My Fellow Americans: Bend Over
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
The oil giants Shell and BP reported making record profits in
the first three months of the year. Shell earned $9 billion in
the first quarter. BP’s income rose 63 percent to $7.6 billion.
(I say nationalize the oil industry; we go to war for oil, then they make record profits screwing us)
Charlie Wolf
Nationalizing the oil industry would make us kinda like Chavez - but
then, you don't care about that - do you.
We did not go to war for oil - only in the simple minds of left wing
assholes like you.
I have shocking news for you -- oil companies are in the BUSINESS of
making a profit. It's called capitalism, and it's a GOOD thing.
Regards,
dapra
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:38:07 -0700, "Dr. James West, Ph.D."
> <na...@nobull.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Shell & BP Report Record Profits
>>
>>The oil giants Shell and BP reported making record profits in
>>the first three months of the year. Shell earned $9 billion in
>>the first quarter. BP’s income rose 63 percent to $7.6 billion.
>>
>>
>>(I say nationalize the oil industry; we go to war for oil, then they make record profits screwing us)
>
> Nationalizing the oil industry would make us kinda like Chavez - but
> then, you don't care about that - do you.
>
> We did not go to war for oil - only in the simple minds of left wing
> assholes like you.
>
What else did we go to war for?
Because of Iraq's WMD's, al qaeda connections? Even the war mongers
don't stick to these lies anymore.
The new lie is war for democracy (by killing them).
>
> I have shocking news for you -- oil companies are in the BUSINESS of
> making a profit. It's called capitalism, and it's a GOOD thing.
>
It may shock you, but the Preamble to the Constitution "..promote the
general Welfare.." not profits or crony capitalism, what we have.
> Regards,
>
>
dapra
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:38:07 -0700, "Dr. James West, Ph.D."
> <na...@nobull.com> wrote:
>
>
> How are they screwing us? Take away their 10 to 13 cent per gallon
> profit and how much are you still paying for a gallon of gas Einstein?
>
That would be about the same as the 'Einstein's' of the Corporate
Oligarchy, Mc Cain and Clinton, proposed with the gasoline tax holiday
for the summer.
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:38:07 -0700, "Dr. James West, Ph.D."
> <na...@nobull.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Shell & BP Report Record Profits
>>
>>The oil giants Shell and BP reported making record profits in
>>the first three months of the year. Shell earned $9 billion in
>>the first quarter. BP’s income rose 63 percent to $7.6 billion.
>>
>>
>>(I say nationalize the oil industry; we go to war for oil, then they make record profits screwing us)
>
>
> making a profit.
No, son, they are not in the profit business, they are in
the for-maximum-profit business, damn anything else, for just a few people.
> It's called capitalism, and it's a GOOD thing.
Uncontrolled for-maximum-profit capitalism in not a good thing. It is like cancer.
Controlled capitalism can be a good thing. This is what I advocate.
People first, profits secondary.
Christopher Helms
Exactly. These rightards hear this garbage from Rush Limbaugh and they
parrot it as tough it were true, because it sounds sort of like it
could be true. But it's not true. This "Free Market" crap the
Republican Noise Machine is peddling is to explain a 300% increase in
the price of crude since Slappy The Oil Chimp stole the presidency in
2000 is 180 proof propaganda, peddled by people who would have no
trouble filling up their gigantic SUVs if gas went to fifty dollars a
gallon. BTW, have you noticed that the only people you ever hear on
the radio or see on TV defending Chimp are millionaires?
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:38:07 -0700, "Dr. James West, Ph.D."
> How are they screwing us? Take away their 10 to 13 cent per gallon
> profit and how much are you still paying for a gallon of gas Einstein?
Where do you think their record profits come from?
fnij...@nospam.net
Really? Explain why there is a need for antitrust laws son.
>Regards,
fnij...@nospam.net
Yup right winger, there can't be antitrust violations by the oil
companies. bush and you said so. Its just bad luck that they all have
the same prices, the same out of control prices -- from sea to shining
sea...
In <kcdf1418vsom0vhom...@4ax.com>, on 04/29/2008
at 07:06 PM, Starkiller <NoSpam.S...@hotmail.com> said:
>What anti trust laws have the oil companies violated?
>There are a shitload of oil companies out there so you can't claim any
>kind of monopoly.
>There is a need for anti trust law for the same reasons that there is a
>need for any law. There will always be a percentage that will attempt to
>abuse whatever system is in place.
dapra
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:31:28 GMT, fnij...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>
>>Yup right winger, there can't be antitrust violations by the oil
>>companies. bush and you said so. Its just bad luck that they all have
>>the same prices, the same out of control prices -- from sea to shining
>>sea...
>
>
> little whiney buddies have nothing but pure conjecture.
> Prices the same everywhere? Yeah right. Guess that's why I paid
> $3.37 here today while folks in Cali are paying $4.19 a gallon.
> The prices are within a similar range just as any commodity's pricing.
> Guess since produce sells for close to the same price coast to coast
> there must also be some grand evil famers monopoly as well yes?
>
The cartel (OPEC) decides the price level by controlling the output, and
the oil companies are happy to charge the same price, regardless of
their price of production cost. It's called 'patriotism american style'.
Rip off the suckers, blame the Arabs!
David V. Loewe, Jr
<na...@nobull.com> wrote:
Sounds like a clear signal to buy oil stocks to me...
--
"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who
does not want to adopt a rational attitude."
Sir Karl Popper
Richard Casady
<NoSpam.S...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>If the price of oil had held at $50 a barrel and the price of gasoline
>was still $1.40 a gallon the oil companies would still be raking in
>record profits due to their RECORD SALES.
That gas price is only about 20 cents more that the price of the
crude. If gas is 4 bucks, and oil is 120, the markup is 1.15.
Sounds reasonable when you split it up among the ship, the refinery,
the pipeline, the truck, and the gas station. Twenty cents seems
unlikely. Whatever, gas does cost a lot lately.
Casady
BL5511
Great! The higher the price of oil and gasoline, the higher the U.S.
has to pay for trucks, tanks, ships, and jets in Iraq. When the oil
price hits $200/barrel and the gasoline reaches $10/gallon, U.S.
troops will run out of fuel and they will have to go home. The world
would be better when the U.S. had no money for wars, there would be no
motivation for U.S. government and lobbyists to create bogus
accusations of WMDs, nuclear weapons, bio-chemical factories, and
links to terrorists.
The South Vietnamese had seen this kind of war infatuation fatal
attraction in the 1960s. First the U.S. made a big deal of the Ap Bac
battle when 80 South Vietnamese troops were killed in the capturing of
a small hamlet. The U.S. critized South Vietnamese troops for its
inefficiency to deal with VCs in this small battle. Then it accused
South Vietnamese government of human right violations in dealing with
the Buddhists. And these reasons were used to justify a coup that
toppled South Vietnamese government and replaced it with a puppet
government who was more willing to let U.S. troops to enter South
Vietnam. However, once U.S. troops were in South Vietnam, it did not
make any big deal about U.S. heavy casualties at IaDrang, Khe Sanh,
and the Tet offensive. And even when more than 200 thousand of South
Vietnamese troops were decimated in Danang on March 1975, the U.S.
kept silent. But in 1965 in order to escalate the war the U.S.
fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The bad consequence was
thousands of U.S. pilots killed and captured by North Vietnamese.
After the U.S. left Vietnam in 1975, it finally discovered that
Communist Vietnam while they are brutal to its Vietnamese people, it
was never a threat to the U.S. So the 30 year war since 1945 was never
necessary. It was too late to find out that we don't need to fight in
Vietnam after over 58,000 U.S. soldiers died.
