Unequal Distribution of Wealth?
Henry
Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
opportunities exist?
-Henry
Frank R. Hipp
h...@flash.com (Henry) wrote:
> -Henry
Governments should not be involved in re-distribution of wealth -
period.
Yes, equal opportunities exist - if a person is willing to work hard.
Check out my .sig
Frank R. Hipp
"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks
to live at the expense of everyone else."
-- Frederic Bastiat
"Once politics become a tug-of-war for shares in the income pie,
decent government is impossible."
-- Friedrich A. Hayek
James Doemer
Henry wrote:
>
> Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
> distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
> opportunities exist?
>
> -Henry
It is the Government's job to try and keep a economic environment that is
favorable to business growth, and job creation. The people should be
taking care of the rest.
Max Kennedy
James Doemer <big...@provide.net> wrote:
It's the government job to prevent unequal opportunities like rape,
theft, fraud and murder from going on...
Or in other words, by protecting the right of the people not to have
force and fraud used against them by others. Or in better words, read
the Declaration of Independence.
Having the government itself engage in theft, fraud, murder, and in
the case, of Bill Clinton, rape, gets us absolutely nowhere.
Max Kennedy
Smokin'
James Doemer <big...@provide.net> wrote in article
<32D94D...@provide.net>...
> Henry wrote:
> >
> > Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
> > distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can
equal
> > opportunities exist?
> >
> > -Henry
>
>
> It is the Government's job to try and keep a economic environment that is
> favorable to business growth, and job creation. The people should be
> taking care of the rest.
>
BZZZTTT! Wrong! That is exactly what the government is doing now, building
a card house of 'favorable business growth' by granting special privileges
to large corporations thereby stifling the growth and creation of smaller
businesses. Not to mention that these 'special privileges' are funded by
private sector taxes. The government should keep their hands off of ALL
issues with the exception of the protection of our borders. A positive
economic environment is created with the warm and fuzzy feeling that our
nation is being protected. It is the mind-set of the people that generates
a positive economy, not figure factoring and deep rooted mathematics,
anything further only hampers businesses ability to produce efficiently.
These 'deep rooted mathematics' are a form of propaganda to give people
that warm fuzzy feeling that the economy is doing well. We are in a
recession per-se at this moment, but the 'numbers' don't reflect that.
--
Smokin'
POWER IS THE HEROIN OF THE SMALL-MINDED MAN
AND FORCE, FORCE IS THE NEEDLE - THE GUN IN HIS HAND
HE LUSTS TO CONTROL ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE LAND
COMPLETE, TOTAL DESTRUCTION - HIS ULTIMATE END
-Corrosion of Conformity
Paul Kuczwara
Henry wrote:
>
> Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
> distribution of wealth?
NO!
>Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
> opportunities exist?
YES! The Declaration of Independance say's
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
... "
P.
>
> -Henry
midt...@slip.net
Henry wrote:
> Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
> opportunities exist?
That can be debated for a long time. But one thing is for sure:
It is YOUR responsibility not to spam this everywhere.
> -Henry
Matt Walcoff
f...@tamu.edu (Frank R. Hipp) wrote:
>h...@flash.com (Henry) wrote:
>>Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
>>distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
>>opportunities exist?
>> -Henry
>Governments should not be involved in re-distribution of wealth -
>period.
>Yes, equal opportunities exist - if a person is willing to work hard.
Equal opportunities exist? ha. Wealthy kids go to the best schools,
get into Harvard as a legacy, get to intern for free because their
parents pay for college and get jobs from family friends. Poor kids go
to dumpy schools, have to work their butts off to pay for the state
university and can't take time off to intern and then have no old
family friends who are CEO's.
I agree gov't should not mess with equality of result, but it
certainly should work to ensure equality of opportunity. Pay for
college, pay for daycare, etc.
Matt
Bang
Henry wrote:
>
> Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
> distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
> opportunities exist?
>
> -Henry
Bang Answers Henry's Questions: 1) NO 2) If they chose to do so 3) NO
--
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Support your local Friends of NRA Fundraising Event! To learn more,
stop by:
http://www.concentric.net/~peatea56/dwfnra.shtml
Max Kennedy
Paul Kuczwara <pcep...@worldpath.net> wrote:
>>Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
>> opportunities exist?
>YES! The Declaration of Independance say's
>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
>equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
>rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
>... "
-- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,
Max Kennedy
that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it
Heather K.
On 12 Jan 1997, Henry wrote:
> Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
> distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
> opportunities exist?
>
> -Henry
Equal opportunities cannot exist under the current egoist, "me" generation,
encouraged by the greedy, individualistic capitalistic society. If people
would give up their egoism, as well as their hatred for others, they
would then stop trying to take advantage of each other (this even
happened in communist countries!!). Then and only then do we, as a human
race, have any chance at equality with one another.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: holy...@niu.edu OR z95...@oats.farm.niu.edu
Homepage: http://tofu.rhcl.niu.edu/~martin/heather/index.html
The only thing I know about computers is that they confuse me!
xona
The ass and gut of a fat conservative right-wing yahoo and his dick
xona
Henry
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970112150647.17164C-100000@oats>, "Heather K."
<z950257@oats> wrote:
> On 12 Jan 1997, Henry wrote:
>
> > Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
> > distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
> > opportunities exist?
> >
> > -Henry
> Equal opportunities cannot exist under the current egoist, "me" generation,
> encouraged by the greedy, individualistic capitalistic society. If people
> would give up their egoism, as well as their hatred for others, they
> would then stop trying to take advantage of each other (this even
> happened in communist countries!!). Then and only then do we, as a human
> race, have any chance at equality with one another.
As much as hatred for others tears our nation apart, cynicism does nothing
to promote the kind of cooperation needed to solve our ever-growing
problems.
Also, it is an individual's right to be as greedy and egoistic as much as
he wants to be. Denying that freedom, for whatever noble reason, would
deny him the opportunity to experience the vulgarity and sordidness of
exploitation. No amount of persuasion can teach him that lesson.
-Henry
R Martin
>
> >>Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
> >>distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
> >>opportunities exist?
>
> >> -Henry
>
> >period.
>
> >Yes, equal opportunities exist - if a person is willing to work hard.
>
> Equal opportunities exist? ha. Wealthy kids go to the best schools,
> get into Harvard as a legacy, get to intern for free because their
> parents pay for college and get jobs from family friends. Poor kids go
> to dumpy schools, have to work their butts off to pay for the state
> university and can't take time off to intern and then have no old
> family friends who are CEO's.
>
> I agree gov't should not mess with equality of result, but it
> certainly should work to ensure equality of opportunity. Pay for
> college, pay for daycare, etc.
>
> Matt
Sorry, friend. I hate to rain on your parade, but ....
Yeah, rich folks try to take care of their kids. Aren't they supposed
to? I try to take care of _MY_ kids, and I sure as heck am not rich.
But guess what? I see a lot of these kids, and usually the money is
gone in two generations. How many cases can you think of where grandad
worked hard and build something, dad tried to keep it going, and junior
took the money and drank it all up? I can think of several from
personal experience. And BTW, those high dollar colleges are quite
often not a real good deal. I know a lot of bright people who worked
their way through the State Universities, or church-sponsored colleges.
I did it myself. Let your kids try it. Find out how bad they really
want to go to school.
You want the "governement" to pay for all sorts of stuff. Where in the
heck do you think the money COMES from? The air? It comes out of your
pockets and my children's mouths, that's where!
Robert Vogel
> > >
> > > Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
> > > distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can
> equal
> > > opportunities exist?
Extremes in distribution of wealth are associated with authoritarian,
underdeveloped, backward countries. Except the US now has one of the
worst distributions of any advanced country including Great Britain with
its aristocracy. There has been a massive transfer of wealth caused by
Republican's regressive policies. (See Lester Thurow's book, The Future
of Capitalism) The results:
* concentration of enterprise including media, healthcare, and other
industry that has
led to very limited public discussion, narrow choice in elections, and
an agenda that has little to do with public issues, and a lot to do with
a few entities that pay for and control the process. High concentration
of wealth can lead to an authoritarian state.
* public facilities including transit, schools, cities, and the safety
net have fallen
into a sad state of disrepair. (The new wiretap law, though, requires
the facilities to simultaneously wiretap 10% of telephone and other
communications.)
* quality of life is not as good. Check out 'The Winner Take all
Society' by Robert Frank and Philip Cook. or Ralph Nader's book 'No
Contest'.
* volatility of the economy will cause us to relearn the lessons of the
1930's again. At that time, as now, stock market crash, sluggish demand,
and economic stagnation can result from the Republican euphoria, but
this time it is not clear that we can deal with the downside of the
business cycle as well. Most of the business cycle stabilizers have been
removed and government has itself been weakened.
Republicans are leading us to the condition of a third world country. So
how's the OJ trial ?
Peregrin
In article <5bbpj9$e...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, xo...@primenet.com says...
>
>
>
>The ass and gut of a fat conservative right-wing yahoo and his dick
>
>
>xona
Very good Xona...Next week we'll work on recognizeing your colors,
and maybe we'll get the play dough out, if ya' promise not to eat it
again..
Roy Lemons
>
> >>Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
> >>distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
> >>opportunities exist?
>
>
> >Governments should not be involved in re-distribution of wealth -
> >period.
>
> >Yes, equal opportunities exist - if a person is willing to work hard.
>
> Equal opportunities exist? ha. Wealthy kids go to the best schools,
> get into Harvard as a legacy, get to intern for free because their
> parents pay for college and get jobs from family friends. Poor kids go
> to dumpy schools, have to work their butts off to pay for the state
> university and can't take time off to intern and then have no old
> family friends who are CEO's.
>
> I agree gov't should not mess with equality of result, but it
> certainly should work to ensure equality of opportunity. Pay for
> college, pay for daycare, etc.
>
> Matt
Blame your parents, not the government for not putting themselfs in a
position to send you to these schools and get you the job that you want.
Roy
--
NIGHT WEAR is reflective print for runners, bicylist,
and rollerbladers. NFL, NHL, MLB champion hats.
'http://www.rbtees.com'
We are looking for Sales people!!
Heather K.
And I say blame the damn gov't for letting people starve and barely able
to earn a living and having to work their asses off while their at it as
well (e.i. barely $5 an hour for cashiers (in comparison to maybe around
$10 offered to cashiers in many stores [if not mor] in Germany) but
several million to baseball players or football players.) Comeon,
musicians in the classical world have to struggle to earn a living,
whereas rock stars make millions, even though they have less musical
training than the classical artists! Ha! Come on people! In many
countries of the world, one can go to college - any one - poor or rich!
not just the fucking rich who don't give a shit for the poor! Come on
people instead of bitching at the poor (yeah, given some are guilty by
their own lazy asses) start being generous and start helping them -
higher minimum wage, so that they can fucking care for their own families.
If they blame their parents - their children will blame them! The cycle
needs to be broken! Dingbat! Yes, everybody needs to take part in
breaking it, but the gov't has the most power to do so. The government
can offer us good quality, low cost training (as in Germany and in many
other countries) and higher paying jobs... You gotta stop these corporate
people who are greedy beyond belief - who can fire anyone who dares
protest on call practically.
tsun
On 12 Jan 1997 16:39:23 GMT, h...@flash.com (Henry) wrote:
>Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
>distribution of wealth?
NO. All other things aside, government intervention only assures that
nobody has much wealth. Equal distribution is a myth. Equal
distribution of your heart beat would make you a....FLATLINER.
That works with economies also, you'll notice...
>Or is it the people's responsibility?
People are ultimately responsible for their lives and actions.
(Whether they belive it, or not.)
>Can equal>opportunities exist?
There can be no equal opportunity. The enterprising individual who
prepares him/herself often has more opportunity than she/he can take
advantage of. Those who are not so enterprising, or who don't prepare
themselves usually must settle for whatever happens to come along.
Often they become aware of that by the noise made when the door shuts.
Government granted "opportunity" is akin to one of those "free" flu
shots. You may not be real pleased with the results <G>
--
-.-. .-.. .. -. - --- -. ... ..- -.-. -.- ... -... .. --. - .. -- .
_ ____
------------------------- |_\____o__/_/___|
ts...@acclink.com \<>-----_/_/____]>
------------------------- `o |
-.-. .-.. .. -. - --- -. ... ..- -.-. -.- ... -... .. --. - .. -- .
Mark Earnest
> >
> > >>Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
> > >>opportunities exist?
> >
> > >> -Henry
> >
> > >Governments should not be involved in re-distribution of wealth -
> > >period.
> >
> > >Yes, equal opportunities exist - if a person is willing to work hard.
> >
> > Equal opportunities exist? ha. Wealthy kids go to the best schools,
> > get into Harvard as a legacy, get to intern for free because their
> > parents pay for college and get jobs from family friends. Poor kids go
> > to dumpy schools, have to work their butts off to pay for the state
> > university and can't take time off to intern and then have no old
> > family friends who are CEO's.
> >
> > I agree gov't should not mess with equality of result, but it
> > certainly should work to ensure equality of opportunity. Pay for
> > college, pay for daycare, etc.
> >
> > Matt
>
> Blame your parents, not the government for not putting themselfs in a
> position to send you to these schools and get you the job that you want.
> Roy
Dammit, that's the problem with this country. Stop trying to find
someone to blame for your sorry life and go make something of yourself.
There are plenty of people who came up from nothing to be very
successful.
Roy, do you really think it's your parents fault if you don't have
enough
money to go to a good college? WRONG, it's YOUR fault for not working
hard enought to get a scholarship.
Stop depending on everyone else to carry you through life.
yours
Mark Earnest
Roy Lemons
Heather K. wrote:
>
> On Sun, 12 Jan 1997, Roy Lemons wrote:
>
> > Matt Walcoff wrote:
> > >
> > > f...@tamu.edu (Frank R. Hipp) wrote:
> > >
> > > >h...@flash.com (Henry) wrote:
> > >
> > > >>Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
> > > >>distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
> > > >>opportunities exist?
> > >
> > > >> -Henry
> > >
> > > >Governments should not be involved in re-distribution of wealth -
> > > >period.
> > >
> > > >Yes, equal opportunities exist - if a person is willing to work hard.
> > >
> > > Equal opportunities exist? ha. Wealthy kids go to the best schools,
> > > get into Harvard as a legacy, get to intern for free because their
> > > parents pay for college and get jobs from family friends. Poor kids go
> > > to dumpy schools, have to work their butts off to pay for the state
> > > university and can't take time off to intern and then have no old
> > > family friends who are CEO's.
> > >
> > > I agree gov't should not mess with equality of result, but it
> > > certainly should work to ensure equality of opportunity. Pay for
> > > college, pay for daycare, etc.
> > >
> > > Matt
> >
> > Blame your parents, not the government for not putting themselfs in a
> > position to send you to these schools and get you the job that you want.
> > Roy
> > NIGHT WEAR is reflective print for runners, bicylist,
> > and rollerbladers. NFL, NHL, MLB champion hats.
> > 'http://www.rbtees.com'
> > We are looking for Sales people!!
>
> And I say blame the damn gov't for letting people starve and barely able
> to earn a living and having to work their asses off while their at it as
> well (e.i. barely $5 an hour for cashiers (in comparison to maybe around
> $10 offered to cashiers in many stores [if not mor] in Germany)
about $3.00 here
>but
> several million to baseball players or football players.) Comeon,
> musicians in the classical world have to struggle to earn a living,
> whereas rock stars make millions, even though they have less musical
> training than the classical artists!
Every one has the same chance to be a baseball player, football player,
rock star, or movie star. The differance between the rock star and the
musician in the classical world is the rock star was willing to take a
risk. The rock star was willing to put it all on the line, the classical
musician was not.
Ha! Come on people! In many
> countries of the world, one can go to college - any one - poor or rich!
> not just the fucking rich who don't give a shit for the poor! Come on
> people instead of bitching at the poor (yeah, given some are guilty by
> their own lazy asses) start being generous and start helping them -
> higher minimum wage, so that they can fucking care for their own families.
