A good week for the Tories
Tom Deveson
Michael "Who Dares Wins" Portillo can't gain the support of even one
third of his Parliamentary colleagues.
Jeffrey "A Twist In The Tale" Archer gets put in the slammer for four
years.
What's due for Margaret "Enemy Within" Thatcher?
To quote Kipling: I gloat! Hear me gloat!
Tom
--
Tom Deveson
Alan Allport
news:DtnJOQAm...@devesons.demon.co.uk...
> To quote Kipling: I gloat! Hear me gloat!
A Clarke victory would be good for everyone, Labour Party supporters
included (despite the greater immediate challenge they would face at the
ballot box). As the _Independent_ put it a few days ago:
"It is not just the Tories who will be the losers if they remain locked in a
self-indulgent sideshow. The British people will suffer if this Labour
Government, already prey to the temptations of arrogance, meets effective
opposition only from its own backbenches."
Alan.
Tom Deveson
>A Clarke victory would be good for everyone, Labour Party supporters
>included (despite the greater immediate challenge they would face at the
>ballot box). As the _Independent_ put it a few days ago:
>
>"It is not just the Tories who will be the losers if they remain locked in a
>self-indulgent sideshow. The British people will suffer if this Labour
>Government, already prey to the temptations of arrogance, meets effective
>opposition only from its own backbenches."
But I'm prey to the temptations of Schadenfreude.
Tom
--
Tom Deveson
ROBBIE
Yes it's lovely isn't it... And now they're wheeling Clarke on. I know what
they're thinking- man of the people etc. Of course he's just another robbing
bastard who just happens to smoke and drink- notice how the cigars have got
bigger from when he used to do his avuncular budget speeches. I suppose they
think they can work the old Churchill lark with him- fat c*nt, big cigar, 'I
can offer you nothing but blood, toil and asset stripping'. Yes they're up
shit creek for a wee while now....as Sinatra sang 'Goody Goody!'
>
> Tom
> --
> Tom Deveson
ROBBIE
> third of his Parliamentary colleagues.
>
> Jeffrey "A Twist In The Tale" Archer gets put in the slammer for four
> years.
YES! If that arsewipe had been commenting on this case reather than being in
it, he would have advocated a stiffer sentence and I wish, on this occasion,
he'd got one. In the actualite he won't be in the scrubs but down in the
open prison working out his next insider deals with other fraudsters....
Martha Bridegam
Tom Deveson wrote:
Not quite as good here but it does look like the moderates have finally
had enough of the Republican leadership. See
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010719/pl/congress_faith_dc_5.html
/MAB
Alan Allport
news:3B570F40...@pacbell.net...
> Not quite as good here but it does look like the moderates have finally
> had enough of the Republican leadership. See
> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010719/pl/congress_faith_dc_5.html
This is a sideshow in the real battle over faith-based funding, however. Far
more important from the Republican point of view is the opposition from its
Christian conservative wing (which is concerned that government involvement
with religious organizations will eventually lead to government regulation
of same).
Alan.
Gene Zitver
Yes they're up
>shit creek for a wee while now....as Sinatra sang 'Goody Goody!'
Not exactly on topic, but it seems that song was popular in Orwell's time. In
"Boys' Weeklies," GO quotes a letter to the Gem from a reader who has written
lyrics to the tune (this is in April 1939) that begin:
"Gonna get my gas-mask, join the A.R.P.
'Cos I'm wise to all those bombs you drop on me."
And include:
"Gonna park my cannon right outside the kerb
With a note to Adolf Hitler: 'Don't disturb!'"
Orwell comments that this is probably the earliest mention of Hitler in the
Gem.
Whose version of "Goody Goody" would have been popular in England at the time?
Not Sinatra's, surely?
The version I'm familiar with is by Frankie Lymon and the Teenagers (of "Why Do
Fools Fall in Love?" fame).
Gene
Alan Allport
news:9j6sl8$mgh6u$1...@ID-88989.news.dfncis.de...
> Yes they're up
> shit creek for a wee while now....as Sinatra sang 'Goody Goody!'
This misses the point though, surely. The reason for the Tories' recent
disarray is that neither wing has been able to achieve a decisive hold of
the key leadership positions. The upcoming Clarke-Duncan Smith showdown will
(I hope) settle the issue once and for all, if necessary with a self-induced
purge of the losing faction. Whichever side comes out on top will at least
control a more ideologically coherent party, and - I suspect - the Tories
will soon hand over the title of parliamentary basket-case to its
traditional holder, Labour, which is about due for a fratricidal little
spat. Shit-creek is where they've been for the past decade; I have a feeling
this is where things start to change.
Alan.
Jack Cerf
of Foot/Benn era Labour talking ever more loudly to a smaller and
smaller group of the faithful. The English nationalist, homophobic,
hanging and flogging traditionalist wing of the party, e.g. IDS and
the egregious Widdecombe, alienates a great deal of the centrist
middle-class audience to which a pro-business, anti-redistributionist
party would have to appeal. [Thatcher/Widdecombe, imho, perfectly
illustrates the tragedy/farce dictum.]
I agree with you that Nemesis may await Blair on his own back benches.
Since the election, Blair has made it clear to the Socialist faithful
that New Labour was not simply a confidence trick to get the party
into power, and that he really means to govern in what he conceives to
be the interest of the meritocratic middle class in a capitalist
country that can afford good social services. Roy Hattersley's recent
screed was the first shot from behind. The reinstatement of Dunwoody
[?] as a committee chair was the second. The fusilade will start in
earnest if and when Blair carries through on his promise to make the
unionized employees of NHS and other public services more responsive
to customers, by privatization or otherwise.
Even if it does, though, the Tories may not be able to take advantage
because they are wedded to an irrecoverable past and cannot bring
themselves to accept the pervasive values of post-Diana Britain.
Disraeli got the Tories past the Corn Law fiasco when he admitted that
"protection is not only dead but damned." Now that Portillo is gone,
nobody on the Tory side is likely to stand up and say that Imperial
Britain and its traditional ruling class are a musuem piece, and that
the UK has to be governed as a medium sized, multi-ethnic federation
of social democracies on an island off the coast of France. [Disraeli
was better at sound bites than I am.] The LD's do understand this,
and they strike me as a better prospect to become the principal
opposition if there is a Labour schism.
Bayle
Martha Bridegam <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
<3B570F40...@pacbell.net>...
My guess is you're dreaming. The latest CNN poll shows the magic numbers
to be about 55% to 35% on most questions. The lower number can be viewed as
a constant. It represents the number of Democrats who wouldn't vote for
Bush if he established world peace and racial harmony, cured AIDS, and gave
every citizen in the country a million dollar check. On the other hand the
55% represent those who, though probably unenthusiastic, think things and
Bush are basically ok.
Plus you can't beat something with nothing. What do the Democrats stand
for again? Who are their nationally electable leaders? Democrats (myself
included) seem to have supernatural ability to under-estimate the election
possibilites of their evil and foolish opponents (see Nixon 1972 Reagan
1980,1984, Bush 1988). Then they beat them with politicians like Clinton.
Not an impressive record I'm sure you will agree.
How's this for your nightmare. The economy is good in 2004 and Powell
replaces Cheney on the ticket as heir-apparent, ergo 16 years of
Bush-Powell due to a post-Clinton effect.
psandje
"Alan Allport" <all...@ee.upenn.edu> wrote in message >
> (I hope) settle the issue once and for all, if necessary with a
self-induced
> purge of the losing faction. Whichever side comes out on top will at least
> control a more ideologically coherent party, and - I suspect - the Tories
> will soon hand over the title of parliamentary basket-case to its
> traditional holder, Labour, which is about due for a fratricidal little
> spat.
An "ideologically coherent" Tory party? Historically speaking isn't that a
contradiction in terms?
Paul Stables
ROBBIE
Hang on a minute professore, it's bone obvious to me that they've fucked
themselves reputation wise and now they've got this yesterdays man, this
Clarke to try and be avuncular and bellicose for them and it's not gonna
work, they're out to grass. Hopefully we get Lab Lib future and never allow
those spivs near number ten again...
> Alan.
>
>
Alan Allport
news:9j7mpa$ki...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
> An "ideologically coherent" Tory party? Historically speaking isn't that a
> contradiction in terms?
No more or less so than any other party, surely.
Alan.
Paul Sebastianelli
ROBBIE wrote in message <9j8clb$mqcu4$1...@ID-88989.news.dfncis.de>...
C'mon, Robbie, you're disappointing me. Certainly you
don't believe that some personnel problems amongst the
Tories is going to spell the death of conservatism in Britain.
As long as there are greedy people, and more importantly,
greedy corporations, there will be politicians happy to do
the dirty work; that is, to implement conservative policies.
As I've mentioned before, the Canadian Tories went down
in flames in 1993. Two things happened:
a) a much more rightist party, the Reform party, replaced them,
and now stand as our official opposition. They make me long
for the return of the Tories. b) and this one is worse: We have, since '93,
gotten the 'Lib future' that you long for, and it has meant more
of the same. And I do mean *more*. The Liberals in the '90's
have made cutbacks and privatizations that the our Thatcherite
PM Mulroney never would have considered in the 80's.
Poltical parties only reflect the political will of the public and
of the ruling class, they don't create it.
paul.
Alan Allport
news:RyW57.4529$jo4.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> C'mon, Robbie, you're disappointing me. Certainly you
> don't believe that some personnel problems amongst the
> Tories is going to spell the death of conservatism in Britain.
> As long as there are greedy people, and more importantly,
> greedy corporations, there will be politicians happy to do
> the dirty work; that is, to implement conservative policies.
Ahem. The facile connection between 'conservatism' and 'greedy' could be
sliced apart in several different ways, but if it's crooked politicians
you're looking for then Labour has proven more than capable of manufacturing
some of its own since 1997 (cf.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Labour/Story/0,2763,456770,00.html). The correct
correlation is not with any one political movement but with complacency and
arrogance, something the Tories unfortunately developed during their 17
years of power and which Labour has fallen victim to with if anything even
greater alacrity.
Alan.
Paul Sebastianelli
Alan Allport wrote in message <9j9fra$h42$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>"Paul Sebastianelli" <p.se...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:RyW57.4529$jo4.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>> C'mon, Robbie, you're disappointing me. Certainly you
>> don't believe that some personnel problems amongst the
>> Tories is going to spell the death of conservatism in Britain.
>> As long as there are greedy people, and more importantly,
>> greedy corporations, there will be politicians happy to do
>> the dirty work; that is, to implement conservative policies.
>
>Ahem. The facile connection between 'conservatism' and 'greedy'
Hey, facile is my middle name.
could be
>sliced apart in several different ways, but if it's crooked politicians
>you're looking for then Labour has proven more than capable of
manufacturing
>some of its own since 1997 (cf.
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/Labour/Story/0,2763,456770,00.html). The correct
>correlation is not with any one political movement but with complacency and
>arrogance, something the Tories unfortunately developed during their 17
>years of power and which Labour has fallen victim to with if anything even
>greater alacrity.
