Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: True or False question
39 views
Skip to first unread message
Mike Hendrix at dot
Oct 5, 2012, 6:02:24 PM10/5/12
to
Without all the who shot john that can be interjected into the answer
is it True or False that 47% of the population does not pay taxes?
I don't know but I would have guessed it was greater than 47% that
don't pay taxes.
I would suspect that over 47% of citizens over the age of 18 do not
pay taxes.
I just know too may adults that are receiving government checks and
not hitting a lick at a snake.
I see too many adults panhandling.....it is pretty obvious they aren't
paying any tax on their panhandling income.
I see too many adults that do not even have a Photo ID.... it is for
sure they aren't paying taxes.
Heck, most of the ones listed above do not even file a 1040.
Out of the adults that do file a 1040 many get back EVERYTHING they
had deducted...... and a percentage of those even get back more than
they paid in.
So, how many adults in this country are paying federal income taxes
compared to those that do not pay any federal income tax?
mike
--
Pensacola, FL
http://www.travellogs.us/
bill horne
Oct 5, 2012, 7:58:07 PM10/5/12
to
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57515033-503544/fact-checking-romneys-47-percent-comment/
http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2009/07/08/who-pays-no-income-tax/
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
How about you figure it out, and summarize it for us?
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
nothe...@not.here
Oct 5, 2012, 10:47:04 PM10/5/12
to
draws a paycheck or unemployment check, or Social Security is on the
radar. That is a lot of people.
Close to 100% pay taxes. That is where sales, property and excise
taxes kick in. They cannot be escaped too easily.
When you are looking at who gets what back in taxes remember that to
qualify for the give backs one has to be a head of household. AFAIK
that means having at least one dependent. That leaves a lot of folks
out.
To put it in terms of the folks you are talking about the single
mother of a young child is probably on welfare and not paying income
tax. If her boyfriend has a job he is and is not getting anything
back. If she takes a job she can still get some subsidies and is
paying income tax but getting the earned income tax credit.
In the interest of understanding what you are talking about something
like 50% of the population has around 12.5% of the gross income. When
you spread it that thin there is not a lot of money to tax. 30 years
ago that number was something like 12% of the population. One aspect
of the manufacturing crunch was to move a very large number of
formerly well paid workers into the working poor. The tax numbers are
a predictable result and a major reason why I see a problem.
My issue is not really whether Joe Lunchbox can afford another six
pack. It is who is going to pay for all the expensive government
workers when Joe is too poor to pay taxes, government workers have the
high incomes to pay taxes but it is really a form of income reduction
for them, and we do not want to tax the rich or business's.
If you want a slightly different perspective if we we took all the
money form the bottom two quintiles of folks you would only get ~12.5%
of the gross income for the country and 40% of the population would
starve. OTOH if you took 50% ot the top quintile the net would be 25%
of the gross income and they still would be able to live a comfortable
life style.
Mike Hendrix at dot
Oct 6, 2012, 12:03:42 AM10/6/12
to
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 17:02:24 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
(dot) us> wrote:
Following bill horne's advice and using the links he provided here are
(dot) us> wrote:
the answers I came up with.
>
>Without all the who shot john that can be interjected into the answer
>is it True or False that 47% of the population does not pay taxes?
"True or false? Much of Romney's statement relies on assumptions about
one demographic: The 47 percent of Americans who he says "pay no
income tax." So is it true that 47 percent of Americans don't pay
income tax? Essentially, yes, according to the Tax Policy Center,
which provides data showing that in 2011, 46.4 percent of American
households paid no federal income tax."
"Nearly half of all families and individuals will pay no income tax
this year."
"[...] is not a widely held secret: 47 percent of all tax filers paid
no federal individual income taxes in 2009, and in 2011 that figure
was 46 [...]"
>
>I don't know but I would have guessed it was greater than 47% that
>don't pay taxes.
>
>I would suspect that over 47% of citizens over the age of 18 do not
>pay taxes.
>
>I just know too may adults that are receiving government checks and
>not hitting a lick at a snake.
>
>I see too many adults panhandling.....it is pretty obvious they aren't
>paying any tax on their panhandling income.
>
>I see too many adults that do not even have a Photo ID.... it is for
>sure they aren't paying taxes.
>
>Heck, most of the ones listed above do not even file a 1040.
>
>Out of the adults that do file a 1040 many get back EVERYTHING they
>had deducted...... and a percentage of those even get back more than
>they paid in.
>
married, is elderly, or has children makes a big difference.
" Nearly 47 percent of single tax units will owe no tax,"
" compared with about 40 percent of joint filers and over 70 percent
of household heads."
"About 55 percent of the elderly and tax units with children will pay
no tax."
"Among those with income between $40,000 and $50,000, for example,
nearly three-fourths of joint filers, two-thirds of households with
children, and three-fifths of the elderly owe no tax, compared with
less than half of household heads and less than a tenth of singles."
>So, how many adults in this country are paying federal income taxes
>compared to those that do not pay any federal income tax?
Romney's 47% figure was accurate.
It appears to me that the 47% are proud to not be paying any Federal
Income Tax yet do not want anyone to mention it.
What is that all about?
nothermark
Oct 6, 2012, 7:45:48 AM10/6/12
to
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 23:03:42 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
The bitching is about the fact that they overlay of who does not pay
taxes and the does not match the overlay of who will vote for Romney.
It might make more sense to you if you look at the number of Romney
supporters in right to work states or aong the retired.
taxes and the does not match the overlay of who will vote for Romney.
It might make more sense to you if you look at the number of Romney
supporters in right to work states or aong the retired.
Frank Howell
Oct 6, 2012, 11:06:41 AM10/6/12
to
does not pay taxes and the does not match the overlay of who will vote for
Romney," for me?
Mike said that the bitching is about the 47% of workers who pay no federal
tax, at least that's how I interpreted his post. So how did you get
reach the conclusion that you stated?
--
Frank Howell
nothermark
Oct 6, 2012, 11:52:00 AM10/6/12
to
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 08:06:41 -0700, "Frank Howell" <fpho...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
The overlay comment was regarding what is becoming a common technique
of graphically presenting data as a transparency then laying one over
the other to see how they match.
Reading Bill's sources they also point out that a lot of the 47% who
do not pay taxes do fall into demographic groups who are likely Romney
voters.
As an example, using this site:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57515033-503544/fact-checking-romneys-47-percent-comment/
The Quote "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the
president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with
him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are
victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for
them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to
housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the
government should give it to them. And they will vote for this
president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax.
... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince
them they should take personal responsibility and care for their
lives."
Some factoids:
Smaller but significant numbers of the higher-income earners are also
exempt: The same data shows that in 2011, 78,000 tax filers with
incomes between $211,000 and $533,000 paid no income taxes; 24,000
households with incomes of $533,000 to $2.2 million paid no income
taxes, and 3,000 tax filers with incomes above $2.2 million paid no
income taxes.
Overall, according to the Tax Policy Center, "of the 38 million tax
units made nontaxable by the addition of tax expenditures, 44 percent
are moved off the tax rolls by elderly tax benefits and another 30
percent by credits for children and the working poor."
Moreover, only 18.1 percent of American households paid neither
federal income taxes nor payroll taxes in 2011, says the Tax Policy
Center. Of that 18.1 percent, 10.3 percent were elderly and 6.9
percent were non-elderly households earning less than $20,000 year,
which include low-income families and students. About one in 20 is
non-elderly with income over $20,000.
At least one of the demographics that is less likely to pay income
taxes (or income and payroll taxes) tends to vote Republican: In 2008,
voters 65 and over voted for Republican nominee John McCain over
President Obama 53 percent to 45 percent, an eight-point margin
The race is even tighter when you look at white voters with household
incomes under $50,000. Forty-six percent of those voters say they
support Mr. Obama, and 47 percent support Romney, according to the
latest CBS News/New York Times poll
Additionally, according to 2008 data from the nonpartisan Tax
Foundation, eight of the top 10 states with the lowest income tax
liability are Republican-leaning states.
In short, Romney's lumping everybody who has a family income of less
than $50,000/yr as a leach on the system who supports Obama as a way
to keep leeching is a slap in the face to a lot of folks who support
Romney. That possibly includes a lot of folks like Vito and Bruce as
an example. OTOH it put's Lynne and me in the Romney camp. Also
incorrect.
The other thing the comment triggered is a question of just how smart
is Mitt Romney. In a real meritocracy I don't think he would have
made it out of middle management. He is certainly a pretty face and
knows what utensil to use at dinner but if you look at his time at
Bain Capital much of their success was despite him rather than because
of him. I'm starting to regard him as W the second. ;-)
wrote:
of graphically presenting data as a transparency then laying one over
the other to see how they match.
Reading Bill's sources they also point out that a lot of the 47% who
do not pay taxes do fall into demographic groups who are likely Romney
voters.
As an example, using this site:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57515033-503544/fact-checking-romneys-47-percent-comment/
The Quote "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the
president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with
him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are
victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for
them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to
housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the
government should give it to them. And they will vote for this
president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax.
... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince
them they should take personal responsibility and care for their
lives."
Some factoids:
Smaller but significant numbers of the higher-income earners are also
exempt: The same data shows that in 2011, 78,000 tax filers with
incomes between $211,000 and $533,000 paid no income taxes; 24,000
households with incomes of $533,000 to $2.2 million paid no income
taxes, and 3,000 tax filers with incomes above $2.2 million paid no
income taxes.
Overall, according to the Tax Policy Center, "of the 38 million tax
units made nontaxable by the addition of tax expenditures, 44 percent
are moved off the tax rolls by elderly tax benefits and another 30
percent by credits for children and the working poor."
Moreover, only 18.1 percent of American households paid neither
federal income taxes nor payroll taxes in 2011, says the Tax Policy
Center. Of that 18.1 percent, 10.3 percent were elderly and 6.9
percent were non-elderly households earning less than $20,000 year,
which include low-income families and students. About one in 20 is
non-elderly with income over $20,000.
At least one of the demographics that is less likely to pay income
taxes (or income and payroll taxes) tends to vote Republican: In 2008,
voters 65 and over voted for Republican nominee John McCain over
President Obama 53 percent to 45 percent, an eight-point margin
The race is even tighter when you look at white voters with household
incomes under $50,000. Forty-six percent of those voters say they
support Mr. Obama, and 47 percent support Romney, according to the
latest CBS News/New York Times poll
Additionally, according to 2008 data from the nonpartisan Tax
Foundation, eight of the top 10 states with the lowest income tax
liability are Republican-leaning states.
In short, Romney's lumping everybody who has a family income of less
than $50,000/yr as a leach on the system who supports Obama as a way
to keep leeching is a slap in the face to a lot of folks who support
Romney. That possibly includes a lot of folks like Vito and Bruce as
an example. OTOH it put's Lynne and me in the Romney camp. Also
incorrect.
The other thing the comment triggered is a question of just how smart
is Mitt Romney. In a real meritocracy I don't think he would have
made it out of middle management. He is certainly a pretty face and
knows what utensil to use at dinner but if you look at his time at
Bain Capital much of their success was despite him rather than because
of him. I'm starting to regard him as W the second. ;-)
Mike Hendrix at dot
Oct 6, 2012, 12:20:43 PM10/6/12
to
Frank, EVERYONE knows what they are bitching about is the 47%. That
is evident to everyone even nothermark.
He is just throwing in a canard or straw man trying to justify the
bitching in his own mind.
No matter how much flack nothermark flings out there he knows like
everyone else that the LIBERALS/Democratic pundits are bitching about
Romney pointing out that 47% do not pay ANY Federal Income Tax.
It is a fact...... they need to deal with it. It is the truth!
Albeit a sick truth.
Frank Howell
Oct 6, 2012, 1:34:59 PM10/6/12
to
about "fair share," which of course is a completely subjective
concept, and why isn't there more commentary about the 47% who pay no
federal tax and how that constitutes "fair share?"
I concede the fact, if those who don't pay, pay even a token amount of $100,
it would have no effect on federal deficit spending just as those in the
upper income brackets were to pay more, would have some impact with regards
to greater federal income, but not enough to materially change our fiscal
deficit, but at least symbolically everyone will contribute something.