Just as anyone in this country can get a loan to go to college. The
thing you want is to make it free for the poor. It can be somewhat free
for the poor, they can get grants that they do not need to pay back. But
even if someone can not get a grant, they can get a loan and go to any
school that they can qualify for.
> If they blame their parents - their children will blame them! The cycle
> needs to be broken! Dingbat! Yes, everybody needs to take part in
> breaking it, but the gov't has the most power to do so. The government
> can offer us good quality, low cost training (as in Germany and in many
> other countries) and higher paying jobs... You gotta stop these corporate
> people who are greedy beyond belief - who can fire anyone who dares
> protest on call practically.
>
You need to do some traveling, just do not read what you want to read to
make you happy. Many of these contries where people make more must pay
more to live. Go rent an apartment in one of these countries, go buy
some food and some clothing. You will find that you would be better off
making less in the US.
The greed that you talk about is in the family unit in the US. In other
countries the family works together as a unit to get ahead. Not here in
the US other than the rich. Most of the non rich families in the US go
thier differant directions looking for thier own pot of gold. When
family members die they do not look to each other to take what has been
left to them and pool it together and make something for the family,
they take what they can get and spend it. If you want to see greed, see
what happens to an average estate when someone dies. Brother will sue
brother to take what they can get for themselfs, it is worse than a
devorce.
The goverments job is not to force your family into working together for
the benefit of the family. It is to inshure that a person has the same
oppertunies as anyone. If you can pay the price you can go to any school
you want. If your family were to work as a unit, everyone in it would
save money to send the oldest to the best school they could, and when
the oldest gets a job they would send back money to put the next child
in the best school they could and so on and so on. This is why there are
so many of the people that come from other countries are able to do so
well here, they work as a family unit. They don't expect it to be given
to them, they work for it.
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
ts.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt.current-events.usa,alt.politics.media,alt.president.clinton,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt.current-events.usa,alt.politics.media,alt.president.clinton,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa
References: <hap-120197...@sar116060.res-hall.nwu.edu> <5bb6q7$h...@news.tamu.edu>
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
Distribution:
Frank R. Hipp (f...@tamu.edu) wrote:
: h...@flash.com (Henry) wrote:
: >Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
: >distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
: >opportunities exist?
: > -Henry
: Governments should not be involved in re-distribution of wealth -
: period.
But they are, Frank, and you conservatives love it. Contract law,
patents, copyrights, antitrust, securities laws and regulations and a
whole host of other things involve the re-distribution of wealth. Even
criminal law involves re-distribution of wealth. We could operate on the
law of the jungle, but you right wingers probably wouldn't like this too
much.
: Yes, equal opportunities exist - if a person is willing to work hard.
If we do away with all laws and I work hard by whacking conservatives over
the head and taking the belongings they call "theirs," does that count as
equal opportunity? That would require no government involvement in
re-distribution.
: Check out my .sig
It's about as useful as teats on a boar hog, as someone working on a
government job, using a government internet provider, should know.
: Frank R. Hipp
: "The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks
: to live at the expense of everyone else."
: -- Frederic Bastiat
: "Once politics become a tug-of-war for shares in the income pie,
: decent government is impossible."
: -- Friedrich A. Hayek
Then there is the Biblical admonition that much is required from those
who are blessed with much.
--
Buddy K
UltraZ
h...@flash.com (Henry) wrote:
>Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
>distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
>opportunities exist?
> -Henry
John Kennedy once said " As the powerful and rich are heard in
Washington, I ask myself who will speak for the poor and misfortunate,
my answer is simply.. I will. I will.. speak for them. There is no
one else except the President of the United States"
In 1961 so started the liberal agenda of welfare and redistribution of
income and raising taxes for the purpose of welfare, food stamps,
allocation of extra money for having children born to unwed and wed
mothers, government funded abortions, welfare scams etc..
What had been a well intentioned program due to inefficiency of
government to manage itself, the statistics are that it takes .75 of
every dollar intended for the poor just to administer programs at the
federal level. This was siphoning off tax money and tax increases
growing faster than the ability of income expansion to keep pace.
People took advantage of the handout with 3rd and 4th generational
welfare recipients collecting welfare fully capable of working.
While all Men are created equal, all men do not achieve nor have the
inherent strength and the motivation, nor the human skills required
to sustain an ability to provide, maintain, and achieve academic or
work excellence. When the constitution was written it was simply an
agrarian economy where hard work was the sole requirement critical to
earning a living. Now it is higher level intellectual skills which pay
the "best" salaries and the greatest job security.
Inequities abound, compassion was rare, as it is becoming today.
Solutions? There is no simple solution.
It is worse today on a per capita basis with illiteracy at about 30%
in America..What chance do the poor have? A handout is simply
temporary......State governments must get into the business of
education for people who do not not have the skills for the simplest
tasks, businesses must open training programs and develop people who
have known nothing but welfare, with human skills courses, what a job
is, how to hold a job, dealing with problems at home, basic English
skills, criteria for promotions etc. It will take many resources to
drive down the tax burden on Americans, but the price of doing
nothing, in the long run, is a far worse price to a society.
UltraZ
Gary Cruse
In <hap-120197...@sar116060.res-hall.nwu.edu> h...@flash.com
(Henry) writes:
>
>Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
>distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can
equal
>opportunities exist?
>
> -Henry
A priori, no, it is not government's responsibility.
The problem arises when a purely capitalistic society,
none of which exist, becomes unstable from extreme
concentration of wealth combined with extreme poverty.
At some point, pragmatism has to intervene to, in
essence, pay blackmail to the overwhelming majority
who lack the means to survive short of revolution.
It is upon the shoulder of government that this
mantle falls. To have the elite just "share"
on a maybe/maybe-not basis would tend towards
a return to monarchy. So we end up at some
income redistribution in exchange for
the opposite pole: monarchy or anarchy.
--
Gary
________
Rick Alger
Wealth is earned, through hard work, risk, and of course you must get up
every morning and seek it, it is not "DISTRIBUTED". Most adolescents learn
this lesson before they are old enough to type a posting in usenet.
Smokin' wrote:
>
> James Doemer <big...@provide.net> wrote in article
> <32D94D...@provide.net>...
> > Henry wrote:
> > >
> > > Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
> > > distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can
> equal
> > > opportunities exist?
Extremes in distribution of wealth are associated with authoritarian,
John Aquino
On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 15:09:15 -0600, "Heather K." <z950257@oats> wrote:
)On 12 Jan 1997, Henry wrote:
)
)> Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
)> distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can
equal
)> opportunities exist?
)>
)> -Henry
)Equal opportunities cannot exist under the current egoist, "me"
generation,
)encouraged by the greedy, individualistic capitalistic society. If
people
)would give up their egoism, as well as their hatred for others, they
)would then stop trying to take advantage of each other (this even
)happened in communist countries!!). Then and only then do we, as a
human
)race, have any chance at equality with one another.
Gee, how touching.
Fortunately that's not how the world works. Among humans the most
intelligent go to the top, the rest go into the well of poverty and
despair. It's not fair - it's just the way it is.
There's nothing idealistic jabbering on your part will do about it.
John Aquino
On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 19:11:26 GMT, mken...@iglou.com (Max Kennedy)
wrote:
)James Doemer <big...@provide.net> wrote:
)
)>Henry wrote:
)>>
)>> Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
)>> distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility?
Can equal
)>> opportunities exist?
)>>
)>> -Henry
)
)>It is the Government's job to try and keep a economic environment
that is
)>favorable to business growth, and job creation. The people should
be
)>taking care of the rest.
)
)It's the government job to prevent unequal opportunities like rape,
)theft, fraud and murder from going on...
)
)Or in other words, by protecting the right of the people not to have
)force and fraud used against them by others. Or in better words,
read
)the Declaration of Independence.
)
)Having the government itself engage in theft, fraud, murder, and in
)the case, of Bill Clinton, rape, gets us absolutely nowhere.
I agree with your conservative tendencies, but don't be a fucking
idiot and call what he's _accused_ of, by an unreliable account,
"rape". It's the tactic of a blackguard and a pimp - I'd expect it
from a liberal.
John Aquino
On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 18:49:32 -0600, "Heather K." <z950257@oats> wrote:
Wow. This is some of the most poorly thought out, idealistic,
socialist, naive claptrap I've read in a long time. Where to
begin....
)And I say blame the damn gov't for letting people starve and barely
able
)to earn a living and having to work their asses off while their at
it as
)well (e.i. barely $5 an hour for cashiers (in comparison to maybe
around
)$10 offered to cashiers in many stores [if not mor] in Germany) but
)several million to baseball players or football players.) Comeon,
)musicians in the classical world have to struggle to earn a living,
)whereas rock stars make millions, even though they have less musical
)training than the classical artists! Ha! Come on people!
What does the government have to do with how much cashiers are paid?
They are paid what they are worth - not more and not less. If you
don't think you're making enough as a cashier quit and find a better
job. If you can't find a better job then either go back to being a
cashier or starve. This has nothing to do with the government.
As for the classical music crap - what a bunch of bullshit. Now
you're ranting on perceived injustices in the world. What the hell
does the government have to do with the fact that Rock sells and
classical music doesn't (comparatively)? Should they start
subsidizing classical musicians?
If you want to make money don't become a classical musician (or become
a very, very, very good one).
The same with football players. They are paid what they are worth, no
more and no less. If people didn't want them out there they wouldn't
be paid so much. Just because _you_ don't think they deserve it
doesn't mean they aren't making what they deserve.
)In many
)countries of the world, one can go to college - any one - poor or
rich!
Including the US. I paid my way through college on scholarships and
loans. Sure - I owe, I owe, I owe. But at least I'm not a cashier or
a ditch digger now.
)not just the fucking rich who don't give a shit for the poor! Come on
)people instead of bitching at the poor (yeah, given some are guilty
by
)their own lazy asses) start being generous and start helping them -
)higher minimum wage, so that they can fucking care for their own
families.
Minimum wage laws are quite illegal (check the constitution and what
the federal government can and can't do). They can't force businesses
to pay money for services that aren't worth the money.
Raising the minimum wage doesn't help anyway (or it's debatable,
anyway). Do you really think businesses will just accept the extra
cost of paying employees more? No. They pass it on as costs to you.
It's called "inflation", genius. You get paid $6.00 an hour, but
candy bars cost $0.07 more and Coke goes to $0.65 cents a can.
)If they blame their parents - their children will blame them! The
cycle
)needs to be broken! Dingbat! Yes, everybody needs to take part in
)breaking it, but the gov't has the most power to do so. The
government
)can offer us good quality, low cost training (as in Germany and in
many
)other countries) and higher paying jobs... You gotta stop these
corporate
)people who are greedy beyond belief - who can fire anyone who dares
)protest on call practically.
Higher paying jobs? If you pay someone more for a job than it's worth
then you're simply giving them free money. The Federal government is
already way, way over what it can legally do in this country without
going even further.
wam...@aol.com
In article <5bc2n6$n...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>, wyl...@ix.netcom.com (
UltraZ) writes:
>with illiteracy at about 30%
>in America..What chance do the poor have? A handout is simply
>temporary......State governments must get into the business of
>education for people who do not not have the skills for the simplest
>tasks, businesses must open training programs and develop people who
>have known nothing but welfare, with human skills courses, what a job
>is, how to hold a job, dealing with problems at home, basic English
>skills, criteria for promotions etc. It will take many resources to
>drive down the tax burden on Americans, but the price of doing
>nothing, in the long run, is a far worse price to a society.
>UltraZ
I agree with you in theory, but having spent a lot of my time teaching or
trying to teach young men skills and knowledge I have come to appreciate
that NOTHING happens until there is motivation. The 30% illiteracy rate
you reference is sad, but it isn't because no one wants these people to
read, and it isn't because no one tried to teach these people to read.
With very few exceptions it is because these people didn't want to learn
to read. Until they want to, really want to, for what ever reason, they
won't be able to be taught. So the real (and so far unanswerable )
question is how do we motivate these people to want to learn? I wish I
knew. As a teacher of boys I ultimatly can only teach those who want to
learn badly enough to try. If they are convinced that it isn't cool to
learn, then THEY WILL NOT LEARN. So, if you can tell me how to motivate
someone who doesn't want to learn, then the problem is solved. I am open
to any suggestion.
Bill
Loren Petrich
In article <32e5b761...@204.177.236.3>,
John Aquino <sn...@kremlin.martyr.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 18:49:32 -0600, "Heather K." <z950257@oats> wrote:
>)And I say blame the damn gov't for letting people starve and barely
>able
>)to earn a living and having to work their asses off while their at
>it as
>)well (e.i. barely $5 an hour for cashiers (in comparison to maybe
>around
>)$10 offered to cashiers in many stores [if not mor] in Germany) but
>)several million to baseball players or football players.) Comeon,
>)musicians in the classical world have to struggle to earn a living,
>)whereas rock stars make millions, even though they have less musical
>)training than the classical artists! Ha! Come on people!
>What does the government have to do with how much cashiers are paid?
>They are paid what they are worth - not more and not less. If you
>don't think you're making enough as a cashier quit and find a better
>job. If you can't find a better job then either go back to being a
>cashier or starve. This has nothing to do with the government.
Or get together with your fellow cashiers and demand higher pay
for your work -- or you and your friends won't do the job at all. Or else
demand some sort of certification that you and your friends can get, and
not many others can. These strategies have worked swimmingly for doctors,
lawyers, professional athletes, and the like.
It seems that Mr. Aquino is a devout believer in the money theory
of value, which has as its *only* plus that it is easily quantifiable.
>As for the classical music crap - what a bunch of bullshit. Now
>you're ranting on perceived injustices in the world. What the hell
>does the government have to do with the fact that Rock sells and
>classical music doesn't (comparatively)? Should they start
>subsidizing classical musicians?
That's what the National Endowment of the Arts does. So are you
willing to admit that highbrow artistry is rejected by your standard of
value, Mr. Aquino???
So if some movie full of blood and guts sells, will you say it's
the best kind of movie that could be made, just because it sells???
>If you want to make money don't become a classical musician (or become
>a very, very, very good one).
Just because something is, does not mean that something is right.
Clinton being re-elected does not make him the best of all possible
choices among the 100+ million Americans over 35.
>The same with football players. They are paid what they are worth, no
>more and no less. If people didn't want them out there they wouldn't
>be paid so much. Just because _you_ don't think they deserve it
>doesn't mean they aren't making what they deserve.
Again, the money theory of value.
>Minimum wage laws are quite illegal (check the constitution and what
>the federal government can and can't do). They can't force businesses
>to pay money for services that aren't worth the money.
Pure whining. Would you like *state* minimum-wage laws instead???
And would you like the Air Force disbanded because the Constitution
*only* mentions spending on armies and navies??? (I've read that
document; have you?)
And I think that minimum-wage laws are a good way to save
capitalism from itself, because the Tragedy of the Commons gets to work
here -- one can try to compete by paying one's workers less, but that
means reduced spending power, which means reduced demand, which means an
economic death spiral.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
BobJ.
On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 18:49:32 -0600, "Heather K." <z950257@oats> wrote:
>And I say blame the damn gov't for letting people starve
Since when is it the Gov's role to ensure you eat? They attempt to
help folks out in the US and very few starve, but it's not their fault
that you are in that position.
>and barely able to earn a living and having to work their
>asses off while their at it as well (e.i. barely $5 an hour for
> cashiers (in comparison to maybe around $10 offered to
>cashiers in many stores [if not mor] in Germany)
Running packages over a scanner and exchanging money with the customer
has never been considered a high skill job. There is nothing wrong
with the job, but you can't expect a job that kids on summer vacation
can be trained for to pay a lot.
>but several million to baseball players or football players.
Can you do what a professional sports person can do? Have you ever in
your life put in the kind of commitment and dedication these folks do.
The people that make it into the pro's are the very best of the best,
the entertain millions and employ tens of thousands of people. Sports
FANS and advertisers are not paying for cool stadiums and hot dogs,
they pay to see the stars to something excellent.
>Comeon, musicians in the classical world have to struggle to earn
> a living, whereas rock stars make millions, even though they have
> less musical training than the classical artists!