The UK on the other hand decided not to seek military solution against
China about Hong Kong. It got a peaceful return of Hong Kong to China
while maintaining the freedom and prosperity of its colony: one
country and two systems. In this case, the UK seeking negotiation (for
HK) is better than the US seeking war for Vietnam. And the same is
true for the war in the Middle East. It is never necessary.
Hertz Donut
"BL5511" <pb5...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d768c5a0-71b4-412e...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Wow! Thank heavens there aren't many idiots like you running around!
You are truly pathetic.
Honu
Bob Vogel
> Shell & BP Report Record Profits
>
> The oil giants Shell and BP reported making record profits in
> the first three months of the year. Shell earned $9 billion in
> the first quarter. BP’s income rose 63 percent to $7.6 billion.
>
Shut up, you fucking whiner, and buy some stock. Oil stock pays
dividends.
Either that, or sell your car (and your computer too) and ride a
bicycle to work every day. That way you can be sure the big evil oil
companies aren't getting your money.
BL5511
power plants using geo-thermo, wind, nuclear, and solar power. And the
extra power generated can be used to convert all diesel trains to
electric, plugin hybrid vehicle, and replace fuel for heating. More
money could be used to build more plug in hybrid vehicle. To save
energy, the U.S. must phase out production of all SUVs next year and
all gasoline only vehicles by 2010.
fnij...@nospam.net
05/01/2008
>Instead of tax rebate, the $140 billion could be used to build 70 power
>plants using geo-thermo, wind, nuclear, and solar power. And the extra
>power generated can be used to convert all diesel trains to electric,
>plugin hybrid vehicle, and replace fuel for heating. More money could be
>used to build more plug in hybrid vehicle. To save energy, the U.S. must
>phase out production of all SUVs next year and all gasoline only
>vehicles by 2010.
You do understand, don't you, that electricity has to be generated as its
needed? That means oil and coal has to be burned to meet the need.
There is no quick fix. Jimmy Carter had us on the right path to eliminate
the problems, but reagon killed the programs. Thus, proving the liberal
left was dead-on right in the first place and showing us what right
wingers are really about.
a425couple
> Shell & BP Report Record Profits
> The oil giants Shell and BP reported making record profits in
> the first three months of the year. Shell earned $9 billion in
> the first quarter. BP’s income rose 63 percent to $7.6 billion.
> they make record profits screwing us)
Sure, to the fake "Dr.- Ph.D"
What other industries do you want to nationalize?
How about food production?
Seems like China (mainland) decided to do that over
50 years ago. What can be a more basic need of the
people than food? Millions starved.
Even they found it was better for the majority, to leave
individuals (with a 'self interest' involved in it) rather than
unmotivated managers and employees.
China is now, with version of free enterprise/captiatlism,
a net exporter of food.
North Korea, still govt. strict control, needs food
from China and US.
How about steel?
Pretty vital for modern life.
Didn't the UK try that a while back?
(what is the current status - still nationalized?
or, so undercut now by forign competition that
it hardly matters)
US has considered it at times. Certainly did
wage and price controls (1960s). Generally
considered a real failure.
Autos?
Again, didn't the UK government own many of
the auto companies, then decide to sell them?
And we are certainly all so pleased about how
perfectly government runs our educational system.
also, might want to read
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2007/2/12/should-uncle-sam-take-oil-company-profits.html
It's over a year old, but still pretty valid.
How about that "windfall oil profits" tax Carter signed in 1980??!
Or how about:
-For Exxon Mobil - The Irving, Texas-based oil giant earned $10.89 billion,
or $2.03 per share, for the quarter, compared with $9.28 billion, or $1.62
per share, a year ago. The company spent $5.5 billion on capital and
exploration projects, up 30 percent from $4.22 billion a year ago.
Is government management likely to plow that much back into future capacity?
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
> How about steel?
> Pretty vital for modern life.
> Didn't the UK try that a while back?
> (what is the current status - still nationalized?
> or, so undercut now by forign competition that
> it hardly matters)
Good guess.
British Steel was privatised and later sold to the Dutch and the
pair renamed Corus.
<http://www.corusgroup.com/en/company/about_corus/background>
When the British are willing to sell you a company it normally
means that the company is nearly bankrupt.
Andrew Swallow
a425couple
> Charlie Wolf wrote:
> > "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <na...@nobull.com> wrote:
> >>Shell & BP Report Record Profits
> >>The oil giants Shell and BP reported making record profits in
> >>the first three months of the year. Shell earned $9 billion in
> >>the first quarter. BP’s income rose 63 percent to $7.6 billion.
> >>(I say nationalize the oil industry;
> >
> > Nationalizing the oil industry would make us kinda like Chavez - but
> > then, you don't care about that - do you.
> > making a profit. It's called capitalism, and it's a GOOD thing.
>
> It may shock you, but the Preamble to the Constitution "..promote the
> general Welfare.." not profits or crony capitalism, what we have.
Dear Dapra,
It's been my observation, that you are capable of reading,
and learning, and are capable of logical thought.
Here, with some modifications, is an earlier reply
of mine, (also about gas prices) that might help you.
Perhaps advance from the populist whines.
If you wish to start learning, I'd suggest on www,
try google - wiki -for each of the below:
Adam Smith and unseen hand
supply and demand
Capitalism
Capitalist Rockerfeller,
Capitalist Henry Ford
Capitalist Carnigie
Capitalist George Weyerhauser
Capitalist Vanderbilt
Populism
Free Enterprise
inexpensive useful books
-"The Millionaire Next Door", Stanley and Danko
-"Rich Dad, Poor Dad", Robert Kiyosaki
-"The Wealthy Barber", David Chilton
-"Who Moved My Cheese?", Spencer Johnson
(bet your library has them, or better, buy used for
$5-8 each, read, underline, keep, and re-read)
> Doesn't the oil still come out of the ground for free just
> like it did in Henry Ford's day?
What in the world makes you think any of above is true?
There were very limited quanity 'springs'.
When found to be useful, and product started to be used,
price went up, as did the costs of finding, accessing,
refining, and delivering to users.
Most were inefficient and wasteful.
Rockerfeller put into effect big efficencies.
The cost to the consumers dropped.
And by similar method.
Automobiles were rare, handmade, and expensive.
Henry Ford figured out better efficencies, cost per
auto dropped, even better efficiencies, more drop.
Yes, the workings of the market did let them become
wealthy - but only because they were delivering what
the consumers of the market wanted - at a better price!
>What is this $ 4.25 all about?
>Don't you just love big businesspeople?
Are you willing to pay a lot more so you can
buy a product from a "small" business person?
> So you may say, "hey, smartass, if you think it is that simple
> just buy some shares in Exxon."
> But if a person is a small investor the service fees
> are greater than any potential profit.
Are you really that limited??
Try Fidelity. Select - Energy
> So the big businesspeople have you coming and going.
> The MBA types and the banker types and the Wall Street types
> have pretty much wiped out the middle class over the last twenty
> or thirty years, haven't they? I hope they choke on their private
> jets and their yachts and their mansions but I fear that they will
> not and their kids are going to go
> on to make it even worse over the next twenty or thirty years.
>
> Unless a young person today is some sort of entertainer or
> some sort of athlete they make as well just find a rope and
> hang themselves.
My 'young people' are doing just fine, thank you.
They, like me, never got fed from any silver spoon,
but learned you have to view the world, and look to
constantly improve themselves and be useful.
Like it or not, the most reliable and constant instinct
for mankind for thousands of years is the individual's
desire to improve their lives, and the lives of those
they love.
Captialism, free enterprise, and the 'unseen hand'
all work, that by each improving their lives, all of
society is helped.
