That's our Clinton!
Kevin Gowen
--
Kevin Gowen
Eric Takabayashi
What would be wrong with that? He knows it doesn't
apply to him, and it would still be up to a President
to try to be re-elected. Why curtail a future
Roosevelt? Obviously Bush Sr., Carter, Ford did not cut
it. But would Reagan or Clinton have what it takes to
be elected once more? Would the national self
confidence or economic expansion actually continue?
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/cyez
>
> What would be wrong with that?
Americans tend to like term limits for members of the executive.
> He knows it doesn't
> apply to him,
Does he know that? He said it "probably" wouldn't apply to him. He talks
about someone who was elected president when 45-50 and then being elected
again a generation later. Gee, what recent president was first elected at
age 46 and then went on to serve two terms thereby constitutionally
preventing himself from serving again? I think we all know who he has in
mind.
> and it would still be up to a President
> to try to be re-elected. Why curtail a future
> Roosevelt?
So he can foul up the domestic side like the last Roosevelt did?
> Obviously Bush Sr., Carter, Ford did not cut
> it. But would Reagan or Clinton have what it takes to
> be elected once more?
Reagan has been elected once more.
> Would the national self
> confidence or economic expansion actually continue?
That depends on if the chairman of the Fed is an Alan Greenspan.
--
Kevin Gowen
mtfe...@netscape.net
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
> What would be wrong with that? He knows it doesn't
> apply to him, and it would still be up to a President
You misunderstand: Mr Gowen is lauding Clinton's stance advocating the
right of the people to determine their own leaders.
Mike
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >
> >> http://tinyurl.com/cyez
> >
> > What would be wrong with that?
>
> Americans tend to like term limits for members of the executive.
>
> > He knows it doesn't
> > apply to him,
>
> Does he know that? He said it "probably" wouldn't apply to him. He talks
> about someone who was elected president when 45-50 and then being elected
> again a generation later. Gee, what recent president was first elected at
> age 46 and then went on to serve two terms thereby constitutionally
> preventing himself from serving again? I think we all know who he has in
> mind.
And he would still have to be re-elected over any future President or
candidate.
> > and it would still be up to a President
> > to try to be re-elected. Why curtail a future
> > Roosevelt?
>
> So he can foul up the domestic side like the last Roosevelt did?
You mean the one who brought the US out of the Depression and got them
through WWII?
> > Obviously Bush Sr., Carter, Ford did not cut
> > it. But would Reagan or Clinton have what it takes to
> > be elected once more?
>
> Reagan has been elected once more.
Could he do it again after the public realized how he put future generations
in deficit?
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cyez
>>>
>>> What would be wrong with that?
>>
>> Americans tend to like term limits for members of the executive.
>>
>>> He knows it doesn't
>>> apply to him,
>>
>> Does he know that? He said it "probably" wouldn't apply to him. He
>> talks about someone who was elected president when 45-50 and then
>> being elected again a generation later. Gee, what recent president
>> was first elected at age 46 and then went on to serve two terms
>> thereby constitutionally preventing himself from serving again? I
>> think we all know who he has in mind.
>
> And he would still have to be re-elected over any future President or
> candidate.
Yes. So what? Don't get me wrong, I throw a party every time either of the
Clintons make their bonehead comments. It makes me see a parade of elephants
marching into Washington.
>>> and it would still be up to a President
>>> to try to be re-elected. Why curtail a future
>>> Roosevelt?
>>
>> So he can foul up the domestic side like the last Roosevelt did?
>
> You mean the one who brought the US out of the Depression and got them
> through WWII?
I was thinking of the New Deal. Funny that you mention the Depression. Did
it occur to you to wonder why it is called "Great"? Answer: FDR saw to it.
War is (civil war aside) a matter of foreign policy, which is why I
restricted my remark to the domestic.
>>> Obviously Bush Sr., Carter, Ford did not cut
>>> it. But would Reagan or Clinton have what it takes to
>>> be elected once more?
>>
>> Reagan has been elected once more.
>
> Could he do it again after the public realized how he put future
> generations in deficit?
What's wrong with deficit? Don't you engage in deficit spending? I do, as do
most people. Anyway, we'll know the answer next November. However, since as
of right now 2/3 of Americans cannot even name one of the nine jokers
seeking the Democrat nomination, Dubya looks pretty safe so far.
__
Kevin Gowen
Eric Takabayashi
> > And he would still have to be re-elected over any future President or
> > candidate.
>
> Yes. So what?
So there is nothing wrong with being eligible for re-election as long as the
public wants them.
> Don't get me wrong, I throw a party every time either of the
> Clintons make their bonehead comments. It makes me see a parade of elephants
> marching into Washington.
So why did Bush have such a hard time against the man who lost against Clinton,
and who else could have won, much less get a majority of the vote?
> >>> and it would still be up to a President
> >>> to try to be re-elected. Why curtail a future
> >>> Roosevelt?
> >>
> >> So he can foul up the domestic side like the last Roosevelt did?
> >
> > You mean the one who brought the US out of the Depression and got them
> > through WWII?
>
> I was thinking of the New Deal. Funny that you mention the Depression. Did
> it occur to you to wonder why it is called "Great"?
Because it was serious?
> Answer: FDR saw to it.
>
> War is (civil war aside) a matter of foreign policy, which is why I
> restricted my remark to the domestic.
>
> >>> Obviously Bush Sr., Carter, Ford did not cut
> >>> it. But would Reagan or Clinton have what it takes to
> >>> be elected once more?
> >>
> >> Reagan has been elected once more.
> >
> > Could he do it again after the public realized how he put future
> > generations in deficit?
>
> What's wrong with deficit? Don't you engage in deficit spending?
No. With the possible exception of a house, I do not need to spend more than I
have at the time, much less more than I will ever be able to pay for. I do not
dig ever deeper financial holes for myself and my family like administrations
of Japan or the US, deliberately or otherwise.
> I do, as do most people. Anyway, we'll know the answer next November.
The Bush Administration is seeing to it that we have a need for tighter
national security.
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>>> And he would still have to be re-elected over any future President
>>> or candidate.
>>
>> Yes. So what?
>
> So there is nothing wrong with being eligible for re-election as long
> as the public wants them.
I'll leave that up to the constitutional process.
>> Don't get me wrong, I throw a party every time either of the
>> Clintons make their bonehead comments. It makes me see a parade of
>> elephants marching into Washington.
>
> So why did Bush have such a hard time against the man who lost
> against Clinton, and who else could have won, much less get a
> majority of the vote?
What are you talking about?
>>>>> and it would still be up to a President
>>>>> to try to be re-elected. Why curtail a future
>>>>> Roosevelt?
>>>>
>>>> So he can foul up the domestic side like the last Roosevelt did?
>>>
>>> You mean the one who brought the US out of the Depression and got
>>> them through WWII?
>>
>> I was thinking of the New Deal. Funny that you mention the
>> Depression. Did it occur to you to wonder why it is called "Great"?
>
> Because it was serious?
And loooooong. It was serious and loooooong on FDR's watch.
>>>>> Obviously Bush Sr., Carter, Ford did not cut
>>>>> it. But would Reagan or Clinton have what it takes to
>>>>> be elected once more?
>>>>
>>>> Reagan has been elected once more.
>>>
>>> Could he do it again after the public realized how he put future
>>> generations in deficit?
>>
>> What's wrong with deficit? Don't you engage in deficit spending?
>
> No.
Then you are very rare. Most people do, with the most obvious example being
home/real property ownership.
> With the possible exception of a house, I do not need to spend
> more than I have at the time, much less more than I will ever be able
> to pay for.
Then if you have a house, you are engaging in deficit spending, unless you
paid for the house in full.
> I do not dig ever deeper financial holes for myself and
> my family like administrations of Japan or the US, deliberately or
> otherwise.
You never borrow money?
>> I do, as do most people. Anyway, we'll know the answer next November.
>
> The Bush Administration is seeing to it that we have a need for
> tighter national security.
Explain. It seems to me that the Bush Administration is fulfilling the need
for tighter national security.
--
Kevin Gowen
Ken
健曰、美国之有君、不如倭国之亡也
ま、所詮無学の輩には理解できないでしょうね。
Kevin Gowen
〹? 廿, 厖 蜗. LOL!
--
Kevin Gowen
Eric Takabayashi
> >> Don't get me wrong, I throw a party every time either of the
> >> Clintons make their bonehead comments. It makes me see a parade of
> >> elephants marching into Washington.
> >
> > So why did Bush have such a hard time against the man who lost
> > against Clinton, and who else could have won, much less get a
> > majority of the vote?
>
> What are you talking about?
Reagan's health would have given out, but either Bush wouldn't have beat
Clinton if he had continued.
> >>>>> and it would still be up to a President
> >>>>> to try to be re-elected. Why curtail a future
> >>>>> Roosevelt?
> >>>>
> >>>> So he can foul up the domestic side like the last Roosevelt did?
> >>>
> >>> You mean the one who brought the US out of the Depression and got
> >>> them through WWII?
> >>
> >> I was thinking of the New Deal. Funny that you mention the
> >> Depression. Did it occur to you to wonder why it is called "Great"?
> >
> > Because it was serious?
>
> And loooooong. It was serious and loooooong on FDR's watch.
He was the one who changed it. He had to undo it, like Clinton had to undo
what Bush and Reagan had done.
> >>>>> Obviously Bush Sr., Carter, Ford did not cut
> >>>>> it. But would Reagan or Clinton have what it takes to
> >>>>> be elected once more?
> >>>>
> >>>> Reagan has been elected once more.
> >>>
> >>> Could he do it again after the public realized how he put future
> >>> generations in deficit?
> >>
> >> What's wrong with deficit? Don't you engage in deficit spending?
> >
> > No.
>
> Then you are very rare. Most people do, with the most obvious example being
> home/real property ownership.
Then they don't have enough money. Going into debt for property ownership is
only useful if values rise at an attractive rate, or one cares to commit
themselves for a few decades of residence or repayment.
> > With the possible exception of a house, I do not need to spend
> > more than I have at the time, much less more than I will ever be able
> > to pay for.
>
> Then if you have a house, you are engaging in deficit spending, unless you
> paid for the house in full.
And pay for real estate in full for personal use or investment purposes is
what I can currently do, with or without help from my wife or family.
> > I do not dig ever deeper financial holes for myself and
> > my family like administrations of Japan or the US, deliberately or
> > otherwise.
>
> You never borrow money?
No. Why should I? I only use my credit cards so I don't have to write checks
or carry excess cash, and pay it off in full every month.
> >> I do, as do most people. Anyway, we'll know the answer next November.
> >
> > The Bush Administration is seeing to it that we have a need for
> > tighter national security.
>
> Explain. It seems to me that the Bush Administration is fulfilling the need
> for tighter national security.
It is the administration's hard line, tough talking policy and military
actions, that created the need for tighter national security. Perhaps Bush
would like to go the way of Israel.
Ken
>
> ま、所詮無学の輩には理解できないでしょうね。
Sigh. Zenkaku characters transmogrified into (fortunately syntactically
valid) 16-bit HTML tokens due to the usual web client/Google server
character set mismatch.
The stuff is still readable if copied and pasted verbatim into a text file,
wrapped in opening and closing "HTML" tags, then saved e.g. with a ".html"
filename extension, then opened with "HTML interpretation on" e.g. with a
web browser.
Posting in romaji would indeed be less problem-prone, but the message
contents sometimes *requires* "hanzis"...
Kevin Gowen
> Ken wrote:
>> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/cyez
>>
>>
>>
>>
健曰、美国之有君、
981;如倭国之亡也
>>
>>
ま、所詮無学の輩に
399;理解できないでしょ
うね。
>
>
> Sigh. Zenkaku characters transmogrified into (fortunately
> syntactically
> valid) 16-bit HTML tokens due to the usual web client/Google server
> character set mismatch.
May I suggest fixing your chat machine?
> The stuff is still readable if copied and pasted verbatim into a text
> file,
> wrapped in opening and closing "HTML" tags, then saved e.g. with a
> ".html"
> filename extension, then opened with "HTML interpretation on" e.g.
> with a
> web browser.
> Posting in romaji would indeed be less problem-prone, but the message
> contents sometimes *requires* "hanzis"...
If you fix your chat machine you will be able to post in hanzis [sic] as
easily as most of the rest of us do.
--
Kevin Gowen
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>>>> Don't get me wrong, I throw a party every time either of the
>>>> Clintons make their bonehead comments. It makes me see a parade of
>>>> elephants marching into Washington.
>>>
>>> So why did Bush have such a hard time against the man who lost
>>> against Clinton, and who else could have won, much less get a
>>> majority of the vote?
>>
>> What are you talking about?
>
> Reagan's health would have given out, but either Bush wouldn't have
> beat Clinton if he had continued.
I am still trying to figure out who the person is who lost to Clinton and
then gave Bush such a hard time.
>>>>>>> and it would still be up to a President
>>>>>>> to try to be re-elected. Why curtail a future
>>>>>>> Roosevelt?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So he can foul up the domestic side like the last Roosevelt did?
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean the one who brought the US out of the Depression and got
>>>>> them through WWII?
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking of the New Deal. Funny that you mention the
>>>> Depression. Did it occur to you to wonder why it is called "Great"?
>>>
>>> Because it was serious?
>>
>> And loooooong. It was serious and loooooong on FDR's watch.
>
> He was the one who changed it.
FDR did not change the Great Depression. He insured that it was great. Learn
about Lord John Maynard Keynes, the man who was FDR's big influence. You
grouse about deficit spending? FDR was the king. Take a look at the budget
he proposed in 1934 for a wonderful example of this.
> He had to undo it, like Clinton had to
> undo what Bush and Reagan had done.
All FDR undid was the value of the dollar.
Let me guess...you went to a government school?
>>>>>>> Obviously Bush Sr., Carter, Ford did not cut
>>>>>>> it. But would Reagan or Clinton have what it takes to
>>>>>>> be elected once more?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reagan has been elected once more.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could he do it again after the public realized how he put future
>>>>> generations in deficit?
>>>>
>>>> What's wrong with deficit? Don't you engage in deficit spending?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> Then you are very rare. Most people do, with the most obvious
>> example being home/real property ownership.
>
> Then they don't have enough money.
How do you define having enough money? Such ownership is generally
considered an investment. It is wise to borrown money in order to make
money.
> Going into debt for property
> ownership is only useful if values rise at an attractive rate, or one
> cares to commit themselves for a few decades of residence or
> repayment.
Then you feel that no one should ever have a car payment?
>>> With the possible exception of a house, I do not need to spend
>>> more than I have at the time, much less more than I will ever be
>>> able
>>> to pay for.
>>
>> Then if you have a house, you are engaging in deficit spending,
>> unless you paid for the house in full.
>
> And pay for real estate in full for personal use or investment
> purposes is what I can currently do, with or without help from my
> wife or family.
I don't understand. You use the present tense rather than the past tense. Is
the real estate paid for or not?
>>> I do not dig ever deeper financial holes for myself and
>>> my family like administrations of Japan or the US, deliberately or
>>> otherwise.
>>
>> You never borrow money?
>
> No. Why should I?
I am not telling you that you should. I am simply surprised.
> I only use my credit cards so I don't have to write
> checks or carry excess cash, and pay it off in full every month.
>
>>>> I do, as do most people. Anyway, we'll know the answer next
>>>> November.
>>>
>>> The Bush Administration is seeing to it that we have a need for
>>> tighter national security.
>>
>> Explain. It seems to me that the Bush Administration is fulfilling
>> the need for tighter national security.
>
> It is the administration's hard line, tough talking policy and
> military actions, that created the need for tighter national
> security.
Explain.
> Perhaps Bush would like to go the way of Israel.
I wish the hell we would. El Al-style airline security would be a good
start. Israel does not fuck around.
--
Kevin Gowen
Brett Robson
>
>
>I was thinking of the New Deal. Funny that you mention the Depression. Did
>it occur to you to wonder why it is called "Great"? Answer: FDR saw to it.
Warning: Amatuer Economist at work.
I'm interested what crackpot theory you think explains the cause of The Great
Depression. No, I take that back, I'm not interested in what you think. I've
read the experts, stick to law.
---
"2 out of 3 ain't bad" - Meat Loaf
"1 out 2^64 is a real bitch" - Original
Ken
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>
>>Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://tinyurl.com/cyez
>>
>>What would be wrong with that?
>
> Americans tend to like term limits for members of the executive.
Gowen doesn't seem to realize that US presidents are *not* named for
life and that their terms *always* come up for renewal after a maximum
of 4 years... Gowen needs to read up a bit on US legal matters...
>>Obviously Bush Sr., Carter, Ford did not cut
>>it. But would Reagan or Clinton have what it takes to
>>be elected once more?
>
> Reagan has been elected once more.
Did Reagan serve 3 terms as US president? Or did Reagan go to the
trouble of being elected 3 times as president and then renounce to
serve his 3d term? That's news to me. I take it History is not
Gowen's forte...
>>Would the national self
>>confidence or economic expansion actually continue?
>
> That depends on if the chairman of the Fed is an Alan Greenspan.
