Beggars.
Ned Kelly
Recently, I was in a Burger King in Chicago's centre city eating and, of
course, some beggar walked in and tried to beg for money. A lady sitting
close to me said "Why don't she (the beggar) get a job and work?". Being
one who sits on the left side of the political airplane, I pointed out
how the jobs that are available pay so little she couldn't afford a flat
to live in.
This got me wondering. As weages drop, we are going to see more and more
beggars out there. You can't really boost the basic pay, becuse the
employers will move the remaining jobs under the border, so a liberal
"solution" won't work very well. Of course, conservatives contend that
the beggars should work, but that won't work if the jobs pay so little
that beggars can "earn" more begging instead of burger flipping. There
have been a few cases of beggars "earning" as "much" as $30K/yr! Who, in
their right mind, would work for $8K/yr before taxes if one could beg and
"earn" more?
I dare any conservative to live on $8K/yr before taxes. I bet you can't
do it unless: You live at a homeless shelter, aboard an abandoned car,
with Mom and Dad to subsidise your housing, or with 8 of your fellow
burger boys. Necessities have plain gotten too costly for an increasing
number of people. Now, what is the solution to this problem?
Frank R. Hipp
>From: nedk...@eagle.ais.net (Ned Kelly)
>Subject: Re: Beggars.
>Date: 16 Mar 1996 22:01:15 GMT
How about living with *three* other 'burger boys' while working hard at one or
more jobs until they gain enough experience to get a 'burger boy management'
job (McDonald's managers make pretty darn good money) or a 'better' job
because of the responsibility they've shown by showing up to work every day
and on time. A 'burger boy' that shows up on time and doesn't miss days for
a year or two shows his employer that he is serious about his job and will
get raises above the minimum wage or whatever wage he started at. Or perhaps
they could attend a community college or a trade school to increase their
skills or gain new ones. There are *many* college students that work their
way through school without government assistance or parental assistance by
doing just that. Sharing expenses with roommates is an excellent way of
achieving ones goal of self-sufficiency, all it needs is the desire and the
effort. We need to get away from the desire for instant gratification and
expected government assistance that has taken over this country in the past
several decades. A sense of responsibility is lacking in many of the citizens
in this country, we need to bring it back.
Frank R. Hipp
Scott Matteson
: On 16 Mar 1996 22:01:15 GMT, nedk...@eagle.ais.net (Ned Kelly) wrote:
: >
: >Recently, I was in a Burger King in Chicago's centre city eating and, of
: >course, some beggar walked in and tried to beg for money. A lady sitting
: >close to me said "Why don't she (the beggar) get a job and work?". Being
: >one who sits on the left side of the political airplane, I pointed out
: >how the jobs that are available pay so little she couldn't afford a flat
: >to live in.
: >
: >This got me wondering. As weages drop, we are going to see more and more
: >beggars out there. You can't really boost the basic pay, becuse the
: >employers will move the remaining jobs under the border, so a liberal
: >"solution" won't work very well. Of course, conservatives contend that
: >the beggars should work, but that won't work if the jobs pay so little
: >that beggars can "earn" more begging instead of burger flipping.
: Begging is just another form of work, granted, not one that produces
: much. Kind of like being a real estate agent or an alderman.
Boy, some people are so quick to evaluate others and prescribe
appropriate lifestyles for them as per their own outlook.
: >I dare any conservative to live on $8K/yr before taxes. I bet you can't
: >do it unless: You live at a homeless shelter, aboard an abandoned car,
: >with Mom and Dad to subsidise your housing, or with 8 of your fellow
: >burger boys. Necessities have plain gotten too costly for an increasing
: >number of people. Now, what is the solution to this problem?
: No family that has only minimum wage earners should have become a
: family in the first place. It is no excuse to say a family of four
: can't live on the minimum wage. If the minimum wage is all they are
: worth, then don't have children.
And does this apply retroactively; if the father or mother gets laid off
and has to take a minimum wage job to support the family, do the kids go
back into the womb or to the Great Beyond in the interim? ;-)
I hope you support abortion rights, with this attitude.
As I see, if a husband and wife each
: make the minimum wage and work 60 or 70 hours a week, then they will
: be able to live quite comfortably.
And are you prepared to work 60-70 hours per week, Dennis? I would hope
so, given your apparent eagerness to instruct others to do so if that is
what it takes. Do you know how much time that involves? Out of a 168 hour
week, 70 hours is exactly ten hours per day, or 11.6 hours over six days
with a day of rest. Are you ready to endure almost 12 hour work days,
Monday through Saturday, should you ever hit economic depravity? And to
furthermore be restricted from having children should you so desire
because your fellow Americans don't want to do anything to raise wages to
provide a decent living?
Besides, they are too busy working
: to spend much money. That is the reality.
Gee, that's not good for the economy. Where's the argument about how
taxes should be cut for people so investment will increase? ;-) Or is
that just for the rich?
: Free choice, if you can't
: bring home the bacon then don't have children.
I would agree in the sense that someone who cannot provide for a child
either financially or parentally should not have one. But telling people
they should not have children and must work 70 hour work weeks because
we're too stingy to see them get a pay increase is ridiculous.
--
Scott Matteson |"Motel, Money, Murder, Madness... let's change
colo...@crl.com | the mood from glad to sadness."
Boston, Massachusetts | -Jim Morrison, The Doors
Thank God I'm an atheist. "L.A. Woman," 1971
Chris Nandor
> I dare any conservative to live on $8K/yr before taxes. I bet you can't
> do it unless: You live at a homeless shelter, aboard an abandoned car,
> with Mom and Dad to subsidise your housing, or with 8 of your fellow
> burger boys. Necessities have plain gotten too costly for an increasing
> number of people. Now, what is the solution to this problem?
Be a volunteer for AmeriCorps and get paid $24K.
I'm kidding, of course.
I am all for making the economy stronger. Balance the budget. Maybe
raise the minimum wage a little bit (the jury is still out on this one).
Lower taxes for everybody, keeping more money in the private sector.
Enocurage families to stay together and kids to finish school.
Any problem with these? What else can we add?
--
Pudge
ch...@isaac.biola.edu
http://www-students.biola.edu/~chris/
Think On (McClellan clan motto)
Unknown
>
>Recently, I was in a Burger King in Chicago's centre city eating and, of
>course, some beggar walked in and tried to beg for money. A lady sitting
>close to me said "Why don't she (the beggar) get a job and work?". Being
>one who sits on the left side of the political airplane, I pointed out
>how the jobs that are available pay so little she couldn't afford a flat
>to live in.
>
>This got me wondering. As weages drop, we are going to see more and more
>beggars out there. You can't really boost the basic pay, becuse the
>employers will move the remaining jobs under the border, so a liberal
>"solution" won't work very well. Of course, conservatives contend that
>the beggars should work, but that won't work if the jobs pay so little
>that beggars can "earn" more begging instead of burger flipping.
Begging is just another form of work, granted, not one that produces
much. Kind of like being a real estate agent or an alderman.
>
>I dare any conservative to live on $8K/yr before taxes. I bet you can't
>do it unless: You live at a homeless shelter, aboard an abandoned car,
>with Mom and Dad to subsidise your housing, or with 8 of your fellow
>burger boys. Necessities have plain gotten too costly for an increasing
>number of people. Now, what is the solution to this problem?
No family that has only minimum wage earners should have become a
family in the first place. It is no excuse to say a family of four
can't live on the minimum wage. If the minimum wage is all they are
worth, then don't have children. As I see, if a husband and wife each
make the minimum wage and work 60 or 70 hours a week, then they will
be able to live quite comfortably. Besides, they are too busy working
to spend much money. That is the reality. Free choice, if you can't
Ned Kelly
: There are plenty of people out in the world who started with nothing.
And you're a coward for hiding behind that lame invalid email address. On
top of that, you're an apologist for Billy Boy(tm). It's easy to play
like a conservative behind forged headers, isn't it? You apparently
havn't gotten the clue. You suck.
--
Ned Kelly Lives!!!!!! .
I support Patrick Buchanan - becuse of the Vladamir Zirinowski Endorsement!
WARNING: Unsolicited adverts in my mailbox are subject to a fee of one
million American dollars for processing. The act of emailing constitutes
acceptance to these terms.
Joshua Schriver
that get out of the deadend jobs are the ones who stop feeling sorry for
themselves and get off of their ass and do something about the situation. You
think Bill Gates got a little lottery ticket when he was born that gave him
billions of dollars. No way! He put himself through college (or at least
until he started Microsoft) and he busted his butt and he continues to bust his
butt. There's plenty of people who have hardships in life and I'm not going to
kid myself or anyone else and say life's supposed to be fair, but there is one
thing I have learned so far, your life is what you make of it. I'm sick off
people saying that they keep getting beat down and there's no way out of it.
Everyone's life is up to one person and one person only, the man (or woman) in
the mirror.
Ned Kelly
Dennis Heifitz () wrote:
: No family that has only minimum wage earners should have become a
: family in the first place. It is no excuse to say a family of four
: can't live on the minimum wage. If the minimum wage is all they are
: worth, then don't have children. As I see, if a husband and wife each
: make the minimum wage and work 60 or 70 hours a week, then they will
: be able to live quite comfortably. Besides, they are too busy working
[data processing].....
60 hrs/week == 12K/yr
With 2 people flipping burgers 60 hours/week as you describe, the
household income would be 24K/yr, and as you admit, nowhere near enough
to allow childrearing. As far as living comfortably without the
anklebiters, you're wrong. As a postal worker, I earn about 22K/yr, and
it's nowhere near enough to allow car or home ownership. A coworker who
started at the same time I did went to see about mortgages. He would
qualify for a mere 60K mortgage, which couldn't buy you anything but
possibly a trailer home, and then you would need the bloody car to
commute with.
What a low-income bloke needs to do (apparently) is to work on this side
of the border, and live underneath it, in Mexico, where the housing is
cheap. The commute is a bit of a problem though. :( I suppose when people
can telnet to work, this will be no worry.
Jimmy Wales
>it's nowhere near enough to allow car or home ownership. A coworker who
>started at the same time I did went to see about mortgages. He would
>qualify for a mere 60K mortgage, which couldn't buy you anything but
>possibly a trailer home, and then you would need the bloody car to
>commute with.
60K, that's a pretty impressive trailer home! :-)
Seriously, I live in Chicago, in the city. My building is a condo
building *on the lake*. Seriously, you can go downstairs, out the
back door, and you are on the beach. Great views of the city skyline
and the lake. And it is not at all uncommon for units in this building
to sell in the $60,000 range.
I don't know what part of the country you live in. But in my
experience, a nice starter home or condo can be had for that kind
of money. There are exceptional areas, I'm sure, but my point is
that someone living on a postal worker's salary can live in a nice
place here in Chicago.
--Jimbo
p.s. I know this because a postal worker lives in my building. Kinda
makes me nervous, if you know what I mean and I think you do. ;-)
mark edward balcom
>
>I dare any conservative to live on $8K/yr before taxes. I bet you can't
>do it
Entry level jobs are just that. The place to start. The chance to learn
the work a day ethic and start up. Nobody expects you to stay on a
minimum wage entry level job all of your life. Most of your limitations
are self imposed. Now, for your personal dare. All right, I did it!! My
dad never made enough to have to pay taxes on all of the time I was
living at home. The Christmas toys under the tree came from the fire
department.There was no way that I was going to go to college and get an
education toward a good job in those days. ( A years schooling at a state
college cost a full years wage for most of us in those days.) When I
graduated from high school I went into the navy and started my education
there. When I finished my active duty and came home I went to work
sweeping floors for the local school district. From there i pumped gas in
a discount gas station. Finally I landed a technician's job and put my
Navy education to work. Now I could support myself, raise a family and
continue my education. (I started at Tektronix at $1.75 per hour, a
year's tuition and books were $1200.00 per year). I am now a retired
consulting engineer living quite comfortably, thank you. I own my house,
36 foot sailboat, new car and can live off my savings, except that I
enjoy work and while I am making good money I can share it through
charitable contributions and work.
"It doesn't matter whether you think you can, or whether you think you
can't. You're right" Abraham Lincoln
Mark
Jonah Paul Mainwaring
|>
|> I dare any conservative to live on $8K/yr before taxes. I bet you can't
|> with Mom and Dad to subsidise your housing, or with 8 of your fellow
|> burger boys. Necessities have plain gotten too costly for an increasing
|> number of people. Now, what is the solution to this problem?
Well Ned, many college students live for 9 months on less than $5,000
a year. I personally live on campus right now, and pay about that,
and I even gat maid service and my meals cooked for me! Many people
move off campus in order to save money: A good friend of mine budgets
$5,000 even for living expenses for 2 semseters, and she lives
fairly nicely. Yes, she has two apartment-mates, but if extrapolated
over the remaining months of the year, her costs wouldn't be much higher,
as most apartments near the college make you sign a 12-month lease.
She happens to be conservative, so it appears that your challenge has
been met. Many other college students have done the same.
--
Jonah Mainwaring
Nuke a gay whale for Christ!
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~mainwarj
Ned Kelly
Dennis Heifitz () wrote:
: How strange that all Americans assume living comfortably means owning
: a home and owning a car. Go to Germany, just to mention one prosperous
: country, and you will see mostly apartment buildings and most people
: riding bikes. And they seem to be doing just fine. Only in America is
: a basic subsistence living include owning a home, a car, a VCR and
: wide screen television.
From the top.
The car.
Compare the public transport in Europe to here. Tell me this: Could you
get to work if someone were to steal your care? I'm making the
(dangerous) assumption you're posting from some suburb, where public
transport is notoriously lacking. Why are all the jobs out of reach of
the bus, enforcing car ownership? Could be the attitudes of
suburbanites????
The home. If you were forced to rent, there are no affordable apartments
in good areas. You would have to settle for a high-crime area in a lot of
cases. You can thank zoning laws deliberately designed to keep affordable
housing out of your suburb, After all, low income people drop the
property values, right? You can't have that!
The VCR. Ironically, they are cheaper than SCSI cards. Go figure.
The big-screen telly. What is there to watch?
The home and car are just about necessities, unless you want to run a
gauntlet of beggars, muggers, etc as you go to one of the increasingly
few bus-accessible jobs. Isn't America wonderful, when you post from a
fenced-in subdivision, arsehole? One reason I don't hardly watch the
telly, is so I won't be reminded of everything I can't afford becuse of
the adverts. I don't miss it. I'd like to see you ride a bicycle to work
in the snow.
Ned Kelly
eyl...@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu wrote:
: We should be trying to build a society where average people who do their
: best can lead a decent and productive life -- not be measuring everyone
: by the occasional genius among us. Because some African-American from the
: slums makes it on his initiative and talent doesn't let us off the hook
: in creating a system that allows the average African-American to succeed.
: Because some woman gets to be CEO of a company due to her incredible drive
: and talent doesn't mean we should ignore the discrimination that prevents
: most from advancing to their potential.
accent -aus 100% | sarcasm -100%
You are missing the bloody point of the conservatives. A lack of wealth
at childhood is no excuse for not becoming the next Rupert Murdoch. Their
point is that ANY bloke can do it, given sufficient talent. After all,
look at the basketball players. They are nearly all from heavily
impoverished area, remember? Poverty is no excuse for a lack of success,
and you're supposed to enjoy working your arse off and living in a
cardboard box while they whigne about taxes. Nevermind that 99.999% of
ghetto kids never make, get shot, etc. etc. There is no excuse for
failure, and the only reason for failure is becuse you're in some way
inferiour.
accent -fef
Norman Nithman
As a matter of fact, Gates' family is as rich as hell
and politically connected to boot! How do you think
Gates got that deal with IBM?
And as for the college punk that bragged about living on $5000
a year, you might consider the fact that your university is
heavily substitized (unless you go to Hillsdale).
--
Norman Nithman n...@tezcat.com
Normcam! - http://www.tezcat.com/~nrn/normcam.shtml
Unknown
>Dennis Heifitz () wrote:
>: No family that has only minimum wage earners should have become a
>: family in the first place. It is no excuse to say a family of four
>: can't live on the minimum wage. If the minimum wage is all they are
>: worth, then don't have children. As I see, if a husband and wife each
>: make the minimum wage and work 60 or 70 hours a week, then they will
>: be able to live quite comfortably. Besides, they are too busy working
>With 2 people flipping burgers 60 hours/week as you describe, the
>household income would be 24K/yr, and as you admit, nowhere near enough
>to allow childrearing. As far as living comfortably without the
>anklebiters, you're wrong. As a postal worker, I earn about 22K/yr, and
>it's nowhere near enough to allow car or home ownership.
How strange that all Americans assume living comfortably means owning
a home and owning a car. Go to Germany, just to mention one prosperous
country, and you will see mostly apartment buildings and most people
riding bikes. And they seem to be doing just fine. Only in America is
a basic subsistence living include owning a home, a car, a VCR and
wide screen television.
>
eyl...@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
> There are plenty of people out in the world who started with nothing.
The ones
> that get out of the deadend jobs are the ones who stop feeling sorry for
> themselves and get off of their ass and do something about the situation. You
> think Bill Gates got a little lottery ticket when he was born that gave him
> billions of dollars. No way! He put himself through college (or at least
> until he started Microsoft) and he busted his butt and he continues to
bust his
> butt.
Bill Gates is the son of one of the most prominent lawyers in Seattle; he
was sent to the most expensive and elite private school in Seattle and then
[I think] to Harvard by his rich Daddy. He dropped out to pursue his
business interests. He was born with a couple of silver spoons -- this
doesn't undercut your point that he was both imaginative and hard working -
but he certainly didn't pull himself up by his bootstraps.
And to use someone with Gate's rather unique talents [and wealthy background]
to suggest that 'anyone can do it' is odd. Could anyone produce the
work of Mozart if they 'tried hard' --- hint -- he had both the talent and
a father who trained him from birth to be a musician.
Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales
Perhaps we should move this to talk.politics.real-estate or
something. :-) Seriously, I don't want to move this discussion
too far off topic. But it is easy to get into a hysteria without
checking the facts.
On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Ned Kelly wrote:
> I live in Chicago. AIS is a local ISP. Now, how long ago was the the last
> time you saw the $60K condo? Now, try to find a home for that.