Which was, kind of, my point, although my point had nothing
whatsoever to do with corruption. The 'greed' I was referring
to was the kind that champions tax cuts and economic growth
and, consequently, closing hospitals and more drilling for oil, etc.
This is a greed traditionally championed most loudly, tho' not
exclusively, by the right, who, in turn, have been traditionally
represented by the Tories, at least in Canada, and I suspect
in Britain. My point was that unless the greed goes away,
neither will the right wing, i.e. the Tories, no matter what their
troubles. Furthermore, the more prevalent this greed becomes,
the more likely that the so-called centre-left will cater to it, as
is now the case. This further moots the importance of any party's
rising or declining fortunes.
paul.
Alan Allport
> Which was, kind of, my point, although my point had nothing
> whatsoever to do with corruption. The 'greed' I was referring
> to was the kind that champions tax cuts and economic growth
> and, consequently, closing hospitals and more drilling for oil, etc.
This is what I believe is technically known as a False Dilemma.
Alan.
Paul Sebastianelli
Alan Allport
> >> Which was, kind of, my point, although my point had nothing
> >> whatsoever to do with corruption. The 'greed' I was referring
> >> to was the kind that champions tax cuts and economic growth
> >> and, consequently, closing hospitals and more drilling for oil, etc.
> >
> >This is what I believe is technically known as a False Dilemma.
>
> How so?
Because your argument rests on the assumption that tax cuts and economic
growth are mutually incompatible with keeping hospitals open and
environmental responsibility. This is I believe demonstrably untrue and
hence a False Dilemma.
Alan.
Martha Bridegam
Alan Allport wrote:
Anyone who feels otherwise, and who is getting the $300/$600 U.S. "tax
relief" payment, may wish to have a look at
<http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11122>.
/MAB
Paul Sebastianelli
Martha Bridegam wrote in message <3B58A557...@pacbell.net>...
Something similar occured here last year, and there was some debate
as to where people thought it best to unload their $200 in blood money.
I found mine a nice home.
paul.
Paul Sebastianelli
Alan Allport wrote in message <9ja5ag$ped$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
I believe it is demonstrably untrue, as well, at least as
far as the tax cuts are concerned. I never suggested
that they are mutually incompatible (I'm not sure where you
get that), and even if I did, my argument hardly rests on it.
What I suggested is, not that tax cuts are mutually incompatible
with keeping hospitals open, but that they often have a cause and
effect relationship. I think that this is demonstrable at the
provincial and federal level here in Canada. The tax cuts that
have happened here in Ontario have been financed by,
among other things, hospital closings that have seriously
damaged medical care in Ontario. Corporate taxes as a percentage
of federal revenue dropped from 29% to 11% over the last
25 years IIRC, helping create
the 'deficit crisis' of the 90's, which in turn caused the gov't to make
serious cuts in public spending. Cuts which helped cripple
health care in this country, probably fatally. And when those
spending cuts helped wipe out the deficit? The government
offered the public tax cuts. Therefore, it is safe to
say that tax cuts and hospital closings are oft intertwined.
In the case of economic growth and environmental protection,
I believe that, with the population at 6 billion and counting, they
are mutually incompatible. This has been demonstrated. The
earth's ecosystem cannot support the global economy at it's present size,
never mind at the size it will be in 30 years. Paul Harrison's book *The
Third Revolution* is a thorough demonstration of this fact
And there is no doubt in my mind that Bush's desire to drill in Alaska
has everything to do with his view that economic growth is _the_ No.1
priority. There is a correlation.
.
But what does this have to do with my argument regarding
the Tories? Tax cuts and economic growth, whether or not they
are related to hospitals and the environment, are still signs of
greed.
paul.
Martha Bridegam
Jack Cerf wrote:
> "...
>
> Even if it does, though, the Tories may not be able to take advantage
> because they are wedded to an irrecoverable past and cannot bring
> themselves to accept the pervasive values of post-Diana Britain...."
Post-Diana? Means what?
/MAB
Tom Deveson
>Now that Portillo is gone,
>nobody on the Tory side is likely to stand up and say that Imperial
>Britain and its traditional ruling class are a musuem piece
I note that Edward Duncan Smith, son of 'IDS', started at Eton last
September, following, as the *Evening Standard* puts it, "in the
footsteps of his maternal grandfather Lord Cottesloe."
If 'IDS' becomes Tory leader, he'll be the first to have a son at Eton
since Alec Douglas Home, though Mark Thatcher gained his celebrated
intellectual cutting edge at Harrow.
Other high profile Tories to have sent sons to Eton recently include
Michael Howard, Jeffrey Archer, Steve Norris and Jonathan Aitken. Which,
if any, of all these counts as a 'cad' and which an 'arriviste' is
beyond me.
"Let other pens dwell on guilt and misery. I quit such odious subjects
as soon as I can."
Tom
--
Tom Deveson
Bayle
Paul Sebastianelli <p.se...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<LB267.6009$jo4.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>
> Tax cuts and economic growth ... are still signs of
> greed.
Really? So you think a family (2 wage earners, 2 kids) earning $100,000
dollars a year in the US is rich and/or greedy? Say a cop and a school
teacher in Chicago, early 40s, about 20 years in their jobs. They are in
the top 10% of US family incomes, about the 91.4 percentile in 1998.
Suppose they want to send one of their kids to Penn, about $35,000 a year.
Think they're likely to get much financial aid for their taxes?
And do you think that the rest of the world is willing to stop growing
because it suits the convenience of inhabitants of the rich countries who
already have their piece of the pie? Do you think the Chinese and the
Koreans and the Indians really care what people in the rich countries of
the west think?
Finally, do you think that the average people in western countries are
willing to sacrifice a chance at their dreams (making even that inadequate
$100,000 a year), by limiting economic growth. And even if they were
willing, the rest of the world has no intention of cooperating. This is
what I find so sad and appalling about the way NAFTA and free trade in
general has been handled, by both sides of the argument. How can a country
(say the US) leave so many of its citizens unprepared to face an inevitable
future (i.e. global competition)? If Indian or Korean workers are better
educated, higher quality and lower paid, do you think they care about, say
the history of racial discrimination in the US or poor urban public
education? No, they just want to make as much money as they can, to improve
their own lives and that of their families and neighbors.
John Rennie
"Martha Bridegam" <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3B58DB04...@pacbell.net...
Absolutely nothing.
John Rennie
yesterday's men. 'Yesterday' always means more than it did at the time.
A lot of people remember Clarke holding down the offices of Health,
Education, and finally and successfully, the Exchequer. They forget or
don't care about the reaction of the NHS to privatisation i.e.. Trusts or
the bruised teachers. The point is, will he win? Will his attitude on
Europe scupper his chances? Not if he plays the 'Wilson' line. When
Wilson was faced by a sizeable revolt in the Labour Party against going into
Europe in the 70's, he made it a 'free vote' issue. So when the great
referendum campaign took place, the Labour Cabinet could happily split (as
could the Conservatives). There is one difference I suggest from those
times, the Conservatives appear to hate each other much more than say Healey
hated Foot or Castle hated Benn
but here my prejudices maybe taking over.
John Rennie
Well we can sit back and see whether you are right or not when we study
America and its fortunes over the next four years. We now have a 1.6
Trillion (American Trillion) tax cut plus a Star Wars programme where the 12
tests alone over the next 12 months will cost one American billion dollars
each. We also have Bush's promise that he will be able to improve health
and. education notwithstanding his cuts and increase in military
expenditure. A perfect laboratory experiment wouldn't you say Alan? We,
in the UK should be grateful.
John Rennie
"Bayle" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:01c110a0$38b544a0$25541cd0@ilzyausv...
snip
> How's this for your nightmare. The economy is good in 2004 and Powell
> replaces Cheney on the ticket as heir-apparent, ergo 16 years of
> Bush-Powell due to a post-Clinton effect.
And who do we have to thank for that Martha? (He!He!)
Nick
> "Paul Sebastianelli" <p.se...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:Vm067.5441$jo4.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> >
> > How so?
>
> Because your argument rests on the assumption that tax cuts and economic
> growth are mutually incompatible with keeping hospitals open and
> environmental responsibility. This is I believe demonstrably untrue and
> hence a False Dilemma.
Funny that, because economic growth and tax cuts under the tories signalled
harsh financial policies for the health and education services which this
country is still reeling from.
>
> Alan.
>
>
Nick
>
> 'Lib future' that you long for, and it has meant more
I ain't longing for fella- what I'm longing for is a new system entirely.
Just that the longer the tories are kept out of number ten the better. Of
course conservatism- greed, corporate freebooting, unethical behaviour,
asset stripping and divisiveness masked in a roseate glow of inappropriate
patriotism and 'old fashioned values'- isn't dead. It's alive and well as a
mentality among millions. Blair's ridiculous but less, from where I'm
standing, harmful than the car salesmen on the Right. As the Who sang 'Meet
the new boss, same as the old boss'. As noted on my site, All Politicians
Are Cunts.
> paul.
>
>
Nick
Baylwick of jersey <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:01c111ab$e0ab7f60$05541cd0@ilzyausv...
snip
That was all very obvious.
>
>
>
>
Martha Bridegam
John Rennie wrote:
Let me know when you get there and I'll tell you.
/MAB
Alan Allport
> I believe it is demonstrably untrue, as well, at least as
> far as the tax cuts are concerned. I never suggested
> that they are mutually incompatible (I'm not sure where you
> get that)
I disagree. To quote:
"The 'greed' I was referring to was the kind that champions tax cuts and
economic growth *and, consequently,* [my emphasis] closing hospitals and
more drilling for oil, etc."
You have constructed a logical argument A = B, where A= tax cuts and
economic growth and B= closed hospitals and drilling for oil. Therefore A
cannot also equal C (keeping hospitals open and practicing environmentally
responsible behavior) as C is the opposite of B.
I accept that you may not have thought your original claim through properly.
Alan.
John Rennie
"Nick" <nick@NO_SPAMthefaces.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9jc9p2$udh$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
too am anti-Tory but not all politicians are c***s - that's a slogan for the
simple minded.
Greg-Orang-utan
John Rennie wrote in message <9jbirm$cv5$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
John, I do think you underestimate the appallingly estimable voter acumen
exhibited by California's Naderites, a
clear-sighted, knife's edge perspicacity of strategic voting that still
gives one gooseflesh just thinking about it. Not since Crispus Attucks did
whatever he did has anyone forwarded the cause of American democracy as much
as we. Even now, as I consider the astonishing, nay, terrifying, nay much
more than mere astonishing and terrifying wisdom exhibited by voters like
MAB and myself, I can barely resist smooching my own torso. We are like
gods, MAB. Would that our nation's little people, the avatars of Crispus
Attucks, follow our lead into the hallowed terrene of American Democracy.
John Rennie
"Greg-Orang-utan" <Mrgregori...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9jcl1b$n3bqj$1...@ID-31858.news.dfncis.de...
Doh!!
John Rennie
"Tom Deveson" <a...@devesons.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GRzIBBA6...@devesons.demon.co.uk...