Hmm, the Fed chairman's persona as a necessary or sufficient factor
to ensure US national self-confidence or economic expansion. What a
simple and elegant Gowenworld-view. Forget about "negligible" factors
like national/international political crises, balance of payment or
government deficit issues, oil price and currency fluctuations, consumer
demand/demographic/technological/productivity evolutions, changes in
the US industries' international competitiveness or the US share in
world economic output, or simply *who* determines *fiscal* policy in
the US... But then again a characteristic of idiots like Gowen is
their inability to even grasp that the real world might be actually
more complicated than what their dim mind can perceive...
Ken
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>
>>Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>
>>>What's wrong with deficit? Don't you engage in deficit spending?
>>
>>No.
>
> Then you are very rare. Most people do, with the most obvious example
> being home/real property ownership.
I can't believe I'm wasting time replying to a barrel bottom student
like Gowen who is still deluding himself with the notion that he
understands topics and issues he's obviously too stupid to grasp.
Gowen, do you really believe that "most people" who apply for a home
loan are allowed to borrow more than the assessed value of the property
they are acquiring? Furthermore, do "most people" with a home loan
have an outstanding debt figure that *increases* with time?
As to the government, what can be found on the asset side of their
balance sheet which might match its ballooning financial liabilities?
If there's nothing wrong with deficit spending, why impose limits on
it at all? Heck, why shouldn't the government have an annual budget
of, say, 300%, or 70000%, or 987654321% of the country's annual GDP,
and flood the citizen's pockets with money?
Anyway, the latest US statistics indicate an average household saving
rate of about 1%, which is a POSITIVE figure. "Most people" engage
in "deficit spending"? In GowenWorld, perhaps, but not in the US of A,
or in Japan, or in the EU for that matter...
Ken
> If you fix your chat machine you will be able to...
I wonder what makes you think I have control over this particular
"chat" machine...
It would be a bit uncivil of me to install an IME on a system I don't
own. Temporarily pointing a X11 server to a net-accessible font server,
on the other hand, doesn't leave any customizations behind when I leave.
Having no IME available makes inputting e.g. japanese a quite tedious
copy and paste process, but one sometimes doesn't have a choice.
Anyway, these concepts are probably beyond the intellectual grasp
of a person who has never used anything more advanced than a small
personal computer -- sorry, "chat" machine...
> ...post in hanzis [sic] as easily as most of the rest of us do.
Interesting, this "[sic]". It seems you hasn't been able to figure
out how to copy the two text lines with the HTML "&xxx;" entities
into a clipboard and paste them between <html> </html> tags and open
the resulting text file in a web browser. Why am I not surprised.
Anyway, if Gowen who likes discussing fixing "chat" machines had the
computer skills to use basic copy/paste functions, he'd *perhaps* have
understood why I deliberately used the term "hanzis" (between quotes)
chapter 2
lamer.
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cyez
>>>
>>> What would be wrong with that?
>>
>> Americans tend to like term limits for members of the executive.
>
> Gowen doesn't seem to realize that US presidents are *not* named for
> life and that their terms *always* come up for renewal after a maximum
> of 4 years... Gowen needs to read up a bit on US legal matters...
Could you indicate where I said anything about presidents being named for
life or not having four year terms? TIA!
>>> Obviously Bush Sr., Carter, Ford did not cut
>>> it. But would Reagan or Clinton have what it takes to
>>> be elected once more?
>>
>> Reagan has been elected once more.
>
> Did Reagan serve 3 terms as US president? Or did Reagan go to the
> trouble of being elected 3 times as president and then renounce to
> serve his 3d term? That's news to me. I take it History is not
> Gowen's forte...
Whoosh.
>>> Would the national self
>>> confidence or economic expansion actually continue?
>>
>> That depends on if the chairman of the Fed is an Alan Greenspan.
>
> Hmm, the Fed chairman's persona as a necessary or sufficient factor
> to ensure US national self-confidence or economic expansion.
Did I say that? No.
> What a
> simple and elegant Gowenworld-view. Forget about "negligible" factors
> like national/international political crises, balance of payment or
> government deficit issues, oil price and currency fluctuations,
> consumer demand/demographic/technological/productivity evolutions,
> changes in the US industries' international competitiveness or the US
> share in world economic output, or simply *who* determines *fiscal*
> policy in the US... But then again a characteristic of idiots like
> Gowen is their inability to even grasp that the real world might be
> actually more complicated than what their dim mind can perceive...
Good to have you back. Let me know when you fix your chat machine.
--
Kevin Gowen
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What's wrong with deficit? Don't you engage in deficit spending?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> Then you are very rare. Most people do, with the most obvious example
>> being home/real property ownership.
>
> I can't believe I'm wasting time replying to a barrel bottom student
> like Gowen who is still deluding himself with the notion that he
> understands topics and issues he's obviously too stupid to grasp.
I can believe it. I am simply irresistible.
> Gowen, do you really believe that "most people" who apply for a home
> loan are allowed to borrow more than the assessed value of the
> property they are acquiring? Furthermore, do "most people" with a
> home loan have an outstanding debt figure that *increases* with time?
What's your point? You surely aren't refuting my statement that most people
engage in deficit spending.
> As to the government, what can be found on the asset side of their
> balance sheet which might match its ballooning financial liabilities?
> If there's nothing wrong with deficit spending, why impose limits on
> it at all?
Indeed. There is nothing wrong with eating food, so there is no reason why a
person should not consume 30,000 calories of butter a day.
> Heck, why shouldn't the government have an annual budget
> of, say, 300%, or 70000%, or 987654321% of the country's annual GDP,
> and flood the citizen's pockets with money?
I see that you have heard of FDR.
> Anyway, the latest US statistics indicate an average household saving
> rate of about 1%, which is a POSITIVE figure. "Most people" engage
> in "deficit spending"?
In the U.S. they sure as hell do. Just because you are saving money does not
mean that one does not engage in deficit spending. I have a savings account
into which I make weekly deposits yet I have a deficit of six figures.
> In GowenWorld, perhaps, but not in the US of
> A, or in Japan, or in the EU for that matter...
Certainly in the US. I don't know about Japan. AFAIK, the EU is not a
country.
--
Kevin Gowen
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>> If you fix your chat machine you will be able to...
>
> I wonder what makes you think I have control over this particular
> "chat" machine...
> It would be a bit uncivil of me to install an IME on a system I don't
> own.
We all know how concered you are with being civil.
> Temporarily pointing a X11 server to a net-accessible font
> server, on the other hand, doesn't leave any customizations behind
> when I leave. Having no IME available makes inputting e.g. japanese a
> quite tedious copy and paste process, but one sometimes doesn't have
> a choice. Anyway, these concepts are probably beyond the intellectual
> grasp
> of a person who has never used anything more advanced than a small
> personal computer -- sorry, "chat" machine...
>
>
>> ...post in hanzis [sic] as easily as most of the rest of us do.
>
> Interesting, this "[sic]".
The interesting part is that you have decided to pluralize a Chinese word.
> It seems you hasn't been able to figure
> out how to copy the two text lines with the HTML "&xxx;" entities
> into a clipboard and paste them between <html> </html> tags and open
> the resulting text file in a web browser. Why am I not surprised.
Because you are civil?
> Anyway, if Gowen who likes discussing fixing "chat" machines had the
> computer skills to use basic copy/paste functions, he'd *perhaps* have
> understood why I deliberately used the term "hanzis" (between quotes)
Your failure to fix your chat machine does not constitute my duty to decode
your post.
--
Kevin Gowen
John W.
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >
> >> http://tinyurl.com/cyez
> >
> > What would be wrong with that?
>
> Americans tend to like term limits for members of the executive.
>
John W.
Declan Murphy
> I was thinking of the New Deal. Funny that you mention the Depression. Did
> it occur to you to wonder why it is called "Great"? Answer: FDR saw to it.
ブワッハッハッハ！
Apart from the ever so predictable Friedman, would you care to name a
single winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics who is on record as
stating that the fiscal policies followed in Roosevelt's first and
second terms *in any way* exacerbated the depth or length of the great
Depression?
--
The captain is brave ( Aye! Carumba! What a storm! ).
The captain is brave, he's a fearless man,
And Gilligan help him all that he can.
The wheel, she break, and lose all control;
S.S. Minnow do the rock-and-roll!
Kevin Gowen
Do you know of any governors or mayors that aren't subject to term limits?
> John W.
--
Kevin Gowen
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> I was thinking of the New Deal. Funny that you mention the
>> Depression. Did it occur to you to wonder why it is called "Great"?
>> Answer: FDR saw to it.
>
> ブワッハッハッハ！
>
> Apart from the ever so predictable Friedman, would you care to name a
> single winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics who is on record as
> stating that the fiscal policies followed in Roosevelt's first and
> second terms *in any way* exacerbated the depth or length of the great
> Depression?
Why the Nobel Prize qualifier?
--
Kevin Gowen
Declan Murphy
Easier for you to search. Easier for economic illiterates like yourself
to separate mainstream economist from kook economist. You can widen the
parameters to include John Bates Clark Medal winners if you think it
will help. Take your time.
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>> Declan Murphy wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was thinking of the New Deal. Funny that you mention the
>>>> Depression. Did it occur to you to wonder why it is called "Great"?
>>>> Answer: FDR saw to it.
>>>
>>> ブワッハッハッハ！
>>>
>>> Apart from the ever so predictable Friedman, would you care to name
>>> a single winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics who is on record as
>>> stating that the fiscal policies followed in Roosevelt's first and
>>> second terms *in any way* exacerbated the depth or length of the
>>> great Depression?
>>
>> Why the Nobel Prize qualifier?
>
> Easier for you to search. Easier for economic illiterates like
> yourself to separate mainstream economist from kook economist. You
> can widen the parameters to include John Bates Clark Medal winners if
> you think it will help. Take your time.
Why the medal-winning qualifier?
--
Kevin Gowen
Declan Murphy
Same reason. I'm sure that it might be possibe to find some obscure
economist working at some obscure regional agricultural college who
would be prepared to state without qualification "that the fiscal
policies followed in Roosevelt's first and second terms *in any way*
exacerbated the depth or length of the great Depression", but even then
I wouldn't get your hopes up.
Brett Robson
>
>Then you are very rare. Most people do, with the most obvious example being
>home/real property ownership.
Most people borrow more than the house is worth? That's very strange, why would
they do that?
Christ, now you are an amateur accountant.
Its a simple equation.
Equity = disposable value - debt
>Then if you have a house, you are engaging in deficit spending, unless you
>paid for the house in full.
No. However a car /may/ be an example.
Brett Robson
To distinguish between economists and politicians/lobbyists masquerading as
economists.
Brett Robson
>
>Same reason. I'm sure that it might be possibe to find some obscure
>economist working at some obscure regional agricultural college who
>would be prepared to state without qualification "that the fiscal
>policies followed in Roosevelt's first and second terms *in any way*
>exacerbated the depth or length of the great Depression", but even then
>I wouldn't get your hopes up.
>
There are quite a few crackpots that would say exactly that and I know exactly
what KGII's argument would be. However only winners of the Reaganomics Medal,
Gold Standard fools, and other assorted loons ascribe to these theories. Oh and
amateur economists.
mtfe...@netscape.net
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>>> I was thinking of the New Deal. Funny that you mention the
>>> Depression. Did it occur to you to wonder why it is called "Great"?
>>
>> Because it was serious?
> And loooooong. It was serious and loooooong on FDR's watch.
That can happen when you're an export-economy and the rest of the world
doesn't have the money to buy your goods...
> Then if you have a house, you are engaging in deficit spending, unless you
> paid for the house in full.
I'm confused here; it USED to be that a balanced budget was a Republican
issue. When did it become a Democratic issue?
Mike
mtfe...@netscape.net
> Ken wrote:
>>> Americans tend to like term limits for members of the executive.
>>
>> Gowen doesn't seem to realize that US presidents are *not* named for
>> life and that their terms *always* come up for renewal after a maximum
>> of 4 years... Gowen needs to read up a bit on US legal matters...
> Could you indicate where I said anything about presidents being named for
> life or not having four year terms? TIA!
Then you have no real objection: if Americans truly do "like term limits for
members of the executive", they can limit them at the ballot box.
Except, perhaps, in Florida.
Mike
Ed
"Eric Takabayashi" <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
news:3ED6369A...@yahoo.co.jp...
> So there is nothing wrong with being eligible for re-election as long as
the
> public wants them.
Before Tanaka ousted the previous governer of Nagano, the previous governer
(hell if I know what his name was) had won about the last 15 or 30
elections. He was as old as dirt and as corrupt as a politician. You've got
politicians here in Japan in their 90s who have forgotten everything they've
ever heard about alzheimers. Best to just give them a chance to do what they
want in a few years (I think 8 is more than enough), and then ship 'em on
out to the old folks home where they can't do any more harm than pissing in
their pants. Clinton had his chance and now he's retired.
This is a good thing. The majority of people are not exactly smart. They
vote for the name they know. They don't know much more than the fact that
the devil they know might not be as bad as the devil they don't know.
Ousting a sitting president is a difficult task because people are stupid.
If it was up to me, I'd limit the term to one year and then send them
packing. Hell, if it was really up to me, we wouldn't have presidents, prime
ministers or emporers. We'd just have jungle laws whereby if you're too old,
you'd best hope you've managed to make enough friends that you don't get
your ass kicked by the biggest and baddest gorilla who currently occupies
the top of the hill.
Make as many friends as you can and try to live a decent and moral life.
Politicians simply don't think like that, because a political system doesn't
reward a decent and moral life. Politics rewards connections and power. And
while everyone might agree with the latter, they will continue to support
politicians because the majority are stupid.
Is it any wonder that democracy is so popular amongst the majority?
Ed
> Then you are very rare. Most people do, with the most obvious example
being
> home/real property ownership.
What is wrong with deficit?
Kevin Gowen
Not a damn thing.
--
Kevin Gowen
Brett Robson
Come on Kevin, tell us what a deficit is and how it could relate to real estate.
Declan Murphy
> FDR did not change the Great Depression. He insured that it was great. Learn
> about Lord John Maynard Keynes, the man who was FDR's big influence.
You are very confused and misinformed here Kevin. Keynes had very little
influence at all on fiscal policy in the US, or even for that matter in
the UK at the time. If anything, the influence was (marginally) in
reverse, as attempts to stimulate aggregate demand through expansionary
fiscal policy in the US (begun tentatively under Hoover no less)
substantially predate Keynes' General Theory. Keynes only influence in
the US prior to 1936 was through his devastating critique of the Treaty
of Versailles. Keynesian theory did not substantially impact upon
America's fiscal and monetary policies until the immediate postwar
period, due to largely to the efforts of academic economists in the
other Cambridge.
>>He had to undo it, like Clinton had to
>>undo what Bush and Reagan had done.
>
> All FDR undid was the value of the dollar.
ブワッハッハッハ！
The slide into the Depression, with increasing unemployment, falling
production, and falling prices, began, continued and troughed during
Hoover's term. Jaysus Kevin, even Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz have
argued that the Depression was the direct consequence of a sequence of
blunders in monetary policy through 1928-29. But those controlling
policy right up until FDR's first moves in 1933 genuinely believed they
were following the same gold-standard rules as their predecessors. Were
they (and Kevin) right? If they (and Kevin) were right, why did they
think they were following in the footsteps of their predecessors?
And if they were right Kevin, why was the Great Depression the only
Great Depression?
Brett Robson
>
>Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> All FDR undid was the value of the dollar.
>
>ブワッハッハッハ！
Thanks Declan I missed that little gem of Kevin's. It's exactlly the attitude I
expected. He believes that labour markets can clear and seems to believe in the
gold standard.
What is lost of most people with Kevin's level of knowledge is the massive, and
necessary, restructuring that happened. Of course this happened at the expense
of the very rich, but the US would not have been able to meet the demands of
WWII and enjoy the following boom without this restructuring. I wonder if a
grandfather or greatfather of his lost a fortune and blamed FDR.
Of course he won't see any of this because he put me in his kill file when he
was sulking about my wise crack about his mother-in-law.
I'm out of here, Jonathon Sumo is giving Bryan and me a drinking lesson tonight
and my liver hurts already. I hope he doesn't scare Bryan's offspring.
Geoff Thatcher
> Hell, if it was really up to me, we wouldn't have presidents, prime
> ministers or emporers.
Fester!
Ed
"Geoff Thatcher" <geofft...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:59adc96.03053...@posting.google.com...
I'm a festering hemorrhoid on the ass of governmental authority.
Ed
In fact, I think it would be hard to prove that such a thing can even exist
for a government that prints it's own money.
Eric Takabayashi
> I am still trying to figure out who the person is who lost to Clinton and
> then gave Bush such a hard time.
Gore.
> >>>> I was thinking of the New Deal. Funny that you mention the
> >>>> Depression. Did it occur to you to wonder why it is called "Great"?
> >>>
> >>> Because it was serious?
> >>
> >> And loooooong. It was serious and loooooong on FDR's watch.
> >
> > He was the one who changed it.