Why do you think so many countries have moved
to that system, especially in the last 30 years?
Why do you think, the countries with the best
annual improvements in their GDP have 'capitalist'
economies?
Please compare North Korea, with South Korea.
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
> "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <na...@nobull.com> wrote ...
>
>>Shell & BP Report Record Profits
>>The oil giants Shell and BP reported making record profits in
>>the first three months of the year. Shell earned $9 billion in
>>the first quarter. BP’s income rose 63 percent to $7.6 billion.
>>(I say nationalize the oil industry; ----
>> they make record profits screwing us)
>
>
> What other industries do you want to nationalize?
No other, son, just oil...the substance we are addicted to, go to war
over, and let the oil companies screw us as they make record
profits.
You seem to have the misconception that a government is incapable
of operating a successful and profitable business.
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
>
> Why do you think, the countries with the best
> annual improvements in their GDP have 'capitalist'
> economies?
Son, there are plenty of failed Capitalist countries.
Try Mexico...or most any country south of the Rio Grande.
IMHO, the U.S. is failed, with 40 million people in poverty.
Look at number of people in poverty, not GDP.
Andrew Swallow
First define poverty. The US Government definition has a value above
the rich level in most countries of the world.
Andrew Swallow
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
It's already defined, son. Look it up. Then pretend those 40 million
Americans in poverty are rich.
ya fuckin rightwing moron
;-)
fnij...@nospam.net
Are you right wingers born stupid or do you just come here to work on it?
Poverty can be relative to a nation, however, we all know $10,000 in the
US in 2008 is not a livable income. -- Thus we are left wondering why you
characters come here and act dumb?
>Andrew Swallow
a425couple
> a425couple wrote:
>> > (I say nationalize the oil industry; --
>> > they make record profits screwing us)
> > Why do you think, the countries with the best
Short answer (longer in progress)
Well, there you go - Q.E.D.
I believe Mexico nationalized it's oil industry decades ago.
Very large reserves, and pumping capacity.
Very large income from oil exports
(I believe that after Canada, Mexico is our #2 supplier).
Seems like your 'simplistic' solution (populist -- demagoguery), ,
does not solve everything.
Please, discard the fake "Dr." and "Ph.D" and get
yourself over to nearest school, and at least take
Econ 101 & 102.
a425couple
> a425couple wrote:
> > "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <na...@nobull.com> wrote ...
> >>Shell & BP Report Record Profits
> >> they make record profits screwing us)
> >
> > What other industries do you want to nationalize?
>
> No other, son, just oil...the substance we are addicted to, go to war
> over, and let the oil companies screw us as they make record
> profits.
Oh, only oil, ok?????
I kinda thought we were addicted to food also??
And judging by what I see on roads, many seem
awfully addicted to cell phones??
As pointed out (on the other path of thread),
fair number of countries have nationalized
their oil industries.
Certainly not a magic solution.
> You seem to have the misconception that a government is
> incapable of operating a successful and profitable business.
No.
I recognize they are 'capable' of it (at times/places --).
It's just that they have a pretty dismal track record.
And by interferring in the 'unseen hand', natural laws
of supply and demand, they have often made the
situation worse.
ex. The CAFE requirements, actually killed a fairly
decent and efficient type auto (the station wagon),
and certainly helped lead to the worse SUVs etc.
Governor Swill
babble
>First define poverty. The US Government definition has a value above
>the rich level in most countries of the world.
It's a sliding scale based on a percentage of a percentage. You can
never make poverty go away using that as a yardstick.
Compare poverty today to the poverty of 50 years ago and you really
can make a case for the war on poverty being won.
Swill
--
Shift Happens
"Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit.
Slow thinkers keep right." - Peter Principle
(US)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljbI-363A2Q&feature=related
http://preview.tinyurl.com/33cvso
(UK)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeoKQbT8BKs&feature=related
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6nd7kr
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
> "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <na...@nobull.com> wrote ...
>
>>a425couple wrote:
>>
>>>>(I say nationalize the oil industry; --
>>>>they make record profits screwing us)
>
>
>>>Why do you think, the countries with the best
>>>annual improvements in their GDP have 'capitalist'
>>>economies?
>>
>>Son, there are plenty of failed Capitalist countries.
>>Try Mexico...or most any country south of the Rio Grande.
>>IMHO, the U.S. is failed, with 40 million people in poverty.
>>Look at number of people in poverty, not GDP.
>
>
> Short answer (longer in progress)
> Well, there you go - Q.E.D.
QED? WTF? Son, you have not addressed the huge widespread poverty caused by Capitalism.
Uncontrolled for-maximum-profit Capitalism grows like cancer. Powered by greed. Sapping all around it.
It's elementary, son. Use yer brain, fer crissakes...
> I believe Mexico nationalized it's oil industry decades ago.
> Very large reserves, and pumping capacity.
> Very large income from oil exports
> (I believe that after Canada, Mexico is our #2 supplier).
>
> Seems like your 'simplistic' solution (populist -- demagoguery), ,
> does not solve everything.
That is correct, son...you trumpeting only the few successes by for-maximum-profit Capitalism is dishonest.
Governor Swill
>>First define poverty. The US Government definition has a value above the
>>rich level in most countries of the world.
>
>
>Are you right wingers born stupid or do you just come here to work on it?
> Poverty can be relative to a nation, however, we all know $10,000 in the
>US in 2008 is not a livable income. -- Thus we are left wondering why you
>characters come here and act dumb?
$7 an hour times 40 hours = $280 times 52 weeks = $14,560.
Given current conditions, I wouldn't consider even that a living wage.
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
> "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <na...@nobull.com> wrote ...
>
>>a425couple wrote:
>>
>>>"Dr. James West, Ph.D." <na...@nobull.com> wrote ...
>>>
>>>>Shell & BP Report Record Profits
>>>>(I say nationalize the oil industry; ----
>>>>they make record profits screwing us)
>>>
>>>What other industries do you want to nationalize?
>>
>>No other, son, just oil...the substance we are addicted to, go to war
>>over, and let the oil companies screw us as they make record
>>profits.
>
>
> Oh, only oil, ok?????
> I kinda thought we were addicted to food also??
Son, when famines become a problem, caused by for-maximum-profit Capitalist
greed, then we might consider government operation of food businesses.
(btw, what's your opinion of the FDA, son? Abolish it?)
> And judging by what I see on roads, many seem
> awfully addicted to cell phones??
Son, when cell phones become a problem, caused by for-maximum-profit Capitalist
greed, then we might consider government operation of those businesses.
Again, son, you seem to have the misconception that a government
cannot operate a business successfully (and without screwing we the people).
>
> As pointed out (on the other path of thread),
> fair number of countries have nationalized
> their oil industries.
> Certainly not a magic solution.
Son, no one thing is a magic solution...no one, except you Capitalists, said it was.
Why not?
torresD
fnij...@nospam.net
>fnij...@nospam.net used a stick in the sand to babble
>>>First define poverty. The US Government definition has a value above the
>>>rich level in most countries of the world.
>>
>>
>>Are you right wingers born stupid or do you just come here to work on it?
>> Poverty can be relative to a nation, however, we all know $10,000 in the
>>US in 2008 is not a livable income. -- Thus we are left wondering why you
>>characters come here and act dumb?
>$7 an hour times 40 hours = $280 times 52 weeks = $14,560.
>Given current conditions, I wouldn't consider even that a living wage.
...and that number ($7) is above the minimum wage the republicans keep
saying is enough!
>Swill
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
> fnij...@nospam.net used a stick in the sand to babble
>
>>>First define poverty. The US Government definition has a value above the
>>>rich level in most countries of the world.
>>
>>
>>Are you right wingers born stupid or do you just come here to work on it?