Well, pick up a copy of the local weekly newspaper _The Reader_. You
can find it at many locations throughout the city, esp. in the loop.
Here's an example of a one bedroom condo that you could afford, if
you can get a mortgage for $60,000:
"East of Sheridan, deeded parking! 1 bedroom, 1 bath, newly
refinished hardwood floors. A gem at $47,000. 312-472-2986."
Now, that's really cheap, and although "East of Sheridan"
pretty much guarantees you a nice neighborhood near the
lake, I can't say for sure exactly where this one is. So
you might like this:
"6101 North Sheridan. Charming vintage building. One bedroom
condo. On-site manager with engineer. Priced to sell at #29,500.
Regent realty. 312-929-6091."
That should make a nice starter home for a young couple. Later,
when you need more space, you could try:
"Ravenswood two bedroom condo for sale. Washer/dryer in unit,
storage area in building, owner occupied. $69,900. New Chicago
Real Estate, 312-477-4200."
That's a bit above your price range, of course. But I'm assuming
that if your mortgage approval is for $60,000 you also have some
money saved for a down payment.
Now, what's the point? The point is that it doesn't make sense to act
like a postal worker can't live in Chicago. Obviously, $24,000 a year
won't make you rich. You might consider spending your evenings getting
training so that you can get a better job. But it is absurd to act as
though you can't buy a home, can't save money, etc. You can. But you'll
have to act carefully, focus on the long term, and make quality choices.
--Jimbo
Damion Schubert
<ch...@isaac.biola.edu> wrote:
>Ned Kelly wrote:
>> I dare any conservative to live on $8K/yr before taxes. I bet you can't
>> do it unless: You live at a homeless shelter, aboard an abandoned car,
>> with Mom and Dad to subsidise your housing, or with 8 of your fellow
>> burger boys. Necessities have plain gotten too costly for an increasing
>> number of people. Now, what is the solution to this problem?
>
>Be a volunteer for AmeriCorps and get paid $24K.
>I'm kidding, of course.
You shouldn't be. AmeriCorps has, by all indications, turned out to
be a solid program.
>I am all for making the economy stronger. Balance the budget.
Definitely. 15 cents out of every tax dollar will go to pay for
interest on the national debt, this coming year. Multiply that by
billions, and we have a lot of money we could be spending on anything
else, or give back to the people in the form of a tax break.
>Maybe
>raise the minimum wage a little bit (the jury is still out on this one).
Definitely. Minimum wage is currently not enough money for the
average person to survive and improve himself. If anyone says that
they did it, I would submit that they are not average people.
> Lower taxes for everybody, keeping more money in the private sector.
No. Lowering taxes with the huge debt is just plain irresponsible.
You should pay your credit card bills before the interest makes 'em
worse. I should point out, also, that most money that the government
takes up goes back TO the people of the US of A. There's a glaring
exception. Reputedly, a lot of Japanese companies have been buying
our US bonds. Meaning that 15 cents on the dollar is going overseas.
>Enocurage families to stay together and kids to finish school.
Nice plan, if you can manage it.
>Any problem with these? What else can we add?
Job training and improved education are sorely lacking from your list.
Most people are not adequately trained for the world in which they
live - these are the people who have found their jobs replaced by
computers and robots they don't understand.
Helping the poor and the underemployed to improve their own lot in
life is noble, humane, and financially smart. Needless to say, the
GOP wants to cut education and job training programs.
--damion
---
Damion Schubert
c...@cyberramp.net
"Get outta here, and take your guide dog with you."
- D. Letterman
tyrinon
>>raise the minimum wage a little bit (the jury is still out on this one).
>Definitely. Minimum wage is currently not enough money for the
>average person to survive and improve himself. If anyone says that
>they did it, I would submit that they are not average people.
Beware: Raising the minimum wage at this point would could hurt the
economy. Unemployment at this time in the U.S. is around 5.4% indicating
near full employment. Raising the minimum wage could force layoffs and
may be the catalyst for a recession.
>> Lower taxes for everybody, keeping more money in the private sector.
>
>No. Lowering taxes with the huge debt is just plain irresponsible.
I agree here. The government is walking a thin tightrope right now,
lowering taxes could send the economy into severe inflation, and raising
the minimum wage could send the economy spirialing into recession.
>>Enocurage families to stay together and kids to finish school.
Also encourage parents to play an active role in their children's life.
Let them know that they are there if they need them. Also to warn them
about the temptations of drugs and gangs. Morals and values are not
taught at school, nor should they be. It is the responsibility of the
parents for the moral upbringing of their children.
>Nice plan, if you can manage it.
>
>>Any problem with these? What else can we add?
>Helping the poor and the underemployed to improve their own lot in
>life is noble, humane, and financially smart. Needless to say, the
>GOP wants to cut education and job training programs.
President Clinton's programs for student assistance are wonderful, to cut
these programs would severely undermine the economic and
corporate-industrial power of the United States in the long run.
TCW
> There are plenty of people out in the world who started with nothing.
The ones
> that get out of the deadend jobs are the ones who stop feeling sorry for
> themselves and get off of their ass and do something about the situation. You
> think Bill Gates got a little lottery ticket when he was born that gave him
> billions of dollars. No way! He put himself through college (or at least
> until he started Microsoft) and he busted his butt and he continues to
bust his
> butt. There's plenty of people who have hardships in life and I'm not
going to
> kid myself or anyone else and say life's supposed to be fair, but there is one
> thing I have learned so far, your life is what you make of it. I'm sick off
> people saying that they keep getting beat down and there's no way out of it.
> Everyone's life is up to one person and one person only, the man (or woman) in
> the mirror.
Let me see if I got this straight, the only reason I am not as rich as
Bill Gates is becase I am a lazy SOB. On a more serious note, this is the
sort of overly simplistic drivel that we have become accustomed to from
the right. It is the Nike approach, "just do it", which totally ignores
the fact that some things are too complicated to be solved by
sloganeering.
--
T.C. Wright
Green Oaks Research
go...@flash.net
SAMUEL WEST STEWART
writes:
>
>I am all for making the economy stronger. Balance the budget. Maybe
>one).
The jury is NOT still out on the issue of the deleterious effect on low
income employment of raising the minimum wage rate. Even recent studies
purporting to demonstrate increased fast food sector employment
following an increase in the minimum wage rate in two Eastern seaboard
states have been soundly refuted o the basis of quite faulty sampling
mehodologies.
There is No ambiguity on this issue. The vast, vast majority of
economic studies on this issue admit of no ambiguity. Minimum wage rate
increases result in decreased low income job levels and low income job
opportunities.
This economic reality tends to be obfuscated by the commentary of
individuals who have never created a job or handled a payroll. Marginal
cost increases ( such as required under a mandated increase in minimum
wage rates - not to mention associated and mandated fringe benefit
add-ons ) must be at least offset by equal marginal net revenue
increases or the activity reduces an enterprise's operating margin. If
marginal cost increases are not at least matched, the activity will be
terminated.
Minimum wage increases do not generate increased employee productivity
( except perhaps for a very transient 'satisfaction' or 'relief' impact
), hence do not generate additional marginal net revenue. The primary
offset is usually considered not increased employee productivity, but
product/service price increases. In many sectors of this national
economy, and especially in the fast food sector, competition is so
severe as to preclude price increases to cover the marginal increase in
costs arising from an increase in the minimum wage rate. Rational
employers will not maintain an employee if he/she is operating, from
the enterprise's perspective, at a loss. The employee will be
terminated.
To repeat, the jury is NOT out on this issue of the employment impact
of an increase in minimum wage rates. Minimum wage rate increases will
increase the earnings of minimum wage employees, but ONLY those minimum
wage employees who remain employed, and, from a national perspective,
the government is forced to expend far more incremental resources to
economically assist those employees whose jobs were terminated as a
result of the mandated wage increase.
Dave
Chris Nandor
>
> On Mon, 18 Mar 1996 13:05:38 -0500, Chris Nandor
> <ch...@isaac.biola.edu> wrote:
>
> >Be a volunteer for AmeriCorps and get paid $24K.
> >I'm kidding, of course.
>
> You shouldn't be. AmeriCorps has, by all indications, turned out to
> be a solid program.
Despite the fact that I think it is somewhat incongruous for a volunteer for the government tog et paid more
than a highly-skilled (although young) professional, it is also unconstitutional (re: 10th Amendment). I
don't care how good it is. It is not the State's job.
> > Lower taxes for everybody, keeping more money in the private sector.
>
> No. Lowering taxes with the huge debt is just plain irresponsible.
> You should pay your credit card bills before the interest makes 'emThe economy cannot grow at a decent rate until taxes come down. If the budget is lowered and balanced at the
same time, then what is the problem?
> worse. I should point out, also, that most money that the government
> takes up goes back TO the people of the US of A. There's a glaringBut most of the things our money goes to in the Federal Government is unconstitutional (re (again): 10th
Amendment). And, I might add, anti-democracy and anti-self-governance.
<RANT>When JFK said "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country," the
liberals took "what you can do for your country" to mean "vote Democrat and pay 'your share' of the taxes."
That is not what JFK meant. He meant that the people -- and the states, if necessary -- should do the work of
the people whenever possible, rather than having the State do it. That is what a Republic is. That is what
America is.</RANT>
> >Enocurage families to stay together and kids to finish school.
>
> Nice plan, if you can manage it.It's not hard. Get rid of marriage penalty taxes. Don't encourage single parenthood through the welfare
system. Give school vouchers. Abolish the Dept. of Education.
> >Any problem with these? What else can we add?
>
> Job training and improved education are sorely lacking from your list.
> Most people are not adequately trained for the world in which they
> live - these are the people who have found their jobs replaced by
> computers and robots they don't understand.I mentioned education. Job traning is important; it should come from the private sector, though.
> Helping the poor and the underemployed to improve their own lot in
> life is noble, humane, and financially smart. Needless to say, the
> GOP wants to cut education and job training programs.Abolishing the Dept. of Education is not cutting education. It is abolishing governmet beauraucracy and
control.
And I see no justification in the Constitution for the Federal government running any job training programs
(re: 10th Amendment, yet again).
Art Kirkland
>
>As a matter of fact, Gates' family is as rich as hell
>and politically connected to boot! How do you think
>Gates got that deal with IBM?
>And as for the college punk that bragged about living on $5000
>a year, you might consider the fact that your university is
>heavily substitized (unless you go to Hillsdale).
This is all begging the argument. The opportunity does exist for
anyone to drag themselves up by the bootstraps. The examples are
everywhere, starting with our worthless president. Living on $5000 a
year in college has noting to do with the subsides the college
receives. It has to do with the temporary standard of living you are
willing to endure to improve your lot in life later. Too many folks
are not willing to make any present sacrifice for their future
benefit. They not only want it, they want it all right now.
The opinions expressed here are my own. Can you say as much?
Henry Lustig
[purge]
>Boy, some people are so quick to evaluate others and prescribe
>appropriate lifestyles for them as per their own outlook.
>
We must evaluate and attack the habits of those others who are detrimental to
OUR assets!
>
>And are you prepared to work 60-70 hours per week, Dennis? I would hope
>so, given your apparent eagerness to instruct others to do so if that is
>what it takes. Do you know how much time that involves? Out of a 168 hour
>week, 70 hours is exactly ten hours per day, or 11.6 hours over six days
>with a day of rest. Are you ready to endure almost 12 hour work days,
>Monday through Saturday, should you ever hit economic depravity? And to
>furthermore be restricted from having children should you so desire
>because your fellow Americans don't want to do anything to raise wages to
>provide a decent living?
>
You must work 80 hours or more a week if you want the lifestyle reserved to the
producers. If you are unwilling to do so, crawl into a cave but you are not
entitled to waht is mine!
>I would agree in the sense that someone who cannot provide for a child
>either financially or parentally should not have one. But telling people
>they should not have children and must work 70 hour work weeks because
>we're too stingy to see them get a pay increase is ridiculous.
The do not deserve it-period!
Henry
hlu...@harborside.com
http://harborside.com/home/h/hlustig/
___________________________________________________________________________
To starve a welfare leech: Hide her food stamps under her work-boots!
Chris Nandor
> c...@cyberramp.net (Damion Schubert) wrote:
> >> Lower taxes for everybody, keeping more money in the private sector.
> >
> >No. Lowering taxes with the huge debt is just plain irresponsible.
>
> I agree here. The government is walking a thin tightrope right now,
> lowering taxes could send the economy into severe inflation, and raising
> the minimum wage could send the economy spirialing into recession.
You are assuming that the budget will not be significantly cut. If the budget is cut, taxes can be cut, and
there will be no inflationary dangers whatsoever. People say that a fault with Armey's flat tax is that it
would cause a bigger deficit; but he is assuming in his plan that the budget will be cut. I think that is a
good assumption to work with.
> >Helping the poor and the underemployed to improve their own lot in
> >life is noble, humane, and financially smart. Needless to say, the
> >GOP wants to cut education and job training programs.
>
> President Clinton's programs for student assistance are wonderful, to cut
> these programs would severely undermine the economic and
> corporate-industrial power of the United States in the long run.
How do you figure? Show me where in the Constituion it says that it is the job of the Federal Government to do
these things. Why not the states? The 10th Amendment seems to me to be very clear.
I am all for helping people get a good education. But the Federal Government should not be doing it. That is
not America. That is not a Republic. That is Socialism, and its not the way we are supposed to do thing here.
Are you telling me that the ONLY way to help students is through the Federal Government? I can't believe that.
Chris Nandor
>
> In <314DA5...@isaac.biola.edu> Chris Nandor <ch...@isaac.biola.edu>
> writes:
> >
> >I am all for making the economy stronger. Balance the budget. Maybe
> >raise the minimum wage a little bit (the jury is still out on this
> >one).
> To repeat, the jury is NOT out on this issue of the employment impact
> of an increase in minimum wage rates. Minimum wage rate increases will
> increase the earnings of minimum wage employees, but ONLY those minimum
> wage employees who remain employed, and, from a national perspective,
> the government is forced to expend far more incremental resources to
> economically assist those employees whose jobs were terminated as a
> result of the mandated wage increase.
I disagree, but only slightly. To raise the minimum wage the way Reich wants to would have this deleterious
effect; but I have seen no evidence that a slight increase would have a widespread negative effect. Yes, some
businesses would cut some jobs. But right now there ARE lots of jobs out there. Thousands of positions across
the country remain unfilled, and one of the main reasons for these unfilled positions is low pay rate. You
must facotr this into your equation as well.
I think that overall, a slight increase would benefit the economy as a whole.
Andrew Hall
Chris> I am all for helping people get a good education. But the Federal Government should not be doing it. That is
Chris> not America. That is not a Republic. That is Socialism, and its not the way we are supposed to do thing here.
In what way is it more socialistic to have the feds do something than have
the states do the same thing?
You seem a little confused with this use of the word.
ah
Ned Kelly
Art Kirkland (kio...@magiccarpet.com) wrote:
: receives. It has to do with the temporary standard of living you are
: willing to endure to improve your lot in life later. Too many folks
^^^^^^^
Or able? Do you realise that in many places, it's illegal to do the old
"8 to a room" trick? Would you want to risk your life by living in a
neighbourhood full of crime for a slightly lower rent? Or combine the
two, in severe burger cases? Think before you suggest. Would _you_ want
to _have_ to do any of the above? Before you suggest for people to kill
themselves over a hot grill and live like they do in Mexico, India, etc.
try it yourself.
Homework assignment: Take a bus to work.....if you can find one in your
suburb. If that's too difficult, and I realise it might be, an
alternative assignment is to drive around in any major city...if you dare.
--
Ned Kelly Lives!!!!!!
"Give me 2 trillion tons of antimatter, and I'll remove the world."
Ned Kelly
TCW (go...@flash.net) wrote:
[typical insanity snipped]
: Let me see if I got this straight, the only reason I am not as rich as
: Bill Gates is becase I am a lazy SOB. On a more serious note, this is the
: sort of overly simplistic drivel that we have become accustomed to from
: the right. It is the Nike approach, "just do it", which totally ignores
: the fact that some things are too complicated to be solved by
: sloganeering.
Given how that kind of rubbish is the main course in alt.politics.* I
proposed in alt.config to rmgroup alt.politics.* and newgroup
alt.flame.the-poor as that's what these people are doing. The affluent
are out of touch with their own less affluent coworkers. It's like USENET
with one coworker. I earn $20K/yr at a post office, and I've been working
there "only" 2 years. A coworker of mine has been there for ten years
doing the exact same work as I do. He earns $30K/yr as a result, and has
a wife who makes DOUBLE that! He can't understand why I can't afford a
car and I rent. He talks like money grows on trees. His answer to my
dilemma: Do a bit of overtime! He lives in some fenced-in subdivision,
while I live in the city. He has no idea of how the city is like a Mad
Max flick.
Besides out of touch the well-off don't care. I offered to take $30 of my
money to rent a car to show him the realities of the modern American
city. Like the bastards here on USENET, he balked. What's really sad is
how easy they are to troll. Just post a little reality! Sort of like this
thread.
To make $90K/yr at $10/hr, it would take a LOT of overtime! Sorry, rich
boys, the prescription is neither safe nor effective.
Ned Kelly
Henry Lustig (hlu...@harborside.com) wrote:
: You must work 80 hours or more a week if you want the lifestyle reserved to the
: producers. If you are unwilling to do so, crawl into a cave but you are not
: entitled to waht is mine!
What do you mean "lifestyles of the producers"? Aren't the workers
producing your wealth?
: The do not deserve it-period!
I hope you get carjacked, fuckwit. I guess you think human beings are
empty shampoo bottles.
Come to think of it, I think I remember you from somewhere before..........
Damion Schubert
<ch...@isaac.biola.edu> wrote:
>tyrinon wrote:
>
>> c...@cyberramp.net (Damion Schubert) wrote:
>> >> Lower taxes for everybody, keeping more money in the private sector.
>> >
>> >No. Lowering taxes with the huge debt is just plain irresponsible.
>>
>> I agree here. The government is walking a thin tightrope right now,
>> lowering taxes could send the economy into severe inflation, and raising
>> the minimum wage could send the economy spirialing into recession.