>
> FDR did not change the Great Depression. He insured that it was great. Learn
> about Lord John Maynard Keynes, the man who was FDR's big influence. You
> grouse about deficit spending? FDR was the king. Take a look at the budget
> he proposed in 1934 for a wonderful example of this.
>
> > He had to undo it, like Clinton had to
> > undo what Bush and Reagan had done.
>
> All FDR undid was the value of the dollar.
>
> Let me guess...you went to a government school?
>
> >>>>>>> Obviously Bush Sr., Carter, Ford did not cut
> >>>>>>> it. But would Reagan or Clinton have what it takes to
> >>>>>>> be elected once more?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Reagan has been elected once more.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Could he do it again after the public realized how he put future
> >>>>> generations in deficit?
> >>>>
> >>>> What's wrong with deficit? Don't you engage in deficit spending?
> >>>
> >>> No.
> >>
> >> Then you are very rare. Most people do, with the most obvious
> >> example being home/real property ownership.
> >
> > Then they don't have enough money.
>
> How do you define having enough money?
Having cash on hand, not having to borrow money from family, friends or banks.
I had money in the bank, but it was tied up, thus I "did not have enough money"
to buy Yahoo! Japan stocks or invest in the stock market until it was already
near its peak.
> Such ownership is generally considered an investment. It is wise to borrown
> money in order to make money.
Only, in the case of real estate, if values are on the increase, and offering a
better return than banks, stocks or bonds, for example. If property values were
increasing about six percent a year, and were somehow able to continue, why
would I take out a six percent loan for the next 30 years, when I can put that
into something that will grow right now?
As for Japan, deflation and declines in real estate prices are the norm, and by
the time the loan on a new structure is paid off, it will be about time to
rebuild. I would not "invest" in Japanese real estate.
A house for me, is a place to live. It is hardly relevant that my family's
property values have shot up, because I don't want to sell off the family
house, the only house I have ever known, or my grandfather's 19th century house
to get at that money (minus taxes).
> > Going into debt for property
> > ownership is only useful if values rise at an attractive rate, or one
> > cares to commit themselves for a few decades of residence or
> > repayment.
>
> Then you feel that no one should ever have a car payment?
Despite being able to afford one, I would prefer not to buy a brand new car.
Here in Japan I would prefer to wait four or five years, and buy a sweet car at
about half price. Here in Fukuyama is a place where you can buy even a Mercedes
500 series about ten years old, for 90,000 yen during the dealer's periodical
90,000 yen campaign. If other people would like to pay inflated prices to have
brand new cars in order to provide me with quality used cars, that is fine.
> >>> With the possible exception of a house, I do not need to spend
> >>> more than I have at the time, much less more than I will ever be
> >>> able
> >>> to pay for.
> >>
> >> Then if you have a house, you are engaging in deficit spending,
> >> unless you paid for the house in full.
> >
> > And pay for real estate in full for personal use or investment
> > purposes is what I can currently do, with or without help from my
> > wife or family.
>
> I don't understand. You use the present tense rather than the past tense. Is
> the real estate paid for or not?
I do not "invest" in real estate, and I am not going to buy a house while
rampant deflation continues, nor am I sure I want to spend decades of my life
in Fukuyama while paying off a loan, nor do I know what my future holds while
my family would be obligated to pay a decades long loan. I have cash to buy a
house. The problem is just where and which one.
> >>> I do not dig ever deeper financial holes for myself and
> >>> my family like administrations of Japan or the US, deliberately or
> >>> otherwise.
> >>
> >> You never borrow money?
> >
> > No. Why should I?
>
> I am not telling you that you should. I am simply surprised.
Why is someone expecting a corporate lawyer's salary or lifestyle, surprised
that someone is able to make a decent living within their means?
> > It is the administration's hard line, tough talking policy and
> > military actions, that created the need for tighter national
> > security.
>
> Explain.
Are foreigners, particularly those of the Islamist persuasion, who are the
people usually considered a threat to American security at home and abroad,
more pissed off at America now, or under Clinton? Did this level of terrorism
occur under the tough talking Bush Administration, who makes veiled threats
against other Islamic nations, or under Clinton?
> > Perhaps Bush would like to go the way of Israel.
>
> I wish the hell we would. El Al-style airline security would be a good
> start. Israel does not fuck around.
Yes, and look at how safe Israeli society, and how healthy the Israeli economy
are. Look at how at ease Israelis are with their government issued gas masks.
Look at how "safe" and "secure" the US is becoming and has become. Japan does
not have pissed off foreign volunteers, much less citizens, planning or making
high profile attacks against them on a regular basis as in Israel, or the US. I
wonder why.
Eric Takabayashi
> As to the government, what can be found on the asset side of their
> balance sheet which might match its ballooning financial liabilities?
Indeed. I wonder how someone of Kevin's eclectic diet of media sources,
would miss something as obvious as this:
Washington shelved report of 44-trillion-dollar deficit
Thu May 29, 8:53 AM ET
LONDON (AFP) - In the midst of negotiating a steep tax cuts package, the
US government shelved a report that showed the United States faces future
federal budget deficits of more than 44.2 trillion dollars.
[snip]
"It estimates that closing the gap would require the equivalent of an
immediate and permanent 66 percent across-the-board income tax increase,"
the Financial Times said.
[snip]
That is correct: the *government sponsored* study found that a massive,
immediate AND permanent tax increase was necessary, kind of like how I
should vastly increase my own income if I plan on deliberately putting
myself and my family more deeply into debt with no foreseeable way out.
I wonder what Bush or any of his successors intends to do about a 44
TRILLION dollar deficit, if they do not come up with a way to pay it off
or reverse the trend.
> If there's nothing wrong with deficit spending, why impose limits on
> it at all? Heck, why shouldn't the government have an annual budget
> of, say, 300%, or 70000%, or 987654321% of the country's annual GDP,
> and flood the citizen's pockets with money?
>
> Anyway, the latest US statistics indicate an average household saving
> rate of about 1%, which is a POSITIVE figure. "Most people" engage
> in "deficit spending"? In GowenWorld, perhaps, but not in the US of A,
Eric Takabayashi
It's wrong if you have no way to pay it off, like with Bush. If you like
where you live so much, and are so sure you will be around to pay off your
house, you go right ahead and put yourself and your family in debt.
Eric Takabayashi
> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bb7121$6ejpf$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de...
> > Ed wrote:
> > > "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:bb5dc8$5t2ej$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> > >> Then you are very rare. Most people do, with the most obvious
> > >> example being home/real property ownership.
> > >
> > > What is wrong with deficit?
> >
> > Not a damn thing.
>
> In fact, I think it would be hard to prove that such a thing can even exist
> for a government that prints it's own money.
So why don't you imagine why the US does not just slap three zeroes on every
US note, and use that to pay down the deficit or pay off foreign held bonds?
Eric Takabayashi
> "Eric Takabayashi" <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
> news:3ED6369A...@yahoo.co.jp...
>
> > So there is nothing wrong with being eligible for re-election as long as
> the
> > public wants them.
>
> Before Tanaka ousted the previous governer of Nagano, the previous governer
> (hell if I know what his name was) had won about the last 15 or 30
> elections. He was as old as dirt and as corrupt as a politician. You've got
> politicians here in Japan in their 90s who have forgotten everything they've
> ever heard about alzheimers. Best to just give them a chance to do what they
> want in a few years (I think 8 is more than enough), and then ship 'em on
> out to the old folks home where they can't do any more harm than pissing in
> their pants. Clinton had his chance and now he's retired.
And what if countries had good leaders? Should we be obligated to be rid of
them, too?
> This is a good thing. The majority of people are not exactly smart. They
That is not the fault of a good leader, nor should it be held against them.
> vote for the name they know. They don't know much more than the fact that
> the devil they know might not be as bad as the devil they don't know.
> Ousting a sitting president is a difficult task because people are stupid.
So what happened to Bush Sr., Ford Carter, and every other President who was
never re-elected? That difficult, huh.
> If it was up to me, I'd limit the term to one year and then send them
> packing.
And how would there be any consistency in policy, or enough time for measures
or reforms to take effect? Laws may be passed years in advance. It's bad enough
that an Administration's work gets screwed up after just four or eight years.
> Hell, if it was really up to me, we wouldn't have presidents, prime
> ministers or emporers. We'd just have jungle laws whereby if you're too old,
> you'd best hope you've managed to make enough friends that you don't get
> your ass kicked by the biggest and baddest gorilla who currently occupies
> the top of the hill.
Yes, that is simple enough to envision. You could also go back to living in a
cave as well as you could hunting your own food and defending your own family
and property with sharp rocks and sticks as it was for perhaps millions of
years. Now how would a modern, nationwide or international society continue to
function without a government as under a president, prime minister, or emperor,
or consistency of greater than one year?
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> I am still trying to figure out who the person is who lost to
>> Clinton and then gave Bush such a hard time.
>
> Gore.
When did Gore lose to Clinton? I guess you mean the 1992 nomination?
>>>> Then you are very rare. Most people do, with the most obvious
>>>> example being home/real property ownership.
>>>
>>> Then they don't have enough money.
>>
>> How do you define having enough money?
>
> Having cash on hand, not having to borrow money from family, friends
> or banks. I had money in the bank, but it was tied up, thus I "did
> not have enough money" to buy Yahoo! Japan stocks or invest in the
> stock market until it was already near its peak.
So having enough money means never borrowing it? That strikes me as an odd
definition.
>> Such ownership is generally considered an investment. It is wise to
>> borrown money in order to make money.
>
> Only, in the case of real estate, if values are on the increase, and
> offering a better return than banks, stocks or bonds, for example.
Then you concede my point.
> If
> property values were increasing about six percent a year, and were
> somehow able to continue, why would I take out a six percent loan for
> the next 30 years, when I can put that into something that will grow
> right now?
No one is telling you that you should.
> As for Japan, deflation and declines in real estate prices are the
> norm, and by the time the loan on a new structure is paid off, it
> will be about time to rebuild. I would not "invest" in Japanese real
> estate.
I'm not talking about Japan.
> A house for me, is a place to live.
It is for me, too. I think most people would agree.
> It is hardly relevant that my
> family's property values have shot up, because I don't want to sell
> off the family house, the only house I have ever known, or my
> grandfather's 19th century house to get at that money (minus taxes).
I see.
>>> Going into debt for property
>>> ownership is only useful if values rise at an attractive rate, or
>>> one cares to commit themselves for a few decades of residence or
>>> repayment.
>>
>> Then you feel that no one should ever have a car payment?
>
> Despite being able to afford one, I would prefer not to buy a brand
> new car. Here in Japan I would prefer to wait four or five years, and
> buy a sweet car at about half price. Here in Fukuyama is a place
> where you can buy even a Mercedes 500 series about ten years old, for
> 90,000 yen during the dealer's periodical 90,000 yen campaign. If
> other people would like to pay inflated prices to have brand new cars
> in order to provide me with quality used cars, that is fine.
You didn't answer my question.
>>> And pay for real estate in full for personal use or investment
>>> purposes is what I can currently do, with or without help from my
>>> wife or family.
>>
>> I don't understand. You use the present tense rather than the past
>> tense. Is the real estate paid for or not?
>
> I do not "invest" in real estate, and I am not going to buy a house
> while rampant deflation continues, nor am I sure I want to spend
> decades of my life in Fukuyama while paying off a loan, nor do I know
> what my future holds while my family would be obligated to pay a
> decades long loan. I have cash to buy a house. The problem is just
> where and which one.
Yes or no will do.
>>>> You never borrow money?
>>>
>>> No. Why should I?
>>
>> I am not telling you that you should. I am simply surprised.
>
> Why is someone expecting a corporate lawyer's salary or lifestyle,
> surprised that someone is able to make a decent living within their
> means?
When did I ever say anything about my expectations?
> Are foreigners, particularly those of the Islamist persuasion, who
> are the people usually considered a threat to American security at
> home and abroad, more pissed off at America now, or under Clinton?
I have no idea how to measure such a thing.
> Did this level of terrorism occur under the tough talking Bush
> Administration, who makes veiled threats against other Islamic
> nations, or under Clinton?
Define level. I am pretty sure the first World Trade Center attack, the
bombings of the embassies in Africa, the attack on the Cole, the Air Force
barracks in Saudi Arabia, and so on occurred while Bill Clinton was
president of the United States.
It doesn't matter who is president of the US, just like it doesn't matter
who the PM or president of Israel is. Until the day these two countries are
whisked away to another planet, the Islamists will keep trying to blow them
up.
>>> Perhaps Bush would like to go the way of Israel.
>>
>> I wish the hell we would. El Al-style airline security would be a
>> good start. Israel does not fuck around.
>
> Yes, and look at how safe Israeli society, and how healthy the
> Israeli economy are.
How do you measure safety? The Israeli economy was chugging along just fine
until the Islamists decided to kick off another season of Blowing Up
Israelis At Pizza Parlors.
> Look at how at ease Israelis are with their
> government issued gas masks. Look at how "safe" and "secure" the US
> is becoming and has become.
When was the last attack on US soil since 9/11?
> Japan does not have pissed off foreign
> volunteers, much less citizens, planning or making high profile
> attacks against them on a regular basis as in Israel, or the US.
To this I give you a big "so what?" The "pissed off" level of Islamists is
not a very good barometer of how good a state's foreign policy is. It would
be nice if homicidal madmen took the advice of leftist bumper stickers, but
there are several historical examples of where bending over and being polite
did not turn pure evil into a campfire circle singing "Kumbaya".
What attacks has the US suffered on a regular basis? Can you use the regular
basis to tell us when the next one will be? All the ones that the leftists
said would happen in response to the Iraq war are a bit overdue. Maybe the
terrorists didn't get the memo?
> I
> wonder why.
Because Japan is a US protectorate?
--
Kevin Gowen
Eric Takabayashi
> Hmm, the Fed chairman's persona as a necessary or sufficient factor
> to ensure US national self-confidence or economic expansion. What a
> simple and elegant Gowenworld-view. Forget about "negligible" factors
> like national/international political crises, balance of payment or
> government deficit issues, oil price and currency fluctuations, consumer
> demand/demographic/technological/productivity evolutions, changes in
> the US industries' international competitiveness or the US share in
> world economic output, or simply *who* determines *fiscal* policy in
> the US...
Hey . . . Having a job or being able to make ends meet depends only on how
hard you are willing to work. It doesn't matter that the average home in my
home state is about 300,000 USD, the unemployment rate is 6%, or that the
average household income is 48,000 a year. It doesn't matter that in
contrast, I can make ends meet AND save money on one paycheck, at the most
pleasant and easiest job I've ever had in my life, and have enough cash to
buy homes outright. No, you're just lazy if you can't make it, much less
succeed.
> But then again a characteristic of idiots like Gowen is
> their inability to even grasp that the real world might be actually
> more complicated than what their dim mind can perceive...
Kevin Gowen
> Ken wrote:
>
>> As to the government, what can be found on the asset side of their
>> balance sheet which might match its ballooning financial liabilities?
>
> Indeed. I wonder how someone of Kevin's eclectic diet of media
> sources, would miss something as obvious as this:
>
> Washington shelved report of 44-trillion-dollar deficit
> Thu May 29, 8:53 AM ET
>
> LONDON (AFP) - In the midst of negotiating a steep tax cuts package,
> the US government shelved a report that showed the United States
> faces future federal budget deficits of more than 44.2 trillion
> dollars.
Over how many years?
--
Kevin Gowen
Kevin Gowen
> Ed wrote:
>
>> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:bb5dc8$5t2ej$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>>> Then you are very rare. Most people do, with the most obvious
>>> example being home/real property ownership.
>>
>> What is wrong with deficit?
>
> It's wrong if you have no way to pay it off, like with Bush.
How is there no way to pay it off?
--
Kevin Gowen
mtfe...@netscape.net
> Not a damn thing.
Right. Look how well the Japanese economy is doing.
Mike
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >
> >> I am still trying to figure out who the person is who lost to
> >> Clinton and then gave Bush such a hard time.
> >
> > Gore.
>
> When did Gore lose to Clinton? I guess you mean the 1992 nomination?
Yes. Gore couldn't even try to be President while Clinton was still around. Yet
he got more votes than Bush.
> So having enough money means never borrowing it?
Enough money is always having enough to meet one's debts.
> That strikes me as an odd definition.
Why? Perhaps you prefer personal spending to be like Reagan or Bush
Administration spending.
> >> Such ownership is generally considered an investment. It is wise to
> >> borrown money in order to make money.
> >
> > Only, in the case of real estate, if values are on the increase, and
> > offering a better return than banks, stocks or bonds, for example.
>
> Then you concede my point.
No, because you may not like sticking around in a neighborhood in a
deteriorating house for 30 years, or you may not like the possibility of being
the family breadwinner and dying in the decades before a debt is paid. No one
in my family line has died of natural causes, and my own father and his father
died in their mid 50s. I don't feel like obligating my wife until she is 70
years old or more, if I think I'll die much sooner.
> > If
> > property values were increasing about six percent a year, and were
> > somehow able to continue, why would I take out a six percent loan for
> > the next 30 years, when I can put that into something that will grow
> > right now?