But, as you know, in the scheme of life, it's all a smoke screen for the
bigger problem, in that we as a nation are borrowing 100 billion a month
more then we earn and have interest only payments on the principle of 16
trillion with no real serious plan to pay it down. It makes all those "liar
loans" and crummy underwriting of the real estate loans look almost proper
by comparison. Someone will pay, and it's probably going to be that the next
generation that will pay for our indulgences at their expense.
--
Frank Howell
nothermark
Oct 6, 2012, 2:50:14 PM10/6/12
to
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:34:59 -0700, "Frank Howell" <fpho...@yahoo.com>
What a lot of us see is that the reason so many people do not pay
federal income tax can be laid at the feet of the Conservaive party
who seem to want to see most of the private sector work force in
poverty.
The $100 minimum token idea is lost on most folks.
federal income tax can be laid at the feet of the Conservaive party
who seem to want to see most of the private sector work force in
poverty.
The $100 minimum token idea is lost on most folks.
Jan Orme
Oct 6, 2012, 3:16:59 PM10/6/12
to
On Oct 6, 11:50 am, nothermark <notherm...@not.here> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:34:59 -0700, "Frank Howell" <fphow...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Mike Hendrix wrote:
> >> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 08:06:41 -0700, "Frank Howell" <fphow...@yahoo.com>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are completely full of wrong headed shit! It is squirting out your
ears.
It IS just the opposite! What we (yes I am a staunch conservative)
want is a vibrant economy where hard working people can work hard,
create new small business and create even more sucess for even more
people! Simply put ~~~~~> We CAN NOT do that with the likes of Obama
and this RANK Administration. Even with all the barriers that Obama
put in our way, some of us are still dong that in spite of him. Even
at the tender age of 75.
As usual, mark. You are whistling up the wrong rope. and it's a rope
that will strangle our Nation.
Sheeeesh.....Get A Life!
Jan
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:34:59 -0700, "Frank Howell" <fphow...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Mike Hendrix wrote:
> >> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 08:06:41 -0700, "Frank Howell" <fphow...@yahoo.com>
You are completely full of wrong headed shit! It is squirting out your
ears.
It IS just the opposite! What we (yes I am a staunch conservative)
want is a vibrant economy where hard working people can work hard,
create new small business and create even more sucess for even more
people! Simply put ~~~~~> We CAN NOT do that with the likes of Obama
and this RANK Administration. Even with all the barriers that Obama
put in our way, some of us are still dong that in spite of him. Even
at the tender age of 75.
As usual, mark. You are whistling up the wrong rope. and it's a rope
that will strangle our Nation.
Sheeeesh.....Get A Life!
Jan
nothe...@not.here
Oct 6, 2012, 4:47:15 PM10/6/12
to
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 12:16:59 -0700 (PDT), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
wrote:
I know what you want. I know you are going about getting it the wrong
way. I know you are so far up the river of denial that you cannot
figure that out.
That does not mean I think Obama will fix anything. I just think
Romney weill break it more.
wrote:
way. I know you are so far up the river of denial that you cannot
figure that out.
That does not mean I think Obama will fix anything. I just think
Romney weill break it more.
Frank Howell
Oct 6, 2012, 6:20:00 PM10/6/12
to
poverty. Who would be the consumers of private sector produced goods and
services? You think that the conservatives only want the public work force
to have enough money to purchase goods and services?
Any idea why anyone, conservative or liberal, would ever hold such a
philosophy?
--
Frank Howell
Jan Orme
Oct 6, 2012, 7:07:39 PM10/6/12
to
On Oct 6, 1:47 pm, notherm...@not.here wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 12:16:59 -0700 (PDT), Jan Orme <JanOrm...@aol.com>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Say what?
Please explain in detail what you think you know what I want and how
YOU think I am going about it in the wrong way.
You are certainly allowed to think as you will in this Constitutional
Republic.
Obama is for sure NOT going to fix anything. IF he stays in Office he
will take us even closer to his Goal of our Socialist Doom and your
Constitutional Rights will also flush more and more every day.
Romney is an honest man with a a proven record. Obama simply is not!
Even with the slime washed away his accomplishments in the business
world where we need lots of help are dim and none. Perhaps he could
shine as a TelePrompTer Salesman but I doubt even that.
Jan Eric Orme
Not In The 47%
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 12:16:59 -0700 (PDT), Jan Orme <JanOrm...@aol.com>
Say what?
Please explain in detail what you think you know what I want and how
YOU think I am going about it in the wrong way.
You are certainly allowed to think as you will in this Constitutional
Republic.
Obama is for sure NOT going to fix anything. IF he stays in Office he
will take us even closer to his Goal of our Socialist Doom and your
Constitutional Rights will also flush more and more every day.
Romney is an honest man with a a proven record. Obama simply is not!
Even with the slime washed away his accomplishments in the business
world where we need lots of help are dim and none. Perhaps he could
shine as a TelePrompTer Salesman but I doubt even that.
Jan Eric Orme
Not In The 47%
nothermark
Oct 7, 2012, 3:06:29 AM10/7/12
to
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 15:20:00 -0700, "Frank Howell" <fpho...@yahoo.com>
As long as folks oppose minimum wage, oppose any kind of job
protection and favor bringing in cheap goods from anywhere in the
world to undercut workers here they do not support a thriving private
sector.
As long as edubusiness fails to educate folks for all the jobs
available instead of concentrating on being a Liberal Arts prep
program we are in trouble.
As long as we let folks sue busienss's for not maximizing profits for
the shareholders we are in trouble.
As long as we fail to provide for a healthy and educated work force we
are in trouble.
As long as we run an unbalanced budget and heavy debt load we are in
trouble.
I could go on. I have been down that road before. Multiple times in
many cases. What we give lip service to we do a very poor job of.
Mostly because the folks running thngs are more concerned about
bringing home the bacon than getting the economy working. If you
want to pick on an item and have a question I will answer as I am too
stupid not to try again. It's a two way street.
protection and favor bringing in cheap goods from anywhere in the
world to undercut workers here they do not support a thriving private
sector.
As long as edubusiness fails to educate folks for all the jobs
available instead of concentrating on being a Liberal Arts prep
program we are in trouble.
As long as we let folks sue busienss's for not maximizing profits for
the shareholders we are in trouble.
As long as we fail to provide for a healthy and educated work force we
are in trouble.
As long as we run an unbalanced budget and heavy debt load we are in
trouble.
I could go on. I have been down that road before. Multiple times in
many cases. What we give lip service to we do a very poor job of.
Mostly because the folks running thngs are more concerned about
bringing home the bacon than getting the economy working. If you
want to pick on an item and have a question I will answer as I am too
stupid not to try again. It's a two way street.
nothermark
Oct 7, 2012, 3:06:30 AM10/7/12
to
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 16:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
wrote:
For openers if you check Romney's record it is not all that shiny. For
one example Staples is held up as an example of his great ability. In
truth all Bain did is loan them money and the report is Romney opposed
making the loan.
In terms os what policies he might pursue if you get your wish they
will be to further surpress labor in this country thus making things
worse up and down the line as the workers are less able to support
themselves so become more dependient on a government who you want to
turn it's back on them. Not a happy picture.
wrote:
one example Staples is held up as an example of his great ability. In
truth all Bain did is loan them money and the report is Romney opposed
making the loan.
In terms os what policies he might pursue if you get your wish they
will be to further surpress labor in this country thus making things
worse up and down the line as the workers are less able to support
themselves so become more dependient on a government who you want to
turn it's back on them. Not a happy picture.
Frank Howell
Oct 7, 2012, 12:07:30 PM10/7/12
to
more poverty. If you really thought that the minimum wage was a real
panacea, why not propose one at $20 an hour? I mean how do you determine
what minimum is and why do you support the State overriding the individuals
ability to negotiate their own deal?
Anyone who opposes free trade wants our citizens to buy goods at the highest
price instead of the lowest, therefor reducing the wealth of everyone with
artificially high prices. In otherwords you don't want competition, you want
a Soviet style economy where the State determines prices of goods and
services regardless of true market conditions.
>
> As long as edubusiness fails to educate folks for all the jobs
> available instead of concentrating on being a Liberal Arts prep
> program we are in trouble.
determination. If the State did not provide guaranteed loans, those lending
institutions would then lend strictly on the preceived abiltiy of the
students future income based on getting educated in fields with real jobs.
Maybe many of the Liberal Arts majors choose that field because they
wouldn't be able to succeed otherwise. Your saying that, it is colleges that
must choose the curriculum for the student regardless of the students
ability and if industry needs engineers or scientists that's what they'll be
regardless of their wishes or ability as all majors are exactly
interchangeable with regards to difficulty.
>
> As long as we let folks sue busienss's for not maximizing profits for
> the shareholders we are in trouble.
conservatives sue businesses for not maximizing profits........."
>
> As long as we fail to provide for a healthy and educated work force we
> are in trouble.
earned proceeds to provide for their own health and education. Why would you
want to intercede on their behalf, gots lots of money?
>
> As long as we run an unbalanced budget and heavy debt load we are in
> trouble.
>
> I could go on. I have been down that road before. Multiple times in
> many cases. What we give lip service to we do a very poor job of.
> Mostly because the folks running thngs are more concerned about
> bringing home the bacon than getting the economy working. If you
> want to pick on an item and have a question I will answer as I am too
> stupid not to try again. It's a two way street.
that conservatives want a work force with poverty. On the contrary the more
money the private sector work force has, then according to your beliefs, the
more money the conservatives can loot from them.
--
Frank Howell
Bruce S
Oct 7, 2012, 1:02:45 PM10/7/12
to
out of mark. He would use any amount of government force necessary to
ensure that they can't exist.
--
Bruce
"The truth is hate speech for those who hate truth."
nothe...@not.here
Oct 7, 2012, 2:03:38 PM10/7/12
to
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 09:07:30 -0700, "Frank Howell" <fpho...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
The minimum wage is only a job killer if there is an alternative
aside from not having the work done. The major reason why it is a job
killer in some circles now is the availability of foreign competition.
Eliminate that option and it is a rebalancing.
>
>Anyone who opposes free trade wants our citizens to buy goods at the highest
>price instead of the lowest, therefor reducing the wealth of everyone with
>artificially high prices. In otherwords you don't want competition, you want
>a Soviet style economy where the State determines prices of goods and
>services regardless of true market conditions.
The issue is paying the workers enough to buy the goods they make.
What you are supporting is using workers who do not pay taxes to
replace workers who do pay taxes. You are also supporting putting a
lot of folks on the dole, thus adding to the tax burden, by chasing a
few cents less in retail cost. In short, your model does not balance
out in the end.
Where have I said to eliminate competition or to move to a planned
economy? What I have offered up is to make the competition domestic.
The third issue is pay for the workers. Individual workers have no
significant bargaining power in most cases. That is why I support
private sector unions in big company's. In most cases I also support
letting them go bankrupt if they get too expensive.
>
>>
>> As long as edubusiness fails to educate folks for all the jobs
>> available instead of concentrating on being a Liberal Arts prep
>> program we are in trouble.
>
>Once again you want the State to override the individuals right to self
>determination. If the State did not provide guaranteed loans, those lending
>institutions would then lend strictly on the preceived abiltiy of the
>students future income based on getting educated in fields with real jobs.
The lending institutions are only interested in the ability to get the
money back. If you look at what is going on now they are very tight
unless parents will co sign. If you look at the schools all they are
interested in is filling seats so they can continue on with what they
are doing. Neither of those has a direct connection to producing
workers for the jobs out there. That is a problem but the money
connection is only a small bit of the picture.
An even bigger issue is the change in the Primary and Secondary
schools to de-emphasis science and math. Skilled workers need a
decent grounding in science and math for most jobs. The typical
secondary school curriculum writes off science and math for most
students. That is the problem I am talking about. I even go so far
as to add a year to HS and roll most two year college programs into
High School. The idea of a secondary school education is to produce
functional entry level workers. We are not doing that if we have to
send them to 2 years of paid schooling afterwards.
>
>Maybe many of the Liberal Arts majors choose that field because they
>wouldn't be able to succeed otherwise. Your saying that, it is colleges that
>must choose the curriculum for the student regardless of the students
>ability and if industry needs engineers or scientists that's what they'll be
>regardless of their wishes or ability as all majors are exactly
>interchangeable with regards to difficulty.