>>Poverty can be relative to a nation, however, we all know $10,000 in the
>>US in 2008 is not a livable income. -- Thus we are left wondering why you
>>characters come here and act dumb?
>
>
> $7 an hour times 40 hours = $280 times 52 weeks = $14,560.
>
> Given current conditions, I wouldn't consider even that a living wage.
>
> Swill
I doubt many of those people work 40 hours per week for 52 weeks at one company.
They have few benefits, like sick time (so they go unpaid) or vacation time,
and they are easily "laid off" (fired) for the Capitalist's maximum profits.
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
Son, I've seen the poor in America. You can often smell the poverty from the street.
Don't blow smoke up my ass, son.
;-)
Starkiller wrote:
> In America Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their
> own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the
> Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a
> garage, and a porch or patio.
> Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By
> contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population
> enjoyed air conditioning.
> Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than
> two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
> The average poor American has more living space than the average
> individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities
> throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in
> foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
> Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two
> or more cars.
> Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over
> half own two or more color televisions.
> Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable
> or satellite TV reception.
> Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a
> stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
>
> As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically
> undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and
> minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and,
> in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually
> consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average
> protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor
> children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on
> average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who
> stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
>
> While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do
> experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food
> shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13
> percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience
> hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is
> short-term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have
> "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not
> have enough to eat.
>
> Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a
> car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and
> dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or
> satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able
> to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not
> overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had
> sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential
> needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far
> from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal
> activists, and politicians.
>
> Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should
> not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide
> range in living conditions among the poor. For example, over a quarter
> of poor households have cell phones and telephone answering machines,
> but, at the other extreme, approximately one-tenth have no phone at
> all. While the majority of poor households do not experience
> significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least
> one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty
> getting medical care.
> http://tinyurl.com/bu427
>
>
Hertz Donut
"Dr. James West, Ph.D." <na...@nobull.com> wrote in message
news:yNudnadglt4lFIbVnZ2dnUVZ_oOnnZ2d@toastnet...
>
> Son, I've seen the poor in America. You can often smell the poverty from
> the street.
>
> Don't blow smoke up my ass, son.
Wow! Coming from the absolute king of the blowers of smoke, your response
isn't eve humorous.
Perhaps you'll enlighten the rest of the world...what does poverty smell
like?
You are a hypocrite!
Honu
Hertz Donut
"Dr. James West, Ph.D." <na...@nobull.com> wrote in message
news:7YSdnTom3Zt1w4bVnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@toastnet...
> a425couple wrote:
>
>> "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <na...@nobull.com> wrote ...
>>
>>>a425couple wrote:
>>>
>>>>>(I say nationalize the oil industry; --
>>>>>they make record profits screwing us)
>>
>>
>>>>Why do you think, the countries with the best
>>>>annual improvements in their GDP have 'capitalist'
>>>>economies?
>>>
>>>Son, there are plenty of failed Capitalist countries.
>>>Try Mexico...or most any country south of the Rio Grande.
>>>IMHO, the U.S. is failed, with 40 million people in poverty.
>>>Look at number of people in poverty, not GDP.
>>
>>
>> Short answer (longer in progress)
>> Well, there you go - Q.E.D.
>
> QED? WTF? Son, you have not addressed the huge widespread poverty caused
> by Capitalism.
You are a member of a capitalist country...therefore you are responsible in
some manner for the "poverty caused by capitalism" you claim exists.
>
> Uncontrolled for-maximum-profit Capitalism grows like cancer. Powered by
> greed. Sapping all around it.
>
So what are the options? Uncontrolled Communisms? Uncontrolled Stalinism?
do you have an answer? Can you explain why East Germany, the former Soviet
Union, andmany other communist nations could not survive?
I would urge you to move to North Korea. It would appear that you would be
much happoer there...not a hint of capitalism at all...I'll even buy you a
one way ticket, if you promise not to bring your hate-mongering, worthless
hide back out of the country.
As a side benefiot, we'd not have to endure any more of your hypocritcal
bullshit...you won't bew allowed internet access in North Korea.
> It's elementary, son. Use yer brain, fer crissakes...
>
Perhaps you should lead by example...
Honu
fnij...@nospam.net
Provide citations for your claims. Census data will do.
Here's betting you whine, lie and snivel instead of doing it.
In <ck0n14d4g7jul17ci...@4ax.com>, on 05/02/2008
at 04:07 PM, Starkiller <NoSpam.S...@hotmail.com> said:
>In America Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their
fnij...@nospam.net
Provide citations for your claims. Census data will do.
Here's betting you whine, lie and snivel instead of doing it.
In <on0n141n1d4mb5vff...@4ax.com>, on 05/02/2008
at 04:09 PM, Starkiller <NoSpam.S...@hotmail.com> said:
>In America Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their
fnij...@nospam.net
Provide citations for your claims. Census data will do.
Here's betting you whine, lie and snivel instead of doing it.
In <to0n14dfhnu9d19re...@4ax.com>, on 05/02/2008
at 04:10 PM, Starkiller <NoSpam.S...@hotmail.com> said:
fnij...@nospam.net
>"Dr. James West, Ph.D." <na...@nobull.com> wrote in message
>news:7YSdnTom3Zt1w4bVnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@toastnet...
>> a425couple wrote:
>>
>>> "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <na...@nobull.com> wrote ...
>>>
>>>>a425couple wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>(I say nationalize the oil industry; --
>>>>>>they make record profits screwing us)
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Why do you think, the countries with the best
>>>>>annual improvements in their GDP have 'capitalist'
>>>>>economies?
>>>>
>>>>Son, there are plenty of failed Capitalist countries.
>>>>Try Mexico...or most any country south of the Rio Grande.
>>>>IMHO, the U.S. is failed, with 40 million people in poverty.
>>>>Look at number of people in poverty, not GDP.
>>>
>>>
>>> Short answer (longer in progress)
>>> Well, there you go - Q.E.D.
>>
>> QED? WTF? Son, you have not addressed the huge widespread poverty caused
>> by Capitalism.
>You are a member of a capitalist country...therefore you are responsible
>in some manner for the "poverty caused by capitalism" you claim exists.
Nonsense. The people responsible are those who vote for and allow right
wing government and robber barons. That's people like you right wing kook
hertz.
fnij...@nospam.net
That's for proving once again that you are clueless idiot.
In <1NydnanHSrTSCIbV...@hawaiiantel.net>, on 05/02/2008
Professor Irwin Corey
Who is "we"? You and your girlfriend "Dr. James West, Ph.D."?
fnij...@nospam.net
Thank you for the living demonstration of your reading comprehension and
cognitive reasoning problems. You could be a poster boy for the need to
have a "No Moron Left Behind," education laws.
In <2i8n14lrt7hf1n5bg...@4ax.com>, on 05/02/2008
Hertz Donut
<fnij...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:ljNSj.115$ch1.88@trndny09...
How do you know who I voted for?
You are pathetic!
Honu
Hertz Donut
"Starkiller" <NoSpam.S...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:84dn14hqsucn63pgc...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 02 May 2008 23:18:37 GMT, fnij...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Provide citations for your claims. Census data will do.
>>
>>
>>Here's betting you whine, lie and snivel instead of doing it.
>
> link?
>>
Oh...he is definitely that stupid!
Honu
Hertz Donut
<fnij...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:kjNSj.114$ch1.87@trndny09...
>
> That's for proving once again that you are clueless idiot.
I think you are the only one that fills that bill...
he gave you the links you requested multiple times.
You are indeed pathetic.
Honu
Hertz Donut
"Professor Irwin Corey" <prof....@whatsamatter.edu> wrote in message
news:2i8n14lrt7hf1n5bg...@4ax.com...