>
>You are assuming that the budget will not be significantly cut. If the budget is cut, taxes can be cut, and
>there will be no inflationary dangers whatsoever. People say that a fault with Armey's flat tax is that it
>would cause a bigger deficit; but he is assuming in his plan that the budget will be cut. I think that is a
>good assumption to work with.
As much as Armey and co would like you to believe this is the truth,
it is not. Especially if the GOP controls all three branches of
government, what is cut is likely to be benefits for the poor. This,
as well as huge tax break both plans will be for the wealthy, will
only serve to widen the gap between the poor and the rich. Doing this
the first time is what made that tightrope so taut in the first place
- we called that period 'Reaganomics'.
>> President Clinton's programs for student assistance are wonderful, to cut
>> these programs would severely undermine the economic and
>> corporate-industrial power of the United States in the long run.
>
>How do you figure? Show me where in the Constituion it says that it is the job of the Federal Government to do
>these things. Why not the states? The 10th Amendment seems to me to be very clear.
>
>I am all for helping people get a good education. But the Federal Government should not be doing it. That is
>not America. That is not a Republic. That is Socialism, and its not the way we are supposed to do thing here.
The voters have long recognized that problems of a national scope may
be recognized by the federal government. This is still, after all, a
Republican Democracy, and people are entitled to make this decision
with their ballots.
You may question the constitutionality of this, if you like, but I
think you'll find that the Supreme Court, who has final say on this,
will go against you as often as not.
Damion Schubert
<ch...@isaac.biola.edu> wrote:
[AmeriCorps]
>Despite the fact that I think it is somewhat incongruous for a volunteer for the government tog et paid more
>than a highly-skilled (although young) professional,
We get between 2 and 3 dollars back in benefits for every dollar we
spend. We also get an educated generation of youngsters who
understand the value of community service. This is a no-brainer.
>it is also unconstitutional (re: 10th Amendment). I
>don't care how good it is. It is not the State's job.
You seem to have a good attitude here. Let me sum up what you just
said: "I don't care how good it is!" We would be in disastrous shape
today if both our state and federal governments hadn't helped us out,
once in a while.
>> No. Lowering taxes with the huge debt is just plain irresponsible.
>> You should pay your credit card bills before the interest makes 'em
>The economy cannot grow at a decent rate until taxes come down.
This is largely guesswork and optimism. The past (in particular, the
80's) have shown that this is not necessarily the case.
>If the budget is lowered and balanced at the
>same time, then what is the problem?
I dare you to come up with a politically feasible plan to balance the
budget. Oh, and you can't touch defense - that's been declared
'off-limits'.
>> worse. I should point out, also, that most money that the government
>> takes up goes back TO the people of the US of A. There's a glaring
>But most of the things our money goes to in the Federal Government is unconstitutional (re (again): 10th
>Amendment). And, I might add, anti-democracy and anti-self-governance.
><RANT>When JFK said "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country," the
>liberals took "what you can do for your country" to mean "vote Democrat and pay 'your share' of the taxes."
>That is not what JFK meant. He meant that the people -- and the states, if necessary -- should do the work of
>the people whenever possible, rather than having the State do it. That is what a Republic is. That is what
>America is.</RANT>
<RANT>What short-sighted neocons fail to see is that the populace, our
populace, elected a body that decided that these were good ideas.
Why? Because the states weren't doing the jobs, and someone needed
to, to strengthen our infrastructure and our job base. The
conservatives may go on and on and claim that liberals did disaster to
our form of government for 40 years, but the voters put them there.
At some point, you have to give the voters some credit for knowing in
which direction they wanted their government to turn.<END RANT>
>> >Enocurage families to stay together and kids to finish school.
>>
>> Nice plan, if you can manage it.
>It's not hard. Get rid of marriage penalty taxes. Don't encourage single parenthood through the welfare
>system. Give school vouchers. Abolish the Dept. of Education.
Wow. I disagree with all of these. Amazing.
>> Job training and improved education are sorely lacking from your list.
>> Most people are not adequately trained for the world in which they
>> live - these are the people who have found their jobs replaced by
>> computers and robots they don't understand.I mentioned education.
>Job traning is important; it should come from the private sector, though.
You don't seem to understand the problem. The problem is that these
people end up being fired by companies who don't give a damn about
them, because they can't do their jobs anymore. At this point, they
have little, if no, money. If they have little, or no, money, then
where the hell is the private sector supposed to come from?
I think the insane thing about NeoCons (and perhaps the reason that I
can't understand them) is that their underlying fear of power is far
different than mine. They hate and fear the government, but see no
problem with overreaching and intrusive multi-million dollar
corporations.
I, alternatively, do not trust these corporations to ultimately do
what is in the best interests of society. They live to serve their
bottom dollar. Aid that they may give along the way is merely a means
to that end.
Companies will do crappy things to us and each other unless the
government steps in. Case in point: the constitution nowhere says
that the government has any role in protecting the populace from
pollutants tossed in teh air by companies too tight-fisted to spend
the money on being clean. The government has one body that it is
responsible to - the people, and that makes it infinitely safer than
pinning our national crises on the hopes that the private sector will
somehow see fit to spend an extra buck on someone who desperately
needs to learn how to do something so that they can eat something more
substantial than Ramen.
>If the budget is lowered and balanced at the
>same time, then what is the problem?
>> Helping the poor and the underemployed to improve their own lot in
>> life is noble, humane, and financially smart. Needless to say, the
>> GOP wants to cut education and job training programs.
>Abolishing the Dept. of Education is not cutting education. It is abolishing governmet beauraucracy and
>control. And I see no justification in the Constitution for the Federal government running any job training programs
>(re: 10th Amendment, yet again).
The constitution does not mention Rural Electrification. The
constitution does not mention building interstate highway systems.
The constitution does not mention Anti-trust legislation. the Center
for Disease Control, the GI Bill, desegregation of schools or national
parks. And yet, all of these are huge successes. Next time you say
"I don't care how good they were," try to imagine where our country
would be now if it weren't for policies like these.
Jimmy Wales
subject heading and trimmed the newsgroups to try to get a more
focussed discussion underway.
Damion Schubert <c...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>[AmeriCorps]
[...]
>We get between 2 and 3 dollars back in benefits for every dollar we
>spend. We also get an educated generation of youngsters who
>understand the value of community service. This is a no-brainer.
This is an instance of a very common economic fallacy, the "fallacy
of the unseen." The basic fallacy is to look at the beneficial results
of some government program (which are visible, because the program is
in place), look at the direct dollar cost of it, and conclude that the
program is effective or a wise use of money if the latter exceeds the
former. But this is a fallacy. Why?
What does *not* enter into this kind of calculation is the _unseen_,
i.e. the projects that were not undertaken because funds were diverted
(by force via taxation) into this project. What would the taxpayers
have done with the same money, had the government not taxed it away?
Generally speaking, government programs operate on a principle of
force for the simple reason that they are *not* viable projects.
You might want to claim that *even though* some government program
is economically infeasible, that it is justified on some other grounds,
but you can't use a flawed economic analysis to defend a *costly*
program as if it were a *good investment*.
-----
Those interested in learning more about proper economic reasoning are
heartily advised to read the excellent short book _Economics in One
Lesson_, by Henry Hazlitt. This book will introduce you to many of
the more common errors in reasoning about economics, and give you the
tools to become a better analyst of political/economic reality.
It doesn't matter *what* your political persuasion is -- conservative,
liberal, socialist, or capitalist -- you need to understand economics
if you want to argue coherently for your views. And what you may find
is that the _moral_ goals that you seek to achieve (justice for the
poor, for example) may not be achieved by the methods that you advocate
(the poor, esp. inner-city blacks, are the biggest _victims_ of the
minimum wage law, for instance).
--Jimbo
eyl...@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
(Andrew Hall) wrote:
> >>>>> Chris Nandor writes:
>
> Chris> I am all for helping people get a good education. But the
Federal Government should not be doing it. That is
> Chris> not America. That is not a Republic. That is Socialism, and
its not the way we are supposed to do thing here.
>
> In what way is it more socialistic to have the feds do something than have
> the states do the same thing?
>
> You seem a little confused with this use of the word.
>
> ah
No you are obviously seriously confused. After having read this
group for awhile, it is clear to me that:
Socialist = anything the poster doesn't like
j
Lance Neustaeter
Lance
--
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
Darwin: It was the logical next step after coming down from the trees.
Frank R. Hipp
>From: eyl...@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
>Subject: Re: Beggars.
>Date: 23 Mar 1996 20:06:59 GMT
And an extremist is anyone not agreeing with a liberal.
Frank R. Hipp
>j
SAMUEL WEST STEWART
>
>
>I hope you get carjacked, fuckwit. I guess you think human beings are
>empty shampoo bottles.
>
>Ned Kelly Lives!!!!!!
>"Give me 2 trillion tons of antimatter, and I'll remove the world."
Hmmm.... Absolutely bowled over by the surgical precision of Ned
Kelly's wit. "fuckwit", "shampoo bottles". Well, its nice to know our
feckless friends on the left are improving their vocabularies. Ned,
try some image other than empty shampoo bottles; the allusion is so
proleteriat. The salary you are paid reflects the open, competitive
market's determination of your worth. In your case, I can only assume
you feel that the market is operating in a less than efficient manner.
Of course, then again, the market might be right, Ned, and what you are
earning is indeed a reflection of your worth.
Dave
Sah-lo
Billy Beck
jwa...@MCS.COM (Jimmy Wales) wrote:
>Damion Schubert <c...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>>[AmeriCorps]
>[...]
>>We get between 2 and 3 dollars back in benefits for every dollar we
>>spend. We also get an educated generation of youngsters who
>>understand the value of community service. This is a no-brainer.
>This is an instance of a very common economic fallacy, the "fallacy
>of the unseen."
<snip>
>Those interested in learning more about proper economic reasoning are
>heartily advised to read the excellent short book _Economics in One
>Lesson_, by Henry Hazlitt.
Not to mention Frederic Bastiat.
Billy
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/free.html
"Rant" updated 2/19/96
Marco Polio
Henry Lustig (hlu...@harborside.com) wrote:
: On 18 Mar 1996 20:53:26 -0800, colo...@crl.com (Scott Matteson) wrote:
: >Boy, some people are so quick to evaluate others and prescribe
: >appropriate lifestyles for them as per their own outlook.
: We must evaluate and attack the habits of those others who are detrimental to
: OUR assets!
Do you realise what you just said, Henry? Can you say that with a German
accent and post the uuencode? Are you trying to say that you would
euthanise anyone whose lifestyle conflicts with your gathering of wealth?
Are you trying to say that you would enforce a totalitarian regime on the
people in order to continue your monetary gain? You are Hitler in the
flesh, but with the wrong accent. Go fuck off and study your German, get
the accent and repost that shite. I'm going to grep that post up on
DejaNews to let all to see, fuckwit.
You, Hitler, are one sick bastard. Now, wash that pea you call a brain
with soap and stay off USENET until you get the bloody clue.
--
Systems Administrator, Rabid Alcoholics War Library.
Subsidiary of the Bizarro War Library (tm).
Marco Polio
Damion Schubert wrote:
: Job traning is important; it should come from the private sector, though.
Since when did employers train people? You should know the story by now:
No expierence, no job.
Ahhhh, Let me guess, the bloke without the money is supposed to pay for
it? With no credit references?
Naaahhhh........
<SARCASM>
You're *supposed* to have an affluent family! If you don't you're
inferior and should be recycled as pet food!
</SARCASM>
Marco Polio
Here is a literary masterpiece from the Fuerher, Henry Lustig!
---Deja Vous!---
From netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.ac.net!pacifier!rainrgnews0!harborside.com!usenet Sat Mar 23 16:29:41 1996
Xref: netcom.com alt.politics.clinton:273069 alt.politics.elections:64969 alt.politics.usa.republican:223971 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:507430 talk.politics.misc:490085 alt.politics.radical-left:97782 alt.flame.rush-limbaugh:18519 talk.politics.misc:490086 chi
.politics:1666 alt.society.sovereign:13327 alt.politics.white-power:46922 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37440 alt.fan.alan-keyes:4147 alt.politics.economics:57561 aus.flame.usa:3167 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:507431 alt.usa-sucks:1902 alt.politics.correct:121
028
Path: netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.ac.net!pacifier!rainrgnews0!harborside.com!usenet
From: hlu...@harborside.com (Henry Lustig)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,chi.politics,alt.society.sovereign,alt.politics.white-power,a
lt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.fan.alan-keyes,alt.politics.economics,aus.flame.usa,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.usa-sucks,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Beggars.
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 17:11:42 GMT
Organization: Ophir Computing
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <3152de3f...@news.harborside.com>
References: <4ifdnb$k...@news.ais.net> <314e2d09...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <4ilek6$b...@crl2.crl.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p07.gb0.harborside.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99d/32.182
On 18 Mar 1996 20:53:26 -0800, colo...@crl.com (Scott Matteson) wrote:
[purge]
>Boy, some people are so quick to evaluate others and prescribe
>appropriate lifestyles for them as per their own outlook.
>
We must evaluate and attack the habits of those others who are detrimental to
OUR assets!
>
>And are you prepared to work 60-70 hours per week, Dennis? I would hope
>so, given your apparent eagerness to instruct others to do so if that is
>what it takes. Do you know how much time that involves? Out of a 168 hour
>week, 70 hours is exactly ten hours per day, or 11.6 hours over six days
>with a day of rest. Are you ready to endure almost 12 hour work days,
>Monday through Saturday, should you ever hit economic depravity? And to
>furthermore be restricted from having children should you so desire
>because your fellow Americans don't want to do anything to raise wages to
>provide a decent living?
>
You must work 80 hours or more a week if you want the lifestyle reserved to the
producers. If you are unwilling to do so, crawl into a cave but you are not
entitled to waht is mine!
>I would agree in the sense that someone who cannot provide for a child
>either financially or parentally should not have one. But telling people
>they should not have children and must work 70 hour work weeks because
>we're too stingy to see them get a pay increase is ridiculous.
The do not deserve it-period!
Henry
hlu...@harborside.com
http://harborside.com/home/h/hlustig/
___________________________________________________________________________
To starve a welfare leech: Hide her food stamps under her work-boots!
---what a nice bloke, eh?---
When are you going to learn how to affect a German accent? It would be
becoming of you, Fuerher.
Dan Thornsberry
>>[AmeriCorps]
>>We get between 2 and 3 dollars back in benefits for every dollar we
>>spend. We also get an educated generation of youngsters who
>>understand the value of community service. This is a no-brainer.
>This is an instance of a very common economic fallacy, the "fallacy
>of the unseen." The basic fallacy is to look at the beneficial results
>of some government program (which are visible, because the program is
>in place), look at the direct dollar cost of it, and conclude that the
>program is effective or a wise use of money if the latter exceeds the
>former. But this is a fallacy. Why?
>--Jimbo
Because it doesn't fit the right wing extremist view that if
it doesn't go to the rich it is wasted money?
Because the money is needed to fund a reduction in
capital gains?
Because you right wing assholes just hate every
single social program?
Because an education is the enemy of conservativism?
--
"Give any senile old fool a credit card and he can
give you the illusion of prosperity" - Ronald Reagan
"Mommie, did the astrologer OK the press conference?" R. Reagan
"I might not be good enough for the US, but I'm
still good enough for Texas" - Phil Gramm
"The guvermint spens two much on edjication" - The GOP
"Come here little girl, I have something for you" - D. Koresh
"I am the NRA" - Timothy McVeigh
"OK son, If you see anyone coming, blast away" - R. Weaver
"Is the cash in the envelope?" - Newt Gingrich
"Yes sir, Mr. Gambino" - Alfonse D'Amato
"Yes sir, Mr. D'Amato" - Kenneth Starr
"When your fans are idiots, facts don't matter" - Rush Limbaugh
"Elect me because I'm too old to try later" - Bob Dole
"Yassuh Boss" - Clarence Thomas
============================================================
| | The GOP wants more guns |
| Dan Thornsberry | |
|tbe...@computek.net | and less education!!! |
| | |
============================================================
The victors called the revolution a triumph of liberty;
but now and then liberty, in the slogans of the strong,
means freedom from restraint in the exploitation of the
weak. -Will Durant
Joseph Benning
I'm suprised with you. Normally you are pretty good at posting factual
information, but you blew it this time.
Edward J. Janik (ja...@sashimi.wwa.com) wrote:
: Yet the Republicans want to effectively lower taxes for the wealthy
: by this "flat tax" which would leave interest income untaxed. Despite
: all the clouding of the issue by Republicans, the fact is that the
: wealthy collect a much higher proportion of their income from interest
: than do the middle class and poor... most of whose income is "earned"
: and therefore would be fully taxed. Go figure.
Let me assure you it's not your fault. You probably read that in the
Inquirer's Chicago editions; Tribune and/or Sun-Times. Sorry Inquirer for
mudding your image with these shameless rags.
Check out the facts on flat taxes, see how you fare, if you have a forms
type browser, you can use the fill in table:
http://www.usatoday.com
Cheers,
Joseph Benning
--
http://www.ecnet.net/users/ujbennin/home.html ujbe...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
Northeastern Illinois University Chicago, Illinois, USA 60625
Joseph Benning
of trimming the followups to chi.politics. I don't know if that was good,
but its where I lurk.)
What good is minimum wage if someone gives it to you? Give someone
something they haven't earned and they don't appreciate its value. Make
someone earn their wages, let someone bargain for better working
conditions, and they can appreciate what they earned.
Most likely, minimum wage started off as a good intention, but this
unnatural social engineering is slowly destroying the middle class, which
exists solely because of organized labor.
Minimum wage is an effective tool for destroying organized labor. The gap
widens between minimum wage workers and top end. Everyone in the work
force is valuable, or business wouldn't hire them. But, you can't pay
dividends on the sale of widgets, if your wages are so low that no one
makes widgets, or if your workforce is producing defective widgets.
Go ahead, take your operation out of the USA, with strong organized labor,
a boycott is effective. Without it, we have an unequal playing field. The
paradox, if labor isn't working at organized labor wages, they can't
afford unnecessary expenses, such as a new widget.