>
> No one is telling you that you should.
Then why the question, or surprise?
> > As for Japan, deflation and declines in real estate prices are the
> > norm, and by the time the loan on a new structure is paid off, it
> > will be about time to rebuild. I would not "invest" in Japanese real
> > estate.
>
> I'm not talking about Japan.
Well I am including Japan.
Do you actually expect US property values to increase, as in my family's
exceptional (24x purchase price) case, or the current real estate bubble?
> > A house for me, is a place to live.
>
> It is for me, too. I think most people would agree.
Can you understand how I would not sell the family home, just to get some
money, even if it were over one million dollars?
> >> Then you feel that no one should ever have a car payment?
> >
> > Despite being able to afford one, I would prefer not to buy a brand
> > new car. Here in Japan I would prefer to wait four or five years, and
> > buy a sweet car at about half price. Here in Fukuyama is a place
> > where you can buy even a Mercedes 500 series about ten years old, for
> > 90,000 yen during the dealer's periodical 90,000 yen campaign. If
> > other people would like to pay inflated prices to have brand new cars
> > in order to provide me with quality used cars, that is fine.
>
> You didn't answer my question.
Re read the last sentence, please. If it is some person's choice to overpay for
a car, so someone down the line can pick up a real bargain on a sweet car, they
can go right ahead.
As a matter of fact, it would be cool if I could have one of those H2 Hummers.
I do have the cash, but I'm not going to blow it on a car. I hope someone who
likes to show off or be trendy is impressionable enough to buy one new now, so
I can be offered a deal in a handful of years.
> >>> And pay for real estate in full for personal use or investment
> >>> purposes is what I can currently do, with or without help from my
> >>> wife or family.
> >>
> >> I don't understand. You use the present tense rather than the past
> >> tense. Is the real estate paid for or not?
> >
> > I do not "invest" in real estate, and I am not going to buy a house
> > while rampant deflation continues, nor am I sure I want to spend
> > decades of my life in Fukuyama while paying off a loan, nor do I know
> > what my future holds while my family would be obligated to pay a
> > decades long loan. I have cash to buy a house. The problem is just
> > where and which one.
>
> Yes or no will do.
No, there is no real estate in my name or intended for me, which I have bought
myself.
> >>>> You never borrow money?
> >>>
> >>> No. Why should I?
> >>
> >> I am not telling you that you should. I am simply surprised.
> >
> > Why is someone expecting a corporate lawyer's salary or lifestyle,
> > surprised that someone is able to make a decent living within their
> > means?
>
> When did I ever say anything about my expectations?
When you said you plan on being a corporate attorney.
> > Are foreigners, particularly those of the Islamist persuasion, who
> > are the people usually considered a threat to American security at
> > home and abroad, more pissed off at America now, or under Clinton?
>
> I have no idea how to measure such a thing.
Try counting numbers of attacks, or the casualties, or hear from some of the
organizations themselves.
> > Did this level of terrorism occur under the tough talking Bush
> > Administration, who makes veiled threats against other Islamic
> > nations, or under Clinton?
>
> Define level. I am pretty sure the first World Trade Center attack, the
> bombings of the embassies in Africa, the attack on the Cole, the Air Force
> barracks in Saudi Arabia, and so on occurred while Bill Clinton was
> president of the United States.
Try casualties, or the growth and increase in number of such organizations, or
view the image of the US abroad.
> It doesn't matter who is president of the US, just like it doesn't matter
> who the PM or president of Israel is. Until the day these two countries are
> whisked away to another planet, the Islamists will keep trying to blow them
> up.
So why hadn't they done it before?
> >>> Perhaps Bush would like to go the way of Israel.
> >>
> >> I wish the hell we would. El Al-style airline security would be a
> >> good start. Israel does not fuck around.
> >
> > Yes, and look at how safe Israeli society, and how healthy the
> > Israeli economy are.
>
> How do you measure safety? The Israeli economy was chugging along just fine
> until the Islamists decided to kick off another season of Blowing Up
> Israelis At Pizza Parlors.
And the Israelis responded by doing such as putting walls around Palestinians
and preventing them from working in the Israeli economy, and pissing off even
more Palestinians and sympathizers by killing more civilians and destroying
more homes and neighborhoods. Precisely.
> > Look at how at ease Israelis are with their
> > government issued gas masks. Look at how "safe" and "secure" the US
> > is becoming and has become.
>
> When was the last attack on US soil since 9/11?
Why don't you look at how the people feel, or how paranoid the government has
become regarding foreigners and Muslims?
> > Japan does not have pissed off foreign
> > volunteers, much less citizens, planning or making high profile
> > attacks against them on a regular basis as in Israel, or the US.
>
> To this I give you a big "so what?" The "pissed off" level of Islamists is
> not a very good barometer of how good a state's foreign policy is. It would
> be nice if homicidal madmen took the advice of leftist bumper stickers, but
> there are several historical examples of where bending over and being polite
> did not turn pure evil into a campfire circle singing "Kumbaya".
>
> What attacks has the US suffered on a regular basis?
I didn't say they were. But the government claims they are planned, and issue
warnings all the time.
> Can you use the regular
> basis to tell us when the next one will be? All the ones that the leftists
> said would happen in response to the Iraq war are a bit overdue. Maybe the
> terrorists didn't get the memo?
>
> > I wonder why.
>
> Because Japan is a US protectorate?
No, the threats Japan foresees from terror, and are currently preparing for,
other than post WWII animosity from North Korea, are the result of the US
relationship with Japan.
Eric Takabayashi
Why is this relevant? The US is not foreseen to pay off an ever increasing
debt, or to have more coming in than going out.
Eric Takabayashi
There are ways to pay off the national debt, as a government
sponsored study suggested, which Bush completely ignored and does
not care to implement.
Kevin Gowen
That doesn't answer the question.
--
Kevin Gowen
Eric Takabayashi
I'm enjoying deflation, despite having my own salary currently
capped.
It is quite amusing to see houses and literal acreage for sale for
less than what I have, or brand new properties in the middle of
town, next to the castle and directly behind the station, offering
terms more attractive than renting. If one planned to settle down,
they could save about 20% a month on rent.
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>>> Ken wrote:
>>>
>>>> As to the government, what can be found on the asset side of their
>>>> balance sheet which might match its ballooning financial
>>>> liabilities?
>>>
>>> Indeed. I wonder how someone of Kevin's eclectic diet of media
>>> sources, would miss something as obvious as this:
>>>
>>> Washington shelved report of 44-trillion-dollar deficit
>>> Thu May 29, 8:53 AM ET
>>>
>>> LONDON (AFP) - In the midst of negotiating a steep tax cuts package,
>>> the US government shelved a report that showed the United States
>>> faces future federal budget deficits of more than 44.2 trillion
>>> dollars.
>>
>> Over how many years?
>
> Why is this relevant?
It is quite relevent. There is a big difference between having a deficit of
$44 trillion over one year or over ten years.
> The US is not foreseen to pay off an ever
> increasing debt, or to have more coming in than going out.
Forever? Everyone says that the US will not have a budget surplus again?
Wow.
Now, tell us why this would be a bad thing.
--
Kevin Gowen
Eric Takabayashi
There is no way as long as Bush does not care to pay it off, or cut
such as his military and security spending, is not a response?
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >
> >> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> >>> Ken wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> As to the government, what can be found on the asset side of their
> >>>> balance sheet which might match its ballooning financial
> >>>> liabilities?
> >>>
> >>> Indeed. I wonder how someone of Kevin's eclectic diet of media
> >>> sources, would miss something as obvious as this:
> >>>
> >>> Washington shelved report of 44-trillion-dollar deficit
> >>> Thu May 29, 8:53 AM ET
> >>>
> >>> LONDON (AFP) - In the midst of negotiating a steep tax cuts package,
> >>> the US government shelved a report that showed the United States
> >>> faces future federal budget deficits of more than 44.2 trillion
> >>> dollars.
> >>
> >> Over how many years?
> >
> > Why is this relevant?
>
> It is quite relevent. There is a big difference between having a deficit of
> $44 trillion over one year or over ten years.
It's not a matter of over how many years, as with the Bush tax cuts. The
deficit figure itself is forecast at $44 trillion.
> > The US is not foreseen to pay off an ever
> > increasing debt, or to have more coming in than going out.
>
> Forever? Everyone says that the US will not have a budget surplus again?
> Wow.
>
> Now, tell us why this would be a bad thing.
It would erode confidence in the US economy or currency, if the US did such as
merely print out money, with detrimental effects on the US economy.
Can you explain why deficit would be a good thing?
John W.
> >>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> What would be wrong with that?
> >>
> >> Americans tend to like term limits for members of the executive.
> >>
> > Really?
>
> Do you know of any governors or mayors that aren't subject to term limits?
>
That's not what you said. You said we (Americans) don't like term
limits. How do you quantify this, other than that they exist? Any
polling data you can pull up? How many term limits are the result of a
popular vote?
John W.
Kevin Gowen
> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<bb6e07$62jep$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de>...
>> John W. wrote:
>>> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:<bb59j9$5rm9s$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de>...
>>>> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>>>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cyez
>>>>>
>>>>> What would be wrong with that?
>>>>
>>>> Americans tend to like term limits for members of the executive.
>>>>
>>> Really?
>>
>> Do you know of any governors or mayors that aren't subject to term
>> limits?
>>
> That's not what you said.
Yes, I know what I said. That is because I wrote it.
> You said we (Americans) don't like term
> limits.
I didn't say that at all. I said for members of the executive. As you well
know, members of the legislative and judicial branches tend not to have
them.
> How do you quantify this, other than that they exist?
That's one way, as they are in effect for the executive in abou 3/4 of the
states. The 22nd amendment is another at the federal level. The
constitutions of the several states are another, as they tend to be
amendable by popular vote. See below for more data.
> Any
> polling data you can pull up?
This data for the governor, an executive.
http://www.termlimits.org/Current_Info/State_TL/gubernatorial.html
> How many term limits are the result of a
> popular vote?
See the site I linked above. Most of those executive term limits were
determined by popular vote. A number of states on that chart say "state
constitution", but I don't know how many of those constitutions are
amendable by popular vote.
> John W.
--
Kevin Gowen
mtfe...@netscape.net
> John W. wrote:
> I didn't say that at all. I said for members of the executive. As you well
You didn't say why the voters can't simply limit the terms themselves,
by not voting for a candidate in more than a set number of elections.
Mike
Ken
> Ken wrote:
>
>>Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>
>>>Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No.
>>>
>>>being home/real property ownership.
>>
>>like Gowen who is still deluding himself with the notion that he
>>understands topics and issues he's obviously too stupid to grasp.
>
> I can believe it. I am simply irresistible.
To the extent that deformity specimens can be clinically intriguing, yes.
>>Gowen, do you really believe that "most people" who apply for a home
>>loan are allowed to borrow more than the assessed value of the
>>property they are acquiring? Furthermore, do "most people" with a
>>home loan have an outstanding debt figure that *increases* with time?
>
> What's your point? You surely aren't refuting my statement that most
> people engage in deficit spending.
The refutation isn't obvious only to dimwits like you.
Considering your chosen "obvious example" which purportedly shows that
"most people" who buy homes engage in "deficit spending", do such people:
1) from a "cash flow" standpoint, borrow such amounts that their yearly
interest and principal payments *exceed* their yearly income?
2) from a "balance sheet" standpoint, find themselves in a negative equity
situation as their liabilities -- e.g. their real estate loan -- exceed
their assets -- e.g. the house they've bought with the loan?
Care to point out where the "deficit" would be in these homebuyers'
spending?
>>As to the government, what can be found on the asset side of their
>>balance sheet which might match its ballooning financial liabilities?
>>If there's nothing wrong with deficit spending, why impose limits on
>>it at all?
>
> Indeed. There is nothing wrong with eating food, so there is no reason
> why a person should not consume 30,000 calories of butter a day.
So it's related to people's appetites, then? Increased money supply
caused by government profligacy should increase the citizens' average
bank balances. At what point would people start to complain that their
bank accounts are simply too full and that they will not accept more
money?
>>Anyway, the latest US statistics indicate an average household saving
>>rate of about 1%, which is a POSITIVE figure. "Most people" engage
>>in "deficit spending"?
>
> In the U.S. they sure as hell do. Just because you are saving money does not
> mean that one does not engage in deficit spending. I have a savings account
> into which I make weekly deposits yet I have a deficit of six figures.
You neither know nor understand the meaning of terms like "household
saving rate". You also seem to think you can base yourself upon your own
statistical sample of one to pontificate about the financial behavior
of the entire US populace. Mildly amusing, if it wasn't so inept.
Anyway, maybe in Gowen's mind, any person with some financial liability
engages in "deficit spending". If I forget my wallet at home and borrow
some money from a colleague to pay for my lunch, I'm a deficit spender...
>>In GowenWorld, perhaps, but not in the US of
>>A, or in Japan, or in the EU for that matter...
>
> Certainly in the US. I don't know about Japan.
Tut tut. You don't know anything about the US either.
> AFAIK, the EU is not a country.
I guess we'll have to tell the European Commission to stop bothering
collating and publishing economic indicators about the EU as they are
"not a country" and their figures are therefore obviously meaningless
or irrelevant...
Ken
> Ken wrote:
>
>>Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>
>>>Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>>>
>>>>Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>Gowen doesn't seem to realize that US presidents are *not* named for
>>life and that their terms *always* come up for renewal after a maximum
>>of 4 years... Gowen needs to read up a bit on US legal matters...
>
>
> Could you indicate where I said anything about presidents being named for
> life or not having four year terms? TIA!
Why should I? You're the one making asinine statements about the
alleged resulting disappearance of term limits if certain proposals
by one retired US president were reflected in the US Constitution...
>>>>Obviously Bush Sr., Carter, Ford did not cut
>>>>it. But would Reagan or Clinton have what it takes to
>>>>be elected once more?
>>>
>>>Reagan has been elected once more.
>>
>>Did Reagan serve 3 terms as US president? Or did Reagan go to the
>>trouble of being elected 3 times as president and then renounce to
>>serve his 3d term? That's news to me. I take it History is not
>>Gowen's forte...
>
> Whoosh.
Whoosh? Face it, Gowen. You're in such a state of denial about the
fact that a Democrat 42nd president could have served *two* terms
before Dubya the 43rd, that when asked whether "Reagan or Clinton have
what it takes to be elected once more" in a thread titled by yourself
"That's our Clinton!", the only pathetic reply you managed to blurb
out is "Reagan has been elected once more"...
>>>>Would the national self
>>>>confidence or economic expansion actually continue?
>>>
>>>That depends on if the chairman of the Fed is an Alan Greenspan.
>>
>>Hmm, the Fed chairman's persona as a necessary or sufficient factor
>>to ensure US national self-confidence or economic expansion.
>
> Did I say that? No.
Then to what extent is the Fed chairman's persona worth singling out
as the factor upon which national self-confidence or economic expansion
depends? Has the Fed chairman the power to counteract the effects of
even a single one of the various "negligible" factors I mentioned?
If so, I'm impressed. What are the instruments he might possibly
have at his disposal to wield such power? I'm sure lots of central
bankers at various places in the world would be interested to know...
>>What a
>>simple and elegant Gowenworld-view. Forget about "negligible" factors
>>like national/international political crises, balance of payment or
>>government deficit issues, oil price and currency fluctuations,
>>consumer demand/demographic/technological/productivity evolutions,
>>changes in the US industries' international competitiveness or the US
>>share in world economic output, or simply *who* determines *fiscal*
>>policy in the US... But then again a characteristic of idiots like
Ken
> Ken wrote:
>
>>>>Posting in romaji would indeed be less problem-prone, but the message
>>>>contents sometimes *requires* "hanzis"...
>>>
>>>...post in hanzis [sic] as easily as most of the rest of us do.
>>
>>Interesting, this "[sic]".
>
> The interesting part is that you have decided to pluralize a Chinese word.
Dear semi-literate barrel-bottom student, can you find something
interesting in the following sentence?
"We'll need two woks -- one for frying the rice, the other for
steaming the chicken."
>>Anyway, if Gowen who likes discussing fixing "chat" machines had the
>>computer skills to use basic copy/paste functions, he'd *perhaps* have
>>understood why I deliberately used the term "hanzis" (between quotes)
>
> Your failure to fix your chat machine does not constitute my duty to
> decode your post.
Your language skills would have been inadequate to read my post anyway.
Ed
> Ed wrote:
>
> > "Eric Takabayashi" <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
> > news:3ED6369A...@yahoo.co.jp...
> >
> > > So there is nothing wrong with being eligible for re-election as long
as
> > the
> > > public wants them.
> >
> > Before Tanaka ousted the previous governer of Nagano, the previous
governer
> > (hell if I know what his name was) had won about the last 15 or 30
> > elections. He was as old as dirt and as corrupt as a politician. You've
got
> > politicians here in Japan in their 90s who have forgotten everything
they've
> > ever heard about alzheimers. Best to just give them a chance to do what
they
> > want in a few years (I think 8 is more than enough), and then ship 'em
on
> > out to the old folks home where they can't do any more harm than pissing
in
> > their pants. Clinton had his chance and now he's retired.