Here is another value call on your part. Who says classical musicians
are better than others? I don't happen to like classical music, thus
it does not matter how well trained they are, nor how well they
perform, I don't like it so I won't pay to hear it. They are of course
entitled to choose that profession, but they can't complain about the
pay compared to rock stars, that again, entertain millions and employs
tens of thousands.
>Ha! Come on people! In many countries of the world, one can go to college
> - any one - poor or rich! not just the fucking rich who don't give a shit for
>the poor!
B.S. if that were true then why isn't everyone heading to these
wonderful mystery countries? The US provides the most opportunity to
more people than the rest of the world combined. That is not just a
boast, it is a fact.
My family was middle class, my dad a blue collar worker, and funny you
mention cashier, my mom a cashier at A&P. They could not afford
college for us 4 kids but funny thing is, we all have a degree. I went
on the GI Bill after paying some dues in the military, my sister on an
academic scholarship, my brother and youngest sister on sports
scholarships and student loans. We did not qualify for any of the free
stuff cause my parents both worked and made too much. Not enough to
send us to school but enough that it was our problem.
>Come on people instead of bitching at the poor (yeah, given some
>are guilty by their own lazy asses) start being generous and start
>helping them - higher minimum wage, so that they can fucking
>care for their own families.
How is inflating salaries past their fair market value doing anyone a
favor in the long run? Entry level jobs were never meant to support a
family, they are generally filled by people for supplemental income.
Companies either go out of business or figure a way to eliminate more
jobs when labor costs more than the product/service provided can
recover.
>If they blame their parents - their children will blame them! The cycle
>needs to be broken! Dingbat! Yes, everybody needs to take part in
>breaking it, but the gov't has the most power to do so.
That is not true, business is the only entity with the power and
resource to effect a solution. Many progressive small and medium are
eliminating their "dead-end" jobs and providing career paths again.
I agree, we have to break the cycle and get people in to productive
jobs that meet their income needs, but that is a lot easier said than
done.
>The government
>can offer us good quality, low cost training (as in Germany and in many
>other countries) and higher paying jobs...
How do you figure that? The government offers all kinds of training
and pays for even more. Government jobs made up for the sake of
providing job are not real jobs and hurt the economy and government in
the long run. A massive public works projects can be worth the
investment, and create real jobs, like when the Interstate Highway
system was built.
> You gotta stop these corporate
>people who are greedy beyond belief - who can fire anyone who dares
>protest on call practically.
You gotta stop attacking the corporations, it may be fun and sound
good but it does not solve problems. I have a idea that could
virtually eliminate unemployment, train thousands, cost billions, and
position American for the next century.
I call it Light Up America. The basic idea is to completely "re-wire"
America with fiber over some ridiculously short time frame, like 10
years. The goal would be to put high speed fiber to every home in the
country and big trunk between all cities. This would be the 90's
version of the Interstate Highway project and would employ everyone.
There is something in this plan for everyone, liberals get thousands
of Government jobs, government training, and all kinds of new
agencies, Conservatives love the profits private industry will see,
and we all get hundreds and TV channels and a really high speed
Internet connection.
In any event this would be an example where government, industry, and
the public join forces to build something and in the process many
problems will fade away. Worked once before...
BobJ.
Jeff Blunt
John Aquino wrote:
>
> On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 18:49:32 -0600, "Heather K." <z950257@oats> wrote:
>
> socialist, naive claptrap I've read in a long time. Where to
> begin....
>
> able
> )to earn a living and having to work their asses off while their at
> it as
> )well (e.i. barely $5 an hour for cashiers (in comparison to maybe
> around
> )$10 offered to cashiers in many stores [if not mor] in Germany) but
> )several million to baseball players or football players.) Comeon,
> )musicians in the classical world have to struggle to earn a living,
> )whereas rock stars make millions, even though they have less musical
> )training than the classical artists! Ha! Come on people!
Sure, they may get paid a bit more (I doubt that its $10/hr unless the dollar went into
free fall last week), but they also have a 10.4% unemployment rate
(about double that in the USA) and pay income tax in the 50% range (for middle
families), pay a 14 % VAT tax (sort of a sales tax), get taxed on every television
they own, and it goes on and on. They also tend to put two or three generations
in one home (its common among middle class families there), which most Americans
would not stand for. I lived there for 3.5 years, and while its a decent country
to live in, its not the workers paradise you envision (and its gotten worse
since they acquired E. Germany). By the way, top soccer players in Germany get paid
salaries comparable with major sports in the US.
>
> What does the government have to do with how much cashiers are paid?
> They are paid what they are worth - not more and not less. If you
> don't think you're making enough as a cashier quit and find a better
> job. If you can't find a better job then either go back to being a
> cashier or starve. This has nothing to do with the government.
>
> As for the classical music crap - what a bunch of bullshit. Now
> you're ranting on perceived injustices in the world. What the hell
> does the government have to do with the fact that Rock sells and
> classical music doesn't (comparatively)? Should they start
> subsidizing classical musicians?
>
> If you want to make money don't become a classical musician (or become
> a very, very, very good one).
>
> The same with football players. They are paid what they are worth, no
> more and no less. If people didn't want them out there they wouldn't
> be paid so much. Just because _you_ don't think they deserve it
> doesn't mean they aren't making what they deserve.
>
> )In many
> )countries of the world, one can go to college - any one - poor or
> rich!
>
> Including the US. I paid my way through college on scholarships and
> loans. Sure - I owe, I owe, I owe. But at least I'm not a cashier or
> a ditch digger now.
>
> )not just the fucking rich who don't give a shit for the poor! Come on
>
> )people instead of bitching at the poor (yeah, given some are guilty
> by
> )their own lazy asses) start being generous and start helping them -
> )higher minimum wage, so that they can fucking care for their own
> families.
>
> Minimum wage laws are quite illegal (check the constitution and what
> the federal government can and can't do). They can't force businesses
> to pay money for services that aren't worth the money.
You're right, John. They are also inflationary and tend to put people out of
work.
>
> Raising the minimum wage doesn't help anyway (or it's debatable,
> anyway). Do you really think businesses will just accept the extra
> cost of paying employees more? No. They pass it on as costs to you.
> It's called "inflation", genius. You get paid $6.00 an hour, but
> candy bars cost $0.07 more and Coke goes to $0.65 cents a can.
>
> )If they blame their parents - their children will blame them! The
> cycle
> )needs to be broken! Dingbat! Yes, everybody needs to take part in
> )breaking it, but the gov't has the most power to do so. The
> government
> )can offer us good quality, low cost training (as in Germany and in
> many
> )other countries) and higher paying jobs... You gotta stop these
Again, they probably have more wasteful govt. training than we do, but they
pay hideous taxes. Also, the government does pay for most or all of their college
but its not for everyone. Getting in is very competitive. Only the elite go to college,
not 40% of the populace as we have here.
> corporate
> )people who are greedy beyond belief - who can fire anyone who dares
Jeff Blunt
> >On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 18:49:32 -0600, "Heather K." <z950257@oats> wrote:
>
> >)And I say blame the damn gov't for letting people starve and barely
> >able
> >)to earn a living and having to work their asses off while their at
> >it as
> >)well (e.i. barely $5 an hour for cashiers (in comparison to maybe
> >around
> >)$10 offered to cashiers in many stores [if not mor] in Germany) but
> >)several million to baseball players or football players.) Comeon,
> >)musicians in the classical world have to struggle to earn a living,
> >)whereas rock stars make millions, even though they have less musical
> >)training than the classical artists! Ha! Come on people!
>
> >They are paid what they are worth - not more and not less. If you
> >don't think you're making enough as a cashier quit and find a better
> >job. If you can't find a better job then either go back to being a
> >cashier or starve. This has nothing to do with the government.
>
> for your work -- or you and your friends won't do the job at all. Or else
> demand some sort of certification that you and your friends can get, and
> not many others can. These strategies have worked swimmingly for doctors,
> lawyers, professional athletes, and the like.
>
> It seems that Mr. Aquino is a devout believer in the money theory
> of value, which has as its *only* plus that it is easily quantifiable.
>
> >you're ranting on perceived injustices in the world. What the hell
> >does the government have to do with the fact that Rock sells and
> >classical music doesn't (comparatively)? Should they start
> >subsidizing classical musicians?
>
> willing to admit that highbrow artistry is rejected by your standard of
> value, Mr. Aquino???
>
> So if some movie full of blood and guts sells, will you say it's
> the best kind of movie that could be made, just because it sells???
>
> >a very, very, very good one).
>
> Clinton being re-elected does not make him the best of all possible
> choices among the 100+ million Americans over 35.
>
> >more and no less. If people didn't want them out there they wouldn't
> >be paid so much. Just because _you_ don't think they deserve it
> >doesn't mean they aren't making what they deserve.
>
>
> >the federal government can and can't do). They can't force businesses
> >to pay money for services that aren't worth the money.
>
> And would you like the Air Force disbanded because the Constitution
> *only* mentions spending on armies and navies??? (I've read that
> document; have you?)
Well, you could always make the Air Force the Army Air Corps again (as it was before 1947)
if you want to argue about semantics. This would probably increase the cost efficiency of the
military as well. However, no matter how you phrase a minimum wage law, it is un-Constitutional.
Michael.Schneider
In article <hap-120197...@sar116060.res-hall.nwu.edu>,
h...@flash.com (Henry) wrote:
> Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
> distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
> opportunities exist?
>
> -Henry
Whoever claims the "right" to "redistribute" the wealth produced by others
is claiming the "right" to treat human beings as chattel. - Ayn Rand
Freedom is more important than equality. The attempt to realize equality
endangers freedom. If freedom is lost, there will not even be equality
among the unfree. -- Karl Popper
Legislators and revolutionaries who promise equality and liberty at the
same time are either psychopaths or mountebanks. -- Goethe, "Maximen and
Reflexionen", 1907.
Equality: In politics, an imaginary condition in which skulls are counted
instead of brains, and merit is determined by lot and punishment by
preferment. -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Socialist: 1. one who believes all persons are or should be equal when
they are not and cannot be; if unable to enrich the poor or educate the
foolish, the socialist will settle for impoverishing the wealthy and
preventing the wise from speaking; 2. a hypocritical malignity who
conceals a nihilism borne of jealousy with hysteria; 3. a thief elected by
the unable to loot the able and distribute the spoils; 4. a common lout
who believes he can achieve greatness by stealing a great man's
possessions; 5. one who views citizens as cows to be milked by the state
so that he may be provded with butter and cheese; 6. the attitude of the
fox, after being denied the grapes (ref. "Aesop's Fables").
Show me a tax on the rich and I'll show you a tax on the poor. Who owns
the businesses which employ the multitude? Who pays their salaries? Who
extends the loans? Who invests? All men labor for someone wealthier -- the
richest corporation's customers in sum have more money in the bank.
To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed,
lawridden, regulated, penned up, indoctrinated, preached at, checked,
appraised, seized, censured, (and) commanded by beings who have neither
title, knowledge nor virtue. -- Pierre Proudhon, c 1825
Grapeshot: An argument which the future is preparing in answer to the
demands of American Socialism. -- Ambrose Bierce, ibid.
On Jealousy: (from "The Gulistan of Sa'di")
"I may so act as not to hurt the feelings of anyone
But what can I do to an envious man dissatisfied with himself?
Die, O envious man, for this is a malady,
Deliverance from which can be obtained only by death.
Unfortunate men sometimes ardently desire
The decline of prosperous men in wealth and dignity.
If in daytime, bat-eyed persons do not see
Is it the fault of the fountain of light, the sun?
Thou justly wishest that a thousand such eyes
Should be blind rather than the sun dark.
* * * * *
Go *make* your own wealth, kid.
Thieves deserve nothing but *death*.
(Hmmm... Maybe we can get "FEDERAL TIT SUCKERS" going again.....)
+--+--+
America's soap opera: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Iconoclast Greg Swann Writes: http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/
Waco Holocaust Museum: http://www.mnsinc.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/
National Organization for Non-Enumeration: http://www.ime.net/none/
W. Beck's Anthology: http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
Yahoo! Maps: http://maps.yahoo.com/yt.hm?FAM=yahoo&CMD=GEO&SEC=geo
Welcome to Rancho Runnamukka: http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
Internet Infidels "The Secular Web": http://www.infidels.org/
Download'n Fool: http://www.shareware.com/SW/Search/Index/
The United States should get rid of its militias. -- Joseph Stalin
Michael.Schneider
> It is the Government's job to try and keep a economic environment that is
> favorable to business growth, and job creation.
Which means staying OUT of the economy.
Which means not STEALING as means of financing.
>The people should be taking care of the rest.
Michael.Schneider
> It is the Government's job to try and keep a economic environment that is
> favorable to business growth, and job creation.
Which means staying OUT of the economy.
Which means not STEALING as means of financing.
>The people should be .taking care of the rest.
Michael.Schneider
In article <E3wxp...@iglou.com>, mken...@iglou.com wrote:
> Paul Kuczwara <pcep...@worldpath.net> wrote:
>
> >>Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
> >> opportunities exist?
>
> >YES! The Declaration of Independance say's
> >"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> >equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> >rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> >... "
>
> -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
> deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,
It does not have my consent.
Michael.Schneider
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970112150647.17164C-100000@oats>, "Heather K."
<z950257@oats> wrote:
> On 12 Jan 1997, Henry wrote:
>
> > Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
> > distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
> > opportunities exist?
> >
> > -Henry
> Equal opportunities cannot exist under the current egoist, "me" generation,
> encouraged by the greedy, individualistic capitalistic society. If people
> would give up their egoism, as well as their hatred for others, they
> would then stop trying to take advantage of each other (this even
> happened in communist countries!!). Then and only then do we, as a human
> race, have any chance at equality with one another.
There is only equality in DEATH.
"It's only human", you cry in defense of any depravity, reaching the stage
of self-abasement where you seek to make the concept "human" mean the
weakling, the fool, the rotter, the liar, the failure, the coward, the
fraud, and to excise from the human race the hero, the thinker, the
producer, the inventor, the strong, the purposeful, the pure - as if "to
feel" were human, but to think were not, as if to fail were human, but to
succeed were not, as if corruption were human, but virtue were not - as if
the premise of DEATH were proper to man, but the premise of LIFE were not.
-- Ayn Rand, Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged
Quit hating the intelligent, lucky and industrious who have it better than you.
Michael.Schneider
> The ass and gut of a fat conservative right-wing yahoo and his dick
>
>
> xona
You have *no* right to suck my dick unless I first give you permission.
Michael.Schneider
> > Equal opportunities cannot exist under the current egoist, "me" generation,
> > encouraged by the greedy, individualistic capitalistic society. If people
> > would give up their egoism, as well as their hatred for others, they
> > would then stop trying to take advantage of each other (this even
> > happened in communist countries!!). Then and only then do we, as a human
> > race, have any chance at equality with one another.
>
> As much as hatred for others tears our nation apart, cynicism does nothing
> to promote the kind of cooperation needed to solve our ever-growing
> problems.
>
> Also, it is an individual's right to be as greedy and egoistic as much as
> he wants to be. Denying that freedom, for whatever noble reason, would
> deny him the opportunity to experience the vulgarity and sordidness of
> exploitation. No amount of persuasion can teach him that lesson.
If you don't want to be "exploited", stop working for me, or buying the
things I produce. Go *make* your OWN wealth.
Good vs. Evil: the continuing struggle between the forces of stupidity and
intelligence. The former, always more numerous and therefore in control of
most democratic institutions, define the terms of discourse and so
proclaim themselves "good". Unable to plan wisely, they come to suffer.
They see others with plenty but are unable to plum the secret, save as
"luck" or devious scheming. "Help!" they cry; "The needs of the many
outweigh the needs of the few." But those other fellows whom they pester
are self-relient folk who do not feel oblidged to give numbskulls the time
of day, much less their money in taxes, patience in debate or physical
selves in public service. Of course, attempts to evade the "public good"
cannot be tolerated. Laws will be imposed -- and only "evil" people break
the law.