Just finished ploughing through the Sundays.
Amazing isn't it just how many people, knew the Archer was a liar,
embezzler, fraudster, adulterer etc. Now I knew some of these things for a
time as one of my friends is Michael Crick but how these people managed to
keep quiet about this obnoxious little man dumbfounds me. How many more
are lurking in the woodwork? Isn't it about time Geoffrey Robinson was
brought to book? It rather makes one nostalgic for the long lost
'ruling class'. But no I take that back - let's just have the American
libel laws - perhaps that might make the 'doings' of our rulers that more
transparent.
Martha Bridegam
John Rennie wrote:
Don't know if you want our libel laws exactly, though I think you'd rather have
ours than yours. Remember the Oprah Winfrey "beef defamation" case? She was
found not liable but had to spend a lot of money proving it. See
<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june98/fooddef_1-20.html>.
Is Michael Crick any relation to Bernard?
/MAB
Paul Sebastianelli
Alan Allport wrote in message <9jced8$lgj$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>"Paul Sebastianelli" <p.se...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:LB267.6009$jo4.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>> I believe it is demonstrably untrue, as well, at least as
>> far as the tax cuts are concerned. I never suggested
>> that they are mutually incompatible (I'm not sure where you
>> get that)
>
>I disagree. To quote:
>
>"The 'greed' I was referring to was the kind that champions tax cuts and
>economic growth *and, consequently,* [my emphasis] closing hospitals and
>more drilling for oil, etc."
>
>You have constructed a logical argument A = B, where A= tax cuts and
>economic growth and B= closed hospitals and drilling for oil. Therefore A
>cannot also equal C
I *never* suggested that! As I already pointed out in my
response, which you apparently didn't bother to read,
is that A (tax cuts) have invariably been followed and/or
preceded by, B (tax cuts). As in: government cuts taxes, gov't
closes hospitals or, conversely, gov't closes hospitals then
cuts taxes. Nowhere, _nowhere_, did I say that it cannot
be otherwise. Please show me where I did?
The "and, consequently" that seems to be confusing you I shall
clarify. In Canada, the gov't loses revenue from taxes, and then
declares 'We cannot afford to continue our high social spending'
(neatly turning a revenue problem into a spending problem).
***Consequently***, thegov't starts cutting back, cutbacks which
include closing hospitals. It wasn't just corporate taxes, various other
factors were also at play, but the decreasing corporate taxes, and
increased tax deferrals, aided by NAFTA and it's predecessor,
the 1998 Canada-U.S. FTA, is fairly well documented. And the
line between the tax cuts and the hospital closings is pretty
straight one, and is well documented in Linda McQaig's best-
selling book *Shooting the Hippo: Death By Deficit and Other
Canadian Myths* and in Murray Dobbins' *The Myth of the Good
Corporate Citizen.*
Again, to sum up - because I really don't want to have to type this out
a third time - it is not that closing hospitals *has to be* the consequence
of cutting taxes, or vice versa, but it is that *in practice* that has
indeed *been*
the "consequence" in Canada, and possibly elsewhere.
(keeping hospitals open and practicing environmentally
>responsible behavior) as C is the opposite of B.
I will, for reasons outlined in a previous response,
agree that A cannot equal C in the case of economic
growth and ecological protection.
>I accept that you may not have thought your original claim through
properly.
Ditto.
paul.
Paul Sebastianelli
Nick wrote in message <9jc9p2$udh$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
You could probably get elected with a platform like that.
:-)
paul.
Paul Sebastianelli
Greg-Orang-utan wrote in message <9jcl1b$n3bqj$1...@ID-31858.news.dfncis.de>...
>I can barely resist smooching my own torso.
Did you have one of those operations to get a a couple of
ribs removed so you could do that?
paul, very curious.
John Rennie
Don't think so - I met him when I had a tale to tell about the early life of
one of our premiers - no cash involved I assure you. One of the great
sights on television in recent years has been Crick trailing Archer at
various Tory social events, microphone in hand and shouting 'Why did you buy
those shares, Lord Archer?' Oh yes I forgot to add 'insider trading' to the
list of Archer aberrations.
>
Alan Allport
> I *never* suggested that! As I already pointed out in my
> response, which you apparently didn't bother to read,
> is that A (tax cuts) have invariably been followed and/or
> preceded by, B (tax cuts). As in: government cuts taxes, gov't
> closes hospitals or, conversely, gov't closes hospitals then
> cuts taxes. Nowhere, _nowhere_, did I say that it cannot
> be otherwise. Please show me where I did?
Certainly. Again.
"The 'greed' I was referring to was the kind that champions tax cuts and
economic growth *and, consequently,* [my emphasis] closing hospitals and
more drilling for oil, etc."
A 'consequence' is a thing or circumstance which follows as an effect or
result from something preceding. If 'closing hospitals and more drilling for
oil' are a consequence of 'tax cuts and economic growth', then 'closing
hospitals and more drilling for oil' are a result of 'tax cuts and economic
growth'. If you meant to say that 'closing hospitals and more drilling for
oil' are only *conditional* results of 'tax cuts and economic growth' - ie.
in particular, but not universal, circumstances - then you could have
qualified your original statement by recognizing this. But you did not. You
advanced an unqualified causal relationship between 'tax cuts and economic
growth' and 'closing hospitals and more drilling for oil' - ie. not just an
*equality* but an *identity*. And a False Dilemma.
Of course, if this is not what you meant then you could have just said so
from the beginning. But I suspect it would have not been nearly so much
rhetorical fun to acknowledge from the get-go that, hey, evil right-wing
policies sometimes don't kick sick children out into the street nor ravish
virgin woodland.
Alan.
Paul Sebastianelli
Bayle wrote in message <01c111ab$e0ab7f60$05541cd0@ilzyausv>...
>
>
>Paul Sebastianelli <p.se...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
><LB267.6009$jo4.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>>
>
>> Tax cuts and economic growth ... are still signs of
>> greed.
>
>Really? So you think a family (2 wage earners, 2 kids) earning $100,000
>dollars a year in the US is rich and/or greedy?
If they pine for tax cuts, economic growth, or $110,000,
well then, probably yes. But that's a generalization
about fictional, and therefore irrelevant people.
Say a cop and a school
>teacher in Chicago, early 40s, about 20 years in their jobs. They are in
>the top 10% of US family incomes, about the 91.4 percentile in 1998.
>Suppose they want to send one of their kids to Penn, about $35,000 a year.
>Think they're likely to get much financial aid for their taxes?
I don't know, but if you wanted to get them a *good* educashun ;-),
and decided to send them to U of T, no you wouldn't.
I'm sure you'll let me know what this has to do with it.
>And do you think that the rest of the world is willing to stop growing
>because it suits the convenience of inhabitants of the rich countries who
>already have their piece of the pie? Do you think the Chinese and the
>Koreans and the Indians really care what people in the rich countries of
>the west think?
?
>Finally, do you think that the average people in western countries are
>willing to sacrifice a chance at their dreams (making even that inadequate
>$100,000 a year), by limiting economic growth. And even if they were
>willing, the rest of the world has no intention of cooperating.
I don't know what your point is. Is it that I should be in favour
of economic growth because everyone else is?
I think that your idea of an "inadequate" income represents a
large difference in our thinking that perhaps makes it hard
for me to understand the questions.
>This is
>what I find so sad and appalling about the way NAFTA and free trade in
>general has been handled, by both sides of the argument.
What I find so sad about the way it is being handled is
that there is now a death toll.
>How can a country
>(say the US) leave so many of its citizens unprepared to face an inevitable
>future (i.e. global competition)? If Indian or Korean workers are better
>educated, higher quality and lower paid, do you think they care about, say
>the history of racial discrimination in the US or poor urban public
>education? No, they just want to make as much money as they can, to improve
>their own lives and that of their families and neighbors.
I'm not sure what you expect me to respond to...
or what it is you're trying to say.
(Racial discrimination?)
paul.
Paul Sebastianelli
Alan Allport wrote in message <9jfeh6$vpv$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
Right. My dictionary says that consequence means "the result
or effect of an action or condition." The "effect" that tax cuts had
in Canada was that hospitals were closed, as a "result" of hospitals
being closed the Ontario gov't went from deficit to surplus,
and handed out tax cuts. I still think it makes sense.
However, I am more than willing to concede this point if it means
an end to this tedious hairsplitting. I apologize if my poor English
and, consequently, my improper use of the word "consequence"
confused my original statement that the continuing existence of
greed amongst the general public and in the ruling elite is
of greater consequence than any personnel problems the Tories
may face.
Thankfully, I did get one response.
>
>Of course, if this is not what you meant then you could have just said so
>from the beginning. But I suspect it would have not been nearly so much
>rhetorical fun to acknowledge from the get-go that, hey, evil right-wing
>policies sometimes don't kick sick children out into the street nor ravish
>virgin woodland.
Yes, a serious drop in the fun quotient would have indubitably
been a consequence.
paul.
Alan Allport
> However, I am more than willing to concede this point if it means
> an end to this tedious hairsplitting.
Personally I think being clear about one does or doesn't mean is a little
more serious than hairsplitting, particularly when one is chucking around
quite serious accusations about the consequences of 'greediness', but then
both Left and Right have always shared a constituency of the irresponsible
that is happy to make the most outrageous claims about its opponents without
worrying too much about the details.
Alan.
Jack Cerf
A Britain, or more specifically an England, in which the manners and
mores of the traditional upper class are no longer taken seriously,
and in which the old deference structure has pretty much vanished. It
is also indifferent to the strictures of traditional Christianity,
unconcious of the former English sense of superiority, and open to a
wide variety of influences that would have been kept pretty thoroughly
out of sight in the past. It has no nobility or gentry, only
celebrity.
The Tories were able to think of themselves as the natural party of
government because, until 25-30 years ago, most English people pretty
much accepted that they would be governed by the old nobility and
gentry or by people who had at any rae learnt to look and sound like
toffs. That assumption had been slowly eroding since the Second World
War, partly, as GO noted, because of the growth of a technocratic
middle class, but also because the decline of the UK as a world power
fatally undermined the prestige of the class most closely identified
with Imperial Britain. The victory of New Labour in '97 marks the
displacement of the old governing class by a new one comprised of
middle class meritocrats from the universities with benevolent
principles and good communications skills -- likable, well meaning
exam swots, if you will.
The late Diana Wales and her in laws acted out the changing of the
guard on a sub-intellectual in which her refusal to play the role
assigned by tradition, her sentimentality, her celebrity, and her
utter lack of old style upper class reticence proved immensely
popular. Blair understood the changes in the culture, which is why he
was able to catch and surf the wave of grief at her death.
Martha Bridegam
John Rennie wrote:
> ...
> > Is Michael Crick any relation to Bernard?
> >
> > /MAB
>
> Don't think so - I met him when I had a tale to tell about the early life of
> one of our premiers - no cash involved I assure you. ...
Do we dare ask for elaboration on this?
/MAB
Paul Sebastianelli
Alan Allport wrote in message <9jfj0t$i1i$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
Or the consequences...