>
> And what if countries had good leaders? Should we be obligated to be rid
of
> them, too?
What does "obligation" have to do with anything?
> > This is a good thing. The majority of people are not exactly smart. They
>
> That is not the fault of a good leader, nor should it be held against
them.
A good leader is like a tube of preparation H. If it weren't for a
hemmorhoid, you wouldn't need the tube.
> > vote for the name they know. They don't know much more than the fact
that
> > the devil they know might not be as bad as the devil they don't know.
> > Ousting a sitting president is a difficult task because people are
stupid.
>
> So what happened to Bush Sr., Ford Carter, and every other President who
was
> never re-elected? That difficult, huh.
Difficult if your campaign is dogged by scandal.
> > If it was up to me, I'd limit the term to one year and then send them
> > packing.
>
> And how would there be any consistency in policy, or enough time for
measures
> or reforms to take effect?
A perfect world would have no politicians. A slightly less than perfect
world would have powerless politicians. We don't want to give them time for
their measures and reforms to take effect.
Laws may be passed years in advance. It's bad enough
> that an Administration's work gets screwed up after just four or eight
years.
Why is it that I don't feel sorry for all those poor administrations that
get screwed after four or eight years?
>
> > Hell, if it was really up to me, we wouldn't have presidents, prime
> > ministers or emporers. We'd just have jungle laws whereby if you're too
old,
> > you'd best hope you've managed to make enough friends that you don't get
> > your ass kicked by the biggest and baddest gorilla who currently
occupies
> > the top of the hill.
>
> Yes, that is simple enough to envision. You could also go back to living
in a
> cave as well as you could hunting your own food and defending your own
family
> and property with sharp rocks and sticks as it was for perhaps millions of
> years. Now how would a modern, nationwide or international society
continue to
> function without a government as under a president, prime minister, or
emperor,
> or consistency of greater than one year?
Governments do not produce anything. People produce things. Government, by
it's very definition, cannot produce anything.
Ed
All I can say is that if you define your terms correctly, all will be made
clear.
hint #1: If a deficit cannot exist, then why bother paying it off?
hint #2: US notes are meaningless in and of themselves.
hint #3: "Wealth" is not meaningless.
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am still trying to figure out who the person is who lost to
>>>> Clinton and then gave Bush such a hard time.
>>>
>>> Gore.
>>
>> When did Gore lose to Clinton? I guess you mean the 1992 nomination?
>
> Yes. Gore couldn't even try to be President while Clinton was still
> around. Yet he got more votes than Bush.
Not electoral votes, and those are the only ones that matter.
>> So having enough money means never borrowing it?
>
> Enough money is always having enough to meet one's debts.
Doesn't answer the question.
>> That strikes me as an odd definition.
>
> Why? Perhaps you prefer personal spending to be like Reagan or Bush
> Administration spending.
I am better off for incurring the debt I have. I never would have been able
to go to school if I hadn't taken out these loans.
>>>> Such ownership is generally considered an investment. It is wise to
>>>> borrown money in order to make money.
>>>
>>> Only, in the case of real estate, if values are on the increase, and
>>> offering a better return than banks, stocks or bonds, for example.
>>
>> Then you concede my point.
>
> No, because you may not like sticking around in a neighborhood in a
> deteriorating house for 30 years, or you may not like the possibility
> of being the family breadwinner and dying in the decades before a
> debt is paid.
You do realize that people who have 30 year mortgages do sell their property
from time to time before the mortgage is paid off, yes? I'll be doing just
that next year when I leave this hellhole.
> No one in my family line has died of natural causes,
> and my own father and his father died in their mid 50s. I don't feel
> like obligating my wife until she is 70 years old or more, if I think
> I'll die much sooner.
How does a 30 year mortgage oblige you for 30 years? You can sell at any
time.
>>> As for Japan, deflation and declines in real estate prices are the
>>> norm, and by the time the loan on a new structure is paid off, it
>>> will be about time to rebuild. I would not "invest" in Japanese real
>>> estate.
>>
>> I'm not talking about Japan.
>
> Well I am including Japan.
Ok, but I am not going to respond to any comments about Japan.
> Do you actually expect US property values to increase, as in my
> family's exceptional (24x purchase price) case, or the current real
> estate bubble?
Depends on the property. My property continues to go up in value.
>>> A house for me, is a place to live.
>>
>> It is for me, too. I think most people would agree.
>
> Can you understand how I would not sell the family home, just to get
> some money, even if it were over one million dollars?
Of course.
>>>>>> You never borrow money?
>>>>>
>>>>> No. Why should I?
>>>>
>>>> I am not telling you that you should. I am simply surprised.
>>>
>>> Why is someone expecting a corporate lawyer's salary or lifestyle,
>>> surprised that someone is able to make a decent living within their
>>> means?
>>
>> When did I ever say anything about my expectations?
>
> When you said you plan on being a corporate attorney.
I can't find any such quote from me on Google.
>>> Are foreigners, particularly those of the Islamist persuasion, who
>>> are the people usually considered a threat to American security at
>>> home and abroad, more pissed off at America now, or under Clinton?
>>
>> I have no idea how to measure such a thing.
>
> Try counting numbers of attacks,
Which ones count?
> or the casualties, or hear from some
> of the organizations themselves.
Which organizations?
>>> Did this level of terrorism occur under the tough talking Bush
>>> Administration, who makes veiled threats against other Islamic
>>> nations, or under Clinton?
>>
>> Define level. I am pretty sure the first World Trade Center attack,
>> the bombings of the embassies in Africa, the attack on the Cole, the
>> Air Force barracks in Saudi Arabia, and so on occurred while Bill
>> Clinton was president of the United States.
>
> Try casualties, or the growth and increase in number of such
> organizations, or view the image of the US abroad.
Have some numbers for these things?
>> It doesn't matter who is president of the US, just like it doesn't
>> matter who the PM or president of Israel is. Until the day these two
>> countries are whisked away to another planet, the Islamists will
>> keep trying to blow them up.
>
> So why hadn't they done it before?
Have you been paying attention?
>>>>> Perhaps Bush would like to go the way of Israel.
>>>>
>>>> I wish the hell we would. El Al-style airline security would be a
>>>> good start. Israel does not fuck around.
>>>
>>> Yes, and look at how safe Israeli society, and how healthy the
>>> Israeli economy are.
>>
>> How do you measure safety? The Israeli economy was chugging along
>> just fine until the Islamists decided to kick off another season of
>> Blowing Up Israelis At Pizza Parlors.
>
> And the Israelis responded by doing such as putting walls around
> Palestinians and preventing them from working in the Israeli economy,
> and pissing off even more Palestinians and sympathizers by killing
> more civilians and destroying more homes and neighborhoods. Precisely.
There is no such thing as a Palestinian.
>>> Look at how at ease Israelis are with their
>>> government issued gas masks. Look at how "safe" and "secure" the US
>>> is becoming and has become.
>>
>> When was the last attack on US soil since 9/11?
>
> Why don't you look at how the people feel, or how paranoid the
> government has become regarding foreigners and Muslims?
You didn't answer my question. FWIW, my foreigner wife sure had no problem
getting her green card after 9/11.
>>> Japan does not have pissed off foreign
>>> volunteers, much less citizens, planning or making high profile
>>> attacks against them on a regular basis as in Israel, or the US.
>>
>> To this I give you a big "so what?" The "pissed off" level of
>> Islamists is not a very good barometer of how good a state's foreign
>> policy is. It would be nice if homicidal madmen took the advice of
>> leftist bumper stickers, but there are several historical examples
>> of where bending over and being polite did not turn pure evil into a
>> campfire circle singing "Kumbaya".
>>
>> What attacks has the US suffered on a regular basis?
>
> I didn't say they were. But the government claims they are planned,
> and issue warnings all the time.
Then what was all this "regular basis" nonsense you said above?
>> Can you use the regular
>> basis to tell us when the next one will be? All the ones that the
>> leftists said would happen in response to the Iraq war are a bit
>> overdue. Maybe the terrorists didn't get the memo?
>>
>>> I wonder why.
>>
>> Because Japan is a US protectorate?
>
> No, the threats Japan foresees from terror, and are currently
> preparing for, other than post WWII animosity from North Korea, are
> the result of the US relationship with Japan.
Then I guess Japan has a decision to make. It's too bad that the Japan-US
relationship was the cause of those sarin attacks in the subway a few years
back.
--
Kevin Gowen
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>>>>> Ken wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As to the government, what can be found on the asset side of
>>>>>> their balance sheet which might match its ballooning financial
>>>>>> liabilities?
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed. I wonder how someone of Kevin's eclectic diet of media
>>>>> sources, would miss something as obvious as this:
>>>>>
>>>>> Washington shelved report of 44-trillion-dollar deficit
>>>>> Thu May 29, 8:53 AM ET
>>>>>
>>>>> LONDON (AFP) - In the midst of negotiating a steep tax cuts
>>>>> package, the US government shelved a report that showed the
>>>>> United States
>>>>> faces future federal budget deficits of more than 44.2 trillion
>>>>> dollars.
>>>>
>>>> Over how many years?
>>>
>>> Why is this relevant?
>>
>> It is quite relevent. There is a big difference between having a
>> deficit of $44 trillion over one year or over ten years.
>
> It's not a matter of over how many years, as with the Bush tax cuts.
> The deficit figure itself is forecast at $44 trillion.
I read the article, Eric. The forecast goes beyond 75 years. Also, according
to the article that $44 trillion is composed of Social Security and Medicare
costs. Whew! For a minute, you had me worried.
>>> The US is not foreseen to pay off an ever
>>> increasing debt, or to have more coming in than going out.
>>
>> Forever? Everyone says that the US will not have a budget surplus
>> again? Wow.
>>
>> Now, tell us why this would be a bad thing.
>
> It would erode confidence in the US economy or currency, if the US
> did such as merely print out money, with detrimental effects on the
> US economy.
Did I ever say anything about the printing of money?
> Can you explain why deficit would be a good thing?
I think I have already explained to you the concept of deficit spending.
--
Kevin Gowen
Kevin Wayne Williams
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>
>
> I wonder what makes you think I have control over this particular
> "chat" machine...
> It would be a bit uncivil of me to install an IME on a system I don't
> own. Temporarily pointing a X11 server to a net-accessible font server,
> on the other hand, doesn't leave any customizations behind when I leave.
> Having no IME available makes inputting e.g. japanese a quite tedious
> copy and paste process, but one sometimes doesn't have a choice.
> Anyway, these concepts are probably beyond the intellectual grasp
> of a person who has never used anything more advanced than a small
> personal computer -- sorry, "chat" machine...
>
>
>
>>...post in hanzis [sic] as easily as most of the rest of us do.
>
>
> out how to copy the two text lines with the HTML "&xxx;" entities
> into a clipboard and paste them between <html> </html> tags and open
> the resulting text file in a web browser. Why am I not surprised.
Why on earth would anyone bother to cut and paste your post? What did
you say around it that make it so compelling that anyone would go to
that effort? Using a bizarre plural of "hanzi" when I am pretty sure you
are referring to Japanese text (I'm not sure ... I didn't go through the
cut and paste tango), where the word "kanji" would be more appropriate,
didn't do anything to make me want to go to the effort.
KGII is proof of an old axiom: just because someone is an asshole
doesn't mean he's wrong.
KWW
Ken
> Ken wrote:
>
>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>
>>> If you fix your chat machine you will be able to...
>>
>>
>>
>> I wonder what makes you think I have control over this particular
>> "chat" machine...
>> It would be a bit uncivil of me to install an IME on a system I don't
>> own. Temporarily pointing a X11 server to a net-accessible font server,
>> on the other hand, doesn't leave any customizations behind when I leave.
>> Having no IME available makes inputting e.g. japanese a quite tedious
>> copy and paste process, but one sometimes doesn't have a choice.
>> Anyway, these concepts are probably beyond the intellectual grasp
>> of a person who has never used anything more advanced than a small
>> personal computer -- sorry, "chat" machine...
>>
>>
>>
>>> ...post in hanzis [sic] as easily as most of the rest of us do.
>>
>>
>>
>> Interesting, this "[sic]". It seems you hasn't been able to figure
>> out how to copy the two text lines with the HTML "&xxx;" entities
>> into a clipboard and paste them between <html> </html> tags and open
>> the resulting text file in a web browser. Why am I not surprised.
>
>
> Why on earth would anyone bother to cut and paste your post? What did
> you say around it that make it so compelling that anyone would go to
The transmogrification was absolutely involuntary and was presumably
caused by some mismatch and interplay between the character set
specification in Gowen's original post and the reply I was posting
and the character set configuration of the non-asian IME web client I
was using and DejaNews' front-end language settings. I don't care
enough about the problem to analyze it further, and would rather post
in romaji.
Anyway, I originally wrote:
"[...] but the message contents sometimes *requires* "hanzis"..."
Grammatically speaking, KWW, after "requires" one usually expects a
substantive. Now, as you seem to be ignorant of that fact, "hanzi"
is a compound word which literally means chinese CHARACTERS.
Which version would make more grammatical sense, then?
"[...] but the message contents sometimes *requires* chinese character"
"[...] but the message contents sometimes *requires* chinese characters"
"[...] but the message contents sometimes *requires* greek character"
"[...] but the message contents sometimes *requires* greek characters"
OTOH, when Gowen writes "post in hanzis [sic]", he uses "hanzis" as if
designated the chinese alphabet. In that case, he should preferably
have written "post in hanzi", but semi-literate people like him are
not really aware of the semantics of the terms they use...
Had I elected to use "hanzi" as meaning the "chinese alphabet", I would
have written:
"[...] but the message contents sometimes *requires* writing in hanzi"
Notice the difference?
> when I am pretty sure you
> are referring to Japanese text (I'm not sure ... I didn't go through the
> cut and paste tango), where the word "kanji" would be more appropriate,
> didn't do anything to make me want to go to the effort.
Let me summarize this for you:
- you don't even know whether the post was actually in Japanese,
but are happy second-guessing -- confident in your probably oh
so impressive knowledge of asian languages -- its author and
*assuming* that the word "kanji" would have been more appropriate
- based on that ignorant assumption, you then proceed to try to
"logically" deduce that Gowen is probably right
To put it mildly, this looks like the pretty shallow thinking, the
kind of which one expects only from an airhead :-)
> KGII is proof of an old axiom: just because someone is an asshole
> doesn't mean he's wrong.
I resent the implication that my own asshole credentials might not
cut it.
Eric Takabayashi
A non existent deficit does not need to be paid any more than my non existent
loans need to be paid.
What non existent deficit are you referring to?
> hint #2: US notes are meaningless in and of themselves.
Correct. Faith that it stands for something is required.
> hint #3: "Wealth" is not meaningless.
It's not. Yet why should US notes with three extra zeros on them be any more
trustworthy than kilos of dinar notes at the marketplace?
Eric Takabayashi
> A good leader is like a tube of preparation H. If it weren't for a
> hemmorhoid, you wouldn't need the tube.
Do you actually believe an entire state or nation would be able to function
without management or decisions made for it or on their behalf?
> A perfect world would have no politicians.
What perfect world are you referring to? EdWorld?
> A slightly less than perfect
> world would have powerless politicians. We don't want to give them time for
> their measures and reforms to take effect.
>
> Laws may be passed years in advance. It's bad enough
> > that an Administration's work gets screwed up after just four or eight
> years.
>
> Why is it that I don't feel sorry for all those poor administrations that
> get screwed after four or eight years?
Because you are confused. You relieve yourself of responsibility to do things
such as vote in your own country, and claim government should not exist, yet
enjoy the benefits the government provides. You have a cool plumber, but you
didn't go out and hire yourself someone to lay down the highway for you to
drive to Tokyo.
> > > Hell, if it was really up to me, we wouldn't have presidents, prime
> > > ministers or emporers. We'd just have jungle laws whereby if you're too
> old,
> > > you'd best hope you've managed to make enough friends that you don't get
> > > your ass kicked by the biggest and baddest gorilla who currently
> occupies
> > > the top of the hill.
> >
> > Yes, that is simple enough to envision. You could also go back to living
> in a
> > cave as well as you could hunting your own food and defending your own
> family
> > and property with sharp rocks and sticks as it was for perhaps millions of
> > years. Now how would a modern, nationwide or international society
> continue to
> > function without a government as under a president, prime minister, or
> emperor,
> > or consistency of greater than one year?
>
> Governments do not produce anything. People produce things. Government, by
> it's very definition, cannot produce anything.
Do government officials, employees, or contractors, as people, produce
anything?
In your perfect world where people can be trusted to look after themselves, who
builds the national highway system and how is it paid for?
Eric Takabayashi
> I read the article, Eric. The forecast goes beyond 75 years. Also, according
> to the article that $44 trillion is composed of Social Security and Medicare
> costs.
It doesn't matter what it is or when it is. It's a deficit. I don't take out 75
year loans that my descendants have to pay.
> Whew! For a minute, you had me worried.
Why should you not be? You plan not to have children perhaps?