Michael.Schneider
In article <32e4b6aa...@204.177.236.3>, sn...@kremlin.martyr.com
(John Aquino) wrote:
> Fortunately that's not how the world works. Among humans the most
> intelligent go to the top, the rest go into the well of poverty and
> despair. It's not fair - it's just the way it is.
Why is it not fair?
Max Kennedy
mken...@iglou.com (Max Kennedy) wrote:
>mi...@visi.com (Michael.Schneider) wrote:
>>In article <32e4b6aa...@204.177.236.3>, sn...@kremlin.martyr.com
>>(John Aquino) wrote:
>>> Fortunately that's not how the world works. Among humans the most
>>> intelligent go to the top, the rest go into the well of poverty and
>>> despair. It's not fair - it's just the way it is.
>> Why is it not fair?
>Sounds a lot more fair then what we have.
That is, "the intelligent go to the top, and the rest to poverty and
despair", sounds more fair then what we have....
>March of the Morons. A book I recommend.
>Max Kennedy
Mark D. Vincent
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970112150647.17164C-100000@oats>,
Heather K. <z950257@oats> wrote:
>On 12 Jan 1997, Henry wrote:
>
>> Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
>> distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
>> opportunities exist?
>>
>> -Henry
>encouraged by the greedy, individualistic capitalistic society. If people
>would give up their egoism, as well as their hatred for others, they
>would then stop trying to take advantage of each other (this even
>happened in communist countries!!). Then and only then do we, as a human
>race, have any chance at equality with one another.
>
hee, hee, hee! Yeah that's right if people would just stop trying to
get ahead everything would be great. Can't we all just get along.
(break into chorus of This Land is Your Land....)
Listen to the refrain of the socialist "equality" dream world.
When will these people wake up.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark D. Vincent | -- Insert profound quote
m...@shore.net | or clever phrase here --
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark D. Vincent
In article <5bbdp1$a...@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>,
>
>>>Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
>>>distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
>>>opportunities exist?
>
>>> -Henry
>
>
>>period.
>
>
>get into Harvard as a legacy, get to intern for free because their
>parents pay for college and get jobs from family friends. Poor kids go
>to dumpy schools, have to work their butts off to pay for the state
>university and can't take time off to intern and then have no old
>family friends who are CEO's.
>
>I agree gov't should not mess with equality of result, but it
>certainly should work to ensure equality of opportunity. Pay for
>college, pay for daycare, etc.
>
>Matt
>
waaaaaaaa! gimme! gimme! gimme! Pay for this, pay for that, pay ME dammit!
Typical class envy. Anytime you find yourself saying "government should pay
for ______" (fill in blank) substitute the word "I" for "government". Because
guess what, government can only pay for things by first taking the money
from you. It is not a money tree and don't fool yourself into thinking that
this is a good way to get "the rich" to pay for your goodies. Most of the
taxes collected do not come from "the rich". There just aren't enough of them
to pay for everything. Stop whining and go access the opportunities that you
DO have. Oh, incidentally, there is nothing at all wrong with working one's
butt off to get ahead.
Mark D. Vincent
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970112184115.21522C-100000@oats>,
Heather K. <z950257@oats> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Jan 1997, Roy Lemons wrote:
>
>> >
>> > f...@tamu.edu (Frank R. Hipp) wrote:
>> >
>> > >h...@flash.com (Henry) wrote:
>> >
>> > >>Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
>> > >>distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
>> > >>opportunities exist?
>> >
>> > >> -Henry
>> >
>> > >Governments should not be involved in re-distribution of wealth -
>> > >period.
>> >
>> > >Yes, equal opportunities exist - if a person is willing to work hard.
>> >
>> > Equal opportunities exist? ha. Wealthy kids go to the best schools,
>> > get into Harvard as a legacy, get to intern for free because their
>> > parents pay for college and get jobs from family friends. Poor kids go
>> > to dumpy schools, have to work their butts off to pay for the state
>> > university and can't take time off to intern and then have no old
>> > family friends who are CEO's.
>> >
>> > I agree gov't should not mess with equality of result, but it
>> > certainly should work to ensure equality of opportunity. Pay for
>> > college, pay for daycare, etc.
>> >
>> > Matt
>>
>> position to send you to these schools and get you the job that you want.
>> Roy
>> --
>> NIGHT WEAR is reflective print for runners, bicylist,
>> and rollerbladers. NFL, NHL, MLB champion hats.
>> 'http://www.rbtees.com'
>> We are looking for Sales people!!
>
And what percentage of that $10 is taken in taxes. And what variety of
goods and services is available to purchase with that $10?
>several million to baseball players or football players.) Comeon,
>musicians in the classical world have to struggle to earn a living,
>whereas rock stars make millions, even though they have less musical
>training than the classical artists! Ha! Come on people! In many
Simple market forces. If classical music was in as much demand as rock,
they would be the ones making big dough. Training is irrelevant - it's
what people WANT that makes the difference.
>countries of the world, one can go to college - any one - poor or rich!
>not just the fucking rich who don't give a shit for the poor! Come on
>people instead of bitching at the poor (yeah, given some are guilty by
>their own lazy asses) start being generous and start helping them -
>higher minimum wage, so that they can fucking care for their own families.
>If they blame their parents - their children will blame them! The cycle
>needs to be broken! Dingbat! Yes, everybody needs to take part in
>breaking it, but the gov't has the most power to do so. The government
>can offer us good quality, low cost training (as in Germany and in many
Hmm, last time I checked government "training" here consisted of paying
$100,000 per person to get them $20,000 a year factory jobs - that is for
the ones that actually got jobs. Doesn't sound too good or low cost. If you
think Germnay is such a paradise - why don't you go there.
>other countries) and higher paying jobs... You gotta stop these corporate
>people who are greedy beyond belief - who can fire anyone who dares
>protest on call practically.
>
This rant sounds like the work of a disgruntled former employee of
said corporation. Take some responsibility for your own fate and stop
whining to government to bail you out.
James Doemer
Paul Kuczwara wrote:
>
> Henry wrote:
> >
> > Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
> > distribution of wealth?
>
>
> >Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
> > opportunities exist?
>
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you do
not have the right to a government provided life, government sustained
liberty, and government garaunteed happiness.
James Doemer
Heather K. wrote:
>
> On 12 Jan 1997, Henry wrote:
>
> > Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
> > opportunities exist?
> >
> > -Henry
> Equal opportunities cannot exist under the current egoist, "me" generation,
> encouraged by the greedy, individualistic capitalistic society. If people
> would give up their egoism, as well as their hatred for others, they
> would then stop trying to take advantage of each other (this even
> happened in communist countries!!). Then and only then do we, as a human
> race, have any chance at equality with one another.
>
It happened in communist countrys... Just as their corrupt governments were
ripping them off and their systems collapsed...
James Doemer
> > >
> > > Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
> > > distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can
> equal
> > > opportunities exist?
> > >
> > > -Henry
> >
> >
>
> > taking care of the rest.
> >
>
> a card house of 'favorable business growth' by granting special privileges
> to large corporations thereby stifling the growth and creation of smaller
> businesses.
Hmmm... Started a small business myself, doing pretty good too, don't feel the
least bit stifled. Some of my suppliers are larger corporations, and mostly
what benifits them seems to benifit me. Perhaps you would care to list those
"Special Privaleges" ??
> Not to mention that these 'special privileges' are funded by
> private sector taxes.
Which ones??
> The government should keep their hands off of ALL
> issues with the exception of the protection of our borders. A positive
> economic environment is created with the warm and fuzzy feeling that our
> nation is being protected.
Protected from whom?
> It is the mind-set of the people that generates
> a positive economy, not figure factoring and deep rooted mathematics,
> anything further only hampers businesses ability to produce efficiently.
> These 'deep rooted mathematics' are a form of propaganda to give people
> that warm fuzzy feeling that the economy is doing well.
There are many things that our government does that fits this generally, however I
don't believe you've given a face to go with this name, or have defined just what it
is that effects the economy so adversely.
> We are in a
> recession per-se at this moment, but the 'numbers' don't reflect that.
No, we are not in a recession, our growth leaves alot to be desired, but it certainly
is not a recession.
Max Jacobs
Heather K. wrote:
> Equal opportunities cannot exist under the current egoist, "me" generation,
> encouraged by the greedy, individualistic capitalistic society. If people
> would give up their egoism, as well as their hatred for others, they
> would then stop trying to take advantage of each other (this even
> happened in communist countries!!).
Actually it is an individualistic capitalist society which will provide
people with the most equal opportunities. What is the point of
discrimination in a capitalist society? It does not maximize your
profit. You dont have to like someone's color you only have to like
their money.
Also, our current capitalist society is not based on people trying to
take advantage of each other. It is about people working together, that
is the basis of our current system of Mutualistic Capitalism. Either a
company adds value or it has no customers. In order to get customers
you have to entice them to buy your product, therefore they gain and you
gain at the same time. And the cooperation has not stopped there. Many
companies rely on sub-contractors to produce their products, and both
profit.
Even employers and employees have a very beneficial relationship. The
top 100 pension plans (public and private) are worth $2 trillion. In
fact The assets of the employee pension funds of corporations like GM,
Ford, Boeing, USX, Lockheed Martin, Westinghouse, and Delta Air
Lines each exceed the market value of their respective employers. Assets
of the California Public Employees Retirement Plan exceed $92 billion,
enough to buy all the stock of the "big-three" auto makers.
I guess my question is, who is taking advantage of whom?
Max Jacobs
************************************************************************
The Bionomics Institute
http://www.bionomics.org
Viewing the economy as an ecosystem
************************************************************************
An'na'Delilah
[lotsa inappropriate NG's removed. Let's try and allow those who don't
give a shit, not to be spammed by us that do ;) ].
[talk.rape and alt.feminism added]
On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, Max Kennedy wrote:
>
> sn...@kremlin.martyr.com (John Aquino) wrote:
>
> >)Having the government itself engage in theft, fraud, murder, and in
> >)the case, of Bill Clinton, rape, gets us absolutely nowhere.
>
Let's stick to the facts, ok? _No one_, _no one_, has accussed the
President of rape.
Period.
> > but don't be a fucking
> >idiot and call what he's _accused_ of, by an unreliable account,
>
I'm a liberal _and_ a feminist, but PCJ's account is _hardly_
unreliable. There was a motion made to dismiss the charges as just such,
and a court of law denied that motion. That means the plaintiff has
convinced the court <the only barometer that _really_ matters> that her
case is credible enough to be presented fully.
> AccountS. She is not the only witness, and she also has the testimony
> of the TROOPER who FORCED her there.
>
Who is _alleged_ to have "forced her there". What are you both
smoking?
> >"rape".
>
I agree. PCJ has _not_ accussed the President of rape, no one person
has accussed him of rape, not even his foremost political adversaries.
Just a few souls on the net.
> It involved the force of the Government of Arkansas, in the form of a
> State Trooper and the Govenor himself. If it occured, it is the moral
> equivelent of rape.
>
No, if it occurred, it is sexual harrassment, not rape.
Period.
> > It's the tactic of a blackguard and a pimp -
>
Perhaps blackguard. Pimp is an overstatement.
> It's the tactic of someone that demands the case be heard.
>
No, it's far more than that. Running around accusing the President of
rape when the plaintiff in the case has made no such allegations is far
more than just demanding the case be heard. Sorry, no sale.
> >I'd expect it from a liberal.
>
> No, from there you would get accusations that she is a "trailer park
> slut". From the entire media and executive branch of the government.
>
In an attempt to turn this portion of the debate to a more serious
note, I do believe that PCJ's condemnation by some prominent
liberals was unjust. I think it highlights the huge socio-economic split
in feminism that many men and women don't fully realize exists.
> The evidence clearly shows Bill Clinton is guilty.
_No_, it does not. And just because you say it does, doesn't make it
so.
What the evidence _does_ show, is that a civil court believes that PCJ
has enough evidence to warrant a trial. Nothing more, nothing less.
> Trying to avoid
> trial does not make him innocent.
Nor does it make him guilty. It is a legal maneuver.
> And that evidence demands that he
> be tried, convicted, and jailed.
>
>
No, the evidence warrants he be tried. Period. Let's allow the judge
and jury to decide the verdict, shall we?
Oh, and btw, does your position that he should be jailed for this
offense should he be convicted mean that you fully support sexual
harrassment being made into a criminal offense? Or just when Democratic
Governors of Arkansas are alleged to have done it?
I'd be very interested to know.
> Unfortunatly, this isn't a criminal trial, and he will only face
> monetary damages.
>
Specifically because sexual harrassment isn't a criminal offense. If
you're saying that sexual harrassment _should be_ a criminal offense,
that's a whole other ballgame.
I, for one, as a liberal feminist, don't believe it's inconsistent
to support Bill Clinton for reelection, and yet still insist he be held
accountable to the law, and at least be deposed, which is roughly 80
percent of what the PCJ brief demands. I fully recognize the special
circumstances of the presidency, but I don't believe the deposition and
discovery processes, all of which PCJ's attorneys have said will take 6-8
hours tops spread over several days and schedulable at the president's
convenience, are unreasonable impositions on that time.
But let's stick to the facts, and leave your overt political hatchets
out of this. Tossing around words like "rape" only make it meaningless
when it really does happen. Let's allow the legal process to go forth and
resolve this, like it should.
_And_, to add fuel to the fire, I believe feminist groups that refuse
to recognize that the politicians that we support are capable of
committing sexual harrassment, and don't stand up for a woman's charge to
be heard just because it's against someone we politically support, do more
harm than good to the ultimate cause of mainstream feminism, which is
equality between all human beings.
I supported Clinton in '92, I supported him in '96, and I support him
now. But PCJ deserves her day in court.
So says the evidence.
Realizing that many men don't have a clue what the word "rape" means,
--Anna
----------------------------------------
An'na'Delilah, Goddess/Wizard/B.I.T.C.H. + ' +
Beautiful, Intelligent, Talented, Charming, and ~~~HOT .
RedSox Fanatic, Patriots Fan, Teacher, Writer, Mom and Masochist! +
<<<an...@cris.com>>> <<<god...@tsb.weschke.com>>>
+ . ,
"When I'm good I'm very good, but when I'm bad I'm better."
--Mae West
.
~~~<<< AWFL >>> + Strange New Worlds TrekMUSH
Anna's World Football League . <<< tsb.weschke.com 4201 >>>
<<<http://www.cris.com/~annad>>> <<<http://www.inet-images.com/snw>>>
Peregrin
>
>h...@flash.com (Henry) wrote:
>
>>Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
>>distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can
equal
>>opportunities exist?
>
>> -Henry
>Washington, I ask myself who will speak for the poor and misfortunate,
>my answer is simply.. I will. I will.. speak for them. There is no
>one else except the President of the United States"
>
>In 1961 so started the liberal agenda of welfare and redistribution of
>income and raising taxes for the purpose of welfare, food stamps,
>allocation of extra money for having children born to unwed and wed
>mothers, government funded abortions, welfare scams etc..
>
>What had been a well intentioned program due to inefficiency of
>government to manage itself, the statistics are that it takes .75 of
>every dollar intended for the poor just to administer programs at the
>federal level. This was siphoning off tax money and tax increases
>growing faster than the ability of income expansion to keep pace.
>People took advantage of the handout with 3rd and 4th generational
>welfare recipients collecting welfare fully capable of working.
>
>While all Men are created equal, all men do not achieve nor have the
>inherent strength and the motivation, nor the human skills required
>to sustain an ability to provide, maintain, and achieve academic or
>work excellence. When the constitution was written it was simply an
>agrarian economy where hard work was the sole requirement critical to
>earning a living. Now it is higher level intellectual skills which pay
>the "best" salaries and the greatest job security.
>
>Inequities abound, compassion was rare, as it is becoming today.
>Solutions? There is no simple solution.
>
>It is worse today on a per capita basis with illiteracy at about 30%
>in America..What chance do the poor have? A handout is simply
>temporary......State governments must get into the business of
>education for people who do not not have the skills for the simplest
>tasks, businesses must open training programs and develop people who
>have known nothing but welfare, with human skills courses, what a job
>is, how to hold a job, dealing with problems at home, basic English
>skills, criteria for promotions etc. It will take many resources to
>drive down the tax burden on Americans, but the price of doing
>nothing, in the long run, is a far worse price to a society.