The doctor only dates young boys and large farm animals.
Honu
Hertz Donut
<fnij...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:pBOSj.28$Jb2.3@trndny03...
>
>
> Thank you for the living demonstration of your reading comprehension and
> cognitive reasoning problems. You could be a poster boy for the need to
> have a "No Moron Left Behind," education laws.
>
>
Honu
Governor Swill
>Provide citations for your claims. Census data will do.
>Here's betting you whine, lie and snivel instead of doing it.
The point is well taken. Poverty can never be eliminated because
there's no stable benchmark. The 'poverty' level is a percentage of a
percentage. No matter how the economy grows, there will always be a
poverty level.
Swill
--
Shift Happens
"Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit.
Slow thinkers keep right." - Peter Principle
(US)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljbI-363A2Q&feature=related
http://preview.tinyurl.com/33cvso
(UK)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeoKQbT8BKs&feature=related
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6nd7kr
Governor Swill
babble
True. Sometimes they'll hold 2 or even 3 part time jobs. The trouble
with that is that an extra hour here or there doesn't get time and a
half. There are working people getting in 50 or more hours a week but
no OT.
Swill
Governor Swill
babble
>On Fri, 02 May 2008 23:18:39 GMT, fnij...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Provide citations for your claims. Census data will do.
>>
>>
>>Here's betting you whine, lie and snivel instead of doing it.
>
>where the data came from you can start here:
>http://tinyurl.com/24cahn
Lost the original link?
Governor Swill
>> by Capitalism.
>You are a member of a capitalist country...therefore you are responsible in
>some manner for the "poverty caused by capitalism" you claim exists.
Interesting. Who lives better? A Russian in poverty or an American?
A German or a Chinese? Define "better".
>> Uncontrolled for-maximum-profit Capitalism grows like cancer. Powered by
>> greed. Sapping all around it.
Uncontrolled governmental determinism grows like a cancer. Powered by
power lust and greed, sapping all around it. Communism, true
compassionate communism, Heaven if you will, has an Achilles heel.
Human nature is to profit, to get more out than is put in.
The trick is to balance the two forces. Imo, a for profit base with
government oversight works well but only as well as the competency and
integrity of the government.
Capitalism is trade by the People. Communism is trade by the
Authority. I trust the People more than the Authority.
>So what are the options? Uncontrolled Communisms? Uncontrolled Stalinism?
>do you have an answer? Can you explain why East Germany, the former Soviet
>Union, andmany other communist nations could not survive?
>
>I would urge you to move to North Korea. It would appear that you would be
>much happoer there...not a hint of capitalism at all...I'll even buy you a
>one way ticket, if you promise not to bring your hate-mongering, worthless
>hide back out of the country.
>As a side benefiot, we'd not have to endure any more of your hypocritcal
>bullshit...you won't bew allowed internet access in North Korea.
>> It's elementary, son. Use yer brain, fer crissakes...
Communists use their brains to develop a new language which apparently
satisfies themselves, but explains nothing to anyone who asks the
simple question, "How?"
Governor Swill
>"Dr. James West, Ph.D." <na...@nobull.com> wrote ...
>> a425couple wrote:
>> > What other industries do you want to nationalize?
>> No other, son, just oil...the substance we are addicted to, go to war
>> over, and let the oil companies screw us as they make record
>> profits.
>Oh, only oil, ok?????
>I kinda thought we were addicted to food also??
Not an addiction.
>And judging by what I see on roads, many seem
>awfully addicted to cell phones??
Truly.
>As pointed out (on the other path of thread),
>fair number of countries have nationalized
>their oil industries.
>Certainly not a magic solution.
They want those profits for themselves. God forbid ordinary people
should have the opportunity to become wealthy.
>> You seem to have the misconception that a government is
>> incapable of operating a successful and profitable business.
>
>No.
>I recognize they are 'capable' of it (at times/places --).
>It's just that they have a pretty dismal track record.
Depends on point of view. ;-) But, yes, sometimes government screws
up. Like the one we have now.
>And by interferring in the 'unseen hand', natural laws
>of supply and demand, they have often made the
>situation worse.
I've read economists who believe that government meddling with the
money supply and taxes extended the Great Depression by two years.
>ex. The CAFE requirements, actually killed a fairly
>decent and efficient type auto (the station wagon),
Oh, please. The station wagon was horribly inefficient. That's what
killed it in the first place. Chrysler replaced it with the much more
efficient FWD minivan.
>and certainly helped lead to the worse SUVs etc.
The original Sport Utility Vehicle was a Jeep. Until recently most
SUVs were based on trucks. International Harvester made them for many
years. Chevy's Suburban has been around for decades. Trucks gained
in popularity with women and eventually the luxury truck became a new
market niche. It was a way to have a big, RWD car. Fuel cost has
spawned the crossover, more like a station wagon but remains a van
shape with a long, low sedan nose. Say what you will about Buick's
new Enclave, it's a beautiful work of art. It's just too big.
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
> "Hertz Donut" used a stick in the sand to babble
>
>>"Dr. James West, Ph.D." <na...@nobull.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>QED? WTF? Son, you have not addressed the huge widespread poverty caused
>>>by Capitalism.
>
>
>>You are a member of a capitalist country...therefore you are responsible in
>>some manner for the "poverty caused by capitalism" you claim exists.
>
>
> Interesting. Who lives better? A Russian in poverty or an American?
> A German or a Chinese? Define "better".
>
>
>>>Uncontrolled for-maximum-profit Capitalism grows like cancer. Powered by
>>>greed. Sapping all around it.
>
>
> Uncontrolled governmental determinism grows like a cancer. Powered by
> power lust and greed, sapping all around it. Communism, true
> compassionate communism, Heaven if you will, has an Achilles heel.
> Human nature is to profit, to get more out than is put in.
I could not care less about communism, since I have never been able to
understand what it really is or how it could work. Fuck communism.
This discussion is about uncontrolled for-maximum-profit Capitalism being
a proven failure.
> The trick is to balance the two forces.
There ya go. Pick the best of whatever works, and not be constrained
by emotional attachments to ideology or theory.
I think controlled capitalism is a good thing. Uncontrolled Capitalism sucks
just as uncontrolled anything sucks.
Imo, a for profit base with
> government oversight works well but only as well as the competency and
> integrity of the government.
A good working government is always essential. btw, oversight is control.
>
> Capitalism is trade by the People.
By "Capitalism" is almost always meant "uncontrolled for-maximum-profit capitalism."
That is not "trade by the People".
That Capitalism is trade by Capitalists, a relatively few who control the trade
and make their profits at the expense of "the People", as we've seen over
and over, as with the 40 million Americans in poverty, and now in this
thread with the oil/fuel prices.
And the failed Capitalist governments around the world, especially south
of the U.S.
Communism is trade by the
> Authority. I trust the People more than the Authority.
Again, fuck communism, this discussion is not about communism.
>
>
>>So what are the options? Uncontrolled Communisms? Uncontrolled Stalinism?
>>do you have an answer? Can you explain why East Germany, the former Soviet
>>Union, andmany other communist nations could not survive?
>>
>>I would urge you to move to North Korea. It would appear that you would be
>>much happoer there...not a hint of capitalism at all...I'll even buy you a
>>one way ticket, if you promise not to bring your hate-mongering, worthless
>>hide back out of the country.
>>As a side benefiot, we'd not have to endure any more of your hypocritcal
>>bullshit...you won't bew allowed internet access in North Korea.
>
>
>>>It's elementary, son. Use yer brain, fer crissakes...