Liberal Arts is pushed because Teachers in public schools are Liberal
Arts program graduates. I know a lot of them. Few have any
significant science or math background. They regard it as hard stuff
of little or no value and do not want to spend the resources to teach
it. That leads to both active and passive discouragement of folks who
are interested.
>
>>
>> As long as we let folks sue busienss's for not maximizing profits for
>> the shareholders we are in trouble.
>
>You can't really mean that! You must have meant to say "as long as we let
>conservatives sue businesses for not maximizing profits........."
I really do mean that. This country ran much better on "a reasonable
rate of return" than it does now on "maximizing profits". The shift
has made us a greedy bunch of sadists chasing the last penny.
>
>>
>> As long as we fail to provide for a healthy and educated work force we
>> are in trouble.
>
>Then what's the point of people working if they don't use some of those
>earned proceeds to provide for their own health and education. Why would you
>want to intercede on their behalf, gots lots of money?
I am not interceding. I am talking about the issues. Make me
dictator of the world and you can talk about me interceding.
The point is that unless we provide high enough wages for workers or
the things they need as services (hidden wages) they cannot get it.
The idea that we should be paying workers in competition with a
country that pays $189/mo to the average worker then wanting our folks
to pay $10,000/yr for a medical policy plus pay co pay's is
ridiculous. The numbers just do not work.
>
>
>>
>> As long as we run an unbalanced budget and heavy debt load we are in
>> trouble.
>
>So what does this red-herring have to do with conservatives only?
Cutting taxes below the Laffer Curve turn over point is a reduction in
income. We hover at or below that point now. The Conservatives want
to cut taxes.
Bringing home the bacon by funding minimally signiciant projects is
the curse of both parties and helps keep us in debt.
Dumping huge amounts of money into the military sink hole put us in
debt. Let's get out of the policing business. That is a Conservative
issue.
Letting every other significant economy over the myth of free trade is
largely a Conservative issue.
>
>>
>> I could go on. I have been down that road before. Multiple times in
>> many cases. What we give lip service to we do a very poor job of.
>> Mostly because the folks running thngs are more concerned about
>> bringing home the bacon than getting the economy working. If you
>> want to pick on an item and have a question I will answer as I am too
>> stupid not to try again. It's a two way street.
>
>Once again you miss the Mark :-) mark. None of this points to a conclusion
>that conservatives want a work force with poverty. On the contrary the more
>money the private sector work force has, then according to your beliefs, the
>more money the conservatives can loot from them.
The more money the private sector has they better able they are to pay
for all the government waste. I'm waiting for that shoe to drop over
the next few years.
wrote:
aside from not having the work done. The major reason why it is a job
killer in some circles now is the availability of foreign competition.
Eliminate that option and it is a rebalancing.
>
>Anyone who opposes free trade wants our citizens to buy goods at the highest
>price instead of the lowest, therefor reducing the wealth of everyone with
>artificially high prices. In otherwords you don't want competition, you want
>a Soviet style economy where the State determines prices of goods and
>services regardless of true market conditions.
What you are supporting is using workers who do not pay taxes to
replace workers who do pay taxes. You are also supporting putting a
lot of folks on the dole, thus adding to the tax burden, by chasing a
few cents less in retail cost. In short, your model does not balance
out in the end.
Where have I said to eliminate competition or to move to a planned
economy? What I have offered up is to make the competition domestic.
The third issue is pay for the workers. Individual workers have no
significant bargaining power in most cases. That is why I support
private sector unions in big company's. In most cases I also support
letting them go bankrupt if they get too expensive.
>
>>
>> As long as edubusiness fails to educate folks for all the jobs
>> available instead of concentrating on being a Liberal Arts prep
>> program we are in trouble.
>
>Once again you want the State to override the individuals right to self
>determination. If the State did not provide guaranteed loans, those lending
>institutions would then lend strictly on the preceived abiltiy of the
>students future income based on getting educated in fields with real jobs.
money back. If you look at what is going on now they are very tight
unless parents will co sign. If you look at the schools all they are
interested in is filling seats so they can continue on with what they
are doing. Neither of those has a direct connection to producing
workers for the jobs out there. That is a problem but the money
connection is only a small bit of the picture.
An even bigger issue is the change in the Primary and Secondary
schools to de-emphasis science and math. Skilled workers need a
decent grounding in science and math for most jobs. The typical
secondary school curriculum writes off science and math for most
students. That is the problem I am talking about. I even go so far
as to add a year to HS and roll most two year college programs into
High School. The idea of a secondary school education is to produce
functional entry level workers. We are not doing that if we have to
send them to 2 years of paid schooling afterwards.
>
>Maybe many of the Liberal Arts majors choose that field because they
>wouldn't be able to succeed otherwise. Your saying that, it is colleges that
>must choose the curriculum for the student regardless of the students
>ability and if industry needs engineers or scientists that's what they'll be
>regardless of their wishes or ability as all majors are exactly
>interchangeable with regards to difficulty.
Arts program graduates. I know a lot of them. Few have any
significant science or math background. They regard it as hard stuff
of little or no value and do not want to spend the resources to teach
it. That leads to both active and passive discouragement of folks who
are interested.
>
>>
>> As long as we let folks sue busienss's for not maximizing profits for
>> the shareholders we are in trouble.
>
>You can't really mean that! You must have meant to say "as long as we let
>conservatives sue businesses for not maximizing profits........."
rate of return" than it does now on "maximizing profits". The shift
has made us a greedy bunch of sadists chasing the last penny.
>
>>
>> As long as we fail to provide for a healthy and educated work force we
>> are in trouble.
>
>Then what's the point of people working if they don't use some of those
>earned proceeds to provide for their own health and education. Why would you
>want to intercede on their behalf, gots lots of money?
dictator of the world and you can talk about me interceding.
The point is that unless we provide high enough wages for workers or
the things they need as services (hidden wages) they cannot get it.
The idea that we should be paying workers in competition with a
country that pays $189/mo to the average worker then wanting our folks
to pay $10,000/yr for a medical policy plus pay co pay's is
ridiculous. The numbers just do not work.
>
>
>>
>> As long as we run an unbalanced budget and heavy debt load we are in
>> trouble.
>
>So what does this red-herring have to do with conservatives only?
income. We hover at or below that point now. The Conservatives want
to cut taxes.
Bringing home the bacon by funding minimally signiciant projects is
the curse of both parties and helps keep us in debt.
Dumping huge amounts of money into the military sink hole put us in
debt. Let's get out of the policing business. That is a Conservative
issue.
Letting every other significant economy over the myth of free trade is
largely a Conservative issue.
>
>>
>> I could go on. I have been down that road before. Multiple times in
>> many cases. What we give lip service to we do a very poor job of.
>> Mostly because the folks running thngs are more concerned about
>> bringing home the bacon than getting the economy working. If you
>> want to pick on an item and have a question I will answer as I am too
>> stupid not to try again. It's a two way street.
>
>Once again you miss the Mark :-) mark. None of this points to a conclusion
>that conservatives want a work force with poverty. On the contrary the more
>money the private sector work force has, then according to your beliefs, the
>more money the conservatives can loot from them.
for all the government waste. I'm waiting for that shoe to drop over
the next few years.
nothe...@not.here
Oct 7, 2012, 3:02:33 PM10/7/12
to
rvfulltime
Oct 7, 2012, 5:14:19 PM10/7/12
to
On 10/5/2012 3:02 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>
> Without all the who shot john that can be interjected into the answer
> is it True or False that 47% of the population does not pay taxes?
>
False. What I've read from several good sources is that 46% of "households" do
>
> Without all the who shot john that can be interjected into the answer
> is it True or False that 47% of the population does not pay taxes?
>
not pay "Federal Income Taxes". Maybe in the past year it has jumped from 46%
to 47%; not worth quibbling over. And here household is defined by the IRS,
which is similar, but not identical to the meaning used by economists or the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. The 46%, or 47%, comes from the IRS. The average
household has more than 2 people. The other key phrase is "Federal Income
Taxes" which excludes Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, Excise taxes, and
various state and local taxes. (Politicians like to lump SS and Medicare
together and call them "The Payroll Tax", even though there is no such tax.)
This figure just dramatically due to the "Bush Era" tax cuts that Congress
passed. It used to be somewhere between 20% to 25% did not pay Federal Income
Taxes.
> I don't know but I would have guessed it was greater than 47% that
> don't pay taxes.
>
> I would suspect that over 47% of citizens over the age of 18 do not
> pay taxes.
>
households.
> I just know too may adults that are receiving government checks and
> not hitting a lick at a snake.
>
my run. Is that something similar?
> I see too many adults panhandling.....it is pretty obvious they aren't
> paying any tax on their panhandling income.
>
table" and don't declare that income. But today, it's irrelevant because the
income threshold to break out of the zero federal income tax bracket is pretty
high, higher than many states.
> I see too many adults that do not even have a Photo ID.... it is for
> sure they aren't paying taxes.
>
know has photo ID.
> Heck, most of the ones listed above do not even file a 1040.
>
> Out of the adults that do file a 1040 many get back EVERYTHING they
> had deducted...... and a percentage of those even get back more than
> they paid in.
>
> So, how many adults in this country are paying federal income taxes
> compared to those that do not pay any federal income tax?
>
> mike
difference. You're not alone. The media get's it wrong about half the time
too. That's how a lot of misconceptions get started.
I'm one of the few that believe that both the Democrats and the Republicans are
wrong. I believe that too few households, which implies people, are paying
Federal Income Taxes. The budget deficit cannot be solved by taxes on the rich
only. It cannot be solved by cutting entitlements only. It can only be solved
by a broad based tax increase on the middle class coupled with a reduction in
entitlement spending.
The Democrats try to buy votes by saying we're going to give you all these
benefits. The Republicans try to buy votes by saying we're not going to tax
you. We can't turn this country into another Greece buy putting everybody on
the government dole. And everybody but the bottom 20% should be paying income
taxes. Take that Obama, Bush, Reid, Pelosi, Boeher, and McConnell. (Oh no...
Guys in black suits from a black SUV are walking up to my door.) ;-)
Bruce S
Oct 7, 2012, 5:53:11 PM10/7/12
to
determination, or personal responsibility, you argue against those
things and for more government regulation and control.
nothe...@not.here
Oct 7, 2012, 6:21:16 PM10/7/12
to
are single folks so they do not qualify as head of household so they
do not get the tax credit. BTDT
Mike Hendrix at dot
Oct 7, 2012, 8:51:27 PM10/7/12
to
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:53:11 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
-------------------
nothermark would not recognize himself in the mirror.
nothermark would not recognize himself in the mirror.
Mike Hendrix at dot
Oct 7, 2012, 8:57:18 PM10/7/12
to
>> I see too many adults that do not even have a Photo ID.... it is for
>> sure they aren't paying taxes.
>>
>
>You run in different circles than I do. I believe that every adult person I
>know has photo ID.
AFSIK all the adults I know have a photo ID as well. However, all you
>> sure they aren't paying taxes.
>>
>
>You run in different circles than I do. I believe that every adult person I
>know has photo ID.
have to do is visit a facility that issues drivers licenses. You will
be shocked at the number of folks that are trying to obtain a "photo
ID".
Photo ID's are required to get into many soup lines and other places
that feed, house and care for the homeless and others that take
advantage of those agencies.
nothermark
Oct 7, 2012, 9:39:01 PM10/7/12
to
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:53:11 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
That is because I recognize that the things I talk about providing are
not often a choice now for a lot or folks.
What you use it for is code for "I got mine, fuck the rest".
What I champion is a reasonable way to support all the population at a
minimal level if they cannot do better for themselves for some reason.
I also include retirement in a way that does not unduly enrich the
investment banking system.
not often a choice now for a lot or folks.
What you use it for is code for "I got mine, fuck the rest".
What I champion is a reasonable way to support all the population at a
minimal level if they cannot do better for themselves for some reason.
I also include retirement in a way that does not unduly enrich the
investment banking system.
Bruce S
Oct 7, 2012, 10:21:02 PM10/7/12
to
pick government over freedom, self determination and personal
responsibility.
1. Should a person be free to take a job for less than minimum wage if
he wants to?
2. Should a person be able to decide for himself what job risks he
wants to accept regardless of OSHA regulations?