>UltraZ
>
Ya' just told me that 75% of every dollar goes to administration
of government bullshit...Then you tell me you think the government should
get into the training bussiness..Why?...The 231 federally funded job
training programs aren't enough?...Or are they just eating so much of the
money in ad. costs that we just gotta throw more down the rat hole?
And as for any of this training...Where were these ppl the first
time the government tried to train them??..I went to school..I got a job,
got my training...were these the ppl hang'n with the "homies" on the
corner dealing drugs, running little baby factories cause "they be to
cool" to work in Mcky D's or something..Or heaven forbid do MY job!!
Now your suggestion is, "I" should pay for training for them, who
won't come work with me.."I can'ts do that!..It be too hard!", so they can
get a better job then mine??..The one "I" had to learn through back
breaking work over years, you know those "Hang'n out" years for some of
us..
Well some of us suckers did the right thing, and didn't "hang",
didn't "bang" became responsible ppl, and for this our reward, is to pay
for those that disrecarded any resbonsibility for they're actions???
Well thanks loads!!..How lucky I am huh?
See?..This is the begining of the end liberals..American ppl are
real generous, we have been for alot of years..But you lib's abused us,
gave us wonderful "intentions" and NO RESULTS!!!!! And quite frankly, I'm
to the point that you can start bringing out the starve'n babies, and I'll
fight my ass off to keep MY money, in the pocket that earned it!!..Where
it belongs!!
Not in the hands of some liberal dem, willing to belch the most
eloquent fairy tales to whatever looser wants to listen to him hear how
"this" guy..."He's" gonna be the one to give you "THE" program..The one
that YOU NEED!!...Bullshit!!
Heather K.
On Sun, 12 Jan 1997, Roy Lemons wrote:
> Been to Germany lately? The buying power of that $10.00 is only worth
> about $3.00 here
Yes, actually I was there this summer. Where did you get these stats?
> Just as anyone in this country can get a loan to go to college. The
> thing you want is to make it free for the poor. It can be somewhat free
> for the poor, they can get grants that they do not need to pay back. But
> even if someone can not get a grant, they can get a loan and go to any
> school that they can qualify for.
And still be stuck in poverty because they'll be owing so much money...
> You need to do some traveling, just do not read what you want to read to
> make you happy. Many of these contries where people make more must pay
> more to live. Go rent an apartment in one of these countries, go buy
> some food and some clothing. You will find that you would be better off
> making less in the US.
Actually I have done quite abit of travelling - I visited 11 countries since
1990!
> The greed that you talk about is in the family unit in the US. In other
> countries the family works together as a unit to get ahead. Not here in
> the US other than the rich. Most of the non rich families in the US go
> thier differant directions looking for thier own pot of gold. When
> family members die they do not look to each other to take what has been
> left to them and pool it together and make something for the family,
> they take what they can get and spend it. If you want to see greed, see
> what happens to an average estate when someone dies. Brother will sue
> brother to take what they can get for themselfs, it is worse than a
> devorce.
Yes, that is true.
> The goverments job is not to force your family into working together for
> the benefit of the family. It is to inshure that a person has the same
> oppertunies as anyone. If you can pay the price you can go to any school
> you want. If your family were to work as a unit, everyone in it would
> save money to send the oldest to the best school they could, and when
> the oldest gets a job they would send back money to put the next child
> in the best school they could and so on and so on. This is why there are
> so many of the people that come from other countries are able to do so
> well here, they work as a family unit. They don't expect it to be given
> to them, they work for it.
> Roy
> --
> NIGHT WEAR is reflective print for runners, bicylist,
> and rollerbladers. NFL, NHL, MLB champion hats.
> 'http://www.rbtees.com'
> We are looking for Sales people!!
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: holy...@niu.edu OR z95...@oats.farm.niu.edu
Homepage: http://tofu.rhcl.niu.edu/~martin/heather/index.html
The only thing I know about computers is that they confuse me!
What
Unfair, unfair...... life is unfair.
Wealth distribution should be unfair..... those of us who out perform
others deserve to be compensated for our ideas, strength, and risk. I'm
for more income disparity. You whining liberals are filled with envy...
you sit and worry about what others have or don't have.... be concerned
about yourself first.... take care of yourself... when you have a surplus
give it to your favorite charity... and I'll give to mine. Judge Bork is
right, envy is the most evil of sins... is serves no other purpose other
than to take from the achiever... you whining liberals, democrats, or
whatever you are.... I bet most of you think western civilization is the
root of all that is evil in America... it's just the opposite, it is all
the things that are great in this country... it even gives you the
opportunity to whine!
Western Civilization is the best culture in the world now, in the past, and
in the future... image all the people prosperous and alive that can thank,
bless, and kiss the very ground they live on.....THANKS TO OUR WESTERN
CIVILIZATION AND CULTURE!
Stilt Man
In article <32e4b6aa...@204.177.236.3>,
John Aquino <sn...@kremlin.martyr.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 15:09:15 -0600, "Heather K." <z950257@oats> wrote:
>)Equal opportunities cannot exist under the current egoist, "me" generation,
>)encouraged by the greedy, individualistic capitalistic society. If people
>)would give up their egoism, as well as their hatred for others, they
>)would then stop trying to take advantage of each other (this even
>)happened in communist countries!!). Then and only then do we, as a human
>)race, have any chance at equality with one another.
>Fortunately that's not how the world works. Among humans the most
>intelligent go to the top, the rest go into the well of poverty and
>despair. It's not fair - it's just the way it is.
Yeah, and I should know intelligence when I see it! After all, I have
money!
Uh . . . right.
First off, those who are truly smart don't really consider wealth to be the
sole measure of whether someone is "at the top." Sometimes it does indeed
take brains to get rich. However, wealth is a ephemeral quality, empty and
hollow. Wealth is apples, greatness is oranges. If you happen to have money,
that says no more about your greatness than what having asphault on a banana
split says about its tastiness. We do not remember the two or three most
privately wealthy people from ancient Greece or Rome. We remember those who
took what they found in life and made it better for those who came after them.
To this, you might respond with the tired and insipid refrain: "Well, of
course rich people make it better! If it weren't for rich people, we wouldn't
have jobs!" The basic idea being, if it weren't for rich people, no one would
have jobs and everyone would starve.
A nice piece of sophistry. But it overlooks an inconvenient point: If one
small group of people has so drained the resources available to all that the
many must work for the few simply to survive, why is this a _good_ thing,
whatever the terms used for the few? How is this tyranny of the few over the
many better than allowing the many to truly provide for themselves?
In other words, it is a misnomer to say that if not for the rich, we would not
have jobs. Say instead that if not for the rich, we would not _need_ them.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The Stilt Man stil...@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~stiltman/stiltman.html
< We are Microsoft Borg '97. Lower your expectations and surrender >
< your money. Antitrust law is irrelevant. Competition is >
< irrelevant. We will add their biological and technological >
< distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile. >
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
X-no-archive: yes
Harold Brashears
"Heather K." <z950257@oats> wrote:
>On 12 Jan 1997, Henry wrote:
>
>> Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
>> distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
>> opportunities exist?
>>
>> -Henry
>Equal opportunities cannot exist under the current egoist, "me" generation,
Why not? Are you "under" the "me" generation? Has the "me"
generation been put in charge? Is it Bill Clinton, as the most
prominent of his generation, attracted your ire?
>encouraged by the greedy, individualistic capitalistic society.
"Greedy, capitalistic society"? Of what benefit is it to a capitalist
to discriminate based on race or gender? Based on wealth, yes, race
or gender, how does it make the capitalist a profit?
>If people
>would give up their egoism,
Their egoism? a. The ethical doctrine that morality has its
foundations in self-interest. b. The ethical belief that self-interest
is the just and proper motive for all human conduct.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language © 1991 by
Columbia University Press.
If a person is think of their own self interest, why would they
discriminate against your money?
>as well as their hatred for others, they
Well, people don't always get along, but I am uncertain they all hate
each other. To my observation, most people frequently are trying to
help each other.
>would then stop trying to take advantage of each other (this even
>happened in communist countries!!).
What happened? People stopped trying to take advantage of each other?
You mean like the Communist Party members in their villas just had the
interest of the common people at heart?
>Then and only then do we, as a human
>race, have any chance at equality with one another.
Regards, Harold
----
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachments
by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."
---Louis Brandeis, US Supreme Court Justice, 1916 - 1939.
Heather K.
On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, Jeff Blunt wrote:
> Sure, they may get paid a bit more (I doubt that its $10/hr unless the dollar went into
> free fall last week), but they also have a 10.4% unemployment rate
> (about double that in the USA) and pay income tax in the 50% range (for middle
colleges, insurances for every single person, the ability of the
government to help the poor people...
> families), pay a 14 % VAT tax (sort of a sales tax), get taxed on every television
> they own, and it goes on and on. They also tend to put two or three generations
Hence a lot less T.V. commercials, so that you can concentrate on what
you are watching instead of being interrupted often for lengthy commercials.
> in one home (its common among middle class families there), which most Americans
> would not stand for. I lived there for 3.5 years, and while its a decent country
> to live in, its not the workers paradise you envision (and its gotten worse
> since they acquired E. Germany). By the way, top soccer players in Germany get paid
> salaries comparable with major sports in the US.
I've spent much time in Germany as well and know that it is not a
paradise over there. Yes, I am well aware of the problems they are
facing. But workers do get more benefits and better wages than here in
the United States. Yes, they do have problems to work out, but hey, in
general a lot of people are more secure in germany than here.
> Again, they probably have more wasteful govt. training than we do, but they
> pay hideous taxes. Also, the government does pay for most or all of their college
> but its not for everyone. Getting in is very competitive. Only the elite go to college,
> not 40% of the populace as we have here.
But then again they actually do get something for these hideous taxes -
more benefits, better roads, better schools, etc.
Matthew Spears
(re: mininum wages, stuff deleted)
>You're right, John. They are also inflationary and tend to put people out of
>work.
>> Raising the minimum wage doesn't help anyway (or it's debatable,
>> anyway). Do you really think businesses will just accept the extra
>> cost of paying employees more? No. They pass it on as costs to you.
>> It's called "inflation", genius. You get paid $6.00 an hour, but
>> candy bars cost $0.07 more and Coke goes to $0.65 cents a can.
So costs get passed on to me. A few cents more. Meanwhile, many other
families earn enough to survive somewhat decently. Your argument seems to
be "if some costs get passed on to me, it's wrong, because I want as much
money as I can get!". Selfishness is ok, but it doesn't make a better
society.
>> Higher paying jobs? If you pay someone more for a job than it's worth
>> then you're simply giving them free money. The Federal government is
>> already way, way over what it can legally do in this country without
>> going even further.
"Getting paid what they're worth" is a phrase used often enough without
real understanding. Sure, Michael Jordan 'deserves' to get paid $20 mil
a year, because many people want to go just to see him. If you take a
cost-benefit analysis to the team, it makes sense.
However, 'worth' is not used in only a cost-benefit sense. It's used in
the sense of self-esteem as well. So for instance, a woman day-care worker,
paid very low wages, is worth 1000 times less than Michael Jordan. Or
even better, she's worth 1000 times less than a CEO of a big corporation.
She could be having a profound effect on someone's life, but it's invisible
to our ordinary eyes. And she's told subtly, that what she's doing isn't
valuable. I'd like to hear an argument to the contrary that it's obviously
intertwined with someone's own self-interest.
Now, I'm getting a MSc degree, I come from a well off family, and I see
all this. I'm willing to forgo luxury for myself if it means everyone gets
valued. I think the majority of people are too, if I remember statistics,
though I don't have any handy. It's a very Christian thing to do. (though
I don't consider myself Christian, I know many 'right-wing' americans do,
and detest real charity)
--
"I think it would be a good idea."
- Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization
James Doemer
Max Kennedy wrote:
>
> James Doemer <big...@provide.net> wrote:
>
> >Henry wrote:
> >>
> >> Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
> >> distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
> >> opportunities exist?
> >>
> >> -Henry
>
> >favorable to business growth, and job creation. The people should be
> >taking care of the rest.
>
> theft, fraud and murder from going on...
>
> Or in other words, by protecting the right of the people not to have
> force and fraud used against them by others. Or in better words, read
> the Declaration of Independence.
>
> Having the government itself engage in theft, fraud, murder, and in
>
I agree.... :>
mntc...@isu.edu
Henry wrote:
>
> Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
> distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
> opportunities exist?
>
> -Henry
take and keep. Otherwise we have no rights.
As far as wealth... I believe people should have the right to fail as
well as to succeed. If we are so arrigant as to suppose that success is
the same for every person than we are truely, completly lost.
Jack
Stilt Man
[Newsgroups mercifully trimmed because my ISP is civilized enough to have heard
of the concept that crossposting to bizillions of newsgroups is known as a
"bad idea".]
In article <5bc2n6$n...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
UltraZ <wyl...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>John Kennedy once said " As the powerful and rich are heard in
>Washington, I ask myself who will speak for the poor and misfortunate,
>my answer is simply.. I will. I will.. speak for them. There is no
>one else except the President of the United States"
>In 1961 so started the liberal agenda of welfare and redistribution of
>income and raising taxes for the purpose of welfare, food stamps,
>allocation of extra money for having children born to unwed and wed
>mothers, government funded abortions, welfare scams etc..
Well, there is one minor detail.
Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the primary "welfare" program, costs
around $1 billion a year.
Pull the wheels off our Stealth bomber fleet and you've got it funded until the
turn of the century.
>What had been a well intentioned program due to inefficiency of
>government to manage itself, the statistics are that it takes .75 of
>every dollar intended for the poor just to administer programs at the
>federal level.
Uh, actually, that's not quite true. Social Security is quite a bit more
efficient than that.
>This was siphoning off tax money and tax increases
>growing faster than the ability of income expansion to keep pace.
Tax increases? In the 1950's, the marginal tax rate was 88%. Right now,
it's in the upper thirties.
Don't give me this malarkey about "tax increases." It sounds good until you
actually find out what the real rates are.
>People took advantage of the handout with 3rd and 4th generational
>welfare recipients collecting welfare fully capable of working.
3rd and 4th generational welfare recipients? And you said the program started
in 1961, right? How often can people pump out succeeding generations, anyway?
3 generations since 1961 means they had kids once every 12 years. 4
generations brings that down to once every 9 years.
You _do_ read these things before you post them, don't you?
>While all Men are created equal, all men do not achieve nor have the
>inherent strength and the motivation, nor the human skills required
>to sustain an ability to provide, maintain, and achieve academic or
>work excellence. When the constitution was written it was simply an
>agrarian economy where hard work was the sole requirement critical to
>earning a living.
And, of course, this explains why Thomas Jefferson's rallying cry was to
stop the wealthy who were oppressing the poor in flagrant defiance of the
law.
>It is worse today on a per capita basis with illiteracy at about 30%
>in America..
Better now than it was a century ago. Why? Public schools.
ygrenyS
"What" <none@urbidnes> writes:
>Unfair, unfair...... life is unfair.
>Wealth distribution should be unfair..... those of us who out perform
>others deserve to be compensated for our ideas, strength, and risk. I'm
>for more income disparity. You whining liberals are filled with envy...
>you sit and worry about what others have or don't have.... be concerned
>about yourself first.... take care of yourself... when you have a surplus
>give it to your favorite charity... and I'll give to mine. Judge Bork is
>right, envy is the most evil of sins... is serves no other purpose other
>than to take from the achiever... you whining liberals, democrats, or
>whatever you are.... I bet most of you think western civilization is the
>root of all that is evil in America... it's just the opposite, it is all
>the things that are great in this country... it even gives you the
>opportunity to whine!
Well put!
>Western Civilization is the best culture in the world now, in the past, and
>in the future... image all the people prosperous and alive that can thank,
>bless, and kiss the very ground they live on.....THANKS TO OUR WESTERN
>CIVILIZATION AND CULTURE!