>
>
> Communists use their brains to develop a new language which apparently
> satisfies themselves, but explains nothing to anyone who asks the
> simple question, "How?"
Again, fuck communism, this discussion is not about communism.
>
> Swill
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
> Provide citations for your claims. Census data will do.
>
> Here's betting you whine, lie and snivel instead of doing it.
Yep. He has no reference, except possibly some other rightwing moron's opinion.
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
>
> God forbid ordinary people
> should have the opportunity to become wealthy.
Nothing wrong with being wealthy. However their is plenty wrong with
becoming wealthy by making other people bare-subsistence poor, as is
the track record of for-maximum-profit Capitalism, or by endangering
people's lives as is the track record of for-maximum-profit Capitalism.
;-)
fnij...@nospam.net
I said you would snivel and lie. No son, stop the lying and give the
source of your data.
Then when you do that, we will ask you to correlate your data with poverty
thresholds -- and thus prove that people are not poor, even though the
government measures them to be.
Just think, it will be your chance to show right wign thinking in public.
Here's betting you run from it like all right wingers do.
In <kjrn14pb9ug7gh9uj...@4ax.com>, on 05/03/2008
fnij...@nospam.net
I said you would snivel and lie. No son, stop the lying and give the
source of your data.
Then when you do that, we will ask you to correlate your data with poverty
thresholds -- and thus prove that people are not poor, even though the
government measures them to be.
Just think, it will be your chance to show right wign thinking in public.
Here's betting you run from it.
In <9asn149q2luo09qp0...@4ax.com>, on 05/03/2008
fnij...@nospam.net
I see I have really pissed you off there hertz boy. It means I'm dead on
right again, or you would not be in another wild snit; whining, lying and
sniveling.
Its almost time for 10 more of you right wing asses to join in attacking
me for asking you idiots to prove the claims made are (1) true, and (2)
proof that people are not in poverty in America -- the implied thrust of
the right wign nonsense.
In <zbydne9gVPp0I4bV...@hawaiiantel.net>, on 05/02/2008
fnij...@nospam.net
We can all find the census data website son. Now you prove the claims
made and correlate that with the data such as someone having, say an air
conditioner is proof that they are not in poverty -- which was the implied
thrust of the article.
Here's betting you whine and snivel, instead of backing up your right wing
nonsense with reasoning.
In <6edn14t9chbof699s...@4ax.com>, on 05/02/2008
at 07:49 PM, Starkiller <NoSpam.S...@hotmail.com> said:
>On Fri, 02 May 2008 23:18:39 GMT, fnij...@nospam.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>Provide citations for your claims. Census data will do.
>>
>>
>>Here's betting you whine, lie and snivel instead of doing it.
>Again, the cite was given to the article. For the detailed info on where
>the data came from you can start here:
>http://tinyurl.com/24cahn
>>
>>
>>
>>
fnij...@nospam.net
Go play with yourself right wigner. Of course we know who you voted for,
you asshole.
In <spsdnfaliclri4bv...@hawaiiantel.net>, on 05/02/2008
fnij...@nospam.net
This goes for you too dumbass right winger:
We can all find the census data website son. Now you prove the claims
made and correlate that with the data such as someone having, say an air
conditioner is proof that they are not in poverty -- which was the implied
thrust of the article.
Here's betting you whine and snivel, instead of backing up your right wing
nonsense with reasoning.
In <bvGdnSMaOcsAI4bV...@hawaiiantel.net>, on 05/02/2008
fnij...@nospam.net
Once again for the right wing asshole hertz:
We can all find the census data website son. Now you prove the claims
made and correlate that with the data such as someone having, say an air
conditioner is proof that they are not in poverty -- which was the implied
thrust of the article.
Here's betting you whine and snivel, instead of backing up your right wing
nonsense with reasoning.
In <N_6dnaM_ZMjcIobV...@hawaiiantel.net>, on 05/02/2008
Governor Swill
>Instead of tax rebate, the $140 billion could be used to build 70
>power plants using geo-thermo, wind, nuclear, and solar power.
Good idea. A teaspoon in a bucket but a start just the same.
> And the
>extra power generated can be used to convert all diesel trains to
>electric, plugin hybrid vehicle, and replace fuel for heating.
I could see the train thing and plugins are inevitable. Heating fuel
can be entirely replaced with electricity.
> More money could be used to build more plug in hybrid vehicle.
Let the markets take care of that. There are two dozen competing
models available right now and consumers are buying them.
> To save
>energy, the U.S. must phase out production of all SUVs next year and
>all gasoline only vehicles by 2010.
What a stupid thing to say. No way can either of these targets be
met.
It's the choice of the People. Manufacturers will phase out whatever
isn't profitable. The People determine what does and doesn't sell.
When the People stop buying gas hog SUVs, manufacturers will stop
building them.
Governor Swill
>source of your data.
>Then when you do that, we will ask you to correlate your data with poverty
>thresholds -- and thus prove that people are not poor, even though the
>government measures them to be.
>Just think, it will be your chance to show right wign thinking in public.
>Here's betting you run from it like all right wingers do.
The threshold keeps changing is the point. Few of the people living
in poverty today would be considered impoverished a hundred years ago
or even fifty. I'm not a right winger and the war on poverty has
helped push the bottom up quite a bit. But *relatively speaking* the
poverty rate has changed little. The standards of what constitutes
poverty have changed.
I don't deny the gap has widened as of late, but overall, the poor in
America are generally living better and longer lives than they were
forty years ago.
I consider "the welfare state" to be a way for government to
redistribute wealth through the basic consumer markets such as the
food, housing and transportation sectors.
Every penny of that money percolates up through merchants into big
business and along the way taxes take their share of the flow and are
redirected back into the economy. Military spending goes into defense
related jobs for example. Public assistance feeds up the economy
largely through retailers, utilities and real estate owners.
Swill
Governor Swill
>I said you would snivel and lie. No son, stop the lying and give the
>source of your data.
>Then when you do that, we will ask you to correlate your data with poverty
>thresholds -- and thus prove that people are not poor, even though the
>government measures them to be.
>Just think, it will be your chance to show right wign thinking in public.
>Here's betting you run from it.
You don't even know who you're speaking to in here.
Governor Swill
>Governor Swill wrote:
>> "Hertz Donut" used a stick in the sand to babble
>>>"Dr. James West, Ph.D." <na...@nobull.com> wrote in message
>>>>greed. Sapping all around it.
>> Uncontrolled governmental determinism grows like a cancer. Powered by
>> power lust and greed, sapping all around it. Communism, true
>> compassionate communism, Heaven if you will, has an Achilles heel.
>> Human nature is to profit, to get more out than is put in.
>I could not care less about communism, since I have never been able to
>understand what it really is or how it could work. Fuck communism.
Fuck extreme anything. Clearly communist economies don't prosper.
>This discussion is about uncontrolled for-maximum-profit Capitalism being
>a proven failure.
Agreed. But it's opposite is uncontrolled communism. To the degree
these ideological opposites can be made to agree with each other, we
have control of both.
>> The trick is to balance the two forces.
As I said.
>There ya go. Pick the best of whatever works, and not be constrained
>by emotional attachments to ideology or theory.
>
>I think controlled capitalism is a good thing. Uncontrolled Capitalism sucks
>just as uncontrolled anything sucks.
Exactly.
> Imo, a for profit base with
>> government oversight works well but only as well as the competency and
>> integrity of the government.
>
>A good working government is always essential. btw, oversight is control.
Duh.
>> Capitalism is trade by the People.
>
>By "Capitalism" is almost always meant "uncontrolled for-maximum-profit capitalism."
That's not what I mean by "capitalism". I mean individuals allowed to
buy and sell as they wish. This includes investing. Investment
begets job creation.