3. Should a person be responsible for the consequences of his own
decisions regarding health care, family support, food consumption, and
housing?
mark will answer no to all of the above.
Bruce S
Oct 7, 2012, 10:23:12 PM10/7/12
to
personal responsibility. You will always pick government regulation
over freedom.
RMcBane
Oct 7, 2012, 10:49:23 PM10/7/12
to
On 10/7/2012 10:21 PM, Bruce S wrote:
> On 10/7/2012 5:51 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
<<snip>> -------------------
> On 10/7/2012 5:51 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>
>> nothermark would not recognize himself in the mirror.
>>
>> mike
>
> With three simple questions, I can demonstrate that mark will always
> pick government over freedom, self determination and personal
> responsibility.
>
> 1. Should a person be free to take a job for less than minimum wage if
> he wants to?
>
> 2. Should a person be able to decide for himself what job risks he
> wants to accept regardless of OSHA regulations?
>
> 3. Should a person be responsible for the consequences of his own
> decisions regarding health care, family support, food consumption, and
> housing?
>
> mark will answer no to all of the above.
Interesting questions. My answers:
>> nothermark would not recognize himself in the mirror.
>>
>> mike
>
> With three simple questions, I can demonstrate that mark will always
> pick government over freedom, self determination and personal
> responsibility.
>
> 1. Should a person be free to take a job for less than minimum wage if
> he wants to?
>
> 2. Should a person be able to decide for himself what job risks he
> wants to accept regardless of OSHA regulations?
>
> 3. Should a person be responsible for the consequences of his own
> decisions regarding health care, family support, food consumption, and
> housing?
>
> mark will answer no to all of the above.
1. Anyone should be able to offer any job at any wage and anyone should
be able to accept or decline. Many jobs at lower wages aren't intended
to support a person or family, but only provide a bridge as a temporary,
second job or second wage earner job. While in high school I worked at
a gas station at far less than the minimum wage, but it was a good deal
for me and more than the movie theater was willing to pay me as an
usher. Now that minimum wage covers those jobs, I seldom see anyone
pumping gas and cleaning windshield or as movie ushers.
2. If the risk is high enough, the pay will match what it takes to get
someone to do it. When they built the railroads out west, people
transporting explosives knew the risk and were paid more than those
driving spikes or cooking the grub.
3. This seems like a rhetorical question. Unless someone else makes
all those decisions for an individual, how can they not be responsible
for the consequences?
--
Richard McBane
Bruce S
Oct 7, 2012, 11:52:37 PM10/7/12
to
choice not to purchase health insurance, should the government protect
him from that decision, or should he be required to live (or die) with
the consequences of not having insurance when he is sick or injured?
Should a person who is not doing everything possible to provide food and
shelter for himself and his family be protected by the government from
the consequences of those decisions (by means of welfare, section 8
housing or food stamps) or should he live (or die) without food and
shelter unless he can provide it for himself. In other words, should a
person be held responsible for the consequences for his decisions, or
should the government absolve him of that responsibility?
Jan Orme
Oct 8, 2012, 12:23:25 AM10/8/12
to
On Oct 7, 7:21 pm, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/7/2012 5:51 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:53:11 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
> On 10/7/2012 5:51 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On 10/7/2012 12:02 PM, notherm...@not.here wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 10:02:45 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
Here is Milton Friedman speaking about minimum wage and what it has
done to teenagers and especially black teenagers and others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk
Some have sadly used minimum wage as a tool to control those they
claim to help and keep them always under their thumb.
Jan
nothermark
Oct 8, 2012, 10:07:52 AM10/8/12
to
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 20:52:37 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Limit all business's ot less than 50 emplyee's and you might have a
point.
As it is you want to hold folks responsible for supplying 10's of
thousands of dollars in costs on "competitive salaries of hundreds of
dollars for the same period. That is the problem with your approach.
You might also want to ask yourself "why have a society".
wrote:
point.
As it is you want to hold folks responsible for supplying 10's of
thousands of dollars in costs on "competitive salaries of hundreds of
dollars for the same period. That is the problem with your approach.
You might also want to ask yourself "why have a society".
RMcBane
Oct 8, 2012, 10:41:41 AM10/8/12
to
responsible for their own decisions. I only meant that if government is
making all the decisions, then perhaps they are responsible for the
consequences. Of course a person can find ways to get out from under
those types of regimes if they are willing to take responsibility for
themselves.
--
Richard McBane
Max
Oct 8, 2012, 11:08:19 AM10/8/12
to
those who are either born incapable of making those decisions or become
either incapable or financially unable to comply.
I can envision a scenario where poor judgement might place a person in a
position where he/she would be unable to provide for them-self.
(reckless driving results in an accident leaving the individual
paralyzed) Should that person be "left to die"?
Another scenario: A totally handicapped child born to a mother who has
not complied with your standard. What then?
Another: A person incapable of properly judging the risks inherent in a
particular job becomes disabled. In this scenario let us assume that a
coal mine explosion resulted from an accumulation of gases because of
inadequate ventilation (mine owner fault)
In a similar situation: The accident is the fault of a supervisor who
violated company rules.
Just a few of some possibilities.
Mike Hendrix at dot
Oct 8, 2012, 12:06:17 PM10/8/12
to
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 19:21:02 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
--------------------
Bruce, nothermark will not answer those questions because he is
AVOIDING them mirror.
He knows. He is just avoiding.
Bruce, nothermark will not answer those questions because he is
AVOIDING them mirror.
He knows. He is just avoiding.
Owen McKenzie
Oct 8, 2012, 12:40:58 PM10/8/12
to
because he would no longer be able to argue his positions. I guess I was
right! :-)
--
Owen McKenzie
Posting from Pigeon Forge, TN
We were promised hope and change.
We got hype and blame.
Bruce S
Oct 8, 2012, 12:53:52 PM10/8/12
to
will always pick more government over more freedom.
Bruce S
Oct 8, 2012, 1:05:38 PM10/8/12
to
a person makes the choice". People incapable of making a choice have
not made a choice. I find myself far less forgiving of people who
make bad decisions for financial reasons.
> I can envision a scenario where poor judgement might place a person in a
> position where he/she would be unable to provide for them-self.
> (reckless driving results in an accident leaving the individual
> paralyzed) Should that person be "left to die"?
him. Family, friends, churches, civic groups, and private charities
should provide what they CHOOSE to provide. If that means he is left to
die, that was the choice he made.
> Another scenario: A totally handicapped child born to a mother who has
> not complied with your standard. What then?
parents should be prosecuted and incarcerated for chile abuse/neglect -
and then sent the bills for the child's care. The price (financial,
legal, or otherwise) should be so high that parents will choose to care
for their children.
> Another: A person incapable of properly judging the risks inherent in a
> particular job becomes disabled. In this scenario let us assume that a
> coal mine explosion resulted from an accumulation of gases because of
> inadequate ventilation (mine owner fault)
> In a similar situation: The accident is the fault of a supervisor who
> violated company rules.
person automatically assumes responsibility for the damage he has done.
>
> Just a few of some possibilities.
And none of them absolved the individual from responsibility for the
> Just a few of some possibilities.
decisions that he makes.
Bruce S
Oct 8, 2012, 1:06:19 PM10/8/12
to
Larry
Oct 8, 2012, 1:15:42 PM10/8/12
to
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 19:57:18 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
(dot) us> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:14:19 -0700, rvfulltime
><rvfulltim...@isp.nospaam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> I see too many adults that do not even have a Photo ID.... it is for
>>> sure they aren't paying taxes.
>>>
Probably a waste of a question as was the previous question like this
(dot) us> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:14:19 -0700, rvfulltime
><rvfulltim...@isp.nospaam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> I see too many adults that do not even have a Photo ID.... it is for
>>> sure they aren't paying taxes.
>>>
but: mark did you ask every adult you saw if they had a Photo ID? If
not, how do you know?
>>You run in different circles than I do. I believe that every adult person I
>>know has photo ID.
>
>AFSIK all the adults I know have a photo ID as well. However, all you
>have to do is visit a facility that issues drivers licenses. You will
>be shocked at the number of folks that are trying to obtain a "photo
>ID".
anyone looking to get a Photo ID, just License plates and such.
>Photo ID's are required to get into many soup lines and other places
>that feed, house and care for the homeless and others that take
>advantage of those agencies.
food, housing and care until now?
I have never been on a soup line and I do not know anything about them
first hand. I do know that if I were serving on one of these lines a
Photo ID is the last thing I would be looking for.
>
>mike
Jan Orme
Oct 8, 2012, 1:23:10 PM10/8/12
to
On Oct 8, 10:06 am, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/8/2012 9:06 AM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 19:21:02 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
> On 10/8/2012 9:06 AM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On 10/7/2012 5:51 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:53:11 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>
> >> On 10/7/2012 5:51 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 10/7/2012 12:02 PM, notherm...@not.here wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 10:02:45 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
It's a waste of time, Bruce. Just by the e-mail adress we should know
better. It WILL NOT Answer when the questions are pointed and tough.
It's not even Mark. It's some "other mark" @ "Not Here." Waste of
time. Kick it to the curb.
Jan
rvfulltime
Oct 8, 2012, 3:56:30 PM10/8/12
to
beneficiaries. You just get in line and wait for your bag of food, no questions
asked. We learned about this after my brother in law, who was staying with us
for a couple of month, visited them while we were away on vacation. We came
home to find all this plain label food in the cabinets. Other place may ask
questions, but not where we used to
live.
Max
Oct 8, 2012, 4:13:44 PM10/8/12
to
present needs because they believe the government is meeting them?
My point there is that the charities with which I'm familiar are unable
to meet local needs.
Changing the scenario slightly, the individual, 21 years of age,
employed at the time of the accident, paid his health care insurance
promptly until disabled, has no relative capable of supporting him and
no affiliation with a charity willing to support him. What then. He dies?
>> Another scenario: A totally handicapped child born to a mother who has
>> not complied with your standard. What then?
>
> If the government has to get involved and take care of the child, the
> parents should be prosecuted and incarcerated for chile abuse/neglect -
> and then sent the bills for the child's care. The price (financial,
> legal, or otherwise) should be so high that parents will choose to care
> for their children.
your standard. (no insurance, no means of support, no family financially
capable) And the mother didn't want an abortion.
These scenarios aren't rare in today's society.
>> Another: A person incapable of properly judging the risks inherent in a
>> particular job becomes disabled. In this scenario let us assume that a
>> coal mine explosion resulted from an accumulation of gases because of
>> inadequate ventilation (mine owner fault)
>> In a similar situation: The accident is the fault of a supervisor who
>> violated company rules.
>
> Those are both the fault of someone other than the individual, and that
> person automatically assumes responsibility for the damage he has done.
>> Just a few of some possibilities.
>
> And none of them absolved the individual from responsibility for the
> decisions that he makes.
>
won't suffice. It doesn't now and it won't suddenly start if the
government butts out. Your judgements seem a bit harsh but to each his own.
Mike Hendrix at dot
Oct 8, 2012, 4:37:57 PM10/8/12
to
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 19:23:12 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
Is that the same thing in your mind as "I worked my ass off for what I
have and do not want the government to take it and give it to those
who want to lay around and watch TV?"
>>
>> What I champion is a reasonable way to support all the population at a
>> minimal level if they cannot do better for themselves for some reason.
You always throw in that canard...... "cannot do better for
themselves"...... what a straw man....... You can not bring yourself
to say "the lazy bastards that want to live off the workers and
producers". You just can not bring yourself to say it can you?
Another way of saying what you write is "I favor the government taking
from those that work & produce and spreading it around to those that
would rather not work and produce..... kinda like the feel good story
of Robin Hood.
>> I also include retirement in a way that does not unduly enrich the
>> investment banking system.
>
>What you mean is that you are opposed to freedom, self determination and
>personal responsibility. You will always pick government regulation
>over freedom.
nothermark always picks plundering the producers and redistributing
the plunder to the deadbeats. That is his constant theme song.
have and do not want the government to take it and give it to those
who want to lay around and watch TV?"
>>
>> What I champion is a reasonable way to support all the population at a
>> minimal level if they cannot do better for themselves for some reason.
themselves"...... what a straw man....... You can not bring yourself
to say "the lazy bastards that want to live off the workers and
producers". You just can not bring yourself to say it can you?