Only losers and deadbeats object to capitalism.
midt...@slip.net
John Aquino wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 15:09:15 -0600, "Heather K." <z950257@oats> wrote:
> )Equal opportunities cannot exist under the current egoist, "me"
> generation,
> )encouraged by the greedy, individualistic capitalistic society. If
> people
> )would then stop trying to take advantage of each other (this even
> )happened in communist countries!!). Then and only then do we, as a
> human
> )race, have any chance at equality with one another.
>
> Gee, how touching.
>
> Fortunately that's not how the world works. Among humans the most
> intelligent go to the top, the rest go into the well of poverty and
> despair. It's not fair - it's just the way it is.
>
That's called Social Darwinism. And fortunantly, it doesn't exist.
If it did, Mozart wouldn't have died in poverty, Mark Twain wouldn't
have died in debt, and Dan Quayle wouldn't have become Vice President.
These are just a couple examples, and I'm sure we could dig up
tons more if you care to continue this line of reasoning.
-GJ
BTW, let's try to trim the newsgroups down to relevant groups. OK?
midt...@slip.net
> >)the case, of Bill Clinton, rape, gets us absolutely nowhere.
>
> >I agree with your conservative tendencies,
>
> I'm a libertarian, not a conservative.
>
> > but don't be a fucking
> >idiot and call what he's _accused_ of, by an unreliable account,
>
> of the TROOPER who FORCED her there.
>
>
> It involved the force of the Government of Arkansas, in the form of a
> State Trooper and the Govenor himself. If it occured, it is the moral
> equivelent of rape.
>
>
>
>
> No, from there you would get accusations that she is a "trailer park
> slut". From the entire media and executive branch of the government.
>
> trial does not make him innocent. And that evidence demands that he
> be tried, convicted, and jailed.
>
> monetary damages.
>
Max, please don't listen to John. Please continue to post your
version of the accounts.
That way it will make it much easier for liberals to dismiss
you guys as quacks.
-GJ
Mark D. Vincent
In article <5bea28$i0u$1...@linda.teleport.com>,
>>On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 15:09:15 -0600, "Heather K." <z950257@oats> wrote:
>>)Equal opportunities cannot exist under the current egoist, "me" generation,
>>)encouraged by the greedy, individualistic capitalistic society. If people
>>)would give up their egoism, as well as their hatred for others, they
>>)would then stop trying to take advantage of each other (this even
>>)happened in communist countries!!). Then and only then do we, as a human
>>)race, have any chance at equality with one another.
>
>>intelligent go to the top, the rest go into the well of poverty and
>>despair. It's not fair - it's just the way it is.
>
>money!
>
>Uh . . . right.
>
>First off, those who are truly smart don't really consider wealth to be the
>sole measure of whether someone is "at the top." Sometimes it does indeed
>take brains to get rich. However, wealth is a ephemeral quality, empty and
>hollow. Wealth is apples, greatness is oranges. If you happen to have money,
>that says no more about your greatness than what having asphault on a banana
>split says about its tastiness. We do not remember the two or three most
>privately wealthy people from ancient Greece or Rome. We remember those who
>took what they found in life and made it better for those who came after them.
>
>To this, you might respond with the tired and insipid refrain: "Well, of
>course rich people make it better! If it weren't for rich people, we wouldn't
>have jobs!" The basic idea being, if it weren't for rich people, no one would
>have jobs and everyone would starve.
>
Actually since 75% of the jobs in this country ae provided by SMALL business
that means that if it were not for people TRYING to GET rich there would
indeed be a lot fewer jobs.
>A nice piece of sophistry. But it overlooks an inconvenient point: If one
>small group of people has so drained the resources available to all that the
>many must work for the few simply to survive, why is this a _good_ thing,
>whatever the terms used for the few? How is this tyranny of the few over the
>many better than allowing the many to truly provide for themselves?
>
Again this silly vision of a few EEEEVIL rich folks controlling everything
and owning everyone is totally false. It is nice for a philosophy discussion
in the world of academe but has little relation to reality. Again, only 25%
of the jobs are created by BIG business where presumably there is a RICH
guy at the very top. So there is no small group controlling the majority
of the resources.
>In other words, it is a misnomer to say that if not for the rich, we would not
>have jobs. Say instead that if not for the rich, we would not _need_ them.
>
So what would we all do in that case? You really show your true colors here.
You just don't want to work and blame the so-called rich for making you do
so to live. Poor baby. Sure sucks to have to be productive eh?
midt...@slip.net
John Aquino wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 19:11:26 GMT, mken...@iglou.com (Max Kennedy)
> wrote:
[...]
> )It's the government job to prevent unequal opportunities like rape,
> )theft, fraud and murder from going on...
> )
> )Or in other words, by protecting the right of the people not to have
> )force and fraud used against them by others. Or in better words,
> read
> )the Declaration of Independence.
> )
> )Having the government itself engage in theft, fraud, murder, and in
> )the case, of Bill Clinton, rape, gets us absolutely nowhere.
>
> idiot and call what he's _accused_ of, by an unreliable account,
> from a liberal.
You are dangerous. You are a conservative who actually has a brain
as well.
-GJ
midt...@slip.net
Jeff Blunt wrote:
> Loren Petrich wrote:
[...]
> > Pure whining. Would you like *state* minimum-wage laws instead???
> > And would you like the Air Force disbanded because the Constitution
> > *only* mentions spending on armies and navies??? (I've read that
> > document; have you?)
>
> Well, you could always make the Air Force the Army Air Corps again (as it was before 1947)
> if you want to argue about semantics. This would probably increase the cost efficiency of the
> military as well. However, no matter how you phrase a minimum wage law, it is un-Constitutional.
>
Then why hasn't McDonald's won a case against minimum wages in court
yet?
-GJ
M. Luther
Michael.Schneider wrote:
> > >YES! The Declaration of Independance say's
> > >"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> > >equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> > >rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Create equal? Not in this country they aren't. Some are
created to prostitutes, some are created in Beverly Hills,
some are created with gunshots outside their windows, some
are created with bidets in their bathrooms.
> > -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
> > deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,
> It does not have my consent.
White cops in black neighborhoods do not have my consent.
midt...@slip.net
Michael.Schneider wrote:
> In article <E3wxp...@iglou.com>, mken...@iglou.com wrote:
> > Paul Kuczwara <pcep...@worldpath.net> wrote:
> > >YES! The Declaration of Independance say's
> > >"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> > >equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> > >rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> > >... "
> >
> > deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,
>
> It does not have my consent.
>
-GJ
Mojo
xona wrote:
>
> The ass and gut of a fat conservative right-wing yahoo and his dick
>
> xona
What the hell is that supposed to mean ?!
midt...@slip.net
Michael.Schneider wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970112150647.17164C-100000@oats>, "Heather K."
> <z950257@oats> wrote:
[...]
> > Equal opportunities cannot exist under the current egoist, "me" generation,
>
And the Declaration of Independence.
-GJ
midt...@slip.net
Michael.Schneider wrote:
> In article <32D94D...@provide.net>, James Doemer <big...@provide.net> wrote:
> > It is the Government's job to try and keep a economic environment that is
> > favorable to business growth, and job creation.
>
Adam Smith disagreed with you.
> Which means not STEALING as means of financing.
How can a government exist without taxes? How will you run a country
without a government? How will you protect it without a military?
-GJ
midt...@slip.net
Stilt Man wrote:
> In article <32e4b6aa...@204.177.236.3>,
> John Aquino <sn...@kremlin.martyr.com> wrote:
> >Fortunately that's not how the world works. Among humans the most
> >intelligent go to the top, the rest go into the well of poverty and
> >despair. It's not fair - it's just the way it is.
>
> Yeah, and I should know intelligence when I see it! After all, I have
> money!
>
> Uh . . . right.
>
> First off, those who are truly smart don't really consider wealth to be the
> sole measure of whether someone is "at the top." Sometimes it does indeed
> take brains to get rich. However, wealth is a ephemeral quality, empty and
> hollow. Wealth is apples, greatness is oranges. If you happen to have money,
> that says no more about your greatness than what having asphault on a banana
> split says about its tastiness. We do not remember the two or three most
> privately wealthy people from ancient Greece or Rome. We remember those who
> took what they found in life and made it better for those who came after them.
>
> To this, you might respond with the tired and insipid refrain: "Well, of
> course rich people make it better! If it weren't for rich people, we wouldn't
> have jobs!" The basic idea being, if it weren't for rich people, no one would
> have jobs and everyone would starve.
>
> small group of people has so drained the resources available to all that the
> many must work for the few simply to survive, why is this a _good_ thing,
> whatever the terms used for the few? How is this tyranny of the few over the
> many better than allowing the many to truly provide for themselves?
>
> have jobs. Say instead that if not for the rich, we would not _need_ them.
>
He must be mad. He needs to be locked up.
No. He doesn't worship the dollar bill because he knows he is a loser
and can't earn any money by himself. Yeh. That's the ticket. People who
aren't rich, or trying to get rich, are losers.
Phew! For a second there, I was afraid there would be an intelligent
discussion on values on Usenet. Everyone on Usenet knows that money
is the only thing that really means anything. All you have to do is
watch TV to know that.
-GJ
Mark Earnest
For the same reason no one has won a case over income tax (which if you
look,
is %100 unconstitional too)
yours
Mark Earnest
-The IRS calls income tax "voluntary contributions". However, I notice
the
Salvation Army doesn't throw you in jail if you don't contribute
midt...@slip.net
John Aquino wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 18:49:32 -0600, "Heather K." <z950257@oats> wrote:
[...]
> more and no less. If people didn't want them out there they wouldn't
> be paid so much. Just because _you_ don't think they deserve it
> doesn't mean they aren't making what they deserve.
I guess that Clinton is worth a quarter million a year then, since that
is what he is getting paid.
> )not just the fucking rich who don't give a shit for the poor! Come on
>
> )people instead of bitching at the poor (yeah, given some are guilty
> by
> )their own lazy asses) start being generous and start helping them -
> )higher minimum wage, so that they can fucking care for their own
> families.
>
> Minimum wage laws are quite illegal (check the constitution and what
> the federal government can and can't do). They can't force businesses
> to pay money for services that aren't worth the money.
Hmmm. I checked my copy of the Constitution, and I didn't see a
single reference to minimum wage laws. Maybe mine is just too old.
But don't you think that if minimum wage laws were illegal that
McDonalds would have appealed them to the Supreme Court by now and
had them thrown out? After all, they've had 50 years to do it.
[...]
-GJ
BTW, let's stop spamming this, please.
Lew Glendenning
> >On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 15:09:15 -0600, "Heather K." <z950257@oats> wrote:
> >)Equal opportunities cannot exist under the current egoist, "me" generation,
> >)encouraged by the greedy, individualistic capitalistic society. If people
> >)would give up their egoism, as well as their hatred for others, they
> >)would then stop trying to take advantage of each other (this even
> >)happened in communist countries!!). Then and only then do we, as a human
> >)race, have any chance at equality with one another.
> The Stilt Man stil...@teleport.com
> http://www.teleport.com/~stiltman/stiltman.html
> < We are Microsoft Borg '97. Lower your expectations and surrender >
> < your money. Antitrust law is irrelevant. Competition is >
> < irrelevant. We will add their biological and technological >
> < distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile. >
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> X-no-archive: yes
I must admit, I was astonished at this post, and I am net-hardened.
Your post seems to have as a fundamental assumption that there is a set
supply of wealth, to be divided among the population. If Bill Gates has
more, the rest of us have less.
This is a profound mis-understanding of almost everything.
Wealth is created. Bill Gates created all of his wealth, all of the
wealth of a 10,000+ millionaire engineers, 100,000+ well-off computer
dealers, etc. He did it with ideas, hard work, teamwork, ...
We are almost all much wealther, individually and as a nation, because
of Microsoft's success. True, there are a few people who lost out in the
competition, who are not better off because of Gates' success. But the
economic system as a whole has produced the correct result: broadly
distributed wealth.
The fact that Gates is worth $20B is completely irrelevant: he created
wealth, and the wealth was distributed throughout the economy.
Wealth is created. It is created by brains and hard work. Countries
which reward creators most richly also have the fastest growing
economies and the highest standards of living.
Countries which punish creators do badly, have slowly growing
economies, and the lowest standards of living.
Thank you for the opportunity to explain these realities.
Lew
--
"Ideology? We don't got no ideology. We don't need no stinkin'
ideology!
We have a Constitution!"
The CONSTITUTION, the WHOLE CONSTITUTION, and NOTHING BUT the
CONSTITUTION.
Max Jacobs
Heather K. wrote:
>
> And I say blame the damn gov't for letting people starve
Well if the government ran the food distribution system like it runs the
post office, there would be alot more starvation in the country. The
market is able to distribute food the most efficiently and for the least
price. It is after all the government that kept food prices
artificially high in their subsidization programs for farmers.
and barely able to earn a living and having to work their asses off
while their at it as
> well (e.i. barely $5 an hour for cashiers (in comparison to maybe around
> $10 offered to cashiers in many stores [if not mor] in Germany)
German cashiers may be paid more but can they buy more? VAT taxes are
incredibly high (mainly due to their belief in Steuern als
Steuerungsinstrument, taxation as an instrument to steer the economy)
And don't forget that Germany recently posted a 13% unemployment rate
which means that a large number of people couldnt find jobs, cashier or
otherwise.
Comeon, musicians in the classical world have to struggle to earn a
living,
> whereas rock stars make millions, even though they have less musical
> training than the classical artists!
Lets not forget that rock is a multi billion dollar industry. People
pay lots of money to see rock bands, while a relatively small percentage
of the population regularly buys or pays to see classical music. Should
blacksmiths be paid more than machinists just because blacksmiths went
through more training even though they provide less value to society (as
judged by the market of course)?
> Ha! Come on people! In many countries of the world, one can go to > college - any one - poor or rich! not just the fucking rich who don't >give a shit for the poor!
Well lets not forget that the US has most of the best colleges in the
world. And if you are smart enough you dont need any money to go to
them, due to lots of financial aid. And of course you forget that in
many of those countries there are very difficult exams that you have to
pass in order to get to college, so I really dont see what the
difference is, other than at least in the US if you are rich and stupid
you can still go to college, albeit a bad one.
Max Jacobs
************************************************************************
The Bionomics Institute
http://www.bionomics.org
Viewing the economy as an ecosystem
************************************************************************
Mark D. Vincent
In article <32e5b761...@204.177.236.3>,
John Aquino <sn...@kremlin.martyr.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 18:49:32 -0600, "Heather K." <z950257@oats> wrote:
>
>Wow. This is some of the most poorly thought out, idealistic,
>socialist, naive claptrap I've read in a long time. Where to
>begin....
>
>)And I say blame the damn gov't for letting people starve and barely
>able
>)to earn a living and having to work their asses off while their at
>it as
>)well (e.i. barely $5 an hour for cashiers (in comparison to maybe
>around
>)$10 offered to cashiers in many stores [if not mor] in Germany) but
>)several million to baseball players or football players.) Comeon,
>)musicians in the classical world have to struggle to earn a living,
>)whereas rock stars make millions, even though they have less musical
>)training than the classical artists! Ha! Come on people!
>
>What does the government have to do with how much cashiers are paid?
>They are paid what they are worth - not more and not less. If you
>don't think you're making enough as a cashier quit and find a better
>job. If you can't find a better job then either go back to being a
>cashier or starve. This has nothing to do with the government.
>
>As for the classical music crap - what a bunch of bullshit. Now
>you're ranting on perceived injustices in the world. What the hell
>does the government have to do with the fact that Rock sells and
>classical music doesn't (comparatively)? Should they start
>subsidizing classical musicians?
>
>If you want to make money don't become a classical musician (or become
>a very, very, very good one).
>
>The same with football players. They are paid what they are worth, no
>more and no less. If people didn't want them out there they wouldn't
>be paid so much. Just because _you_ don't think they deserve it
>doesn't mean they aren't making what they deserve.
>
>
>)countries of the world, one can go to college - any one - poor or
>rich!
>
>Including the US. I paid my way through college on scholarships and
>loans. Sure - I owe, I owe, I owe. But at least I'm not a cashier or
>a ditch digger now.