For the record, I tried, in two different posts, to provide
a reasonable amount of details to justify my less than
outrageous claims.
paul.
Greg-Orang-utan
Paul Sebastianelli wrote in message ...
Like Cher? I'm content with my ribs and was going to say "kiss my own ass",
but observing the implications of my Username, I'd have to admit we
Orang-utan's don't have asses, just sort of bald spots that turn pink when
we're horny, and that's thoroughly gross.
I stand by my "It was OK to vote Nader if you reside in California"
argument, however....
Bayle
Paul Sebastianelli <p.se...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<wEH67.1519$PA1.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>
> Bayle wrote in message <01c111ab$e0ab7f60$05541cd0@ilzyausv>...
> >
> >
> >Paul Sebastianelli <p.se...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
> ><LB267.6009$jo4.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> >>
> >
> >> Tax cuts and economic growth ... are still signs of
> >> greed.
> >
> >Really? So you think a family (2 wage earners, 2 kids) earning $100,000
> >dollars a year in the US is rich and/or greedy?
>
> If they pine for tax cuts, economic growth, or $110,000,
> well then, probably yes. But that's a generalization
> about fictional, and therefore irrelevant people.
I'm sure they are both fictional and irrelevant to you, which is why I
shouldn't have responded to your post.
Martha Bridegam
Bayle wrote:
A cop and a schoolteacher making $100,000 a year? Sounds pretty damn
fictional from here.
/MAB
Martha Bridegam
Martha Bridegam wrote:
P.S. How often do cops marry schoolteachers, anyway?
/MAB
Alan Allport
> > > >Really? So you think a family (2 wage earners, 2 kids) earning
$100,000
> > > >dollars a year in the US is rich and/or greedy?
> > >
> > > If they pine for tax cuts, economic growth, or $110,000,
> > > well then, probably yes. But that's a generalization
> > > about fictional, and therefore irrelevant people.
> >
> > I'm sure they are both fictional and irrelevant to you, which is why I
> > shouldn't have responded to your post.
>
> A cop and a schoolteacher making $100,000 a year? Sounds pretty damn
> fictional from here.
??
Quite apart from the "who brought the cop and/or the schoolteacher into
this" point, Bayle was referring to a family, not an individual income. In
Philadelphia, at least, it's certainly not unrealistic to imagine a police
officer with a working spouse collectively earning $100K/year, and the same
would be true in some cases for an experienced schoolteacher as well.
Alan.
Paul Sebastianelli
Greg-Orang-utan wrote in message <9jg4ui$nvhmr$1...@ID-31858.news.dfncis.de>...
>
>Paul Sebastianelli wrote in message ...
>>
>>Greg-Orang-utan wrote in message
><9jcl1b$n3bqj$1...@ID-31858.news.dfncis.de>...
>>
>>
>>>I can barely resist smooching my own torso.
>>
>>Did you have one of those operations to get a a couple of
>>ribs removed so you could do that?
>
>
>Like Cher?
She's done it?
>I'm content with my ribs and was going to say "kiss my own ass",
The ass isn't usually the part of the torso one is trying to
"smooch" when they get a rib removed. I was just curious
whether it was covered by your medical insurance...
paul.
Greg-Orang-utan
Paul Sebastianelli wrote in message ...
>
>Greg-Orang-utan wrote in message
<9jg4ui$nvhmr$1...@ID-31858.news.dfncis.de>...
>>
>>Paul Sebastianelli wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>Greg-Orang-utan wrote in message
>><9jcl1b$n3bqj$1...@ID-31858.news.dfncis.de>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I can barely resist smooching my own torso.
>>>
>>>Did you have one of those operations to get a a couple of
>>>ribs removed so you could do that?
>>
>>
>>Like Cher?
>
>She's done it?
>
>>I'm content with my ribs and was going to say "kiss my own ass",
>
>
>The ass isn't usually the part of the torso one is trying to
>"smooch" when they get a rib removed.
Paints an interesting picture...
Paul Sebastianelli
Bayle wrote in message <01c11325$a957b620$2d541cd0@ilzyausv>...
>
>
>Paul Sebastianelli <p.se...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
><wEH67.1519$PA1.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>>
>> Bayle wrote in message <01c111ab$e0ab7f60$05541cd0@ilzyausv>...
>> >
>> >
>> >Paul Sebastianelli <p.se...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
>> ><LB267.6009$jo4.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>> >>
>> >
>> >> Tax cuts and economic growth ... are still signs of
>> >> greed.
>> >
>> >Really? So you think a family (2 wage earners, 2 kids) earning $100,000
>> >dollars a year in the US is rich and/or greedy?
>>
>> If they pine for tax cuts, economic growth, or $110,000,
>> well then, probably yes. But that's a generalization
>> about fictional, and therefore irrelevant people.
>
>I'm sure they are both fictional and irrelevant to you, which is why I
>shouldn't have responded to your post.
How are you *sure* that they are fictional or irrelevant to me?
I'd love to know.
You don't know how much my household income is, nor will
you. And without knowing that, how on earth can you possibly
be sure what is or isn't fictional or irrelevant to me? I'm dying
to know.
The reason I called them "fictional" was out of hope because I
do *not* want to discuss personal incomes.
Having said that, one can live quite comfortably with two kids
in a major city for considerably less than $100,000. The median
family income in Philedelphia is $55,600. The average house is
$119,000 which ranks 115th of all ranked metropolitan areas.
Quite cheap.
So the average house is approximately $800 or so a month, by my
calculations (I'm not sure what the mortgage rates are but if they're
anywhere in the vicinity of 6% I'm right). A $100,000, according to
the IRS, a married couple filing jointly would pay $22, 293, or
$6500 a month take home pay. But let's be generous and
say that there are other deductions (state taxes, etc.) and reduce
the number to $5000/month.
Now - should I go through an itemized list of the fictional couples
expenses? I do not think that it's necessary. I think that $5000
a month is more than enough to live very comfortably on. I think they
could be comfortable on $3000 a month, which is
probably less than the approx. take home pay of that median
family making $55K. A $2000 a month, it would be very difficult.
Does this make the people making $100,000 greedy? Let's
consider that they are making almost double the median
income. If they are finding it difficult to live on that "inadequate"
amount of money, than their level of consumption is probably
very high. And that is greedy, because it has harmful
consequences.
And if they need tax cuts to relieve the strain of their
poverty, than the question answers itself.
paul.
Greg-Orang-utan
Paul Sebastianelli wrote in message ...
The somewhat infamous philosopher Peter Singer wrote a provacative article
in which he claimed that one could live well enough on 30K a year and that
the rest should be given to the world's poor, although I believe he conceded
that he doesn't do so himself.
Gene Zitver
>P.S. How often do cops marry schoolteachers, anyway?
I suspect it's not particularly unusual. It would be interesting to see some
statistics on this, if anyone knows where to find them.
Gene
Martha Bridegam
Alan Allport wrote:
OK, it's possible: apparently the Philadelphia civil service pays pretty
nicely at its senior levels.
Per <http://www.phila.k12.pa.us/jobs/>, a school English teacher with a
doctorate (item 43) can earn up to $62,687 in the Philadelphia schools and an
elementary school principal (item 20) can earn up to $81,011. Per this same
site, even a lieutenant of the school police (item 24) will only earn a
maximum of $39, 651. However, pay seems to be higher for policing grownups
instead of children. According to
<http://www.ppdonline.org/ppd5_pa_benefits.htm>, maximum pay a Philadelphia
officer can earn is $42,417.00 . Sergeants' pay is noted to be 14% higher, no
word on earnings for officers higher up than that.
/MAB
Alan Allport
> OK, it's possible: apparently the Philadelphia civil service pays pretty
> nicely at its senior levels.
And you've singled out public sector employees. Anecdotally I can throw in
several examples of local people in their twenties and thirties working in
junior management or equivalent positions, from average backgrounds and not
especially well-qualified (BA from a so-so 4-year school is typical), and
earning in the $40-50K - and above - bracket. These are singletons, by the
way. Point being that, whether or not a $100K family income is 'greedy' or
not - the claim strikes me as pointless and arbitrary - it's not some
impossible aspiration for all but the Bryn Mawr set.
Alan (who by the way is not earning anything close to it).
tom .
> > > A cop and a schoolteacher making $100,000 a year? Sounds pretty damn
> > > fictional from here.
> >
> > ??
> >
> > Quite apart from the "who brought the cop and/or the schoolteacher into
> > this" point, Bayle was referring to a family, not an individual income. In
> > Philadelphia, at least, it's certainly not unrealistic to imagine a police
> > officer with a working spouse collectively earning $100K/year, and the same
> > would be true in some cases for an experienced schoolteacher as well.
> >
> > Alan.
>
> OK, it's possible: apparently the Philadelphia civil service pays pretty
> nicely at its senior levels.
>
> Per <http://www.phila.k12.pa.us/jobs/>, a school English teacher with a
> doctorate (item 43) can earn up to $62,687 in the Philadelphia schools and an
> elementary school principal (item 20) can earn up to $81,011. Per this same
> site, even a lieutenant of the school police (item 24) will only earn a
> maximum of $39, 651. However, pay seems to be higher for policing grownups
> instead of children. According to
> <http://www.ppdonline.org/ppd5_pa_benefits.htm>, maximum pay a Philadelphia
> officer can earn is $42,417.00 . Sergeants' pay is noted to be 14% higher, no
> word on earnings for officers higher up than that.
>
> /MAB
let's not forget overtime - from which cops often make a nice piece of change
above their yearly salary. those statistics may already cover that, but i bet
not. who knows. or cares. the real reason i'm checking in is to celebrate.
finally, after months of pleading, one alan allport has finally given in and
fixed his damn computer clock. or time machine. whatever you want to call it.
he finally caved in. i can not tell you how happy this has made me. no jumping
back and forth between emails. everything in chronological order. what a
pleasurable experience. true, half the time i have absolutely no idea what you
people are talking about, but that's my problem, not yours. why should things be
different here. thank you, mr. allport. thank you very much.
Alan Allport
news:3B5C74E1...@hotmail.com...
> thank you, mr. allport. thank you very much.
Thank the nice folks at Penn who gave me a swanky new computer.
Alan.
Bayle
Martha Bridegam <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
<3B5B9E3B...@pacbell.net>...
I have no idea. For what it's worth the example came from a couple in
Chicago. I believe I read it in an article explaining the decline of the
democratic party. Two adults, born of working class parents, getting
mediocre college educations, working hard, union members, wake up in their
40s (with 20 years experience making about 50 grand apiece) and find
themselves called rich and greedy. Even though the public schools suck so
bad they can't send their kids there, the best college educations are
financially unavailable to their kids, their neighborhoods have declined,
and their cities have lost population (Phila 10% from 1990-1999) so that
the only people left are the young and hip, the poor and the government
employees.
Joe Fineman
> The late Diana Wales and her in laws acted out the changing of the
> guard on a sub-intellectual in which her refusal to play the role
> assigned by tradition, her sentimentality, her celebrity, and her
> utter lack of old style upper class reticence proved immensely
> popular.