Another way of saying what you write is "I favor the government taking
from those that work & produce and spreading it around to those that
would rather not work and produce..... kinda like the feel good story
of Robin Hood.
>> I also include retirement in a way that does not unduly enrich the
>> investment banking system.
>
>What you mean is that you are opposed to freedom, self determination and
>personal responsibility. You will always pick government regulation
>over freedom.
the plunder to the deadbeats. That is his constant theme song.
Mike Hendrix at dot
Oct 8, 2012, 4:39:12 PM10/8/12
to
nothermaks sees things differently. He does not want to be help
personally responsible for any of his decisions plus he does not want
others to be held responsible for their decisions.
nothermakr wants the government to take money from responsible
individuals (tax payers) and give it to the irresponsible in a kind of
"Robin-Hood" fashion.
D-R
Oct 8, 2012, 4:51:42 PM10/8/12
to
On 10/8/2012 4:13 PM, Max wrote:
>
> My only point is that there are extenuating circumstances and "charity"
> won't suffice. It doesn't now and it won't suddenly start if the
> government butts out. Your judgements seem a bit harsh but to each his own.
Example of the mess the government has created.... Tried to donate
>
> My only point is that there are extenuating circumstances and "charity"
> won't suffice. It doesn't now and it won't suddenly start if the
> government butts out. Your judgements seem a bit harsh but to each his own.
an electric hospital bed after my father passed.... No one wanted it
because the "government" would buy a new one for anyone that needed
it... at least that is what I was told by a bunch of charities.. So it
might be fair to say that the charities cannot provide their needs but
would be able to if the government stopped.
--
AJ -- To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason
is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Payne
Max
Oct 8, 2012, 5:13:52 PM10/8/12
to
On 10/8/2012 2:51 PM, D-R wrote:
> On 10/8/2012 4:13 PM, Max wrote:
>
>>
>> My only point is that there are extenuating circumstances and "charity"
>> won't suffice. It doesn't now and it won't suddenly start if the
>> government butts out. Your judgements seem a bit harsh but to each his
>> own.
>
> Example of the mess the government has created.... Tried to donate
> an electric hospital bed after my father passed.... No one wanted it
> because the "government" would buy a new one for anyone that needed
> it... at least that is what I was told by a bunch of charities.. So it
> might be fair to say that the charities cannot provide their needs but
> would be able to if the government stopped.
>
I agree that the government has created this mess. But I don't agree
> On 10/8/2012 4:13 PM, Max wrote:
>
>>
>> My only point is that there are extenuating circumstances and "charity"
>> won't suffice. It doesn't now and it won't suddenly start if the
>> government butts out. Your judgements seem a bit harsh but to each his
>> own.
>
> Example of the mess the government has created.... Tried to donate
> an electric hospital bed after my father passed.... No one wanted it
> because the "government" would buy a new one for anyone that needed
> it... at least that is what I was told by a bunch of charities.. So it
> might be fair to say that the charities cannot provide their needs but
> would be able to if the government stopped.
>
that "charities" will be able, or in many cases willing, to take care of
the needy. They never have and I seriously doubt that they ever will.
EVEN if there were some way to weed out the "wanting" from the truly
"needing". But it would at least be a start if the government would
drop the "wanting" from their list so there would be money left for the
needy.
Bruce S
Oct 8, 2012, 6:34:39 PM10/8/12
to
On 10/8/2012 1:13 PM, Max wrote:
> On 10/8/2012 11:05 AM, Bruce S wrote:
>> On 10/8/2012 8:08 AM, Max wrote:
>>
>>> I can envision a scenario where poor judgement might place a person in a
>>> position where he/she would be unable to provide for them-self.
>>> (reckless driving results in an accident leaving the individual
>>> paralyzed) Should that person be "left to die"?
>>
>> He should be left to charity. The government should provide NOTHING for
>> him. Family, friends, churches, civic groups, and private charities
>> should provide what they CHOOSE to provide. If that means he is left to
>> die, that was the choice he made.
>
> Do you suppose that most charities are Not presently meeting all the
> present needs because they believe the government is meeting them?
> My point there is that the charities with which I'm familiar are unable
> to meet local needs.
It is my opinion that if the government stole less from the people,
> On 10/8/2012 11:05 AM, Bruce S wrote:
>> On 10/8/2012 8:08 AM, Max wrote:
>>
>>> I can envision a scenario where poor judgement might place a person in a
>>> position where he/she would be unable to provide for them-self.
>>> (reckless driving results in an accident leaving the individual
>>> paralyzed) Should that person be "left to die"?
>>
>> He should be left to charity. The government should provide NOTHING for
>> him. Family, friends, churches, civic groups, and private charities
>> should provide what they CHOOSE to provide. If that means he is left to
>> die, that was the choice he made.
>
> Do you suppose that most charities are Not presently meeting all the
> present needs because they believe the government is meeting them?
> My point there is that the charities with which I'm familiar are unable
> to meet local needs.
those people would have more to voluntarily contribute to charity. And
if families knew that it was up to them to take care of their own,
'cause the government wouldn't, those families would be more likely to
take their obligations seriously.
> Changing the scenario slightly, the individual, 21 years of age,
> employed at the time of the accident, paid his health care insurance
> promptly until disabled, has no relative capable of supporting him and
> no affiliation with a charity willing to support him. What then. He dies?
>>> Another scenario: A totally handicapped child born to a mother who has
>>> not complied with your standard. What then?
>>
>> If the government has to get involved and take care of the child, the
>> parents should be prosecuted and incarcerated for chile abuse/neglect -
>> and then sent the bills for the child's care. The price (financial,
>> legal, or otherwise) should be so high that parents will choose to care
>> for their children.
>
> As I mentioned in my scenario, the (unwed) mother has not complied with
> your standard. (no insurance, no means of support, no family financially
> capable) And the mother didn't want an abortion.
> These scenarios aren't rare in today's society.
to care for the child, or she does the responsible thing and gives it up
for adoption. There was a time when unwed mothers took that option.
If she chooses to keep the child, the total responsibility for the care
and feeding of that child is hers (and the father's of course). If she
fails to live up to that responsibility, she has committed the crime of
child neglect and should be treated accordingly.
In any event, the care and feeding of that child is NEVER the
responsibility of the government. If you think otherwise, find it for
me in the Constitution.
>>> Another: A person incapable of properly judging the risks inherent in a
>>> particular job becomes disabled. In this scenario let us assume that a
>>> coal mine explosion resulted from an accumulation of gases because of
>>> inadequate ventilation (mine owner fault)
>>> In a similar situation: The accident is the fault of a supervisor who
>>> violated company rules.
>>
>> Those are both the fault of someone other than the individual, and that
>> person automatically assumes responsibility for the damage he has done.
>
> In an ideal world.
nothermark
Oct 8, 2012, 6:37:01 PM10/8/12
to
Owen McKenzie
Oct 8, 2012, 6:39:06 PM10/8/12
to
First, you will always be able to come up with a "yeah, but" for any
proposed fix. I don't mean you specifically Max, but there is always the
set of circumstances that won't be covered by any solution.
Secondly, I believe that private charities can filter out the 'wanters'
better than the gov't can. For example, my BIL, who just started his 3rd
year as a volunteer in Haiti, was a volunteer at Moody Church in Chicago
before that. Because of his earlier lifestyle, he was very good at
separating the wheat from the chaff when people came there for help.
nothermark
Oct 8, 2012, 6:51:01 PM10/8/12
to
Show me one place where I do not want folks to have a choice or not be
responsible for their actions.
The difference between me and some folks here is that I have seen too
many people go out and follow the best advice but get screwed in the
end due to circumstances they had no control over. Watching Xerox,
Kodak, Rochester Products, and the GM Fuel cell developement operation
go down the drain are just examples. Most of the job loss is the
direct result of decisions made in upper management to screw with
viable operations that were making money filled with productive
workers doing a reasonably good job. The result is that I believe in
a social safety net that puts folks at a minimal level of support.
I also find it interesting that we are quite willing to screw the crap
out of folks who make the products we use every day in order to save a
few cents and destroy our economy in the process. OTOH we are willing
to pay a 30% premium to support an expensive way to distribute health
care dollars in a way that does not result in the best system around
despite the propaganda.
Bruce S
Oct 8, 2012, 6:53:43 PM10/8/12
to
completely out of the equation. The family of a needy person KNOWS if
he is seeking to fill his needs or his wants - if they decide it is
wants, not needs and they don't care to help, he gets nothing, which is
what he should get.
If he has no family, the best people to evaluate his wants/needs are his
neighbors - the local churches, civic groups, or charities. If he
doesn't know anyone at all who can evaluate his situation and make an
educated decision, he does not deserve any help - he has chosen to
abandon society, and society is justified in abandoning him.
nothermark
Oct 8, 2012, 6:56:00 PM10/8/12
to
would be reversed.
nothermark
Oct 8, 2012, 8:09:01 PM10/8/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 15:53:43 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I'd say give it to everybody if we cannot tell the difference. That
is the difference between us.
wrote:
is the difference between us.
Mike Hendrix at dot
Oct 8, 2012, 8:34:55 PM10/8/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:15:42 -0400, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 19:57:18 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
>(dot) us> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:14:19 -0700, rvfulltime
>><rvfulltim...@isp.nospaam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I see too many adults that do not even have a Photo ID.... it is for
>>>> sure they aren't paying taxes.
>>>>
>Probably a waste of a question as was the previous question like this
>but: mark did you ask every adult you saw if they had a Photo ID? If
>not, how do you know?
>
>>>You run in different circles than I do. I believe that every adult person I
>>>know has photo ID.
>>
>>AFSIK all the adults I know have a photo ID as well. However, all you
>>have to do is visit a facility that issues drivers licenses. You will
>>be shocked at the number of folks that are trying to obtain a "photo
>>ID".
>
>I was at the Motor Vehicle Agency a few weeks ago. I did not notice
>anyone looking to get a Photo ID, just License plates and such.
Larry, like you I do not visit the Motor Vehicle Agency very often
>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 19:57:18 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
>(dot) us> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:14:19 -0700, rvfulltime
>><rvfulltim...@isp.nospaam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I see too many adults that do not even have a Photo ID.... it is for
>>>> sure they aren't paying taxes.
>>>>
>Probably a waste of a question as was the previous question like this
>but: mark did you ask every adult you saw if they had a Photo ID? If
>not, how do you know?
>
>>>You run in different circles than I do. I believe that every adult person I
>>>know has photo ID.
>>
>>AFSIK all the adults I know have a photo ID as well. However, all you
>>have to do is visit a facility that issues drivers licenses. You will
>>be shocked at the number of folks that are trying to obtain a "photo
>>ID".
>
>I was at the Motor Vehicle Agency a few weeks ago. I did not notice
>anyone looking to get a Photo ID, just License plates and such.
either. However, this past winter I needed to renew my Florida
Drivers License while in Key West. I sat in that office and watched
as possibly 8-men (all with smart phones) applied for photo ID's.
They were there as a group being escorted by a social worker. They
were all in front of me so I got to watch the entire show. The men
were in their mid-to late 30's through their 50's I would guess. From
what I could see all or most walked (or rode a bicycle) to the Motor
Vehicle Agency where they met the social worker. btw, bicycles are
the preferred mode of transportation in Key West.
By the time it was my turn to renew my license I could not help but
ask the processor about what I had just witnessed. The workers in the
Motor Vehicle Office explained that what I had witnessed was a routine
occurrence. Social workers from a local organization would work for
weeks if not months getting the paperwork necessary for these
individuals to obtain a Photo ID. They explained that in order to
obtain most services available to the homeless they had to have a
Photo ID.
Why they are in their 30's, 40's and 50's without a Photo ID is beyond
me. I do not have a clue. I would have guessed that 99.9% of
teenagers reaching 16-years of age would have a drivers permit with
their picture on it and an even greater percentage would have that
picture ID by the age of say.....18.
I have no idea if any of these people have ever held a job or ever
driven a vehicle, or if they just lost the one they did have. I do
know that they were not getting the photo ID on their own it was
taking a social worker handling each of them..... (the same social
worker was working with ALL of the men on this day.....not a group of
social workers).
