are local taxes. They all don't have to be mentioned in the same breadth.
The question was not, "Overall, are the poor taxed fairly?"

>
>> it true that a poor person, spending almost all his income on food
>> and rent, pays virtually no sales tax at all? He does pay part of his
>> landlord's property tax embedded in his rent.
>
> Who spends "almost all" their income on food and rent? Are they
> supposed to go around naked and never buy anything they can't eat?
>
> (And how can he be poor if they have a TV!? Why, kings would have
> killed for such a wondrous device 500 years ago. Therefore, they're
> all rich!)
>>>> spend candidates, you want to create a class of people who pay no
>>>> property taxes and give them the same incentive structure at the
>>>> local
>>>
>>> I do? Tell me more about myself.
>>
>> I drew that conclusion from what you said. It's an inevitable
>> outcome.
>
> Outcomes aren't intentions. Do you intend to perhaps kill people
> whenever you get in your car? Do you intend to possibly murder factory
> workers in the third world when you buy something at a discount?
>

Getting in a car and driving while knowing that there is a chance you could
make a mistake in kill an innocent person is an acceptance of the risk that
that could happen. A 65 MPH speed limit is an acceptance that there will
more traffic fatalities than if the speed limit were 55 MPH. So if I say as
a society we "intend" to have more traffic fatalities than we could have
with a lower speed limit, it would not be incorrect.

[Mark S]

On May 24, 12:49 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I've never said you are ignorant. Far from it. You're smart enough to
> > have convinced yourself that black is white and up is down when it
> > comes to economics.
>
> Then I'm mentally ill.

Hadn't thought of that.

[O]

In article
<ebf95c42-1408-4ab2...@w10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
basnperson <abac...@att.net> wrote:

> On May 22, 8:53 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Jenn wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <db77b62b-351c-4866-bc98-860633b86...@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
> > > JohnGavin <dagd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> This video can be taken as proof that there are still dangerous
> > >> factions out there.
> > >> These words must be heard to be believed.
> >
> > >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2n7vSPwhSU
> >
> > > That this church is tax exempt is a travesty.
> >
> > That any churches are tax exempt is a travesty, is it not?
>
> right. all religious institutions should be taxed.

OK, if that's the case, all government institutions should also be
taxed.

-Owen

[O]

In article
<723aa665-8052-4e46...@st3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 24, 8:00 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Let's not forget that "people with money" (sometimes) create jobs. They
> > never create wealth.
>
> The wealthy don't create jobs.
>
> Consumers create jobs.
>
> No business owner worth a damn is going to create a job unless they
> need to do so to meet consumer demand. In fact, they would be fiscally
> irresponsible to do so.

You're wrong. Case in point: the iPad.

Every previous computer tablet before the iPad was a bust, low selling,
no public demand. There was no consumer demand. There was no
likelihood there would ever be a consumer demand (netbooks were going
to be the next big thing).

Yet, Apple built one anyway. With no consumers. They hired people to
create a product no one wanted. There was absolutely no reason to
think that a tablet computer would succeed.

They were so sure that it would succeed that it would create it's own
consumers. And it did. And Apple did, throwing its marketing acumen
and prestige into it. And Apple is a lot of "people with money." And
they created jobs. Not only for Apple employees, but for literally
hundreds of thousands of developers, who rushed to create content for
the iPad that would help their business along. Half a million apps in
the app store, and every company I know wants their app there too.

Steve Jobs said that Apple doesn't do market surveys because the
consumer doesn't know what he wants. In this case, he was right. This
is the kind of stuff that creates jobs -- good ideas and the financial
backing to see them to fruition.

Consumers don't create jobs, businesses do. Businesses who dare to fail
and are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Consumers are
their clients, not their masters.

-Owen

[David O.]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 14:49:30 -0500, "Frank Berger"
<frankd...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Your snarkiness might be abided were the conservatives in this country
>> not hell bent on dismantling the public education system and taking
>> away the opportunity for a decent education from many people in this
>> country whose only sin was in not being born with rich parents.
>
>That's a complete lie. Those of us who would like to replace the public
>school system with privately operated schools and education subsidies for
>the poor take that position in order to deliver higher-quality education to
>the poor than public education provides.
>Some of the strongest support for educational vouchers comes from the inner
>cities. Many inner city dwellers look on public education as a tool that
>white people use to keep them subjugated.

Mark seems never to have met a bureaucrat or a bureaucracy he didn't
like. He also has a particularly colorful—even Romantic—idea of the
non-payers of income tax. He must think they all look like this:

http://www.kidspast.com/images/medieval-peasants.jpg

As for today's public schools, there are excellent educational results
from charter schools in New Orleans, which have been written about and
talked about everywhere since Katrina destroyed so much of the city.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/08/26/new-orleans-s-charter-school-revolution.html
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/05/sen_mary_landrieu_touts_new_or.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-08-26-new-orleans-charter-schools_N.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2010/0829/After-Katrina-how-charter-schools-helped-recast-New-Orleans-education
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/opinion/sunday/lessons-from-new-orleans.html?_r=1

[herman]

On 25 mai, 04:26, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:


>
> Steve Jobs said that Apple doesn't do market surveys because the
> consumer doesn't know what he wants.  In this case, he was right.  This
> is the kind of stuff that creates jobs -- good ideas and the financial
> backing to see them to fruition.
>

You never doubt anything St Jobs said, do you?