> > It would erode confidence in the US economy or currency, if the US
> > did such as merely print out money, with detrimental effects on the
> > US economy.
>
> Did I ever say anything about the printing of money?
No, but continued and growing deficits would erode confidence in the US economy
or currency with the detrimental effects such as people being less willing to
buy government bonds, anyway.
> > Can you explain why deficit would be a good thing?
>
> I think I have already explained to you the concept of deficit spending.
So in the future the US will be sold off for its owners to pay off the loan and
enjoy the capital gains, if any?
Eric Takabayashi
> > Yes. Gore couldn't even try to be President while Clinton was still
> > around. Yet he got more votes than Bush.
>
> Not electoral votes, and those are the only ones that matter.
Right. What more people actually asked for, are irrelevant to you.
> >> So having enough money means never borrowing it?
> >
> > Enough money is always having enough to meet one's debts.
>
> Doesn't answer the question.
You can borrow if you have enough assets to cover repayment, as when I use my
credit cards as an interest free substitute for cash, or the way I might borrow
money for a house, just to keep the equivalent amount of cash in the bank.
> >> That strikes me as an odd definition.
> >
> > Why? Perhaps you prefer personal spending to be like Reagan or Bush
> > Administration spending.
>
> I am better off for incurring the debt I have. I never would have been able
> to go to school if I hadn't taken out these loans.
And what of people who do not make it, or make money as attorneys, for whatever
reason, yet still have loans to pay? Is it still responsible spending?
> You do realize that people who have 30 year mortgages do sell their property
> from time to time before the mortgage is paid off, yes? I'll be doing just
> that next year when I leave this hellhole.
And what of places where property values do not rise like loan interest rates,
or the house is damaged or lost?
> How does a 30 year mortgage oblige you for 30 years? You can sell at any
> time.
And lose money or still have a loan to pay off.
> > Do you actually expect US property values to increase, as in my
> > family's exceptional (24x purchase price) case, or the current real
> > estate bubble?
>
> Depends on the property. My property continues to go up in value.
So it works for you, but not for others. Among investment properties my
paternal grandfather bought at least four decades ago, was land in New Mexico,
and Florida land, which are still as good as worthless because development or
improvement of the regions did not occur. Last I heard the New Mexico home site
was worth a grand 900 dollars, with no public utility service planned. Too bad
he did not buy Nevada property instead.
> >>> Are foreigners, particularly those of the Islamist persuasion, who
> >>> are the people usually considered a threat to American security at
> >>> home and abroad, more pissed off at America now, or under Clinton?
> >>
> >> I have no idea how to measure such a thing.
> >
> > Try counting numbers of attacks,
>
> Which ones count?
Go ahead and count all of them, or just the ones that make the news, or just
the ones the government claims are always being planned. Clinton did not need
to be as paranoid as Bush.
> > or the casualties, or hear from some
> > of the organizations themselves.
>
> Which organizations?
Go ahead and count all of them. But special attention should be paid to those
who claim to support Palestinians, oppose Israel or the US, because those are
the ones the US seem to concern themselves with most.
> >>> Did this level of terrorism occur under the tough talking Bush
> >>> Administration, who makes veiled threats against other Islamic
> >>> nations, or under Clinton?
> >>
> >> Define level. I am pretty sure the first World Trade Center attack,
> >> the bombings of the embassies in Africa, the attack on the Cole, the
> >> Air Force barracks in Saudi Arabia, and so on occurred while Bill
> >> Clinton was president of the United States.
> >
> > Try casualties, or the growth and increase in number of such
> > organizations, or view the image of the US abroad.
>
> Have some numbers for these things?
About 3,000 dead, the loss of four aircraft, both World Trade Center towers,
and much of America's sense of security or self confidence, just on September
11 for Bush and his father.
What's Clinton's score?
> >> It doesn't matter who is president of the US, just like it doesn't
> >> matter who the PM or president of Israel is. Until the day these two
> >> countries are whisked away to another planet, the Islamists will
> >> keep trying to blow them up.
> >
> > So why hadn't they done it before?
>
> Have you been paying attention?
Life in the region which is the current nation of Israel was not always as
dangerous or violent as recently. Jerusalem was actually characterized as a
city where Jew, Christian and Muslim lived in peace.
> There is no such thing as a Palestinian.
Then what are the people commonly referred to as Palestinian?
> >>> Look at how at ease Israelis are with their
> >>> government issued gas masks. Look at how "safe" and "secure" the US
> >>> is becoming and has become.
> >>
> >> When was the last attack on US soil since 9/11?
> >
> > Why don't you look at how the people feel, or how paranoid the
> > government has become regarding foreigners and Muslims?
>
> You didn't answer my question.
It isn't relevant if you choose to ignore what the government is doing, or how
the nation has just recently become. Much of the rest of the world has noticed,
but most Americans seem not to.
> FWIW, my foreigner wife sure had no problem
> getting her green card after 9/11.
So what? Is she openly Muslim or Middle Eastern? Even US citizens are being
targeted for being so because of US paranoia.
> >>> Japan does not have pissed off foreign
> >>> volunteers, much less citizens, planning or making high profile
> >>> attacks against them on a regular basis as in Israel, or the US.
> >>
> >> To this I give you a big "so what?" The "pissed off" level of
> >> Islamists is not a very good barometer of how good a state's foreign
> >> policy is. It would be nice if homicidal madmen took the advice of
> >> leftist bumper stickers, but there are several historical examples
> >> of where bending over and being polite did not turn pure evil into a
> >> campfire circle singing "Kumbaya".
> >>
> >> What attacks has the US suffered on a regular basis?
> >
> > I didn't say they were. But the government claims they are planned,
> > and issue warnings all the time.
>
> Then what was all this "regular basis" nonsense you said above?
I didn't say the US was suffering attacks on a regular basis. Israel is. That's
what the "or" is for. It is the US government who regularly claims that attacks
are always being planned or thwarted. The US didn't need such a mindset under
Clinton.
> > No, the threats Japan foresees from terror, and are currently
> > preparing for, other than post WWII animosity from North Korea, are
> > the result of the US relationship with Japan.
>
> Then I guess Japan has a decision to make.
Yes, it's too bad Japan does not make the right one and take care of their own
damned international issues or national security. The US military should be at
home among their family and friends where they are loved and appreciated.
> It's too bad that the Japan-US
> relationship was the cause of those sarin attacks in the subway a few years
> back.
No, Japan foresees trouble from many of the same sources the US does. And
considering Japan does not have a close relationship with Israel, there would
be only one reason for such threats.
Kevin Wayne Williams
This statement alone makes me believe that we are discussing Japanese,
not Chinese, and is the way I came to my original conclusion.
>
> Anyway, I originally wrote:
> "[...] but the message contents sometimes *requires* "hanzis"..."
>
> Grammatically speaking, KWW, after "requires" one usually expects a
> substantive. Now, as you seem to be ignorant of that fact, "hanzi"
> is a compound word which literally means chinese CHARACTERS.
Actually, am perfectly aware of it. I am also aware that the plural
forms of "hanzi" and the more appropriate word, "kanji" , are "hanzi"
and "kanji", respectively. Now, as you seem to be ignorant of that fact,
"kanji" is a compound word which literally means Chinese characters,
being written 漢字, where 漢 means "China", and 字 means, well,
"character(s)."
>
> Which version would make more grammatical sense, then?
>
> "[...] but the message contents sometimes *requires* chinese character
>
> "[...] but the message contents sometimes *requires* chinese characters"
>
> "[...] but the message contents sometimes *requires* greek character"
>
> "[...] but the message contents sometimes *requires* greek characters"
Hmm.. I like those versions that use the word "characters", but
typically, I put capital letters on proper adjectives, like "Greek" and
"Chinese."
>
>
> OTOH, when Gowen writes "post in hanzis [sic]", he uses "hanzis" as if
> designated the chinese alphabet. In that case, he should preferably
> have written "post in hanzi", but semi-literate people
KGII is numerous things, but "semi-literate" is not one of them. You
certainly don't impress me as being more literate. Strangely enough, you
don't even seem more polite than he is, and the average rabid skunk can
pull that off.
> like him are
> not really aware of the semantics of the terms they use...
> Had I elected to use "hanzi" as meaning the "chinese alphabet", I would
> have written:
>
> "[...] but the message contents sometimes *requires* writing in hanzi"
>
> Notice the difference
>
>
>
>>when I am pretty sure you
>>are referring to Japanese text (I'm not sure ... I didn't go through the
>>cut and paste tango), where the word "kanji" would be more appropriate,
>>didn't do anything to make me want to go to the effort.
>
>
> Let me summarize this for you:
>
> - you don't even know whether the post was actually in Japanese,
> but are happy second-guessing -- confident in your probably oh
> so impressive knowledge of asian languages -- its author and
> *assuming* that the word "kanji" would have been more appropriate
Unless you know a way to write Chinese in romaji (which you listed as an
alternate choice), then my assumption is pretty well founded. "Asian",
by the way, not "asian."
>
> - based on that ignorant assumption, you then proceed to try to
> "logically" deduce that Gowen is probably right
>
> To put it mildly, this looks like the pretty shallow thinking, the
> kind of which one expects only from an airhead :-
Actually, my reasoning was more like "poster does not know how to
pluralize "hanzi", does not know how to post correctly formatted text,
therefore, he probably didn't write anything of value." Nothing has
changed my opinion so far.
>
>
>
>>KGII is proof of an old axiom: just because someone is an asshole
>>doesn't mean he's wrong.
>
>
> I resent the implication that my own asshole credentials might not
> cut it.
Actually, I think your post was more than sufficient to prove your
credentials.
Let me summarize it for you. You don't know the mechanics of making a
properly formatted post. You correct people on issues where you are
wrong. You don't know how to use proper adjectives or pluralize the
loanwords "hanzi" and "kanji".
Goodbye.
KWW
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> I read the article, Eric. The forecast goes beyond 75 years. Also,
>> according to the article that $44 trillion is composed of Social
>> Security and Medicare costs.
>
> It doesn't matter what it is or when it is. It's a deficit. I don't
> take out 75 year loans that my descendants have to pay.
You think Medicare and SS will be around in 75 years? I had no idea that you
were a comedian.
>> Whew! For a minute, you had me worried.
>
> Why should you not be? You plan not to have children perhaps?
I plan to have them, but I also plan to teach them to depend on themselves
for their retirement savings and health care, not the state.
>>> It would erode confidence in the US economy or currency, if the US
>>> did such as merely print out money, with detrimental effects on the
>>> US economy.
>>
>> Did I ever say anything about the printing of money?
>
> No, but continued and growing deficits would erode confidence in the
> US economy or currency with the detrimental effects such as people
> being less willing to buy government bonds, anyway.
Yes, just like confidence in the US economy really eroded under the deficits
of the 80s. Were you paying attention during that decade?
>>> Can you explain why deficit would be a good thing?
>>
>> I think I have already explained to you the concept of deficit
>> spending.
>
> So in the future the US will be sold off for its owners to pay off
> the loan and enjoy the capital gains, if any?
Huh?
--
Kevin Gowen
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>>> Yes. Gore couldn't even try to be President while Clinton was still
>>> around. Yet he got more votes than Bush.
>>
>> Not electoral votes, and those are the only ones that matter.
>
> Right. What more people actually asked for, are irrelevant to you.
And to the Constitution, and for that I am glad.
>>>> So having enough money means never borrowing it?
>>>
>>> Enough money is always having enough to meet one's debts.
>>
>> Doesn't answer the question.
>
> You can borrow if you have enough assets to cover repayment, as when
> I use my credit cards as an interest free substitute for cash, or the
> way I might borrow money for a house, just to keep the equivalent
> amount of cash in the bank.
How odd. Does the money in the bank have a higher interest rate than the
appreciate rate of the house? We are talking about Japan, right?
>> I am better off for incurring the debt I have. I never would have
>> been able to go to school if I hadn't taken out these loans.
>
> And what of people who do not make it, or make money as attorneys,
> for whatever reason, yet still have loans to pay? Is it still
> responsible spending?
Depends on the situation. I never said that debt is always a good idea, just
as I have never said that no one such ever incur debt. Debt is a means, not
an end.
>> You do realize that people who have 30 year mortgages do sell their
>> property from time to time before the mortgage is paid off, yes?
>> I'll be doing just that next year when I leave this hellhole.
>
> And what of places where property values do not rise like loan
> interest rates,
Then I guess a wise person would not purchase property there.
> or the house is damaged or lost?
Ever hear of homeowner's insurance?
>> How does a 30 year mortgage oblige you for 30 years? You can sell at
>> any time.
>
> And lose money or still have a loan to pay off.
Or gain money. So what?
>>> Do you actually expect US property values to increase, as in my
>>> family's exceptional (24x purchase price) case, or the current real
>>> estate bubble?
>>
>> Depends on the property. My property continues to go up in value.
>
> So it works for you, but not for others.
Yes. Imagine that.
> Among investment properties
> my paternal grandfather bought at least four decades ago, was land in
> New Mexico, and Florida land, which are still as good as worthless
> because development or improvement of the regions did not occur. Last
> I heard the New Mexico home site was worth a grand 900 dollars, with
> no public utility service planned. Too bad he did not buy Nevada
> property instead.
That is too bad, I agree.
>>>>> Are foreigners, particularly those of the Islamist persuasion, who
>>>>> are the people usually considered a threat to American security at
>>>>> home and abroad, more pissed off at America now, or under Clinton?
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea how to measure such a thing.
>>>
>>> Try counting numbers of attacks,
>>
>> Which ones count?
>
> Go ahead and count all of them, or just the ones that make the news,
> or just the ones the government claims are always being planned.
Go ahead and count them for me, as I still don't know which ones count in
EricWorld.
> Clinton did not need to be as paranoid as Bush.
No, he only thought he didn't need to be while he was playing footsie with
Iran and telling Sudan that we didn't want bin Laden.
I find your accusing another person of being paranoid quite rich, Ass Baton.
>>> or the casualties, or hear from some
>>> of the organizations themselves.
>>
>> Which organizations?
>
> Go ahead and count all of them. But special attention should be paid
> to those who claim to support Palestinians, oppose Israel or the US,
> because those are the ones the US seem to concern themselves with
> most.
Count them for me.
>>> Try casualties, or the growth and increase in number of such
>>> organizations, or view the image of the US abroad.
>>
>> Have some numbers for these things?
>
> About 3,000 dead, the loss of four aircraft, both World Trade Center
> towers, and much of America's sense of security or self confidence,
> just on September 11 for Bush and his father.
>
> What's Clinton's score?
Tell me.
>>>> It doesn't matter who is president of the US, just like it doesn't
>>>> matter who the PM or president of Israel is. Until the day these
>>>> two countries are whisked away to another planet, the Islamists
>>>> will
>>>> keep trying to blow them up.
>>>
>>> So why hadn't they done it before?
>>
>> Have you been paying attention?
>
> Life in the region which is the current nation of Israel was not
> always as dangerous or violent as recently. Jerusalem was actually
> characterized as a city where Jew, Christian and Muslim lived in
> peace.
I wasn't asking about EricWorld. I was asking about Earth.
>> There is no such thing as a Palestinian.
>
> Then what are the people commonly referred to as Palestinian?
Depends on the person. Yassir Arafat, for example, is Egyptian.
>>>> When was the last attack on US soil since 9/11?
>>>
>>> Why don't you look at how the people feel, or how paranoid the
>>> government has become regarding foreigners and Muslims?
>>
>> You didn't answer my question.
>
> It isn't relevant if you choose to ignore what the government is
> doing, or how the nation has just recently become. Much of the rest
> of the world has noticed, but most Americans seem not to.
Noticed what?
>> FWIW, my foreigner wife sure had no problem
>> getting her green card after 9/11.
>
> So what? Is she openly Muslim or Middle Eastern?
No. I'll tell you this, if she were openly Muslim or Middle Eastern she damn
well should have had a bit more trouble getting admitted.
> Even US citizens are
> being targeted for being so because of US paranoia.
Again with the paranoia thing.
> I didn't say the US was suffering attacks on a regular basis. Israel
> is. That's what the "or" is for. It is the US government who
> regularly claims that attacks are always being planned or thwarted.
> The US didn't need such a mindset under Clinton.
Yes, we did.
>>> No, the threats Japan foresees from terror, and are currently
>>> preparing for, other than post WWII animosity from North Korea, are
>>> the result of the US relationship with Japan.
>>
>> Then I guess Japan has a decision to make.
>
> Yes, it's too bad Japan does not make the right one and take care of
> their own damned international issues or national security. The US
> military should be at home among their family and friends where they
> are loved and appreciated.
I think the Japanese people have become a bit more appreciative of the SOFA
in recent years.
>> It's too bad that the Japan-US
>> relationship was the cause of those sarin attacks in the subway a
>> few years back.
>
> No, Japan foresees trouble from many of the same sources the US does.
> And considering Japan does not have a close relationship with Israel,
> there would be only one reason for such threats.
Do you really think the US-Israeli relationship is a big reason for the
threat against the US?
--
Kevin Gowen
mtfe...@netscape.net
> You think Medicare and SS will be around in 75 years? I had no idea that you
> were a comedian.