>That is not "trade by the People".
>That Capitalism is trade by Capitalists, a relatively few who control the trade
>and make their profits at the expense of "the People", as we've seen over
>and over, as with the 40 million Americans in poverty, and now in this
>thread with the oil/fuel prices.
I don't see People in States with Capitalist systems starving or
anything. Certainly America's poor live as well as or better than the
poor anywhere outside Europe.
>And the failed Capitalist governments around the world, especially south
>of the U.S.
Those weren't capitalist governments. Latin States in the west have
generally tended to be authoritarian with the country run largely to
the benefit of the elite class who are most often members of old
Spanish families.
> Communism is trade by the
>> Authority. I trust the People more than the Authority.
>
>Again, fuck communism, this discussion is not about communism.
If it's about any uncontrolled economic system, then other economic
systems are fair game. The point is that it's a slippery slope from
"controlled capitalism" to "socialism" and ultimately "communism". The
argument isn't about whether or not to control capitalism in America,
it's about what to control and by how much.
>>>So what are the options? Uncontrolled Communisms? Uncontrolled Stalinism?
>>>do you have an answer? Can you explain why East Germany, the former Soviet
>>>Union, andmany other communist nations could not survive?
Clearly the answer is balancing elements of different philosophies and
systems. The Great Depression showed that unbridled capitalism is
dangerous. The seventies showed us that over regulated capitalism
also had it's problems. Now we're seeing that government, merely
through spending practices can greatly influence the economy despite
under regulation in some industries.
fnij...@nospam.net
Stop the right wign kook nonsense son. You lost this game when you
started driveling.
In <ukap14l8g8p4h7usq...@4ax.com>, on 05/03/2008
fnij...@nospam.net
Hugh Gibbons
Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> BL5511 <pb5...@gmail.com> used a stick in the sand to babble
> >Instead of tax rebate, the $140 billion could be used to build 70
> >power plants using geo-thermo, wind, nuclear, and solar power.
>
> Good idea. A teaspoon in a bucket but a start just the same.
>
> > And the
> >extra power generated can be used to convert all diesel trains to
> >electric, plugin hybrid vehicle, and replace fuel for heating.
>
> I could see the train thing and plugins are inevitable. Heating fuel
> can be entirely replaced with electricity.
I don't see how. I mean, maybe eventually, in 30 years or so at the
soonest.
Governor Swill
sand to babble
>> I could see the train thing and plugins are inevitable. Heating fuel
>> can be entirely replaced with electricity.
>
>I don't see how. I mean, maybe eventually, in 30 years or so at the
>soonest.
The heating fuel? Wouldn't take but a few years for every oil furnace
house to be switched to electric. That said, when the power goes out
and all the heat you have is electric, you got nothing.
Hertz Donut
<fnij...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:07YSj.738$k11.136@trndny08...
>
> I see I have really pissed you off there hertz boy. It means I'm dead on
> right again, or you would not be in another wild snit; whining, lying and
> sniveling.
>
You are the one in a snit...read your post!
It's almost as much fun watching you make an idiot of yourself as it is to
watch Al E. Croc O' Shit bitch slap himself.
> Its almost time for 10 more of you right wing asses to join in attacking
> me for asking you idiots to prove the claims made are (1) true, and (2)
> proof that people are not in poverty in America -- the implied thrust of
> the right wign nonsense.
>
No one attacks you! Someone just posts something to pull your string so we
can watch you make an asshole of yourself. Thanks for keeping us
entertained!
Honu
Hertz Donut
"Dr. James West, Ph.D." <na...@nobull.com> wrote in message
news:e_2dnY9iLq8_3oHVnZ2dnUVZ_rLinZ2d@toastnet...
> fnij...@nospam.net wrote:
>> Provide citations for your claims. Census data will do. Here's betting
>> you whine, lie and snivel instead of doing it.
>
> Yep. He has no reference, except possibly some other rightwing moron's
> opinion.
Wow..coming from the poster child of clueless idiocy, that is almost a
compliment!
Do you think *You* have done enough for this country? Being a coward is not
a virtue, but you wear it like a crown.
Honu
Hertz Donut
<fnij...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:47YSj.741$k11.272@trndny08...
>
>
> Go play with yourself right wigner. Of course we know who you voted for,
> you asshole.
>
So you claim to be clairvoyant? Better get a better crystal ball, little
girl. You know nothing about me.
Thanks for the entertainment!
Honu
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
>
> The threshold keeps changing is the point. Few of the people living
> in poverty today would be considered impoverished a hundred years ago
> or even fifty.
Where do you get this logic?
The point is that the rightwing wants to pretend there is no poverty in the U.S.
Just as they want to pretend hardly anyone gets killed in their wars.
I've seen the real poverty in the U.S., 50 years ago and today.
Again, where did you get that apparently goofy logic?
> But *relatively speaking* the poverty rate has changed little.
> The standards of what constitutes poverty have changed.
The number is 40 million in poverty in the U.S.
How many are *really* poor by your whatever standard? 30 million?
The point is that U.S. Capitalism is, IMHO, a failure, even at 30 million.
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
> "Dr. James West, Ph.D." used a stick in the sand to babble
>>
>
>
> That's not what I mean by "capitalism". I mean individuals allowed to
> buy and sell as they wish.
What you mean is what I said..."buy and sell as they wish" is uncontrolled
for-maximum-profit capitalism.
How is what you said not "uncontrolled"?
How is what you said not "for-maximum-profit"?
>>That Capitalism is trade by Capitalists, a relatively few who control the trade
>>and make their profits at the expense of "the People", as we've seen over
>>and over, as with the 40 million Americans in poverty, and now in this
>>thread with the oil/fuel prices.
>
> I don't see People in States with Capitalist systems starving or
> anything.
Yet...they are there.
>>And the failed Capitalist governments around the world, especially south
>>of the U.S.
>
> Those weren't capitalist governments.
If they allow Capitalism, as they have, then they are Capitalist. Period.
fnij...@nospam.net
Run along hertz boy and stop lying. You made 5 posts to my one, because
you, being a right wign asshole -- didn't like hearing there are poor
people in the US.
I piss you right wing idiots off, because I am the conscience you don't
have. I make you people question your greed and your stupidity and it
really make you mad.
Bye right winger. And hey, bush needs cannon fodder in iraq that would
ask why. Get your coward ass over there for him.
In <p9edncHwOdoJ4oDV...@hawaiiantel.net>, on 05/03/2008
fnij...@nospam.net
Listen up *right wing asshole -->We know you didn't vote for a democrat.
That leaves bush you moron, or some other nut case right wing candidate
you wrote in. Now stop whining little boy. You have been exposed for
your stupidity again.
In <3YOdnQVV4pL8HYDV...@hawaiiantel.net>, on 05/03/2008
fnij...@nospam.net
... And where do you people think the electricity is going to come from?
omq14l0u66s7al1k...@4ax.com>, on 05/04/2008
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
> ... And where do you people think the electricity is going to come from?
On the Larry King Live show last week Michael Moore made the point that
we might generate electricity from sources such as wind farms, but the
real problem is going to be plastics, which only comes from oil. I'm
looking at all the plastic around me...what other material can my computer
mouse be made from? Or my TV chassis? Or my toaster? Or my cell phone?
Or any of thousands of common products?
When the crises hits...the oil runs out...it's going to really be something!
Peter Skelton
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hugh Gibbons <hugh_g...@dontsendmeemail.net> used a stick in the
>sand to babble
>>> I could see the train thing and plugins are inevitable. Heating fuel
>>> can be entirely replaced with electricity.
>>
>>I don't see how. I mean, maybe eventually, in 30 years or so at the
>>soonest.