>
>>Photo ID's are required to get into many soup lines and other places
>>that feed, house and care for the homeless and others that take
>>advantage of those agencies.
>
>If the statements you posted are correct, how have they gotten their
>food, housing and care until now?
was why the social worker was helping them obtain a Photo ID, so these
men could be taken care of by the agencies that were dealing with the
area's homeless.
Max
Oct 8, 2012, 9:05:24 PM10/8/12
to
already know I don't have the time to teach you.
Max
Oct 8, 2012, 9:14:27 PM10/8/12
to
there are so many needy but "yeah, buts" seem to be plentiful. The fire
department seemed to be the resource to turn to when someone needed help.
I agree that charities would very likely be better than the government
if for no other reason than having limited resources. "WE can't save
everybody".
But I maintain my position that charities cannot and will not do the job
alone.
Bruce S
Oct 8, 2012, 9:18:49 PM10/8/12
to
Max
Oct 8, 2012, 9:19:24 PM10/8/12
to
worked too long and too hard to be indiscriminate with my financial
resources. Besides, I have a family to take care of and I have to admit
that they come first. "Charity begins at Home."
Owen McKenzie
Oct 8, 2012, 9:41:31 PM10/8/12
to
that stupid and live to retirement.
Max
Oct 8, 2012, 10:01:06 PM10/8/12
to
need just perpetuates a problem. It's a liberal ploy.
nothe...@not.here
Oct 8, 2012, 10:27:01 PM10/8/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 19:34:55 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
So you are basing broad statements on an infrequent but ongoing
occurence.
My assumption is that they turned up at some shelter in Key West
without ID. Since they know the ropes they probably lost it or had it
stolen assuming they somehow came up with verifiable records over time
so they could get an ID.
I do not see how one can make a connection between that and work
history.
occurence.
My assumption is that they turned up at some shelter in Key West
without ID. Since they know the ropes they probably lost it or had it
stolen assuming they somehow came up with verifiable records over time
so they could get an ID.
I do not see how one can make a connection between that and work
history.
jerryosage
Oct 9, 2012, 12:25:24 AM10/9/12
to
On 8 Oct 2012 17:56:00 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
>From what I have seen if hard work was the criteria the pay scales
>would be reversed.
Hard work alone has never been the criteria. And in a free society it
>
>From what I have seen if hard work was the criteria the pay scales
>would be reversed.
never will be. And working hard alone won't cut it either. A dish
washer may bust his ass by working 14 hours a day. It is hard work
and he is working hard. However, he will still only earn a
dishwashers pay.
If he/she wants more money they will have to change jobs since there
is no shortage of dishwashers who are willing to work for the going
wage. Big money comes from having a skill where the demand exceeds
the supply.
Dullards and dishwashers will never be is short supply. And therefore
will never become wealthy plying their trade no matter how hard the
work or how hard they work at it.
nothermark
Oct 9, 2012, 4:07:53 AM10/9/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 11:06:17 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
(dot) us> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 19:21:02 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 10/7/2012 5:51 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:53:11 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/7/2012 12:02 PM, nothe...@not.here wrote:
>>responsibility.
>>
the same old Bruce snivel and Mike goad.
Just for you I will do this exercise in silly:
>>1. Should a person be free to take a job for less than minimum wage if
>>he wants to?
Yes, assuming the person has such a low self value.
The folks who compete with the person who makes the offer should also
be free to sue for unfair competition or just put a contract out on
him.
>>2. Should a person be able to decide for himself what job risks he
>>wants to accept regardless of OSHA regulations?
If they are that stupid and also want to be fined for working in
unsafe conditions. (Who do you think was behind getting OSHA in
place?)
>>3. Should a person be responsible for the consequences of his own
>>decisions regarding health care, family support, food consumption, and
>>housing?
Yes, as long as the government provides the same level for it's
employee's. No provate sector person should have lower pay or
benefits than the equivalent government worker.
(dot) us> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 19:21:02 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 10/7/2012 5:51 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:53:11 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/7/2012 12:02 PM, nothe...@not.here wrote:
>>> -------------------
>>>
>>> nothermark would not recognize himself in the mirror.
>>>
>>> mike
>>
>>With three simple questions, I can demonstrate that mark will always
>>pick government over freedom, self determination and personal
>>>
>>> nothermark would not recognize himself in the mirror.
>>>
>>> mike
>>
>>With three simple questions, I can demonstrate that mark will always
>>responsibility.
>>
>>1. Should a person be free to take a job for less than minimum wage if
>>he wants to?
>>
>>2. Should a person be able to decide for himself what job risks he
>>wants to accept regardless of OSHA regulations?
>>
>>3. Should a person be responsible for the consequences of his own
>>decisions regarding health care, family support, food consumption, and
>>housing?
>>
>>mark will answer no to all of the above.
>>he wants to?
>>
>>2. Should a person be able to decide for himself what job risks he
>>wants to accept regardless of OSHA regulations?
>>
>>3. Should a person be responsible for the consequences of his own
>>decisions regarding health care, family support, food consumption, and
>>housing?
>>
>>mark will answer no to all of the above.
>--------------------
>
>Bruce, nothermark will not answer those questions because he is
>AVOIDING them mirror.
>
>He knows. He is just avoiding.
>
>mike
I have answered them several times already in various guises. It's
>
>Bruce, nothermark will not answer those questions because he is
>AVOIDING them mirror.
>
>He knows. He is just avoiding.
>
>mike
the same old Bruce snivel and Mike goad.
Just for you I will do this exercise in silly:
>>1. Should a person be free to take a job for less than minimum wage if
>>he wants to?
The folks who compete with the person who makes the offer should also
be free to sue for unfair competition or just put a contract out on
him.
>>2. Should a person be able to decide for himself what job risks he
>>wants to accept regardless of OSHA regulations?
unsafe conditions. (Who do you think was behind getting OSHA in
place?)
>>3. Should a person be responsible for the consequences of his own
>>decisions regarding health care, family support, food consumption, and
>>housing?
employee's. No provate sector person should have lower pay or
benefits than the equivalent government worker.
nothermark
Oct 9, 2012, 6:42:03 AM10/9/12
to
nothermark
Oct 9, 2012, 6:42:03 AM10/9/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:15:42 -0400, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 19:57:18 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
>(dot) us> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:14:19 -0700, rvfulltime
>><rvfulltim...@isp.nospaam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I see too many adults that do not even have a Photo ID.... it is for
>>>> sure they aren't paying taxes.
>>>>
>Probably a waste of a question as was the previous question like this
>but: mark did you ask every adult you saw if they had a Photo ID? If
>not, how do you know?
>
>>>You run in different circles than I do. I believe that every adult person I
>>>know has photo ID.
>>
>>AFSIK all the adults I know have a photo ID as well. However, all you
>>have to do is visit a facility that issues drivers licenses. You will
>>be shocked at the number of folks that are trying to obtain a "photo
>>ID".
>
>I was at the Motor Vehicle Agency a few weeks ago. I did not notice
>anyone looking to get a Photo ID, just License plates and such.
>
>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 19:57:18 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
>(dot) us> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:14:19 -0700, rvfulltime
>><rvfulltim...@isp.nospaam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I see too many adults that do not even have a Photo ID.... it is for
>>>> sure they aren't paying taxes.
>>>>
>Probably a waste of a question as was the previous question like this
>but: mark did you ask every adult you saw if they had a Photo ID? If
>not, how do you know?
>
>>>You run in different circles than I do. I believe that every adult person I
>>>know has photo ID.
>>
>>AFSIK all the adults I know have a photo ID as well. However, all you
>>have to do is visit a facility that issues drivers licenses. You will
>>be shocked at the number of folks that are trying to obtain a "photo
>>ID".
>
>I was at the Motor Vehicle Agency a few weeks ago. I did not notice
>anyone looking to get a Photo ID, just License plates and such.
>
>>Photo ID's are required to get into many soup lines and other places
>>that feed, house and care for the homeless and others that take
>>advantage of those agencies.
>
>If the statements you posted are correct, how have they gotten their
>food, housing and care until now?
>
>I have never been on a soup line and I do not know anything about them
>>that feed, house and care for the homeless and others that take
>>advantage of those agencies.
>
>If the statements you posted are correct, how have they gotten their
>food, housing and care until now?
>
>first hand. I do know that if I were serving on one of these lines a
>Photo ID is the last thing I would be looking for.
>>
>>mike
Mike has been on both sides of the issue now.
As far as I can tell it is almost impossible to do business with the
government or the medical community without a picture ID. I am sure
there are other folks who also require them. That has long left me
wondering what the whine is all about.
nothermark
Oct 9, 2012, 6:42:04 AM10/9/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 09:53:52 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 10/8/2012 7:07 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> Limit all business's ot less than 50 emplyee's and you might have a
>> point.
>>
>> As it is you want to hold folks responsible for supplying 10's of
>> thousands of dollars in costs on "competitive salaries of hundreds of
>> dollars for the same period. That is the problem with your approach.
>> You might also want to ask yourself "why have a society".
>
>So, as I said, you answered "no" to all three of those questions. You
>will always pick more government over more freedom.
You should read my reply to Mike. I said yes to all 3. With
conditions. ;-)
wrote:
>On 10/8/2012 7:07 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 20:52:37 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/7/2012 7:49 PM, RMcBane wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/7/2012 7:49 PM, RMcBane wrote:
>>>> On 10/7/2012 10:21 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>>>>> On 10/7/2012 5:51 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <<snip>> -------------------
>>>>> On 10/7/2012 5:51 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> nothermark would not recognize himself in the mirror.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>> With three simple questions, I can demonstrate that mark will always
>>>>> pick government over freedom, self determination and personal
>>>>> responsibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Should a person be free to take a job for less than minimum wage if
>>>>> he wants to?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Should a person be able to decide for himself what job risks he
>>>>> wants to accept regardless of OSHA regulations?
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Should a person be responsible for the consequences of his own
>>>>> decisions regarding health care, family support, food consumption, and
>>>>> housing?
>>>>>
>>>>> mark will answer no to all of the above.
>>>>
>>>>>> nothermark would not recognize himself in the mirror.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>> With three simple questions, I can demonstrate that mark will always
>>>>> pick government over freedom, self determination and personal
>>>>> responsibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Should a person be free to take a job for less than minimum wage if
>>>>> he wants to?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Should a person be able to decide for himself what job risks he
>>>>> wants to accept regardless of OSHA regulations?
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Should a person be responsible for the consequences of his own
>>>>> decisions regarding health care, family support, food consumption, and
>>>>> housing?
>>>>>
>>>>> mark will answer no to all of the above.
>>>>
>> point.
>>
>> As it is you want to hold folks responsible for supplying 10's of
>> thousands of dollars in costs on "competitive salaries of hundreds of
>> dollars for the same period. That is the problem with your approach.
>> You might also want to ask yourself "why have a society".
>
>So, as I said, you answered "no" to all three of those questions. You
>will always pick more government over more freedom.
You should read my reply to Mike. I said yes to all 3. With
conditions. ;-)
nothermark
Oct 9, 2012, 6:42:05 AM10/9/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 12:40:58 -0400, Owen McKenzie
<owenwm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>When you said he would answer "no", I felt he wouldn't answer at all
>because he would no longer be able to argue his positions. I guess I was
>right! :-)
Wrong again. See the answer to Mike. ;-)
<owenwm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>because he would no longer be able to argue his positions. I guess I was
>right! :-)
Wrong again. See the answer to Mike. ;-)
Mike Hendrix at dot
Oct 9, 2012, 9:28:04 AM10/9/12
to
nothermark will not agree with any of that.
Everyone should get a living wage, no more no less.
Larry
Oct 9, 2012, 10:59:17 AM10/9/12
to
months to get them together it is much easier to understand how you
saw so many and I saw none.
I also wonder if some of them might be getting a second Photo ID so
they can work the system for extras.
Sorry for sounding so skeptical but my former occupation showed lots
of people working schemes on the system, playing the government for
fools time after time. I have seen many with more than one Photo ID
in their posession.
>>
>>>Photo ID's are required to get into many soup lines and other places
>>>that feed, house and care for the homeless and others that take
>>>advantage of those agencies.
>>
>>If the statements you posted are correct, how have they gotten their
>>food, housing and care until now?