Right; just look at the deficit spending already.
>>> Did I ever say anything about the printing of money?
>>
>> No, but continued and growing deficits would erode confidence in the
>> US economy or currency with the detrimental effects such as people
>> being less willing to buy government bonds, anyway.
> Yes, just like confidence in the US economy really eroded under the deficits
> of the 80s. Were you paying attention during that decade?
Yes. They would eventually cost Bush Sr his job. Not his fault his former
boss was off in la-la land for the 80s, but...
Mike
Ed
> > All I can say is that if you define your terms correctly, all will be
made
> > clear.
> >
> > hint #1: If a deficit cannot exist, then why bother paying it off?
>
> A non existent deficit does not need to be paid any more than my non
existent
> loans need to be paid.
>
> What non existent deficit are you referring to?
The one you want paid off.
> > hint #2: US notes are meaningless in and of themselves.
>
> Correct. Faith that it stands for something is required.
>
> > hint #3: "Wealth" is not meaningless.
>
> It's not. Yet why should US notes with three extra zeros on them be any
more
> trustworthy than kilos of dinar notes at the marketplace?
sigh... If the US starting putting extra zeros on their dollar bills, they
would merely be printing $100 bills. They already do this.
Ken
> Ken wrote:
>
>>The transmogrification was absolutely involuntary and was presumably
>>caused by some mismatch and interplay between the character set
>>specification in Gowen's original post and the reply I was posting
>>and the character set configuration of the non-asian IME web client I
>>was using and DejaNews' front-end language settings. I don't care
>>enough about the problem to analyze it further, and would rather post
>>in romaji.
>
> This statement alone makes me believe that we are discussing Japanese,
> not Chinese, and is the way I came to my original conclusion.
Which is why you are a certified moron, my friend. Instead of continuing
to base your asinine assumptions again on some strange reading of my
English-language explanations, you could have looked at the actual original
material simply by pasting two lines in a file and opening the result
file in a web browser.
You're obviously so imbued of your own importance and confident of your
(mediocre) knowledge that it wouldn't even occur to you to check your
opinions against mere facts or (gasp) the source material... Do you
vote Republican, perchance?
>>OTOH, when Gowen writes "post in hanzis [sic]", he uses "hanzis" as if
>>designated the chinese alphabet. In that case, he should preferably
>>have written "post in hanzi", but semi-literate people
>
> KGII is numerous things, but "semi-literate" is not one of them. You
> certainly don't impress me as being more literate.
Given that you've singularly failed to demonstrate any kind of competent
insight into any kind of topic germane to the discussion at hand, your
opinion as to Gowen's level of literacy, or mine, is of little import
to me.
> Strangely enough, you
> don't even seem more polite than he is, and the average rabid skunk can
> pull that off.
As to my lack of politeness, it's actually correlated with the perceived
denseness of my counterparty. If I think my counterparty is a moron,
I'll immediately let him/her know by using words like "idiot", "inept",
"asinine", "semi-literate", "imbecilic", "cretinous" etc in my prose.
For the sake of efficient communication, why be ambiguous on-line when
it's so easy to make my low opinion of a person crystal clear?
My previous reply to you was but a caustic rebuttal; this post, on the
other hand, is intended to be a flame.
> Unless you know a way to write Chinese in romaji (which you listed as an
> alternate choice), then my assumption is pretty well founded.
I'm afraid I'll have to subtract a further 10 points from your presumed
IQ for that statement alone...
Anyway, yours is again a flawed reasoning. The character set I *might* elect
to use in FUTURE posts, say, in Japanese is in NO WAY indicative of the
language I used in a PREVIOUS post. Got it? Would you care to explain why
there should be a logical link there? If I post once in Russian, will *all*
my future posts necessarily be in that language?
>> - based on that ignorant assumption, you then proceed to try to
>> "logically" deduce that Gowen is probably right
>>
>>To put it mildly, this looks like pretty shallow thinking, the
>>kind of which one expects only from an airhead :-
>
> Actually, my reasoning was more like "poster does not know how to
> pluralize "hanzi", does not know how to post correctly formatted text,
> therefore, he probably didn't write anything of value." Nothing has
> changed my opinion so far.
Congratulations. You have now stated that it didn't even occur to you
that my use of the term "hanzis" might have had a justification. Your
reading and reasoning was thus even more limited and ignorant than I
had previously thought...
>>>KGII is proof of an old axiom: just because someone is an asshole
>>>doesn't mean he's wrong.
>>
>>I resent the implication that my own asshole credentials might not
>>cut it.
>
> Actually, I think your post was more than sufficient to prove your
> credentials.
Does it mean my opinions might not be wrong, then? I'm happy to
have demonstrated how your worldview and deductive logic focused
on assholeness is so easy to sway as it can overlook even the most
obvious facts.
> Let me summarize it for you. You don't know the mechanics of making a
> properly formatted post.
Oooh, Mr. Internet "expert" who doesn't even know what X11 stands for,
why should I care about some stupid technical detail like automatic
encoding by some system of double-byte characters into HTML entities?
Am I some nerd who sold his soul to a piece of silicon or what? My time
has some value, you know?
Alternatively, if you are just a Joe average PC user, what makes you think
you are even remotely qualified to assess the particular IT configuration
I happened to be using to post to fjlij two days ago?
> You correct people on issues where you are
> wrong. You don't know how to use proper adjectives or pluralize the
> loanwords "hanzi" and "kanji".
The fact that at your age you're still ignorant of some basic rules of
plural formation in the English language is unfortunate, but ultimately
of little concern to this poster.
I'll be uncharacteristically charitable, however, and suggest for your
edification that you ponder the spelling of "woks" in the following
sentence -- and do not overlook, dear ignorant KWW, that "wok" is a
loanword of Chinese origin...
John Yamamoto-Wilson
> The fact that at your age you're still ignorant of some basic rules of
> plural formation in the English language is unfortunate
How old is he? Are either of you on pacers? Are you both watching your
stress levels? Is the plural of wok (or hanzi, etc.) worth having a coronary
over?
Ah, getalife.in-japan! How I ponder these matters as I peruse your postings
in the grey insomniac dawn!
Is that a haiku?
Questions, questions, questions...
John W.
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> >
> > Why should you not be? You plan not to have children perhaps?
>
> I plan to have them, but I also plan to teach them to depend on themselves
> for their retirement savings and health care, not the state.
Speaking as a parent to non-parent, how, pray tell, do you plan to
accomplish this incredible feat?
John W.
Kevin Gowen
I would tell them about investment and things called "insurance companies".
What makes this an incredible feat?
--
Kevin Gowen
Ed
> Ed wrote:
>
> > A good leader is like a tube of preparation H. If it weren't for a
> > hemmorhoid, you wouldn't need the tube.
>
> Do you actually believe an entire state or nation would be able to
function
> without management or decisions made for it or on their behalf?
Your terms are tripping over themselves. A state or nation necessitates a
government in order to be defined as a state or a nation. Can a group of
people function on their own without being governed? I believe so.
Unfortunately, government is darwinian. Take one away and another one pops
up. Put two people together and one will want to tell the other what to do.
> > A perfect world would have no politicians.
>
> What perfect world are you referring to? EdWorld?
ThoreauWorld might be a better word, but I can live with EdWorld.
>
> > A slightly less than perfect
> > world would have powerless politicians. We don't want to give them time
for
> > their measures and reforms to take effect.
> >
> > Laws may be passed years in advance. It's bad enough
> > > that an Administration's work gets screwed up after just four or eight
> > years.
> >
> > Why is it that I don't feel sorry for all those poor administrations
that
> > get screwed after four or eight years?
>
> Because you are confused. You relieve yourself of responsibility to do
things
> such as vote in your own country, and claim government should not exist,
yet
> enjoy the benefits the government provides. You have a cool plumber, but
you
> didn't go out and hire yourself someone to lay down the highway for you to
> drive to Tokyo.
What benefits does government (I assume we're talking about Japan here. I
certainly derive no benefits from the American government) provide for me?
Remember, cool plumbers who wear plastic white loafers have done plumbing
without having a member of the government hold their ladders before now.
> Do government officials, employees, or contractors, as people, produce
> anything?
If the subject is government, then let's talk about government. Contractors
and employees do not necessitate a government for them to be considered
contractors and employees.
> In your perfect world where people can be trusted to look after
themselves, who
> builds the national highway system and how is it paid for?
"national" highway system? How is it paid for? Jeeez!!!! Don't you know your
own country's history? Railroads, toll roads, gold, silver, coin of the
realm, clam shells, pecks of pickled peppers... hint, hint, hint.
As I stated previously, if you precisely and correctly define your terms,
you wouldn't be making all of these errors. A government does not build
highway systems, nor do they build cars and sell cigarettes. Governments
merely regulate them.
Kevin Gowen
> "Eric Takabayashi" <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
> news:3ED898BF...@yahoo.co.jp...
>> Ed wrote:
>>
>>> A good leader is like a tube of preparation H. If it weren't for a
>>> hemmorhoid, you wouldn't need the tube.
>>
>> Do you actually believe an entire state or nation would be able to
>> function without management or decisions made for it or on their
>> behalf?
>
> Your terms are tripping over themselves. A state or nation
> necessitates a government in order to be defined as a state or a
> nation.
A state does, a nation does not. The nation is the people.
> Can a group of people function on their own without being
> governed? I believe so. Unfortunately, government is darwinian. Take
> one away and another one pops up. Put two people together and one
> will want to tell the other what to do.
How do you reconcile:
"Can a group of people function on their own without being governed? I
believe so."
with
"Put two people together and one will want to tell the other what to do."
> I certainly derive no benefits from the American government
Was the SOFA retired while I was out on my evening run?
--
Kevin Gowen
Kevin Wayne Williams
> The fact that at your age you're still ignorant of some basic rules of
> plural formation in the English language is unfortunate, but ultimately
> of little concern to this poster.
Ponder the difference between these two sentences:
"Ken has sex with sheep."
"Ken has sex with sheeps."
When you comprehend irregular plurals, please post again.
KWW
Kevin Gowen
Aren't you the same Kevin Wayne Williams who stumbled over when "fishes" was
the appropriate plural for "fish"?
> KWW
--
Kevin Gowen
Eric Takabayashi
Nothing incredible about that. I am investing in my children's names myself. I
was already a university graduate with summers of earnings in the bank (and no
debt) before I had as much money as my preschool aged children have now.
What is incredible is that you would believe all other Americans to be able to
do so for themselves and their children, and not incur any future debt upon
the state or future tax payers.
Eric Takabayashi
> > What non existent deficit are you referring to?
>
> The one you want paid off.
Why does the deficit not exist, when the government itself accepts that
exists and is growing, with real effects on the economy?
> sigh... If the US starting putting extra zeros on their dollar bills, they
> would merely be printing $100 bills. They already do this.
But ordinary citizens do not use THOUSAND dollar bills, issued by the
government at will, in an effort to stem inflation or pay off debt, nor is
1,000 the lowest denomination.
Eric Takabayashi
> Your terms are tripping over themselves. A state or nation necessitates a
> government in order to be defined as a state or a nation. Can a group of
> people function on their own without being governed? I believe so.
126 or 270 million of them?
> Unfortunately, government is darwinian. Take one away and another one pops
> up. Put two people together and one will want to tell the other what to do.
And it just so happens that democracy for the U.S. is better than simply
letting the strongest or most determined ambitious or greedy one, take over.
> > > A perfect world would have no politicians.
> >
> > What perfect world are you referring to? EdWorld?
>
> ThoreauWorld might be a better word, but I can live with EdWorld.
Are you a self sufficient farmer able to produce all you need for yourself?
What form of currency or trade and barter are used in EdWorld to get other
things you need, such as medical care? How are you organized to build highways,
automobiles and aircraft?
> What benefits does government (I assume we're talking about Japan here. I
> certainly derive no benefits from the American government) provide for me?
How convenient you speak only in the present tense, and you are ignorant even
then. Have you given up your passport yet? Unless you lived as a hermit while
in the US, you most certainly derived its benefits, perhaps without even paying
any taxes, as would be true of students attending public school.
> Remember, cool plumbers who wear plastic white loafers have done plumbing
> without having a member of the government hold their ladders before now.
The government provided the system for your plumber to learn and practice his
trade, unless he learned everything off his master whom he lived off of, and
you pay him in labor or Ed Credits.
> > Do government officials, employees, or contractors, as people, produce
> > anything?
>
> If the subject is government, then let's talk about government. Contractors
> and employees do not necessitate a government for them to be considered
> contractors and employees.
>
> > In your perfect world where people can be trusted to look after
> themselves, who
> > builds the national highway system and how is it paid for?
>
> "national" highway system? How is it paid for? Jeeez!!!! Don't you know your
> own country's history? Railroads, toll roads, gold, silver, coin of the
> realm, clam shells, pecks of pickled peppers... hint, hint, hint.
And who validates that "coin of the realm" in the community, state or nation,
for it to hold any value?
> As I stated previously, if you precisely and correctly define your terms,
> you wouldn't be making all of these errors. A government does not build
> highway systems, nor do they build cars and sell cigarettes. Governments
> merely regulate them.
And that government is necessary, and needs to be paid for.
Ken
My my, the suggestion that the moronic KWW presumably votes Republican
has touched a raw nerve, it seems? And have you at last understood how
much of a fool you were making of yourself with your asinine assumption
that my use of "hanzi" was due to ignorance?
Anyway, how could I overlook the fact that "sheep", as you suggest, was
a loanword of Chinese origin, a compound of two ideograms, "sh4", meaning
"wool", and "eep2", which means "to bleat". The erudite KWW will easily
identify the string of derivational lexemes which connects the woolly
Chinese radical to "Shetland", for example.
So that I can avoid ridiculing myself in public, I would be grateful
if you could provide me with the "Canonical Schedule of Loanwords with
Irregular Plurals [sic]", as compiled by the Académie de la Langue
Anglaise.
I'll be waiting for the arrival of that authoritative text, sipping
a martini or two and munching on a pizza while pondering how "few" of
these pesky language-corrupting loanwords the English language has.
To while the time away, as the piano in my mosquito-infested bungalow
needs tuning, I guess I'll traipse to my yacht and pop a CD or two in
my stereo...
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >
> >>> Yes. Gore couldn't even try to be President while Clinton was still
> >>> around. Yet he got more votes than Bush.
> >>
> >> Not electoral votes, and those are the only ones that matter.
> >
> > Right. What more people actually asked for, are irrelevant to you.
>
> And to the Constitution, and for that I am glad.
Right, and if Bush had fallen behind in the Florida vote count, you would have
just rolled over and accepted it.
> >>>> So having enough money means never borrowing it?
> >>>
> >>> Enough money is always having enough to meet one's debts.
> >>
> >> Doesn't answer the question.
> >
> > You can borrow if you have enough assets to cover repayment, as when
> > I use my credit cards as an interest free substitute for cash, or the
> > way I might borrow money for a house, just to keep the equivalent
> > amount of cash in the bank.
>
> How odd. Does the money in the bank have a higher interest rate than the
> appreciate rate of the house? We are talking about Japan, right?
No, the same would apply to even the fastest appreciating house. If I buy a
house, it is because I like it and want to live in and keep it. I don't sell
houses to get cash, much less the family house I grew up in.
> >> I am better off for incurring the debt I have. I never would have
> >> been able to go to school if I hadn't taken out these loans.
> >
> > And what of people who do not make it, or make money as attorneys,
> > for whatever reason, yet still have loans to pay? Is it still
> > responsible spending?
>
> Depends on the situation. I never said that debt is always a good idea,
Then how can you assert nothing or "not a thing" is wrong with deficit
spending?
> just as I have never said that no one such ever incur debt.
Neither have I.
> Debt is a means, not an end.
>
> >> You do realize that people who have 30 year mortgages do sell their
> >> property from time to time before the mortgage is paid off, yes?
> >> I'll be doing just that next year when I leave this hellhole.
> >
> > And what of places where property values do not rise like loan
> > interest rates,
>
> Then I guess a wise person would not purchase property there.
Are you "wise" enough to always come out with more on your investments? Why did
you never imagine picking up Yahoo! or Yahoo! Japan stocks? Perhaps you are in
the wrong line of work.
> > or the house is damaged or lost?
>
> Ever hear of homeowner's insurance?
It's not enough, as people in my community learned the hard way after a
hurricane that left about a quarter homeless and caused 1.6 billion dollars in
damage. I was actually employed by two insurance companies after that
hurricane, and saw how people got lowballed.
What it cost my mother to repair her house and bring it up to modern building
standard with a more substantial frame is almost precisely twice what the
insurance company offered her to restore the house to its original condition,
and means my mother will be paying off a loan until she is in her early 90s.
With the financial crisis of a number of large insurance companies, they also
mulled cessation of service in so called high risk areas as Hawaii.
Do you know an insurance company that will actually pay the property's
replacement value? I'd like to hear of it.
> >> How does a 30 year mortgage oblige you for 30 years? You can sell at
> >> any time.
> >
> > And lose money or still have a loan to pay off.
>
> Or gain money. So what?