Destruction of organized labor predisposes the decline of organized labor
earned benefits: Health care coverage, 40 hour work week, retirement
pensions, educational benefits and retirement health care coverage. Now
we're asking government to provide us with socialism. With tax laws
written by fat cat lobbyists, guess who really pays the taxes of
government!
The cliche: Americans can't compete in the world market place with their
high wages = BS. Look down the coffee maker isle at a store. Well I'll be,
(pun intended) the least expensive, and best value was made right here in
the good ol' USA. Funny how some imports, which pay slave wages, were more
expensive.
Wake up self-proclaimed liberals, you've done no one a favor pushing for
minimum wage increases. Cut the unnatural social engineering. Let people
do for themselves, what they should do for themselves. Organized labor is a
naturally occurring check and balance which belongs in a capitalist
economic structure. A rising tide of naturally occurring wages raises all
the boats. We'll all prosper, including our former beggars.
Your comments, critiques, and non-ad hominem remarks solicited.
William R. Discipio Jr
: Because it doesn't fit the right wing extremist view that if
: it doesn't go to the rich it is wasted money?
Thus spoke a left wing extremist...
: Because the money is needed to fund a reduction in
: capital gains?
: Because you right wing assholes just hate every
: single social program?
Remember, Dan, the definition you posted of 'liberal' disallows bigotry.
: Because an education is the enemy of conservativism?
That's so ironic.
: --
: "Give any senile old fool a credit card and he can
: give you the illusion of prosperity" - Ronald Reagan
: "Mommie, did the astrologer OK the press conference?" R. Reagan
: "I might not be good enough for the US, but I'm
: still good enough for Texas" - Phil Gramm
: "The guvermint spens two much on edjication" - The GOP
: "Come here little girl, I have something for you" - D. Koresh
: "I am the NRA" - Timothy McVeigh
: "OK son, If you see anyone coming, blast away" - R. Weaver
: "Is the cash in the envelope?" - Newt Gingrich
: "Yes sir, Mr. Gambino" - Alfonse D'Amato
: "Yes sir, Mr. D'Amato" - Kenneth Starr
: "When your fans are idiots, facts don't matter" - Rush Limbaugh
: "Elect me because I'm too old to try later" - Bob Dole
: "Yassuh Boss" - Clarence Thomas
: ============================================================
: | | The GOP wants more guns |
: | Dan Thornsberry | |
: |tbe...@computek.net | and less education!!! |
: | | |
: ============================================================
: The victors called the revolution a triumph of liberty;
: but now and then liberty, in the slogans of the strong,
: means freedom from restraint in the exploitation of the
: weak. -Will Durant
--
crl23% finger volt...@chelsea.ios.com
Login: voltai29 Name: Jim KennemurXAXX
Directory: /u/u9/voltai29 Shell: /usr/local/bin/tcsh
No Mail.
William O'Connor
>
>>Socialist = anything the poster doesn't like
>
>And an extremist is anyone not agreeing with a liberal.
>
>Frank R. Hipp
>
Sorry, but you are mistaken. Anyone not agreeing with a liberal is a racist. Or worse yet, a NAZI!
William
"Say nothing and people will think your stupid.
Open your mouth and you will remove all doubt.
Unknown"
Zepp
si...@ix.netcom.com(SAMUEL WEST STEWART) wrote:
>There is No ambiguity on this issue. The vast, vast majority of
>economic studies on this issue admit of no ambiguity. Minimum wage rate
>increases result in decreased low income job levels and low income job
>opportunities.
This is, purely, not true. Those studies have all shown the direct
opposite. At WORST, the number of minimum-wage jobs remain static for a
month or so. Your statement is a pure invention.
> Rational
>employers will not maintain an employee if he/she is operating, from
>the enterprise's perspective, at a loss. The employee will be
>terminated.
Rational EMLOYEES eventually tire of a policy that turns them into slaves.
Have you noticed a sharp increase in enrollment in labor unions of late?
*********************************************************************
Unrestrained capitalism -must- eventually result in the gas chambre.
At best, it results in beggers in the town square as the superfluous
are pushed out of the mainstream of society. In any given society,
25-75% of the citizenry are just not cost-effective, and must be
eliminated.
*********************************************************************
Gary - KJ6Q
>
>Dennis Heifitz () wrote:
>
>: How strange that all Americans assume living comfortably means owning
>: a home and owning a car. Go to Germany, just to mention one prosperous
>: country, and you will see mostly apartment buildings and most people
>: riding bikes. And they seem to be doing just fine. Only in America is
>: a basic subsistence living include owning a home, a car, a VCR and
>: wide screen television.
WOW, *THANK YOU* and HOLD THAT THOUGHT!
You have just (inadvertantly) underscored one of my favorite points to
those in this country who advocate that WE become more like those
WONDERFUL European countries.
How would most citizens in THIS country like to:
1. Be forced to live in apartments, because private ownership of
subdivision-style single family hames is nearly non-existent - because
well-heeled landlords and corporations WANT it that way.
2. Be forced to walk, or ride bicycles - because you would have no place
to PARK a car even if you HAD one, and couldn't afford the gas to drive
it anyway. What FUN to take the family on a visit to grandma's over in
the next village, several bicycles and a few hours each way should do it
- sure hope it doesn't rain or snow...
3. Pay *MORE* for just about EVERYTHING, food, clothing, and *MANY*
things we in this country enjoy as the result of our capitalistic
society, which keeps free enterprise and competitive business aggressive
and prices lower than just about ANYWHERE on earth in relation to
earnings. Don't believe it? You should see these Europeans frantically
shop for clothing, cigarettes, booze, and MANY items they can buy much
more cheaply HERE that back home. I have even heard that some of them are
able to substantially recover the cost of their visit here by selling
these U.S. purchased goods back home, at a PROFIT of course - just like
us hated Capitalists...
4. And finally, COMPLETELY overlooked by the above poster, pay some of
the *HIGHEST* per capita taxes among Socialist countries - and GOLLY,
wasn't *TAXES* what he was bitching about...?
AGAIN, *THANKS* for helping me make my point about the U.S.A. vs.
European societies.
--
Gary... KJ6Q... I am the NRA | Annoy a Liberal - say NO to gun control!
============================ | Annoy a Democrat - say BYE BYE CLINTON!
Those who choose to "beat |==================================
their swords into plowshares"| "It's *EASY* to be a liberal, it's
may end up *PLOWING* for | OTHER people's money you are giving
those who DON'T! | away! (or living off of!)
John D. Gleason
>Because an education is the enemy of conservativism?
Mr. Wales presented a thesis and went on to defend it in a rational
manner, using principles of economics.
Mr. Thornsberry's response was to use profanity and make sweeping
generalizations. The implied proof is "Because I say so."
Which example looks like education to you?
--
John D. Gleason <john.g...@bc.edu>
Brook Young
>In article <4j1dn7$n...@Mars.mcs.com>, jwa...@MCS.COM says...
>
>>>[AmeriCorps]
>
>>>spend. We also get an educated generation of youngsters who
>>>understand the value of community service. This is a no-brainer.
>
>>of the unseen." The basic fallacy is to look at the beneficial results
>>of some government program (which are visible, because the program is
>>in place), look at the direct dollar cost of it, and conclude that the
>>program is effective or a wise use of money if the latter exceeds the
>>former. But this is a fallacy. Why?
>
>>--Jimbo
>
>it doesn't go to the rich it is wasted money?
You are implying that wealth (at least most of it) is attained by the
munificience of the government.
>Because the money is needed to fund a reduction in
>capital gains?
You don't *fund* a reduction in capital gains. The existence of capital gains
implys that investment income has been earned by the investor. If capital
gains taxes are eliminated, then the investor receives his *full* return on
investment, as opposed to the government taking a portion. This doesn't
require addition funds, it requires the absence of government intervention.
Brook A. Young b_y...@cc.colorado.edu
"Inflation is the opium of the people." Henry Hazlitt
E. Elizabeth Bartley
>In article <4isj11$h...@cloner2.ix.netcom.com>,
> si...@ix.netcom.com(SAMUEL WEST STEWART) wrote:
>>There is No ambiguity on this issue. The vast, vast majority of
>>economic studies on this issue admit of no ambiguity. Minimum wage rate
>>increases result in decreased low income job levels and low income job
>>opportunities.
>This is, purely, not true. Those studies have all shown the direct
>opposite. At WORST, the number of minimum-wage jobs remain static for a
>month or so. Your statement is a pure invention.
Cite your studies. I'm aware of ONE study (Card-Krueger) which found
that hikes in the minimum wage boosted low-wage employment. It has
since been discredited by another study (Neumark-Wascher) which looked
at the SAME times and places with better methodology.
--- --- ---
From: do...@news.gate.net (Doug Andersen)
Message-ID: <3t50ti$2e...@navajo.gate.net>
Which Card and Krueger study? The one in NJ and Pennsylvania? The one
where they phoned fast food restaurants and asked the managers to
estimate their wages and number of employees? The one that was refuted
by the Neumark/Wascher study which went back to the same places and
got the actual real payroll data and found that Card/Krueger survey data
differed signficantly from the real data. The Card/Krueger study which
didn't bother to define terms like "part-time"?
--- --- ---
I know of no other studies which found that raising the minimum wage
did not decrease employment.
--
- E. Elizabeth Bartley "I believe that Western civilization, after some
disgusting glitches, has become almost civilized. I believe it is our first
duty to protect that civilization. I believe it is our second duty to improve
it. I believe it is our third duty to extend it if we can." - P. J. O'Rourke
Dan Thornsberry
>Brook A. Young b_y...@cc.colorado.edu
Oh sure. Even the brown shirts wouldn't try to give
away money to the rich without first cutting it from
a social program. Increases the deficit dontcha know?
I don't think they will be trying any of their trickle
down scams in an election year. Can you say revenue
neutral Brook?
Frank R. Hipp
>William
I stand corrected.
Frank
Ottermorf
Jimmy Wales
I wrote:
>>This is an instance of a very common economic fallacy, the "fallacy
>>of the unseen." The basic fallacy is to look at the beneficial results
>>of some government program (which are visible, because the program is
>>in place), look at the direct dollar cost of it, and conclude that the
>>program is effective or a wise use of money if the latter exceeds the
>>former. But this is a fallacy. Why?
Dan Thornsbury wrote:
>Because it doesn't fit the right wing extremist view that if
>it doesn't go to the rich it is wasted money?
I'm not a right winger at all. I think you missed an important point of
my post. *No* political argument is helped by poor economic analysis. There
is a very common fallacy that you should be aware of -- it consists of
looking only at the things that get *done* by government, and ignoring all
the things that people *couldn't* do because the government diverted
resources.
>Because you right wing assholes just hate every
>single social program?
I do not believe that calling people "assholes" is a valid means of argument.
This, too, is a logical fallacy -- the fallacy of attacking the speaker
rather than addressing the argument.
>Because an education is the enemy of conservativism?
But the *key* point of my post is that *if you wish to be a responsible
political advocate* then it is _morally imperative_ that you get some
economic education. Do the policies that you support actually achieve
the goals that you intend? If not, then you are doing more harm than
good.
>"Yassuh Boss" - Clarence Thomas
This is an extremely racist remark. The presumption, of course, is that
because Clarence Thomas is black and believes in individual rights, he must
be some kind of slave-mentality. The concept of a black man willing to
stand up and say that people are responsible for their own lives is anathema
to some. Why? Because the concept of an independent-minded black man is
not possible to paternalists.
--Jimbo
Carson Powell
wrote:
>Oh sure. Even the brown shirts wouldn't try to give
>away money to the rich without first cutting it from
>a social program. Increases the deficit dontcha know?
>
REPRESENTATION! Does this mean that the Federal government can tax
non benificaries of a social program in order to finance it? I do
not think that people who are not benificaries are being
constitutiolally represented for tax purposes. Taxing non
benificaries to finance a social program is un-constitutioal!
__________________________________________________________________________________
Carson Powell <cnpo...@aone.com> The Self Guided Individual
USENET NEWSGROUPS READ!
* ALT.PHILOSOPHY.OBJECTIVISM * ALT.NEO-TECH
* ALT.INDIVIDUALISM * ( ANY FORSALE GROUP )
My philosophy is my own! Even if it coresponds in areas to yours!
Language Vocabulary: The variable containers of conceptual
thought and integrated knowledge puzzle pieces. Have you integrated
a new thought today?
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
.
Michael Huemer
>In article <4j1dn7$n...@Mars.mcs.com>, jwa...@MCS.COM says...
>>of the unseen." The basic fallacy is to look at the beneficial results
>>of some government program (which are visible, because the program is
>>in place), look at the direct dollar cost of it, and conclude that the
>>program is effective or a wise use of money if the latter exceeds the
>>former. But this is a fallacy. Why?
>Because it doesn't fit the right wing extremist view that if
>it doesn't go to the rich it is wasted money?...
[other rude remarks snipped]
Jimbo's question was a good one, and Dan's rude and irrational
response does nothing to further discussion.
Of course, I already know the answer to the question, but I will
answer anyway:
It's a fallacy because you have to compare the benefits of the
program, not against its dollar costs, but against the value of what
other things could have been done with the same money. The argument
only takes into account 'the seen' and not 'the unseen' (i.e. the
alternate possibilities that weren't realized.
In short, the fallacy is that it neglects to take account of
*opportunity costs*.
--
^-----^
Michael Huemer <o...@rci.rutgers.edu> / O O \
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~owl | V |
\ /
Ned Kelly
SAMUEL WEST STEWART (si...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Kelly's wit. "fuckwit", "shampoo bottles". Well, its nice to know our
: feckless friends on the left are improving their vocabularies. Ned,
: try some image other than empty shampoo bottles; the allusion is so
From what I've seen of corporate behaviour, the empty shampoo bottle bit
is a perfect metaphor of how corporations think of workers they lay off.
Absolutely unconcerned about the consequences of the layoffs, like the
disrupted families for example. Why should AT&T's kingpin care? He'll get
his raise! Tell me of any corporation that really gives a shit about it's
workers. Better yet, I'll give you a clue:
None.
--
Ned Kelly Lives!!!!!!
"Give me 2 trillion tons of antimatter, and I'll remove the world."
WARNING: Unsolicited adverts in my mailbox are subject to a fee of one
million American dollars for processing. The act of emailing constitutes
acceptance to these terms.
dannie hawkins
snip...
:those in this country who advocate that WE become more like those
:WONDERFUL European countries.
:How would most citizens in THIS country like to:
:1. Be forced to live in apartments, because private ownership of
:subdivision-style single family hames is nearly non-existent - because
:well-heeled landlords and corporations WANT it that way.
It's a matter of population density. Don't you think home lots would be
Much more expensive because of demand. England (UK) has approximately
640 people per square mile, while the U.S. has about 79 pr.sq. mi.
Germany's population density is close to the UK's, around 580. Holland
and Belgium are even More crowded. Together they average close to _1000_
pr sq. mile.
White growth rate in much of Europe is NO growth, and in Russia, the
population is not even replacing itself. This is probably true for other
European countries also.
It is non whites who contribute to population growth in Europe today,
just as they are now responsible for practically All human growth on
Earth.
:2. Be forced to walk, or ride bicycles - because you would have no place
:to PARK a car even if you HAD one, and couldn't afford the gas to drive
:it anyway. What FUN to take the family on a visit to grandma's over in
:the next village, several bicycles and a few hours each way should do it
:- sure hope it doesn't rain or snow...
Do you think it's funny that your white ancestors have it so much harder
than you?? enjoy yourself while you can, because your disney world is
Not going to last much longer.
:3. Pay *MORE* for just about EVERYTHING, food, clothing, and *MANY*
:things we in this country enjoy as the result of our capitalistic
:society which keeps free enterprise and competitive business aggressive
:and prices lower than just about ANYWHERE on earth in relation to
:earnings.
European countries are capitalistic also, altho they have experimented
more with socialism than we have, hence, higher taxation.
Even tho they are more burdened with population density, and the lack of
minerals, etc., than the u.s., the chances are Much greater that the
u.s. system will crash first.
:Don't believe it? You should see these Europeans frantically
:shop for clothing, cigarettes, booze, and MANY items they can buy much
:more cheaply HERE that back home.
While you are so content with life here, your system is rotting Right
Under Your Nose, yet you fail to smell it.
: I have even heard that some of them are able to substantially recover the
:cost of their visit here by selling these U.S. purchased goods back home,
:at a PROFIT of course - just like us hated Capitalists...
If the face of capitalism is a person whose First interest is in
_things_ instead of _Blood and Soil_, then they're are not worth the
powder to blow their brains out.
:4. And finally, COMPLETELY overlooked by the above poster, pay some of
:the *HIGHEST* per capita taxes among Socialist countries - and GOLLY,
:wasn't *TAXES* what he was bitching about...?
And finally, COMPLETELY overlooked by the above poster, his racial
family has NO future, if [they] had to depend upon people like him.
:Gary... KJ6Q... I am the NRA | Annoy a Liberal
All you're gonna do is Talk Shit.
>- say NO to gun control!
Why? You'll Never use a weapon for the sake of your people.... your
racial Blood.. You're just a materialist asshole.
--
WAR [$3 per or 30yr.u.s.] met...@cts.com
POB 65 [$40ca / $50 foreign] VOICE/FAX 619-728-9817
FALLBROOK,CA 92088 usa
619-723-8996 (recorded msg.updated every Sun.5pm pacific)
900-336-2020 ext.573 (5min.msg.$2per min.)
http://www.free.cts.com/crash/m/metzger
ftp://ftp.cts.com/pub/metzger [WAR articles etc.]
J.R. Bob Dobbs
>What good is minimum wage if someone gives it to you? Give someone
>something they haven't earned and they don't appreciate its value. Make
>someone earn their wages, let someone bargain for better working
>conditions, and they can appreciate what they earned.
>Most likely, minimum wage started off as a good intention, but this
>unnatural social engineering is slowly destroying the middle class, which
>exists solely because of organized labor.
No,wrong, the minimum wage was start to eleveate the sweat shop wages that
used to be the norm in the US. Before big,bad labor foisted the min. wage on
america, the average worker hardly advanced in wages.
>Minimum wage is an effective tool for destroying organized labor.