[John Wiser]

"O" <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote in message
news:240520122216263303%ow...@denofinequityx.com...

Let's have the thinking behind
this piece of Owenlogic.
Make it good,
We need to be entertained.

JDW

[O]

In article
<237a83fc-ec6a-4764...@d6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,

Apple Computer has billions of dollars in the bank and doesn't owe any
money. What's in your wallet, Herm?

-Owen

[Frank Berger]

I don't look at it as Apple creating the demand. I think that sometmes the
job of an entrepeneur is to figure out what products people *would* want if
they were available and then make them available. It's just a different way
to look at the same thing.

[O]

In article <FxCvr.10$JK...@newsfe12.iad>, John Wiser

Oh, there's plenty of fodder for even acolytes, John. How about a
Congressman has to pay a $5 tax to file a bill, or the local government
has to pay sales taxes on what they buy? All governments, like
Churches, are exempt from all taxes. If you want to level the playing
field, let's go full bore.

And don't complain it'll just be the government loaning money to
itself. They already do that with the social security "lock-box."

-Owen, entertaining as usual.

[MiNe 109]

In article <LbOdnVSoFKH8GSPS...@supernews.com>,

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of
the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective
abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively
enjoy under the protection of the state."

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They
find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little
revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life
occasion the principal expense of the rich . . . . It is not very
unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not
only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that
proportion."

"It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and not
the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people, that ought ever
to be taxed."

Is that what you meant?

[Jenn]

In article <240520122303393296%ow...@denofinequityx.com>,

Not true.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Frank Berger]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article <LbOdnVSoFKH8GSPS...@supernews.com>,
> "Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> MiNe 109 wrote:
>>> In article <OpKdndVaiZw81CPS...@supernews.com>,
>>> "Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> MiNe 109 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> One word: regressive.
>>>>
>>>> It's only regressive if you have the mind-set that a progressive
>>>> tax structure is "correct." Then you can label anything that isn't
>>>> "progressive" "regressive."
>>>
>>> Still "regressive." If it's good enough for Adam Smith...
>>
>> Did you see my other post about Adam Smith?
>
> "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support
> of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their
> respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which
> they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."
>

This is flat income tax. Flat to progressive.

> "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They
> find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little
> revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life
> occasion the principal expense of the rich . . . . It is not very
> unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense,
> not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in
> that proportion."
>
> "It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and
> not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people, that ought
> ever to be taxed."
>

The context for this quote was in reference to property taxes. If the poor
have no property, they pay no tax. That would make the tax progressive, and
Smith accepts this, yes.

Which is what I said in my other post.

The point being that William's statement that Smith favored progressive
taxation was incomplete at best.

[Mark S]

On May 24, 7:26 pm, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:

> > No business owner worth a damn is going to create a job unless they
> > need to do so to meet consumer demand. In fact, they would be fiscally
> > irresponsible to do so.
>
> You're wrong.  Case in point: the iPad.
>
> Every previous computer tablet before the iPad was a bust, low selling,
> no public demand.
>

> Yet, Apple built one anyway.  With no consumers.  They hired people to
> create a product no one wanted.  There was absolutely no reason to
> think that a tablet computer would succeed.

Really? They hired new people to develop the product? They didn't use
their existing product development staff? Got a citation for that?

[Mark S]

On May 24, 7:39 pm, David O. <DavidCOber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Mark seems never to have met a bureaucrat or a bureaucracy he didn't
> like.

Not true. I'm not fond of Republican bureaucrats. They are, after all,
the ones responsible for running up the deficits, not the Ds. It's a
historic fact, if you care to look it up.

I tend to like D bureaucrats because they clean up the mess left by
the Rs.

[herman]

On 25 mai, 04:58, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:


> Apple Computer has billions of dollars in the bank and doesn't owe any
> money.  What's in your wallet, Herm?
>
> -Owen

Well, in that case there can be no doubt. Jobs is God. Too bad he's
dead.

May his legacy rule the word in a vast monopoly, wrecking whatever
comes in its way.

[MiNe 109]

In article <pOOdnXWKGdepjSLS...@supernews.com>,

"Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article <LbOdnVSoFKH8GSPS...@supernews.com>,
> > "Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> MiNe 109 wrote:
> >>> In article <OpKdndVaiZw81CPS...@supernews.com>,
> >>> "Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> MiNe 109 wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> One word: regressive.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's only regressive if you have the mind-set that a progressive
> >>>> tax structure is "correct." Then you can label anything that isn't
> >>>> "progressive" "regressive."
> >>>
> >>> Still "regressive." If it's good enough for Adam Smith...
> >>
> >> Did you see my other post about Adam Smith?
> >
> > "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support
> > of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their
> > respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which
> > they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."
> >
>
> This is flat income tax. Flat to progressive.

It supports other readings.