So what, is you talk of real estate as if it were a sure thing, when it is not.
> >>> Do you actually expect US property values to increase, as in my
> >>> family's exceptional (24x purchase price) case, or the current real
> >>> estate bubble?
> >>
> >> Depends on the property. My property continues to go up in value.
> >
> > So it works for you, but not for others.
>
> Yes. Imagine that.
So you're one of the lucky ones. It does not work, for many blacks or those who
live in traditionally minority communities, for example, and is one big reason
they are economically disadvantaged.
> > Among investment properties
> > my paternal grandfather bought at least four decades ago, was land in
> > New Mexico, and Florida land, which are still as good as worthless
> > because development or improvement of the regions did not occur. Last
> > I heard the New Mexico home site was worth a grand 900 dollars, with
> > no public utility service planned. Too bad he did not buy Nevada
> > property instead.
>
> That is too bad, I agree.
Your "that is too bad" is what keeps millions of Americans poor, through no
fault of their own, yet you would penalize them for not being as fortunate as
lucky real estate owners like my parents.
> >>>>> Are foreigners, particularly those of the Islamist persuasion, who
> >>>>> are the people usually considered a threat to American security at
> >>>>> home and abroad, more pissed off at America now, or under Clinton?
> >>>>
> >>>> I have no idea how to measure such a thing.
> >>>
> >>> Try counting numbers of attacks,
> >>
> >> Which ones count?
> >
> > Go ahead and count all of them, or just the ones that make the news,
> > or just the ones the government claims are always being planned.
>
> Go ahead and count them for me, as I still don't know which ones count in
> EricWorld.
It is the Bush Administration which claims it has thwarted hundreds of attacks,
and constantly puts Americans on the alert. These hundreds of attacks did not
take place under Clinton, nor were thousands of American lives lost to terror
under him.
> > Clinton did not need to be as paranoid as Bush.
>
> No, he only thought he didn't need to be while he was playing footsie with
> Iran and telling Sudan that we didn't want bin Laden.
>
> I find your accusing another person of being paranoid quite rich, Ass Baton.
What of it, Jedi with concealment Kimber? Do you fear Islamist terror? I do
not.
> >>> or the casualties, or hear from some
> >>> of the organizations themselves.
> >>
> >> Which organizations?
> >
> > Go ahead and count all of them. But special attention should be paid
> > to those who claim to support Palestinians, oppose Israel or the US,
> > because those are the ones the US seem to concern themselves with
> > most.
>
> Count them for me.
The Bush Admistration does it. Clinton did not have such troubles.
> >>> Try casualties, or the growth and increase in number of such
> >>> organizations, or view the image of the US abroad.
> >>
> >> Have some numbers for these things?
> >
> > About 3,000 dead, the loss of four aircraft, both World Trade Center
> > towers, and much of America's sense of security or self confidence,
> > just on September 11 for Bush and his father.
> >
> > What's Clinton's score?
>
> Tell me.
No, you tell me. You hold Clinton responsible for attacks on citizens and US
interests even abroad when you spout off your list of terrorist attacks, but
only ask me what attacks have occurred on US soil since the 9/11 attacks. Why
this convenient qualifier?
> >>>> It doesn't matter who is president of the US, just like it doesn't
> >>>> matter who the PM or president of Israel is. Until the day these
> >>>> two countries are whisked away to another planet, the Islamists
> >>>> will
> >>>> keep trying to blow them up.
> >>>
> >>> So why hadn't they done it before?
> >>
> >> Have you been paying attention?
> >
> > Life in the region which is the current nation of Israel was not
> > always as dangerous or violent as recently. Jerusalem was actually
> > characterized as a city where Jew, Christian and Muslim lived in
> > peace.
>
> I wasn't asking about EricWorld. I was asking about Earth.
I am talking about Earth. Israel and Jews in the area did not have these
problems, nor did the US.
> >> There is no such thing as a Palestinian.
> >
> > Then what are the people commonly referred to as Palestinian?
>
> Depends on the person. Yassir Arafat, for example, is Egyptian.
Then why does even Israel refer to them as Palestinians?
> >>>> When was the last attack on US soil since 9/11?
> >>>
> >>> Why don't you look at how the people feel, or how paranoid the
> >>> government has become regarding foreigners and Muslims?
> >>
> >> You didn't answer my question.
> >
> > It isn't relevant if you choose to ignore what the government is
> > doing, or how the nation has just recently become. Much of the rest
> > of the world has noticed, but most Americans seem not to.
>
> Noticed what?
>
> >> FWIW, my foreigner wife sure had no problem
> >> getting her green card after 9/11.
> >
> > So what? Is she openly Muslim or Middle Eastern?
>
> No. I'll tell you this, if she were openly Muslim or Middle Eastern she damn
> well should have had a bit more trouble getting admitted.
Why should such a person, even if you were married to her, be required to go
through such trouble?
> > Even US citizens are
> > being targeted for being so because of US paranoia.
>
> Again with the paranoia thing.
What of it? Street criminals are a greater danger than Islamist organizations,
even in the US.
> > I didn't say the US was suffering attacks on a regular basis. Israel
> > is. That's what the "or" is for. It is the US government who
> > regularly claims that attacks are always being planned or thwarted.
> > The US didn't need such a mindset under Clinton.
>
> Yes, we did.
Then how odd that neither Bush noticed till after 9/11.
> >>> No, the threats Japan foresees from terror, and are currently
> >>> preparing for, other than post WWII animosity from North Korea, are
> >>> the result of the US relationship with Japan.
> >>
> >> Then I guess Japan has a decision to make.
> >
> > Yes, it's too bad Japan does not make the right one and take care of
> > their own damned international issues or national security. The US
> > military should be at home among their family and friends where they
> > are loved and appreciated.
>
> I think the Japanese people have become a bit more appreciative of the SOFA
> in recent years.
>
> >> It's too bad that the Japan-US
> >> relationship was the cause of those sarin attacks in the subway a
> >> few years back.
> >
> > No, Japan foresees trouble from many of the same sources the US does.
> > And considering Japan does not have a close relationship with Israel,
> > there would be only one reason for such threats.
>
> Do you really think the US-Israeli relationship is a big reason for the
> threat against the US?
Yes.
What is the reason, then? The US just happens to be a preferred target of pure
evil?
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >
> >> I read the article, Eric. The forecast goes beyond 75 years. Also,
> >> according to the article that $44 trillion is composed of Social
> >> Security and Medicare costs.
> >
> > It doesn't matter what it is or when it is. It's a deficit. I don't
> > take out 75 year loans that my descendants have to pay.
>
> You think Medicare and SS will be around in 75 years?
Or their replacement.
> I had no idea that you were a comedian.
If you are one of those who think such as 401k or throwing the dice making
personal investments are a better idea, then you are the comedian. Millions of
Americans have learned the hard way.
> >> Whew! For a minute, you had me worried.
> >
> > Why should you not be? You plan not to have children perhaps?
>
> I plan to have them, but I also plan to teach them to depend on themselves
> for their retirement savings and health care, not the state.
>
> >>> It would erode confidence in the US economy or currency, if the US
> >>> did such as merely print out money, with detrimental effects on the
> >>> US economy.
> >>
> >> Did I ever say anything about the printing of money?
> >
> > No, but continued and growing deficits would erode confidence in the
> > US economy or currency with the detrimental effects such as people
> > being less willing to buy government bonds, anyway.
>
> Yes, just like confidence in the US economy really eroded under the deficits
> of the 80s. Were you paying attention during that decade?
Yes, I noticed how Reagan was a fine actor and liar. Clinton as a practiced
attorney was also pretty good when he played with semantics like you do.
On the other hand, you may have noticed Bush is not as fine or inspiring an
actor despite his approval ratings and military action against anemic
opponents.
> >>> Can you explain why deficit would be a good thing?
> >>
> >> I think I have already explained to you the concept of deficit
> >> spending.
> >
> > So in the future the US will be sold off for its owners to pay off
> > the loan and enjoy the capital gains, if any?
>
> Huh?
Apply your real estate model to the US economy, for it to be relevant, please.
John Yamamoto-Wilson
> it just so happens that democracy for the U.S. is better than simply
> letting the strongest or most determined ambitious or greedy one, take
over.
You mean there's a difference? ;-)
Kevin Wayne Williams
> Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
>
>>Ken wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The fact that at your age you're still ignorant of some basic rules of
>>>plural formation in the English language is unfortunate, but ultimately
>>>of little concern to this poster.
>>
>>Ponder the difference between these two sentences:
>>"Ken has sex with sheep."
>>"Ken has sex with sheeps."
>>When you comprehend irregular plurals, please post again.
>
>
> My my, the suggestion that the moronic KWW presumably votes Republican
> has touched a raw nerve, it seems? And have you at last understood how
> much of a fool you were making of yourself with your asinine assumption
> that my use of "hanzi" was due to ignorance?
I am still well aware that you are and were too lazy to properly encode
a post, and were abusive to those that thought it not worth the effort.
Over on SLJ, we have a guy with an Amiga for his news machine. He
manually encodes his posts byte by byte to make them readable, because
he understands the basic rule that it is the poster's obligation to make
his post readable, not the readers obligation to wander through three or
four applications to do so.
>
> Anyway, how could I overlook the fact that "sheep", as you suggest, was
> a loanword of Chinese origin, a compound of two ideograms, "sh4", meaning
> "wool", and "eep2", which means "to bleat". The erudite KWW will easily
> identify the string of derivational lexemes which connects the woolly
> Chinese radical to "Shetland", for example.
It was KGII that made the connection to Chinese loanwords ... I never
said that. He also believes that "Ken has sex with fishes" would be good
English, so I don't trust his sense of plurals much more than I trust yours.
>
> So that I can avoid ridiculing myself in public, I would be grateful
> if you could provide me with the "Canonical Schedule of Loanwords with
> Irregular Plurals [sic]", as compiled by the Académie de la Langue
> Anglaise.
> I'll be waiting for the arrival of that authoritative text, sipping
> a martini or two and munching on a pizza while pondering how "few" of
> these pesky language-corrupting loanwords the English language has.
Never said there were few.
> To while the time away, as the piano in my mosquito-infested bungalow
> needs tuning, I guess I'll traipse to my yacht and pop a CD or two in
> my stereo...
Boy, I bet it would take quite a few hanzi to write that sentence in
Chinese.
KWW
Ken
> Ken wrote:
>
>> Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
>>
>>> Ken wrote:
>>>
>>>> The fact that at your age you're still ignorant of some basic rules of
>>>> plural formation in the English language is unfortunate, but ultimately
>>>> of little concern to this poster.
>>>
>>> Ponder the difference between these two sentences:
>>> "Ken has sex with sheep."
>>> "Ken has sex with sheeps."
>>> When you comprehend irregular plurals, please post again.
>>
>> My my, the suggestion that the moronic KWW presumably votes Republican
>> has touched a raw nerve, it seems? And have you at last understood how
>> much of a fool you were making of yourself with your asinine assumption
>> that my use of "hanzi" was due to ignorance?
>
> I am still well aware that you are and were too lazy to properly encode
You are hopelessly confused, dear moronic Republican. The reason I'm
being abusive towards *YOU* -- note the sigular -- is that you thought
it not worth the effort to decode my original post before seeing it fit
to pedantically comment on my choice of a term like "hanzi".
I suggested you once to refer to the source material -- a fairly trivial
exercise -- but you didn't take advantage of that opportunity, restating
your asinine assumption. This is how you earned yourself the "flamable
ignorant idiot" credentials.
> Over on SLJ, we have a guy with an Amiga for his news machine. He
> manually encodes his posts byte by byte to make them readable, because
> he understands the basic rule that it is the poster's obligation to make
> his post readable, not the readers obligation to wander through three or
> four applications to do so.
What part of "it would be a bit uncivil of me to install an IME on a
system I don't own" don't you understand?
Besides, what could I possibly gain by wasting time ensuring that my
posts are easily readable by people in FJLIJ?
The only "obligation" that is relevant to the discussion at hand, KWW,
would be *yours*, to at least actually read, when asked, the source
material you are commenting on before persisting in your assumption
that you might have some superior linguistic insight.
>> Anyway, how could I overlook the fact that "sheep", as you suggest, was
>> a loanword of Chinese origin, a compound of two ideograms, "sh4", meaning
>> "wool", and "eep2", which means "to bleat". The erudite KWW will easily
>> identify the string of derivational lexemes which connects the woolly
>> Chinese radical to "Shetland", for example.
>
> It was KGII that made the connection to Chinese loanwords ... I never
> said that. He also believes that "Ken has sex with fishes" would be good
> English, so I don't trust his sense of plurals much more than I trust yours.
Dear weasel, are you putting fishy words in KGII's mouth, now?
Besides, in article <p_QBa.5511$iT....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>
you explictly said:
Using a bizarre plural of "hanzi"...
The oh so literate KWW also said in article
<jE2Ca.17191$da1....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>
Actually, am perfectly aware of it. I am also aware that the
plural forms of "hanzi" and the more appropriate word, "kanji",
are "hanzi" and "kanji", respectively.
and further down in the same article, you said:
You don't know how to use proper adjectives or
pluralize the loanwords "hanzi" and "kanji".
"I never said that", indeed. Why then fixate on the fact that "kanji"
and "hanzi" are loanwords?
Please also note that "kanji" isn't the inflected plural form of some
latinate "kanjus", dear plurally-challenged semi-literate fool.
>> So that I can avoid ridiculing myself in public, I would be grateful
>> if you could provide me with the "Canonical Schedule of Loanwords with
>> Irregular Plurals [sic]", as compiled by the Académie de la Langue
>> Anglaise.
>> I'll be waiting for the arrival of that authoritative text, sipping
>> a martini or two and munching on a pizza while pondering how "few" of
>> these pesky language-corrupting loanwords the English language has.
>
> Never said there were few.
Indeed. Now, please spell out the plural form for martini and pizza.
Are they blue-blooded English words, who can proudly trace their
lineage all the way back to Beowulf, Chaucer and The Bard?
>> To while the time away, as the piano in my mosquito-infested bungalow
>> needs tuning, I guess I'll traipse to my yacht and pop a CD or two in
>> my stereo...
>
> Boy, I bet it would take quite a few hanzi to write that sentence in
> Chinese.
Yup. Especially as part of a Spot-the-Loanword-with-"Irregular"-Plurals
game *in English*... But this too apparently went waaay over your head.
Kevin Gowen
> Ken wrote:
>> Anyway, how could I overlook the fact that "sheep", as you suggest,
>> was
>> a loanword of Chinese origin, a compound of two ideograms, "sh4",
>> meaning "wool", and "eep2", which means "to bleat".
Ken truly has a dizzying intellect. Lest anyone actually take him seriously,
here is the OED on the etymology of "sheep":
[OE. (WS.) scéap, earlier scóep, (Anglian) scép str. n. = OFris. skêp, schêp
(NFris. skêp, skêap, sjip, sjapp, WFris. skiep, EFris. schâip), OS. scâp
(MLG. schâp, LG. schaap), MDu. schaep (Du. schaap), OHG. scâf (MHG. schâf,
G. schaf):OTeut. *skóepo-m (wanting in Gothic and Scand.).
Outside Teut. no certain affinities are known. The prehistoric pl. *skóepu
normally lost its final vowel in OE., so that nom. and acc. sing. and pl.
became identical. (ONorthumbrian, however, had a pl. form scípo beside
scíp.)
The pronunciation (**p) is specially characteristic of midl. (esp.
west-midl.) dialects, but is widely current elsewhere in England, exc. in
the north-west.]
>> The erudite KWW
>> will easily identify the string of derivational lexemes which
>> connects the woolly Chinese radical to "Shetland", for example.
> It was KGII that made the connection to Chinese loanwords
When did I do that?
> ... I never
> said that. He also believes that "Ken has sex with fishes" would be
> good English,
I never said that, but it would be good English if Ken were to have sex with
more than one species of fish. I'm not very interested in investigating such
a thing so I will leave it to you as you oddly brought up the subject.
> so I don't trust his sense of plurals much more than I
> trust yours.
You still haven't learned. From _The American Heritage Book of English
Usage: A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English_ (1996):
http://tinyurl.com/d6u7
"Some nouns, mainly names of birds, *fishes*, and mammals, have the same
form in the plural as in the singular: bison, deer, moose, sheep, swine.
Some words that follow this pattern, such as antelope, cod, crab, elk, fish,
flounder, grouse, herring, quail, reindeer, salmon, shrimp, and trout, also
have regular plurals ending in -s: antelope, antelopes; fish, *fishes*;
salmon, salmons. Normally in such cases the unchanged plural indicates that
the animal in question is being considered collectively, while the plural
ending in -s is used specifically to indicate different varieties or species
or kinds: *We caught six fish* but *Half a dozen fishes inhabit the lake*."
(emphasis added as it is apparently needed)
This is why you were a bonehead (and remain a bonehead) to criticize the
grammar of my sentence, "I think that it is one of the tastiest fishes that
you can eat in Japan". I do not know how things were the last time you took
a trip to Japan, but I assure you that one can eat more than one species of
fish there.
--
Kevin Gowen