Please explain this. How in god's name does the min. wage hurt labor.
gap>widens between minimum wage workers and top end. Everyone in the work
>force is valuable, or business wouldn't hire them. But, you can't pay
>dividends on the sale of widgets, if your wages are so low that no one
>makes widgets, or if your workforce is producing defective widgets.
But, as often is the case when the US economy gets out of whack, as in the
80's and 90's, those that control business,hoard wealth for themselves,
and dole out little to their workers,those that produce the wealth. Once
again,unless evil unions step in again,nothing will change.
>Go ahead, take your operation out of the USA, with strong organized labor,>a
boycott is effective. Without it, we have an unequal playing field.
The>paradox, if labor isn't working at organized labor wages, they
can't>afford unnecessary expenses, such as a new widget.
>Destruction of organized labor predisposes the decline of organized labor
>earned benefits: Health care coverage, 40 hour work week, retirement
>pensions, educational benefits and retirement health care coverage. Now
>we're asking government to provide us with socialism. With tax laws
>written by fat cat lobbyists, guess who really pays the taxes of
>government!
>The cliche: Americans can't compete in the world market place with their
>high wages = BS. Look down the coffee maker isle at a store. Well I'll be,
>(pun intended) the least expensive, and best value was made right here in
>the good ol' USA. Funny how some imports, which pay slave wages, were more
>expensive.
>Wake up self-proclaimed liberals, you've done no one a favor pushing for
>minimum wage increases. Cut the unnatural social engineering. Let people
>do for themselves, what they should do for themselves. Organized labor is a
>naturally occurring check and balance which belongs in a capitalist
>economic structure. A rising tide of naturally occurring wages raises all
>the boats. We'll all prosper, including our former beggars.
Thus,I assume, that you prefer the usual social darwinism that is found
in Central America and South America,and many areas of Asia,which is the
usual result of allowing unchecked capitalism. In these fine localities, the
people aren't hindered by the nasty min. wage.
Have you ever looked at the status of "all boats" in these countries?
I don't know what world you live in, by in my world, life for the average
worker in those countries suck.
CLARKTJ
For your consideration, you are invited to partake in a semi-private
newswire for the free distribution of non-mainstream media stories. This
wire is for the benefit of both publishers and writers of this brand of
information.
Proposed Standards for the Liberty Newswire:
1. The purpose of the LN is to provide a means for anti-mainstream
publications and writers to share stories over the broadest possible
audience. Let’s face it the Internet Newsgroups do not really paper our
communities with the truth, so your contribution to newsletters that do
paper the truth can help restore the American Republic by getting your
message out to the "undecided".
2. This is not a debate forum, rather it is an article submission and
selection forum. The purpose is to simply submit or choose stories for
publication.
3. Utilizes private Email mailing list. In an effort to keep the
newswire orderly, please do not "reply to all", or take it upon yourself
to distribute the email address list. Send your posts to the
administrator (please don’t use your cc: capabilities to route the story
to the members of the newswire). Currently, the administrator’s address
is cla...@aol.com.
4. This wire is not to be fed to folks to merely read. It is
semi-private for publishers and writers.
5. Publishers are not required to write, and writers are not required to
publish. If you want to contribute without receiving everyone else’s
articles you may do so by sending a message to the administrator.
Publishers:
1. If you run a story from the LN, the writer expects you to publish the
story unedited, unless otherwise expressed. Also, he may require other
stipulations with regard to publishing his articles, and you are expected
to honor those stipulations.
2. Writers can place an advertisement at end of article i.e. For a
complete report send $15 to John Doe Writer, 123 Main Street, Anytown,
Anystate 12345. Attn: Anystory.
Writers:
1. Place a consistent by-line at the top of the story i.e. PUBLIUS, Tom
Clark, etc… This is a courtesy so that if a publisher can easily find
his/her preferred writers.
2. You may stipulate conditions and payment for articles (although I
encourage you to seek compensation via publisher standard #2). The
newswire cannot enforce this policy and cannot audit the publishers – this
forum is an "honor system" forum.
Barring any objections these standards are in effect immediately.
If you have any suggestions to amend these standards please submit them.
~Tom Clark, 3/22/96
Administrator Pro Tempore
P.S. Respond to cla...@aol.com. Any volunteers to adminstrate this
thing?
CLARKTJ
#1. Filters out socialists and communists.
#2. Discusses and shares information for the restoration of the Republic.
#3. Would be generally compatible with my effort:
To promote: The truth, Christian principles, the peace & prosperity, and
the rights of Man. The God-given right to Life, Liberty, and Property,
and for the protection thereof via:
1. American common law,
2. an armed and prepared citizenry, and
3. an honest money system:
a) The abolishment of private control of the issue of U.S.
currency.
b) The abolishment of fractional reserves and other usury
practices.
And further, promoting honest government which ought to manage only those
services that are:
1. Peculiar to the keeping of the peace, or
2. for the general welfare of all citizens, or
3. would create a monolopy for private interests to control.
I.E. such things as peace officer programs, roads, and sewer systems.
These functions must be funded. However, this does not mean funded by any
means. Revenue should be obtained fairly through:
1. Use taxes i.e.
a) Fuel tax to pay for road construction & maintenance.
b) Sewer tax to pay for sewer construction & maintenance, etc.
2. Captitation tax (head tax to fund shortfalls).
And further, promoting an honest, peaceful, and prosperous society
requires:
1. A free but fair market,
2. ending corporate, farm, and social welfare subsidies via
entitlement programs and tax policies.
3. Privatization (selling) of public school systems.
And further, promoting the restoration of the Constitution for the United
States of America by standing against a one world government, the erosion
of America’s manufacturing capabilities,
Thank You,
~Tom Clark
Thomas M. Buccelli
} On Mon, 18 Mar 1996 13:05:38 -0500, Chris Nandor
} <ch...@isaac.biola.edu> wrote:
} >Ned Kelly wrote:
} >> I dare any conservative to live on $8K/yr before taxes. I bet you can't
} >> do it unless: You live at a homeless shelter, aboard an abandoned car,
} >> with Mom and Dad to subsidise your housing, or with 8 of your fellow
} >> burger boys. Necessities have plain gotten too costly for an increasing
} >> number of people. Now, what is the solution to this problem?
} >
} >Be a volunteer for AmeriCorps and get paid $24K.
} >I'm kidding, of course.
} You shouldn't be. AmeriCorps has, by all indications, turned out to
} be a solid program.
Aren't they missing something like $500 million, money they have no
idea (or at least don't want to admit) where it went?
[... snip snip snip ...]
Tom
--
Thomas M. Buccelli (t...@idm.com)
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Ricardo
>From: eyl...@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
>Subject: Re: Beggars.
>Date: 20 Mar 1996 15:54:44 GMT
>In article <4iland$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, Joshua Schriver <schriver> wrote:
Also wasn't Bill the one who said we'll never need more than 640K . Not to
mention that he "borrowed" others ideas.
L...@mdli.com
In article <3156fa40....@news.aone.com>, <cnpo...@aone.com> writes:
>
> On 25 Mar 1996 05:38:45 GMT, tbe...@computek.net (Dan Thornsberry)
> wrote:
> >Oh sure. Even the brown shirts wouldn't try to give
> >away money to the rich without first cutting it from
> >a social program. Increases the deficit dontcha know?
> > Can you say revenue neutral Brook?
> >
> The constitution says that there will be NO TAXATION WITHOUT
> REPRESENTATION! Does this mean that the Federal government can tax
> non benificaries of a social program in order to finance it? I do
> not think that people who are not benificaries are being
> constitutiolally represented for tax purposes. Taxing non
> benificaries to finance a social program is un-constitutioal!
>
Second. In this country, everyone is represented. You may not like your
representitive, but then you are free to vote against them.
_______________________________________________________________________________
___
>
> Carson Powell <cnpo...@aone.com> The Self Guided Individual
>
> USENET NEWSGROUPS READ!
> * ALT.PHILOSOPHY.OBJECTIVISM * ALT.NEO-TECH
> * ALT.INDIVIDUALISM * ( ANY FORSALE GROUP )
>
> My philosophy is my own! Even if it coresponds in areas to yours!
> Language Vocabulary: The variable containers of conceptual
> thought and integrated knowledge puzzle pieces. Have you integrated
> a new thought today?
> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
> ..
>
Ned Kelly
Thomas M. Buccelli (t...@idm.com) wrote:
: Aren't they missing something like $500 million, money they have no
: idea (or at least don't want to admit) where it went?
500 megabucks only? I still like the S&Ls and the 500 GIGAbucks that the
GOP got away with, ^^^^
I could always use a gigabuck or so, to buy my way down under.....
Kirk L.
>Thomas M. Buccelli (t...@idm.com) wrote:
>: Aren't they missing something like $500 million, money they have no
>: idea (or at least don't want to admit) where it went?
>500 megabucks only? I still like the S&Ls and the 500 GIGAbucks that the
>GOP got away with, ^^^^
>I could always use a gigabuck or so, to buy my way down under.....
You must really love Clinton then. In his first two budgets, FY1994
and FY1995, he increased the debt by $610 Billion. Clinton's gross
deficits so far are larger than seven out of eight of Reagan's gross
budget deficits and equivalent to the eighth.
Damion Schubert
wrote:
>} >Be a volunteer for AmeriCorps and get paid $24K.
>} >I'm kidding, of course.
>
>} You shouldn't be. AmeriCorps has, by all indications, turned out to
>} be a solid program.
>
>idea (or at least don't want to admit) where it went?
I have not heard of this. If you have a news article you could point
me to, I'd appreciate it.
--damion
-----
c...@cyberramp.net
"Reagan is the man to whom we Americans owe a debt
that we will never be able to repay." -- R.Limbaugh
Zepp
wrote:
>You must really love Clinton then. In his first two budgets, FY1994
>and FY1995, he increased the debt by $610 Billion. Clinton's gross
>deficits so far are larger than seven out of eight of Reagan's gross
>budget deficits and equivalent to the eighth.
>
Is Rush trying to rewrite the economy again? This is the second time in a
week that I've seen this particular howler, and even by Rush standards,
it's a particularly dumb lie.
___________________________________________________________________________
"... We spent a lot of money on a war we couldn't win (Viet
Nam) and a lot of money on a war we already won (Soviet Union). What
does that tell you about our relationship with war?"
Roger B Olsen
___________________________________________________________________________
Norman Nithman
>In article <4jd3jd$p...@news.infocom.net>, kir...@infocom.net (Kirk L.)
>wrote:
>
>>You must really love Clinton then. In his first two budgets, FY1994
>>and FY1995, he increased the debt by $610 Billion. Clinton's gross
>>deficits so far are larger than seven out of eight of Reagan's gross
>>budget deficits and equivalent to the eighth.
>>
>Is Rush trying to rewrite the economy again? This is the second time in a
>week that I've seen this particular howler, and even by Rush standards,
>it's a particularly dumb lie.
>
This guys usually omit such things as adjusting for inflation, etc.
An interesting book along these lines is one of Bennett's efforts
with a title like The Index of Cultural Indicators.
It contains a bunch of graphs interleaved with apocalypic quotes
from ultrarightists and a few moderates having a bad day. The one graph
I remember plotted spending on education vs. SAT scores over time.
While failing to account for inflation or the increase in people taking
the SAT, Bennett used gross differences scaling each axis in
a disingenuous (read lie) attempt to show an inverse relationship
between spending and test scores.
Of course, the book was heartily endorsed by Rush Limbaugh.
--
Norman Nithman n...@tezcat.com http://www.tezcat.com/~nrn
evil Beavis
I think you need to leave then. The U.S. government will never be the minimalist "night
watchman" nation that you self-righteous christian paranoids fantasize about. Most of
this society is progressive and has no time for losers like you in the future. American
is moving ahead with or without you - and probably despite you!
eB
Frank Palmer
In article...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Joseph Benning)
ujbe...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Joseph Benning) Writes:
Uj> Ed:
Uj> I'm suprised with you. Normally you are pretty good at posting factual
Uj> information, but you blew it this time.
Uj> Edward J. Janik (ja...@sashimi.wwa.com) wrote:
Uj> : Yet the Republicans want to effectively lower taxes for the wealthy
Uj> : by this "flat tax" which would leave interest income untaxed.
Uj> Despite : all the clouding of the issue by Republicans, the fact is
Uj> that the : wealthy collect a much higher proportion of their income
Uj> from interest : than do the middle class and poor... most of whose
Uj> income is "earned" : and therefore would be fully taxed. Go figure.
Uj> Let me assure you it's not your fault. You probably read that in the
Uj> Inquirer's Chicago editions; Tribune and/or Sun-Times. Sorry Inquirer
Uj> for mudding your image with these shameless rags.
Uj> Check out the facts on flat taxes, see how you fare, if you have a
Uj> forms type browser, you can use the fill in table:
Uj> http://www.usatoday.com
Various "flat-tax" proposals do, indeed, propose rates which will
lower other rates than those for the rich. They do it, however, by lowering
TOTAL tax collection disastrously. We saw it in '81: Cut taxes for the rich
and a little for everybody else; OOPS, we can't live with this deficit;
we'll not extend the cuts so far as they were scheduled. When the smoke
cleared and the mirrors were put away, top tax brackets were MUCH lower,
median-income families were paying slightly more, and the debt had
doubled.
--
Frank Palmer
flpa...@ripco.com
Frank Palmer
In article: <4j4qtn$g...@lace.colorado.edu>
b_y...@cc.colorado.edu writes:
>In article <4j2g4f$f...@news.computek.net>, tbe...@computek.net (Dan
Tb> Thornsberry) writes:
>>Because the money is needed to fund a reduction in
>>capital gains?
>You don't *fund* a reduction in capital gains. The existence of capital
>gains
>implys that investment income has been earned by the investor. If capital
>gains taxes are eliminated, then the investor receives his *full* return on
>investment, as opposed to the government taking a portion. This doesn't
>require addition funds, it requires the absence of government intervention.
Every time that the discussion comes around to taxes on the rich,
someone brings up the question of whether any taxes at all are legitimate.
Why is this only a question when taxes on the rich are being discussed?
This thread began on the issue of ALTERNATIVE COSTS. If some of us
pay taxes but the recipients of profits from speculation do not, then we must
find the money to cover those expenses. That is an alternative cost, and it
must be funded.
--
Frank Palmer
flpa...@ripco.com
Kirk L.
>In article <4jd3jd$p...@news.infocom.net>, kir...@infocom.net (Kirk L.)
>wrote:
>>You must really love Clinton then. In his first two budgets, FY1994
>>and FY1995, he increased the debt by $610 Billion. Clinton's gross
>>deficits so far are larger than seven out of eight of Reagan's gross
>>budget deficits and equivalent to the eighth.
>>
>Is Rush trying to rewrite the economy again? This is the second time in a
>week that I've seen this particular howler, and even by Rush standards,
>it's a particularly dumb lie.
Zepp, I do sympathize with you because it's apparent you've been
brainwashed. I can't be too harsh on a lemming. After all, a lemming
will be a lemming. It seems to me to be a sure sign that a liberal
has run out of content to weakly try to attempt to refute the facts
that I'm presenting by resorting to the tired Rush Limbaugh red
herring. You are like a mindless little puppet in the sense that,
every time someone disagrees with you, they pull your little string
and you squawk "Rush Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh, dittohead, dittohead".
Rush Limbaugh, just like everybody else (except for maybe you) gets
things wrong from time to time. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh's
radio show--I don't have a radio in my office. I don't watch his TV
show because I don't like TV shows that are only half an hour in
length, a good portion of which are commercials. Although I think
Rush can sometimes be obnoxious in his presentation, what pinheads
like you fail to realize is the reason why he is so popular. At the
time of his meteoric rise in popularity, it was extremely hard for
people who ended up being his fans (many, many, many millions of
people) to find a forum for their views among the mainstream media.
His was a lone voice at the time actually having the audacity to
(gasp) challenge the orthodoxy and dogma of a group of people who have
had a perceptual lock (albeit in many ways a false one) on the moral
high ground for many, many years. I'm quite sure that Rush doesn't
have a lock on all the answers and solutions. Do you fail to see what
a monumental hypocrite you demonstrate yourself to be for criticizing
Rush's fans for not thinking, and not challenging what he says and
their own beliefs, when you have demonstrated nothing beyond the
ability to march, lock-step in line behind the Democratic leaders by
doing nothing but regurgitating the self-serving sounbites that they
feed, childlike to you. I think your whining is nothing but a bunch
of sour grapes over the fact that the public is becoming increasingly
skeptical of traditional liberal orthodoxies and institutions.
The economic facts and figures that I present on these groups isn't
coming from Rush Limbaugh. The vast majority of this economic content
comes from govt. statistics and figures, something you would realize
if you took the time to investigate the detail behind the regurgitated
sounbites you, like a parrot, repetitively spew.
First of all oh mental midget, you seem to need to come to an
understanding of the budget process. I'll try and go slow. The
government budget is a fiscal year--that means that it begins on
October 1 and ends the next year on Sept. 30. When you refer to a
fiscal year of 19XX, XX represents the year in which the fiscal year
ends--for example, FY1995 ended Sept. 30 of 1995. In general terms
(how theoretically it's supposed to work), the budget process starts
in January of a given year with the transmital of the President's
budget (including a sequester preview report) for the fiscal year that
will start on Oct. 1 of the same year and end Sept. 30 of the
following year, and ends by August 20 of this same year with OMB
updating the sequester preview. In between these dates is the process
that involves congressional action on and approval of the president's
budget and lastly the president's final approval (or not via veto) of
the budget.
Now, as you have demonstrated your ignorance to me in the past on
which President's are associated with which fiscal year budgets, let
me try to help you out in your ignorance. Again, I'll try and go
slow--I know how much you would rather deal in rhetoric and soundbites
than detail, but Zeppy...the devil is in the details. When President
Clinton first took office on January 19, 1993, there was still ~8
months left of Bush's last budget, FY1993. See if you can strain to
remember the budget process I just explained above. The budget
process for FY1993 started and ended before 1992 was up, while Bush
was still in office. Now, normally the President is supposed to
transmit the budget to get the process rolling between the 1st Monday
in January and the 1st Monday in February. In the case of a new
incoming President, the process usually gets delayed because it is not
practical for an incoming President to complete a budget within a few
days of taking office. After President Clinton took office on Jan.