> > "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They
> > find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little
> > revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life
> > occasion the principal expense of the rich . . . . It is not very
> > unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense,
> > not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in
> > that proportion."
> >
> > "It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and
> > not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people, that ought
> > ever to be taxed."
> >
>
> The context for this quote was in reference to property taxes. If the poor
> have no property, they pay no tax. That would make the tax progressive, and
> Smith accepts this, yes.
>
> Which is what I said in my other post.
>
> The point being that William's statement that Smith favored progressive
> taxation was incomplete at best.

I read the word "revenue" differently.

[O]

In article
<1e80fc44-c026-45bf...@ki5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Of course they did. You think they got it for free? It was an
entirely new product line. Everything had to be created for it, from
the fabrication in China to the shipping system to writing the software
to creating the packaging, to creating the commercials, to building and
writing diagnostic routines, to training their support staff. In
addition, they had to rewrite all the code in iOS to handle it.
Writing good software with brilliant people is extremely expensive, and
in the Cupertino area, salaries have to be quite high.


They created and sold at least a million in the first year. I've
looked at their hiring positions, they hire a lot of people. iPhone
development didn't stop for the iPad, in the meantime their engineers
were developing the iPhone 4S and Siri technology.


If they're not hiring any new employees, why are they building this
giant headquarters building in Cupertino?

http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/13/apples-new-headquarters/

-Owen

[graham]

"Mark S" <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2d369891-a77c-40a4...@to5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

---------------
If allowed!

[Mark S]

On May 25, 6:16 am, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> In article

> <1e80fc44-c026-45bf-a5db-0207a4c42...@ki5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 24, 7:26 pm, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
>
> > > > No business owner worth a damn is going to create a job unless they
> > > > need to do so to meet consumer demand. In fact, they would be fiscally
> > > > irresponsible to do so.
>
> > > You're wrong. Case in point: the iPad.
>
> > > Every previous computer tablet before the iPad was a bust, low selling,
> > > no public demand.
>
> > > Yet, Apple built one anyway. With no consumers. They hired people to
> > > create a product no one wanted. There was absolutely no reason to
> > > think that a tablet computer would succeed.
>
> > Really? They hired new people to develop the product? They didn't use
> > their existing product development staff? Got a citation for that?
>
> Of course they did.   You think they got it for free?   It was an
> entirely new product line.  Everything had to be created for it, from
> the fabrication in China to the shipping system to writing the software
> to creating the packaging, to creating the commercials, to building and
> writing diagnostic routines, to training their support staff.  In
> addition, they had to rewrite all the code in iOS to handle it.
> Writing good software with brilliant people is extremely expensive, and
> in the Cupertino area, salaries have to be quite high.

All of which was true and in place for Apple before they developed the
iPad. None of what you've written adds credence to your assertion that
Apple went out and hired new staff specifically to develop the iPad, a
contention that is central to your assertion that Apple hired people
to develop a product that lacked a consumer base. Are you asserting
that Apple went out and hired people to fabricated, ship, write
software for, create packaging for, create commercials for, write
diagnostic routines and train a support staff for the iPad BEFORE the
product even existed (because there was no consumer base interested in
the product)? If that didn't happen, then none of that supports your
idea that Apple hired new people to develop the iPad, does it?

> They created and sold at least a million in the first year.  I've
> looked at their hiring positions, they hire a lot of people.  iPhone
> development didn't stop for the iPad, in the meantime their engineers
> were developing the iPhone 4S and Siri technology.

Blah, blah. blah. Throw in a few techno-sounding words and some
imagined history about the development of other products in a lame
attempt to make your original assertion seem credible. BTW - did Apple
hire new staff to develop the Siri technology as well? Or were those
engineers who were "developing in the meantime" people who were
already employed by Apple?

BTW - Apple is always hiring a lot of people. I check their job
listings regularly. Again, that doesn't prove that they hired new
people to develop the iPad.

> If they're not hiring any new employees, why are they building this
> giant headquarters building in Cupertino?

They need more room? They're the most-profitable company on the
planet, so why not build a new HQ while you're cash flush? In any
case, that has nothing to do with your assertions about new staff
being hired to develop the iPad.

Once again, Owen, you've made a assertion that was driven purely by
your need to be a contrarian to anything and everything I post here.
Unless you can come up with a citation that proves that Apple
specifically went out and hired new staff to develop the iPad, you're
spewing your typical BS.

[Mark S]

On May 25, 6:16 am, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> In article
> <1e80fc44-c026-45bf-a5db-0207a4c42...@ki5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>

> Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 24, 7:26 pm, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
>
> > > > No business owner worth a damn is going to create a job unless they
> > > > need to do so to meet consumer demand. In fact, they would be fiscally
> > > > irresponsible to do so.
>
> > > You're wrong. Case in point: the iPad.

Final thought before heading off to Disneyland for the day:

This exchange is an insight into how the conservative mind works.

I present an obvious fact - that it's consumers who create jobs, not
the wealthy "job creators." No person n their right mind believes that
GM would go out and hire thousands of workers to build more and more
cars if there was no consumer demand for those cars. No Target or
WalMart is going to hire additional workers simply to be nice guys and
supply jobs. No Ma & Pa store hires workers to earn a paycheck while
sitting on their hands because there is no consumer demand for the
wares they're selling.