>
>The heating fuel? Wouldn't take but a few years for every oil furnace
>house to be switched to electric. That said, when the power goes out
>and all the heat you have is electric, you got nothing.
THere aren't many furnaces that function without electricity. The
HE versions all require it.
Peter Skelton
Andrew Swallow
>
> The number is 40 million in poverty in the U.S.
>
> How many are *really* poor by your whatever standard? 30 million?
>
> The point is that U.S. Capitalism is, IMHO, a failure, even at 30 million.
You are performing an international comparison so international rules
apply.
[quote]
The World Bank defines extreme poverty as living on less than US$ (PPP)
1 per day, and moderate poverty as less than $2 a day, estimating that
"in 2001, 1.1 billion people had consumption levels below $1 a day and
2.7 billion lived on less than $2 a day."
[/quote]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty>
So using the moderate poverty standard ($2 a day) there are probably
about two to three thousand poor people in the USA, mostly tramps.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
>
> On the Larry King Live show last week Michael Moore made the point that
> we might generate electricity from sources such as wind farms, but the
> real problem is going to be plastics, which only comes from oil. I'm
> looking at all the plastic around me...what other material can my computer
> mouse be made from? Or my TV chassis? Or my toaster? Or my cell phone?
> Or any of thousands of common products?
Plastic can be replaced by fibre glass.
Fibre glass is made from silicon rather than carbon. There is plenty of
raw silicon oxide (commonly called sand) on both the Earth and, as NASA
will confirm, on the Moon.
Andrew Swallow
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
ya fuckin moron
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
Yeah, and we can use metal or wood too. But how much does it cost?
ya fuckin rightwing moron
;-)
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
> On Sun, 04 May 2008 03:07:34 -0700, "Dr. James West, Ph.D."
> <na...@nobull.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Governor Swill wrote:
>>
>>>The threshold keeps changing is the point. Few of the people living
>>>in poverty today would be considered impoverished a hundred years ago
>>>or even fifty.
>>
>>Where do you get this logic?
>>
>>The point is that the rightwing wants to pretend there is no poverty in the U.S.
>>
>>Just as they want to pretend hardly anyone gets killed in their wars.
>>
>>I've seen the real poverty in the U.S., 50 years ago and today.
>>
>>Again, where did you get that apparently goofy logic?
>>
>>
>>
>>>But *relatively speaking* the poverty rate has changed little.
>>>The standards of what constitutes poverty have changed.
>>
>>The number is 40 million in poverty in the U.S.
>>
>>How many are *really* poor by your whatever standard? 30 million?
>>
>>The point is that U.S. Capitalism is, IMHO, a failure, even at 30 million.
>
>
> All you have is a number,
No, son, I also have seen Americans in poverty. You rightwing assholes are in denial.
40 million, that make less than a given
> amount annually. You don't know any other circumstances. How many
> people starve to death in the US? How many people actually die
> because they aren;t allowed medical treatment. How many actually have
> nowhere to stay?
> It's real easy for you to simply state that x number of people make
> less than x dollars therefore everything sucks.
> The undeniable truth is that the poor in America live it a higher
> level than the average citizen in a loit of other countries.
> In line with your response to my posts, either show some real
> statistics or STFU.
> I gave links, you give nothing buit lies.
Governor Swill
>"Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> said:
>><fnij...@nospam.net> wrote
>>> Go play with yourself right wigner. Of course we know who you voted for,
>>> you asshole.
>>So you claim to be clairvoyant? Better get a better crystal ball, little
>> girl. You know nothing about me.
>>Thanks for the entertainment!
>Listen up *right wing asshole -->We know you didn't vote for a democrat.
>That leaves bush you moron, or some other nut case right wing candidate
>you wrote in. Now stop whining little boy. You have been exposed for
>your stupidity again.
So polish up your crystal ball and tell me who I voted for. You
accused me of being a right winger so you obviously know. I'll make
it easy. I'll spot you a list of the national elections I've voted in
and if you get a even a "D" (66%) predicting my voting by year, I'll
pay a hooker to suck your dick. Bareback if you want. I'll give you
another handicap. You only have to do the last four elections listed.
Here's your choices.
A Presidential candidate running that year.
A party running that year (midterms and +).
Third party candidate.
NOTA.
Abstained.
1972 Presidential
1974 Midterms
1976 Presidential+
1980 Presidential+
1984 Presidential+
1988 Presidential+
1992 Presidential+
1994 Midterms
1996 Presidential+
2000 Presidential+
2004 Presidential +
2006 Midterms
2008 Primary
And for extra points:
2008 Presidential + (presumed)
Ready? GO!
Governor Swill
babble
Using the WB definition, tramps in the US probably do better than
that. Middle class kids have more income than that.
Governor Swill
babble
>Governor Swill wrote:
>>
>> The threshold keeps changing is the point. Few of the people living
>> in poverty today would be considered impoverished a hundred years ago
>> or even fifty.
>
>Where do you get this logic?
It's an observation. The poor a hundred years ago didn't have air
conditioning or refrigerators or televisions or DVD players or phones
or computers. As the living standards of the society go up, so do the
living standards of the poor. The government defines poverty as those
making less than 25% of the median. ( I believe that's the correct
figure) Obviously as the country's median income rises, the amount of
money one can make and still be considered poor increases. My
statement was simply that poor is relative and the definition being
based on a fluctuating figure, poverty is continually redefined.
In one sense, the war on poverty has worked because it's helped the
poor keep up with other income groups better than they might have. Do
we therefore need to end the war on poverty? Of course not! There
will always be poor especially when poverty is defined as it is in the
US.
>The point is that the rightwing wants to pretend there is no poverty in the U.S.
While claiming that the war on poverty didn't work. I know.
>Just as they want to pretend hardly anyone gets killed in their wars.
>
>I've seen the real poverty in the U.S., 50 years ago and today.
>
>Again, where did you get that apparently goofy logic?
Nothing goofy at all. Statement of fact. Poverty is defined in this
country as those making under a certain percent of the median. If the
median goes up, so does the poverty level. The best means of ending
poverty in the US is to keep the minimum wage going up.
The minimum should be increased to a point where forty hours at a
minimum wage job brings a worker just over the poverty level and it
should then be linked to the CPI. Not that goofy 'core inflation
rate' Uncle Sam uses, but the real inflation rate, the one that
includes the prices of food and fuel.
>> But *relatively speaking* the poverty rate has changed little.
>> The standards of what constitutes poverty have changed.
>
>The number is 40 million in poverty in the U.S.
>
>How many are *really* poor by your whatever standard? 30 million?
>
>The point is that U.S. Capitalism is, IMHO, a failure, even at 30 million.
I was referring to it as a percentage. The total number living in
poverty goes up just a surely as the population increases. The
percentage of the population living in poverty has changed little. The
conditions which define poverty have changed a great deal.
I noticed that in your reply you seem to think I'm some right winger
trying to claim poverty doesn't exist with one face while complaining
that the war on poverty has been a failure with the other.
Perhaps you should read more carefully before jumping to conclusions.
Try reading my below to get a better grip on my view of the issue.
Swill
>> I don't deny the gap has widened as of late, but overall, the poor in
>> America are generally living better and longer lives than they were
>> forty years ago.
>>
>> I consider "the welfare state" to be a way for government to
>> redistribute wealth through the basic consumer markets such as the
>> food, housing and transportation sectors.
>>
>> Every penny of that money percolates up through merchants into big
>> business and along the way taxes take their share of the flow and are
>> redirected back into the economy. Military spending goes into defense
>> related jobs for example. Public assistance feeds up the economy
>> largely through retailers, utilities and real estate owners.