19, 1993, he didn't submit his first budget, FY1994, until early April
of 1993. Are you still with me Zeppy? Clinton's first budget was
FY1994. His second budget was FY1995. FY1996 is the budget that the
President and congress haven't come to terms yet on. FY1997 was just
recently transmitted by the President--haven't you seen this on even
your pat, superficial sources of news?
Now, the next thing you have demonstrated ignorance on, and which I
will try to help you out with this one last time, is the debt and
deficits. Again, I'll try and go slow because I know this is hard for
someone who lacks the attention span to digest anything more than
their 15 minutes of regurgitated soundbites from Cable Neutered
Network. I might be making a big leap here but I'm assuming that you
at least understand that it is the debt, not the yearly deficit, that
we pay interest on. Do you understand that the debt is an
accumulation of yearly deficits, and just because there is a reduction
in the deficit for a given year, there is still a deficit that
increases the debt, which increases the amount of yearly interest
payments that go to service the debt. Am I going to fast? Still with
me? This next part is where it gets kind of complicated for people
who prefer more superficial reporting of the news.
The yearly deficit figure that is almost always referred to we'll call
the reported deficit. This is the favorite figure for the politicians
and other assorted government apparatchiks because, like a lot of
government figures, they don't tell the whole story. If you examine,
year by year, the amount that the debt increases by, it always
increases by more than the commonly reported deficit figure that is
always bandied about. Kind of fishy huh? Maybe not, to a blind
follower like you, but you might as well know why it doesn't add up.
The reported deficit doesn't include the borrowing that the government
does from various trust funds. The government operates 20+ trust
funds. The general fund is what is used to fund the day to day
operations of the government. Other funds include such things as the
OASI (Old Age and Survivors Insurance--or Social Security), HI
(Hospital Insurance part of Medicare), SMI (Supplementary Medical
Insurance part of Medicare), Federal Employees Retirement fund, etc.,
etc.
To illustrate trust fund practices of the federal government, lets
look at FICA contributions. FICA contributions go into 3 funds
managed by the government: The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance fund
(OASI), the Disability Insurance fund (DI), and the Hospital Insurance
(part of Medicare) fund (HI). The Supplementary Medical Insurance
(part of Medicare) fund (SMI) is financed seperately from
FICA--through premium income and transfers from the General Fund.
In 1982, during a rare moment of looking beyond the next election,
congress saw the actuarial unsoundness of the present social security
system that would be created by the "baby-boomer's" retirement. Their
solution (spearheaded by Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Alan Greenspan)
to the inevitable collapse of the system was to raise FICA taxes
almost 25% so as to start accumulating yearly surpluses beginning in
1983 to cover the future shortfalls. Since this tax increase, the
Treasury has indeed been enjoying yearly surpluses comparing FICA
revenue coming in versus benefit payments going out, but there has
been zero accumulation of liquid assets, only government obfuscation
in the form of triple-entry bookeeping. Of note is the fact that,
Senator Moynihan, disgusted with the results of the 1983 "reform", has
asked for a sizeable cut in FICA taxes--reasoning that since they
aren't saving the money they might as will give it back to taxpayers.
Let's look at a typical year. In 1995, FICA contributions earmarked
for the OASI and DI funds amounted to ~$396 Billion. Of this $396
Billion, $336 Billion went to benifit payments for 1995. That leaves
a $60 Billion surplus for 1995 FICA collections apart from the HI
portion of Medicare (which is no longer enjoying surpluses). Now, the
question is, what happened to this $60 Billion surplus? Congress
transferred every penny of this money to the General Fund and spent
it. All that is left of this surplus in the OASI and DI funds are
nonliquid IOU's that are now part of the federal debt--the money is
gone.
The government has been repeating the above practice with just about
all the funds they manage--transferring surpluses to the general fund
and spending the money. The reported deficit figure every year
DOESN'T include the yearly surplus amounts that the government borrows
from trust funds that become part of the debt--the Gross deficit
figure does.
These are the facts straight from the historical info. part of the
FY1997 budget that President Clinton just submitted:
I will seperate the budgets between Reagan, Bush, and Clinton
The Reagan Years
------------------------------
Fiscal Gross Reported Gross Trust
Year Debt Deficit Deficit Deficit
---------- ------------ -------------- ----------- ----------
1982 1137.3 128.0 142.5 14.5
1983 1371.7 207.8 234.4 26.6
1984 1564.7 185.4 192.9 7.5
1985 1817.5 212.3 252.9 40.6
1986 2120.6 221.2 303.1 81.9
1987 2346.1 149.8 225.5 75.7
1988 2601.3 155.2 255.2 100.0
1989 2868.0 152.5 266.7 114.2
Total increase in the debt from Carter's last budget (the debt at the
end of FY1981 was $994.8 Billion) was $1.8732 Trillion
The Bush Years
--------------------------
Fiscal Gross Reported Gross Trust
Year Debt Deficit Deficit Deficit
---------- ------------ -------------- ----------- ----------
1990 3206.6 221.4 338.5 117.1
1991 3598.5 269.2 391.9 122.7
1992 4002.1 290.4 403.6 113.2
1993 4351.4 255.1 349.3 94.2
Total increase in the debt from Reagan's last budget was $1.4834
Trillion
The Clinton Years
----------------------------
Fiscal Gross Reported Gross Trust
Year Debt Deficit Deficit Deficit
---------- ------------ -------------- ----------- ----------
1994 4643.7 203.2 292.3 89.1
1995 4921.3 163.9 277.6 113.7
Total increase in the debt from Bush's last budget has been $569.9
Billion
I have been giving a figure for Clinton's two year increase in the
debt as $610 Billion. I have been basing this off of the FY1996
budget which shows the FY1995 Reported Deficit to be $196.7 Billion
and the Gross Deficit to be 317.8 Billion. Today I found the WWW site
for the FY1997 Budget which reflects actual numbers for FY1995 instead
of estimated numbers.
The above data confirms what I've been saying. The increase in the
debt every year is equal, not to the reported deficit, but to the
gross deficit and the gross deficit is equal to the reported deficit
plus the trust deficit. You take the gross debt figure for a given
year, which reprents what the debt is at the end of that fiscal year,
and add the gross deficit figure of the next fiscal year, and that
equals the cumulative debt.
Now, the first thing to notice is that Bill Clinton is lying every
time he opens his mouth about cutting the deficit in half. Even using
the non-inclusive reported deficit figure he's a liar. Bush's last
reported deficit (FY1993) was $255 Billion. Bill Clinton's FY1994
reported defict figure was $203.2 Billion and his most recent reported
deficit (FY1994) was $163.9 Billion. Maybe in Bill Clinton's world a
35% reduction in the reported deficit equals a 50% reduction. Now,
since it is the gross deficit figure that the debt increases by and
the debt, not the reported deficit, is what we pay interest on, lets
see how much Bill Clinton has really cut the deficit from Bush's last
deficit by. Comparing Bush's last gross deficit to Clinton's most
recent gross deficit, the answer is 20%. I suppose that every time
Clinton gives out some sort of figure, we should recognize that we
need to attach a margin of error of plus/minus 40%.
Now, the next thing to notice is that in comparing Clinton's gross
deficits with Reagan's gross deficits, Clinton's first gross deficit
is larger than seven of Reagan's gross deficits and within $10 Billion
of the eighth. Clinton's most recent gross deficit is also larger
than seven out of eight of Reagan's gross deficits and within $25
Billion of the eighth.
What is striking is how very little difference there is between the
fiscal policies of the Bush years and the Clinton years. Both Bush
and Clinton presided over large tax increases and both Bush and
Clinton budgets represent bigger deficits/larger yearly increases in
the debt than Reagan budgets. After Reagan presided over eight
budgets that increased the debt by $1.8732 Trillion, Bush and Clinton
have presided over six budgets so far that have increased the debt by
$2.0533 Trillion. Which brings up another point. There are some that
claim that it was the deficit spending during Reagan's terms that
resulted in the economic growth rates of the 80's. If that is true,
you would think that the 90's would have been seeing some really high
growth rates. Six years into the 90's, two large tax increases, six
Clinton/Bush budgets that have managed to increase the debt by $180
Billion more over six years than Reagan budgets managed in eight
years. By the logic I've seen liberals try and demonstrate, the 90's
should be seeing amazing economic growth rates. The problem is, so
far the 90's have seen an average real (inflation adjusted) growth
rate of 1.7%--this is half the average yearly growth rate over
Reagan's administration, which also started out Recessionary. The
latest quarterly data on economic growth that I recall showed an
economy growing at a real annual growth rate of 0.9%. The 90's so far
have seen the lowest average economic growth rates for a decade since
the 1930's. Liberals, you can't have it both ways...you can't blame
better economic growth rates in the 80's on deficit spending to try
and explain away correlations between tax cuts and more robust
economic growth when the 90's yearly deficits have been even larger
and growth rates, in a word, suck.
Lastly, I find it amusing to refer back to President Clinton's FY1996
budget, which also included his plans for spending, deficits, etc.
through the year 2000.
Fiscal Gross Reported Gross Trust
Year Debt Deficit Deficit Deficit
---------- ------------ -------------- ----------- ----------
1996 5299.6 196.7 338.1 141.4
1997 5656.3 213.1 356.7 143.6
1998 6004.9 196.4 348.6 152.2
1999 6357.8 197.4 352.8 155.4
2000 6712.1 194.4 354.4 160.0
Funny how Clinton's budget proposals recently, don't look anything
like this. I wonder why. What could be different now than in the
first part of 1995? Has he had a 180 degree shift in his belief
system in just a year? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with
a nearing Presidential election...after all, Clinton is one of the
most genuine Presidents we've ever had...right?
What a whore.
Kirk L.
kir...@infocom.net
---------------------------------------------------------
"Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his
friends for his political life."
--Jeremy Thorpe
Thomas M. Buccelli
} Thomas M. Buccelli (t...@idm.com) wrote:
} : Aren't they missing something like $500 million, money they have no
} : idea (or at least don't want to admit) where it went?
} 500 megabucks only? I still like the S&Ls and the 500 GIGAbucks that the
} GOP got away with, ^^^^
} I could always use a gigabuck or so, to buy my way down under.....
The S&L's are not the GOP (look at Whitewater for instance). We know
that the money from the S&L's went to bail out bad loans, etc. Last I
heard they did not even know where the Americorps money went. Big Diff.
Unknown
>Let me see if I got this straight, the only reason I am not as rich as
>Bill Gates is becase I am a lazy SOB. On a more serious note, this is the
>sort of overly simplistic drivel that we have become accustomed to from
>the right. It is the Nike approach, "just do it", which totally ignores
>the fact that some things are too complicated to be solved by
>sloganeering.
Neither the left nor the right have much of a grasp on reality. The
Rush Limbaugh right says "just do it." Of course that is absurd. The
history of evolution should read, just do it or die! The only
recordable success are the ones that overcame the obstacles and
procreated. But some of the very best died in battle or from disease
before they had a chance. So be it. Life goes on.
The socialist left says "anyone can do it if we just pump them up with
enough self-esteem and education." Also a rather shallow solution,
what if the people are not capable of climbing out of ignorance and
poverty, no matter how much effort is made to help them.
I find the whole debate an abscess of ethical obsession, trying to
find meaning where there is none. The best we can do is reduce the
government intrusion into our daily lives, and watch how humans react
as free agents in a hostile world. Then maybe we will know enough
about our own species to formulate what to do with the urban sludge
that necessitates the endless discussion of what to do with the unfit.
Kirk L.
>In article <4je6r1$h...@news.snowcrest.net>, Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>>In article <4jd3jd$p...@news.infocom.net>, kir...@infocom.net (Kirk L.)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>You must really love Clinton then. In his first two budgets, FY1994
>>>and FY1995, he increased the debt by $610 Billion. Clinton's gross
>>>deficits so far are larger than seven out of eight of Reagan's gross
>>>budget deficits and equivalent to the eighth.
>>>
>>Is Rush trying to rewrite the economy again? This is the second time in a
>>week that I've seen this particular howler, and even by Rush standards,
>>it's a particularly dumb lie.
>>
>This guys usually omit such things as adjusting for inflation, etc.
>An interesting book along these lines is one of Bennett's efforts
>with a title like The Index of Cultural Indicators.
>It contains a bunch of graphs interleaved with apocalypic quotes
>from ultrarightists and a few moderates having a bad day. The one graph
>I remember plotted spending on education vs. SAT scores over time.
>While failing to account for inflation or the increase in people taking
>the SAT, Bennett used gross differences scaling each axis in
>a disingenuous (read lie) attempt to show an inverse relationship
>between spending and test scores.
>Of course, the book was heartily endorsed by Rush Limbaugh.
Of course, people like you don't really like to talk about all the
norming down that standardized tests have undergone over the years
either. I wonder why?
My mom, who has recently completed all coursework for a PhD in child
psychology/education and has been a teacher in the public shcool
system for over thirty years and my sister for over five. I'm also
very familiar with the macro stats behind the public scool system in
this country and they reflect very poorly on the whole direction the
system has taken over the past 30 or so years.
Please oh please try and get into a discussion with me about the
educratational system in this country...I'll wipe you off the map.
Norman Nithman
>
>Of course, people like you don't really like to talk about all the
>norming down that standardized tests have undergone over the years
>either. I wonder why?
>
You can talk about it all you want. I don't mind!
>My mom, who has recently completed all coursework for a PhD in child
>psychology/education and has been a teacher in the public shcool
>system for over thirty years and my sister for over five. I'm also
>very familiar with the macro stats behind the public scool system in
>this country and they reflect very poorly on the whole direction the
>system has taken over the past 30 or so years.
>
What do your relatives have to do with this?
>Please oh please try and get into a discussion with me about the
>educratational system in this country...I'll wipe you off the map.
>
You could start by wiping my butt!
Zepp
pot...@stlnet.com (William Garrett Poteet) wrote:
>This is ridiculous. I cook for myself. I cook enough bread for a week for
>about 60 cents, roast beef in veg pot for 3 bucks, chicken for one week 3
>bucks, veggies for one week 4 bucks, fruits 5 bucks, cooking oils 25
>cents, spices 30 cents, cooking gas 3 bucks, dish soap 25 cents. Let's
>see, that's about $16.40 per week. Food stamps are $82 per month divided
>by 4.3 weeks per month which equals $19.07 per week for food, cooking gas,
>and dish soap. That leaves me with $2.67 per week for the NAACP.
>
Cook everything from scratch, and no doubt you can approach the costs
listed above. Of course, how much time do you spend cooking? I also note
no milk. I would guess, based on our local prices, that you inhale about
1,300 calories a day, not counting the dish soap.
>Now, if I work for minimum wage at $4.55 per hour for 8 hours times 260
>days per week, I have an income of $9,464.00 per year or $182.00 per week.
>Now, with the $16.40 per person I have figured for food (actually kids eat
>less), with three kids to support as a whore who never got married, I
>would spend only $65.60 per week for food, leaving me with $182-$65.60 or
>$116.40 per week for rent. With an apartment costing $300 per month, I'd
>have $116.40 time 4.3 weeks per month or $500.52 minus $300 rent or
>$200.52 left after rent. If utilities were $100 per month, I'd be left
>with $100.52.
Your use of the word "whore" tells me you are a warm, sensitive guy who
belongs to a caring church with an absolutely marvelous diety. It also
tells me of the depth of your ignorance. You see, on welfare rolls, and
among the working poor, you'll find unmarried mothers. That's true. But
among AFDC reciprients, unmarried women are OUTNUMBERED by...drumroll,
please. Wives of MILITARY PERSONNEL! Yes, that's right--families of US
troops qualify for food stamps! Now, why don't you stop by the local
marine base and explain to the guys that their wives are whores? Be sure
to mention the $19/week food costs, so no misunderstandings arise.
Back to your cost analysis. Where do you find apartments renting for $300?
How were you planning to clothe the kids? Incidently, I take it your
utilities run less than $100 a month in some place where it never goes
below 55 or above 85, which leaves us with exactly Honolulu in the US. Try
an average rent closer to $600. Try $200 on utilities. Remember to clothe
the kids and get them vitamins and milk. Don't forget transportation to
and from work. Don't forget that kids ALWAYS get broken arms, bloody
noses, colds, flu, etc, and need medical care. Now give me a "worst case
scenario" about how posh the poor have it.
>So, why don't you liberals wise up. If the woman started at minimum, in
>less than two years, she'd be making $6-$8 per hour if she could do
>ANYTHING at all at work. $6 per hour would give her another $249.40 to
>spend on top of the $100.52 she has left or $349.92 per month above living
>expenses for clothing (much of which for kids is cheap at second hand
>stores and hand me downs like most families used to do.)
>
Oh, I nearly forgot! Taxes! They gotta pay taxes so rich assholes don't
have to! Gee, that shoots your $6/hr solvency in the ass too, doesn't it?
>So, I don't understand why any woman with 3 kids needs welfare or food
>stamps. The only reason I can see is if she is a worthless, lazy African
>American.
Just like you are a worthless, bigoted white American. I'll take lazy over
bigoted.
>By the way. Know what Africans average? According to the CIA World Fact
>Book on the Internet, Africans average about $200-$500 per year in income.
>
BTW, know what CUBANS average? Or Brazilians? Or Chinese? Your point
being...?
___________________________________________________________________________
"I may be blind in one eye and deaf in the other, and my dog won't obey me
because he died in 1956, but I get more meat on my mushroom than any mouse
this side of the Pecos Hillbillies."
--Computer reconstruction of the thinking process that led Ronald Reagon
to the theory of Reaganomics.
___________________________________________________________________________
Richard Foy
William Garrett Poteet <pot...@stlnet.com> wrote:
>
>By the way. Know what Africans average? According to the CIA World Fact
>Book on the Internet, Africans average about $200-$500 per year in income.
I am familiar with the CIA on line World Fact Book. However, I think
you are misusing the data. There is a world of difference between a
subsistance economy and a market economy.
I suggest that you take a month, with nothing but the clothes on your
back, and say $36 dollars in your pocket, walk out of your house or
apartment and see where you are at the end of a month.