>
>I have no clue...... Workers at the Motor Vehicle Office told me that
>was why the social worker was helping them obtain a Photo ID, so these
>men could be taken care of by the agencies that were dealing with the
>area's homeless.
To me it's like most of the the increase in food stamps. People that
>>>Photo ID's are required to get into many soup lines and other places
>>>that feed, house and care for the homeless and others that take
>>>advantage of those agencies.
>>
>>If the statements you posted are correct, how have they gotten their
>>food, housing and care until now?
>
>I have no clue...... Workers at the Motor Vehicle Office told me that
>was why the social worker was helping them obtain a Photo ID, so these
>men could be taken care of by the agencies that were dealing with the
>area's homeless.
were eating before just got on the bandwagon because someone pleaded
with them to do so. It was nice to get the food stamps so you could
buy more cigaretts and beer with the money you used to spend for food.
>
>mike
Larry
Oct 9, 2012, 11:06:44 AM10/9/12
to
On 8 Oct 2012 17:56:00 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>From what I have seen if hard work was the criteria the pay scales
>would be reversed.
So you would pay a mhundred tomes as much to the guy that digs a hole
>would be reversed.
and builds an outhouse for you than you would for the brain surgeon
that saves you childs life.
You have some very weird ideas mark.
Larry
Oct 9, 2012, 11:20:21 AM10/9/12
to
On 8 Oct 2012 17:51:01 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>The difference between me and some folks here is that I have seen too
>many people go out and follow the best advice but get screwed in the
>end due to circumstances they had no control over. Watching Xerox,
>Kodak, Rochester Products, and the GM Fuel cell developement operation
>go down the drain are just examples. Most of the job loss is the
>direct result of decisions made in upper management to screw with
>viable operations that were making money filled with productive
>workers doing a reasonably good job. The result is that I believe in
>a social safety net that puts folks at a minimal level of support.
I do not understand how you come to this conclusion.
>The difference between me and some folks here is that I have seen too
>many people go out and follow the best advice but get screwed in the
>end due to circumstances they had no control over. Watching Xerox,
>Kodak, Rochester Products, and the GM Fuel cell developement operation
>go down the drain are just examples. Most of the job loss is the
>direct result of decisions made in upper management to screw with
>viable operations that were making money filled with productive
>workers doing a reasonably good job. The result is that I believe in
>a social safety net that puts folks at a minimal level of support.
>decisions made in upper management to screw with viable
>operations that were making money
That caused the companies to "go down the drain".
>operations that were making money
Management is there to insure that the company makes a profit and
continues to do this forever. They are not there to screw with money
making operations, then shut the place down just for fun, as you seem
to think.
And IF the workers were productive and doing a good job they should
have easily found another job.
Bruce S
Oct 9, 2012, 12:52:18 PM10/9/12
to
less freedom.
Bruce S
Oct 9, 2012, 12:53:32 PM10/9/12
to
Bruce S
Oct 9, 2012, 12:56:27 PM10/9/12
to
jobs of the buggy whip industry.
jerryosage
Oct 9, 2012, 1:00:40 PM10/9/12
to
as trying and succeeding and should NOT be rewarded accordingly, but
equally.
No one should have to follow a good job and the money. The jobs
should be forced to be available locally and pay top dollar.
While he was waiting for opportunity to knock a lot of us hit the
streets searching it out. And doing that usually paid off very well.
Someone, no doubt, intercepted his opportunity and took advantage of
it before it had a chance to get to his front door and knock.
For some Shit Happens. For others, they Make Shit Happen and reap the
rewards. However, in his world that just isn't fair and it is the
duty and responsibility of government to make it fair by playing Robin
Hood.
Jerry O.
Owen McKenzie
Oct 9, 2012, 1:01:56 PM10/9/12
to
Bruce you answered "yes to all 3. With conditions.", which equals no.
Mike Hendrix at dot
Oct 9, 2012, 1:03:54 PM10/9/12
to
Larry, our "beliefs & opinions" are all based on our experiences.
No matter how many times someone tells me something, if whatever they
are telling me does not square with my personal experience it is going
to be extremely difficult to change my opinion. I suspect we are all
that way.
When I was in that Motor Vehicle Office the individuals (all male, all
physically able to work, all of working age) each had cell phones,
some had smart phones, they all smoked.
If nothermark would have seen the same thing he would have obviously
come to a different conclusion.
I saw able bodied individuals working the system.
nothermark would obviously see some individuals that were not being
employed at their chosen profession for what nothermark would consider
a reasonable "living wage".
Personally, I do not know why anyone would feel obligated to provide
anyone smoking cigarettes, with a cell phone in their hand money for
food. If someone wanted to support that individual it would be fine
by me..... what isn't fine by me is nothermark's insistence that the
government force working individuals to support these folks.
I have a TON of other experience that points me to different
conclusions than the conclusions nothermark reaches.
One of those experiences is owning & managing 45-rental units.
OH, what one sees when dealing with rental property.
One of the most nauseating sights to see is a duplex where one side is
rented by someone with a job and working every day while the
government is paying 100% of the next door apartment.....while that
individual does absolutely nothing. That stuff just makes me want to
puke. Yet, that is perfectly acceptable to nothermark probably
because of some experience he has.
nothermark
Oct 9, 2012, 2:56:43 PM10/9/12
to
paid folks that could not make it as a dishwasher. They do not
understand basic techniques for things like how to load the dishes in
the tray.
But you folks keep going. You are all so smart that all you can do is
call names. I haven't seen a reaonable rebuttal beyond that in quite
some time. ;-)
Owen McKenzie
Oct 9, 2012, 3:05:47 PM10/9/12
to
On 10/9/2012 2:56 PM, nothermark wrote:
>
> But you folks keep going. You are all so smart that all you can do is
> call names. I haven't seen a reaonable rebuttal beyond that in quite
> some time. ;-)
>
Rebuttal to what?
>
> But you folks keep going. You are all so smart that all you can do is
> call names. I haven't seen a reaonable rebuttal beyond that in quite
> some time. ;-)
>
Vito
Oct 9, 2012, 4:00:19 PM10/9/12
to
"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote
| I'd say give it to everybody if we cannot tell the difference.
But where can the government get 'it' to give to anybody?
Mike Hendrix at dot
Oct 9, 2012, 4:19:00 PM10/9/12
to
On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 09:56:27 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:
-----------------------
Well, in nothermark's mind that is certainly reasonable since that is
what the workers were trained to do by the evil education system.
The government should just feed and house those buggy whip workers for
the rest of their lives.
In nothermark's world.
wrote:
Well, in nothermark's mind that is certainly reasonable since that is
what the workers were trained to do by the evil education system.
The government should just feed and house those buggy whip workers for
the rest of their lives.
In nothermark's world.
Mike Hendrix at dot
Oct 9, 2012, 4:20:27 PM10/9/12
to
those nothermark think deserve it more than those that worked for it.
nothermark
Oct 9, 2012, 4:48:01 PM10/9/12
to
that most of the "heavy lifting" type jobs are no longer compensated
well. We have evolved a situation where real "work" as in doing
physical things, is often not well rewarded. An interesting exception
to that is Surgeons and Dentists. Both are really skilled hand
laborers with the right guild membership. ;-) Compare them with,
say, Bankers. ;-)
nothermark
Oct 9, 2012, 4:53:01 PM10/9/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:41:31 -0400, Owen McKenzie
<owenwm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 10/8/2012 6:56 PM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 15:37:57 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
>> (dot) us> wrote:
>>
>>> nothermark always picks plundering the producers and redistributing
>>> the plunder to the deadbeats. That is his constant theme song.
>>>
>>> mike
>>
>> From what I have seen if hard work was the criteria the pay scales
>> would be reversed.
>>
>Another example of why I believe mark is just trolling. Nobody could be
>that stupid and live to retirement.
That's what I keep telling myself about some folks here.
<owenwm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 10/8/2012 6:56 PM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 15:37:57 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
>> (dot) us> wrote:
>>
>>> nothermark always picks plundering the producers and redistributing
>>> the plunder to the deadbeats. That is his constant theme song.
>>>
>>> mike
>>
>> From what I have seen if hard work was the criteria the pay scales
>> would be reversed.
>>
>Another example of why I believe mark is just trolling. Nobody could be
>that stupid and live to retirement.
If you look back the pay gap has widened considerably in our lifetime.
Really less than our lifetime. I cannot justify it. Most of the
justifications I have seen are similar to a lot of what I see here.
The message is along the lines of "I'm better paid so I mus tbe
smarter or work harder". Empirical observation is that it is more
often a case of some Union made their pay scale possible. The real
laugh is a lot of those folks are anti Union.
nothermark
Oct 9, 2012, 4:55:00 PM10/9/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:25:24 -0500, Jerry Osage wrote:
claim they deserver a high salary because they work hard. I've seen
too many very well paid folks that hardly worked, relatively speaking.
nothermark
Oct 9, 2012, 5:01:00 PM10/9/12
to
On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:05:47 -0400, Owen McKenzie
<owenwm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 10/9/2012 2:56 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>
>> But you folks keep going. You are all so smart that all you can do is
>> call names. I haven't seen a reaonable rebuttal beyond that in quite
>> some time. ;-)
>>
>
>Rebuttal to what?
Justifying the difference in pay scales other than by name calling.
<owenwm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 10/9/2012 2:56 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>
>> But you folks keep going. You are all so smart that all you can do is
>> call names. I haven't seen a reaonable rebuttal beyond that in quite
>> some time. ;-)
>>
>
>Rebuttal to what?
For example, in a consumption based economy why is it good to let the
bottom 40% of the population only control 12.5% of the income? I say
we would be better off if we peeled 12.5% from the top 20% and gave it
to the bottom in the form of wage adjustments. More consumption and
possible an adequate income to start paying for some things like
health insurance or pay Federal income tax by falling above a taxable
minimum.
nothermark
Oct 9, 2012, 5:09:01 PM10/9/12
to
On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 09:52:18 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
I would not say that. Especially not in item 1. Read up on the guild
system.
Item 2 came about because the workers felt they were powerless to make
their own decisions about safety.
Item 3 is to counter the effects of government getting too big.
system.
Item 2 came about because the workers felt they were powerless to make
their own decisions about safety.
Item 3 is to counter the effects of government getting too big.
nothermark
Oct 9, 2012, 5:10:00 PM10/9/12
to
On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 09:53:32 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
nope. I'm not running 3 or 4 parallel threads on this so I am done
with this one.
with this one.
nothermark
Oct 9, 2012, 5:16:01 PM10/9/12
to
On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 09:56:27 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I don't. I'm just glad Ford did not open his first plant in China.
wrote:
Bob Hatch
Oct 9, 2012, 6:22:14 PM10/9/12
to
--
I do not carry a gun hoping that
I'll be able to shoot someone, anymore than
I carry a jack hoping I'll have a flat
tire.
Me.
nothermark
Oct 9, 2012, 8:00:01 PM10/9/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 20:01:06 -0600, Max <thesam...@att.net> wrote:
>On 10/8/2012 7:19 PM, Max wrote:
>> On 10/8/2012 6:09 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 15:53:43 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/8/2012 3:37 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 15:13:52 -0600, Max <thesam...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/8/2012 2:51 PM, D-R wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/8/2012 4:13 PM, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My only point is that there are extenuating circumstances and
>>>>>>>> "charity"
>>>>>>>> won't suffice. It doesn't now and it won't suddenly start if the
>>>>>>>> government butts out. Your judgements seem a bit harsh but to
>>>>>>>> each his
>>>>>>>> own.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Example of the mess the government has created.... Tried to
>>>>>>> donate
>>>>>>> an electric hospital bed after my father passed.... No one wanted it
>>>>>>> because the "government" would buy a new one for anyone that needed
>>>>>>> it... at least that is what I was told by a bunch of charities..
>>>>>>> So it
>>>>>>> might be fair to say that the charities cannot provide their needs
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> would be able to if the government stopped.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that the government has created this mess. But I don't agree
>>>>>> that "charities" will be able, or in many cases willing, to take
>>>>>> care of
>>>>>> the needy. They never have and I seriously doubt that they ever will.
>>>>>> EVEN if there were some way to weed out the "wanting" from the truly
>>>>>> "needing". But it would at least be a start if the government would
>>>>>> drop the "wanting" from their list so there would be money left for
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> needy.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you tell the difference?