But to say that consumers and consumer demand creates jobs, not the
wealthy "job creators," flies in the face of the well-rehearsed
talking points of the conservatives, ie" people like Owen. So rather
than consider the broad implications of what I wrote, Owen sets off to
find a outlier that he can toss into the mix as a contrarian position
that he imagines destroys my original argument entirely. In this case,
he had to resort to citing a company that is not only an R&D company
as much as it is a product marketing company, but is considered to be
THE company to go to for out-of-the-box thinking. And even with all
that, Owen can't offer a shred of actual evidence for his claim that
Apple went out and hired new staff to develop the iPad at a time when
there was no consumer demand for such a product. And of course, his
assertion also overlooks the fact that there is very much a large and
installed customer base for Apple products in general that existed
long before the iPad hit the scene, a fact that is salient to the
point under discussion.

This kind of "argument" is stock in trade for the RW in this country,
and it's a strategy that they use over and over again because they're
allowed to get away with it. The strategy also extends to imagining
false equivalencies and projecting one's own shortcomings on their
opponents. Well, some of us don't fall for these childish, Rovian
techniques. We're only amazed that kids like Owen continue to use fall
back on such ploys for no other reason than to be contrarian.

[Frank Berger]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article <pOOdnXWKGdepjSLS...@supernews.com>,
> "Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> MiNe 109 wrote:
>>> In article <LbOdnVSoFKH8GSPS...@supernews.com>,
>>> "Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> MiNe 109 wrote:
>>>>> In article <OpKdndVaiZw81CPS...@supernews.com>,
>>>>> "Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> MiNe 109 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> One word: regressive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's only regressive if you have the mind-set that a progressive
>>>>>> tax structure is "correct." Then you can label anything that
>>>>>> isn't "progressive" "regressive."
>>>>>
>>>>> Still "regressive." If it's good enough for Adam Smith...
>>>>
>>>> Did you see my other post about Adam Smith?
>>>
>>> "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support
>>> of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their
>>> respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which
>>> they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."
>>>
>>
>> This is flat income tax. Flat to progressive.
>
> It supports other readings.
>

Not where I went to school.

>>> "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor.
>>> They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their
>>> little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of
>>> life occasion the principal expense of the rich . . . . It is not
>>> very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public
>>> expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something
>>> more than in that proportion."
>>>
>>> "It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and
>>> not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people, that
>>> ought ever to be taxed."
>>>
>>
>> The context for this quote was in reference to property taxes. If
>> the poor have no property, they pay no tax. That would make the tax
>> progressive, and Smith accepts this, yes.
>>
>> Which is what I said in my other post.
>>
>> The point being that William's statement that Smith favored
>> progressive taxation was incomplete at best.
>
> I read the word "revenue" differently.

I hope you mean "read" in the past tense.

Revenue means income.

"...in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the
protection of the state" means you earn income, make a living, whatever and
you enjoy the protection of the state, so you have to pay for that
protection *in proportion*

[Frank Berger]

And you're harping on something that doesn't matter anyway. Remember the
Obama "jobs that were saved" contraversy? Well the concept is completely
valid. If the IPAD had failed miserably, do you think Apple would employ as
many people as they do today? Any firm's successful innovation "creates
jobs" in that very real sense.

[Frank Berger]

You have such a strange, rigid way of thinking about things. Obviously, if
there were no consumers,nothing would be produced and the more consumers
want to consume the more will be produced. Is that supposed to be a deep
thought? I can guarantee that if I started running GM or Apple tomorrow,
there would be fewer people on the payroll in a year because I will not be
as good at it as the current leaders. Those people add value, manage
resources better, and yes, create jobs.

This relates to the case of executive getting big pay and even bonuses in
the face of their companies failure. People can't understand how this could
be. If guy A is running a company and losing 2 millions dollars a year, and
guy B takes over and is losing only 1 million a year, he deserves to be
rewarded. Now the company can only lose money until its capital is
depleted, but guy B is adding value *compared to the alternative.*

[MiNe 109]

In article <3-KdnYOEMZS4NiLS...@supernews.com>,

"Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article <pOOdnXWKGdepjSLS...@supernews.com>,
> > "Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> MiNe 109 wrote:
> >>> In article <LbOdnVSoFKH8GSPS...@supernews.com>,
> >>> "Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> MiNe 109 wrote:
> >>>>> In article <OpKdndVaiZw81CPS...@supernews.com>,
> >>>>> "Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> MiNe 109 wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> One word: regressive.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's only regressive if you have the mind-set that a progressive
> >>>>>> tax structure is "correct." Then you can label anything that
> >>>>>> isn't "progressive" "regressive."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Still "regressive." If it's good enough for Adam Smith...
> >>>>
> >>>> Did you see my other post about Adam Smith?
> >>>
> >>> "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support
> >>> of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their
> >>> respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which
> >>> they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."
> >>>
> >>
> >> This is flat income tax. Flat to progressive.
> >
> > It supports other readings.
> >
>
> Not where I went to school.

That's clear.