>
>)not just the fucking rich who don't give a shit for the poor! Come on
>
>)people instead of bitching at the poor (yeah, given some are guilty
>by
>)their own lazy asses) start being generous and start helping them -
>)higher minimum wage, so that they can fucking care for their own
>families.
>
>Minimum wage laws are quite illegal (check the constitution and what
>the federal government can and can't do). They can't force businesses
>to pay money for services that aren't worth the money.
>
>anyway). Do you really think businesses will just accept the extra
>cost of paying employees more? No. They pass it on as costs to you.
>It's called "inflation", genius. You get paid $6.00 an hour, but
>candy bars cost $0.07 more and Coke goes to $0.65 cents a can.
>
>cycle
>)needs to be broken! Dingbat! Yes, everybody needs to take part in
>)breaking it, but the gov't has the most power to do so. The
>government
>)can offer us good quality, low cost training (as in Germany and in
>many
>)other countries) and higher paying jobs... You gotta stop these
>corporate
>)people who are greedy beyond belief - who can fire anyone who dares
>)protest on call practically.
>Higher paying jobs? If you pay someone more for a job than it's worth
>then you're simply giving them free money. The Federal government is
>already way, way over what it can legally do in this country without
>going even further.
Another great rebuttal to socialist drivel! Great! I just want to chime in
to say that it looks as if capitalists and people who actually know what
is in the constitution and know how economics works seem to outnumber the
dreamy-eyed socialists and angry class-envy types in this thread by about
3 to 1. This is encouraging.
Max Kennedy
sn...@kremlin.martyr.com (John Aquino) wrote:
>)Having the government itself engage in theft, fraud, murder, and in
>)the case, of Bill Clinton, rape, gets us absolutely nowhere.
>I agree with your conservative tendencies,
I'm a libertarian, not a conservative.
> but don't be a fucking
>idiot and call what he's _accused_ of, by an unreliable account,
AccountS. She is not the only witness, and she also has the testimony
of the TROOPER who FORCED her there.
>"rape".
It involved the force of the Government of Arkansas, in the form of a
State Trooper and the Govenor himself. If it occured, it is the moral
equivelent of rape.
> It's the tactic of a blackguard and a pimp -
It's the tactic of someone that demands the case be heard.
>I'd expect it from a liberal.
No, from there you would get accusations that she is a "trailer park
Max Kennedy
mi...@visi.com (Michael.Schneider) wrote:
>In article <32e4b6aa...@204.177.236.3>, sn...@kremlin.martyr.com
>(John Aquino) wrote:
>> Fortunately that's not how the world works. Among humans the most
>> intelligent go to the top, the rest go into the well of poverty and
>> despair. It's not fair - it's just the way it is.
> Why is it not fair?
Sounds a lot more fair then what we have.
March of the Morons. A book I recommend.
Max Kennedy
Max Kennedy
ts...@acclink.com (tsun) wrote:
>On 12 Jan 1997 16:39:23 GMT, h...@flash.com (Henry) wrote:
>>Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
>>distribution of wealth?
>NO. All other things aside, government intervention only assures that
>nobody has much wealth.
Government intervention has only EVER assured that a few filthy,
thieving people at the top gain most of the wealth through taxes,
kickbacks, elitist laws, special favors, merchant monopolies, ect.
And government forced merchant monopolies was one of the reasons we
fought the Revolution.
Max Kennedy
Gary Lantz
Martin, you almost make a case for more Government distribution of
wealth and make the point for the person your argueing with. Maybe if
Granddad, hadn't spent so much time trying to make every last buck, he
could have spent more time with his children. Maybe he could have paid
employees at the bottom end a little better so that the business would be
better run at the low end, this might have freed him up to spend more
time with his children and might have done the same for the playing field
of the low end worker. Then society as well as each of the families
would all be better off.
Thomas Almond
Matt Walcoff (mwal...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: f...@tamu.edu (Frank R. Hipp) wrote:: >>distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
: >>opportunities exist?
: >> -Henry
: >Governments should not be involved in re-distribution of wealth -
: >period.
: >Yes, equal opportunities exist - if a person is willing to work hard.
: Equal opportunities exist? ha. Wealthy kids go to the best schools,
: get into Harvard as a legacy, get to intern for free because their
: parents pay for college and get jobs from family friends. Poor kids go
: to dumpy schools, have to work their butts off to pay for the state
: university and can't take time off to intern and then have no old
: family friends who are CEO's.
: I agree gov't should not mess with equality of result, but it
: certainly should work to ensure equality of opportunity. Pay for
: college, pay for daycare, etc.
: Matt
didn't the government insure you the right to work as hard as the
rich kids parents or grandparents to make a fortune? just because
one hasn't made a fortune yet doesn't mean one can't make a fortune.
haven't you heard that anything worth having is worth working for?
tommy
Mark Earnest
We are also free to elect a government that doesn't take from the hard
working
and give to the lazy, but you and the rest of the liberals would cry
about that
too (Kind of like you do with the current congress)
We're not going to leave, America was great once. And despite
liberalism,
it will be great again.
yours
Mark Earnest
Mark Earnest
It's the standard response of a beaten liberal, start calling
people names fast!
yours
Mark Earnest
-Apologies to the liberals out there who debate without sinking to
that level :)
Mark Earnest
> > To this, you might respond with the tired and insipid refrain: "Well, of
> > course rich people make it better! If it weren't for rich people, we wouldn't
> > have jobs!" The basic idea being, if it weren't for rich people, no one would
> > have jobs and everyone would starve.
> >
> > A nice piece of sophistry. But it overlooks an inconvenient point: If one
> > small group of people has so drained the resources available to all that the
> > many must work for the few simply to survive, why is this a _good_ thing,
> > whatever the terms used for the few? How is this tyranny of the few over the
> > many better than allowing the many to truly provide for themselves?
Very true. Two small problems though, how do you propose to allow
everyone
to provide for themselves? And, how do you prevent the gifted, driven,
or if
you prefer, greedy from achieving more than the rest?
> > In other words, it is a misnomer to say that if not for the rich, we would not
> > have jobs. Say instead that if not for the rich, we would not _need_ them.
Please explain. If there weren't rich people, no one would have to work?
yours
Mark Earnest
James Doemer
Heather K. wrote:
>
> On Sun, 12 Jan 1997, Roy Lemons wrote:
>
> > Matt Walcoff wrote:
> > >
> > > f...@tamu.edu (Frank R. Hipp) wrote:
> > >
> > > >h...@flash.com (Henry) wrote:
> > >
> > > >>Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
> > > >>distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
> > > >>opportunities exist?
> > >
> > > >> -Henry
> > >
> > > >Governments should not be involved in re-distribution of wealth -
> > > >period.
> > >
> > > >Yes, equal opportunities exist - if a person is willing to work hard.
> > >
> > > Equal opportunities exist? ha. Wealthy kids go to the best schools,
> > > get into Harvard as a legacy, get to intern for free because their
> > > parents pay for college and get jobs from family friends. Poor kids go
> > > to dumpy schools, have to work their butts off to pay for the state
> > > university and can't take time off to intern and then have no old
> > > family friends who are CEO's.
> > >
> > > I agree gov't should not mess with equality of result, but it
> > > certainly should work to ensure equality of opportunity. Pay for
> > > college, pay for daycare, etc.
> > >
> > > Matt
> >
> > position to send you to these schools and get you the job that you want.
> > Roy
> > --
> > NIGHT WEAR is reflective print for runners, bicylist,
> > and rollerbladers. NFL, NHL, MLB champion hats.
> > 'http://www.rbtees.com'
> > We are looking for Sales people!!
>
> And I say blame the damn gov't for letting people starve and barely able
What is the cost of living in Germany?? Last time I was there, it was quite a
bit higher than here in the US. If you want, we can help you pack for the trip.
> but
> several million to baseball players or football players.)
That's the government's fault??? In what way?
> Comeon,
> musicians in the classical world have to struggle to earn a living,
> whereas rock stars make millions, even though they have less musical
> training than the classical artists! Ha! Come on people!
How is this the Government's fault?? Supply and demand ring a bell?? Rock Stars,
as ill talented as they are, seem to be in higher demand than classical musicians.
So, let's say you are right, by some vague stretch of the imagination, that this is
the government's fault.. How would you propose to control it??
> In many
> countries of the world, one can go to college - any one - poor or rich!
> not just the fucking rich who don't give a shit for the poor! Come on
> people instead of bitching at the poor (yeah, given some are guilty by
> their own lazy asses) start being generous and start helping them -
> higher minimum wage, so that they can fucking care for their own families.
And in many more countrys, you cannot. I was not rich, but worked my way
through college. It can be done. I am generous, I give to several chairties, and
I am supporting a family of my own. Higher minimum wages will drive prices up, how
will that help the poor? The minimum wage has gone up, yet the poor are still there.
Your solution is a proven looser.
> If they blame their parents - their children will blame them! The cycle
> needs to be broken! Dingbat! Yes, everybody needs to take part in
> breaking it, but the gov't has the most power to do so.
By doing what?? Invading my property rights?? By taking yet a bigger chunk of
what I earn? And then what? Create even more government to administer it? The
Government has no power that we the people do not allow it to have, and I, and many
others, are simply not going to let people rob us blind and reduce our ability to
properly care for our children, our families. GIVING to the poor is great, I would
love to do more, but not at the expense of my own children. Also, there is a vast
difference between giving, and being ripped off by the government through taxes. Don't
confuse charity, with theft.
> The government
> can offer us good quality, low cost training (as in Germany and in many
> other countries) and higher paying jobs...
Germany currently has a 24% unemployment rate... Should we copy that too? Training
is only effective if we have the jobs to put those trained into it. Also, Germany's
jobs are not higher paying with compared to the cost of living.
> You gotta stop these corporate
> people who are greedy beyond belief
And who provide most of the jobs....
- who can fire anyone who dares
> protest on call practically.
Bull, union contracts and NRLB rules help prevent firing for no reason in most corporations.
James Doemer
Matt Walcoff wrote:
>
> f...@tamu.edu (Frank R. Hipp) wrote:
>
> >h...@flash.com (Henry) wrote:
>
> >>Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
> >>distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
> >>opportunities exist?
>
> >> -Henry
>
> >Governments should not be involved in re-distribution of wealth -
> >period.
>
> >Yes, equal opportunities exist - if a person is willing to work hard.
>
> Equal opportunities exist? ha. Wealthy kids go to the best schools,
> get into Harvard as a legacy, get to intern for free because their
> parents pay for college and get jobs from family friends. Poor kids go
> to dumpy schools, have to work their butts off to pay for the state
> university and can't take time off to intern and then have no old
> family friends who are CEO's.
>
> I agree gov't should not mess with equality of result, but it
> certainly should work to ensure equality of opportunity. Pay for
> college, pay for daycare, etc.
>
> Matt
We should we pay for your day care?? Ever hear of getting through school
and financially stable before having kids?? Why would we pay for your
college?? I worked myself through, yes, it's damned hard, but it can be
done. Why does this world owe you a living??
Adam Ierymenko
In article <32e4b6aa...@204.177.236.3>,
sn...@kremlin.martyr.com (John Aquino) writes:
>)Equal opportunities cannot exist under the current egoist, "me"
>generation,
>)encouraged by the greedy, individualistic capitalistic society. If
>people
>)would give up their egoism, as well as their hatred for others, they
>)would then stop trying to take advantage of each other (this even
>)happened in communist countries!!). Then and only then do we, as a
>human
>)race, have any chance at equality with one another.
>
>
>Fortunately that's not how the world works. Among humans the most
>intelligent go to the top, the rest go into the well of poverty and
>despair. It's not fair - it's just the way it is.
>
There's nothing even idealistic about it. The only equality is in the grave.
The mere act of being alive makes you unequal by definition, since you are a
seperate being and are not identical to any other being.
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
ts.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt.current-events.usa,alt.politics.media,alt.president.clinton,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt.current-events.usa,alt.politics.media,alt.president.clinton,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa
References: <hap-120197...@sar116060.res-hall.nwu.edu> <5bb6q7$h...@news.tamu.edu> <5bbdp1$a...@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu> <32D977...@anet-dfw.com> <Pine.SOL.3.91.970112184115.21522C-100000@oats> <32D9B2...@anet-dfw.com>
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
Distribution:
Roy Lemons (ro...@anet-dfw.com) wrote:
: Heather K. wrote:
: >
: > On Sun, 12 Jan 1997, Roy Lemons wrote:
: >
: > > Matt Walcoff wrote:
: > > >
: > > > f...@tamu.edu (Frank R. Hipp) wrote:
: > > >
: > > > >h...@flash.com (Henry) wrote:
: > > >
: > > > >>Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
: > > > >>distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can equal
: > > > >>opportunities exist?
: > > >
: > > > >> -Henry
: > > >
: > > > >Governments should not be involved in re-distribution of wealth -
: > > > >period.
: > > >
: > > > >Yes, equal opportunities exist - if a person is willing to work hard.
: > > >
: > > > Equal opportunities exist? ha. Wealthy kids go to the best schools,
: > > > get into Harvard as a legacy, get to intern for free because their
: > > > parents pay for college and get jobs from family friends. Poor kids go
: > > > to dumpy schools, have to work their butts off to pay for the state
: > > > university and can't take time off to intern and then have no old
: > > > family friends who are CEO's.
: > > >
: > > > I agree gov't should not mess with equality of result, but it
: > > > certainly should work to ensure equality of opportunity. Pay for
: > > > college, pay for daycare, etc.
: > > >
: > > > Matt
: > >
: > > Blame your parents, not the government for not putting themselfs in a
: > > position to send you to these schools and get you the job that you want.
: > > Roy
: > > --
: > > NIGHT WEAR is reflective print for runners, bicylist,
: > > and rollerbladers. NFL, NHL, MLB champion hats.
: > > 'http://www.rbtees.com'
: > > We are looking for Sales people!!
: >
: > And I say blame the damn gov't for letting people starve and barely able
: > to earn a living and having to work their asses off while their at it as
: > well (e.i. barely $5 an hour for cashiers (in comparison to maybe around
: > $10 offered to cashiers in many stores [if not mor] in Germany)
: Been to Germany lately? The buying power of that $10.00 is only worth
: about $3.00 here
Proof?
: >but
: > several million to baseball players or football players.) Comeon,
: > musicians in the classical world have to struggle to earn a living,
: > whereas rock stars make millions, even though they have less musical
: > training than the classical artists!
: Every one has the same chance to be a baseball player, football player,
: rock star, or movie star. The differance between the rock star and the
: musician in the classical world is the rock star was willing to take a
: risk. The rock star was willing to put it all on the line, the classical
: musician was not.
Did you ever think that some people don't have talents in rock music?
: Ha! Come on people! In many
: > countries of the world, one can go to college - any one - poor or rich!
: > not just the fucking rich who don't give a shit for the poor! Come on
: > people instead of bitching at the poor (yeah, given some are guilty by
: > their own lazy asses) start being generous and start helping them -
: > higher minimum wage, so that they can fucking care for their own families.
: Just as anyone in this country can get a loan to go to college. The
: thing you want is to make it free for the poor. It can be somewhat free
: for the poor, they can get grants that they do not need to pay back. But
: even if someone can not get a grant, they can get a loan and go to any
: school that they can qualify for.
It is true that the government can't overcome every unfairness in life.
Quite a bit of the problem with being born poor is that you may not have
role models and peers who went to college, are going to college, or even
know anything about college and, consequently, you may not even be able to
conceive of it. The government cannot change this, but it does need to
provide help wherever it can rather than just assuming everything will
work out. The more productive all of our citizens are, the better off we
are in the long run.
: > If they blame their parents - their children will blame them! The cycle
: > needs to be broken! Dingbat! Yes, everybody needs to take part in
: > breaking it, but the gov't has the most power to do so. The government
: > can offer us good quality, low cost training (as in Germany and in many
: > other countries) and higher paying jobs... You gotta stop these corporate
: > people who are greedy beyond belief - who can fire anyone who dares
: > protest on call practically.