--
"Women feel solidarity in a violent world." -- Judy Kramer
Copyright 1995 Richard Foy All rights reserved. See
URL http://www.he.tdl.com/~hfanoe/cpyrgt_terms.html for terms and condtions.
Jessica Concolor
>My mom, who has recently completed all coursework for a PhD in child
>psychology/education and has been a teacher in the public shcool
>system for over thirty years and my sister for over five. I'm also
>very familiar with the macro stats behind the public scool system in
>this country and they reflect very poorly on the whole direction the
>system has taken over the past 30 or so years.
>Please oh please try and get into a discussion with me about the
>educratational system in this country...I'll wipe you off the map.
I think you're right about the public school system. Look at the
job it did on you. Next time, confer with "Mr. Webster" before
you post.
Felis Concolor
P.S. "Mr. Webster" is not a euphemism for the toilet. Trust me.
Frank Palmer
In article: <4j7a07$a...@amenti.rutgers.edu>
o...@amenti.rutgers.edu (Michael Huemer) writes:
tbe...@computek.net (Dan Thornsberry) writes:
>In article <4j1dn7$n...@Mars.mcs.com>, jwa...@MCS.COM says...
>>of the unseen." The basic fallacy is to look at the beneficial results
>>of some government program (which are visible, because the program is
>>in place), look at the direct dollar cost of it, and conclude that the
>>program is effective or a wise use of money if the latter exceeds the
>>former. But this is a fallacy. Why?
:It's a fallacy because you have to compare the benefits of the
:program, not against its dollar costs, but against the value of what
:other things could have been done with the same money. The argument
:only takes into account 'the seen' and not 'the unseen' (i.e. the
:alternate possibilities that weren't realized.
:In short, the fallacy is that it neglects to take account of
:*opportunity costs*.
Ah! But how do you value opportunity costs?
The money could have been spent wisely or foolishly, gambled and won
or gambled and lost.
The *market* [let right-wingers note] provides an answer. Opportunity
costs are valued at the amount of money which would have been used to pursue
that opportunity. (People _did_ value it that way, after all.) That looks a
lot more like the direct dollar costs than some previous posters would like to
think.
--
Frank Palmer
flpa...@ripco.com
Kirk L.
>kir...@infocom.net (Forrest Gump) writes:
>Felis Concolor
Why should I trust you. It's clear you have some sort of self-serving
interest in the direction the educratational system has taken in this
country.
When you start to get into the detail behind the impact of their
policies, orthodoxies, and overall feelgood but totally rediculous
initiatives on public education and higher education, it reflects very
badly on the whole liberal ideological approach to education...which
is really more of an indoctrinational, multicultural approach than it
is an emphasis on trying to prepare children for the skills needed in
the workforce.
I mean seriously.
Inclusion
The "whole language" method of learning to read
Outcome based educratation
Forced bilingual education on parents that don't want anything to do
with this.
Standardized tests and college entrance standards that have been
normed down...and down...and down...and down
Thirty plus years of liberal education have gotten us a Department of
Educratation that contributes only 6% of the cost of the
Educratational system AND the cost of the Education system in this
country, but delivers 55% of the mandates. Notice, this AND is a very
important AND, because the more money that is spent on the
Educratational system, the less money available for actual Educators.
In fact, of the total amount spent on Education in this country, 62%
is consumed by bureaucracies at the federal, state, and local level.
We have a system designed to empower self-serving bureaucrats...or
should I say educrats, as opposed to what the whole focus of the
system should be...educating children. This is PRECISELY how we end
up with school districts like Washington, D.C., which spends $9,300
per child, but has some of the lowest test scores in the nation.
Notice also that this 6% figure coming from the Department of
Educratation is money that comes from the local level in the first
place via federal taxes...money that would be worth a lot more if it
didn't have to travel down through a yawning educational bureaucracy.
But, being totally helpless to defend their failures, all liberals can
do is come up with some limp-wristed response...like calling someone
who recognizes their failures Forrest Gump.
Your false compassion for the children in this country is touching
Felis.
Damion Schubert
wrote:
>Ned Kelly (nedk...@eagle.ais.net) wrote:
>
>} Thomas M. Buccelli (t...@idm.com) wrote:
>} : Aren't they missing something like $500 million, money they have no
>} : idea (or at least don't want to admit) where it went?
>} 500 megabucks only? I still like the S&Ls and the 500 GIGAbucks that the
>} GOP got away with, ^^^^
>} I could always use a gigabuck or so, to buy my way down under.....
>
>The S&L's are not the GOP (look at Whitewater for instance).
The S&L crisis was caused by Reagan's deregulation and economic
policies, and was taken advantage of by anyone with money ties, be
they Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or citizens of the planet
Mars.
> We know
>that the money from the S&L's went to bail out bad loans, etc. Last I
>heard they did not even know where the Americorps money went. Big Diff.
Comparing AmeriCorps reputed shortfall (which no one has yet given me
an article to verify), comparing it to the Savings & Loan scandal is
like comparing a pop gun to an atomic bomb. If every American gave a
dollar, we'd have enough to pay off the reputed AmeriCorps shortfall.
By comparison, we will be paying off the bailout for years to come.
Zepp
wrote:
>Zepp, I do sympathize with you because it's apparent you've been
>brainwashed. I can't be too harsh on a lemming. After all, a lemming
>will be a lemming.
Hundreds of lines of similar blather, written in a condescending tone in
order to support a rather weak and silly premise, by someone who isn't a
Dittohead, but rather is a free-lance ignoramus.
NUTSHELL: Kirky intimates that taxes collected for express purpose of
Social Security should not be a part of the general fund, and because the
existing suplus in FICA and the rest are rolled over into the general
deficit, the deficit should be counted without the alleviation of the SS
fund. Moynihan has been fighting for this for the past 14 years in a
highly publicized fight. Moynihan and Kirk are correct: this is how the
accounting SHOULD be done. SS monies should be held entirely seperate from
general funding. However.
That is NOT the case, and given a lack of acturial data, Kirk's numbers are
meaningless. He's subtracting real money from what-might-have-beens and
trying to foist the results off as some sort of real answer. Kirk, if you
really want to make BIG imaginary deficits, figure out how much annual
surplus would be needed to pay off the national debt in one century, and
substract the numbers from that i number. Betcha you could add $75 billion
a year, easy, and make Reagan look better since, of course, the national
debt was much smaller in his day and wouldn't require as high an
amortization.
>His was a lone voice at the time actually having the audacity to
>(gasp) challenge the orthodoxy and dogma of a group of people who have
>had a perceptual lock (albeit in many ways a false one) on the moral
>high ground for many, many years.
Yeah. Just imagine. Even during the Eisenhower years, we didn't try to
compare Nixon's kids to dogs. I guess we missed a bet there.
>Now, the first thing to notice is that Bill Clinton is lying every
>time he opens his mouth about cutting the deficit in half.
Since the man has never made that particular claim, there seems little
point in pursuing it. As with your "gross deficit" figures, the entire
debate depends from your own flight of fancy.
>Now, the next thing to notice is that in comparing Clinton's gross
>deficits with Reagan's gross deficits, Clinton's first gross deficit
>is larger than seven of Reagan's gross deficits and within $10 Billion
>of the eighth. Clinton's most recent gross deficit is also larger
>than seven out of eight of Reagan's gross deficits and within $25
>Billion of the eighth.
And left unmentioned is the fact that under Reagan, FICA taxes went up
sharply in order to try and staunch the tide of red his idiot policies had
generated. The problem, of course, is that this was exclusively a
recessive tax on the first $56K of income, a Republican tax. Pay your
taxes so the rich don't have to.
Which brings up another point. There are some that
>claim that it was the deficit spending during Reagan's terms that
>resulted in the economic growth rates of the 80's. If that is true,
>you would think that the 90's would have been seeing some really high
>growth rates.
Nope, at least not in the general economy. Reagan's policies also resulted
in a disasterous concentration of wealth. The overall economy, clearly, is
not booming. But how's the Dow-Jones doing since Clinton took office? 35%
growth a year? That sounds like a pretty healthy economy for someone,
doesn't it?
Six years into the 90's, two large tax increases, six
>Clinton/Bush budgets that have managed to increase the debt by $180
>Billion more over six years than Reagan budgets managed in eight
>years.
Tell me about this second "large tax increase"--the one Clinton make. What
percentage of taxpayers were affected by that one?
Michael Zarlenga
: So, why don't you liberals wise up. If the woman started at minimum, in
: less than two years, she'd be making $6-$8 per hour if she could do
: ANYTHING at all at work. $6 per hour would give her another $249.40 to
: spend on top of the $100.52 she has left or $349.92 per month above living
: expenses for clothing (much of which for kids is cheap at second hand
: stores and hand me downs like most families used to do.)
Such a strategy takes time, determination and motivation.
You can't simply sleep until noon, throw on a house coat and meander
down to the packie to pick up the day's booze, then slump into a stu-
por in front of the TV until 3am.
And when you work for a living, you don't get free money for having
more kids. That's another problem with the real world.
Many people today want quick, effortless solutions.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Dole '96. Send King William and Queen Hillary packing in November.
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP Public key and killfile
Felis Concolor
kir...@infocom.net (Corky) writes:
>Why should I trust you. It's clear you have some sort of self-serving
>interest in the direction the educratational system has taken in this
>country.
>When you start to get into the detail behind the impact of their
>policies, orthodoxies, and overall feelgood but totally rediculous
>initiatives on public education and higher education, it reflects very
>badly on the whole liberal ideological approach to education...
Actually, I _agree_ with you about the educational system in this
country. After all, it produced a 'tard like you.
Felis Concolor
P.S. Don't bang your head against the wall, Corky. The bandage
might fall off.
Unknown
>In article <potato-2503960036220001@dial-in_13.stlnet.com>,
>William Garrett Poteet <pot...@stlnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>By the way. Know what Africans average? According to the CIA World Fact
>>Book on the Internet, Africans average about $200-$500 per year in income.
>
>I am familiar with the CIA on line World Fact Book. However, I think
>you are misusing the data. There is a world of difference between a
>subsistance economy and a market economy.
>
>I suggest that you take a month, with nothing but the clothes on your
>back, and say $36 dollars in your pocket, walk out of your house or
>apartment and see where you are at the end of a month.
Doesn't the market economy dictate that one gets paid what one is
worth? It seems to me that if you are worth nothing, all you deserve
is a subsistence wage. But the fact that I am intelligent enough not
to go out with only $36 dollars in my pocket speaks to the fact that I
can plan ahead. Also, I have never had an honest answer why if people
cannot support themselves, then why do they have children? To reduce
the number of people on welfare it seems to me it must be made much
more unbearable than it is now. Maybe $36 per month is all we should
give anyone on welfare, and the subsistence economy lifestyle may
teach them about reality.
Richard Foy
>On Sat, 30 Mar 1996 01:50:38 GMT, rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) wrote:
>
>
>Doesn't the market economy dictate that one gets paid what one is
>worth?
NO!
It seems to me that if you are worth nothing, all you deserve
>is a subsistence wage.
That is certainly one view, it is not mine.
But the fact that I am intelligent enough not
>to go out with only $36 dollars in my pocket speaks to the fact that I
>can plan ahead.
So people that have only $36 in their pocket are probably just as
intelligent as you.
Also, I have never had an honest answer why if people
>cannot support themselves, then why do they have children? To reduce
>the number of people on welfare it seems to me it must be made much
>more unbearable than it is now.
Sure why not just shoot them. I really do suggest you go down to
fifth and main in Los Angeles and get well acquainted with a few
ofthe homeless.
Maybe $36 per month is all we should
>give anyone on welfare, and the subsistence economy lifestyle may
>teach them about reality.
Do you really believe this?
Kirk L.
>In article <4jg39b$v...@news.infocom.net>, kir...@infocom.net (Kirk L.)
>wrote:
>>Zepp, I do sympathize with you because it's apparent you've been
>>brainwashed. I can't be too harsh on a lemming. After all, a lemming
>>will be a lemming.
>Hundreds of lines of similar blather, written in a condescending tone in
>order to support a rather weak and silly premise, by someone who isn't a
>Dittohead, but rather is a free-lance ignoramus.
I know, the truth can be painful you hypocrite.
>NUTSHELL: Kirky intimates that taxes collected for express purpose of
>Social Security should not be a part of the general fund, and because the
>existing suplus in FICA and the rest are rolled over into the general
>deficit, the deficit should be counted without the alleviation of the SS
>fund. Moynihan has been fighting for this for the past 14 years in a
>highly publicized fight. Moynihan and Kirk are correct: this is how the
>accounting SHOULD be done. SS monies should be held entirely seperate from
>general funding. However.
>That is NOT the case, and given a lack of acturial data, Kirk's numbers are
>meaningless. He's subtracting real money from what-might-have-beens and
>trying to foist the results off as some sort of real answer. Kirk, if you
>really want to make BIG imaginary deficits, figure out how much annual
>surplus would be needed to pay off the national debt in one century, and
>substract the numbers from that i number. Betcha you could add $75 billion
>a year, easy, and make Reagan look better since, of course, the national
>debt was much smaller in his day and wouldn't require as high an
>amortization.
More glaring hypocricy and inconsistency from the left. You guys
change your standards to suit you argument. If we're talking about
reforms to social security, the wails from the left reach a fever
pitch, claiming that this is money that's owed to seniors, which
seems to indicate that, since you seem to understand that part of
this money collected from workers under the auspices of providing for
people in their retirement is being spent on things that have nothing
to do with the retirement of seniors, that this surplus money being
spent would generate a DEBT. However, now you seem to, to suit your
self-serving argument, be insinuating that the social security system
is not really a retirement system at all, but just another income tax
masquerading as a retirement system.
So which is it Zepp? Is the debt really only $3.603 Trillion and the
Social Security system is nothing but income tax financed welfare for
seniors or is the debt really $5 Trillion and the surplus monies
being taken under the auspices of providing for people's retirement
is money that's really owed (read a DEBT) to future retirees. You
can't have it both ways.
>>His was a lone voice at the time actually having the audacity to
>>(gasp) challenge the orthodoxy and dogma of a group of people who have
>>had a perceptual lock (albeit in many ways a false one) on the moral
>>high ground for many, many years.
>Yeah. Just imagine. Even during the Eisenhower years, we didn't try to
>compare Nixon's kids to dogs. I guess we missed a bet there.
More hypocrisy from the left. If this had been a Republican
President, the silence from people like you would have been
deafening.
You're a hypocrite Zepp. I know coming to grips with this might be
uncomftorable, but you can do it.
>>Now, the first thing to notice is that Bill Clinton is lying every
>>time he opens his mouth about cutting the deficit in half.
>Since the man has never made that particular claim, there seems little
>point in pursuing it. As with your "gross deficit" figures, the entire
>debate depends from your own flight of fancy.
Now it's really getting deep. O.K. Zepp, what were the exact words?
Almost in half. He sure did claim it, along with several top people
in his administration... and people on the left are still repeating
this fabrication.
You know by now (or you should) exactly where they get this horseshit
from. They claim Bush's last budget deficit, which was $45 Billion
less than his third budget deficit, as Clinton's first defict figure.
They know that most people are so stupid that they don't realize that
the govt. is on a fiscal year and will just sit there moonfaced and be
impressed.
>>Now, the next thing to notice is that in comparing Clinton's gross
>>deficits with Reagan's gross deficits, Clinton's first gross deficit
>>is larger than seven of Reagan's gross deficits and within $10 Billion
>>of the eighth. Clinton's most recent gross deficit is also larger
>>than seven out of eight of Reagan's gross deficits and within $25
>>Billion of the eighth.
>And left unmentioned is the fact that under Reagan, FICA taxes went up
>sharply in order to try and staunch the tide of red his idiot policies had
>generated. The problem, of course, is that this was exclusively a
>recessive tax on the first $56K of income, a Republican tax. Pay your
>taxes so the rich don't have to.
And left unmentioned is the fact that the effort to raise FICA taxes
was lead by Moynihan, a staunch liberal. No wonder he is working so
hard to reform his original reform. I'd be embarassed as well with
the results.
> Which brings up another point. There are some that
>>claim that it was the deficit spending during Reagan's terms that
>>resulted in the economic growth rates of the 80's. If that is true,
>>you would think that the 90's would have been seeing some really high
>>growth rates.
>Nope, at least not in the general economy. Reagan's policies also resulted
>in a disasterous concentration of wealth. The overall economy, clearly, is
>not booming. But how's the Dow-Jones doing since Clinton took office? 35%
>growth a year? That sounds like a pretty healthy economy for someone,
>doesn't it?
This sounds like more double standard. When it's time to prop up
Clintonomics, you say look at how well the stock market is doing.
When it's time to bash big business, you say look how well the stock
market is doing. Funny, I would think that you would be more
interested in what is going on in the "general economy" than what is
happening on Wall Street.
> Six years into the 90's, two large tax increases, six
>>Clinton/Bush budgets that have managed to increase the debt by $180
>>Billion more over six years than Reagan budgets managed in eight
>>years.
>Tell me about this second "large tax increase"--the one Clinton make. What
>percentage of taxpayers were affected by that one?
Well, quite a few. Aside from the people that were impacted by the
marginal rate increase on individuals and the increase in taxes on
businesses, Clinton raised taxes on social security recipients. In
illustrating another glaring example of the hypocrisy of the left,
Clinton raised the portion of social security benifits that are
taxable as income from 50% to 85%. He did this for "rich" retirees (I
just love a liberal's definition of rich) with an income of $34,000,
and couples with income over $44,000.
The fact that Clinton is now the great savior of social security is
almost too much to believe...until you realize from where this
rhetoric emanates from.
As far as this notion that "Clinton has only raised taxes on the
wealthy", I know that in your world that the different groups and
subsets in our economy are completely seperate and are not
interrelated. In your world, the way to improve the lott of the
common man is to use the coercive power of government to try and
beat up on "the wealthy" and businesses. Funny how this approach has
never worked in the past and the costs of this approach just end up
being borne by the little guy...but hey, results don't matter as long
as we feel good about the policy.
On more of a local level, the following demonstrates the impact of
policies you seem to be in favor of:
The 80's were a time of increasing state and local level taxes. What
happened? If you examine the areas of the country
that put the highest tax burdens on companies and people via state and
local government, there is an extremely strong correlation between
taxes and cost of living--the same places that have the highest tax
burdens are also by and large the areas that have the highest cost of
living (excluding taxes). Also, from 1965 to 1990, the cities
that took in the highest revenue per capita lost 10% of their jobs.