What is a sub-intellectual? I think I may be one.
--
--- Joe Fineman j...@TheWorld.com
||: When you have taken a wrong turn, a step backward is a step :||
||: in the right direction. :||
Bayle
Paul Sebastianelli <p.se...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<g_W67.5526$PA1.7...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
A quote from Orwell is relevant here, from "My Country Right or Left".
"I grew up in an atmosphere tinged with militarism, and afterwards I spent
five boring years within the sound of bugles. To this day it gives me a
faint feeling of sacrilege not to stand to attention during 'God save the
King'. That is childish, of course, but I would sooner have had that kind
of upbringing than be like the left-wing intellectuals who are so
'enlightened' that they cannot understand the most ordinary emotions."
You're willingness to label a family of four making $100,000 a year as
greedy suggests to me an inability to "understand the most ordinary
emotions". Emotions that are shared by the Indians owning the 7-11 on my
corner, the Koreans who owned the little store in my old neighborhood to
make extra money so that their kids could go to college, and the Chinese,
Ukrainian and Russian Jewish immigrant parents who scrimp and save and
sacrifice so that they can afford to send their kids to private school
because the public schools stink and are dangerous.
And you forgot the 7.5% social security tax, the state income tax 2.8%, the
city wage tax 3.8%, the state sales tax 6%, the city sales tax 1%. Plus
health insurance, outrageous car insurance, and tuition for private school,
not to mention the abysmal city services. Even our black Democratic mayor
(John Street) agrees that the tax rates are too high to sustain a viable
city. No business wants to move or stay here. We've lost 10% of our
population in the last 10 years, mostly tax payers by the way. Septa (i.e.
public transportation) just raised its rates to the highest in the country,
along with San Diego. Our universities, Penn, Temple, and Drexel are some
of the most dangerous in the country. Even after Penn only counted the
crimes that actually took place on university property, i.e. not on the
sidewalk outside of one of their buildings. We are building new stadiums
for our sports teams though. So all the season ticket holders who live in
the suburbs should still have a good time. "Comfortable" indeed.
I won't comment on your analysis of housing in Philadelphia other than to
say you don't know what you're talking about.
Bayle
Bayle <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in article
<01c113ce$765112e0$14541cd0@ilzyausv>...
Ironically, when I finished posting this I saw Chris Matthews and
Christopher Hitchens on Hardball. Matthews, who has Phila (Catholic school,
grew up not far from me) and SF connections, and who also worked for Carter
and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neil, said that Americans were over-taxed
and that when all was said and done the rate was about 50%. Matthews
argued that the US shouldn't be like the northern European countries and
attempted to get Hitchens to agree. Hitchens wasn't buying it, though he
did seem to think that it depended on what you got for your taxes. He used
the UK as an example suggesting that the national health system and the BBC
made high tax rates worthwhile, as opposed to SDI.
Paul Sebastianelli
Bayle wrote in message <01c113ce$765112e0$14541cd0@ilzyausv>...
OK, yes, I admit it. I do not stand to attention when they play
God save the King.
>Emotions that are shared by the Indians owning the 7-11 on my
>corner, the Koreans who owned the little store in my old neighborhood to
>make extra money so that their kids could go to college, and the Chinese,
>Ukrainian and Russian Jewish immigrant parents who scrimp and save and
>sacrifice so that they can afford to send their kids to private school
>because the public schools stink and are dangerous.
Hey, c'mon, I know some immigrants...some of my favourite
people are immigrants...some of them scrimped and saved
so I wouldn't stink and be dangerous.
What really stinks is your implication that I'm denying immigrants
their aspirations.
>And you forgot the 7.5% social security tax, the state income tax 2.8%, the
>city wage tax 3.8%, the state sales tax 6%, the city sales tax 1%.
And I allowed an extra $18,000 for those things. Calculating those
taxes in still leaves us above $5K a month. (7% sales tax? Ours
is 15%. And the 2.8% state tax would be an 11.16% provincial
tax. Your taxes are low low low!)
> Plus
>health insurance, outrageous car insurance, and tuition for private school,
>not to mention the abysmal city services. Even our black Democratic mayor
>(John Street) agrees that the tax rates are too high to sustain a viable
>city. No business wants to move or stay here. We've lost 10% of our
>population in the last 10 years, mostly tax payers by the way. Septa (i.e.
>public transportation) just raised its rates to the highest in the country,
>along with San Diego. Our universities, Penn, Temple, and Drexel are some
>of the most dangerous in the country. Even after Penn only counted the
>crimes that actually took place on university property, i.e. not on the
>sidewalk outside of one of their buildings. We are building new stadiums
>for our sports teams though. So all the season ticket holders who live in
>the suburbs should still have a good time. "Comfortable" indeed.
Again, we're talking about people making twice the median income.
I hope there are food banks for these people to go to?
>I won't comment on your analysis of housing in Philadelphia other than to
>say you don't know what you're talking about.
No, I don't. But I would hardly call my post an "analysis
of housing." I merely did a web search. I used the
following sites for my info:
http://www.philly.com/packages/homes/OVER29.asp
http://www.relocationcentral.com/directory/us/pa/philadelphia/moreinfo.html#
DEMOGRAPHICS
They seem to confirm what I said, as does your statistic that
10% of the population has left. Surefire recipe for low house
prices - sounds a lot like Montreal.
paul.
Paul Sebastianelli
Bayle wrote in message <01c113dd$9edf0280$14541cd0@ilzyausv>...
That's very funny because our two national papers have
been very loudly beating a drum about a 'problem' they've
termed the "brain drain." That is, our best and brightest
are fleeing the country for the US and their higher incomes
and much lower taxes.
>and that when all was said and done the rate was about 50%. Matthews
>argued that the US shouldn't be like the northern European countries and
>attempted to get Hitchens to agree. Hitchens wasn't buying it, though he
>did seem to think that it depended on what you got for your taxes. He used
>the UK as an example suggesting that the national health system and the BBC
>made high tax rates worthwhile, as opposed to SDI.
He's right, IMO.
paul.
Greg-Orang-utan
Bayle wrote in message <01c113ce$765112e0$14541cd0@ilzyausv>...
I hope it isn't Alan doing these things, he seems so well mannered online.
Martha Bridegam
Greg-Orang-utan wrote:
> Bayle wrote in message <01c113ce$765112e0$14541cd0@ilzyausv>...
> ... Our universities, Penn, Temple, and Drexel are some
> >of the most dangerous in the country. Even after Penn only counted the
> >crimes that actually took place on university property, i.e. not on the
> >sidewalk outside of one of their buildings.
>
> I hope it isn't Alan doing these things, he seems so well mannered online.
No damage done when he was out here, so unless the Penn crime rate mysteriously
plunged in early June, I doubt it highly. ;--)
/MAB
Alan Allport
news:3B5D16DA...@pacbell.net...
> > ... Our universities, Penn, Temple, and Drexel are some
> > >of the most dangerous in the country. Even after Penn only counted the
> > >crimes that actually took place on university property, i.e. not on the
> > >sidewalk outside of one of their buildings.
> >
> > I hope it isn't Alan doing these things, he seems so well mannered
online.
>
> No damage done when he was out here, so unless the Penn crime rate
mysteriously
> plunged in early June, I doubt it highly. ;--)
I think a word in defense of my employer may be in order.
Penn's crime statistics (now with an expanded definition of campus
geographical boundaries because of the old cooking-the-books that Bayle
describes) are located at
http://www.upenn.edu/almanac/between/safetyreport2001.html#t1. In 2000 there
were 2 reported rapes, 45 robberies, 11 aggravated assaults and 55 simple
assaults. I don't know by what factor one is supposed to multiply these to
take into account unreported incidents, but given the size of population and
environment in which Penn operates I think this reflects a manageable risk.
There hasn't been a homicide on campus since 1998, something I think many
north-eastern inner-city neighbourhoods wish they could boast.
Alan.
Bayle
>
> Again, we're talking about people making twice the median income.
> I hope there are food banks for these people to go to?
We may have more in common than it seems. You focus on twice the median
income. I focus on the fact that twice the median income is not that much
(remember there are two full time wage earners in my example and I forgot
to mention child care). Which suggests that the median income is too low.
And that those living on the median have severely limited opportunities.
My example used a level that an average person could reasonably aspire to.
That is the hidden or untalked about problem in American. While
Clinton-Gore talked up our great economic expansion the average person (not
to mention the poorly educated, underskilled person) was screwed. Not
because they didn't have a slightly higher paying job, in the short term,
but because the train had left the station. Unless they upgrade their
education and skills the average person is doomed in the new global
economy. We are clearly developing a two class society.
The ironic thing is that for most people with skills and/or good
educations, $100,000 (remember $50,000 times 2) is low. I'm not suggesting
that this makes sense, or ought to be the case, only that it is the case.
Obviously many of us make lifestyle choices. (I realize that not everyone
has the choice) We choose to practice our skills in environments or ways
which minimize our incomes. Suppose you had a two-wage earner family, say a
lawyer and a computer whiz. Figure the odds of earning less than $100,000
thousand a year unless you really tried. I remember once writing a grant
where my salary as a computer guy was almost twice that of my best friend
who had the equivalent of two PhDs and was a professor. It was
embarrassing.
My point is that most of the world is trying to make the best lives for
themselves and their families that they can. For those with good educations
and moderate ambition a $100,000 family income is chump change. Something
you do when you're young and starting out. For others it is something they
work and fight and unionize for. They aren't rich or greedy.
Notice I'm not saying that those working at Wal-Mart, or as waitresses,
etc., for whom the100k is out of reach, aren't getting screwed. They are.
Consider the following from a 1991 analysis (best I could find on short
search). Ten years old and pre-"greatest economic expansion in US history".
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-162.html
The BART
offer would bring drivers' salaries to $48,000, janitors' to
$36,000, and mechanics' to $53,000 per year; benefits, which
add to the total compensation, would remain at 51 percent of
wages and salaries, so that drivers would be compensated at
more than $70,000, janitors at more than $50,000, and me-
chanics at $80,000 annually.(38)
Figure 6
Annual Compensation of Full-Time Employees, 1988
U.S. Nonsupervisory $24,849
Average U.S. $28,790
With 4 or more
Years of College $37,656
Transit Bus Driver $41,662
Transit Employee $49,009
Derived from Statistical Abstract of the United States and UMTA
section 15 report, 1988.
Paul Sebastianelli
Bayle wrote in message <01c11452$e8d2fde0$06541cd0@ilzyausv>...
>Paul Sebastianelli <p.se...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
><lh677.14799$eY6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>>
>> Again, we're talking about people making twice the median income.
>> I hope there are food banks for these people to go to?
>
>We may have more in common than it seems. You focus on twice the median
>income. I focus on the fact that twice the median income is not that much
Yes, it is. It is a lot. Let me give you some alternate examples.
I know two sets of people in this situation, making slightly less,
and paying much higher taxes. One is 37, house nearly paid
off, and with an obscene amount of savings. Retirement by 45 is
possible.