> >>> "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor.
> >>> They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their
> >>> little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of
> >>> life occasion the principal expense of the rich . . . . It is not
> >>> very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public
> >>> expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something
> >>> more than in that proportion."
> >>>
> >>> "It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and
> >>> not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people, that
> >>> ought ever to be taxed."
> >>>
> >>
> >> The context for this quote was in reference to property taxes. If
> >> the poor have no property, they pay no tax. That would make the tax
> >> progressive, and Smith accepts this, yes.
> >>
> >> Which is what I said in my other post.
> >>
> >> The point being that William's statement that Smith favored
> >> progressive taxation was incomplete at best.
> >
> > I read the word "revenue" differently.
>
> I hope you mean "read" in the past tense.
>
> Revenue means income.
>
> "...in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the
> protection of the state" means you earn income, make a living, whatever and
> you enjoy the protection of the state, so you have to pay for that
> protection *in proportion*

A distinction between "revenue" and "property," yes. Also, too,

[O]

In article
<eaa64db8-b1a8-4bf4...@f9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,

Because it would be impossible not to hire people. I would have
thought you'd be smart enough to realize this.

> Are you asserting
> that Apple went out and hired people to fabricated, ship, write
> software for, create packaging for, create commercials for, write
> diagnostic routines and train a support staff for the iPad BEFORE the
> product even existed (because there was no consumer base interested in
> the product)?

YES. Of course.

> If that didn't happen, then none of that supports your
> idea that Apple hired new people to develop the iPad, does it?

It did happen. The iPad not have happened without it.

>
>
> > They created and sold at least a million in the first year.  I've
> > looked at their hiring positions, they hire a lot of people.  iPhone
> > development didn't stop for the iPad, in the meantime their engineers
> > were developing the iPhone 4S and Siri technology.
>
> Blah, blah. blah. Throw in a few techno-sounding words and some
> imagined history about the development of other products in a lame
> attempt to make your original assertion seem credible.

You demand cites to see if Apple hired people to launch a new product
line that sells a million items in a year? Show me a cite that says
they could do it without any employee expansion.
It's obvious they had to hire people.

> BTW - did Apple
> hire new staff to develop the Siri technology as well? Or were those
> engineers who were "developing in the meantime" people who were
> already employed by Apple?

Doesn't matter. Both projects had to be staffed, whether they took
from iPhone to create iPad, or hired fresh for iPad and hired new
employees for iPhone, there were still new employees *caused by the
iPad.*

>
> BTW - Apple is always hiring a lot of people. I check their job
> listings regularly. Again, that doesn't prove that they hired new
> people to develop the iPad.

Common sense shows there could be no other way.

>
>
> > If they're not hiring any new employees, why are they building this
> > giant headquarters building in Cupertino?
>
> They need more room? They're the most-profitable company on the
> planet, so why not build a new HQ while you're cash flush? In any
> case, that has nothing to do with your assertions about new staff
> being hired to develop the iPad.
>
> Once again, Owen, you've made a assertion that was driven purely by
> your need to be a contrarian to anything and everything I post here.

It's because you're always so wrong when you make these pronouncements.
If you only want to hear from people who agree with you, you should not
post things.

> Unless you can come up with a citation that proves that Apple
> specifically went out and hired new staff to develop the iPad, you're
> spewing your typical BS.

You can't hide behind a demand for a cite. Even if Apple didn't hire
one employee, they still produced thousands of jobs for people who
wrote apps for the iPad. There are half a million apps that will run
on the iPad, all jobs created from a new technology that nobody thought
would work.

Nonetheless, I can give you a cite. Right in the first paragraph, they
claim to have hired the engineer who invented the iPad, not to mention
being responsible for creating 210,000 non-Apple jobs in the US
economy:

http://www.apple.com/about/job-creation/

Maybe you want to go googling a little bit before demanding citations.

Apple is living proof that there are business owners willing to create
new jobs without a preexisting consumer demand. From the iMac, to the
iPod to the iPhone, to the iPad -- none of these products were demanded
(or even thought of) by consumers prior to their successful
introductions. And Apple is obviously far from being "fiscally
irresponsible."

-Owen

[O]

In article
<e2eaf1b3-5816-4330...@o3g2000pby.googlegroups.com>,

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 25, 6:16 am, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <1e80fc44-c026-45bf-a5db-0207a4c42...@ki5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> > Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On May 24, 7:26 pm, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > No business owner worth a damn is going to create a job unless they
> > > > > need to do so to meet consumer demand. In fact, they would be fiscally
> > > > > irresponsible to do so.
> >
> > > > You're wrong. Case in point: the iPad.
>
> Final thought before heading off to Disneyland for the day:
>
> This exchange is an insight into how the conservative mind works.
>
> I present an obvious fact - that it's consumers who create jobs, not
> the wealthy "job creators."

That would be an incorrect fact, and far from obvious. In fact, I
think it originates with you, as I can see no other person who
advocates your philosophy.

> No person n their right mind believes that
> GM would go out and hire thousands of workers to build more and more
> cars if there was no consumer demand for those cars. No Target or
> WalMart is going to hire additional workers simply to be nice guys and
> supply jobs. No Ma & Pa store hires workers to earn a paycheck while
> sitting on their hands because there is no consumer demand for the
> wares they're selling.
>
> But to say that consumers and consumer demand creates jobs, not the
> wealthy "job creators," flies in the face of the well-rehearsed
> talking points of the conservatives, ie" people like Owen. So rather
> than consider the broad implications of what I wrote, Owen sets off to
> find a outlier that he can toss into the mix as a contrarian position
> that he imagines destroys my original argument entirely.