: >
: You need to do some traveling, just do not read what you want to read to
: make you happy. Many of these contries where people make more must pay
: more to live. Go rent an apartment in one of these countries, go buy
: some food and some clothing. You will find that you would be better off
: making less in the US.
Not necessarily. Values differ and resources differ. Some countries
trade leisure and security for wealth. Others simply purchase a
different market basket of goods and services. Others are very poor, and
then there are the very rich oil countries.
: The greed that you talk about is in the family unit in the US. In other
: countries the family works together as a unit to get ahead. Not here in
: the US other than the rich. Most of the non rich families in the US go
: thier differant directions looking for thier own pot of gold. When
: family members die they do not look to each other to take what has been
: left to them and pool it together and make something for the family,
: they take what they can get and spend it. If you want to see greed, see
: what happens to an average estate when someone dies. Brother will sue
: brother to take what they can get for themselfs, it is worse than a
: devorce.
I doubt this is the norm. It just makes the headlines when it happens.
: The goverments job is not to force your family into working together for
: the benefit of the family. It is to inshure that a person has the same
: oppertunies as anyone. If you can pay the price you can go to any school
: you want. If your family were to work as a unit, everyone in it would
: save money to send the oldest to the best school they could, and when
: the oldest gets a job they would send back money to put the next child
: in the best school they could and so on and so on. This is why there are
: so many of the people that come from other countries are able to do so
: well here, they work as a family unit. They don't expect it to be given
: to them, they work for it.
Immigrants are usually self-selected achievers, but your point is accurate
about how they often get ahead.
--
Buddy K
UltraZ
N...@unsolicited.email.dammit (Stilt Man) wrote:
>[Newsgroups mercifully trimmed because my ISP is civilized enough to have heard
>of the concept that crossposting to bizillions of newsgroups is known as a
>"bad idea".]
>In article <5bc2n6$n...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
>UltraZ <wyl...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>John Kennedy once said " As the powerful and rich are heard in
>>Washington, I ask myself who will speak for the poor and misfortunate,
>>my answer is simply.. I will. I will.. speak for them. There is no
>>one else except the President of the United States"
>>In 1961 so started the liberal agenda of welfare and redistribution of
>>income and raising taxes for the purpose of welfare, food stamps,
>>allocation of extra money for having children born to unwed and wed
>>mothers, government funded abortions, welfare scams etc..
>Well, there is one minor detail.
>Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the primary "welfare" program, costs
>around $1 billion a year.
>Pull the wheels off our Stealth bomber fleet and you've got it funded until the
>turn of the century.
>>What had been a well intentioned program due to inefficiency of
>>government to manage itself, the statistics are that it takes .75 of
>>every dollar intended for the poor just to administer programs at the
>>federal level.
>Uh, actually, that's not quite true. Social Security is quite a bit more
>efficient than that.
Were talking AFDC and welfare not Social security. UZ
>>This was siphoning off tax money and tax increases
>>growing faster than the ability of income expansion to keep pace.
>Tax increases? In the 1950's, the marginal tax rate was 88%. Right now,
>it's in the upper thirties.
You mean the tax rate was 21%. not 88% .
>Don't give me this malarkey about "tax increases." It sounds good until you
>actually find out what the real rates are.
>>People took advantage of the handout with 3rd and 4th generational
>>welfare recipients collecting welfare fully capable of working.
>3rd and 4th generational welfare recipients? And you said the program started
>in 1961, right? How often can people pump out succeeding generations, anyway?
>3 generations since 1961 means they had kids once every 12 years. 4
>generations brings that down to once every 9 years.
A generation is 10 years, If you paid attention you will notice I did
not say that 1961 was the start of welfare, merely the acceleration
point. UZ
>You _do_ read these things before you post them, don't you?
>>While all Men are created equal, all men do not achieve nor have the
>>inherent strength and the motivation, nor the human skills required
>>to sustain an ability to provide, maintain, and achieve academic or
>>work excellence. When the constitution was written it was simply an
>>agrarian economy where hard work was the sole requirement critical to
>>earning a living.
>And, of course, this explains why Thomas Jefferson's rallying cry was to
>stop the wealthy who were oppressing the poor in flagrant defiance of the
>law.
>>It is worse today on a per capita basis with illiteracy at about 30%
>>in America..
>Better now than it was a century ago. Why? Public schools.
You think this is acceptable? With the skills required today? Dont
be proud of it. UZ
UltraZ
Ha...@raven.cybercom.com (Peregrin) wrote:
>In article <5bc2n6$n...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>, wyl...@ix.netcom.com
>says...
>>
>>h...@flash.com (Henry) wrote:
>>
>>>Is it the government's responsibility to ensure somewhat equal
>>>distribution of wealth? Or is it the people's responsibility? Can
>equal
>>>opportunities exist?
>>
>>> -Henry
>>John Kennedy once said " As the powerful and rich are heard in
>>Washington, I ask myself who will speak for the poor and misfortunate,
>>my answer is simply.. I will. I will.. speak for them. There is no
>>one else except the President of the United States"
>>
>>In 1961 so started the liberal agenda of welfare and redistribution of
>>income and raising taxes for the purpose of welfare, food stamps,
>>allocation of extra money for having children born to unwed and wed
>>mothers, government funded abortions, welfare scams etc..
>>
>>What had been a well intentioned program due to inefficiency of
>>government to manage itself, the statistics are that it takes .75 of
>>every dollar intended for the poor just to administer programs at the
>>federal level. This was siphoning off tax money and tax increases
>>growing faster than the ability of income expansion to keep pace.
>>People took advantage of the handout with 3rd and 4th generational
>>welfare recipients collecting welfare fully capable of working.
>>
>>While all Men are created equal, all men do not achieve nor have the
>>inherent strength and the motivation, nor the human skills required
>>to sustain an ability to provide, maintain, and achieve academic or
>>work excellence. When the constitution was written it was simply an
>>agrarian economy where hard work was the sole requirement critical to
>>earning a living. Now it is higher level intellectual skills which pay
>>the "best" salaries and the greatest job security.
>>
>>Inequities abound, compassion was rare, as it is becoming today.
>>Solutions? There is no simple solution.
>>
>>It is worse today on a per capita basis with illiteracy at about 30%
>>in America..What chance do the poor have? A handout is simply
>>temporary......State governments must get into the business of
>>education for people who do not not have the skills for the simplest
>>tasks, businesses must open training programs and develop people who
>>have known nothing but welfare, with human skills courses, what a job
>>is, how to hold a job, dealing with problems at home, basic English
>>skills, criteria for promotions etc. It will take many resources to
>>drive down the tax burden on Americans, but the price of doing
>>nothing, in the long run, is a far worse price to a society.
>>UltraZ
>>
> Ya' just told me that 75% of every dollar goes to administration
>of government bullshit...Then you tell me you think the government should
>If you read carefully it says state governments..not federal. UZ
get into the training bussiness..Why?...The 231 federally funded job
>training programs aren't enough?...Or are they just eating so much of the
>money in ad. costs that we just gotta throw more down the rat hole?
Again, no reference is made to any federal support training they dont
work.
> And as for any of this training...Where were these ppl the first
>time the government tried to train them??..I went to school..I got a job,
>got my training...were these the ppl hang'n with the "homies" on the
>corner dealing drugs, running little baby factories cause "they be to
>cool" to work in Mcky D's or something..Or heaven forbid do MY job!!
> Now your suggestion is, "I" should pay for training for them, who
>won't come work with me.."I can'ts do that!..It be too hard!", so they can
>get a better job then mine??..The one "I" had to learn through back
>breaking work over years, you know those "Hang'n out" years for some of
>us..
> Well some of us suckers did the right thing, and didn't "hang",
>didn't "bang" became responsible ppl, and for this our reward, is to pay
>for those that disrecarded any resbonsibility for they're actions???
> Well thanks loads!!..How lucky I am huh?
> See?..This is the begining of the end liberals..American ppl are
>real generous, we have been for alot of years..But you lib's abused us,
>gave us wonderful "intentions" and NO RESULTS!!!!! And quite frankly, I'm
>to the point that you can start bringing out the starve'n babies, and I'll
>fight my ass off to keep MY money, in the pocket that earned it!!..Where
>it belongs!!
I'm not a liberal. I'm conservative moderate and I'm letting you that
you cant ignore stupidity and chronic people who cant work for
whatever reason. You can develop ideas now or when the illiteracy
rate goes to 50% and China starts supplying the poor with AK50's to
rervolt..then tell me it doesnt make sense to develop a program to
combat illiteracy and jolessness. It's pay now or pay later...and
later is usually too late. UZ
> Not in the hands of some liberal dem, willing to belch the most
>eloquent fairy tales to whatever looser wants to listen to him hear how
>"this" guy..."He's" gonna be the one to give you "THE" program..The one
>that YOU NEED!!...Bullshit!!
Michael.Schneider
In article <5bea28$i0u$1...@linda.teleport.com>, N...@unsolicited.email.dammit
(Stilt Man) wrote:
> In article <32e4b6aa...@204.177.236.3>,
> John Aquino <sn...@kremlin.martyr.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 15:09:15 -0600, "Heather K." <z950257@oats> wrote:
> >)Equal opportunities cannot exist under the current egoist, "me" generation,
> >)encouraged by the greedy, individualistic capitalistic society. If people
> >)would give up their egoism, as well as their hatred for others, they
> >)would then stop trying to take advantage of each other (this even
> >)happened in communist countries!!). Then and only then do we, as a human
> >)race, have any chance at equality with one another.
>
> >Fortunately that's not how the world works. Among humans the most
> >intelligent go to the top, the rest go into the well of poverty and
> >despair. It's not fair - it's just the way it is.
>
> Yeah, and I should know intelligence when I see it! After all, I have
> money!
Did you *earn* it?
> Uh . . . right.
>
> First off, those who are truly smart don't really consider wealth to be the
> sole measure of whether someone is "at the top." Sometimes it does indeed
> take brains to get rich. However, wealth is a ephemeral quality, empty and
> hollow. Wealth is apples, greatness is oranges. If you happen to have money,
Wealth is as "ephemeral" as hunger.
> that says no more about your greatness than what having asphault on a banana
> split says about its tastiness. We do not remember the two or three most
> privately wealthy people from ancient Greece or Rome. We remember those who
> took what they found in life and made it better for those who came after them.
Yes, yes.... The dictators are more fascinating. Your point?
> To this, you might respond with the tired and insipid refrain: "Well, of
> course rich people make it better! If it weren't for rich people, we wouldn't
> have jobs!" The basic idea being, if it weren't for rich people, no one would
> have jobs and everyone would starve.
If it weren't for people who *made* wealth, no one would have jobs.
> A nice piece of sophistry. But it overlooks an inconvenient point: If one
> small group of people has so drained the resources available to all that the
> many must work for the few simply to survive, why is this a _good_ thing,
> whatever the terms used for the few? How is this tyranny of the few over the
> many better than allowing the many to truly provide for themselves?
So let the many provide for themselves. Quit authorizing the government
to steal from them and order them about willy and nilly.
> In other words, it is a misnomer to say that if not for the rich, we would not
> have jobs. Say instead that if not for the rich, we would not _need_ them.
Are you insisting upon the right to determine when others have "too
much" money? Well, OUT with it man....
+--+--+
America's soap opera: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Iconoclast Greg Swann Writes: http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/
Waco Holocaust Museum: http://www.mnsinc.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/
National Organization for Non-Enumeration: http://www.ime.net/none/
W. Beck's Anthology: http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
Yahoo! Maps: http://maps.yahoo.com/yt.hm?FAM=yahoo&CMD=GEO&SEC=geo
Welcome to Rancho Runnamukka: http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
Internet Infidels "The Secular Web": http://www.infidels.org/
Download'n Fool: http://www.shareware.com/SW/Search/Index/
The United States should get rid of its militias. -- Joseph Stalin, 1933
Michael.Schneider
In article <5behsf$nqk$1...@linda.teleport.com>, N...@unsolicited.email.dammit
(Stilt Man) wrote:
> >What had been a well intentioned program due to inefficiency of
> >government to manage itself, the statistics are that it takes .75 of
> >every dollar intended for the poor just to administer programs at the
> >federal level.
>
> Uh, actually, that's not quite true. Social Security is quite a bit more
> efficient than that.
Where ARE you getting this crap? SS has no "trust fund" and hasn't for
years.
> >This was siphoning off tax money and tax increases
> >growing faster than the ability of income expansion to keep pace.
>
> Tax increases? In the 1950's, the marginal tax rate was 88%. Right now,
> it's in the upper thirties.
>
> Don't give me this malarkey about "tax increases." It sounds good until you
> actually find out what the real rates are.
Yeah, yeah... The government steals less and less every year.
God we never had it so good......
Michael.Schneider
In article <5beknm$7j2$1...@Mars.mcs.net>, syn...@MCS.COM (ygrenyS) wrote:
> Only losers and deadbeats object to capitalism.
And at the fore:
The real reason why public university professors are so adamantly opposed
to capitalism is not because they don't believe it works, but because
socialism demands government-funded education, and you know who benefits
first from that.
Michael.Schneider
> Michael.Schneider wrote:
> > In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970112150647.17164C-100000@oats>, "Heather K."
> > <z950257@oats> wrote:
> [...]
> > > Equal opportunities cannot exist under the current egoist, "me"
generation,
> > > encouraged by the greedy, individualistic capitalistic society. If people
> > > would give up their egoism, as well as their hatred for others, they
> > > would then stop trying to take advantage of each other (this even
> > > happened in communist countries!!). Then and only then do we, as a human
> > > race, have any chance at equality with one another.
> >
> > There is only equality in DEATH.
>
> And the Declaration of Independence.
Shut up and hand over your wool.
Michael.Schneider
> Michael.Schneider wrote:
> > In article <E3wxp...@iglou.com>, mken...@iglou.com wrote:
> > > Paul Kuczwara <pcep...@worldpath.net> wrote:
> > > >YES! The Declaration of Independance say's
> > > >"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> > > >equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> > > >rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> > > >... "
> > >
> > > -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
> > > deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,
> >
> > It does not have my consent.
> >
> Then you are free to leave.
>
> -GJ
*FUCK YOU*, you slimy tory.
Come the revolution, shooting the tyrants will just be business.
But guys like *you*, you fucking Quisling stooges, oh man.....
(Ayn Rand, here's your "drooling beast" for yeh.)
Michael.Schneider
> Michael.Schneider wrote:
> > In article <32D94D...@provide.net>, James Doemer
<big...@provide.net> wrote:
> > > It is the Government's job to try and keep a economic environment that is
> > > favorable to business growth, and job creation.
> >
> > Which means staying OUT of the economy.
>
> Adam Smith disagreed with you.
Yeah, he was a real socialist, wasn't he?
> > Which means not STEALING as means of financing.
>
> How can a government exist without taxes?
Who cares?
The government's existence is not my concern.
*Mine* is.
> How will you run a country without a government?
I have no desire to "run a country".
> How will you protect it without a military?
The same way the Mujahadin and the Green Mountain boys did.
Michael.Schneider
In article <5bep0c$r...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, wyl...@ix.netcom.com (
UltraZ) wrote:
> I'm not a liberal. I'm conservative moderate and I'm letting you that
> you cant ignore stupidity and chronic people who cant work for
> whatever reason.
Sure you can.
Michael.Schneider
> > > -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
> > > deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,
> > It does not have my consent.
>
> White cops in black neighborhoods do not have my consent.
Oh, Luther....
Haven't you HEARD????
If you don't like, you get to.... (chorus of angels) ....LEAVE!
Yep!
Whip out that plane ticket to New Zealand and you're allllll set.
Michael.Schneider
> >In 1961 so started the liberal agenda of welfare and redistribution of
> >income and raising taxes for the purpose of welfare, food stamps,
> >allocation of extra money for having children born to unwed and wed
> >mothers, government funded abortions, welfare scams etc..
>
> Well, there is one minor detail.
>
> Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the primary "welfare" program, costs
> around $1 billion a year.
>
> Pull the wheels off our Stealth bomber fleet and you've got it funded
until the turn of the century.
At least when the government wastes stolen money on a bomber it has
something to show for it.