The other had his house paid off when he was 34.
I can not and will not feel sorry for anyone in that income bracket.
>(remember there are two full time wage earners in my example and I forgot
>to mention child care). Which suggests that the median income is too low.
>And that those living on the median have severely limited opportunities.
>
>My example used a level that an average person could reasonably aspire to.
>That is the hidden or untalked about problem in American. While
>Clinton-Gore talked up our great economic expansion the average person (not
>to mention the poorly educated, underskilled person) was screwed. Not
>because they didn't have a slightly higher paying job, in the short term,
>but because the train had left the station. Unless they upgrade their
>education and skills the average person is doomed in the new global
>economy. We are clearly developing a two class society.
"Developing"!?! Are you for real?
>The ironic thing is that for most people with skills and/or good
>educations, $100,000 (remember $50,000 times 2) is low. I'm not suggesting
>that this makes sense, or ought to be the case, only that it is the case.
>Obviously many of us make lifestyle choices. (I realize that not everyone
>has the choice) We choose to practice our skills in environments or ways
>which minimize our incomes. Suppose you had a two-wage earner family, say a
>lawyer and a computer whiz. Figure the odds of earning less than $100,000
>thousand a year unless you really tried. I remember once writing a grant
>where my salary as a computer guy was almost twice that of my best friend
>who had the equivalent of two PhDs and was a professor. It was
>embarrassing.
>
>My point is that most of the world is trying to make the best lives for
>themselves and their families that they can.
And it seems that you have said this more than once, and only
in reference to making more money. That is a rather narrow
definition of "making the best lives for themselves." First, and
this is obvious, there is much more to achieving a quality of
life than always wanting more money. Second, you made a
reference earlier implying that immigrants come with the dream
of making $100,000 (so they can scrape by, apparently). In my
experience, people do not immigrate here so that they can
strike it rich and be a two car family in a large house. That is, IMO,
a classic American myth. Security - both physical and economic -
is probably the main reason. Economic security usually means
an escape from poverty, or something near it, and an escape
from a cycle. The poverty line in America is @ $16,000 and I'll
bet dollars to doughnuts that a lot of immigrants live on less than that.
I'll also bet that their dreams are much more modest than
$100,000.
Anybody struggling to surnvive at $84,000 above the poverty line
needs to simplify or lump it.
paul.
Gene Zitver
>Anybody struggling to surnvive at $84,000 above the poverty line
>needs to simplify or lump it.
May I suggest to Paul and Bayle that one reason for your different perceptions
is that Canada has national health insurance, better and more universal social
services and, on the whole, better public schools than the USA. Which means
that Americans have to pay out-of-pocket for a lot of things that Canadians get
as public services.
Just a possibility.
Gene
Paul Sebastianelli
Gene Zitver wrote in message
<20010724131225...@ng-df1.aol.com>...
Yes, I had thought of that, Gene, but I believe that it is balanced out
by the higher taxes that we pay in Canada. Not to mention
higher consumer prices (ie -gas is currently at abt 65 cents a litre,
down 15 cents from last summer). And if that doesn't balance it out,
and I think it does, than certainly the fact that both cop and teacher
would belong to a union and therefore would likely have health insurance
and so on, does.
You know, what bothers me is that the cop and his wife are living
high off the hog, and are still complaining that it is "inadequate."
And that is what I call, if asked, greedy.
SUV sales have risen to a 21% share of all automobile sales.
Those are expensive vehicles. Considering that, according to
Bayle, Mr and Mrs. Cop are in the top 10% of incomes, it seems
likely that they have one, amongst their other cars. Perhaps they
should do us, and themselves, a favour and sell it?
And so on.
paul.
Bayle
Paul Sebastianelli <p.se...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<Esj77.16455$eY6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>
> Gene Zitver wrote in message
> <20010724131225...@ng-df1.aol.com>...
> >Paul Sebastianelli wrote
> >
> >>Anybody struggling to surnvive at $84,000 above the poverty line
> >>needs to simplify or lump it.
> >
Of course your number is ridiculous. First the poverty line is absurdly
low. Politicians refuse to change it because they didn't want it to appear
that there was a big increase in poverty on their watch. If Clinton had any
guts he would have changed it during his second term so that the country
would have a better idea of the dimensions of the problem. And if Clinton,
that great friend of the poor, wouldn't do it, why should Bush do it?
Second, I'm talking about a family of four with two full time wage earners.
The median income for married-couple households with kids is 60,296 in the
1999 census. That for female headed households with kids is 22,418.
Related to this I looked up the poverty line on the web.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/population_below_poverty
_line.html
UK - 17% below
US - 12.9% below (est 1999)
US - 11.8% actual from
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty99/pov99hi.html
Canada - NA
What's the deal with this? You don't let the CIA operate in Canada? Or are
there no poor people up north?
Further research turned up an interesting article.
http://www.ncwcnbes.net/htmdocument/reportnewpovline/newpovline.html
According to this Canada in 1996 has either 17.9% or 13.5% below the
poverty line has depending on how it's calculated.
Also, it suggests that a family of four in an city over 500,000 have a low
income cut off of about $32,000 a year. I not sure what this means in terms
of Canadian versus US dollars. Does it mean that Canada's poverty line is
higher than the US's?
> >May I suggest to Paul and Bayle that one reason for your different
> perceptions
> >is that Canada has national health insurance, better and more universal
> social
> >services and, on the whole, better public schools than the USA. Which
means
> >that Americans have to pay out-of-pocket for a lot of things that
Canadians
> get
> >as public services.
Thanks Gene, I think you have a very good point here. Not that it will have
any effect on Paul ;-)
> Yes, I had thought of that, Gene, but I believe that it is balanced out
> by the higher taxes that we pay in Canada. Not to mention
> higher consumer prices (ie -gas is currently at abt 65 cents a litre,
> down 15 cents from last summer). And if that doesn't balance it out,
> and I think it does, than certainly the fact that both cop and teacher
> would belong to a union and therefore would likely have health insurance
> and so on, does.
>
> You know, what bothers me is that the cop and his wife are living
> high off the hog, and are still complaining that it is "inadequate."
> And that is what I call, if asked, greedy.
> SUV sales have risen to a 21% share of all automobile sales.
> Those are expensive vehicles. Considering that, according to
> Bayle, Mr and Mrs. Cop are in the top 10% of incomes, it seems
> likely that they have one, amongst their other cars. Perhaps they
> should do us, and themselves, a favour and sell it?
>
> And so on.
>
I certainly agree with you about the way people spend their money
(especially cars), but it's also true of the poor. I used to live in a
neighborhood where the 5 year olds wore $150 leather "8-ball" jackets,
every home had Nintendo games and cable TV, and there wasn't a book in the
house. Still I don't feel its up to me, or the government, to tell them how
to spend their money (one of the reasons I'm for tax cuts), even though I
know it would improve the lives of their families and the society as a
whole.
Bayle
Alan Allport <all...@ee.upenn.edu> wrote in article
<9jk1ar$475$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
Did you know that one of the ways that Penn attempted to create a low crime
zone around the university was to give out low or no interest loans to
members of the Penn community in an attempt to create a buffer zone between
the campus and the poorer areas of west Phila? It worked for a while though
causing a lot of community resentment. I have many friends who lived there
for years, before being forced out by crime fatigue in the late 80s early
90s.
Unfortunately with these memories in mind I'm slightly skeptical of Penn's
numbers. I hope you're right. I wonder if it includes crime in the area
between 38th and 48th street say? If a student gets killed walking to his
apartment? What about if a local kid is murdered at a nearby deli over a
pair of sneakers (which happened once IIRC)?
See. http://www.philly.com/packages/citycrime96/types.asp
Though the stats are 1996 the worst neighborhoods are those every local
would predict. Penn (and Temple and Drexel) is either in them or borders
them (the dark areas). I find it hard to believe they've improved that
much.
Plus even the Phila police rigged the books.
I would be interested to know what the impressions of the old guard at Penn
are? What about the Penn professor who wrote the "Code of the Street" or
something like that?
I'm not sure how Penn stacks up against other north-eastern inner-city
neighbourhoods. I do know that when I spent a summer working at UCL in
London in the early 90s, I was told that I could basically go anywhere in
London at any time and not worry about having any problems. Something I
would never do in Phila. It was a very nice feeling. I hope it hasn't
changed. Has it?
John Rennie
"Gene Zitver" <gzi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010724131225...@ng-df1.aol.com...
Which is why, as Gore Vidal often puts it, Americans are, in fact, the most
highly taxed citizens in the world. They may pay out less than the
average European (or Canadian) but they do not receive the same benefits.
John Rennie
"Paul Sebastianelli" <p.se...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Esj77.16455$eY6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
. . and they cant afford to send their child to a decent school? They
appear to be stuck with what we call the State school. If more taxes were
paid, perhaps these schools would be better.
Paul Sebastianelli
John Rennie wrote in message <9jkvv7$ig8$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Good point, John. Perhaps if their schools were better
they'd be able to figure that out. ;-)
paul.
Bayle
John Rennie <Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote in article
<9jkvv7$ig8$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
If you're in a big city the tuition is about $10,000 to $15,000 per student
per year. (non-parochial that is. Like the kind of school Chelsea went to.)
>They
> appear to be stuck with what we call the State school. If more taxes
were
> paid, perhaps these schools would be better.
Maybe but it's unlikely, under the current system. In the Phila school
system about 90% of the schools in the city have 90% of their students
unable to pass basic reading and math tests at the appropriate grade level.
The other 10% are where the cherry-pickers send their kids and then say
they support public education. If they really supported it, they would put
their kids in a lottery that assigned kids to schools at random. Then we'd
see how many really supported the public schools? Ironically, for purposes
of integration, there is a big fight about the black/white ratios in the
city schools. The problem is that there aren't enough non-minority kids to
go around. They've voted with their feet. There is nothing in the world as
screwed up as an American urban school district. And the politicians refuse
to be honest with the parents and tell them that their kids are doomed
unless they get out of the average city schools. In my view it's by far the
biggest problem the US faces, which is why Bush was given the benefit of
the doubt by many voters. After all, in a time of unprecedented prosperity,
Clinton did nothing.
Paul Sebastianelli
Bayle wrote in message <01c11488$7dbf95a0$03541cd0@ilzyausv>...
>
>
>Paul Sebastianelli <p.se...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
><Esj77.16455$eY6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>>
>> Gene Zitver wrote in message
>> <20010724131225...@ng-df1.aol.com>...
>> >Paul Sebastianelli wrote
>> >
>> >>Anybody struggling to surnvive at $84,000 above the poverty line
>> >>needs to simplify or lump it.
>> >
>
>Of course your number is ridiculous. First the poverty line is absurdly
>low. Politicians refuse to change it because they didn't want it to appear
>that there was a big increase in poverty on their watch.
Agreed.
If Clinton had any
>guts he would have changed it during his second term so that the country
>would have a better idea of the dimensions of the problem. And if Clinton,
>that great friend of the poor, wouldn't do it, why should Bush do it?