The leanest tax cities had over a 200% job growth. More modern day
evidence that rejects the idea that if governments could just come up
with a new scheme to bring in a little more revenue from this area of
the economy or this group of people, then we could balance the books
and fix our fiscal problems.
Funny how wealth seems to disppear the harder governments spend their
fiscal policy time chasing around after it.
The problem with the direction I'm guessing you want to take the
economy is, it has been tried before. In the 60's, Western Europe,
Canada and the U.S. all started down the path of Socialism. The
U.S., I'm guessing because of our roots, hasn't bit quite as hard at
this hook. Guess what has happened? Western Europe and Canada now
get the pleasure of enjoying a collective unemployment rate that is
twice what the U.S.'s unemployment rate is. These countries get to
enjoy a lower standard of living/higher cost of living (not very
progressive), higher tax burdens (even for the average guy), higher
interest rates, and public sectors in even worse shape than ours is
in. To the degree that we've followed these countries lead, we have
all of the above problems as well, only to a lesser degree. You want
to talk about howlers, I see people on the left all the time trying to
portray the U.S. as an example of unregulated capitalism. This is
really hillarious. Anybody that truly believes this, should look at
a detailed organizational chart of the federal government (one that
goes into detail beyond just cabinet agencies) and then consider
that carbon copies of most of these agencies, sub agencies, govt.
companies etc., etc., can be found at the state and local level.
Ain't the results of socialism grand?
user...@prairie.lakes.com
>This is ridiculous. I cook for myself. I cook enough bread for a week for
>about 60 cents, roast beef in veg pot for 3 bucks, chicken for one week 3
>bucks, veggies for one week 4 bucks, fruits 5 bucks, cooking oils 25
>cents, spices 30 cents, cooking gas 3 bucks, dish soap 25 cents. Let's
>see, that's about $16.40 per week. Food stamps are $82 per month divided
>by 4.3 weeks per month which equals $19.07 per week for food, cooking gas,
>and dish soap. That leaves me with $2.67 per week for the NAACP.
>Now, if I work for minimum wage at $4.55 per hour for 8 hours times 260
>days per week, I have an income of $9,464.00 per year or $182.00 per week.
>Now, with the $16.40 per person I have figured for food (actually kids eat
>less), with three kids to support as a whore who never got married, I
>would spend only $65.60 per week for food, leaving me with $182-$65.60 or
>$116.40 per week for rent. With an apartment costing $300 per month, I'd
>have $116.40 time 4.3 weeks per month or $500.52 minus $300 rent or
>$200.52 left after rent. If utilities were $100 per month, I'd be left
>with $100.52.
>And this is the worst case scenario.
>So, why don't you liberals wise up. If the woman started at minimum, in
>less than two years, she'd be making $6-$8 per hour if she could do
>ANYTHING at all at work. $6 per hour would give her another $249.40 to
>spend on top of the $100.52 she has left or $349.92 per month above living
>expenses for clothing (much of which for kids is cheap at second hand
>stores and hand me downs like most families used to do.)
>So, I don't understand why any woman with 3 kids needs welfare or food
>stamps. The only reason I can see is if she is a worthless, lazy African
>American.
well the state of Minnesota figures the minium wage to be equall with
the poverty line is $7.20. Try cooking your numbers longer next time.
Ned Kelly
Dennis Heifitz () wrote:
: more unbearable than it is now. Maybe $36 per month is all we should
: give anyone on welfare, and the subsistence economy lifestyle may
: teach them about reality.
Like I said in the original post, fuckwit? Where are they supposed to live?
--
Ned Kelly Lives!!!!!!
"Give me 2 trillion tons of antimatter, and I'll remove the world."
"Let them eat VCRs" --Marie Antoinette, paraphrased and modernised.
Gino Cerro
Paul Havemann
: And left unmentioned is the fact that under Reagan, FICA taxes went up
: sharply in order to try and staunch the tide of red his idiot policies had
: generated.
Of course, the reason it's "left unmentioned" is that it's not a "fact"
at all, but pure fantasy. Not even the most partisan Democrat in
Congress at that time tried to spin the FICA tax increase that way.
Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the issue -- which, apparently,
excludes you -- would know that a bipartisan commission studied the
issue before recommending the tax, and would also know that both parties
signed off on it.
: The problem, of course, is that this was exclusively a
: recessive tax on the first $56K of income, a Republican tax. Pay your
: taxes so the rich don't have to.
Hmmm. So then Moynihan, Foley, Kennedy, and the other defenders of
justice who voted it into law must also, therefore, be rich-n-greedy
Republicans at heart, eh?
BTW, Zepp, given that tax revenues increased during the 1980s, because
of (or, if you can't choke that down, 'despite') the Reagan cuts, how,
exactly, do _you_ explain the growth in the deficit? Could it be...
spending? ;}
"Our fiscal history for the past 30 years can be written
in three sentences:
1) The share of total earned income taxed by the government
has remained between 18% and 20%; in 1992, it was 18.6%.
2) The share of federal government spending to total spending
has increased from about 17% or 18% to about 23% or 24%.
3) The deficit has increased with spending."
--Allan H. Meltzer, professor of
economics, Carnegie-Mellon
Wall Street Journal, 2/22/93
=-=-=-=-=-=
Paul Havemann (pa...@hsh.com)
<disclaimer> I don't speak for my employer. </disclaimer>
Here. Try this little government program. It'll ease your pain.
The first bag is free.
- mcc...@netcom.com (Michael McClary) in <mcclaryD...@netcom.com>
Paul Havemann
: t...@idm.com (Thomas M. Buccelli) wrote:
: >Ned Kelly (nedk...@eagle.ais.net) wrote:
: >
: >} Thomas M. Buccelli (t...@idm.com) wrote:
: >} : Aren't they missing something like $500 million, money they have no
: >} : idea (or at least don't want to admit) where it went?
: >} 500 megabucks only? I still like the S&Ls and the 500 GIGAbucks that the
: >} GOP got away with, ^^^^
: >} I could always use a gigabuck or so, to buy my way down under.....
: >
: >The S&L's are not the GOP (look at Whitewater for instance).
: The S&L crisis was caused by Reagan's deregulation and economic
: policies, and was taken advantage of by anyone with money ties, be
: they Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or citizens of the planet
: Mars.
You're right about the aftermath -- but, of course, every red-blooded
American knows that the dereg effort began under the aegis of the
_Carter_ administration. Can you say "Depository Institutions
Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980"? It's a mouthful, isn't
it? ;}
Kirk L.
>Actually, I _agree_ with you about the educational system in this
>country. After all, it produced a 'tard like you.
What's your excuse? That harsh toilet training you underwent as a
youngster seems to have a firm grip on your psyche.
Get some help Prudence.
Stop the madness!!!
Zepp
wrote:
>I know, the truth can be painful you hypocrite.
Oooh! Pissy, pissy, pissy! Now, play nice, Kirt, or we'll have to tatoo
"Poor Impulse Control" on your forehead...
>More hypocrisy from the left. If this had been a Republican
>President, the silence from people like you would have been
>deafening.
Silence, probably. But that's a LOT classier than the performance you and
your ilk are putting on, isn't it? BTW, how are the efforts to prove
Clinton killed a bunch of people coming along? Have you got your bogus
Christian preachers with their bogus Linda Thompson tapes all lined up for
another session of slander and vitriol?
>>Since the man has never made that particular claim, there seems little
>>point in pursuing it. As with your "gross deficit" figures, the entire
>>debate depends from your own flight of fancy.
>
>
>Now it's really getting deep. O.K. Zepp, what were the exact words?
>Almost in half. He sure did claim it, along with several top people
>in his administration... and people on the left are still repeating
>this fabrication.
Given the source, I'll want a cite on that. I don't recall Clinton saying
that, and I don't see any one else referring to it here.
>>And left unmentioned is the fact that under Reagan, FICA taxes went up
>>sharply in order to try and staunch the tide of red his idiot policies
had
>>generated. The problem, of course, is that this was exclusively a
>>recessive tax on the first $56K of income, a Republican tax. Pay your
>>taxes so the rich don't have to.
>
>
>And left unmentioned is the fact that the effort to raise FICA taxes
>was lead by Moynihan, a staunch liberal. No wonder he is working so
>hard to reform his original reform. I'd be embarassed as well with
>the results.
Oh, right. I keep forgetting that you like to take things and not pay for
them. Moynihan understands something you and Ronnie do not: it isn't fair
to make your kids pay for your drunken excesses.
>>Nope, at least not in the general economy. Reagan's policies also
resulted
>>in a disasterous concentration of wealth. The overall economy, clearly,
is
>>not booming. But how's the Dow-Jones doing since Clinton took office?
35%
>>growth a year? That sounds like a pretty healthy economy for someone,
>>doesn't it?
>
>
>This sounds like more double standard. When it's time to prop up
>Clintonomics, you say look at how well the stock market is doing.
No, I didn't say it indicated "Clintonomics" was doing well. Learn to
read, bubbie. I pointed out that the wealthy were doing VERY well. 35% a
year increase well. Obscenely well. At our expense.
>When it's time to bash big business, you say look how well the stock
>market is doing. Funny, I would think that you would be more
>interested in what is going on in the "general economy" than what is
>happening on Wall Street.
>
I am. The general economy is still in the toilet. It's not as bad as it
was in 1993, but it's a long way from being a healthy economy. Now, if you
can quit huffing and making ludicrous efforts to obtain respect through
insult, suppose you try and explain the dichoctomy between the incredible
excesses of Wall Street, and the general lack of progress everywhere else?
>>Tell me about this second "large tax increase"--the one Clinton make.
What
>>percentage of taxpayers were affected by that one?
>
>Well, quite a few.
1.8%. That's what your "quite a few" amount to. 1.8% of taxpayers.
Aside from the people that were impacted by the
>marginal rate increase on individuals and the increase in taxes on
>businesses, Clinton raised taxes on social security recipients.
No, he didn't.
> In
>illustrating another glaring example of the hypocrisy of the left,
>Clinton raised the portion of social security benifits that are
>taxable as income from 50% to 85%. He did this for "rich" retirees (I
>just love a liberal's definition of rich) with an income of $34,000,
>and couples with income over $44,000.
Ah. That's what you were talking about. I thought you were claiming he
raised FICA rates. A ridiculous claim, but then, you are a ridiculous
person, so I was ready to believe you would say something that dumb.
Clinton, incidently, campaigned--and won--with that as a part of his stated
policy. Despite what you whiney "me-firsters" think, most people believe
Americans should pay their way in this world.
>The fact that Clinton is now the great savior of social security is
>almost too much to believe...until you realize from where this
>rhetoric emanates from.
>
Apparently, it emanates from you, since I don't see anyone else saying it.
>As far as this notion that "Clinton has only raised taxes on the
>wealthy", I know that in your world that the different groups and
>subsets in our economy are completely seperate and are not
>interrelated. In your world, the way to improve the lott of the
>common man is to use the coercive power of government to try and
>beat up on "the wealthy" and businesses.
No, it's to prevent the wealthy from stealing it all.
Funny how this approach has
>never worked in the past and the costs of this approach just end up
>being borne by the little guy...but hey, results don't matter as long
>as we feel good about the policy.
Worked just dandy. The country did great from 1945 through 1980. Now
that we're trying fascism, the country is going to hell.
>On more of a local level, the following demonstrates the impact of
>policies you seem to be in favor of:
>
>The 80's were a time of increasing state and local level taxes. What
>happened? If you examine the areas of the country
>that put the highest tax burdens on companies and people via state and
>local government, there is an extremely strong correlation between
>taxes and cost of living--the same places that have the highest tax
>burdens are also by and large the areas that have the highest cost of
>living (excluding taxes).
I can't speak to that. State and local taxes in California are lower than
they were in 1978. The state has become a cesspool as a result, but I'm
not immediately familiar with states where the taxes went up.
Also, from 1965 to 1990, the cities
>that took in the highest revenue per capita lost 10% of their jobs.
>The leanest tax cities had over a 200% job growth. More modern day
>evidence that rejects the idea that if governments could just come up
>with a new scheme to bring in a little more revenue from this area of
>the economy or this group of people, then we could balance the books
>and fix our fiscal problems.
Which resulted in a disasterous "race to the bottom", where cities gave
away more and more in order to attract business--even after it reached the
point where the cities were LOSING from the new business. Cleveland in
1994 spent $14.5 million in tax incentives to land exactly ONE new job in
one notorious case. Maybe it's time the cities took their chances and told
spoiled corporations to carry their own freight, eh?
>Funny how wealth seems to disppear the harder governments spend their
>fiscal policy time chasing around after it.
Just the very point I raised. Stop sucking up to big business. They DON'T
have your best interests at heart!
>The problem with the direction I'm guessing you want to take the
>economy is, it has been tried before. In the 60's, Western Europe,
>Canada and the U.S. all started down the path of Socialism. The
>U.S., I'm guessing because of our roots, hasn't bit quite as hard at
>this hook. Guess what has happened? Western Europe and Canada now
>get the pleasure of enjoying a collective unemployment rate that is
>twice what the U.S.'s unemployment rate is.
And yet the standard of living is higher. Imagine that.
These countries get to
>enjoy a lower standard of living/higher cost of living (not very
>progressive),
Wrong. Even American compilations show the US running at best in the top
20 of all countries.
higher tax burdens (even for the average guy),
With cradle-to-grave medical coverage, a great safety net, and longer life
expectancy and better educated children.
higher
>interest rates, and public sectors in even worse shape than ours is
>in.
Never been overseas, or even to Canada, have you? What do you do--sit
around in a tin shack in Oklahoma and fondle your shotgun? Haven't you
even seen PICTURES of foreign countries?
To the degree that we've followed these countries lead, we have
>all of the above problems as well, only to a lesser degree.
Greater degree. Try escorting foreigners on their first visit here through
any large US City. Watch the horror on their faces.
You want
>to talk about howlers, I see people on the left all the time trying to
>portray the U.S. as an example of unregulated capitalism.
It is. We're rapidly becoming just another trash banana republic.
This is
>really hillarious. Anybody that truly believes this, should look at
>a detailed organizational chart of the federal government (one that
>goes into detail beyond just cabinet agencies) and then consider
>that carbon copies of most of these agencies, sub agencies, govt.
>companies etc., etc., can be found at the state and local level.
>Ain't the results of socialism grand?
How many of those bureaucrats exist simply because American businesses are
so insanely competitive and deeply dishonest?
Damion Schubert
(gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>pot...@stlnet.com (William Garrett Poteet) wrote:
>>Now, if I work for minimum wage at $4.55 per hour for 8 hours times 260
>>days per week, I have an income of $9,464.00 per year or $182.00 per week.
hint: minimum wage is only 4.25. hint, you somehow forgot to take out
FICA and other mandatory taxes.
>>Now, with the $16.40 per person I have figured for food (actually kids eat
>>less), with three kids to support as a whore who never got married, I
>>would spend only $65.60 per week for food, leaving me with $182-$65.60 or
>>$116.40 per week for rent. With an apartment costing $300 per month, I'd
>>have $116.40 time 4.3 weeks per month or $500.52 minus $300 rent or
>>$200.52 left after rent. If utilities were $100 per month, I'd be left
>>with $100.52.
Hint: you forgot clothes, shoes, doctor's bills, transportation costs
to get to work, school-related costs - the list goes on.. Hint: I
don't know where the hell you live that you can get an apartment that
is both large enough and safe enough to raise kids for only $300.
Hint: in most cases, the lady will *not* get the raise that you
blather about in your next paragraph (which i deleted for the good of
all mankind), unless she is able to acquire some sort of training,
which costs more money.
>>So, I don't understand why any woman with 3 kids needs welfare or food
>>stamps. The only reason I can see is if she is a worthless, lazy African
>>American.
Hint: most of America's poor are not black, you racist jerk.
Zepp
pa...@hshuna.hsh.com (Paul Havemann) wrote:
>Zepp (ze...@snowcrest.net) sez:
>
>: And left unmentioned is the fact that under Reagan, FICA taxes went up
had
>: generated.
>
>at all, but pure fantasy. Not even the most partisan Democrat in
>Congress at that time tried to spin the FICA tax increase that way.
>Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the issue -- which, apparently,
>excludes you -- would know that a bipartisan commission studied the
>issue before recommending the tax, and would also know that both parties
>signed off on it.
>
fund, didn't they. It's the one think that Kirt L. and I agree on, and it
is a ruse to cover up the extent of debt.
>: The problem, of course, is that this was exclusively a
>: recessive tax on the first $56K of income, a Republican tax. Pay your
>: taxes so the rich don't have to.
>
>Hmmm. So then Moynihan, Foley, Kennedy, and the other defenders of
>justice who voted it into law must also, therefore, be rich-n-greedy
>Republicans at heart, eh?
Moynihan very emphatically did not vote for it, and is in fact the leading
spokesman against it. Do a little reading, would you?
>
>BTW, Zepp, given that tax revenues increased during the 1980s, because
>of (or, if you can't choke that down, 'despite') the Reagan cuts, how,
>exactly, do _you_ explain the growth in the deficit? Could it be...
>spending? ;}
It could indeed. Somebody forget to tell Reagan that if you spend money
you don't have, that's called deficit spending, and nobody ever was able to
convince him that military spending counted toward the deficit, too.
>
> "Our fiscal history for the past 30 years can be written
> in three sentences:
> 1) The share of total earned income taxed by the government
> has remained between 18% and 20%; in 1992, it was 18.6%.
> 2) The share of federal government spending to total spending
> has increased from about 17% or 18% to about 23% or 24%.
> 3) The deficit has increased with spending."
> --Allan H. Meltzer, professor of
> economics, Carnegie-Mellon
> Wall Street Journal, 2/22/93
Yup, and nearly all of that "increased spending" goes to finance Reagan's
debt. He gave us less government that costs us more.
***************************************************************************
..I do think neocons are mentally damaged. Who else would work so hard to
make life unbearable for the bottom 50% of the population, while
simultaneously seeing to it that they are heavily armed?
***************************************************************************