An "outlier." Apple is considered to be one of the very best companies
in the country. Certainly better managed than GM, than all these
companies who won't invest a dime unless there's a customer waiting for
it. Apple's right. That's a losing proposition.

> In this case,
> he had to resort to citing a company that is not only an R&D company
> as much as it is a product marketing company, but is considered to be
> THE company to go to for out-of-the-box thinking. And even with all
> that, Owen can't offer a shred of actual evidence for his claim that
> Apple went out and hired new staff to develop the iPad at a time when
> there was no consumer demand for such a product.

See my previous post.

> And of course, his
> assertion also overlooks the fact that there is very much a large and
> installed customer base for Apple products in general that existed
> long before the iPad hit the scene, a fact that is salient to the
> point under discussion.

There's not a large and installed customer base for GM, for Ford, for
Toyota? That loyal customer base that Apple has exists because they
haven't been producing gadgets to meet customer demand.

>
> This kind of "argument" is stock in trade for the RW in this country,
> and it's a strategy that they use over and over again because they're
> allowed to get away with it. The strategy also extends to imagining
> false equivalencies and projecting one's own shortcomings on their
> opponents. Well, some of us don't fall for these childish, Rovian
> techniques. We're only amazed that kids like Owen continue to use fall
> back on such ploys for no other reason than to be contrarian.

Apple's a right-wing, Karl Rove kind of company? News to me.

Enjoy your day at Disney, Mark!

-Owen

[Frank Berger]

Why are you being unclear? In one place Smith talked about a flat income
tax. In another place he talked about a property tax that would have to be
regressive in the sense that the poor didn't own property and would pay zero
tax.

That's what he said. There's nothing to argue about.

[Kip Williams]

Me too, especially since Mark doesn't say that. Not in the quoted
passage that immediately precedes your words, nor in the rest of his
post (which no longer exist anywhere in the universe, since I didn't
quote them here — the perfect crime!!!).


Kip W

[O]

In article <zXQvr.1943$0x2....@newsfe13.iad>, Kip Williams

The "argument" I'm making is Apple's argument. Jobs threw away the
notion of doing market research completely, and *told* the consumer
what the consumer wants. Hell, Al Gore's on Apple's Board of
Directors. I don't really know how Karl Rove fits in, but if it's good
enough for Mark, it's good enough for me.

-Owen

[Kip Williams]

Again: you threw Karl Rove in there. Nobody else.


Kip W

[O]

In article <RfSvr.40389$ax3....@newsfe05.iad>, Kip Williams

<mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> O wrote:
> > In article<zXQvr.1943$0x2....@newsfe13.iad>, Kip Williams
> > <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> O wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <e2eaf1b3-5816-4330...@o3g2000pby.googlegroups.com>,
> >>> Mark S<markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> This kind of "argument" is stock in trade for the RW in this country,
> >>>> and it's a strategy that they use over and over again because they're
> >>>> allowed to get away with it. The strategy also extends to imagining
> >>>> false equivalencies and projecting one's own shortcomings on their
> >>>> opponents. Well, some of us don't fall for these childish, Rovian
> >>>> techniques. We're only amazed that kids like Owen continue to use fall
> >>>> back on such ploys for no other reason than to be contrarian.
> >>>
> >>> Apple's a right-wing, Karl Rove kind of company? News to me.
> >>
> >> Me too, especially since Mark doesn't say that. Not in the quoted
> >> passage that immediately precedes your words, nor in the rest of his
> >> post (which no longer exist anywhere in the universe, since I didn't

> >> quote them here Ğ the perfect crime!!!).

> >
> > The "argument" I'm making is Apple's argument. Jobs threw away the
> > notion of doing market research completely, and *told* the consumer
> > what the consumer wants. Hell, Al Gore's on Apple's Board of
> > Directors. I don't really know how Karl Rove fits in, but if it's good
> > enough for Mark, it's good enough for me.
>
> Again: you threw Karl Rove in there. Nobody else.
>

I assume Mark's reference (above) to "Rovian techniques" was Karl Rove.
Apologies to all if I'm ignorant on this term.

-Owen

[Kip Williams]

He's not talking about Apple or Steve Jobs. Applying the term to them
was your invention. To quote a well-known scold, "words have meaning."


Kip W

[gert]

On May 25, 9:04 pm, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> O wrote:

> > In article<RfSvr.40389$ax3.10...@newsfe05.iad>, Kip Williams
> > <mrk...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >> O wrote:
> >>> In article<zXQvr.1943$0x2.1...@newsfe13.iad>, Kip Williams

> >>> <mrk...@gmail.com>   wrote:
>
> >>>> O wrote:
> >>>>> In article

> >>>>> <e2eaf1b3-5816-4330-af81-0157d61d6...@o3g2000pby.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>> Mark S<markstenr...@yahoo.com>    wrote:

>
> >>>>>> This kind of "argument" is stock in trade for the RW in this country,
> >>>>>> and it's a strategy that they use over and over again because they're
> >>>>>> allowed to get away with it. The strategy also extends to imagining
> >>>>>> false equivalencies and projecting one's own shortcomings on their
> >>>>>> opponents. Well, some of us don't fall for these childish, Rovian
> >>>>>> techniques. We're only amazed that kids like Owen continue to use fall
> >>>>>> back on such ploys for no other reason than to be contrarian.
>
> >>>>> Apple's a right-wing, Karl Rove kind of company?  News to me.
>
> >>>> Me too, especially since Mark doesn't say that. Not in the quoted
> >>>> passage that immediately precedes your words, nor in the rest of his
> >>>> post (which no longer exist anywhere in the universe, since I didn't

> >>>> quote them here the perfect crime!!!).

>
> >>> The "argument" I'm making is Apple's argument.  Jobs threw away the
> >>> notion of doing market research completely, and *told* the consumer
> >>> what the consumer wants.  Hell, Al Gore's on Apple's Board of
> >>> Directors. I don't really know how Karl Rove fits in, but if it's good
> >>> enough for Mark, it's good enough for me.
>
> >> Again: you threw Karl Rove in there. Nobody else.
>
> > I assume Mark's reference (above) to "Rovian techniques" was Karl Rove.
> > Apologies to all if I'm ignorant on this term.
>
> He's not talking about Apple or Steve Jobs. Applying the term to them
> was your invention. To quote a well-known scold, "words have meaning."
>
> Kip W

Ahh. It seems the lobbyists have invaded ye olde RMCR. I wonder what
the term "Rovian" means in political lexicon.

_gert

[O]

In article <LSWvr.24754$XG.1...@newsfe09.iad>, Kip Williams

<mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> O wrote:
> > In article<RfSvr.40389$ax3....@newsfe05.iad>, Kip Williams
> > <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> O wrote:
> >>> In article<zXQvr.1943$0x2....@newsfe13.iad>, Kip Williams
> >>> <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> O wrote:
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> <e2eaf1b3-5816-4330...@o3g2000pby.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>> Mark S<markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> This kind of "argument" is stock in trade for the RW in this country,
> >>>>>> and it's a strategy that they use over and over again because they're
> >>>>>> allowed to get away with it. The strategy also extends to imagining
> >>>>>> false equivalencies and projecting one's own shortcomings on their
> >>>>>> opponents. Well, some of us don't fall for these childish, Rovian
> >>>>>> techniques. We're only amazed that kids like Owen continue to use fall
> >>>>>> back on such ploys for no other reason than to be contrarian.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Apple's a right-wing, Karl Rove kind of company? News to me.
> >>>>
> >>>> Me too, especially since Mark doesn't say that. Not in the quoted
> >>>> passage that immediately precedes your words, nor in the rest of his
> >>>> post (which no longer exist anywhere in the universe, since I didn't

> >>>> quote them here � the perfect crime!!!).

> >>>
> >>> The "argument" I'm making is Apple's argument. Jobs threw away the
> >>> notion of doing market research completely, and *told* the consumer
> >>> what the consumer wants. Hell, Al Gore's on Apple's Board of
> >>> Directors. I don't really know how Karl Rove fits in, but if it's good
> >>> enough for Mark, it's good enough for me.
> >>
> >> Again: you threw Karl Rove in there. Nobody else.
> >
> > I assume Mark's reference (above) to "Rovian techniques" was Karl Rove.
> > Apologies to all if I'm ignorant on this term.
>
> He's not talking about Apple or Steve Jobs. Applying the term to them
> was your invention. To quote a well-known scold, "words have meaning."

If my esteemed rmcr colleague Mr. Stenroos wishes to introduce Mr. Rove
to the discussion on Apple Computer, who am I to place limits on it?

-Owen

[Kip Williams]

gert wrote:

> Ahh. It seems the lobbyists have invaded ye olde RMCR. I wonder what
> the term "Rovian" means in political lexicon.

Now I want to go on out to the lobby for some dee-licious 7up!

It's too bad Safire's not here to tell us what Rovian means. I'll go out
on a limb and guess it has to do with dirty tricks.


Kip W

[Kip Williams]

O wrote:
> In article<LSWvr.24754$XG.1...@newsfe09.iad>, Kip Williams
> <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> O wrote:
>>> In article<RfSvr.40389$ax3....@newsfe05.iad>, Kip Williams
>>> <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> O wrote:
>>>>> In article<zXQvr.1943$0x2....@newsfe13.iad>, Kip Williams
>>>>> <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> O wrote:
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> <e2eaf1b3-5816-4330...@o3g2000pby.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>> Mark S<markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This kind of "argument" is stock in trade for the RW in this country,
>>>>>>>> and it's a strategy that they use over and over again because they're
>>>>>>>> allowed to get away with it. The strategy also extends to imagining
>>>>>>>> false equivalencies and projecting one's own shortcomings on their
>>>>>>>> opponents. Well, some of us don't fall for these childish, Rovian
>>>>>>>> techniques. We're only amazed that kids like Owen continue to use fall
>>>>>>>> back on such ploys for no other reason than to be contrarian.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apple's a right-wing, Karl Rove kind of company? News to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Me too, especially since Mark doesn't say that. Not in the quoted
>>>>>> passage that immediately precedes your words, nor in the rest of his
>>>>>> post (which no longer exist anywhere in the universe, since I didn't

>>>>>> quote them here Ğ the perfect crime!!!).

>>>>>
>>>>> The "argument" I'm making is Apple's argument. Jobs threw away the
>>>>> notion of doing market research completely, and *told* the consumer
>>>>> what the consumer wants. Hell, Al Gore's on Apple's Board of
>>>>> Directors. I don't really know how Karl Rove fits in, but if it's good
>>>>> enough for Mark, it's good enough for me.
>>>>
>>>> Again: you threw Karl Rove in there. Nobody else.
>>>
>>> I assume Mark's reference (above) to "Rovian techniques" was Karl Rove.
>>> Apologies to all if I'm ignorant on this term.
>>
>> He's not talking about Apple or Steve Jobs. Applying the term to them
>> was your invention. To quote a well-known scold, "words have meaning."
>
> If my esteemed rmcr colleague Mr. Stenroos wishes to introduce Mr. Rove
> to the discussion on Apple Computer, who am I to place limits on it?

You're talkin' crazy! I'm going to tell Big Brother.

(Did your browser turn my em-dash into a little bow and arrow? Do I have
to stick to using two hyphens instead?)


Kip W

[herman]

On 25 mai, 05:02, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> herman wrote:
> > On 25 mai, 04:26, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
>
> >> Steve Jobs said that Apple doesn't do market surveys because the
> >> consumer doesn't know what he wants. In this case, he was right. This
> >> is the kind of stuff that creates jobs -- good ideas and the
> >> financial backing to see them to fruition.
>
> > You never doubt anything St Jobs said, do you?
>
> I don't look at it as Apple creating the demand.  I think that sometmes the
> job of an entrepeneur is to figure out what products people *would* want if
> they were available and then make them available.  It's just a different way
> to look at the same thing.

That's exactly how it's done, and lots of luxury goods designers and
producers do this. Consider cars. For some reason people are all agog
about Apple and Jobs the Holy right now (even though it doesn't take
too much effort to see 21st century Apple as a pretty solid
destructive force), but every new product is too a degree built on the
creative anticipation of demand.

[O]

In article <tpYvr.361$vD3...@newsfe23.iad>, Kip Williams

> >>>>>> quote them here � the perfect crime!!!).

> >>>>>
> >>>>> The "argument" I'm making is Apple's argument. Jobs threw away the
> >>>>> notion of doing market research completely, and *told* the consumer
> >>>>> what the consumer wants. Hell, Al Gore's on Apple's Board of
> >>>>> Directors. I don't really know how Karl Rove fits in, but if it's good
> >>>>> enough for Mark, it's good enough for me.
> >>>>
> >>>> Again: you threw Karl Rove in there. Nobody else.
> >>>
> >>> I assume Mark's reference (above) to "Rovian techniques" was Karl Rove.
> >>> Apologies to all if I'm ignorant on this term.
> >>
> >> He's not talking about Apple or Steve Jobs. Applying the term to them
> >> was your invention. To quote a well-known scold, "words have meaning."
> >
> > If my esteemed rmcr colleague Mr. Stenroos wishes to introduce Mr. Rove
> > to the discussion on Apple Computer, who am I to place limits on it?
>
> You're talkin' crazy! I'm going to tell Big Brother.

I love Big Brother.

>
> (Did your browser turn my em-dash into a little bow and arrow? Do I have
> to stick to using two hyphens instead?)

No. Your response was properly hyphenated.

-Owen

[O]

In article
<cb5e396b-30bb-4655...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,

"Build a better mousetrap" was never true. You have to create the
product, then you have to create the demand. Products don't sell
themselves. If that was the case, we wouldn't need advertising,
wouldn't need Madison Avenue. Yet, those are the people that create
demand.

-Owen

[herman]

Amusing, and telling, detail from a story on a Chinese online dating
service.

"[A young man] couldn't yet afford an iPhone, but he could afford a
copy of the Steve Jobs biography, which he quoted like Scripture."

[Kip Williams]

Hm. Okay. Well, anyway, I'm going to be somewhat more absent than usual
for a while. I will probably have some access to the group, but not the
kind of all-the-time availability I have here at home.

As a parting shot, I present a vignette I wrote last year.

-----

In Which We Leave Our Hero

He sat at his table, dregs of Victory Hunny unlicked on his cheeks. He
sat very still, not even brushing away a fat fly that came to inspect
the glistening stickiness on his face. He tried to hum a hum, but all he
could think of was “Three fours are fifteen.” And sometimes it came out
“Three fours is fifteen,” and he didn’t know which was which. Owl came
by with a Very Important Message about the Progress in the War Against
Heffalumps and he listened attentively to it.

It didn’t matter. He knew that the Heffalumps would be defeated, just as
he knew they would always be fighting them. It did not bother him a bit
to hold both these thoughts fervently. He smiled slightly and hummed,
“Three fours are fifteen.” He would do anything for Christopher Robin.
He would give Eeyore over, just as Piglet had given him over, and for
the same reason: love. The love of wonderful Christopher Robin, from
whom all goodness flowed.

A tear twinkled from one eye and slowly tickled its way down his cheek.
Winston Pooh was happy, happier than he’d ever thought possible. He was
a Silly Old Bear.

-----


Kip W
backson