>Second, I'm talking about a family of four with two full time wage earners.
So am I, Bayle, so am I. The poverty line in 1996 was $7,995
for a single person, $10,233 for two, and $16,036 for four.
Noted left wing economist recommends raising that to
$26K. That still leaves Mr. and Mrs. Copteacher living it up
at 4x the poverty line.
>The median income for married-couple households with kids is 60,296 in the
>1999 census. That for female headed households with kids is 22,418.
>
>Related to this I looked up the poverty line on the web.
>http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/population_below_povert
y
>_line.html
>
>UK - 17% below
>US - 12.9% below (est 1999)
>US - 11.8% actual from
>http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty99/pov99hi.html
>Canada - NA
>
>What's the deal with this? You don't let the CIA operate in Canada?
No, we're too obedient. ;-)
>Further research turned up an interesting article.
>http://www.ncwcnbes.net/htmdocument/reportnewpovline/newpovline.html
>
>According to this Canada in 1996 has either 17.9% or 13.5% below the
>poverty line has depending on how it's calculated.
And who's doing the calculating. 17% is the number I am more
familiar with.
>Also, it suggests that a family of four in an city over 500,000 have a low
>income cut off of about $32,000 a year. I not sure what this means in terms
>of Canadian versus US dollars. Does it mean that Canada's poverty line is
>higher than the US's?
Yes, it does.
Coincidentally, there was a report released today
by the right-wing think tank The Fraser Institute suggesting that
the poverty line in Canada is much too high and we could halve
that poverty rate to 8%, if only we lower the poverty line to $19k
($21K in Toronto).
A touching solution.
>> You know, what bothers me is that the cop and his wife are living
>> high off the hog, and are still complaining that it is "inadequate."
>> And that is what I call, if asked, greedy.
>> SUV sales have risen to a 21% share of all automobile sales.
>> Those are expensive vehicles. Considering that, according to
>> Bayle, Mr and Mrs. Cop are in the top 10% of incomes, it seems
>> likely that they have one, amongst their other cars. Perhaps they
>> should do us, and themselves, a favour and sell it?
>>
>> And so on.
>>
>
>I certainly agree with you about the way people spend their money
>(especially cars), but it's also true of the poor. I used to live in a
>neighborhood where the 5 year olds wore $150 leather "8-ball" jackets,
>every home had Nintendo games and cable TV, and there wasn't a book in the
>house.
Are you comparing a $150 jacket to a $30,000 SUV? Come on.
Even proportionately, they're not even close. And while leather
is damaging to the environment, the SUV is downright gruesome.
I don't know what the smog is like in Philly, but it's killing people
up here. Those vehicles are greed personified.
paul.
Bayle
Paul Sebastianelli <p.se...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<e4p77.17854$eY6.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>
> Bayle wrote in message <01c11488$7dbf95a0$03541cd0@ilzyausv>...
> >
>
> >Further research turned up an interesting article.
> >http://www.ncwcnbes.net/htmdocument/reportnewpovline/newpovline.html
> >
> >According to this Canada in 1996 has either 17.9% or 13.5% below the
> >poverty line has depending on how it's calculated.
>
> And who's doing the calculating. 17% is the number I am more
> familiar with.
>
The link above, from the National Council on Welfare. In Canada judging
from the Maple Leaf. The article seems pretty good on the issues involved.
Can't say where their political leanings are.
> >Also, it suggests that a family of four in an city over 500,000 have a
low
> >income cut off of about $32,000 a year. I not sure what this means in
terms
> >of Canadian versus US dollars. Does it mean that Canada's poverty line
is
> >higher than the US's?
>
> Yes, it does.
> Coincidentally, there was a report released today
> by the right-wing think tank The Fraser Institute suggesting that
> the poverty line in Canada is much too high and we could halve
> that poverty rate to 8%, if only we lower the poverty line to $19k
> ($21K in Toronto).
> A touching solution.
I agree. If they doubled it. then my hypothetical example would only be 2x
the poverty level and then I'm sure you would agree with me ;-)
> Are you comparing a $150 jacket to a $30,000 SUV? Come on.
> Even proportionately, they're not even close.
I agree with you on SUVs, an obsession of yours I detect ;-)
But even so I'm not sure that you're right. The jacket was worn by a five
year old, who could probably fit into it for about 6 months. His parents
had very little money as far as I could tell. It was conspicuous
consumption of the worst kind IMHO, by someone who could ill afford it, not
to mention his $80 Nikes. The SUVs, no matter how bad they are, provide
safe transportation for many years (assuming they don't roll over of
course). Though I do agree that someone wearing the jacket won't kill you
if they run into your Ford Escort (though I'm not sure I could say the same
for a Pinto). And in my experience, SUV owners, especially the soccer mom
families who own two, can usually afford them. After all they do provide
them with protection while they drive around talking on their cell phones.
Martha Bridegam
Bayle wrote:
> ...
>
> > Are you comparing a $150 jacket to a $30,000 SUV? Come on.
> > Even proportionately, they're not even close.
>
> I agree with you on SUVs, an obsession of yours I detect ;-)
>
> But even so I'm not sure that you're right. The jacket was worn by a five
> year old, who could probably fit into it for about 6 months. His parents
> had very little money as far as I could tell. It was conspicuous
> consumption of the worst kind IMHO, by someone who could ill afford it, not
> to mention his $80 Nikes. The SUVs, no matter how bad they are, provide
> safe transportation for many years (assuming they don't roll over of
> course). Though I do agree that someone wearing the jacket won't kill you
> if they run into your Ford Escort (though I'm not sure I could say the same
> for a Pinto). And in my experience, SUV owners, especially the soccer mom
> families who own two, can usually afford them. After all they do provide
> them with protection while they drive around talking on their cell phones.
"...The basis of their diet, therefore, is white bread and margarine, corned
beef, sugared tea and potatoes -- an appalling diet. Would it not be better if
they spent more money on wholesome things like oranges and wholemeal bread or
if they even, like the writer of the letter to the __New Statesman__, saved on
fuel and ate their carrots raw? Yes, it would, but the point is that no
ordinary human being is ever going to do such a thing. The ordinary human
being would sooner starve than live on brown bread and raw carrots. And the
peculiar evil is this, that the less money you have, the less inclined you
feel to spend it on wholesome food. A millionaire may enjoy breakfasting off
orange juice and Ryvita biscuits; an unemployed man doesn't. Here the tendency
of which I spoke at the end of the last chapter comes into play. When you are
unemployed, which is to say when you are underfed, harassed, bored and
miserable, you don't *want* to eat dull wholesome food. You want something a
little bit 'tasty'. There is always some cheaply pleasant thing to tempt you.
Let's have three pennorth of chips! Run out and buy us a twopenny ice cream!
Put the kettle on and we'll all have a nice cup of tea! *That* is how your
mind works when you are at the PAC [Public Assistance Committee] level. White
bread-and-marg. and sugared tea don't nourish you to any extent, but they are
*nicer* (at least most people think so) than brown bread-and-dripping and cold
water. Unemployment is an endless misery that has got to be constantly
palliated..."
c/o MAB
Bayle
Martha Bridegam <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
<3B5E539E...@pacbell.net>...
Thanks. It reminds me of a friend who told me that the poor will only stop
making decisions and choices that hurt them (i.e. make decisions like the
middle class) when they become middle class. I never understood it at the
time, but Orwell seems to be making a similar point.
Paul Sebastianelli
Bayle wrote in message <01c114e9$10f965c0$30541cd0@ilzyausv>...
That's not true. The middle class' conspicuous mass
consumption is the very reason that people cannot
live on $100,000 a year, and constitutes, IMO, much more
harmful choices.
paul.
Alan Allport
news:01c11491$c6359ba0$03541cd0@ilzyausv...
> Did you know that one of the ways that Penn attempted to create a low
crime
> zone around the university was to give out low or no interest loans to
> members of the Penn community in an attempt to create a buffer zone
between
> the campus and the poorer areas of west Phila?
I do. Indeed, I may take up the offer myself one day. I'm not sure what you
mean by saying "it worked for a while"; it's still a popular program, a
significant perk of working for the Red & Blue, in fact. The complaint from
some of the older residents of the neighbourhood is not that it hasn't
improved conditions, but ironically that 'Penntrification' is taking place.
(Personally I think if any neighbourhood needed a dollop of gentification it
was West Philadelphia, but there you go).
> Unfortunately with these memories in mind I'm slightly skeptical of Penn's
> numbers. I hope you're right. I wonder if it includes crime in the area
> between 38th and 48th street say? If a student gets killed walking to his
> apartment? What about if a local kid is murdered at a nearby deli over a
> pair of sneakers (which happened once IIRC)?
The University Police actively patrol from Market Street to Baltimore Avenue
and from the Schuylkill River to 43rd Street in conjunction with the
Philadelphia Police. (I currently live a few blocks west of this area but am
moving to 43rd Street in September, though this has nothing to do with
campus crime). I know that the crime stats include *anyone* in that area,
not just those affiliated with Penn - and the roughly rectangular zone
described above contains a significant portion of private housing.
> I'm not sure how Penn stacks up against other north-eastern inner-city
> neighbourhoods. I do know that when I spent a summer working at UCL in
> London in the early 90s, I was told that I could basically go anywhere in
> London at any time and not worry about having any problems. Something I
> would never do in Phila. It was a very nice feeling. I hope it hasn't
> changed. Has it?
I think you're exaggerating the danger at Penn a wee bit (and drastically
underestimating the danger in London - there are areas through which you
should definitely not wander at certain times of the day if you're not very
sure of what you're doing). Anecdotally I can tell you that there's a lot of
petty theft around here, isand the local storekeepers have to worry a bit
about robbery, but on the whole serious crime is unusual - which is why it
causes such a stir when it happens (and apparently gives people the
impression that it's a day-to-day occurance). Much the same as I remember
from Britain, in fact.
Alan.
Greg-Orang-utan
Alan Allport wrote in message <9jmire$gnh$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>"Bayle" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:01c11491$c6359ba0$03541cd0@ilzyausv...
>
>> Did you know that one of the ways that Penn attempted to create a low
>crime
>> zone around the university was to give out low or no interest loans to
>> members of the Penn community in an attempt to create a buffer zone
>between
>> the campus and the poorer areas of west Phila?
>
>I do. Indeed, I may take up the offer myself one day. I'm not sure what you
>mean by saying "it worked for a while"; it's still a popular program, a
>significant perk of working for the Red & Blue, in fact. The complaint from
>some of the older residents of the neighbourhood is not that it hasn't
>improved conditions, but ironically that 'Penntrification' is taking place.
Just curious as to how they are able to grant such loans - they have a deal
with a bank, or is it a deal with the local government like an already
tenanted land grant? Sounds like a pretty good deal either way, although it
sounds a bit peculiar - is it part of a lender's larger effort to move
properties once the Pennification occurs?
Alan Allport
news:9jmol9$5q1b$1...@ID-31858.news.dfncis.de...
> Just curious as to how they are able to grant such loans - they have a
deal
> with a bank, or is it a deal with the local government like an already
> tenanted land grant? Sounds like a pretty good deal either way, although
it
> sounds a bit peculiar - is it part of a lender's larger effort to move
> properties once the Pennification occurs?
I think there is some kind of deal with one of the local banks, yes.
Incidentally, it's not a no-interest loan (chance would be a fine thing);
the significance of the deal is that it provides a 100 per cent mortgage
plus a small additional percentage to take into account closing costs etc.,
plus grants-in-aid for maintenance and renovation - important when you're
talking about grand but shabby
Victorian three-storey townhouses. The house must be within a certain
geographical catchment area. Bayle's characterization of a 'buffer zone' is
perhaps overly cynical. The reason for the plan is to support the entire
neighbourhood by restoring vacant properties to ownership, boosting local
tax revenues, and so on. I'm sure there have been complaints that it's
ruining the 'character' of the place. So far as I can tell most of the
residents, long term and short, are happy to do with a bit less 'character'
if that means having your car window smashed in and your radio nicked.
I'm sure other Universities in not-so-great neighbourhoods (Yale comes to
mind) must have similar programs.
Alan.
Bayle
Paul Sebastianelli <p.se...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<WDw77.10550$A4.11...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
Well, I didn't agree with it, or even understand it when I first heard it.
But it came from someone with a deep sympathy for the poor, much like
Orwell, and knowledge of history. Unfortunately he is no longer alive, so
as I learn more he is not around to question. I think he based his opinions
on an argument by Mill in the 19th century. Maybe Tom remembers something
along these lines.
I'm sure the middle class does practice conspicuous consumption. However,
most people I know accept limits and plan so they can live well on what
they are able to earn. For example when we plan our family size, we assume
we will need a certain number of resources to give the kids what we think
they ought to have: good educations, safe neighborhoods, cultural
resources, nice vacations. Frankly I don't understand how a single parent
can support more than one child. And this limiting of families is something
that is happening throughout the world as it becomes more prosperous and
middle class, and probably with the emancipation of women. Most European
(developed??) countries have birth rates below replacement level.
For me the key concept, and Orwell's great strength, is to try to
understand and respect the emotions of the "ordinary" man. We both agree
that the rich are not ordinary. I believe that as more and more people move
into the middle class, and try and move into the middle class, that is
where ordinariness lies. (I hear the gasps of horror. Note that in the US
something like 70% of the people categorize themselves as middle class.)
Martha's quote above suggests that when attempting to make any social
change these "irrational" emotions of the "ordinary human being" need to be
taken into account.
Take two examples in the US on the relating to the difficult issue of race.
1. Busing - Forced busing for the purpose of school desegregation in the
early 1970s probably destroyed the left as well as American urban areas and
school systems. Irregardless of whether the busing opponents were racists,
no "ordinary" parent was going to allow their 6 year old to be bussed
across town for the purposes of a social experiment even if its intent was
social justice (as I only realized myself when I had kids). They would
rather leave the school or leave the city. They did both. Now the schools
are more segregated than ever.
2. Police - In Cincinnati the police (black and white) have been under
attack over the recent year. As "ordinary" human beings they have adopted
a policy they call "No Contact (?), No Complaint" in the minority areas.
They have stopped pulling over suspicious people and stopped doing the kind
of proactive police work that prevents crime because they are tired of
being attacked by certain members of the community. In the last month the
number of shootings is 78 (77 black on black IIRC) compared to about 9 a
year ago, The community is going nuts. They complain that the police aren't
earning their pay check and not doing their job. But how can we measure
whether they are doing their job. Count the number of people stopped in the
minority community? Isn't that racial profiling? (from a story on
Nightline, July 23)
Bayle
Alan Allport <all...@ee.upenn.edu> wrote in article
<9jmpef$kbi$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
Me cynical? No way ;-)
Actually my characterization came from my friends who were long term
residents and resented what Penn was doing because they felt it was racist
(some of this was in the mid 80s). They compared Penn's actions unfavorably
with Temple, which they felt was working with the community. (I think we
know whose strategy was right.) They also complained of the
'Penntrification', though not using the word. I should have made clear that
I don't agree with most of this. I value Penn as an educational institution
and have sat in on quite a few courses there. I just find it ironic when a
bastion of political correctness and the liberal elites, uses these kind of
tactics to create their private oasis in the desert. It's like building a
country club in the middle of Phila for members only.
I may not be correct, but isn't it possible that when the program started,
the loans were no-interest to professors say? That area wasn't very
tempting to live in the mid 70s IIRC. And I don't know if you know, but
Penn around 1970 wasn't the highly regarded institution we know and love
today. It was the poor man's Ivy at best. The place you went if you
couldn't get into Harvard, Yale or Princeton. Brown as well had a very poor
reputation. How things change.
Its also interesting that in the old days, 1920s or 30s I think, a Penn
education seemed to be available to the average citizen of Philadelphia
(with brains). Both my grandfather (an orphan) and a close friend of the
family attended Penn for a year or two but had to leave because they
couldn't afford the tuition. Penn also used to play a large part in the
entertainment of the local community. I've heard stories about how my
father used to go to Penn football games, even though he has no connection
to the university.
Alan Allport
> Actually my characterization came from my friends who were long term
> residents and resented what Penn was doing because they felt it was racist
> (some of this was in the mid 80s). They compared Penn's actions
unfavorably
> with Temple, which they felt was working with the community. (I think we
> know whose strategy was right.) They also complained of the
> 'Penntrification', though not using the word. I should have made clear
that
> I don't agree with most of this. I value Penn as an educational
institution
> and have sat in on quite a few courses there. I just find it ironic when a
> bastion of political correctness and the liberal elites, uses these kind
of
> tactics to create their private oasis in the desert. It's like building a
> country club in the middle of Phila for members only.
The received wisdom on this is that prior to Judith Rodin's Presidency (she
took over in about 1994 IIRC) Penn had operated with the fortress mentality
you describe. Since Judy's ascension to the throne the University has done
much more to integrate itself into the West Philadelphia community. I think
the results have paid off for everyone, Penntrification or not.
> I may not be correct, but isn't it possible that when the program started,
> the loans were no-interest to professors say?
No idea, though an interest-free mortgage sounds a bit extreme.
> That area wasn't very
> tempting to live in the mid 70s IIRC. And I don't know if you know, but
> Penn around 1970 wasn't the highly regarded institution we know and love
> today. It was the poor man's Ivy at best. The place you went if you
> couldn't get into Harvard, Yale or Princeton. Brown as well had a very
poor
> reputation. How things change.
Hey, we're the "Social Ivy" - or, alternatively, the Smart Kid's Safety
School ...
> Its also interesting that in the old days, 1920s or 30s I think, a Penn
> education seemed to be available to the average citizen of Philadelphia
> (with brains). Both my grandfather (an orphan) and a close friend of the
> family attended Penn for a year or two but had to leave because they
> couldn't afford the tuition. Penn also used to play a large part in the
> entertainment of the local community. I've heard stories about how my
> father used to go to Penn football games, even though he has no connection
> to the university.
We pretty much suck at football, though we have a half-way decent basketball
varsity squad - not bad considering the caliber of the local opposition
(Temple, St. Joe's, etc.)
Alan.
Bayle
Alan Allport <all...@ee.upenn.edu> wrote in article
<9jn28r$vbg$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
> We pretty much suck at football, though we have a half-way decent
basketball
> varsity squad - not bad considering the caliber of the local opposition
> (Temple, St. Joe's, etc.)
>
You obviously don't know about the glory days of the big 5, once the
basketball capital of the US. For Philadelphians, like England in 1966.
I was a big Penn fan in the old days. Personal knowledge of bogus
recruiting and spoiled "student-athletes" (including some of the members of
your team) have soured me on college athletics. I much prefer international
soccer where the corruption doesn't seem to have as many serious side
effects (like high schools full of illiterate basketball players), at least
to an ignorant American.
Speaking of which, does it seem to anyone else that some of the
demonstrators at these economic summits are like football (soccer)
hooligans ?
Alan Allport
> You obviously don't know about the glory days of the big 5, once the
> basketball capital of the US. For Philadelphians, like England in 1966.
?
Perhaps some misunderstanding - I was praising the high quality of Philly's
college basketball teams, not disparaging them.
Alan.
Tom Deveson
> I think he based his opinions
>on an argument by Mill in the 19th century. Maybe Tom remembers something
>along these lines.
The bit of Mill I might, somewhat tangentially, want to recall here is
the passage in the *Autobiography* where he explains how his
individualism was deepened and refined into something that would "class
us decidedly under the general designation of Socialists. While we
repudiated with the greatest energy that tyranny of society over the
individual which most Socialistic systems are supposed to involve [Mill
is writing about the 1840s], we yet looked forward to a time when
society will no longer be divided into the idle and the industrious;
when the rule that they who do not work shall not eat, will be applied
not to paupers only, but impartially to all; when the division of the
produce of labour, instead of depending, as in so great a degree it now
does, on the accident of birth, will be made by concert on an
acknowledged principle of justice; and when it will no longer either be,
or be thought to be, impossible for human beings to exert themselves
strenuously in procuring benefits which are not to be exclusively their
own, but to be shared with the society they belong to..."
Or perhaps this from Mill's essay [1840] on Coleridge:
"...But we say that when the State allows anyone to exercise ownership
over more land than suffices to raise by his own labour his subsistence
and that of his family, it confers on him power over other human beings
-- power affecting them in their most vital interests; and that no
notion of private property can bar the right which the State inherently
possesses, to require that the power which it has so given shall not be
abused...we gratefully bear testimony to the fact, that the first among
us who has given the sanction of philosophy to so great a reform in the
popular and current notions, is a Conservative philosopher.
[i.e.Coleridge]"
Tom
--
Tom Deveson
Bayle
Tom Deveson <a...@devesons.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<gyQx5FAy...@devesons.demon.co.uk>...
Who had swung away from the politics of his youth, as author of the
"Lyrical Ballads", to become highly religious thinker, so would say
reactionary. Is this right?
Is there anything to the fact that your Mill quotes are either before or
refer to events before 1848?
Does the Mill of the "Principles of Political Economy" (1848) share the
same views? What about his reaction to the events of 1848?
And would you know offhand what Marx thought about Mill's economic ideas,
specifically in "Theories of Surplus Value" (1861-63)?
Nice Mill resource (where maybe I can answer my own questions).
http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/mill.htm
Personal aside: You wouldn't have studied at Edinburgh would you Tom? You
strongly remind me of the friend I was talking about.
Tom Deveson
>Nice Mill resource (where maybe I can answer my own questions).
>http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/mill.htm
May I discourteously say that you'll probably get better answers there
at the moment than from me. As before, I'm playing truant here, and
shouldn't really be doing mischievous bits of Mill-snipping. But please
do tell us what you find.
>Personal aside: You wouldn't have studied at Edinburgh would you Tom? You
>strongly remind me of the friend I was talking about.
No, though I was visiting there a few weeks ago.
"Strongly remind..."? Hope that's OK.
Tom
--
Tom Deveson