>>>>
>>>> Being able to tell the difference is one reason you get the government
>>>> completely out of the equation. The family of a needy person KNOWS if
>>>> he is seeking to fill his needs or his wants - if they decide it is
>>>> wants, not needs and they don't care to help, he gets nothing, which is
>>>> what he should get.
>>>>
>>>> If he has no family, the best people to evaluate his wants/needs are his
>>>> neighbors - the local churches, civic groups, or charities. If he
>>>> doesn't know anyone at all who can evaluate his situation and make an
>>>> educated decision, he does not deserve any help - he has chosen to
>>>> abandon society, and society is justified in abandoning him.
>>>
>>> I'd say give it to everybody if we cannot tell the difference. That
>>> is the difference between us.
>>>
>>
>> I'd say give it to everyone if it's your money and not mine. I have
>> worked too long and too hard to be indiscriminate with my financial
>> resources. Besides, I have a family to take care of and I have to admit
>> that they come first. "Charity begins at Home."
>
>I retract that statement. Giving to those who cannot demonstrate the
>need just perpetuates a problem. It's a liberal ploy.
It's almost a sucker question. It's easy to eliminate most folks -
they draw a paycheck so they are on record. It get's harder when you
get to the homeless. Fortunately that is a small number of folks.
>On 10/8/2012 7:19 PM, Max wrote:
>> On 10/8/2012 6:09 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 15:53:43 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/8/2012 3:37 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 15:13:52 -0600, Max <thesam...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/8/2012 2:51 PM, D-R wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/8/2012 4:13 PM, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My only point is that there are extenuating circumstances and
>>>>>>>> "charity"
>>>>>>>> won't suffice. It doesn't now and it won't suddenly start if the
>>>>>>>> government butts out. Your judgements seem a bit harsh but to
>>>>>>>> each his
>>>>>>>> own.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Example of the mess the government has created.... Tried to
>>>>>>> donate
>>>>>>> an electric hospital bed after my father passed.... No one wanted it
>>>>>>> because the "government" would buy a new one for anyone that needed
>>>>>>> it... at least that is what I was told by a bunch of charities..
>>>>>>> So it
>>>>>>> might be fair to say that the charities cannot provide their needs
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> would be able to if the government stopped.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that the government has created this mess. But I don't agree
>>>>>> that "charities" will be able, or in many cases willing, to take
>>>>>> care of
>>>>>> the needy. They never have and I seriously doubt that they ever will.
>>>>>> EVEN if there were some way to weed out the "wanting" from the truly
>>>>>> "needing". But it would at least be a start if the government would
>>>>>> drop the "wanting" from their list so there would be money left for
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> needy.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you tell the difference?
>>>>
>>>> Being able to tell the difference is one reason you get the government
>>>> completely out of the equation. The family of a needy person KNOWS if
>>>> he is seeking to fill his needs or his wants - if they decide it is
>>>> wants, not needs and they don't care to help, he gets nothing, which is
>>>> what he should get.
>>>>
>>>> If he has no family, the best people to evaluate his wants/needs are his
>>>> neighbors - the local churches, civic groups, or charities. If he
>>>> doesn't know anyone at all who can evaluate his situation and make an
>>>> educated decision, he does not deserve any help - he has chosen to
>>>> abandon society, and society is justified in abandoning him.
>>>
>>> I'd say give it to everybody if we cannot tell the difference. That
>>> is the difference between us.
>>>
>>
>> I'd say give it to everyone if it's your money and not mine. I have
>> worked too long and too hard to be indiscriminate with my financial
>> resources. Besides, I have a family to take care of and I have to admit
>> that they come first. "Charity begins at Home."
>
>I retract that statement. Giving to those who cannot demonstrate the
>need just perpetuates a problem. It's a liberal ploy.
It's almost a sucker question. It's easy to eliminate most folks -
they draw a paycheck so they are on record. It get's harder when you
get to the homeless. Fortunately that is a small number of folks.
nothermark
Oct 9, 2012, 8:15:01 PM10/9/12
to
>On 10/9/2012 2:56 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>
>> But you folks keep going. You are all so smart that all you can do is
>> call names. I haven't seen a reaonable rebuttal beyond that in quite
>> some time. ;-)
>>
>
>Rebuttal to what?
Virtually any statistics or questions. Show me how we can run an
>>
>> But you folks keep going. You are all so smart that all you can do is
>> call names. I haven't seen a reaonable rebuttal beyond that in quite
>> some time. ;-)
>>
>
>Rebuttal to what?
economy where we underbid the Chinese on cost or keep letting them
have a large number of jobs supplying us with our everyday needs. Show
me how we can limit the bottom 40% of the population to 12.5% of the
economy and have a viable situation. Show me how those folks can
afford to create their own pension or cover thier own healthcare. Show
me why it is good that the top 20% of the population deserves 50% of
the income. Show me there are many millions of lazy poor folks who
could get a living wage job if they bothered to look. I could go on
as I toss out data at a frequent interval. All I get is Bruce with
his nobody deserves anything attitude and a bunch of folks who tell me
I am stupid for asking the question.
Max
Oct 9, 2012, 8:51:42 PM10/9/12
to
trash, cleaning parks, removing graffiti, washing police cars, etc.
nothermark
Oct 9, 2012, 9:14:01 PM10/9/12
to
On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 11:20:21 -0400, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>On 8 Oct 2012 17:51:01 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
>>The difference between me and some folks here is that I have seen too
>>many people go out and follow the best advice but get screwed in the
>>end due to circumstances they had no control over. Watching Xerox,
>>Kodak, Rochester Products, and the GM Fuel cell developement operation
>>go down the drain are just examples. Most of the job loss is the
>>direct result of decisions made in upper management to screw with
>>viable operations that were making money filled with productive
>>workers doing a reasonably good job. The result is that I believe in
>>a social safety net that puts folks at a minimal level of support.
>
>I do not understand how you come to this conclusion.
>>decisions made in upper management to screw with viable
>>operations that were making money
>That caused the companies to "go down the drain".
Some go down the drain. Some just put a lot of folks out of work with
>On 8 Oct 2012 17:51:01 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
>>The difference between me and some folks here is that I have seen too
>>many people go out and follow the best advice but get screwed in the
>>end due to circumstances they had no control over. Watching Xerox,
>>Kodak, Rochester Products, and the GM Fuel cell developement operation
>>go down the drain are just examples. Most of the job loss is the
>>direct result of decisions made in upper management to screw with
>>viable operations that were making money filled with productive
>>workers doing a reasonably good job. The result is that I believe in
>>a social safety net that puts folks at a minimal level of support.
>
>I do not understand how you come to this conclusion.
>>decisions made in upper management to screw with viable
>>operations that were making money
>That caused the companies to "go down the drain".
no other prospects.
As an easy example Kodak sold off several money making divisions who
are still doing quite well to concentrate on their film business after
they pioneered the digital camera. They had control of the technology
for quite a while but chose not to cash in on it as they made more
money on film processing than on the camera. Now they have a bunch of
aging patents they cannot sell, folded their camera business, and are
in bankruptcy.
Xerox is now profitable because they bought a big PC service business.
They are almost out of the copier/printer business aside from a couple
of niche markets. Most of what they sell is private labeled designed
and built somewhere else.
Rochester products - one of the pioneers of carburetors and fuel
systems spun off it's engineering division and sold it to ITT. ITT
turned down contracts here and moved the division to China.
GM just pulled the plug on the folks who developed the hydrogen fuel
cell car for them. It is being productized in Michigan. They will
move a few folks there. R&D is closing.
>
>Management is there to insure that the company makes a profit and
>continues to do this forever. They are not there to screw with money
>making operations, then shut the place down just for fun, as you seem
>to think.
There are two issues. One issue is maximizing profit short term vs a
continuous slightly smaller profit with long term prospects.
The second issue is the management theory of the week. That was
responsible for both the conglomeration movement that saw a lot of
money borrowed to buy a broad range of companies forming the big,
diversified, conglomerates that then divested all those companies
loaded with high interest debt as part of "returning to core
competency". The lawyers, money lenders, and upper management made
out on both ends of those moves. The lower management and the workers
took it in the neck.
If you read up on Bain capital they did a lot of that. As the money
folks they made out charging a lot for their services while they
loaded a lot of debt on to companies that were aquired. The money was
used to pay large bonus's and the fee's associated with the
merger/takover and then sale of dissolution.
>
> And IF the workers were productive and doing a good job they should
>have easily found another job.
two companies that are most of the work force. Most of the rest
depends on supplying the plants or the workers. I can take you
through parts of upstate NY and point out the failing City, Village,
and Town and town with the companies that supported them then were
bought, the work then pulled out and moved off shore. I am sure that
the same thing can be done in the Carolinas. Probably it can be done
all over the country. It's easy to say "find another job" or "move to
the new job" but it stops working when more than a few places close
down. There simply stops being alternatives to move to.
Owen McKenzie
Oct 9, 2012, 10:11:53 PM10/9/12
to
nothermark
Oct 10, 2012, 7:13:02 AM10/10/12
to
On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 22:11:53 -0400, Owen McKenzie
<owenwm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 10/9/2012 5:01 PM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:05:47 -0400, Owen McKenzie
>> <owenwm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/9/2012 2:56 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But you folks keep going. You are all so smart that all you can do is
>>>> call names. I haven't seen a reaonable rebuttal beyond that in quite
>>>> some time. ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Rebuttal to what?
>>
>>
>> Justifying the difference in pay scales other than by name calling.
>> For example, in a consumption based economy why is it good to let the
>> bottom 40% of the population only control 12.5% of the income? I say
>> we would be better off if we peeled 12.5% from the top 20% and gave it
>> to the bottom in the form of wage adjustments. More consumption and
>> possible an adequate income to start paying for some things like
>> health insurance or pay Federal income tax by falling above a taxable
>> minimum.
>>
>That's easy. Supply & demand. Next question.
That does not even begin to cover it.
>On 10/9/2012 5:01 PM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:05:47 -0400, Owen McKenzie
>> <owenwm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/9/2012 2:56 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But you folks keep going. You are all so smart that all you can do is
>>>> call names. I haven't seen a reaonable rebuttal beyond that in quite
>>>> some time. ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Rebuttal to what?
>>
>>
>> Justifying the difference in pay scales other than by name calling.
>> For example, in a consumption based economy why is it good to let the
>> bottom 40% of the population only control 12.5% of the income? I say
>> we would be better off if we peeled 12.5% from the top 20% and gave it
>> to the bottom in the form of wage adjustments. More consumption and
>> possible an adequate income to start paying for some things like
>> health insurance or pay Federal income tax by falling above a taxable
>> minimum.
>>
>That's easy. Supply & demand. Next question.
Larry
Oct 10, 2012, 9:38:17 AM10/10/12
to
I quit.
Larry
Oct 10, 2012, 9:47:59 AM10/10/12
to
>They do not
>understand basic techniques for things like how to load the dishes in
>the tray.
>
>But you folks keep going. You are all so smart that all you can do is
>call names. I haven't seen a reaonable rebuttal beyond that in quite
>some time. ;-)
Truely incredible! It does not matter what a poster talks about YOU
>understand basic techniques for things like how to load the dishes in
>the tray.
>
>But you folks keep going. You are all so smart that all you can do is
>call names. I haven't seen a reaonable rebuttal beyond that in quite
>some time. ;-)
have known, deal with, had friens, neighbors and or something else, to
show you have had personal experience on every subject discussed here.
nothermark
Oct 10, 2012, 11:49:01 AM10/10/12
to
way. Would either Obama or Romney have made it to where they were if
their parents were worker class folks in Pittsburg? I seriously doubt
it. YMMV
>>They do not
>>understand basic techniques for things like how to load the dishes in
>>the tray.
>>
>>But you folks keep going. You are all so smart that all you can do is
>>call names. I haven't seen a reaonable rebuttal beyond that in quite
>>some time. ;-)
>
>Truely incredible! It does not matter what a poster talks about YOU
>have known, deal with, had friens, neighbors and or something else, to
>show you have had personal experience on every subject discussed here.
most of my autombile repairs until recently, and am a hobby woodworker
and political hack. If you want to talk hunting, fishing, sports, or
a host of other things it would be odd for me to comment.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages