rush limbaugh quotes
ground and pound
erin
"ground and pound" <butiwa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:babbb856.0301...@posting.google.com...
> http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaugh-debates-reality.html#sec1
It's a good idea to fact-check, and a website is an ideal place for that.
However, when accusing the speaker (Rush Limbaugh) of sloppy facts, the
writer should have provided some footnotes, maybe? For example, the
following section is highly questionable on both ends: the U.S. figure and
the European figure.
LIMBAUGH: "The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream
families of Europe." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93)
REALITY: Huh? The average cash income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans
is $5,226; the average cash income of four major European nations--Germany,
France, United Kingdom and Italy--is $19,708.
There are *so* many ways this could be wrong, and/or subject to
interpretation. I would love to know how they arrived at the figure for
poorest Americans, how current it is, and how subsidies and other
compensation are factored into the total. (WIC programs, for example, can
provide thousands of dollars in supplementary budget dollars for a
particular household.) Also, on the European figure, there is no mention of
"the poorest 20 percent," so does that number reflect the average for *all*
persons in the group (Germany, France, U.K. and Italy)?
I appreciate that critisism of Rush Limbaugh is something a lot of
'progressives' / 'liberals' want to see more of. But just because you want
to see something in print... doesn't make it true. And if the enemy is
dishonesty (or even unintentional untruth) then we've taken two steps
backward.
Cheers,
Erin
Barbara West
I was wondering the same thing about the poorest in the nation bit. Last
semester, I took a Social Inequality class. The figure for the poorest
Americans is inaccurate. The figure is closer to $9,000 in 2001. Even so,
the US still leads in the greatest gap between rich and poor.
Traci
"erin" <thevirt...@thevirtualimage.com> wrote in message
news:mAWS9.610292$P31.230237@rwcrnsc53...
erin
"Barbara West" <lun...@swva.net> wrote in message
news:avi1oq$50j5$1...@news3.infoave.net...
> Hi Erin,
>
> I was wondering the same thing about the poorest in the nation bit. Last
> semester, I took a Social Inequality class. The figure for the poorest
> Americans is inaccurate. The figure is closer to $9,000 in 2001. Even so,
> the US still leads in the greatest gap between rich and poor.
>
> Traci
Thanks very much. And I would stipulate to the statement about the gap.
However, I think it's possibly misleading, given the astronomical high
end -- it's obviously more likely that the nation w/ the highest earners
would be the one with the greatest gap. It doesn't mean the poorest are
living on the level of, say, North Koreans. In fact, I knew hippies in
Colorado who lived in the National Forest and probably made $2,000 a year...
and lived quite nicely. I think stated income on the census / irs records
can be misleading. For example, when I bartended in NYC I made loads of
cash tips, but very little on payroll. I lived very well in one of the most
expensive cities in the world -- with a nice little drug habit.
Whereas, the lowest earners in Bangladesh... fish in the sewer for din-din.
So that's a big difference.
Cheers,
Erin
Barbara West
> Thanks very much.
You're very welcome.
There is the occasional creative person who can live off of $2,000 a year,
but by no means is that the norm.
I'm generally pretty liberal when it comes to the poor. I've read too many
horror stories about children living in ghettos with toxic waste in their
backyard and several tooth abscesses due to lack of dental care (ie constant
pain), not enough books to go around in a classroom, classes where there are
no teachers at all due to lack of funding, etc.
There are three books in particular that have formed my view of the poor.
All are case studies of people living in ghettos in East St Louis, Chicago,
and I forget the other city. These are:
'There Are No Children Here" by Alex Kotlowitz
"The Naked Children" by Daniel Fader
"Savage Inequalities" (can't remember the author's name)
There are three ways to think about poverty.
1- Absolute poverty, in which a person cannot sustain a living.
2- Relative poverty, which would reflect your example of being poor in the
US vs being poor in Bangladesh.
3- Poverty which is defined by the government. In the US, the government
figures what it would cost to feed a family of however many 2, 3, 4 in one
month. They then triple that number and arrive at the poverty threshhold for
the number of people in that family.
I believe that it is the responsibility of the government to insure that ALL
of its consituents live a healthy, safe, and quality life, even if that
means high taxes. The US has one of the lowest tax rates of all
industrialized nations and we complain that we pay too much.
> For example, when I bartended in NYC I made loads of
> cash tips, but very little on payroll.
Been there, only I was waiting tables and cocktailing on the weekends. It's
amazing how much money you can make when you're blonde and flirt alot, even
with the women. :o)
> I lived very well in one of the most
> expensive cities in the world -- with a nice little drug habit.
Been there too, the drug habit bit. I don't drink or do any drugs now,
except the ones my shrink gives me. LOL
Traci
"erin" <thevirt...@thevirtualimage.com> wrote in message
news:TK0T9.1678$3v.273@sccrnsc01...
Arnie
>
> 3- Poverty which is defined by the government. In the US, the government
> figures what it would cost to feed a family of however many 2, 3, 4 in one
> month. They then triple that number and arrive at the poverty threshhold
for
> the number of people in that family.
Good point. I don't think people realize that a large part of people living
in poverty have 3 or more kids and are divorced with single incomes or on
welfare. Meanwhile companies are paying these people 10,000 dollars a year
to work 40 hours a week with little or no benefits because they think the
spouses can pick up the slack or they can go on food stamps. Raise minimum
wage and stop wasting money on tax cuts. 300 bucks from uncle Bush's tax
cut means much less to a poor family then affordable health care and higher
wages. Meanwhile the rich use their tax return on more jewelry and luxury
items. Way to stimulate the economy dubya.
>
> I believe that it is the responsibility of the government to insure that
ALL
> of its consituents live a healthy, safe, and quality life, even if that
> means high taxes. The US has one of the lowest tax rates of all
> industrialized nations and we complain that we pay too much.
I agree. I am all for paying higher taxes if it means getting health care
for the millions of people that don't have or can't afford insurance and
putting more money into education. College tuitions are soaring out of
control and we wonder why there are so few skilled workers available for
teaching or countless other vocations. All the while senior citizens are
voting down bills that would give more money to elementary and middle
schools so that they can get a fatter retirement check. And people like me
aren't going to the voting booth because we are so disillusioned by all the
lies and misinformation so we come on the internet and spout off to anyone
that will listen...but I guess things could be a lot worse. I could be a
refugee starving to death eating dirt and drinking polluted water while a
corrupt dictator spends all the wealth on more bombs guns and bitches.
G-Ride
> "Savage Inequalities" (can't remember the author's name)
Jonathan Kozol is the name of the author. Very good book.
--
Aloha, G-Ride
You can't never expect nothing to not happen.
|sebAstian|
"Arnie" <SlowMo{NOSPAM}@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:A72T9.96908$j8.24...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Barbara West" <lun...@swva.net> wrote in message
> news:avi7rd$54k5$1...@news3.infoave.net...
> >
> > 3- Poverty which is defined by the government. In the US, the government
> > figures what it would cost to feed a family of however many 2, 3, 4 in
one
> > month. They then triple that number and arrive at the poverty threshhold
> for
> > the number of people in that family.
>
> Good point. I don't think people realize that a large part of people
living
> in poverty have 3 or more kids and are divorced with single incomes or on
> welfare. Meanwhile companies are paying these people 10,000 dollars a year
> to work 40 hours a week
Who's fault is that? If you're making that little money, it means that
you're not qualified to make more, and if you are than you shouldn't be
working for so little in the first place! It's not the fault of the
"corperate pig" that you're not qualified to make more money, you should
have gone to school or become an entrapanuer.
> with little or no benefits because they think the
> spouses can pick up the slack or they can go on food stamps. Raise
minimum
> wage and stop wasting money on tax cuts.
I say destroy the minimum wage laws completly. Open up the market and let
people compete for large wages. Minimum wage laws do more harm for the
collective than not. If you're going to do a sub-standard job why do you
desearve $5.75 an hour? If people had to compete for wages they'd work
harder. The fact is that qualified people will not work for much less than
they're worth, if they're underpaid they will find better paying jobs.
Companies are in the business of making money, they wouldn't hire people to
do substandard jobs, they'd hire people who would do their jobs well, and
those people wouldn't work for less than they're worth. If you're not a
good worker, you don't desearve to make as much as a good worker. bottom
line.
>300 bucks from uncle Bush's tax
> cut means much less to a poor family then affordable health care and
higher
> wages. Meanwhile the rich use their tax return on more jewelry and luxury
> items. Way to stimulate the economy dubya.
Learn economics. the top 10% of this country's earners pays 65.7% of this
countries taxes. Who do you think *should* and *will* benefit from a tax
cut? You trust the government to tell us what we should and shouldn't do
with *our* money? It's our money, we're already over taxed because the
government impliments unconstitutional and failing social welfare programs,
it's not the affluent's job to take care of the poor. this is capitalism,
not socialism.
> > I believe that it is the responsibility of the government to insure that
> ALL
> > of its consituents live a healthy, safe, and quality life, even if that
> > means high taxes. The US has one of the lowest tax rates of all
> > industrialized nations and we complain that we pay too much.
>
> I agree. I am all for paying higher taxes if it means getting health care
> for the millions of people that don't have or can't afford insurance and
> putting more money into education.
move to sweeden. There is no health care crisis, the reason that 40 million
americans don't have health care is *because* we are taxed for health care,
if the government ended it's involvement with health care the crisis would
cease to exist. Education? You've never studied social issues have you?
Above standard private schools many times make less money per-student than
sub-standard public schools. The government shouldn't be involved with
things like this. Privatization will end both the health care and education
problems.
>College tuitions are soaring out of
> control
Really? Last time I checked CU in Boulder was still $2900 a year, almost
the same as it was four years ago. Cite me a source that says college
tuition rates are on a major incline and i'll gladly research and explain
why for you.
Not to mention affirmative action, which many times places people who aren't
qualified to be in good schools based soley on their race. Thus colleges
are becoming over crowded, and if the rates are on the rise, this is one of
the reasons.
>and we wonder why there are so few skilled workers available for
> teaching or countless other vocations. All the while senior citizens are
> voting down bills that would give more money to elementary and middle
> schools so that they can get a fatter retirement check. And people like
me
> aren't going to the voting booth because we are so disillusioned by all
the
> lies and misinformation so we come on the internet and spout off to anyone
> that will listen...but I guess things could be a lot worse. I could be a
> refugee starving to death eating dirt and drinking polluted water while a
> corrupt dictator spends all the wealth on more bombs guns and bitches.
or you could be in a socialist counrty...go, go live in sweeden and tell me
how you feel about paying 60% of your paycheck to taxes.
--
----
Sebastian
-The New Inquisitor
>
>
LocustSky
The "reality" piece is DIRECTLY correcting Limbaugh's statement.. nothing
more. Limbaugh stated that the poorest people here are better off the teh
mainstream (average) euro family. This, according to fair.org, is wrong and
it decribes exactly how. It gave you the income of poorest Americans. It
gave you teh income of the average Euro (or those 4 nations). One is
clearly bigger than the other - Limbaugh was wrong. Simple. How they
arrived at the income for the lowest 20% of the U.S., i don't know... so i
looked into it a bit to see if i can find something that would support this
claim. Here's something i came across -
http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/may99sklar.htm
specifically,
"The percentage of households with zero or negative net worth (greater debts
than assets) increased from 15.5 percent in 1983 to 18.5 percent in
1995-nearly one out of five households. That's nearly double the rate in
1962 when the comparable figure was 9.8 percent-one out of ten households.
The net worth of the poorest fifth of households averaged -$5,600 in 1997.
That's down from -$3,000 in 1983."
but this is worth.. not necessarily income.
another piece from teh same article worth considering...
"No wonder many low-income workers-including growing numbers of former
welfare recipients-can't make ends meet. Recent studies of former recipients
and those combining work and welfare have found they typically earn between
$8,000 and $10,800 annually. Most do not receive paid vacation, sick leave,
or health benefits from their employers. "
I highly recommed reading the entire article as it addresses points you made
(aid for poor).
another article
http://www.zmag.org/ZSustainers/ZDaily/2000-02/06albert.htm
fair.org's statement isn't proven, but it is reasonably consistent with
these articles here. I can't say its undeniably true, but its something to
think about and it raises many points we may have not thought about...
--
- LocustSky
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TÆ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
erin
"LocustSky" <Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net> wrote in message
news:XLbT9.1286$Dq.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
< snip >
LocustSky, I'm really starting to like you. I appreciate your point, and I
think we both have a lot of the same hopes, in our hearts. However, I
question these sources as critically as I question the utter lack of sources
in the anti-Rush piece. IMO fair.org and zmag.org, while very important
websites, have an agenda. They are not per se information / data / census
clearinghouses. I'm very reluctant to treat them as authoritative.
But I think I'll conceed the point.
Cheers,
Erin
Arnie
"|sebAstian|" <N0for...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:avifp4$g1jfe$1...@ID-153809.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Arnie" <SlowMo{NOSPAM}@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:A72T9.96908$j8.24...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> living
> > in poverty have 3 or more kids and are divorced with single incomes or
on
> > welfare. Meanwhile companies are paying these people 10,000 dollars a
year
> > to work 40 hours a week
>
> Who's fault is that?
I am not pointing fingers I am simply stating that a problem exists that
many people do not fully understand.
If you're making that little money, it means that
> you're not qualified to make more, and if you are than you shouldn't be
> working for so little in the first place! It's not the fault of the
> "corperate pig" that you're not qualified to make more money, you should
> have gone to school or become an entrapanuer.
I don't work 40 hour weeks for 10 grand a year and I hopefully never will
have to. You are saying that every person that makes lousy wages is un
qualified or uneducated which is wrong. And I hate to break it to you but
not everyone has a choice when it comes to higher education. Some people
are forced into the work place because they have children to support or a
myriad of other reasons. I know a few entepaneur's struggling to make ends
meet. Self employment does not automatically equal success and large
corporations aren't helping. One super Wal-mart can put 10 small businesses
out of business in a matter of months.
>
>
> > with little or no benefits because they think the
> > spouses can pick up the slack or they can go on food stamps. Raise
> minimum
> > wage and stop wasting money on tax cuts.
>
>
> I say destroy the minimum wage laws completly.
I say you are an idiot.
Open up the market and let
> people compete for large wages. Minimum wage laws do more harm for the
> collective than not. If you're going to do a sub-standard job why do you
> desearve $5.75 an hour? If people had to compete for wages they'd work
> harder.
You obviously have never worked at a fast food restaurant or supermarket or
any retail position for that matter. Nobody competes for wages it's all
about how long you have been with the company and how much ass you want to
kiss. You can be a hard worker and it won't matter if management dislikes
you.
The fact is that qualified people will not work for much less than
> they're worth, if they're underpaid they will find better paying jobs.
Not if there are no better paying jobs available. They usually end up
having to change careers and/or go back to school.
> Companies are in the business of making money, they wouldn't hire people
to
> do substandard jobs, they'd hire people who would do their jobs well, and
> those people wouldn't work for less than they're worth.
wrong again. People that are overqualified for jobs usually don't get the
job because management knows that those people will demand higher pay so
they hire people that are less qualified and pay them less...after all they
are in the business of making money.
If you're not a
> good worker, you don't desearve to make as much as a good worker. bottom
> line.
>
It depends on the field of work. Some jobs are easy enough that a trained
monkey could do them. It ends up being about office politics and company
loyalty and ass kissing more than job performance.
> >300 bucks from uncle Bush's tax
> > cut means much less to a poor family then affordable health care and
> higher
> > wages. Meanwhile the rich use their tax return on more jewelry and
luxury
> > items. Way to stimulate the economy dubya.
>
> Learn economics. the top 10% of this country's earners pays 65.7% of this
> countries taxes. Who do you think *should* and *will* benefit from a tax
> cut? You trust the government to tell us what we should and shouldn't do
> with *our* money? It's our money, we're already over taxed because the
> government impliments unconstitutional and failing social welfare
programs,
> it's not the affluent's job to take care of the poor. this is capitalism,
> not socialism.
I never said that the rich should pay higher percentage of their income to
taxes than the poor. What I said is tax cuts benefit the rich more than
they benefit the poor. The problem lies with the rich screwing the poor
every chance they get. Company CEO salaries are steadily on the rise while
the loyal employees lose their retirement savings little by little. The
rich get richer, the poor get poorer and tax cuts only perpetuate that
cycle. And please tell me how social welfare programs are unconstitutional.
Poverty leads to higher rates of violent crime and drug abuse. There will
always be the haves and the have nots, but when the have nots keep growing
in numbers eventually something is going to give.
> >
>I am all for paying higher taxes if it means getting health care
> > for the millions of people that don't have or can't afford insurance and
> > putting more money into education.
>
> move to sweeden.
yeah, run away from the problem and it will just go away. Good logic.
>There is no health care crisis,
Oh no?
the reason that 40 million
> americans don't have health care is *because* we are taxed for health
care,
> if the government ended it's involvement with health care the crisis would
> cease to exist.
Please explain. You are saying that if medicaid and medicare were
eliminated that *poof* 40 million uninsured people would all of a sudden get
insurance?
Education? You've never studied social issues have you?
> Above standard private schools many times make less money per-student than
> sub-standard public schools. The government shouldn't be involved with
> things like this. Privatization will end both the health care and
education
> problems.
And only the rich elite will get educations. Good plan. We can't even
trust corporations to accurately report earnings *cough* Enron *cough* and
you are saying health care and education should not be government
regulated...ha!! You really do have your head too far up your ass.
>
> >College tuitions are soaring out of
> > control
>
> Really? Last time I checked CU in Boulder was still $2900 a year, almost
> the same as it was four years ago. Cite me a source that says college
> tuition rates are on a major incline and i'll gladly research and explain
> why for you.
No thanks. It's not worth my time or effort.
>
> Not to mention affirmative action, which many times places people who
aren't
> qualified to be in good schools based soley on their race. Thus colleges
> are becoming over crowded, and if the rates are on the rise, this is one
of
> the reasons.
Well...if colleges are over crowded maybe the fed should raise taxes to
build more of them. And affirmative action has nothing to do with
overcrowding, it has to do with the baby boomers kids reaching college age.
>
> >and we wonder why there are so few skilled workers available for
> > teaching or countless other vocations. All the while senior citizens
are
> > voting down bills that would give more money to elementary and middle
> > schools so that they can get a fatter retirement check. And people like
> me
> > aren't going to the voting booth because we are so disillusioned by all
> the
> > lies and misinformation so we come on the internet and spout off to
anyone
> > that will listen...but I guess things could be a lot worse. I could be
a
> > refugee starving to death eating dirt and drinking polluted water while
a
> > corrupt dictator spends all the wealth on more bombs guns and bitches.
>
> or you could be in a socialist counrty...go, go live in sweeden and tell
me
> how you feel about paying 60% of your paycheck to taxes.
Well I wouldn't mind paying 60% of my paycheck to taxes if I could get a
heart transplant for 10 bucks and buy a house and a car for a few hundred.
Not to mention all the hot scattered women that sweden is rumored to have.
The only thing I would have to get used to is the cold weather and the
darkness.
>
|sebAstian|
Did anyone force them to have kids? Or did anyone force those "other
reasons" on them? The world is what *you* make of it. If you fuck up, it's
your fault, no one else. Don't have kids if you can't afford to support
them, if you do anyway, make it yourself, it's not my taxes that should pay
for you.
Everyone has a choice when it comes to higher education: don't fuck around
in high school, get smart, do well on your SATs, get student loans, if
you're a minority or have sepcial abillities get grants. There is no excuse
to fuck around, if you did you desearve what you get.
>I know a few entepaneur's struggling to make ends
> meet. Self employment does not automatically equal success and large
> corporations aren't helping. One super Wal-mart can put 10 small
businesses
> out of business in a matter of months.
I never said that it did. I co-own two failing businesses, but I'll get
back on my feat.
> >
> > > with little or no benefits because they think the
> > > spouses can pick up the slack or they can go on food stamps. Raise
> > minimum
> > > wage and stop wasting money on tax cuts.
> >
> >
> > I say destroy the minimum wage laws completly.
>
> I say you are an idiot.
And you know nothing about economics. Everytime the government raises
minimum wage laws thousands of entry level jobs are destroyed. The minimum
wage laws exist to hurt the greatly unemployable by forcing businesses to
pay more for the fair value for labor. Did you know that 90% of economists
believe that minimum wage laws are a bad thing taht destroy entry level
jobs?(1) But let me guess, it's all part of the vast "right wing
conspiracy", right? The assosiation for community orginizations and reform
(ACORN) goes around the country trying to get sigs to get minimum wage law
increases n the ballot. When ACORN came to california they need lots of
workers that they couldn't afford to pay. So what did they do? They
petitioned the california state court for them to be exempt from california
minimum wage laws! When asked why: "The more ACORN has to pay outreach
workers due to minimum wage and over time laws, the less workers ACORN can
hire". No shit sherlock.
Who do you think works for minimum wage? You think it's the married man or
woman with three kids to take care of? No, according to Bob Zelnick of ABC
only about 330,000 americans work for minimum wage, most of them part
timers, most of them teenagers. Don't have illigitamate children, don't
fuck around in high school, don't do drugs, work hard and you you'll suceed.
Anyone can do it, it may be harder for some than others, but anyone can do
it, and if you don't it's your fault.
> Open up the market and let
> > people compete for large wages. Minimum wage laws do more harm for the
> > collective than not. If you're going to do a sub-standard job why do
you
> > desearve $5.75 an hour? If people had to compete for wages they'd work
> > harder.
>
> You obviously have never worked at a fast food restaurant or supermarket
or
> any retail position for that matter. Nobody competes for wages it's all
> about how long you have been with the company and how much ass you want to
> kiss. You can be a hard worker and it won't matter if management dislikes
> you.
Businesses are in the business of making money, not getting their asses
kissed by under qualified employees. Be a nice guy, do a good job, you'll
make better money. Be a kiss ass, do a shitty job, you'll get fired. I
manage retail, I know the system.
> The fact is that qualified people will not work for much less than
> > they're worth, if they're underpaid they will find better paying jobs.
>
> Not if there are no better paying jobs available. They usually end up
> having to change careers and/or go back to school.
Yes, if you majored in zoology or music thoery while in college you probably
won't have many career options. Do a minor in business, you'll be fine.
> > Companies are in the business of making money, they wouldn't hire people
> to
> > do substandard jobs, they'd hire people who would do their jobs well,
and
> > those people wouldn't work for less than they're worth.
>
> wrong again. People that are overqualified for jobs usually don't get the
> job because management knows that those people will demand higher pay so
> they hire people that are less qualified and pay them less...after all
they
> are in the business of making money.
Who's talking about the over qualified? Your statement doesn't contradict
my statement, it's another topic. Which part is wrong? That business are
in the business of making money? That companies wan't productivity and
won't hire people to do substandard jobs? That they'd hire people who do
their jobs well? That those people won't work for less than they are worth?
Pray tell, what the fuck are you trying to say, Arnie.
> If you're not a
> > good worker, you don't desearve to make as much as a good worker.
bottom
> > line.
> >
> It depends on the field of work. Some jobs are easy enough that a trained
> monkey could do them. It ends up being about office politics and company
> loyalty and ass kissing more than job performance.
And you don't desearve to make 5.75 and hour for a job that a monkey will do
for free.
>
> > >300 bucks from uncle Bush's tax
> > > cut means much less to a poor family then affordable health care and
> > higher
> > > wages. Meanwhile the rich use their tax return on more jewelry and
> luxury
> > > items. Way to stimulate the economy dubya.
> >
> > Learn economics. the top 10% of this country's earners pays 65.7% of
this
> > countries taxes. Who do you think *should* and *will* benefit from a
tax
> > cut? You trust the government to tell us what we should and shouldn't
do
> > with *our* money? It's our money, we're already over taxed because the
> > government impliments unconstitutional and failing social welfare
> programs,
> > it's not the affluent's job to take care of the poor. this is
capitalism,
> > not socialism.
>
> I never said that the rich should pay higher percentage of their income to
> taxes than the poor. What I said is tax cuts benefit the rich more than
> they benefit the poor. The problem lies with the rich screwing the poor
> every chance they get. Company CEO salaries are steadily on the rise
while
> the loyal employees lose their retirement savings little by little.
And what incentive do these rich people have to not screw the poor? You
don't want to get screwed? Climb to the top, don't be a bottom feeder.
Abolish the failing social security program and let people invest their
money rather than let a corrupt government handle it. I'm here to suceed,
to get to the top, if I get there, I deserve to take everything I get. If
you don't than you don't desearve it.
> The
> rich get richer, the poor get poorer and tax cuts only perpetuate that
> cycle.
Really? Is this what's happening? no. let's see your source so that I can
tear it apart, because that is a bullshit statement. But I have a question
for you: How big of a gap between the rich and the poor *should* there be?
>And please tell me how social welfare programs are unconstitutional.
> Poverty leads to higher rates of violent crime and drug abuse. There will
> always be the haves and the have nots, but when the have nots keep growing
> in numbers eventually something is going to give.
Because of amendment X of the bill of rights, and because of our
constitution.
Welfare does nothing but hurt poor people. Would you want to work for
minimum wage when you can get $13,000 a year for doing nothing? Didn't
think so. Welfare makes people lazy, it gives them no incentive to get
jobs, it does, however, give them incentive to have illigitamate children,
who will also most likely be on welfare.
> > >
> >I am all for paying higher taxes if it means getting health care
> > > for the millions of people that don't have or can't afford insurance
and
> > > putting more money into education.
> >
>
> > move to sweeden.
>
> yeah, run away from the problem and it will just go away. Good logic.
Has nothing to do with solving the problem here. Good comprehension skills.
If you want to live in a socialist country and pay high taxes, go. This is
a capitalist society, there are plently of socialist countries for you to
choose from. Go ahead.
> >There is no health care crisis,
>
> Oh no?
>
> the reason that 40 million
> > americans don't have health care is *because* we are taxed for health
> care,
> > if the government ended it's involvement with health care the crisis
would
> > cease to exist.
>
> Please explain. You are saying that if medicaid and medicare were
> eliminated that *poof* 40 million uninsured people would all of a sudden
get
> insurance?
A. You wouldn't need insurance, if the market was privatized doctors would
have to compete for customers. Are you saying that the normal rules of
supply and demand somehow don't apply to the health industry? Well, you're
wrong. You think the doctors would charge you $90 for a visit to their
office if insurance companies wern't paying those high rates? Not a chance
in hell. The market would take care of itself. Some doctors would offer
lower rates than the others and people would go to them. Just like with
every other industry in the world.
B. Insuarnce companies would struggle to stay around, they'd offer
insurance only for things like surgeries, and the insurance would be
extreamly cheap since insurance companies wouldn't be paying for normal
doctor visits which cost them billions of $$$ a year.
> Education? You've never studied social issues have you?
> > Above standard private schools many times make less money per-student
than
> > sub-standard public schools. The government shouldn't be involved with
> > things like this. Privatization will end both the health care and
> education
> > problems.
>
> And only the rich elite will get educations. Good plan. We can't even
> trust corporations to accurately report earnings *cough* Enron *cough* and
> you are saying health care and education should not be government
> regulated...ha!! You really do have your head too far up your ass.
What the fuck are you talking about? Tax payers spend more than $6000 per
student (more than almost any other country in the world, including Japan).
What's the result? Poor test scors, high drop out rates, kids who can't
fucking fill out employment applications. Obviously the public sector can't
fucking take care of it's own. Cut education taxes, give the money back to
the people and let the people send their kids to private schools. Again, do
you think the laws of supply and demand someone also don't apply to schools?
Privatize them, they will fall into the same market that all other suceeding
products fall into. You're fucking uneducated on economics and you think
you know more than Adam Smith. Do you even know who Adam smith is?
> > >College tuitions are soaring out of
> > > control
> >
> > Really? Last time I checked CU in Boulder was still $2900 a year,
almost
> > the same as it was four years ago. Cite me a source that says college
> > tuition rates are on a major incline and i'll gladly research and
explain
> > why for you.
>
> No thanks. It's not worth my time or effort.
That's because you're full of shit.
> > Not to mention affirmative action, which many times places people who
> aren't
> > qualified to be in good schools based soley on their race. Thus
colleges
> > are becoming over crowded, and if the rates are on the rise, this is one
> of
> > the reasons.
>
> Well...if colleges are over crowded maybe the fed should raise taxes to
> build more of them. And affirmative action has nothing to do with
> overcrowding, it has to do with the baby boomers kids reaching college
age.
Or maybe you shouldn't be able to get in to college unless you're smart
enough to get in, unless you worked your ass off to get in. And yes,
affirmative action has lots to do with it. UCLA has to accept people based
solely on race in order to make itself complient. Again, if you want to pay
high taxes, move to a socialist country. Why do people like you have to
ruin capitalism for the rest of us?
That's not how it happends, but please, go. Let us have capitalism and all
you fucking liberals go to a socialist country and be happy for the rest of
your life.
Rancid Crabtree
> people compete for large wages. Minimum wage laws do more harm for the
> collective than not. If you're going to do a sub-standard job why do you
> desearve $5.75 an hour? If people had to compete for wages they'd work
> harder. The fact is that qualified people will not work for much less than
> they're worth, if they're underpaid they will find better paying jobs.
> Companies are in the business of making money, they wouldn't hire people to
> do substandard jobs, they'd hire people who would do their jobs well, and
> those people wouldn't work for less than they're worth. If you're not a
> good worker, you don't desearve to make as much as a good worker. bottom
> line.
It would be nice if this were the case but it is not. Companies pay
for the area that they are in. If there is a high rate of
unemployment who is to keep the company from paying them what they
want. The people will just be competing for a job, regardless of what
they are getting paid. I know this because I know a manager of a
retail company in a poor area whose branch pays minimum wage because
they can whereas other branches pay 3 or 4 dollars more then minimum
wage. In regards to you working harder to make more, the biggest
raise one can get is 30 cents more an hour per year. In other words,
just a little more then enough to cover the increases in minimum wage
so they are make only slightly more. Some people have been working
there for over 10-15 years and are still making maybe 7 or 8 dollars.
> >College tuitions are soaring out of
> > control
>
> Really? Last time I checked CU in Boulder was still $2900 a year, almost
> the same as it was four years ago. Cite me a source that says college
> tuition rates are on a major incline and i'll gladly research and explain
> why for you.
>
I don't know why you think tuitions are not rising. Particulary for
out of state attendees. I wouldn't say public college tuitions are
soaring out of control but private schools tuition is ridiculous. No
matter what they are definitely rising and less people can afford it.
LocustSky
> >
>
> LocustSky, I'm really starting to like you. I appreciate your point, and
I
> think we both have a lot of the same hopes, in our hearts. However, I
> question these sources as critically as I question the utter lack of
sources
> in the anti-Rush piece. IMO fair.org and zmag.org, while very important
> websites, have an agenda. They are not per se information / data / census
> clearinghouses. I'm very reluctant to treat them as authoritative.
>
> But I think I'll conceed the point.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Erin
thanks!
regarding zmag's "agenda", i just recieved their most recent issue - and i
took special notice of their staff. Go to their website and take a look -
only 2 staff members. The articles are submitted by people all over the
world (many of whom are journalists and educators such as Howard Zinn,
Edward S. Herman, Noam Chomsky, Michael Albert), and can also be found at
numerous websites such as truthout.com, thenation.com, and others. Of
course, you shouldn't believe everything you hear. All you should do is
consider it and think about it. When you come across the same subject
compare the information. Is it consistent? Is it reasonable? Rush
Limbaugh was proven wrong. Can we prove (or at least highlight some
inaccuracy or inconsistency) them wrong? In any case, i highly recommend
the magazine.
i admire the fact that you questioned the material - we don't question
enough! It was reason for me to do little searching on the subject and
inform myself, and it gave you some information to consider. We both win!
--
- LocustSky
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĘ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
LocustSky
>
> "Arnie" <SlowMo{NOSPAM}@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:A72T9.96908$j8.24...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Barbara West" <lun...@swva.net> wrote in message
> > news:avi7rd$54k5$1...@news3.infoave.net...
> > >
> > > 3- Poverty which is defined by the government. In the US, the
government
> > > figures what it would cost to feed a family of however many 2, 3, 4 in
> one
> > > month. They then triple that number and arrive at the poverty
threshhold
> > for
> > > the number of people in that family.
> >
> > Good point. I don't think people realize that a large part of people
> living
> > in poverty have 3 or more kids and are divorced with single incomes or
on
> > welfare. Meanwhile companies are paying these people 10,000 dollars a
year
> > to work 40 hours a week
>
> Who's fault is that? If you're making that little money, it means that
> you're not qualified to make more, and if you are than you shouldn't be
> working for so little in the first place! It's not the fault of the
> "corperate pig" that you're not qualified to make more money, you should
> have gone to school or become an entrapanuer.
Sebastian. Sebastian. Sebastian. Do you really believe everyone is paid
equally for equal work? According to the Sklar article i mentioned to you
last time, women are paid $0.71 for a man's $1 (college degree). Go ahead
and look into it. Men are paid more than women, and its fact.
Do you really a worker can just get up and demand more pay or leave? Try
this - Get a job, Demand more pay. Most likely your employer will let you
go and hire the next guy waiting in line for your job! That may be easy for
you to deal with, but what about the guy with a family to support? He
probably won't take that risk. A newly graduated comp sci major can expect
to get about $45,000 a year. I know recent graduates who are in mortgage
now making almost half that simply becuase there isn't anything better out
there. Your idea would be right if there were more jobs than there are
people needing jobs... but there isn't. People are settling for less,
simply becuase they have no other choice.. bills won't go away by
themselves. If you leave, where will you go? what will cover your
expenses? If you have a family, how will you support your family?
Employers have put applicant against applicant.. and best (lowest wage)
applicant wins. These are things that must be considered. Don't believe
me? WHy do you think companies are going overseas for labor?
Do you really believe your pay is exactly what your work deserves? Have you
ever heard of "visiting" workers? There are many professors at universities
that are "visiting". Why? Universities don't want to give them contracts
(UC lecturer strike was about this very subject) and keep them around for
more than a few years - they may ask for better than "part-time" status. Do
you know why many corporations don't allow their employees to unionize?
Do we all play on equal playing fields? Here's something - two students
send out applications for job interviews. Both have similar GPAs, scores,
stats, etc. One recieves 20+ calls. The other recieves 3. Why? Maybe
becuase one's name is common, and the other's is some Indian name tough to
pronounce. A similar experience was told by my cousin who after he got his
MBA. After he changed his name to a common name, the number of doors
opening just jumped (this was a couple of years before 9/11)! Its one
reason he's pushing me to change my name. I don't want to, but he may be
right in the end - i don't have bills to pay yet or a family to support.
Reading all this crap about meritocracy and all is one thing. Believe it if
you like. Its easy for John Smith to talk. Change your name to Muhammad
Al-Sebastian. Let's see how people treat you in the professional world
then.
> I say destroy the minimum wage laws completly. Open up the market and let
> people compete for large wages. Minimum wage laws do more harm for the
> collective than not. If you're going to do a sub-standard job why do you
> desearve $5.75 an hour? If people had to compete for wages they'd work
> harder. The fact is that qualified people will not work for much less
than
> they're worth, if they're underpaid they will find better paying jobs.
> Companies are in the business of making money, they wouldn't hire people
to
> do substandard jobs, they'd hire people who would do their jobs well, and
> those people wouldn't work for less than they're worth. If you're not a
> good worker, you don't desearve to make as much as a good worker. bottom
> line.
they will find better jobs?? How? They're competing against other people
who want the jobs. This causes people to settle for LESS. There's nothing
better out there! Unemployment can be a tool... a tool to control workers
and get them to work for less! Why would an employers argue with you over
your demands? He'll just get another applicant in line!
if you would like a specific example you have probably seen yourself -
"workfare" by out beloved former NY CIty major Rudy Guiliani. A person on
welfare works for welfare checks. Workers employed by the Work Experience
Program earn biweekly wages as a low as $68.50 and $60 in food stamps.
According to the same program, they work 26 hours a week. Let's do the math
and see how much they're getting paid per hour. They recieveing $128.50
(wage and food stamps) every two weeks for 52 hours of work (26 hours a week
* 2). That's $2.47 an hour! Is that a livable wage??? What are they doing
you ask? Jobs went from street sweeping to transporting corpses in city
hospital. How are these people supposed to improve their situation off a
wage like that? Employers are able to go around the minimum wage laws by
employing a workfare worker! See "Bowling for Columbine" to see this
pathetic system at work. (source -"Workfare replace Welfare" by Robin D.G.
Kelley). The info should be quite easy to verify, as the program had 30,000
workers in '96 and its program probably has close to about 70,000 now,
according to Kelley. People are making less than a wage needed to sustain
the basic aspects of life! That's where i draw the line. Many companies
have the money but value profit more than people.
Destroy minimum wage completely? I highly suggest looking into this idea
and researching the effects of low wages on a people and the exploitation of
workers by employers that could easily happen... as past experience has
shown.
$2900 a year? That's great compared to what UC Irvine students pay! We pay
$1534.50 a quarter, with $182.00 mandatory health insurance fee added (you
can waive this if you have a comparable or better insurance). Let's do the
math. Assuming you waive this health insurance, that's $4603.50 a year and
that's on the rise. Sure the campus is growing rapidly, but with all the
fees we pay... we pay $280 a year for parking, and that's almost half of
what UCLA students pay. We spend so much money tearing down "old" or as
many of us more accurately see it, decent parts of the school, to rebuild it
with 6 more trees and cooler looking walk ways. We buy books from the
student store that are priced at or above list price... you can find more
than a dozen place where the prices are lower! They're even known to put a
new book price on a used book, if its in new condition. WTF? There's no
need for increasing fees. As one of my profs put it when asked about rising
tuition costs, with all the money spent by our gov't (military, foreign
policy, corporate breaks), we could eliminate (or reduce it GREATLY) tuition
costs and make college a real option for every student, rich or poor.
Research the topic. I'd love to see your findings. Just a note if you do -
the proposed Student Center Expansion project will be funded by loans, and
paid back by the school in the form of fee increases for students who will
actually use the center (fee increase won't happen until project is done).
>
> Not to mention affirmative action, which many times places people who
aren't
> qualified to be in good schools based soley on their race. Thus colleges
> are becoming over crowded, and if the rates are on the rise, this is one
of
> the reasons.
>
> >and we wonder why there are so few skilled workers available for
> > teaching or countless other vocations. All the while senior citizens
are
> > voting down bills that would give more money to elementary and middle
> > schools so that they can get a fatter retirement check. And people like
> me
> > aren't going to the voting booth because we are so disillusioned by all
> the
> > lies and misinformation so we come on the internet and spout off to
anyone
> > that will listen...but I guess things could be a lot worse. I could be
a
> > refugee starving to death eating dirt and drinking polluted water while
a
> > corrupt dictator spends all the wealth on more bombs guns and bitches.
>
> or you could be in a socialist counrty...go, go live in sweeden and tell
me
> how you feel about paying 60% of your paycheck to taxes.
60%?! According to site you brought to my attention, 60% is what the
HIGHEST INCOME EARNERS in Sweden pay. What % of the population is that?
10%? 15%? Maybe less? What is the income tax rate paid by the average
Swedish worker? 20% (marginal rate), again according to stats YOU POSTED.
This is 7% LESS than what the average American worker pays (27%)! and that
info can be found at the same site you posted.
few workers? Ask a recent comp grad if they had trouble finding a job. Ask
any recent graduate if they had trouble finding a job. I know several comp.
grads who are in banking, mortgage, or accounting because there wasn't any
positions in comp sci. that would pay more (starting comp. scientists
generally make much more than starting bankers and accountants). They're
settling for less not becuase they want to, but because its either that or
nothing! I'm sure many AMTers who are parents can relate to this point much
more than we can.
> --
> ----
> Sebastian
> -The New Inquisitor
>
Red Schism
> "Arnie" <SlowMo{NOSPAM}@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:qqjT9.50197$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "|sebAstian|" <N0for...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:avifp4$g1jfe$1...@ID-153809.news.dfncis.de...
<snip great logical arguments>
...you can preach on all you want, but most liberals will not even
take the time or the effort to look at the issues *objectively*. They
think that everyone is entitled to a 100K a year salary with full
medical expenses covered, etc., etc., even though they never did
anything in their lives to help themselves. Your argument that it is
their own fault because these people screwed up in school is
*EXCELLENT*. How can someone who didn't do their part in school
demand *anything* from the government? And, please, no one tell me,
"Well, if you lived in the ghetto and your mom was smoking crack every
day it would be hard for you to do good in school, too". LOL.
That being said, there was a time when I thought that the conservative
ideology was right about everything, so I had to go back and look at
all the issues and I actually changed my mind about many things. But
conservatives are still right about almost everything.
|sebAstian|
"LocustSky" <Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net> wrote in message
Women generally go into fields that pay less. On a job to job basis women
make just about as much as men, and you're survey doesn't mention that women
start businesses less often than men, thus causeing the number to drop down
even lower.
> Do you really a worker can just get up and demand more pay or leave? Try
> this - Get a job, Demand more pay.
Are you worth more pay? You're worth what the general business population is
willing to pay, if you're making less than that find a new job! Someone
will be willing to pay you. Underpaying your employees is bad business
practice.
Most likely your employer will let you
> go and hire the next guy waiting in line for your job! That may be easy
for
> you to deal with, but what about the guy with a family to support? He
> probably won't take that risk. A newly graduated comp sci major can
expect
> to get about $45,000 a year. I know recent graduates who are in mortgage
> now making almost half that simply becuase there isn't anything better out
> there.
Or they don't have the education todo so. If you're good, you'll make what
you're worth.
Your idea would be right if there were more jobs than there are
> people needing jobs... but there isn't. People are settling for less,
> simply becuase they have no other choice.. bills won't go away by
> themselves. If you leave, where will you go? what will cover your
> expenses? If you have a family, how will you support your family?
> Employers have put applicant against applicant.. and best (lowest wage)
> applicant wins. These are things that must be considered. Don't believe
> me? WHy do you think companies are going overseas for labor?
Companies go overseas for labor because they get the same labor at a cheaper
rate. If you're *better* than those other people you will make more. not
better? sucks for you, you should have tried harder.
> Do you really believe your pay is exactly what your work deserves? Have
you
> ever heard of "visiting" workers? There are many professors at
universities
> that are "visiting". Why? Universities don't want to give them contracts
> (UC lecturer strike was about this very subject) and keep them around for
> more than a few years - they may ask for better than "part-time" status.
Do
> you know why many corporations don't allow their employees to unionize?
>
> Do we all play on equal playing fields? Here's something - two students
> send out applications for job interviews. Both have similar GPAs, scores,
> stats, etc. One recieves 20+ calls. The other recieves 3. Why? Maybe
> becuase one's name is common, and the other's is some Indian name tough to
> pronounce.
I doubt that that happeneds very often. My full name is Sebstian Shanti
Jozeph Gopal Krishna Awatramani, I haven't had much of a problem getting a
job. And what type of job was it? If it was a retail job it's
understandable, at my restaraunt I prefer to hire white people with american
accents, they make better waiters, bottom line.
A similar experience was told by my cousin who after he got his
> MBA. After he changed his name to a common name, the number of doors
> opening just jumped (this was a couple of years before 9/11)! Its one
> reason he's pushing me to change my name. I don't want to, but he may be
> right in the end - i don't have bills to pay yet or a family to support.
> Reading all this crap about meritocracy and all is one thing. Believe it
if
> you like. Its easy for John Smith to talk. Change your name to Muhammad
> Al-Sebastian. Let's see how people treat you in the professional world
> then.
According to arabamericanbusiness.com, 70% of arabs who ran in the last
election won. Doesn't sound too bad to me.
>
> > I say destroy the minimum wage laws completly. Open up the market and
let
> > people compete for large wages. Minimum wage laws do more harm for the
> > collective than not. If you're going to do a sub-standard job why do
you
> > desearve $5.75 an hour? If people had to compete for wages they'd work
> > harder. The fact is that qualified people will not work for much less
> than
> > they're worth, if they're underpaid they will find better paying jobs.
> > Companies are in the business of making money, they wouldn't hire people
> to
> > do substandard jobs, they'd hire people who would do their jobs well,
and
> > those people wouldn't work for less than they're worth. If you're not a
> > good worker, you don't desearve to make as much as a good worker.
bottom
> > line.
>
> they will find better jobs?? How? They're competing against other people
> who want the jobs.
If you're worth it you'll get it. Bottom line for business: hireing
substandard workers is bad, under paying qualified workers is bad. The jobs
you are talking about are jobs that monkeys can do, why pay a human 5.75
when a monkey will work for free?
> This causes people to settle for LESS. There's nothing
no one with a good education works for minimum wage. Who workds for minimum
wage? morons and young teens. The minimum wage destroyes jobs, 90% of
economists agree.
Listen, our jobs isn't to take care of people. I'm not a victocrat, i'm a
fan of personal responsibillity. If your job sucks it's cause you fucked
around, or you're retarded, and I have no problem taking care for retarded
people with taxes.
> Destroy minimum wage completely? I highly suggest looking into this idea
> and researching the effects of low wages on a people and the exploitation
of
> workers by employers that could easily happen... as past experience has
> shown.
It's not exploitation. Why would you be forced into a job where you have to
work for minimum wage in the first place! You should have gone to college
and done well.
College *is* an option for every student, espesially if you are a minority,
which make up most of the 'poor' in this country. do well in high school,
get a good SAT score, don't have kids you can't afford to take care of and
you'll get into college. Private orginizations give away billions of $$$ a
year to poor students. Can't get grants? get loans.
So you don't see a problem with 15% of our country paying a 60% tax? no
thanks, buddy. 10% tax is too much for anyone. Cut taxes to 10%, drop
minimum wage, stop with failing social programs and you'll have a damn good
economy. Need more info? www.LP.org.
> few workers? Ask a recent comp grad if they had trouble finding a job.
Ask
> any recent graduate if they had trouble finding a job. I know several
comp.
> grads who are in banking, mortgage, or accounting because there wasn't any
> positions in comp sci. that would pay more (starting comp. scientists
> generally make much more than starting bankers and accountants). They're
> settling for less not becuase they want to, but because its either that or
> nothing! I'm sure many AMTers who are parents can relate to this point
much
> more than we can.
I could spend 8 years in college and get a PHD is music theory, the degree
would get me no where. You can't blame anyone else for getting into a
market that doesn't have jobs availible. major in business, you'll be fine.
--
----
Sebastian
-The New Inquisitor
> > --
> > ----
> > Sebastian
> > -The New Inquisitor
> >
>
>
> --
> - LocustSky
>
> AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĆ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
>
>
>
>
>
>
|sebAstian|
"Red Schism" <reds...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ee598ccf.03011...@posting.google.com...
> "|sebAstian|" <N0for...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:<avl1kg$gou3v$1...@ID-153809.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "Arnie" <SlowMo{NOSPAM}@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:qqjT9.50197$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > >
> > > "|sebAstian|" <N0for...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:avifp4$g1jfe$1...@ID-153809.news.dfncis.de...
>
> <snip great logical arguments>
>
> ...you can preach on all you want, but most liberals will not even
> take the time or the effort to look at the issues *objectively*. They
> think that everyone is entitled to a 100K a year salary with full
> medical expenses covered, etc., etc., even though they never did
> anything in their lives to help themselves. Your argument that it is
> their own fault because these people screwed up in school is
> *EXCELLENT*. How can someone who didn't do their part in school
> demand *anything* from the government? And, please, no one tell me,
> "Well, if you lived in the ghetto and your mom was smoking crack every
> day it would be hard for you to do good in school, too". LOL.
Finally! I'm glad someone can see it. If you haven't already, you might
want to check out the Livertarian Party at www.LP.org. But all others
beware! Socialists, Liberals and illogical people might experiance
discomforting enlightenment!
> That being said, there was a time when I thought that the conservative
> ideology was right about everything, so I had to go back and look at
> all the issues and I actually changed my mind about many things. But
> conservatives are still right about almost everything.
I went the other way. I started off as a liberal and then looked at the
issues with logic and intellect instead of emotion, now I'm a libertarian.
Barbara West
Thanks for replying. It's nice to have another "fucking" liberal around. :o)
> Good point. I don't think people realize that a large part of people
living
> in poverty have 3 or more kids and are divorced with single incomes or on
> welfare. Meanwhile companies are paying these people 10,000 dollars a year
> to work 40 hours a week with little or no benefits because they think the
> spouses can pick up the slack or they can go on food stamps. Raise
minimum
> wage and stop wasting money on tax cuts. 300 bucks from uncle Bush's tax
> cut means much less to a poor family then affordable health care and
higher
> wages. Meanwhile the rich use their tax return on more jewelry and luxury
> items. Way to stimulate the economy dubya.
Yeah, I read someone's post about welfare recipients being lazy. That is a
stereotype (a horrific one) that was promoted by none other than Mr Reagan.
I receive welfare. I'm mentally ill, I have schizoaffective disorder, post
traumatic stress disorder, and am mildy obssessive-compulsive. I take 15
credit hours in college and I work my ass off in spite of all of this. I get
grants and loans to pay for school. We're not all "welfare queens driving
Cadilacs." (Reagan's quote). I would not be able to make it without welfare.
I would probably kill myself without the free medications that I get.
I think that a very important thing that traditional conservatives overlook
is the psychological effect of poverty and discrimination. Ever heard the
saying "been down so long you don't know what up looks like anymore?" And
there are individual factors that lead to poverty, such as lack of ambition,
motivation, etc. But I think that an important question to ask is "why don't
these people have ambition?" I don't jump up and down when I receive
welfare, thinking that I'm living the good life, and I can't imagine that
most poor people do. I was extremely hesistant about receiving it at first
because I thought that it was something to be ashamed of. But, luckily, my
very dear sociology professor, Kevin Everett, talked me out of that. The
bottom line is that I need help in order to survive. I have disabilities
that prevent me from doing it all on my own. I deserve special treatment.
Granted, not all welfare recipients have so many dysfunctions themselves.
But the effects of poverty include lack of ambition, depression, drug abuse,
girls who will do anything to receive some type of approval or male figure
in their lives so they go out and get pregnant. I heard a fifteen year-old
girl say, when asked why she wanted to have a child, that "I wanted someone
to love me back." These girls should not be punished for making a mistake.
It's hard to think logically in times of crisis. And living in the ghetto
definitely qualifies as a crisis situation.
One thing that I can relate to as far as not performing their best in school
is a psychological factor. I was overweight as a child and was constantly
teased and degraded by my peers. From kindergarten through my junior year.
It's hard to believe that you're worth succeeding when the people around you
imply that you're not. I even got it from my father, which is another story.
It breaks my heart when people ignore issues such as these when labeling
people as "stupid" or "lazy." The bottom line is that that mentality is
quite immature. Maybe I'm too emotional, I don't know. But if I'm too
emotional, then logic follows that others are not emotional enough.
> College tuitions are soaring out of
> control and we wonder why there are so few skilled workers available for
> teaching or countless other vocations.
Tell me about it. I go to Radford University in Virginia. Because of our
lovely past Republican governors, our budget has been slashed a huge amount
because there are not enough funds due to the TAX CUTS that they instituted.
My tuition has gone up $500 this year, with more to come. People are being
laid off. Our class schedules are so lean (they don't want to pay professors
to teach the classes) that several seniors that I know are not able to
graduate on time and there are barely enough seats in every one of my
classes for everyone to fit.
> And people like me
> aren't going to the voting booth because we are so disillusioned by all
the
> lies and misinformation so we come on the internet and spout off to anyone
> that will listen...
I understand how you feel. But you should do it anyway. That's one, albeit
small, way that you can change things. Check out the website to the ACLU...
And another group called Act for Change
http://www.workingforchange.com/index.cfm
Through these sites, you can send faxes and emails to various people,
including corporations and your congressional representatives. I use them
all the time.
> but I guess things could be a lot worse.
That's a good attitude. Things could always be worse. Be glad you're not me!
:o)
Traci
"Arnie" <SlowMo{NOSPAM}@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:A72T9.96908$j8.24...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Barbara West
Traci
"LocustSky" <Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net> wrote in message
news:ChuT9.2774$Qr4.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĆ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
>
>
>
>
>
>
|sebAstian|
> Hi Arnie,
>
> Thanks for replying. It's nice to have another "fucking" liberal around.
:o)
>
> > Good point. I don't think people realize that a large part of people
> living
> > in poverty have 3 or more kids and are divorced with single incomes or
on
> > welfare. Meanwhile companies are paying these people 10,000 dollars a
year
> > to work 40 hours a week with little or no benefits because they think
the
> > spouses can pick up the slack or they can go on food stamps. Raise
> minimum
> > wage and stop wasting money on tax cuts. 300 bucks from uncle Bush's
tax
> > cut means much less to a poor family then affordable health care and
> higher
> > wages. Meanwhile the rich use their tax return on more jewelry and
luxury
> > items. Way to stimulate the economy dubya.
>
> Yeah, I read someone's post about welfare recipients being lazy. That is a
> stereotype (a horrific one)
You're thinking about what I said, but you quoted me wrong. I didn't say
that all welfare people are lazy, I said that welfare *makes* people lazy.
If you can make $13,000-$21,000 a year with having to do *nothing* at all,
why in the hell would you work? You wouldn't bottom line.
>that was promoted by none other than Mr Reagan.
And also promoted by anyone who wants to look at the situation logically.
> I receive welfare. I'm mentally ill, I have schizoaffective disorder, post
> traumatic stress disorder, and am mildy obssessive-compulsive. I take 15
> credit hours in college and I work my ass off in spite of all of this. I
get
> grants and loans to pay for school. We're not all "welfare queens driving
> Cadilacs." (Reagan's quote). I would not be able to make it without
welfare.
> I would probably kill myself without the free medications that I get.
>
> I think that a very important thing that traditional conservatives
overlook
> is the psychological effect of poverty and discrimination. Ever heard the
> saying "been down so long you don't know what up looks like anymore?"
wrong, we do look at that, that's why we want to get rid of welfare. Like
you said, "[..] been down so long", well, if someone keeps handing you a
check everymonth, why the hell would you get up?
> And
> there are individual factors that lead to poverty, such as lack of
ambition,
> motivation, etc.
Those are the major factors, and they're your fault, not anyone elses. Work
hard, get good grades, don't fuck around, do well on the SATs and you'll
suceeed. Be a victocrat and live a horrible life, it's your choice (the
general you, not the you you).
>But I think that an important question to ask is "why don't
> these people have ambition?"
Because they already get free money, why work for minimum wage when you make
it for free? It's all irrelivent, it's not my job to take care of you
(again, the general you). It's my job to take care of me, the people I care
about, and my familly. Not you.
>I don't jump up and down when I receive
> welfare, thinking that I'm living the good life, and I can't imagine that
> most poor people do. I was extremely hesistant about receiving it at first
> because I thought that it was something to be ashamed of. But, luckily, my
> very dear sociology professor, Kevin Everett, talked me out of that. The
> bottom line is that I need help in order to survive. I have disabilities
> that prevent me from doing it all on my own. I deserve special treatment.
A. You're one in few. 99% of welfare reciepiants are lazy morons in the
ghettoes living in public housing (which I am also strongly against, btw).
B. You may desearve special treatment in your eyes. But do you desearve it
from *me*? no, i work for my money, it's not your's to take. If I want to
give it to you I will, but for you to say that because you were born with a
mental disabillity and you deserve my money is victocratic and wrong.
> Granted, not all welfare recipients have so many dysfunctions themselves.
Hardly any.
> But the effects of poverty include lack of ambition, depression, drug
abuse,
> girls who will do anything to receive some type of approval or male figure
> in their lives so they go out and get pregnant.
No one forces you to do drugs, no one forces you to have illigitimate
children, no one forces any of these things on you. You make the choice to
do it, you should suffer for your poor decisions.
I heard a fifteen year-old
> girl say, when asked why she wanted to have a child, that "I wanted
someone
> to love me back." These girls should not be punished for making a mistake.
> It's hard to think logically in times of crisis. And living in the ghetto
> definitely qualifies as a crisis situation.
It's over-glorified stupidity and nothing more.
> One thing that I can relate to as far as not performing their best in
school
> is a psychological factor. I was overweight as a child and was constantly
> teased and degraded by my peers. From kindergarten through my junior year.
> It's hard to believe that you're worth succeeding when the people around
you
> imply that you're not. I even got it from my father, which is another
story.
Same here, I survived and thrived.
> It breaks my heart when people ignore issues such as these when labeling
> people as "stupid" or "lazy." The bottom line is that that mentality is
> quite immature. Maybe I'm too emotional, I don't know. But if I'm too
> emotional, then logic follows that others are not emotional enough.
Yes, you are too emotional. You want to force other people to think like
you, if I don't want to give my money to some lazy, unambitious fucker in
public housing I shouldn't *have* to. I should have the *choice*. Recent
surveys show that a major majority of americans would be more than happy to
give a lot more money to the poor, but choose not to because they feel that
they already pay enough in taxes.
I'm not ignoreing these issues; i confront them like this: you fuck up, it's
your fault, you have a choice, take personal responsibillty, I do it, so
should you.
> > College tuitions are soaring out of
> > control and we wonder why there are so few skilled workers available for
> > teaching or countless other vocations.
>
> Tell me about it. I go to Radford University in Virginia. Because of our
> lovely past Republican governors, our budget has been slashed a huge
amount
> because there are not enough funds due to the TAX CUTS
Bullshit. The problem isn't a lack of money, it's the spending. Public
school students in this country already get ovre $6000 per child-per
year ---that's more than almost any other country in the world, including
japan. What's the result? Poor test scores, high drop out rates and
fucking morons that can't fill out an employment application. More money?
get the fuck out of here. We pay too much, let the private sector take care
of education. It's not the taxpayers' job to take care of you, it's your
job to take care of you. People would be more than willing to give if they
wern't forced into already giving so much to a government that irresponsibly
spend money. Let people rely on their freinds, familly, churches and
private contributions.
>that they instituted.
> My tuition has gone up $500 this year, with more to come. People are being
> laid off. Our class schedules are so lean (they don't want to pay
professors
> to teach the classes) that several seniors that I know are not able to
> graduate on time and there are barely enough seats in every one of my
> classes for everyone to fit.
>
> > And people like me
> > aren't going to the voting booth because we are so disillusioned by all
> the
> > lies and misinformation so we come on the internet and spout off to
anyone
> > that will listen...
>
> I understand how you feel. But you should do it anyway. That's one, albeit
> small, way that you can change things. Check out the website to the
ACLU...
>
> http://www.aclu.org/
Great, you support an orginization that represents NAMBLA, a group of gay
people that teach old men how to moleste young boys and get away with it.
Barbara West
You're generalizing, which is unfair. I do not believe that welfare makes
people lazy. The conditions of poverty make them "lazy." Your bottom line is
wrong. I work my ass off.
> wrong, we do look at that, that's why we want to get rid of welfare.
Like
> you said, "[..] been down so long", well, if someone keeps handing you a
> check everymonth, why the hell would you get up?
I agree that the welfare system needs to be overhauled, but I do not agree
with your conclusion.
> Those are the major factors, and they're your fault, not anyone elses.
Work
> hard, get good grades, don't fuck around, do well on the SATs and you'll
> suceeed. Be a victocrat and live a horrible life, it's your choice (the
> general you, not the you you).
How do you expect CHILDREN to be completely aware of the consequences of
their actions? They don't have enough life experience to know much better.
IT IS NOT STUPIDITY. Have you seen the conditions of their schools? I highly
recommend the three books that I listed in an earlier post. They may allow
you to see things in a slightly different perspective.
> Because they already get free money, why work for minimum wage when you
make
> it for free? It's all irrelivent, it's not my job to take care of you
> (again, the general you). It's my job to take care of me, the people I
care
> about, and my familly. Not you.
We as citizens are responsible for the quality of our environment. When we
help others, we help ourselves at the same time. "It takes a village."
> A. You're one in few. 99% of welfare reciepiants are lazy morons in the
> ghettoes living in public housing (which I am also strongly against, btw).
Have you met 99% of welfare recipients? You're stereotyping, and ignoring,
just like most conservatives, the psychological consequences of poverty and
discrimination.
> B. You may desearve special treatment in your eyes. But do you desearve
it
> from *me*? no, i work for my money, it's not your's to take. If I want
to
> give it to you I will, but for you to say that because you were born with
a
> mental disabillity and you deserve my money is victocratic and wrong.
I disagree. It is the responsibility of ALL OF US to make sure that we live
safe, healthy lives. Again, helping others is helping oneself.
> > But the effects of poverty include lack of ambition, depression, drug
> abuse,
> > girls who will do anything to receive some type of approval or male
figure
> > in their lives so they go out and get pregnant.
>
> No one forces you to do drugs, no one forces you to have illigitimate
> children, no one forces any of these things on you. You make the choice
to
> do it, you should suffer for your poor decisions.
These things are products of poverty, Sebastian. You seriously underestimate
the impact of psychological factors.
> I heard a fifteen year-old
> > girl say, when asked why she wanted to have a child, that "I wanted
> someone
> > to love me back." These girls should not be punished for making a
mistake.
> > It's hard to think logically in times of crisis. And living in the
ghetto
> > definitely qualifies as a crisis situation.
>
> It's over-glorified stupidity and nothing more.
Have you always been this much of an asshole?
> > One thing that I can relate to as far as not performing their best in
> school
> > is a psychological factor. I was overweight as a child and was
constantly
> > teased and degraded by my peers. From kindergarten through my junior
year.
> > It's hard to believe that you're worth succeeding when the people around
> you
> > imply that you're not. I even got it from my father, which is another
> story.
>
> Same here, I survived and thrived.
As did I. But not everyone has the inner strength to do that. If it weren't
for the help and support of a limited number of people, I would not have.
> Yes, you are too emotional.
You're not emotional enough.
> You want to force other people to think like
> you,
I said nothing of the sort and implied nothing of the sort. I have the right
to express my opinions, same as you. If someone happens to agree with me,
great. Last time I checked, we live in a democracy. Your precious capitalism
may not last forever. If you have a problem with this, move.
> if I don't want to give my money to some lazy, unambitious fucker in
> public housing I shouldn't *have* to. I should have the *choice*.
Again, you're stereotyping.
> Recent
> surveys show that a major majority of americans would be more than happy
to
> give a lot more money to the poor, but choose not to because they feel
that
> they already pay enough in taxes.
Can we agree that most Amercians don't put forth the effort to seriously dig
into the policies of this country? Most Americans are quite ignorant when it
comes to government policies. Many Americans are deceived by the media, by
your Mr Limbaugh.
> I'm not ignoreing these issues; i confront them like this: you fuck up,
it's
> your fault, you have a choice, take personal responsibillty, I do it, so
> should you.
You seem to largely ignore structural factors in the making of poverty. You
attribute it 100% to individual factors which is flat out WRONG and
imbalanced.
> Bullshit. The problem isn't a lack of money, it's the spending. Public
> school students in this country already get ovre $6000 per child-per
> year--
LOL On average, probably so. If I recall correctly from my social inequality
class, the gap between those who go to "rich" school districts and those who
go to poor school districts, is about $3,000. There are many, many school
districts in which the children are given significantly less per child. And
it does make a difference. One of the functions of the educational system is
to provide equal opportunity to those less fortunate. But it simply doesn't
because the majority of funding for public schools comes from local taxes.
If the properties in a district are in shambles and not worth much, that
means less taxes go into that school system. It is a problem with spending.
---that's more than almost any other country in the world, including
> japan.
See above.
> What's the result? Poor test scores, high drop out rates and
> fucking morons that can't fill out an employment application.
These are the result of social inequality. See above. Many schools don't
have enough books for their students, there aren't enough teachers to teach
the classes, they go to decrepit school buildings etc. You would not be
immune to the fact that the low quality of education given to these students
imply that they are inferior. PSYCHOLOGY MATTERS. Again, I suggest that you
read the books that I listed.
More money?
> get the fuck out of here. We pay too much, let the private sector take
care
> of education.
LOL We pay less than most countries, and you're complaining. LOL
> It's not the taxpayers' job to take care of you, it's your
> job to take care of you. People would be more than willing to give if
they
> wern't forced into already giving so much to a government that
irresponsibly
> spend money.
Well, I agree that the government spends money money irresponsibly. I think
we disagree on what the government should be spending money on and how much.
> Let people rely on their freinds, familly, churches and
> private contributions.
They do, including myself. It's not enough for the majority of the poor.
> Great, you support an orginization that represents NAMBLA, a group of gay
> people that teach old men how to moleste young boys and get away with it.
Could you elaborate please?
Sebastian, I am very impressed with your passion about these issues. Not
enough people have that in my opinion.
I am, however, not interested in arguing with you. Neither of us is going to
change the other's mind.
One question. In your ideal world, what would the government spend money on
and how would you distribute that spending, in percentages. ie 10% on
building roads, 10% to education, etc.
Traci
Barbara West
can pick and choose to send emails and faxes according to the issue.
Personally, I'm not sure that I would support this. I don't know enough
about the situation.
According to the ACLU, this case is an issue of the first amendment. There
may be more to this than what we're being fed. If you have any relevant
articles, please share.
Traci
|sebAstian|
You're wrong, studies prove it, logic proves it. Answer my question: If I
gave the average person $13-$21,000 a year to do NOTHING, why would he take
a job.
> The conditions of poverty make them "lazy." Your bottom line is
> wrong. I work my ass off.
Like I said, you're an exception. I did say 99% didn,t I?
> > wrong, we do look at that, that's why we want to get rid of welfare.
> Like
> > you said, "[..] been down so long", well, if someone keeps handing you a
> > check everymonth, why the hell would you get up?
>
> I agree that the welfare system needs to be overhauled, but I do not agree
> with your conclusion.
Answer the question, look at the statistics.
> > Those are the major factors, and they're your fault, not anyone elses.
> Work
> > hard, get good grades, don't fuck around, do well on the SATs and you'll
> > suceeed. Be a victocrat and live a horrible life, it's your choice (the
> > general you, not the you you).
>
> How do you expect CHILDREN to be completely aware of the consequences of
> their actions? They don't have enough life experience to know much
better.
> IT IS NOT STUPIDITY. Have you seen the conditions of their schools? I
highly
> recommend the three books that I listed in an earlier post. They may allow
> you to see things in a slightly different perspective.
People come out of south central and thrive, anyone CAN do it, I'm not going
to make excuses for people.
> > Because they already get free money, why work for minimum wage when you
> make
> > it for free? It's all irrelivent, it's not my job to take care of you
> > (again, the general you). It's my job to take care of me, the people I
> care
> > about, and my familly. Not you.
>
> We as citizens are responsible for the quality of our environment. When we
> help others, we help ourselves at the same time. "It takes a village."
Fine, you do it, leave me out of it. It's my choice as well as it is
your's. That's the problem I have with democrates, you all want to force
other people to live and think like you. I just want to be left alone from
governement intrusion.
> > A. You're one in few. 99% of welfare reciepiants are lazy morons in
the
> > ghettoes living in public housing (which I am also strongly against,
btw).
>
> Have you met 99% of welfare recipients? You're stereotyping, and ignoring,
> just like most conservatives, the psychological consequences of poverty
and
> discrimination.
I don't need to "meet" them, I need to *read* statistics.
> > B. You may desearve special treatment in your eyes. But do you
desearve
> it
> > from *me*? no, i work for my money, it's not your's to take. If I want
> to
> > give it to you I will, but for you to say that because you were born
with
> a
> > mental disabillity and you deserve my money is victocratic and wrong.
>
> I disagree. It is the responsibility of ALL OF US to make sure that we
live
> safe, healthy lives. Again, helping others is helping oneself.
Helping other's is helping ones self? That's a matter of opinion, and it's
not your right to force me to live how you think I should.
> > > But the effects of poverty include lack of ambition, depression, drug
> > abuse,
> > > girls who will do anything to receive some type of approval or male
> figure
> > > in their lives so they go out and get pregnant.
> >
> > No one forces you to do drugs, no one forces you to have illigitimate
> > children, no one forces any of these things on you. You make the choice
> to
> > do it, you should suffer for your poor decisions.
>
> These things are products of poverty, Sebastian. You seriously
underestimate
> the impact of psychological factors.
No, I don't. I understand that it's hard, but it's not impossible, if you
want to suceed you can. Bottom line.
> > I heard a fifteen year-old
> > > girl say, when asked why she wanted to have a child, that "I wanted
> > someone
> > > to love me back." These girls should not be punished for making a
> mistake.
> > > It's hard to think logically in times of crisis. And living in the
> ghetto
> > > definitely qualifies as a crisis situation.
> >
> > It's over-glorified stupidity and nothing more.
>
> Have you always been this much of an asshole?
The truth hurts.
> > > One thing that I can relate to as far as not performing their best in
> > school
> > > is a psychological factor. I was overweight as a child and was
> constantly
> > > teased and degraded by my peers. From kindergarten through my junior
> year.
> > > It's hard to believe that you're worth succeeding when the people
around
> > you
> > > imply that you're not. I even got it from my father, which is another
> > story.
> >
> > Same here, I survived and thrived.
>
> As did I. But not everyone has the inner strength to do that. If it
weren't
> for the help and support of a limited number of people, I would not have.
We did it, so can they.
> > Yes, you are too emotional.
>
> You're not emotional enough.
On the contrary, I am emotional, I just realize that emotions have no place
in politics.
> > You want to force other people to think like
> > you,
>
> I said nothing of the sort and implied nothing of the sort. I have the
right
> to express my opinions, same as you.
Yes, but you think that everybody needs to act a certain way....it's called
fascism.
> If someone happens to agree with me,
> great. Last time I checked, we live in a democracy. Your precious
capitalism
> may not last forever. If you have a problem with this, move.
My precious capitalism is already gone.
> > if I don't want to give my money to some lazy, unambitious fucker in
> > public housing I shouldn't *have* to. I should have the *choice*.
>
> Again, you're stereotyping.
Read the statistics. It will show you that the very large majority of
welfare recieptiants misuse the system and never do anything with their
lives.
> > Recent
> > surveys show that a major majority of americans would be more than happy
> to
> > give a lot more money to the poor, but choose not to because they feel
> that
> > they already pay enough in taxes.
>
> Can we agree that most Amercians don't put forth the effort to seriously
dig
> into the policies of this country? Most Americans are quite ignorant when
it
> comes to government policies. Many Americans are deceived by the media, by
> your Mr Limbaugh.
Mr. Rush Limbaugh never told us that we have a good taxation rate. Every
working american Knows that our taxes are high, we don't need political
commentary to tell us that.
> > I'm not ignoreing these issues; i confront them like this: you fuck up,
> it's
> > your fault, you have a choice, take personal responsibillty, I do it, so
> > should you.
>
> You seem to largely ignore structural factors in the making of poverty.
You
> attribute it 100% to individual factors which is flat out WRONG and
> imbalanced.
I don't attribute it to 100% individual factors; what I attribute to the
individual 100% is RESPONSIBILLITY. Personal responsibillity is the most
important part of being sucessful. Without it, you're a leech off of
society and shouldn't be here anyway.
> > Bullshit. The problem isn't a lack of money, it's the spending. Public
> > school students in this country already get ovre $6000 per child-per
> > year--
>
> LOL On average, probably so. If I recall correctly from my social
inequality
> class, the gap between those who go to "rich" school districts and those
who
> go to poor school districts, is about $3,000. There are many, many school
> districts in which the children are given significantly less per child.
And
> it does make a difference. One of the functions of the educational system
is
> to provide equal opportunity to those less fortunate.
The public school system sucks, I've always said it. The results are
horrible, which is why schools should be privatized. Your examples don't
matter, all they are is more excuses for people to not be responsible. I
won't buy it.
>But it simply doesn't
> because the majority of funding for public schools comes from local taxes.
> If the properties in a district are in shambles and not worth much, that
> means less taxes go into that school system. It is a problem with
spending.
>
> ---that's more than almost any other country in the world, including
> > japan.
>
> See above.
>
> > What's the result? Poor test scores, high drop out rates and
> > fucking morons that can't fill out an employment application.
>
> These are the result of social inequality.
omg. Don't you get it? People will never all be equal. Most rich people
got there the old fasioned way: hard work and creativity. If you don't work
hard YOU DON"T DESEARVE ANYTHING!!!! The ball is always in your court, the
people we're talking about deliberatly throw it away.
> See above. Many schools don't
> have enough books for their students, there aren't enough teachers to
teach
> the classes, they go to decrepit school buildings etc. You would not be
> immune to the fact that the low quality of education given to these
students
> imply that they are inferior.
Work hard, do well in school, get good SAT scores, don't have illigitamate
childern, don't do drugs: you'll suceed.
>PSYCHOLOGY MATTERS. Again, I suggest that you
> read the books that I listed.
I used to be a liberal, I know all the excuses that you people make, I don't
need to hear it from a book. You want facts? Read the the books I
recommend.
> More money?
> > get the fuck out of here. We pay too much, let the private sector take
> care
> > of education.
>
> LOL We pay less than most countries, and you're complaining. LOL
10% is too much.
> > It's not the taxpayers' job to take care of you, it's your
> > job to take care of you. People would be more than willing to give if
> they
> > wern't forced into already giving so much to a government that
> irresponsibly
> > spend money.
>
> Well, I agree that the government spends money money irresponsibly. I
think
> we disagree on what the government should be spending money on and how
much.
>
> > Let people rely on their freinds, familly, churches and
> > private contributions.
>
> They do, including myself. It's not enough for the majority of the poor.
If people wern't being taxed so much more people would be willing to give,
and more money would get to the poor.
> > Great, you support an orginization that represents NAMBLA, a group of
gay
> > people that teach old men how to moleste young boys and get away with
it.
>
> Could you elaborate please?
>
> Sebastian, I am very impressed with your passion about these issues. Not
> enough people have that in my opinion.
>
> I am, however, not interested in arguing with you. Neither of us is going
to
> change the other's mind.
>
> One question. In your ideal world, what would the government spend money
on
> and how would you distribute that spending, in percentages. ie 10% on
> building roads, 10% to education, etc.
10% luxery tax that would apply mainly to the rich: all diverted to
military.
Everything else taken care of by the private sector.
LocustSky
>
> "LocustSky" <Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net> wrote in message
> news:ChuT9.2774$Qr4.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "|sebAstian|" <N0for...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:avifp4$g1jfe$1...@ID-153809.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> >
> > Sebastian. Sebastian. Sebastian. Do you really believe everyone is
paid
> > equally for equal work? According to the Sklar article i mentioned to
you
> > last time, women are paid $0.71 for a man's $1 (college degree). Go
ahead
> > and look into it. Men are paid more than women, and its fact.
>
> Women generally go into fields that pay less. On a job to job basis women
> make just about as much as men, and you're survey doesn't mention that
women
> start businesses less often than men, thus causeing the number to drop
down
> even lower.
Women go into field that generally pay less? That stat is based on the SAME
job and the same experience, education, etc. Go ahead and read that article
by Sklar. Its appeared in Z Magazine some years ago and has been printed
all over the place - you won't have trouble finding it online. Are women
less capable than men? Not from what i've seen. The dean of the Info and
Comp Sci School is a woman!
>
>
> > Do you really a worker can just get up and demand more pay or leave?
Try
> > this - Get a job, Demand more pay.
and what is they simply say, "fine.. we'll let you go.. i'm sure there are
many people waiting for your job." What will you do then? How will you pay
your bills, support your family? Comp. Sci. majors worth $45,000 a year
have settled for banking jobs that pay $25-$30. Why? This is not a matter
of choice, but a matter of what is available and what you *NEED*.. not
necessarily want.
>
> Are you worth more pay? You're worth what the general business population
is
> willing to pay, if you're making less than that find a new job! Someone
> will be willing to pay you. Underpaying your employees is bad business
> practice.
Someone will be willing to pay you? Ask recent college grads that - many
have settled for much less simply becuase that's what's available. I
challenge you - demand higher pay from your current job, and if hte employer
lets you go, go out and find a job for that pay you asked for. Go ahead and
try it. When you have a family to support, try it... i doubt you will be as
willing to try and risk at the point...
>
> Most likely your employer will let you
> > go and hire the next guy waiting in line for your job! That may be easy
> for
> > you to deal with, but what about the guy with a family to support? He
> > probably won't take that risk. A newly graduated comp sci major can
> expect
> > to get about $45,000 a year. I know recent graduates who are in
mortgage
> > now making almost half that simply becuase there isn't anything better
out
> > there.
>
> Or they don't have the education todo so. If you're good, you'll make what
> you're worth.
again, then why is a comp. sci. in banking making thousands less? His GPA
was better than decent (3. something). He was qualified. Why did he settle
for less? Did he have to? It was either that or unemployment! We must
consider their viewpoint.
>
> Your idea would be right if there were more jobs than there are
> > people needing jobs... but there isn't. People are settling for less,
> > simply becuase they have no other choice.. bills won't go away by
> > themselves. If you leave, where will you go? what will cover your
> > expenses? If you have a family, how will you support your family?
> > Employers have put applicant against applicant.. and best (lowest wage)
> > applicant wins. These are things that must be considered. Don't
believe
> > me? WHy do you think companies are going overseas for labor?
>
> Companies go overseas for labor because they get the same labor at a
cheaper
> rate. If you're *better* than those other people you will make more. not
> better? sucks for you, you should have tried harder.
How much influence does a worker have on his company? If a company decided
to move overseas to pay a worker much less than minimum wage and a livable
wage, what control would you have? None. The company will move. You will
lose your job to a worker overseas who is willing to work for much less.
This is out of your hands. many of these companies oppress these people
this way and do not allow them to develop as a nation. You should ahve
tried harder? It wouldn't matter if you worked as hard as you possibly can.
Labor would be cheaper, and max. profit (and less $$ going towards wages and
benefits) is the only things that matter to these companies. People don't
matter. Jobs don't matter. Lives don't matter.
>
> > Do you really believe your pay is exactly what your work deserves? Have
> you
> > ever heard of "visiting" workers? There are many professors at
> universities
> > that are "visiting". Why? Universities don't want to give them
contracts
> > (UC lecturer strike was about this very subject) and keep them around
for
> > more than a few years - they may ask for better than "part-time" status.
> Do
> > you know why many corporations don't allow their employees to unionize?
> >
> > Do we all play on equal playing fields? Here's something - two students
> > send out applications for job interviews. Both have similar GPAs,
scores,
> > stats, etc. One recieves 20+ calls. The other recieves 3. Why? Maybe
> > becuase one's name is common, and the other's is some Indian name tough
to
> > pronounce.
>
> I doubt that that happeneds very often. My full name is Sebstian Shanti
> Jozeph Gopal Krishna Awatramani, I haven't had much of a problem getting a
> job. And what type of job was it? If it was a retail job it's
> understandable, at my restaraunt I prefer to hire white people with
american
> accents, they make better waiters, bottom line.
hahaha.. finish college with an MBA. Finish college with a bachelors of
science in any engineering field. See how you perform in the professional
world against your white classmates with absolutely no accents. See how you
perform by what's on your application alone. Go ahead and try it. I'm not
talking about waiters, but if you'd like to use this.. fine. I've met
people with accents that interact with people much better than some who have
no accents at all. Just because someone has an accent does not mean the
customers don't understand and/or hte waiter is unable to do the job as
well. What if the accent was slight? What if the customer loved teh sound
of the accent? I like the sound of english accents. If you prefer hiring
people with no accents over people with accents, you may be missing out on
some great potential waiters. Judge them on their performance and customer
satisfaction, not their accent. If their accent hinders the job
performance, fine. And if it doesn't.........
>
> A similar experience was told by my cousin who after he got his
> > MBA. After he changed his name to a common name, the number of doors
> > opening just jumped (this was a couple of years before 9/11)! Its one
> > reason he's pushing me to change my name. I don't want to, but he may
be
> > right in the end - i don't have bills to pay yet or a family to support.
> > Reading all this crap about meritocracy and all is one thing. Believe
it
> if
> > you like. Its easy for John Smith to talk. Change your name to
Muhammad
> > Al-Sebastian. Let's see how people treat you in the professional world
> > then.
>
> According to arabamericanbusiness.com, 70% of arabs who ran in the last
> election won. Doesn't sound too bad to me.
and what postitions did they run for? what were their names? Were their
names John Nader (or something else less obviously "ethnic") or muhammad
Al-Voteforme? Would they get as many votes if
their names were clearly arabic? Ask Martin Sheen why he changed his name.
Ask Ben Kingsley why he changed his. What are their original names? That
shouldn't be too hard to find. Again, as i said before, opportunity can
differ based solely on a name, not ability, intelligence, etc. As
ridiculous as it sounds, it is very true.
> >
> > they will find better jobs?? How? They're competing against other
people
> > who want the jobs.
>
> If you're worth it you'll get it. Bottom line for business: hireing
> substandard workers is bad, under paying qualified workers is bad. The
jobs
> you are talking about are jobs that monkeys can do, why pay a human 5.75
> when a monkey will work for free?
First - often times, you won't get what you're worth.. why? slow job
market. highly competitive job market with no limit to how low employers
will go. What does the gov't care? Their campaigns are funded by these
corporations. What do the corporations care? They're getting more in their
own pocket.
Why NOT hire the monkey for free? First a monkey doesn't have a family to
support. I think we're a little more complex the monkeys. We, unlike
monkeys, need food on our table bought from a market for $$. We need health
care bought by $$. We need shelter bought by $$. We can't live in trees
and the wilderness. The employer has the money to pay the worker a DECENT,
LIVABLE wage... its the employer's greed that is keeping him from doing so.
There's no excuse for having the money to pay, watching a worker struggle
due to your unfair wage, and all so your big wage gets bigger! I don't know
about you, but greed and apathy are things that annoys me more than
ignorance. What happens with a poor society? Watch crime increase. Watch
education sink lower, in the eyes of the poor, as a priority. Watch
illiteracy grow. Watch your society weaken and diminish. Kill or be
killed, huh? People with this thought don't care about he country as a
whole. They don't care about future generations. They don't care about the
future of hte planet. All they care for is themselves.
>
>
> > This causes people to settle for LESS. There's nothing
>
> no one with a good education works for minimum wage. Who workds for
minimum
> wage? morons and young teens. The minimum wage destroyes jobs, 90% of
> economists agree.
I wasn't taking about minimum wage. I was talking about settling for
less...
as is the case with many. You said they will get paid what they're worth.
How do you know that? Have you seen the job market? Have you seen how it
works? have you seen how people work with it? Go to UCLA's school of
engineering and ask the seniors - how much to expect to be paid? how much
is the national avg.? how much do you think you'll get paid? how many
applications have you sent? how many replied with the pay you expected?
how many with much less? go ahead. I know quite a few seniors in thsi
position over at UCI. many have settled for much less. "Too many people
and too little jobs." Over 50 people applied to Costa Mesa's assistant
engineering position. How do i know? my dad was one of the applicants.
the postion went to one who was far more qualified than what was required -
i believe it was a master's degree with an MBA for a position requiring only
bachelor's. Why? Competitive job market. The guy who got the position
settled for LESS.
have you heard about lack of opportunities? go to a H.S. in Palos Verdes.
go to a H.S. in South L.A. Tell me the opportunities are equal then. Our
jobs isn't to take of people? Is health care not a human right? Are we
going to let a person suffer simply because we don't to lose a dime? Are we
going to make people suffer MORE because we want MORE in out own pockets?
is this right? Is $2.47 a livable wage? How can they support themselves?
Do they have any kind of health care? How are they supposed to improve
their lives when they are getting $2.47 an hour and have a family to
support?
Again, what happens when the poor increase in numbers? More crime. More
illiteracy. Less priorities on education. The society weakens. Is this
what a good leader wants to see happen to his country? He may, if he values
his own $$ and the $$ of his social class, more than people. Its not like
they can't pay the minimum wage to lessen the suffering. They can, but
would rather increase their own high profits! This is greed at its worst,
if there is such a thing!
>
> > Destroy minimum wage completely? I highly suggest looking into this
idea
> > and researching the effects of low wages on a people and the
exploitation
> of
> > workers by employers that could easily happen... as past experience has
> > shown.
>
> It's not exploitation. Why would you be forced into a job where you have
to
> work for minimum wage in the first place! You should have gone to college
> and done well.
Try this - there was nothing else! Again, refer to my comments about the
job market and people settling for less. Try this - college costs too much.
Do the poor have an equal change of getting to college as the rich? UC
Irvine costs 4,000+ a year. If you qualify for fed. aid., what about
housing? What about transportation? what about parking? What if you're
H.S. lacked funds that would allow you to compete other applicants from rich
a H.S.? Sure, it is still quite possible to succeed, but is their an equal
playing field - is there equal opportunity. In my H.S., we never go
announcements in homeroom about the SATs. A friend of mine from a wealthier
H.S. had reminders given every day! Did you know you can take the SAT 3
times and they take your highest score? That's worthless when they tell you
2 months before applications are due (that's when i heard the reminders in
homeroom for the first time). Opportunities are clearly different.
<big snip of past posts>
>
> College *is* an option for every student, espesially if you are a
minority,
> which make up most of the 'poor' in this country. do well in high school,
> get a good SAT score, don't have kids you can't afford to take care of and
> you'll get into college. Private orginizations give away billions of $$$
>a year to poor students. Can't get grants? get loans.
have you looked into this teh statistics between H.S. "wealth", SAT scores,
and college entrance? have you gone to a university and applied for student
aid, scholorships, grants, loans, etc. ? Let me tell you from my own
experience - i go to school at UC Irvine. I commute every day from home to
school, then back. That's a 70 mi. round trip - about 45 min. each way. I
tell people i commute this much and they think i'm crazy. I'm not crazy (of
this sense), but i commute because i don't want to take out $8,000/yr.
loans. That would be $32,000 at the end of my four years (or $40,000 if i
keep taking soc. and philo classes instead of Info and Comp Sci classes). I
applied to over a dozen scholarships. I won nothing. I applied for grants.
I qualified for a state grant becuase of my GPA, but with the income level,
my grant was cut in half. Unfortunately, this grants only covers about 60%
of my tuition alone.
What H.S. did you go to? If it was in Southern Calif, what % went to
universities? What % went to community colleges? Of this %, how many had
the GPA, but
didn't have the right SAT score, or couldn't afford college even with aid
(of any kind). My high school had only 12 out of 634 seniors graduating and
going to a UC campus. What's that number from Corona Del Mar H.S.? What is
the SAT score of students from a poor H.S.? WHat is that of a rich H.S.?
If you don't believe me, read the stats i already posted - why does
upper-class, white majority H.S. have a ridiculous amount of students
suffering from a condition that gives them extra time on the SAT? They
bring in doctor notes allowing them extra time. I posted facts from the
L.A. Times... see it.
option for every student? Whoever told you that didnt' tell you everything.
It is an option for every student, but some clearly have better tools than
others, and often sometimes, these "tools" are unfair advantages (such as
more books, more credentialed teachers, better college centers, more SAT
extra-time "excuses", etc.). Go ahead.. look into it.. find the connection
between race/income and education.
>
>
> > Research the topic. I'd love to see your findings. Just a note if you
> do -
> > the proposed Student Center Expansion project will be funded by loans,
and
> > paid back by the school in the form of fee increases for students who
will
> > actually use the center (fee increase won't happen until project is
done).
i'd love to hear your explanation of my rising tuition.. still.
> >
> > 60%?! According to site you brought to my attention, 60% is what the
> > HIGHEST INCOME EARNERS in Sweden pay. What % of the population is that?
> > 10%? 15%? Maybe less? What is the income tax rate paid by the average
> > Swedish worker? 20% (marginal rate), again according to stats YOU
POSTED.
> > This is 7% LESS than what the average American worker pays (27%)! and
> that
> > info can be found at the same site you posted.
>
>
> So you don't see a problem with 15% of our country paying a 60% tax? no
> thanks, buddy. 10% tax is too much for anyone. Cut taxes to 10%, drop
> minimum wage, stop with failing social programs and you'll have a damn
good
> economy. Need more info? www.LP.org.
60% tax? That's right - corporations don't have families, they don't have
homes to pay for, they don't have health care to maintain. A corporation is
NOT a person, so it does NOT deserve a tax rate as low as that of
individuals. Oh, and its not 15% of the country - 15% of the country clealy
does not hold CEO/owner positions that make tens of millions a year - this
is obvious. As i said BEFORE, if a business is making $20 in profits a
year, after taxes it comes out to $12 million. $8 million goes to the gov't
for health care, education, and other social programs that are much more
important than a business's profit - a nation's people are more important
than how fat a cat's wallet can get. I'm sure a salary that went from $3
million a year to $2.5 million a year won't starve him and take the roof
over his head.
10% for all (individual and corporate)? No income tax income tax for all?
Where will your federal revenue come from? Taxing products won't be enough.
Drop minimum wage? What would that accomplish? Nothing would hold back fat
cat employers from lowering wages for the workers. The poorest workers will
suffer for this as competing workers in a competitive job market bring down
wages - workers settle for less as that's what it'll take to land that job..
its either that or unemployment! Employers won't care - they'll make more
from the decrease in wage costs. For example, many workers want full-time
employment, but have settle will part-time employment because that's all
they can get. As wages decrease, and the costs of life remain (food,
housing, health care), poverty will increase. As this increases, crime will
increase, the gap between rich and poor will increase unfairly and unjustly,
and the importance of education will decrease. With this lifestyle, many
will lack the financial flexibility to send their child to college - they're
needed at home to bring home the extra income. So you see, eliminating
minimum rage is the wrong idea, and it will only further damage a society as
a whole. Don't take my word for it - examine the stats regarding the
connection between the poor and crime/education. Go ahead.. the info is out
there.. find it.
failing social programs? maybe here due to our privatized system. Other
nations enjoy successful social programs (relatively successrul compared to
us) featuring some sort of universal health care program, as the World
Health Organization states. Taxes? The avg. Japanese pays LESS income tax
than we do. The avg. Spanish pays only 1.7% more than we do. It makes you
wonder - if this isn't going into these kinds of social programs, where the
is all the money going?! Its funny - their universal health care systems
are among the best health care systems in the world (WHO) and the American
system of privatized health care, is ranked #37 (or was it 38?).. and we're
the wealthiest nation on the planet (economy)... our privatized system is
failing. We're one of the few (if not the only nation!) major
industrialized nations in the world that has not established some sort of
universal health care program. So you see, if anyone's social programs are
failing - its our social programs that is failing, including our privatized
health care program (see stats and specifics in last post about crimes by
pharmacuetical companies).
Let's assume we did eliminate these social programs, minimum wage, and all
income taxes (corporate and individual). You're gov't will be pretty poor
as it will not have any kind real federal revenue. In 98, "THe Economist"
estimated (for '99) that 48% of federal revenue will come from individuals
and 10% from corporations. That's 58% of the federal revenue. What will
happen if you cut this 58% entirely? Since you eliminated social programs,
the poor will be worth a negative amount! All their wages will go into
health care, food, and housing, and since you eliminated minimum wage, they
will most likely be in debt. How will they get out when they'r being paid
$2.47 an hour (workfare...see last post)? I don't think you're really
imagined living this way. Imagine being paid that amount and having a
family to support - tough, isn't it? Crime will increase as poverty and
debt increases. The education of a people will fall as a priority as more
and more turn to employment rather than education. Your society weakens as
the fat cats enjoy having their multi-million dollar salaries rise
dramatically - they have no taxes (corporate or individual), they get the $$
they saved from paying workers a decent, livable wage. Your fat cat
corporations are doing quite well, but what about the other people in your
nation? What good is an economy to a nation, when its only helping their
fat cat owners/CEOs? Its not helping hte gov't. Its not helping the
people. its not helping the nation. Its only helping the few people behind
it by giving them more $$ in their pockets. What good is an economy when
the nation has failed its people? Let's not blind ourselves with simply
worrying about the economy.. think - what purpose does the economy serve its
nation? If it serves no constructive purpose to its nation or its people as
whole, why do we persist in prioritizing it? Damn good economy, huh?
Great, but a large portion of your people are living in poverty... many more
are suffering from health problems (do not have decent medical care -
couldn't afford it)... many are in debt.. the gap between rich and poor has
increased LARGELY... social programs have been cut due to the lack of
federal revenue.. all while your fat-cat CEOs sit and enjoy their HUGE
untaxed incomes off the work of an exploited working class that doesn't make
enough to live decently - they have the $$ to pay their workers, but would
rather keep it for themselves. Good economy, but what about your nation?
You've failed to govern.
some articles that may shed light on the subject.
http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/may99sklar.htm
http://www.zmag.org/ZSustainers/ZDaily/2000-02/06albert.htm
> > few workers? Ask a recent comp grad if they had trouble finding a job.
> Ask
> > any recent graduate if they had trouble finding a job. I know several
> comp.
> > grads who are in banking, mortgage, or accounting because there wasn't
any
> > positions in comp sci. that would pay more (starting comp. scientists
> > generally make much more than starting bankers and accountants).
They're
> > settling for less not becuase they want to, but because its either that
or
> > nothing! I'm sure many AMTers who are parents can relate to this point
> much
> > more than we can.
>
> I could spend 8 years in college and get a PHD is music theory, the degree
> would get me no where. You can't blame anyone else for getting into a
> market that doesn't have jobs availible. major in business, you'll be
>fine.
my point wasn't about what to major in... you could major in business econ
and earn a decent living. You could go into teaching and earn a decent
living. you could go into management info. systems and make a decent
living. you could go into comp. sci. and earn a decent living (even if it
is below national average). This is not my point. My point was about
people settling for less in a competitive job market, not actual jobs
available. My example is of one is over-qualified for the position he
settled for (the mathematics this business position required was just a few
of the many info and comp. sci. majors take @ UCI - we're 3 courses away
from having the math minor). He settled for less due to a competitive job
market. You'll be fine majoring in business? have you looking into the job
market for business majors? What is their national avg? I gave you
sources.. check there. What are recent business grads settling for? The
competion has increased in many areas of study, including comp. sci. and
business (we'll assume all areas of business).... and i'm not talking about
whether or not you found a job. I'm talking about how much less you settled
for in this competitive job market. Go ahead and major in business, but
watch out for the over-qualified grads, from other areas of study, coming in
and competing against you... with his knowledge of mathematics and info.
systems (may even have taken management and econ. courses), good luck
competing against him!
http://www.stuaffrs.wayne.edu/SalarySurvey/salsur97.htm
examine the salary of a business grad (any) to an engineering grad (any).
Compare the salary of a Comp Sci grad to an Econ. grad. In today's market,
IT jobs are of the highest demand, but the demand isn't high enough to ease
the competitive job market and its not enough to allow the flexibility to
demand what your knowledge is worth. What is your knowledge worth? The
avg. computer science degree is worth $49,000 a year.
http://www.graduatingengineer.com/interview/salaries.html
Now, if a comp. sci. major can't find a job, he'll settle for less.. such as
the job that would normally require a business econ degree, as was the case
in my example. What does a business degree get you? approx. $33,000/yr
according to the link above ('97 estimate from link above - all business).
That's about $15,000 less than a comp. sci. degree a year! job market
demand? IT (information technology) jobs are the jobs that have the most
demand today. many Comp. Sci. majors double major in business admin. (or
study after completion of comp. sci.) and/or pursue an MBA due to the
competitive job market.
As long as there are electrical and computer engineers building computer
hardware, there will computer scientists building hte software to run on
it... employment isn't the problem... the problem is how much less you'll
settle for in the process of acquiring employement.
--
- LocustSky
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TÆ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
LocustSky
> Locust, you kick ass. I wish I had said that. :o)
>
> Traci
thanks! This motivates me even more...
--
- LocustSky
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TÆ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
--
- LocustSky
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TÆ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
LocustSky
>
> "LocustSky" <Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net> wrote in message
> news:ChuT9.2774$Qr4.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "|sebAstian|" <N0for...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:avifp4$g1jfe$1...@ID-153809.news.dfncis.de...
> So you don't see a problem with 15% of our country paying a 60% tax? no
> thanks, buddy. 10% tax is too much for anyone. Cut taxes to 10%, drop
> minimum wage, stop with failing social programs and you'll have a damn
good
> economy. Need more info? www.LP.org.
just something to add - is looking to a political party a worthwhile way of
informing yourself about issues? Would you expect to have a view skewed in
favor of the party's interests? It would be be reasonable to assume so.
You shouldn't turn to political parties to define the issues for you. You
can do that on your own... and you don't even have to have a TV. Get a
newspaper, magazine, journal, etc... many can be found online.
Let your own study of the issues lead you to the political parties. Don't
led the political parties define the issues and determine the range of view
for you. Back in H.S., i thought of myself as a republican... every one has
the same chance of sucess, right? Wrong. Once i studied the issues for
myself, i learned that i was wrong.. there was much i wasn't told... there
was much that wasn't spoken of... and now i know better. Even though I'm
not a democrat or a republican, if it came down to these two parties, i'd
vote democrat over republican any day.
> > > Sebastian
> > > -The New Inquisitor
--
- LocustSky
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĘ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
LocustSky
i'm sorry, but i just have to cut in on some of these points... the poor
are making $13,000 and $21,000 a year? I really doubt that. $21,000 is
over the income limit (family of four) for school lunch program and many, if
not all, people who are "poor" utilize this program. I'd realy like to a
see a source, please.
many are in debt to the point where they have a negative wealth value..
they're too busy paying for food, housing, medical care, etc. They're
consumed by debt.
http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/may99sklar.htm
http://www.zmag.org/ZSustainers/ZDaily/2000-02/06albert.htm
we seem to have differing definitions of "poor".. with one side not
realizing what "poor" really carries with it.
> >that was promoted by none other than Mr Reagan.
>
> And also promoted by anyone who wants to look at the situation logically.
>
> > I receive welfare. I'm mentally ill, I have schizoaffective disorder,
post
> > traumatic stress disorder, and am mildy obssessive-compulsive. I take 15
> > credit hours in college and I work my ass off in spite of all of this. I
> get
> > grants and loans to pay for school. We're not all "welfare queens
driving
> > Cadilacs." (Reagan's quote). I would not be able to make it without
> welfare.
> > I would probably kill myself without the free medications that I get.
> >
> > I think that a very important thing that traditional conservatives
> overlook
> > is the psychological effect of poverty and discrimination. Ever heard
the
> > saying "been down so long you don't know what up looks like anymore?"
>
> wrong, we do look at that, that's why we want to get rid of welfare. Like
> you said, "[..] been down so long", well, if someone keeps handing you a
> check everymonth, why the hell would you get up?
as Traci said, this is nothing more than a generalization. if i was
recieving welfare checks, how do you know i wouldn't get up to get myself
out of welfare somehow?
> > And
> > there are individual factors that lead to poverty, such as lack of
> ambition,
> > motivation, etc.
>
> Those are the major factors, and they're your fault, not anyone elses.
Work
> hard, get good grades, don't fuck around, do well on the SATs and you'll
> suceeed. Be a victocrat and live a horrible life, it's your choice (the
> general you, not the you you).
have you considered differeing opportunities, as mentioned in my last posts?
>
> >But I think that an important question to ask is "why don't
> > these people have ambition?"
>
> Because they already get free money, why work for minimum wage when you
make
> it for free? It's all irrelivent, it's not my job to take care of you
> (again, the general you). It's my job to take care of me, the people I
care
> about, and my familly. Not you.
again, this is indifference.. and see my last post how if you continue with
"its not my problem" mentality, it will become your problem when your nation
weakens and the effects of poverty rise.. see my last post for more details.
>
>
> >I don't jump up and down when I receive
> > welfare, thinking that I'm living the good life, and I can't imagine
that
> > most poor people do. I was extremely hesistant about receiving it at
first
> > because I thought that it was something to be ashamed of. But, luckily,
my
> > very dear sociology professor, Kevin Everett, talked me out of that. The
> > bottom line is that I need help in order to survive. I have disabilities
> > that prevent me from doing it all on my own. I deserve special
treatment.
>
> A. You're one in few. 99% of welfare reciepiants are lazy morons in the
> ghettoes living in public housing (which I am also strongly against, btw).
99% are lazy morons? how do you know? let's not generalize.
> B. You may desearve special treatment in your eyes. But do you desearve
it
> from *me*? no, i work for my money, it's not your's to take. If I want
to
> give it to you I will, but for you to say that because you were born with
a
> mental disabillity and you deserve my money is victocratic and wrong.
first... with all the spending your tax money is put to.. why not spend that
tax money on the good of the nation instead of waging wars that are uncalled
for?
second... if my tax money was used to better the nation, including providing
extra care for those that require it.. i'd say its put to good use. if you
really care about the spending of our tax dollars, attack the gov't military
spending and corporate tax breaks. with all the injustice and opportunity
that is not given to the poor, why shouldn't our gov't assist them? Once
this injustice of unequal opportunity is eliminated, then we'll talk about
further assisting the poor - they'll have a good a chance as everyone else
to improve their situation.
<snip a lot of stuff>
>
> > It breaks my heart when people ignore issues such as these when labeling
> > people as "stupid" or "lazy." The bottom line is that that mentality is
> > quite immature. Maybe I'm too emotional, I don't know. But if I'm too
> > emotional, then logic follows that others are not emotional enough.
>
> Yes, you are too emotional. You want to force other people to think like
> you, if I don't want to give my money to some lazy, unambitious fucker in
> public housing I shouldn't *have* to. I should have the *choice*.
Recent
> surveys show that a major majority of americans would be more than happy
to
> give a lot more money to the poor, but choose not to because they feel
that
> they already pay enough in taxes.
don't think like me. consider my viewpoint. Agree or disagree based on all
that you know and understand. Let's approach this rationally and examine
the statistics between the poor and crime/education. They clearly differ.
Why? Try unequal opportunity - details and specs. given in my longs replies
to your previous posts.
i can't believe my ears (or my eyes in this case)!!! *THIS* is bullshit!
Universities (UC in this case) have put lecturers on part-time status
because they don't have hte money to put them and pay them full-time status.
the recent UC lecturer strike was about just this.
$6000? How much do they spend per child in a poor H.S.? How much do they
spend per child in a rich H.S.? Sometimes that can be 5 times higher (maybe
more) than poor schools? Go ahead.. research how much is spend per child
at Washington Prep. H.S. in South L.A. and how much is spent it Corona Del
Mar H.S. in Newport Beach. According to the L.A. times (12/8/99), approx 4%
of the teachers of a school, with 0-25% of the children recieving
free/reduced lunch, were unqualified. 16% of the teachers of schools, with
76-100% of the students recieving free/reduced lunch, were unqualified. Is
this equal opportunity? Go ahead and study this... until then, let's not
let our emotions and limited knowledge of a subject hinder our ability to
truly recognize and understand these topics.
--
- LocustSky
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĆ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
LocustSky
>
<snip whole post>
its good to see someone like you speak of the importance of the "village".
Its our world. Its our nation. Its our responsibility to take care of it.
Personally, what good is "Me me me" when you're lying on your death bed?
all that you've collected and worked for is dying and fading away. By
taking care of the "village", you contribute and maintained something much
greater than yourself.
its good to see that this mentality is alive and well.
--
- LocustSky
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĘ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
LocustSky
> >
> > These are the result of social inequality.
>
> omg. Don't you get it? People will never all be equal. Most rich people
> got there the old fasioned way: hard work and creativity. If you don't
work
> hard YOU DON"T DESEARVE ANYTHING!!!! The ball is always in your court,
the
> people we're talking about deliberatly throw it away.
people will never be equal - some people just work harder than others.
okay, but will people ever have the same opportunities others have? Not
with people persisting with their uninformed views!
Tell me.. how many books does Wash. Prep H.S. in South L.A. need? 8.550 (LA
TIMES, 2.8.98)
Why are income levels directly associated with SAT scores? According to the
1996 profile of SAT test takers put out by the College Entrance Examination
Board and the Educational Testing Service, medians scores have increased
with income. Incomes of less than 10,000 had a med. score of 873. The
graph given by these sources go by $10,000 increments. Those numbers
consistently and continually rise.
Tell me.. why are the majority of SAT test takers with medical conditions,
that allow extra time on teh SATs, from white and upper-class high schools??
Do rich whites only suffer from this? Could it be that they are getting
these doctors notes from doctors who may be their parent's or family
friends? The majority of SAT test takers are white. Are whites smarter
than other races? of course not.. the problem here is opportunity.
source - LA Times, 1/9/2000
your logic is worthless if there isn't enough information behind it.
>
> > See above. Many schools don't
> > have enough books for their students, there aren't enough teachers to
> teach
> > the classes, they go to decrepit school buildings etc. You would not be
> > immune to the fact that the low quality of education given to these
> students
> > imply that they are inferior.
>
> Work hard, do well in school, get good SAT scores, don't have illigitamate
> childern, don't do drugs: you'll suceed.
hahaha. i'm sorry but this is naive. This isn't just emotional (this could
very well contribute to the problem), but there is a clear difference in
opportunity and this is supported by the many facts stated here and in my
previous posts.. not beliefs, scenarios, or emotion - but fact. Again,
examine hte connection between the poor and education. Don't give me a book
to read, unless you're giving me a source of the facts YOU state. Don't
give me a political party to look to. If you can't answer yourself, then
you haven't informed yourself enough. Again, the topics should lead you to
the parties. The parties shouldn't lead you to the topics.
<snip of material already addressed in my other posts to you.. in the same
thread, in fact.>
> ----
> Sebastian
> -The New Inquisitor
--
- LocustSky
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĆ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
LocustSky
news:<avl1kg$gou3v$1...@ID-153809.news.dfncis.de>...
> take the time or the effort to look at the issues *objectively*. They
> think that everyone is entitled to a 100K a year salary with full
> medical expenses covered, etc., etc., even though they never did
> anything in their lives to help themselves. Your argument that it is
> their own fault because these people screwed up in school is
> *EXCELLENT*. How can someone who didn't do their part in school
> demand *anything* from the government? And, please, no one tell me,
> "Well, if you lived in the ghetto and your mom was smoking crack every
> day it would be hard for you to do good in school, too". LOL.
>
> That being said, there was a time when I thought that the conservative
> ideology was right about everything, so I had to go back and look at
> all the issues and I actually changed my mind about many things. But
> conservatives are still right about almost everything.
>
now that's just silly. what is a liberal? if a liberal is one that demands
people be paid a decent wage that can sustain the basis elements of life..
if a liberal is one that defends exploited workers against their employers
that refuse to pay them what they deserve simply so they're profits won't
decrease from $3 million to $2.5 million, then i'm a liberal. People under
the workrafe program in NY make about $2.47, which is well below minimum
wage. Can you sustain a decent life and support a family under these
conditions? Are the opportunities given to the rich, given to the poor?
Rich H.S. spend as much as 5 times more per student compared to poor
highschools... and i'm not going to go thru the trouble of posting how many
thousands of books each poor schools in L.A. needs.
Let's not assume and let's not let's not be so quick to formulate uniformed
arguments. Liberals believe that everyone "is entitled to 100K a year, with
full salaries, medical coverage, etc. etc." Come now.. let's not post
bullshit exaggerations based, not on reason, but ignorance. Show me a
liberal who stated such a thing. Go on... show me. How one could call this
reasonable and/or logical, i don't know. Perhaps its all logic and not
enough information/knowledge - what good is logic then?
--
- LocustSky
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TÆ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
|sebAstian|
"LocustSky" <Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net> wrote in message
>
> "Red Schism" <reds...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ee598ccf.03011...@posting.google.com...
> > "|sebAstian|" <N0for...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:<avl1kg$gou3v$1...@ID-153809.news.dfncis.de>...
> > ...you can preach on all you want, but most liberals will not even
> > take the time or the effort to look at the issues *objectively*. They
> > think that everyone is entitled to a 100K a year salary with full
> > medical expenses covered, etc., etc., even though they never did
> > anything in their lives to help themselves. Your argument that it is
> > their own fault because these people screwed up in school is
> > *EXCELLENT*. How can someone who didn't do their part in school
> > demand *anything* from the government? And, please, no one tell me,
> > "Well, if you lived in the ghetto and your mom was smoking crack every
> > day it would be hard for you to do good in school, too". LOL.
> >
> > That being said, there was a time when I thought that the conservative
> > ideology was right about everything, so I had to go back and look at
> > all the issues and I actually changed my mind about many things. But
> > conservatives are still right about almost everything.
> >
>
> now that's just silly. what is a liberal?
Someone who thinks that people are entitled to more than they work for
themselves. someone who thinks that other people should have to pay for the
mistakes of others. someone who looks the other way when people act stupid,
and then expect other people to compensate for it.
>if a liberal is one that demands
> people be paid a decent wage that can sustain the basis elements of life..
People desearve to get paid what they're worth. If you didn't work hard, if
you didn't study in school, if you didn't go to college, it's your fault,
not mine. I shouldn't have to take care of you.
> if a liberal is one that defends exploited workers against their employers
> that refuse to pay them what they deserve simply so they're profits won't
> decrease from $3 million to $2.5 million, then i'm a liberal. People
under
> the workrafe program in NY make about $2.47, which is well below minimum
> wage.
You should have taken responsibillity and worked hard instead of slacking
off. You're supposed to take care of you, not me. If you want to help all
these people, help them out of *your* pocket, not mine.
>Can you sustain a decent life and support a family under these
> conditions?
Shouldn't have had a familly if you were too stupid to get stuck in a job to
get paid minimum wage or below.
>Are the opportunities given to the rich, given to the poor?
To everybody, more to the rich, but many to the poor. Do they choose to
take it on average? No, they;d rather listen to people like you talk about
how everyone else owes them something. With this victicratic mentallity
poor people will never get anywhere.
> Rich H.S. spend as much as 5 times more per student compared to poor
> highschools... and i'm not going to go thru the trouble of posting how
many
> thousands of books each poor schools in L.A. needs.
So you're saying it's impossible to come out of a school like that and
suceed? better say no, cause I'll give you a couple names right off the top
of my head of very very sucessful black people who came out of south central
and went to SC substandard schools. I'll give you named of people who lived
in the exact same conditions that people who you defend as victims of an
unjust system, yet suceeded just as much as any high class white person. I
knwo what your thinking: it's not average....damn right it's not, but all
those people who are doing nothing have the same exact oppertunity as the
people who came out of there and did something. Here's something for you to
consider: there will never be equal oppertunity in any place in the world.
It's not the job of the affluent to take care of the poor. Repeal all
welfare and educational taxes and let people like *you*, people who want to
help, pay the cost since you're all so damn generious. That's the problem
with liberals:
Conservatives say: we're against helping the poor but we don't want to stop
you from helping the poor.
Liberals say: YOU HAVE TO HELP THE POOR!!!!! IT'S YOUR DUTY!!!!
Abdul, I love you, but shove it up your ass (And I don't mean that to be
prejudicia;-)). You want to be compassionate and invest money in failing,
yes failing according to over 90% of economists, then do it. Leave me out
of it.
> Let's not assume and let's not let's not be so quick to formulate
uniformed
> arguments. Liberals believe that everyone "is entitled to 100K a year,
with
> full salaries, medical coverage, etc. etc."
he was exagerating, but his point is this: liberals mean well, but they do
more damage than good. Welfare makes people lazy, public education sucks,
and people are victicrates.
>Come now.. let's not post
> bullshit exaggerations based, not on reason, but ignorance. Show me a
> liberal who stated such a thing.
Hillory Clinton says shit like this all the time...it takes a village,
remember? Perhaps it not as extreame as 100K a year, but it's not too far
off.
Go on... show me. How one could call this
> reasonable and/or logical, i don't know. Perhaps its all logic and not
> enough information/knowledge - what good is logic then?
Logic is always enough.
--
----
Sebastian
-The New Inquisitor
>
> --
> - LocustSky
>
> AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĘ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
>
>
>
>
|sebAstian|
"LocustSky" <Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net> wrote in message
If that's true, I've seen many conflicting stats, and only one to support
your's, and it was the same one: your's. I'll trust the stats that I have,
since there are more of them done by more orginizations.
BTW, in many cases you *can* hire a company full of women. Many places have
been exempt from non-gender discrimination laws, such as: production
companies all over hollywood, and hooters.
> > > Do you really a worker can just get up and demand more pay or leave?
> Try
> > > this - Get a job, Demand more pay.
>
> and what is they simply say, "fine.. we'll let you go.. i'm sure there are
> many people waiting for your job." What will you do then? How will you
pay
> your bills, support your family?
Get another job?
>Comp. Sci. majors worth $45,000 a year
> have settled for banking jobs that pay $25-$30. Why? This is not a
matter
> of choice, but a matter of what is available and what you *NEED*.. not
> necessarily want.
>
> >
> > Are you worth more pay? You're worth what the general business
population
> is
> > willing to pay, if you're making less than that find a new job! Someone
> > will be willing to pay you. Underpaying your employees is bad business
> > practice.
>
> Someone will be willing to pay you? Ask recent college grads that - many
> have settled for much less simply becuase that's what's available.
Yes, because THAT"S WHATS AVAILABLE!
I
> challenge you - demand higher pay from your current job, and if hte
employer
> lets you go, go out and find a job for that pay you asked for.
Do you have something that you can offer the company which no one else can?
Then fuck off if you want more money. You'll work for what I'll pay you,
because I know that I can get someone else to do the same job for the same
pay, maybe less. What was that? You can increase efficiancy by
70%...hello, pay raise.
>Go ahead and
> try it. When you have a family to support, try it... i doubt you will be
as
> willing to try and risk at the point...
>
> >
> > Most likely your employer will let you
> > > go and hire the next guy waiting in line for your job! That may be
easy
> > for
> > > you to deal with, but what about the guy with a family to support? He
> > > probably won't take that risk. A newly graduated comp sci major can
> > expect
> > > to get about $45,000 a year. I know recent graduates who are in
> mortgage
> > > now making almost half that simply becuase there isn't anything better
> out
> > > there.
> >
> > Or they don't have the education todo so. If you're good, you'll make
what
> > you're worth.
>
> again, then why is a comp. sci. in banking making thousands less? His GPA
> was better than decent (3. something). He was qualified. Why did he
settle
> for less? Did he have to? It was either that or unemployment! We must
> consider their viewpoint.
Who's fault is it that he went into a field with too many job searchers and
not enough jobs? Do something else.
And nor should they to the man who builds his own empire. You don't like
it? Start your own and quit bitching.
My dad got a loan from a bank to start a restaurant, his name: Shanti Kumar
Kundanlal Krishna Deepak Awatramani. His education: GED. Why did they give
him a loan? He worked his ass off and helped start 3 other sucessful
businesses. If he can do it, so can you.
See how you perform in the professional
> world against your white classmates with absolutely no accents. See how
you
> perform by what's on your application alone. Go ahead and try it. I'm
not
> talking about waiters, but if you'd like to use this.. fine. I've met
> people with accents that interact with people much better than some who
have
> no accents at all.
People prefere to hear people who speak in the same accent that they do;
they want their waiters to be able to relate to them on a cultural level.
People want to be able to hear you clearly, they don't want to have to
repeat things. My familly has been in the restaraunt business for
>Just because someone has an accent does not mean the
> customers don't understand and/or hte waiter is unable to do the job as
> well. What if the accent was slight?
If it was slight it might make a difference, but not much. People like to
hear no accent, I own a restaurant, I know how it is.
What if the customer loved teh sound
> of the accent?
That customer is one in few, and would be soon annoyed by not being able to
understand, believe me.
I like the sound of english accents. If you prefer hiring
> people with no accents over people with accents, you may be missing out on
> some great potential waiters. Judge them on their performance and
customer
> satisfaction, not their accent. If their accent hinders the job
> performance, fine. And if it doesn't.........
It does on a public relations level. Why do you think even the english
speaking mexicans all over california and colorado work in the back of the
kitchen? And if you scream "RACISM!!!" I swear to god I'll never debate
with you again.
Victicratic, that's what it is. Oppertunity is there, you want it? take it.
That is the motto and reality of capitalism. You don't want to work? You
want to have kids at 15? Here's a check, I'm sure the tax payers won't
mind. That is the motto of socialism
>
> > >
> > > they will find better jobs?? How? They're competing against other
> people
> > > who want the jobs.
> >
> > If you're worth it you'll get it. Bottom line for business: hireing
> > substandard workers is bad, under paying qualified workers is bad. The
> jobs
> > you are talking about are jobs that monkeys can do, why pay a human 5.75
> > when a monkey will work for free?
>
> First - often times, you won't get what you're worth.. why?
Who decides what you're worth? The market and business do. You are worth
what they will pay you.
slow job
> market. highly competitive job market with no limit to how low employers
> will go. What does the gov't care? Their campaigns are funded by these
> corporations. What do the corporations care? They're getting more in
their
> own pocket.
Build your own corperation. Get an MBA. Be creative. Work hard, Persist.
> Why NOT hire the monkey for free? First a monkey doesn't have a family to
> support.
It's not my job to care about your familly, it's my job to get the best
labor at the best price. I'm here to support me and mine, not you.
>I think we're a little more complex the monkeys. We, unlike
> monkeys, need food on our table bought from a market for $$. We need
health
> care bought by $$. We need shelter bought by $$.
THEN GET A FUCKING JOB THAT PAYS MORE.
We can't live in trees
> and the wilderness. The employer has the money to pay the worker a DECENT,
> LIVABLE wage... its the employer's greed that is keeping him from doing
so.
As it is his right to that greed.
> There's no excuse for having the money to pay, watching a worker struggle
> due to your unfair wage, and all so your big wage gets bigger!
Yes there is, it's called "I worked my ass off to get where I am, I don't
owe you anything".
I don't know
> about you, but greed and apathy are things that annoys me more than
> ignorance.
So you'd like to make laws that make greed illegal...can we say "thought
police"?
Greed is part of human nature, as it's our right to feel greedy and do
what's best for the people we love. I don't give a shit about you, you're
my employee and you're expendable. Fortunatly for you, most business owners
DON'T think like this. Most businesses don't need liberals telling them to
do a good job.
I recommend:
Ayn Rand's Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.
What happens with a poor society? Watch crime increase.
Everytime there is a hike in welfare there is a hike in crime. Legalize
drugs: watch crime decrease, put all dealers out of business. Get rid of
welfare: watch people struggle for a while until they realize that they only
desearve what they work for and they work for it; you'd be amazed at what
humans can do when they have to do something to survive. Black famillies
were better off before welfare; it's a fact.
>Watch
> education sink lower, in the eyes of the poor, as a priority.
Privatize education and watch the education system work like Adam Smith said
*all* businesses will work. Here's a little statistic for you: average
amount of money per-public student per-year in america: $6000; Average
amount of money spent per student per year in private schools with better
test scores and better drop out rates and better employment rates: $3000.
Let me explain something to you: people like you will give a lot of money
for charity, you will give even more money when you're not being taxed up
the ass already. Privatize schools and watch the money from charity pour
in.
Watch
> illiteracy grow. Watch your society weaken and diminish.
This is already happening...you think the situation for the poor is getting
better? no. welfare doesn't work, it incourages young poor girls to have
babies. Public education doesn't work.
Kill or be
> killed, huh? People with this thought don't care about he country as a
> whole. They don't care about future generations. They don't care about
the
> future of hte planet. All they care for is themselves.
And who the hell are you, Mr. self rightous, to tell them otherwise?
I work for my money, you don't deserve money that you don't work for: bottom
line.
> >
> >
> > > This causes people to settle for LESS. There's nothing
> >
> > no one with a good education works for minimum wage. Who workds for
> minimum
> > wage? morons and young teens. The minimum wage destroyes jobs, 90% of
> > economists agree.
>
> I wasn't taking about minimum wage. I was talking about settling for
> less...
> as is the case with many. You said they will get paid what they're worth.
> How do you know that? Have you seen the job market? Have you seen how it
> works? have you seen how people work with it? Go to UCLA's school of
> engineering and ask the seniors - how much to expect to be paid? how much
> is the national avg.? how much do you think you'll get paid? how many
> applications have you sent? how many replied with the pay you expected?
> how many with much less? go ahead. I know quite a few seniors in thsi
> position over at UCI. many have settled for much less. "Too many people
> and too little jobs."
Hmmmm...sounds to me like the perfect oppertunity to START a business.
They aren't equal, but plenty of people make it in both schools.
>Our
> jobs isn't to take of people? Is health care not a human right?
ummm no, it's not. Rights can't violate other people's rights....like the
right to not have to pay for people who do shit with their lives. That's a
right, it falls under "free market".
Health care is not a right, it's a privilage for those who set aside funds
for it; for those who work for it. You want to help? Do it, leave me
alone.
>Are we
> going to let a person suffer simply because we don't to lose a dime?
It's a lot more than a dime. Why didn't this person save money? Why would
he ghave a familly if he couldn't support it? Why didn't he get high enough
on the chain to be able to save money? Lack of opptunity? My fucking dad
sure didn't have a lot of oppertunity, but he managed...why? Ask him and
he'll say: because no one else owed it to me, I owed it to myself. He never
fucking took a dime that he didn't pay back. He taught me the lessons of
hard work and disipline. Appearantly, that doesn't mean much anymore
Are we
> going to make people suffer MORE because we want MORE in out own pockets?
> is this right? Is $2.47 a livable wage? How can they support themselves?
> Do they have any kind of health care? How are they supposed to improve
> their lives when they are getting $2.47 an hour and have a family to
> support?
A. They shouldn't have had famillies to begin with.
B. Pay for it out of your own pocket. It's my money, I work for it.
C. Why didn't they do the same as me?
> Again, what happens when the poor increase in numbers? More crime. More
> illiteracy. Less priorities on education. The society weakens. Is this
> what a good leader wants to see happen to his country? He may, if he
values
> his own $$ and the $$ of his social class, more than people. Its not like
> they can't pay the minimum wage to lessen the suffering. They can, but
> would rather increase their own high profits! This is greed at its worst,
> if there is such a thing!
They did it to themselves, let them pay the price.
> > > Destroy minimum wage completely? I highly suggest looking into this
> idea
> > > and researching the effects of low wages on a people and the
> exploitation
> > of
> > > workers by employers that could easily happen... as past experience
has
> > > shown.
> >
> > It's not exploitation. Why would you be forced into a job where you have
> to
> > work for minimum wage in the first place! You should have gone to
college
> > and done well.
>
> Try this - there was nothing else! Again, refer to my comments about the
> job market and people settling for less. Try this - college costs too
much.
Try this: Bank Loans
> Do the poor have an equal change of getting to college as the rich? UC
> Irvine costs 4,000+ a year. If you qualify for fed. aid., what about
> housing? What about transportation? what about parking?
Are you saying that poor people *never* attend UC Irvine? I'd guess no, why
don't you ask them how they do it and whether they think that other poor
people should follow in their foot steps.
>What if you're
> H.S. lacked funds that would allow you to compete other applicants from
rich
> a H.S.?
Private high schools don't lack funds -many catholic schools are free. Go.
Sure, it is still quite possible to succeed, but is their an equal
> playing field - is there equal opportunity.
No, but it's very very very far from impossible. And, btw, there will never
be an equal oppertunity for everyone. You cannot erradicate poverty: deal
with it.
And they always will: deal with it. Poor people can still suceed. You
know, I've heard almost the same exact arguments from other people except
replace the word "poor" with "black" and you've got the same old bullshit.
>and often sometimes, these "tools" are unfair advantages (such as
> more books, more credentialed teachers, better college centers, more SAT
> extra-time "excuses", etc.). Go ahead.. look into it.. find the
connection
> between race/income and education.
No, I believe you, but it's irrelivent. The playing field will never be
equal, deal with it. Anyone can do anything, people like you with the
victicrat mentallity hold them back.
not to the busines owner it's not.
- a nation's people are more important
> than how fat a cat's wallet can get. I'm sure a salary that went from $3
> million a year to $2.5 million a year won't starve him and take the roof
> over his head.
Too bad those "poor" people didn't climb to the top themsevles. You don't
deserve to forcefully take my money, I don't care how just your cause is.
> 10% for all (individual and corporate)? No income tax income tax for all?
> Where will your federal revenue come from? Taxing products won't be
enough.
yes it would, you haven't done economics, have you?
> Drop minimum wage? What would that accomplish? Nothing would hold back
fat
> cat employers from lowering wages for the workers.
It would increase the number of jobs, combine that with backing paper money
with gold and you have a guaranteed no inflation, no deflation rate.
<snips rest>
Final statement:
It's my money, you don't deserve it. You want to help? Do it, leave me out
of it. You think the good of the people is more important than the good of
the self? Fine, don't force your shit on me. Pay out of your pocket.
|sebAstian|
"LocustSky" <Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net> wrote in message
>
> "|sebAstian|" <N0for...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:avmep5$gt8qq$2...@ID-153809.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "LocustSky" <Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net> wrote in message
> > news:ChuT9.2774$Qr4.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "|sebAstian|" <N0for...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:avifp4$g1jfe$1...@ID-153809.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > So you don't see a problem with 15% of our country paying a 60% tax? no
> > thanks, buddy. 10% tax is too much for anyone. Cut taxes to 10%, drop
> > minimum wage, stop with failing social programs and you'll have a damn
> good
> > economy. Need more info? www.LP.org.
>
> just something to add - is looking to a political party a worthwhile way
of
> informing yourself about issues? Would you expect to have a view skewed
in
> favor of the party's interests? It would be be reasonable to assume so.
> You shouldn't turn to political parties to define the issues for you. You
> can do that on your own... and you don't even have to have a TV. Get a
> newspaper, magazine, journal, etc... many can be found online.
I thougth the way I do: i tried to find a party who thought like me...I did:
LP.org.
--
----
Sebastian
-The New Inquisitor
|sebAstian|
"LocustSky" <Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net> wrote in message
SOURCE: The advisory board commission on Intergovernmental Relations,
"Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism: Budget Processes and Tax
Systems, 1994," June 1994.
But I should mention that I made a mistake..sorry. ACtually, the highest
in in coutry is in Hawaii, rated at $36, 400 based on a 2080 hour work year,
factoring in fair market houseing benefit for respective counties and
including state, local and FICA taxes. Wow, those "poor" people are making
$17.50 an hour, post tax.
This study concluded the following: "For the hardcore welfare reciepiant,
the value of the full range of welfare benefits substantially exceeds the
amount that one could expect to earn in an entry level job. As a result,
reciepiants are more likely to choose welfare over work; thus creating long
term dependancy.
I'll answer the rest tomorrow, I'm drunk and going to sleep.
--
----
Sebastian
-The New Inquisitor
> AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĘ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
>
>
Smagmapig333
>not a democrat or a republican, if it came down to these two parties, i'd
>vote democrat over republican any day.
>
>
yes, because that is the closest thing that we have to the socialist party at
this time.
mike
Smagmapig333
>the workrafe program in NY make about $2.47, which is well below minimum
>wage.
poor them. how about this.... get a different job. last time i checked you were
not forced to pick particular employment.
Smagmapig333
>From: "Barbara West" lun...@swva.net
>Date: 1/8/03 3:30 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <avi1oq$50j5$1...@news3.infoave.net>
>
>Hi Erin,
>
>I was wondering the same thing about the poorest in the nation bit. Last
>semester, I took a Social Inequality class. The figure for the poorest
>Americans is inaccurate. The figure is closer to $9,000 in 2001. Even so,
>the US still leads in the greatest gap between rich and poor.
>
>Traci
my question is do you consider people that choose not to work "poor", yes i
know not all of these people choose not to work but perhaps many choose not to
work because they do not have to. i can't remember the last time i heard of an
american starving to death because they are poor. many of our "poor" have
internet and cable tv, some people just have different priorities in life.
mike
Smagmapig333
>mainstream (average) euro family.
THE>
>"The percentage of households with zero or negative net worth (greater debts
>than assets) increased from 15.5 percent in 1983 to 18.5 percent in
>1995-nearly one out of five households. That's nearly double the rate in
>1962 when the comparable figure was 9.8 percent-one out of ten households.
ya no shit, who had credit cards before 1983. ding ding ding! so the gov. is
now responsible for poor comsumers spending practices?
>another piece from teh same article worth considering...
>
THE
>Recent studies of former recipients
>and those combining work and welfare have found they typically earn between
>$8,000 and $10,800 annually. Most do not receive paid vacation, sick leave,
>or health benefits from their employers. "
change your job! these aren't indentured fucking servents.
>fair.org's statement isn't proven, but it is reasonably consistent with
>these articles here. I can't say its undeniably true, but its something to
>think about and it raises many points we may have not thought about...
yes they have been thought about, and the way to get someone to work is not to
give them a handout. i find it strange how the welfare is cut back so
drastically and employment goes up.
mike
Smagmapig333
>to work 40 hours a week with little or no benefits because they think the
>spouses can pick up the slack or they can go on food stamps.
no, people are working for 10,000 dollars a year because they are complete
morons. i made minimum wage when i was 15, i'll never go back. people make it
because they will themselves to it. people are ignorant. can you fault the wage
system on that? many places like buger king etc. always paid minimum wage,
nobody would work there for that so they had to raise the bar. you have the
ability to move up or down in this country, the excuse that someone/something
is holding you down is bullshit. get over it, it's not like every successful
person (in terms of money) just had everything handed to them. benefits.... ahh
there is another fun one, we have 2 grocery stores on my street. one store is
union and has the typical shit wages/health/job protection, the other has no
representation at all. the store that is non-union does not have health and
rarely pays over minimum. the other store with above minumum wages, health care
etc. is hiring? my question is why would anyone work at the other store?
ignorance? maybe, but perhaps they are getting by fine with some other means
and see no need for health care. i'd be very suprised if they were not coming
home with 2 bags of mcdonalds to sit on their fat ass and watch cable on the
new big screen. hardly what i would call poverty.
mike
LocustSky
whoever told you that was misinformed. where did you hear this load of
crap? open your dictionary, open your senses to those who truly call
themselves liberal. You don't go to a conservative to find out what a
liberal is. You go to a liberal and debate directly with him. You go to
another and debate more. You get the big picture on YOUR OWN. My
definition of liberal is one who believes that all people should be entitled
to civil liberties, as well as equal opportunity when it comes to education,
health, etc. Your wealth is irrelevant when it comes to your human rights.
Rich or poor, people must be treated fairly and decently. Liberals believe
teh racial wars of the 60s have been transformed into class wars and they're
right. Don't believe me.. review all the stats i posted from teh L.A.
Times, USA Today, etc. How many CEOs from Enron are currently in jail? Why
did the pharmaceutical companies only get a fine when they were responsible
for the death of 40+ people? Ford/Firestone faulty designs led to the
deaths of hundreds of people. How many were jailed? If i killed hundreds
of people, i'd be undoubtedly put to death. Who make up these working
classes? What a coincidence - minorities. Again, why are the majority of
"disabled" students taking the SAT (they get extra time for the doctor's
note) upper class and white? Go ahead... research the connection between
the poor and poor education. Why is the % unqualified teachers higher in
school dominated by poor minorities? They CAN do it, but the level of
opportunity clearly differs.
> >if a liberal is one that demands
> > people be paid a decent wage that can sustain the basis elements of
life..
>
> People desearve to get paid what they're worth. If you didn't work hard,
if
> you didn't study in school, if you didn't go to college, it's your fault,
> not mine. I shouldn't have to take care of you.
again, i'm not talking about the getting paid $30,000 instead of $20,000..
i'm taking about pay that is necessary to maintain the basis aspects of
life. How is one supposed to improve their situation when they're being
paid $2.47 an hour thru a "welfare" program such as "workfare". Imagine
having kids and having this wage. Would you make it? How tough would life
be? With the cost of medical care, you would consumed by debt. Again, see
the links i provided that describe the incomes and the wealth of the poor
(check my posts.. they're in there.. they're also in my reply to erin's
questioning of fair.org's comments on Limbaugh).
as i said before, indifference is a harmful thing. You don't have to care
of me, but when you look the other way when the poor are exploited unjustly
by their employers, not becuase of necessity but greed and increased profit,
then you're contributing to the problem by doing nothing. This is your
fucking country. This is your fucking world. Is poverty any reason for one
to deny them basic human rights? Is poverty any reason to look the other
way when their is clear injustice being committed against them? "Its not my
problem", you say? Crime is something directly connected to poverty. What
happens when poverty increases, crime increases, and the value of education
decreases in their eyes? What good is your government then? You've failed
to govern!
>
> > if a liberal is one that defends exploited workers against their
employers
> > that refuse to pay them what they deserve simply so they're profits
won't
> > decrease from $3 million to $2.5 million, then i'm a liberal. People
> under
> > the workrafe program in NY make about $2.47, which is well below minimum
> > wage.
>
> You should have taken responsibillity and worked hard instead of slacking
> off. You're supposed to take care of you, not me. If you want to help
all
> these people, help them out of *your* pocket, not mine.
so you're saying its okay to pay them less than an honest day's pay for an
honest day's work, simply becuase the fat cat employer wants more $$ in his
pocket? Have you truly thought this through?! If don't see the injustice
in this, then you know what that makes you? A bigot who values greed and
apathy more than people. You want to talk business? Let's talk business.
Let's examine the what the Human Relations Model and Human Resource Model
are and what they mean. The Human Relations model states taht increased
worker satisfaction leads to increased worker productivity. The latter
model states that increased productivity leads to worker satisfaction. Both
imply that an ineffective manager is one that assumes that workers are lazy
and will work as little as possible. The effective manager is one that
believes the workers want to work harder and increases productivity - simply
showing faith in this encourages workers and often time, motivates them.
This is basic management principle. Go ahead... study management.
> >Can you sustain a decent life and support a family under these
> > conditions?
>
> Shouldn't have had a familly if you were too stupid to get stuck in a job
to
> get paid minimum wage or below.
so the poor aren't entitled to have families? the poor aren't entitled to
have their poor health treated by doctors? given the conditions of the
woman in workfare as i clearly described, how much we she have to pay for
medical costs? She would be in debt. How could she get out of debt, when
her pay is as little as i stated (see last post)? Not only is this wrong,
but why its happening makes it worse - its all because the employer wants
not $2 million in his pocket, but $2.5 million. Its not our problem, right?
What happens when poverty increases, crime increases, and value of your home
decreases? what happens when the quality of life in your country decreases?
Will you still persist in this careless, indifference then? Let's look
beyond our own lives - our lives are relatively short. There is something
much greater at stake.
>
> >Are the opportunities given to the rich, given to the poor?
>
> To everybody, more to the rich, but many to the poor. Do they choose to
> take it on average? No, they;d rather listen to people like you talk
about
> how everyone else owes them something. With this victicratic mentallity
> poor people will never get anywhere.
"do they choose to take in on average? No." Come now, Sebastian.. you're
smarter than this. DOn't let your pride for your beliefs hinder your reason
to see what is logical and reasonable, and what is nothing more than a guess
based on little or no information. How do you know your answer is correct?
they don't take the opportunities? last i saw, Wash Prep. H.S. in South
L.A. was in need of 8,000+ books. Last i saw, school dominated by
lower-class, minorities had 16% unqualified teachers compared with
upper-class white schools which averaged 4%.
want another example you can find for yourself? Examine the tuition of UCLA
(or any UC campus) and that of USC. Examine the average stats of the
incoming freshman. If your grades suck and you're rich, just go to a school
with a ridiculously high tuition. George W. Bush went to Stanford, didn't
he? You have a university to go to if you didn't do to well in H.S....
Another opportunity given to the rich that isn't given to the poor - you can
buy your education if you screwed up!
We don't owe the poor anything, but an equally fair chance for success and
their BASIC human rights to education and health care... the levels of
opportunities clearly differ. Who is more likely to build the better house?
THe person with a limited set of tools, or one with a much larger, better
set? This answer is obvious.
poor people will never get anywhere when they are exploited by employers
strictly for maximum profit and their basic human rights consume their
wealth and income.
>
> > Rich H.S. spend as much as 5 times more per student compared to poor
> > highschools... and i'm not going to go thru the trouble of posting how
> many
> > thousands of books each poor schools in L.A. needs.
>
> So you're saying it's impossible to come out of a school like that and
> suceed? better say no, cause I'll give you a couple names right off the
top
> of my head of very very sucessful black people who came out of south
central
> and went to SC substandard schools. I'll give you named of people who
lived
> in the exact same conditions that people who you defend as victims of an
> unjust system, yet suceeded just as much as any high class white person.
I
> knwo what your thinking: it's not average....damn right it's not, but all
> those people who are doing nothing have the same exact oppertunity as the
> people who came out of there and did something. Here's something for you
to
> consider: there will never be equal oppertunity in any place in the world.
> It's not the job of the affluent to take care of the poor. Repeal all
> welfare and educational taxes and let people like *you*, people who want
to
> help, pay the cost since you're all so damn generious. That's the problem
> with liberals:
hahahahahah! AGAIN, this is about OPPORTUNITY. READ BETWEEN THE LINES!
WHY ARE THE MAJORITY OF SAT TEST TAKERS THAT ARE GIVEN EXTRA TIME UPPER
CLASS AND WHITE? WHY ARE THERE MORE UNQUALIFIED TEACHERS IN LOWER-CLASS
SCHOOLS??
rid yourself of all these misinformed, skewed preconceptions, and go out
there and research this. GO AHEAD. RESEARCH THE EDUCATION OF THE POOR AND
THAT OF THE RICH!
I'm NOT TALKING ABOUT *IF* THE POOR CAN MAKE IT. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE
OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE TO THE POOR AND THE RICH. Whether you can make it
or not is your problem to deal with - BUT EVERYONE MUST HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITIES AND RESOURCES TO BEGIN WITH!
LET'S MAKE THIS CLEAR - ITS NOT ABOUT *IF*. ITS ABOUT OPPORTUNITY. Why do
you persist in this wrong idea?
>
> Conservatives say: we're against helping the poor but we don't want to
stop
> you from helping the poor.
> Liberals say: YOU HAVE TO HELP THE POOR!!!!! IT'S YOUR DUTY!!!!
if you don't want to help the weakest aspects of your country, then why are
you in involved in your countries politics? You obviously don't care about
one of your nation's biggest problems which is increasing poverty! This is
known to lead to increase crime and illiteracy. Get rid of this "liberals
say this, conservatives say that nonsense." Go beyond single books. Go
beyond political parties. Research the topics independantly. Don't give me
a book to read. Don't give me a political party to refer to. Give me YOUR
knowledge. GIve me all that *YOU* learned and understand. This isn't a
debate between liberals and libertarians. This is between me and you.
Let's get rid of the bullshit preconceptions and let's lay down the facts
without the generalizations of what liberal is and what conservative is.
many conservatives may be democrats. many liberals may be republicans. Its
pointless to use generalized classifications. Let's go deeper than that.
>
> Abdul, I love you, but shove it up your ass (And I don't mean that to be
> prejudicia;-)). You want to be compassionate and invest money in failing,
> yes failing according to over 90% of economists, then do it. Leave me
out
> of it.
failing? what's failing? our health care system? i'd say it is, according
to the WHO. Yet, we criticize those countries that have LESS or
insignificantly higher taxes and a much better health care system? Why? Is
it pride? is it greed? is it ignorance? is it all 4?
90% of economists? what's failing and how do you know?
This is our country. This is our world. Its our responsibility to take
care of it. Go ahead and don't care if you choose to... but don't expect
any kind of respect from me. You've chosen to further your own wealth and
that of those who exploit the poor solely for maximum profit. we only live
for about 90 years, so let's make it worthwhile and contribute to something
that will last much much longer. I'm not saying hinder your own happiness..
all i'm saying is don't turn your back on our faults and our injustices
against the poor. health care is a human right, and your wealth is
irrelevant.
>
>
> > Let's not assume and let's not let's not be so quick to formulate
> uniformed
> > arguments. Liberals believe that everyone "is entitled to 100K a year,
> with
> > full salaries, medical coverage, etc. etc."
>
> he was exagerating, but his point is this: liberals mean well, but they do
> more damage than good. Welfare makes people lazy, public education sucks,
> and people are victicrates.
again, HOW DO YOU KNOW? HOW ARE YOU CERTAIN? don't swallow people feed
you. let's not generalize based on little information and very limited
experience... i don't have to tell you about the faults of generalizations..
you should have learned that in middle school.
> >Come now.. let's not post
> > bullshit exaggerations based, not on reason, but ignorance. Show me a
> > liberal who stated such a thing.
>
> Hillory Clinton says shit like this all the time...it takes a village,
> remember? Perhaps it not as extreame as 100K a year, but it's not too far
> off.
what??? she's saying people should be paid something not far from 100K? DO
you realize what you're saying? You do realize how much 100K a year is
right? MBAs are paid less (starting). I definitely need a source for this
quote of your's. Come on Sebastian, you're not fooling anyone and you're
just wasting my time.. let's cut the bullshit.
>
> Go on... show me. How one could call this
> > reasonable and/or logical, i don't know. Perhaps its all logic and not
> > enough information/knowledge - what good is logic then?
>
> Logic is always enough.
not when its deducing from something that lacks essential information. for
example, how can you determine the measure of all angles in a triangle, when
you only know the measure of one angle and nothing more (don't know the size
of the line segments, and picture may not be to scale)???
again, what good is the deduction when the premises are
clearly lacking in critical and essential information?
>
>
> --
> ----
> Sebastian
> -The New Inquisitor
--
- LocustSky
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĆ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
LocustSky
"Smagmapig333" <smagma...@aol.communism> wrote in message
news:20030113123659...@mb-dh.aol.com...
uh.. that's why they're on workfare in the first place! they can't find a
job! If they didn't work for this "workfare" program, they wouldn't get
their welfare check!
let's make sure we understand the workfare program before judging these
people. CHeck out "Bowling for Columbine" to see this brilliant system at
work [heavy sarcasm if you didn't sense it].
--
- LocustSky
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĆ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
|sebAstian|
"LocustSky" <Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net> wrote in message
Listen, you think like the liberal that I defined above. You think that
people who did well in their lives should have to sacrifice in order to pay
for those less fortunate. You think people are entitled to free money. You
look the other way when poor people do nothing with their lives and you
blame it on "the man" or the "system" or a bunch of other liberal
victicratic crap, then you expect me to take care of them. You are a
typical liberal.
> Your wealth is irrelevant when it comes to your human rights.
> Rich or poor, people must be treated fairly and decently.
No, you're rights are in the bill of rights. Those are law. Anything else
is just your opinion, unofortunately your opinions violate *my* rights by
forcing your government's benevolant compassion onto others.
>Liberals believe
> teh racial wars of the 60s have been transformed into class wars and
they're
> right. Don't believe me.. review all the stats i posted from teh L.A.
> Times, USA Today, etc.
Biased liberal media? no thanks. I read the facts and statistics; there is
no vast right wing conspiracy to hold black people down. They do it to
themselves. Tons of black people in this coutry suceed, through hard work
and determination and through not being victicratic.
> How many CEOs from Enron are currently in jail?
In jail for what? Tax evasion? I don't agree with the tax system. They
didn't kill anyone, they didn't rape anyone, they didn't sell poisoned milk
to school children.
Why
> did the pharmaceutical companies only get a fine when they were
responsible
> for the death of 40+ people?
Because it wasn't murder, it wasn't manslaughter; it was reckless
endangernment. Drug companies make drugs to help people, sometimes those
drugs have dire condequences. They didn't intenionally kill or murder
anyone; it's a byproduct of the industry. There has to be intent, in most
cases, for a crime to warrant jail time. You don't seem like you know much
about the law.
> Ford/Firestone faulty designs led to the
> deaths of hundreds of people. How many were jailed? If i killed hundreds
> of people, i'd be undoubtedly put to death.
Study law. It was reckless endangernment, not murder or manslaughter.
Products are made, some of them debunked; there is not enough evidence to
support that that it was intentional.
>Who make up these working
> classes? What a coincidence - minorities.
in the 1950's it was the irish and itallians in the ghettoes; people were
racist against the irish and itallians. They don't make up the ghettoes
anymore. Why? Cause they worked hard, they had ethic, they didn't take
welfare, they persisted and they got out. Blacks were better off before
welfare: it's a fact.
>Again, why are the majority of
> "disabled" students taking the SAT (they get extra time for the doctor's
> note) upper class and white?
Ummm because they're disabled? Like you just said....
>Go ahead... research the connection between
> the poor and poor education.
Go ahead and research the comments made my formally poor people who made it;
see what they say.
>Why is the % unqualified teachers higher in
> school dominated by poor minorities? They CAN do it, but the level of
> opportunity clearly differs.
And it will never be the same. People can still suceed, it happends all the
time. But it won't happened if you're always blaming someone else, blaming
the playing field, blaming the white man etc etc.
> > >if a liberal is one that demands
> > > people be paid a decent wage that can sustain the basis elements of
> life..
> >
> > People desearve to get paid what they're worth. If you didn't work
hard,
> if
> > you didn't study in school, if you didn't go to college, it's your
fault,
> > not mine. I shouldn't have to take care of you.
>
> again, i'm not talking about the getting paid $30,000 instead of $20,000..
> i'm taking about pay that is necessary to maintain the basis aspects of
> life. How is one supposed to improve their situation when they're being
> paid $2.47 an hour thru a "welfare" program such as "workfare".
They should get better jobs. They should have gone to school. They
shouldn't have had kids they couldn't take care of.
none the less, this doesn't entitle them to my money.
Imagine
> having kids and having this wage. Would you make it?
DONT FUCKING HAVE KIDS. Jesus fuck. If you can't afford kids, don't have
em. Having kids is not a right either.
How tough would life
> be? With the cost of medical care, you would consumed by debt. Again,
see
> the links i provided that describe the incomes and the wealth of the poor
> (check my posts.. they're in there.. they're also in my reply to erin's
> questioning of fair.org's comments on Limbaugh).
blah, blah, blah. Don't put yourself in this situation. be like Larry
Elder, do what Jesse Jackson did. Two extreamely sucessful black men who
came out of the ghettoes. Jesse didn't even have a dad, he didn't have a
good education; he made it. Why? Listen to the Words of Booker T.
Washington, a black man who preeches that blacks take responbillity for
their actions and NOT blame other people like victicratic liberals.
> as i said before, indifference is a harmful thing. You don't have to care
> of me, but when you look the other way when the poor are exploited
unjustly
> by their employers, not becuase of necessity but greed and increased
profit,
> then you're contributing to the problem by doing nothing.
And so are the people who are being exploited. So are the people on welfare
who never do shit. So are the people in the ghettoes doing drugs. The
difference? It's not my job to care, it's them holding them down.
This is your
> fucking country. This is your fucking world. Is poverty any reason for
one
> to deny them basic human rights?
Who defines "basic human rights"? What's a right? The only "rights" that I
recognize are the ones in our constitution and bill of rights; mainly, life,
liberty and the persuit of happyness. Persuit meaning you doing it, not me
persuing for you.
>Is poverty any reason to look the other
> way when their is clear injustice being committed against them? "Its not
my
> problem", you say?
Point the finger, blame the other, you'll never get anywhere.
>Crime is something directly connected to poverty. What
> happens when poverty increases, crime increases, and the value of
education
> decreases in their eyes? What good is your government then? You've
failed
> to govern!
Dude, read out fucking constitution, please. The government's job is to
protect us with military and police, mainly.... Please: Section I, Article
8.
> >
> > > if a liberal is one that defends exploited workers against their
> employers
> > > that refuse to pay them what they deserve simply so they're profits
> won't
> > > decrease from $3 million to $2.5 million, then i'm a liberal. People
> > under
> > > the workrafe program in NY make about $2.47, which is well below
minimum
> > > wage.
> >
> > You should have taken responsibillity and worked hard instead of
slacking
> > off. You're supposed to take care of you, not me. If you want to help
> all
> > these people, help them out of *your* pocket, not mine.
>
> so you're saying its okay to pay them less than an honest day's pay for an
> honest day's work, simply becuase the fat cat employer wants more $$ in
his
> pocket? Have you truly thought this through?! If don't see the injustice
> in this, then you know what that makes you? A bigot who values greed and
> apathy more than people.
Damn right I'm a bigot, in the sense that I am partial to a certain group of
peole: those people? People who work their asses off and try hard.
Intollerant? damn right, I don't tollerate lazyness and victicracy.
I value: hard work + personal responsibillity + trying + perservariance.
I don't value: slackers, people who don't try, people who blame other people
I say that man is capible of anything. I see that everyday. I say if you
fail it's your fault. I say you're a victicrat.
You want to talk business? Let's talk business.
> Let's examine the what the Human Relations Model and Human Resource Model
> are and what they mean. The Human Relations model states taht increased
> worker satisfaction leads to increased worker productivity. The latter
> model states that increased productivity leads to worker satisfaction.
Both
> imply that an ineffective manager is one that assumes that workers are
lazy
> and will work as little as possible. The effective manager is one that
> believes the workers want to work harder and increases productivity -
simply
> showing faith in this encourages workers and often time, motivates them.
> This is basic management principle. Go ahead... study management.
Fine, and sucessful businesses want to be just that: sucessful. If they
are, then they are doing a good job.
>
> > >Can you sustain a decent life and support a family under these
> > > conditions?
> >
> > Shouldn't have had a familly if you were too stupid to get stuck in a
job
> to
> > get paid minimum wage or below.
>
> so the poor aren't entitled to have families?
About as much as a 15 year old on welfare. Simply: no, they are not, not if
it's gonna cost me a dime, not if they can't support their kids on their
own.
the poor aren't entitled to
> have their poor health treated by doctors?
Privatize health care, it will be affordable. It's my money, you care so
much? You pay for it out of your pockets.
given the conditions of the
> woman in workfare as i clearly described, how much we she have to pay for
> medical costs?
The glass ceiling is full of holes; it's all in your head. I've cited
statistics that are supported by other statistics that are supported by even
more statistics. You're statistics are supported by nothing but themselves.
She would be in debt. How could she get out of debt, when
> her pay is as little as i stated (see last post)? Not only is this wrong,
> but why its happening makes it worse - its all because the employer wants
> not $2 million in his pocket, but $2.5 million. Its not our problem,
right?
> What happens when poverty increases, crime increases,
What happends when welfare increases? Poorness increases, people don't
work, more money is taken in taxes, oh, and BTW, every welfare hike in
american history has shown an increase in crime.
>and value of your home
> decreases? what happens when the quality of life in your country
decreases?
> Will you still persist in this careless, indifference then? Let's look
> beyond our own lives - our lives are relatively short. There is something
> much greater at stake.
I'm glad you're so compassionate, pay for it yourself.
> >
> > >Are the opportunities given to the rich, given to the poor?
> >
> > To everybody, more to the rich, but many to the poor. Do they choose to
> > take it on average? No, they;d rather listen to people like you talk
> about
> > how everyone else owes them something. With this victicratic mentallity
> > poor people will never get anywhere.
>
> "do they choose to take in on average? No." Come now, Sebastian.. you're
> smarter than this. DOn't let your pride for your beliefs hinder your
reason
> to see what is logical and reasonable, and what is nothing more than a
guess
> based on little or no information. How do you know your answer is
correct?
The fact that most people on welfare NEVER do anything with their lives.
They don't get up. they stay where they are...it's a fact.
> they don't take the opportunities? last i saw, Wash Prep. H.S. in South
> L.A. was in need of 8,000+ books. Last i saw, school dominated by
> lower-class, minorities had 16% unqualified teachers compared with
> upper-class white schools which averaged 4%.
So you think more books will solve the problems? If kids don't want to
learn, they aren't going to all of a sudden start because they got a
shipment of books in.
Illigitamacy, drugs: these are the things that cause the most harm. And
they are both choices.
Here's something for you:
George Weiss, in 1987, "adopted" 112 inner city 6th grade kids. George, a
highly respectible philantropist, guaranteed a fully funded education all
the way through college if the kids would refrain from drugs, unwed
motherhood or fatherhood, and crime. He provided tutors, workdshops, school
affiliated programs, summer programs and counselors to be abailable when
troube aarose, whether personal or otherwise.
Pretty nice right? They got more oppertunity than most rich white kids, and
definitly more than poor black kids. THe results:
45 never made it through high school, 35 dropped out, one died in school,
four died after dropping out, four are working on a GED and one graduated
trade school
On the high school grads: 13 are four year college grads; 11 are in college;
twelve have dropped out of two and four year colleges; seven graduated trade
school and five got no education past college.
Of the 67 boys: 19 have become adult felons.
Of the girls: among the 45 they had 63 children, and more than half had
their babies before the age of 18.
Fact: if you took 100 kids from the same pool, with no guaranted education,
the results would have been the same.
To quote Mr. Weiss: "The study shows that it isn't about money. It's about
values. It's about hard work. It's about disipline and application. It's
about character and workding hard when you don't want to. And these values
are instilled in the home".
Go ahead, take a shot. There goes your oppertunity defence.
> want another example you can find for yourself? Examine the tuition of
UCLA
> (or any UC campus) and that of USC. Examine the average stats of the
> incoming freshman. If your grades suck and you're rich, just go to a
school
> with a ridiculously high tuition. George W. Bush went to Stanford, didn't
> he? You have a university to go to if you didn't do to well in H.S....
> Another opportunity given to the rich that isn't given to the poor - you
can
> buy your education if you screwed up!
Do you have any proof of people buying their way into colleges? GWB had a a
3.9 and a 1350 SAT Score, that's pretty damn good. he wen't to yale, IIRC.
> We don't owe the poor anything, but an equally fair chance for success and
> their BASIC human rights to education and health care... the levels of
> opportunities clearly differ.
These aren't rights, they are your opinions. I've shown by the 112 kids
above that the problem isn't oppertunity.
> Who is more likely to build the better house?
> THe person with a limited set of tools, or one with a much larger, better
> set? This answer is obvious.
Work harder, buy better tools.
> poor people will never get anywhere when they are exploited by employers
> strictly for maximum profit and their basic human rights consume their
> wealth and income.
Poor people will never get anywhere as long as people like you keep telling
them that it's someone elses fault, that someone owes them something.
They go to schools with different policies?
> rid yourself of all these misinformed, skewed preconceptions, and go out
> there and research this. GO AHEAD. RESEARCH THE EDUCATION OF THE POOR AND
> THAT OF THE RICH!
>
> I'm NOT TALKING ABOUT *IF* THE POOR CAN MAKE IT. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE
> OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE TO THE POOR AND THE RICH. Whether you can make it
> or not is your problem to deal with - BUT EVERYONE MUST HAVE THE
> OPPORTUNITIES AND RESOURCES TO BEGIN WITH!
>
> LET'S MAKE THIS CLEAR - ITS NOT ABOUT *IF*. ITS ABOUT OPPORTUNITY. Why
do
> you persist in this wrong idea?
Read what I wrote about Mr. George weiss. he completly ruins your theory;
with actual research.
> > Conservatives say: we're against helping the poor but we don't want to
> stop
> > you from helping the poor.
> > Liberals say: YOU HAVE TO HELP THE POOR!!!!! IT'S YOUR DUTY!!!!
>
> if you don't want to help the weakest aspects of your country, then why
are
> you in involved in your countries politics?
To instill the values of our constitition, and our blll of rights. I
believe, with adaquit proof, that welfare hurts people more than it helps
them.
Answer the question: If I will give you 13,000 a year to do nothing at all,
nothing. Why would you take minimum wage job? Many people on welfare make
more than they would if they took entry level jobs. It's a fact.
Our failing PUBLIC education systems, our failing PUBLIC health system, our
failing WELFARE system which does more harm than good.
Yet, we criticize those countries that have LESS or
> insignificantly higher taxes and a much better health care system? Why?
Is
> it pride? is it greed? is it ignorance? is it all 4?
>
> 90% of economists? what's failing and how do you know?
>
> This is our country. This is our world. Its our responsibility to take
> care of it. Go ahead and don't care if you choose to... but don't expect
> any kind of respect from me. You've chosen to further your own wealth and
> that of those who exploit the poor solely for maximum profit. we only
live
> for about 90 years, so let's make it worthwhile and contribute to
something
> that will last much much longer.
I'll be gone. Let's kill em all and let got sort em' out.
> I'm not saying hinder your own happiness..
> all i'm saying is don't turn your back on our faults and our injustices
> against the poor. health care is a human right, and your wealth is
> irrelevant.
My wealth is relevent, and health care is not a human right.
> >
> >
> > > Let's not assume and let's not let's not be so quick to formulate
> > uniformed
> > > arguments. Liberals believe that everyone "is entitled to 100K a
year,
> > with
> > > full salaries, medical coverage, etc. etc."
> >
> > he was exagerating, but his point is this: liberals mean well, but they
do
> > more damage than good. Welfare makes people lazy, public education
sucks,
> > and people are victicrates.
>
> again, HOW DO YOU KNOW? HOW ARE YOU CERTAIN? don't swallow people feed
> you. let's not generalize based on little information and very limited
> experience... i don't have to tell you about the faults of
generalizations..
> you should have learned that in middle school.
Fact: a major majority of people on welfare do nothing with their lives.
Fact: public education sucks is crap; private is better and costs less.
Fact: people blame other people for their problems: the definition of
vitcicracy. Those are all facts.
>
> > >Come now.. let's not post
> > > bullshit exaggerations based, not on reason, but ignorance. Show me a
> > > liberal who stated such a thing.
> >
> > Hillory Clinton says shit like this all the time...it takes a village,
> > remember? Perhaps it not as extreame as 100K a year, but it's not too
far
> > off.
>
> what??? she's saying people should be paid something not far from 100K?
DO
> you realize what you're saying? You do realize how much 100K a year is
> right? MBAs are paid less (starting). I definitely need a source for
this
> quote of your's. Come on Sebastian, you're not fooling anyone and you're
> just wasting my time.. let's cut the bullshit.
Did i not say "Perhaps it not as extreame as 100K a year"? The it takes a
village attitude wants everyone to be happy, regardless of how hard they
try. They want other people to pay for those who didn't work as hard.
Smagmapig333
>Date: 1/13/03 9:39 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <cLKU9.8665$Dq.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
>
>"Smagmapig333" <smagma...@aol.communism> wrote in message
>news:20030113123659...@mb-dh.aol.com...
>> >People under
>> >the workrafe program in NY make about $2.47, which is well below minimum
>> >wage.
>>
>> poor them. how about this.... get a different job. last time i checked you
>were
>> not forced to pick particular employment.
>
>uh.. that's why they're on workfare in the first place! they can't find a
>job! If they didn't work for this "workfare" program, they wouldn't get
>their welfare check!
>
poor bastards. you don't see the irony in this do you?
>
>--
> - LocustSky
|sebAstian|
"LocustSky" <Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net> wrote in message
Holy shit! You're saying that they get 2.47 an hour + welfare? I think I
might have missed that before hand. Sounds like a damn good deal to me!
According to The Advisory Board of Commission on Intergovernmental Relations
welfare reciepiants in NY can expect to make up to $30,000 a year pre-tax
with an income tax rate of 4.20%! Wow!~!~! i'm making less then that now!
LocustSky
>
> "LocustSky" <Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net> wrote in message
> news:i4qU9.7003$Dq.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> > i'm sorry, but i just have to cut in on some of these points... the
poor
> > are making $13,000 and $21,000 a year? I really doubt that. $21,000 is
> > over the income limit (family of four) for school lunch program and
many,
> if
> > not all, people who are "poor" utilize this program. I'd realy like to
a
> > see a source, please.
>
> SOURCE: The advisory board commission on Intergovernmental Relations,
> "Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism: Budget Processes and Tax
> Systems, 1994," June 1994.
really? then why does an article in Money, 1997,(p. 147) state that median
Black family income in teh U.S. is $25,970 (1995)???
of the "poor" how many are many $21,000 a year? how many people
per family are working? and how much "wealth" do these people have? what
are they worth after paying for health care, food, housing, etc.? $7,000
year? and if they had a family to support? and try to get something that
was less than 5 years ago.
tell me... why are more than 30,000 people in NY on the workfare program
earning $2.47 an hour? How much are they earning yearly?
i'd like to see the hardcopy or the electronic copy (link is fine) of this
article if
available.
> But I should mention that I made a mistake..sorry. ACtually, the highest
> in in coutry is in Hawaii, rated at $36, 400 based on a 2080 hour work
year,
> factoring in fair market houseing benefit for respective counties and
> including state, local and FICA taxes. Wow, those "poor" people are
making
> $17.50 an hour, post tax.
so the lowest income level in Hawaii is $36,000?! That's higher that the
MEDIAN black family income of about $26000 in 95 and $9000 less the MEDIAN
white family income in 95 ($45,018 - same MONEY chart). Do you realize how
much that is??? I definitely need a quote for that.
> This study concluded the following: "For the hardcore welfare reciepiant,
> the value of the full range of welfare benefits substantially exceeds the
> amount that one could expect to earn in an entry level job. As a result,
> reciepiants are more likely to choose welfare over work; thus creating
long
> term dependancy.
this conflicts with all that i've read on the topic and all that is
consistent (all based between now and 1995), including that chart from
MONEY. Of course, you shouldn't believe everything you hear especially when
reports seem to conflict, so again, i'm gonna need a hardcopy or an
electronic copy (link is fine, if you have it).
just to return the favor, i'll be happy to let you see hardcopies of all the
materials i cite, including that from other posts.
>
> I'll answer the rest tomorrow, I'm drunk and going to sleep.
>
>
>
> --
> ----
> Sebastian
> -The New Inquisitor
--
- LocustSky
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TÆ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
LocustSky
unless it is proves my facts wrong or at least shows how i'm wrong. I've
stated many facts and you simply went off-topic, as you'll see when you read
the post.
you ignore many of the points i made against your's, so rather than
repeating myself and wasting more time, i simply cut and pasted parts that i
felt already addressed your points.
no need to reply to this long post.. all i ask is you read this and truly
consider your views critically and rationally. HOW DO YOU KNOW? COULD YOU
BE WRONG? Again, understand that logic is worthless when there is a total
lack of essential information and/or misinformation. Read on to see just
what i mean.
"|sebAstian|" <N0for...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:avucc5$jhn4p$1...@ID-153809.news.dfncis.de...
then quit telling me, and show me the stats the suggest Sklar's stats are
wrong!
> BTW, in many cases you *can* hire a company full of women. Many places
have
> been exempt from non-gender discrimination laws, such as: production
> companies all over hollywood, and hooters.
that's trivial.. i'm talking about jobs in professional areas such business
economics, adminstration, management, etc.
>
> > > > Do you really a worker can just get up and demand more pay or leave?
> > Try
> > > > this - Get a job, Demand more pay.
> >
> > and what is they simply say, "fine.. we'll let you go.. i'm sure there
are
> > many people waiting for your job." What will you do then? How will you
> pay
> > your bills, support your family?
>
> Get another job?
again, what if you can't find one??? There are less jobs than there are
people needing them as the unemployement rate suggests.
>
> >Comp. Sci. majors worth $45,000 a year
> > have settled for banking jobs that pay $25-$30. Why? This is not a
> matter
> > of choice, but a matter of what is available and what you *NEED*.. not
> > necessarily want.
> >
> > >
> > > Are you worth more pay? You're worth what the general business
> population
> > is
> > > willing to pay, if you're making less than that find a new job!
Someone
> > > will be willing to pay you. Underpaying your employees is bad
business
> > > practice.
> >
> > Someone will be willing to pay you? Ask recent college grads that -
many
> > have settled for much less simply becuase that's what's available.
>
> Yes, because THAT"S WHATS AVAILABLE!
yes, they have settled for less! Come on, Sebastian.. you have to put the
pieces together! As the job market becomes more crowded with people seeking
work, the wage standards of workers will drop due to the competition posed
by the other applicants! You said workers will find another job that will
pay them what they're worth. This is clearly false, and i just showed you
how - Many will settle for much less due to a competitive job market - its
either that or unemployement!
> I
> > challenge you - demand higher pay from your current job, and if hte
> employer
> > lets you go, go out and find a job for that pay you asked for.
>
> Do you have something that you can offer the company which no one else
can?
> Then fuck off if you want more money. You'll work for what I'll pay you,
> because I know that I can get someone else to do the same job for the same
> pay, maybe less. What was that? You can increase efficiancy by
> 70%...hello, pay raise.
have you lost track of what we're talking about? you're the one that said
you should leave if you feel you're worth more!
"Are you worth more pay? You're worth what the general business population
is
willing to pay, if you're making less than that find a new job! Someone
will be willing to pay you. Underpaying your employees is bad business
practice." (you)
"Someone will be willing to pay you? Ask recent college grads that - many
have settled for much less simply becuase that's what's available. I
challenge you - demand higher pay from your current job, and if hte employer
lets you go, go out and find a job for that pay you asked for. Go ahead and
try it. When you have a family to support, try it... i doubt you will be as
willing to try and risk at the point..." (me)
according to the stats mentioned in my last post regarding hte national
averages for salaries, people are settling for much less now because they
don't have the financial flexibility to try to get more for their work.
are you naive enough to believe that pay raises occur when efficiency rises
with these corporations? Corporations go overseas to take advantage of
cheap labor (layoff all american workers, of course) that deny them the
basic labor rights we have. Efficiency greatly rise in these poor
countries, but wages drop more by more than 50%. Come now, Sebastian, i
thought you were a researcher. Go ahead a research the moving of American
corporations overseas, their efficiency, and the pay of these workers. Take
notice of all the rights they have. WHy do you think the U.S.A. opposes the
idea of international court so much? we're willing to support only if all
Americans are exempt from this international court.. hmmmm... go ahead, and
do the research.
he is! my point is he has settled for less (a job in business - see avg.
wages) due to the competitive job market! With his over-qualified status,
he easily beat out applicants with Econ. degrees. People ahve settled for
less due to the competitive job market! i've said this numerous times now.
why is this so hard for you to understand? you can't just get up and go to
a job that is willing to pay what you want - we don't have this freedom due
to this competitive market. We get whatever we can get to avoid
unemployment - even if that means settling for less.
lives don't matter do the man who builds his own empire? Come now,
Sebastian... do you realize what you're saying? Is your pride worth this
much?
people are denying others a wage that would sustain decent lives, not
becuase of necessity, but because they want not $2.5 million in their
pocket, but $3 million in their pocket. We are oppressing a people for our
own greed.
as i said in my last post,
"as i said before, indifference is a harmful thing. You don't have to care
of me, but when you look the other way when the poor are exploited unjustly
by their employers, not becuase of necessity but greed and increased profit,
then you're contributing to the problem by doing nothing. This is your
fucking country. This is your fucking world. Is poverty any reason for one
to deny them basic human rights? Is poverty any reason to look the other
way when their is clear injustice being committed against them? "Its not my
problem", you say? Crime is something directly connected to poverty. What
happens when poverty increases, crime increases, and the value of education
decreases in their eyes? What good is your government then? You've failed
to govern!"
and
"This is our country. This is our world. Its our responsibility to take
care of it. Go ahead and don't care if you choose to... but don't expect
any kind of respect from me. You've chosen to further your own wealth and
that of those who exploit the poor solely for maximum profit. we only live
for about 90 years, so let's make it worthwhile and contribute to something
that will last much much longer. I'm not saying hinder your own happiness..
all i'm saying is don't turn your back on our faults and our injustices
against the poor. health care is a human right, and your wealth is
irrelevant."
i have no objections to one who wants to build his empire, but if you do it
unjustly and unfairly and hinder the pursuit of happiness by others by
oppressing them and putting them in a state where they are unable to rise
economically (see many of the third-world countries), then you're not worth
the dirt you walk on, in my book. THere's only one thing worse than
ignorance, and that's greed and apathy. I'm sorry Sebastian, but i've lost
a tremendous amount of respect for you. how can you defend these fat-cat
CEOs who exploit workers and oppress entire peoples, all SOLELY for maximum
profit, not necessity or business, but maximum profit. As i said before,
not only is this pitiful, pathetic, and flat-out senseless, but bad
business.
"Let's examine the what the Human Relations Model and Human Resource Model
are and what they mean. The Human Relations model states taht increased
worker satisfaction leads to increased worker productivity. The latter
model states that increased productivity leads to worker satisfaction. Both
imply that an ineffective manager is one that assumes that workers are lazy
and will work as little as possible. The effective manager is one that
believes the workers want to work harder and increases productivity - simply
showing faith in this encourages workers and often time, motivates them.
This is basic management principle. Go ahead... study management."
THese corporations don't care. THey just want their tobacco picked. They
just want their shoes made. How much does a worker for NIKE make? The fact
that these nations are being exploited for labor doesn't matter. The fact
that these people are being paid less that what is necessary to sustain
basic human life, doesn't matter. VP Dick Cheney recently objected to a
policy that would allow drugs to sold cheaper to poor countries.. many lives
would be saved from preventable deaths.. many nations in the WTO decided it
was a good move to help these poor nations avoid preventable deaths. The
plan wasn't as profitable to American Pharmaceitical companies as the other
plans, which had them buy the more expensive drugs they couldn't afford, so
we got rid of it. Is this fair? or is this greed and injustice at its
worst?? I heard a great statistic today in a Business Management class i'm
taking this quarter. the source wasn't given, but its something you should
think about - the newest MBAs ranked "Ethics" as the college class that was
the least important to them. Senior executives of Fortune 500 companies
ranked "Ethics" as the most important class they took in college. Why would
this be true?
hahahahahaha! I'm talking about employement, not loans! Banks want to give
out loans so they could get you with the interest! That's why you get
offers for loans in the mail the summer after you finish H.S. (i got at
least 5!). Try running for a major gov't office with a name like "Shanti
Kumar Kundanlal Krishna Deepak Awatramani". Try getting an executive
position in a big Fortune 500 corporation with a name like that. Try get
any position in a company like that. Compare your pursuit with that of
"John Adam Smith". As one of my Profs once joked, "change your name to
'Hard Worker', and you're guaranteed a job!".
> See how you perform in the professional
> > world against your white classmates with absolutely no accents. See how
> you
> > perform by what's on your application alone. Go ahead and try it. I'm
> not
> > talking about waiters, but if you'd like to use this.. fine. I've met
> > people with accents that interact with people much better than some who
> have
> > no accents at all.
>
> People prefere to hear people who speak in the same accent that they do;
> they want their waiters to be able to relate to them on a cultural level.
> People want to be able to hear you clearly, they don't want to have to
> repeat things. My familly has been in the restaraunt business for
you didn't finish that last sentence. I'd appreciate seeing the effort i
put in this debate returned.
its one thing to have an accent where you have to have them repeat things.
its another to have the accent so slight, what is being said is totally
clear... like many like many of those with English accents. Don't
prematurely judge people with accents until you've seen just how well they
perform - and that includes their english speaking.
>
> >Just because someone has an accent does not mean the
> > customers don't understand and/or hte waiter is unable to do the job as
> > well. What if the accent was slight?
>
> If it was slight it might make a difference, but not much. People like to
> hear no accent, I own a restaurant, I know how it is.
then you're generalizing. I like hearing english accents as well as slight
french accents. Even some slight japanese accents are nice. You're
generalization just found a counter-example. (you spoke of logic - so i know
you understand what this means).
you own a restaurant? then you've probably missed out on some great
potential employees.
>
> What if the customer loved teh sound
> > of the accent?
>
> That customer is one in few, and would be soon annoyed by not being able
to
> understand, believe me.
but that's for major accents! i have a prof. who has an accent, but one
that does not hinder the level of clarity to the point where we don't
understand. He's actually considered one the best lecturers in the school
of Info. and Comp. Sci. because of his style of lecturing. Do not throw out
one simply because they have an accent... they may surprise you.. they may
not.. let's not judge prematurely.
> I like the sound of english accents. If you prefer hiring
> > people with no accents over people with accents, you may be missing out
on
> > some great potential waiters. Judge them on their performance and
> customer
> > satisfaction, not their accent. If their accent hinders the job
> > performance, fine. And if it doesn't.........
>
> It does on a public relations level. Why do you think even the english
> speaking mexicans all over california and colorado work in the back of the
> kitchen? And if you scream "RACISM!!!" I swear to god I'll never debate
> with you again.
public relations level? then why is one of hte best lecturers in my school
one with an accent? and this is a job that revolves around one's ability to
speak!
again, refer to the last paragraphs. Examine the stats i posted from the LA
Times, USA Today, etc. regarding the lack of books, qualified teachers,
extra time on SAT given to white-upper class students. You obviously have
yet to see it. Opportunity is there, but the levels of opportunity clearly
differ? DOn't believe me and/or disagree? See those stats i posted
numerous times now, then come back and speak.
why did these people change their names? You didn't answer my question.
WHy? Can you answer, or are you afraid of seeing a fault in this persistent
arguemtn of your's? What were the names of those arabs who won in those
elections?
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > they will find better jobs?? How? They're competing against other
> > people
> > > > who want the jobs.
> > >
> > > If you're worth it you'll get it. Bottom line for business: hireing
> > > substandard workers is bad, under paying qualified workers is bad.
The
> > jobs
> > > you are talking about are jobs that monkeys can do, why pay a human
5.75
> > > when a monkey will work for free?
> >
> > First - often times, you won't get what you're worth.. why?
>
> Who decides what you're worth? The market and business do. You are worth
> what they will pay you.
>
> slow job
> > market. highly competitive job market with no limit to how low
employers
> > will go. What does the gov't care? Their campaigns are funded by these
> > corporations. What do the corporations care? They're getting more in
> their
> > own pocket.
>
> Build your own corperation. Get an MBA. Be creative. Work hard,
Persist.
hahahah! are you guessing? is this your guess based on the little you've
been told? how do you know?
again, build your corporation, but do it fairly and justly - those are
people you've employed.. treat them like people. Remember those management
principles i mentioned twice now?
>
>
> > Why NOT hire the monkey for free? First a monkey doesn't have a family
to
> > support.
>
> It's not my job to care about your familly, it's my job to get the best
> labor at the best price. I'm here to support me and mine, not you.
again, see my comments about this senseless indifference you persist with.
See my reply to your previous mention of "build your empire".
>
> >I think we're a little more complex the monkeys. We, unlike
> > monkeys, need food on our table bought from a market for $$. We need
> health
> > care bought by $$. We need shelter bought by $$.
>
> THEN GET A FUCKING JOB THAT PAYS MORE.
AGAIN FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME, THE COMPETITIVE JOB MARKET DOES NOT ALLOW IT.
THE POOR ARE EXPLOITED FOR THEIR LABOR, NOT FOR NECESSITY, BUT FOR INCREASES
MAX. PROFIT. WHY DO WE OPPOSE THE IDEA OF INTERNATIONAL COURT??? SO
AMERICAN CORPORATE PIGS DON'T GO ON TRIAL FOR VIOLATING THE BASIC HUMAN
RIGHTS OF NON-AMERICAN WORKERS!!!
HOW CAN YOU CALL YOURSELF A RESEARCHER? GO AHEAD A RESEARCH THIS!
again, how can we value our own greed more than the lives of others? How
many people must die and suffer from poverty before we get a fucking clue?
I can't belive you don't support this war in Iraq. THis is exactly what
this is - ECONOMIC INTERESTS at work, even if thousands suffer as a result.
>
> We can't live in trees
> > and the wilderness. The employer has the money to pay the worker a
DECENT,
> > LIVABLE wage... its the employer's greed that is keeping him from doing
> so.
>
> As it is his right to that greed.
I'm sorry, but there is no excuse for greed. Where did all that knowledge
from Islam, Buddhism go? Your thoughts contradict those presented by both
religions! As i said before, there's only one thing that angers me more
than ignorance and that's greed and apathy.
>
>
> > There's no excuse for having the money to pay, watching a worker
struggle
> > due to your unfair wage, and all so your big wage gets bigger!
>
> Yes there is, it's called "I worked my ass off to get where I am, I don't
> owe you anything".
IS THAT ANY EXCUSE FOR DENY A HONEST DAYS WORK AN HONEST DAY'S WAGE? IS IT?
Is it any reason to value your own greed over the basic human rights of
human beings?!
>
> I don't know
> > about you, but greed and apathy are things that annoys me more than
> > ignorance.
>
> So you'd like to make laws that make greed illegal...can we say "thought
> police"?
>
> Greed is part of human nature, as it's our right to feel greedy and do
> what's best for the people we love. I don't give a shit about you, you're
> my employee and you're expendable. Fortunatly for you, most business
owners
> DON'T think like this. Most businesses don't need liberals telling them
to
> do a good job.
i'm sorry, but this is just total ignorance on your part.
just because i have thoughts of "greed", "hate", "jealousy", "anger", does
not mean i should let them dictate my actions! are you some kind of ape
that does not how to control himself?? You have a free will and a
conscience to exercise that will. I can't tell you what to do. That's up
to you. If i am angered by someone, is that any reason to go and kill him?
SmithKline, hte pharmacuetical company, killed 40+ people due to greed, but
were given a small fine. If i'm an jeolous of someone, should i go to their
home and steal from them? how is crime due to greed any different?
let's not let ourselves sink as low as using labels such as liberal. if you
can't defend your argument with info, then why bother persisting in
misinformation?
>
> I recommend:
>
> Ayn Rand's Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.
again, don't give me a book to read or political party to refer to. If you
can't answer the question by yourself, then you are clearly uninformed.
>
> What happens with a poor society? Watch crime increase.
>
>
> Everytime there is a hike in welfare there is a hike in crime.
HOW DO YOU KNOW? is this a guess based on what you've heard? How do you
know they are right? Did you look into it? or did you swallow every word
they gave you without question? Come now, Sebastian.. i thought you were
smarter than this.
How do i know that crime increases with poverty? just look at Inglewood's
crime levels and that of a comparable population such as Irvine. Compare
income levels. Do the same with other cities. Higher crime is clearly
associated with higher poverty levels.
>Legalize
> drugs: watch crime decrease, put all dealers out of business.
how do you know???
>Get rid of
> welfare: watch people struggle for a while until they realize that they
only
> desearve what they work for and they work for it; you'd be amazed at what
> humans can do when they have to do something to survive. Black famillies
> were better off before welfare; it's a fact.
blacks were better off before welfare, and its fact? then don't tell me..
show me where you go this statistic from.
According to an article in Money, 1997 by Hacker, the medican income of a
black family has risen from $23,806 in 1975 to $25,970 in 1995. Does this
not directly contradict your fact??? Please don't waste my time with
bullshit Sebastian.
>
> >Watch
> > education sink lower, in the eyes of the poor, as a priority.
>
>
> Privatize education and watch the education system work like Adam Smith
said
> *all* businesses will work. Here's a little statistic for you: average
> amount of money per-public student per-year in america: $6000; Average
> amount of money spent per student per year in private schools with better
> test scores and better drop out rates and better employment rates: $3000.
and where did you get that from? Did you know private property taxes can
drive up spending per child? According to that Sklar article, this can
cause spending to range from $2337 per child to $56000 per child. Guess
which number is for the poor school, and which is for the wealthy school.
You want school to be handled by the private sector? How much is tuition at
UCLA (public)? How much is tuition at USC (private)? Now ask yourself why
the cost is different.. go ahead.. find out.
>
> Let me explain something to you: people like you will give a lot of money
> for charity, you will give even more money when you're not being taxed up
> the ass already. Privatize schools and watch the money from charity pour
> in.
again, why pay a private school $20000 a year, when you could pay a public
school $2000 - $4000. You're wasting money. What kind of system is this?
>
> Watch
> > illiteracy grow. Watch your society weaken and diminish.
>
> This is already happening...you think the situation for the poor is
getting
> better? no. welfare doesn't work, it incourages young poor girls to have
> babies. Public education doesn't work.
yes, welfare doesn't work because it pays people less than what they need to
live decently ($2.47/hr.????!!!!!) and get out of debt caused by the rising
costs of privatized health care. How does public education not work? The
rich seem to be using public education just fine!
>
> Kill or be
> > killed, huh? People with this thought don't care about he country as a
> > whole. They don't care about future generations. They don't care about
> the
> > future of hte planet. All they care for is themselves.
>
> And who the hell are you, Mr. self rightous, to tell them otherwise?
who am i? one cares for the basic human rights of people. One who values
people more than my own greed.
>
> I work for my money, you don't deserve money that you don't work for:
bottom
> line.
see the part i wrote regarding greed and apathy.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > This causes people to settle for LESS. There's nothing
> > >
> > > no one with a good education works for minimum wage. Who workds for
> > minimum
> > > wage? morons and young teens. The minimum wage destroyes jobs, 90%
of
> > > economists agree.
> >
> > I wasn't taking about minimum wage. I was talking about settling for
> > less...
> > as is the case with many. You said they will get paid what they're
worth.
> > How do you know that? Have you seen the job market? Have you seen how
it
> > works? have you seen how people work with it? Go to UCLA's school of
> > engineering and ask the seniors - how much to expect to be paid? how
much
> > is the national avg.? how much do you think you'll get paid? how many
> > applications have you sent? how many replied with the pay you expected?
> > how many with much less? go ahead. I know quite a few seniors in thsi
> > position over at UCI. many have settled for much less. "Too many
people
> > and too little jobs."
>
> Hmmmm...sounds to me like the perfect oppertunity to START a business.
hahahaaha! could you not reply to my rebuttal of your statement?!
How much do business owners make on avg? what % succeed? My dad is a civil
engineer for a city and he decided to start a business? he closed down
after 4 years.. the profit wasn't high enough... he made 3 times more as
civil engineer. You would make much more working with a business econ.
(approx. $24,000/yr) then you would starting a business. Again, what % of
businesses succeed and which fall? If you had a family to support, would
you let go of a $24,000 a year to start a business? what if you failed?
how hard would it be to get another job? this is what many people face.
hahahahahaha! Don't waste my time with bullshit Sebastian. You claim to be
the researcher.. how many people from upper-class, white domintated, Corona
Del Mar High School went to a university after graduation? How many from
Wash. Prep. in South L.A.? Only 12 people out 400+ graduates from my H.S.
went to a UC campus (1 or 2 went to private universities). Why? "Plenty of
people", huh? You must have a funny way of defining "plenty".. it could
mean hundreds or 12!
of course, anyone can make it, but the opportunities available to students
clearly differ. who can build the better house, the guy with a limited set
of tools, or the guy with the much bigger, better set of tools?
again, examine the stats regarding educational opportunity from the LA
Times, USA Today, etc.
> >Our
> > jobs isn't to take of people? Is health care not a human right?
>
> ummm no, it's not. Rights can't violate other people's rights....like the
> right to not have to pay for people who do shit with their lives. That's
a
> right, it falls under "free market".
so the poor are not entitled to seek treatment for their suffering? the
poor cannot see doctors to help them treat their pain? is this restricted
only for the rich? its a moral question. Should wealth being a determing
factor for basic health care (or at least financial assitance)?
you do nothing to help these people even though your nation is the
wealthiest nation on the planet.... in my opinion, you're of no use here.
You're not making this nation a better one, and you're doing nothing to help
ease one of our biggest problems - poverty.
> Health care is not a right, it's a privilage for those who set aside funds
> for it; for those who work for it. You want to help? Do it, leave me
> alone.
"leave me alone." have we not learned the lessons of this mentality? we
ignored the injustive committed by Israel against the Palestinians - wasn't
our problem. We ignored the injustice and primitive brutality of the
Taliban for 6 years.. women's right were irrelevant then. We assisted the
Taliban, because they would serve our economic interests, and we continue to
ignore the requests for help - afghan oppression wasn't our problem. It
wasn't our problem until a madman and these extremist groups hijacked 4
planes, killed thousands of innocent Americans, and brought down the World
Trade Centers. Its our problem now. We ignored the issues. We didn't care
for the suffering of others, even when it was our actions that were part of
the problem. We did nothing, and it hit us hard. A team is much stronger
as 1 team composed of 11 players working together, rather than just a group
of 11 independant players. if the libertarians believe in this, they are
clearly and obviously wrong and or just fooling themselves.
>
> >Are we
> > going to let a person suffer simply because we don't to lose a dime?
>
> It's a lot more than a dime. Why didn't this person save money? Why would
> he ghave a familly if he couldn't support it? Why didn't he get high
enough
> on the chain to be able to save money? Lack of opptunity? My fucking dad
> sure didn't have a lot of oppertunity, but he managed...why? Ask him and
> he'll say: because no one else owed it to me, I owed it to myself. He
never
> fucking took a dime that he didn't pay back. He taught me the lessons of
> hard work and disipline. Appearantly, that doesn't mean much anymore
again, you've missed this point. This is not about *IF* one can make it.
This is about opportunities given to the rich, that are not given to the
poor.
>
> Are we
> > going to make people suffer MORE because we want MORE in out own
pockets?
> > is this right? Is $2.47 a livable wage? How can they support
themselves?
> > Do they have any kind of health care? How are they supposed to improve
> > their lives when they are getting $2.47 an hour and have a family to
> > support?
>
>
> A. They shouldn't have had famillies to begin with.
> B. Pay for it out of your own pocket. It's my money, I work for it.
> C. Why didn't they do the same as me?
pay for it out of their pocket??? what money are they supposed to use????
surgery costs thousands! how could they afford that? how could they afford
drugs? what could they do with $2.47/hr and a family to support?
why didn't they do the same as you? how many children to you have? what
kind of place do you live in? what kind of health care do you have? tell
me, what kind of health care program do you have? you're a business owner..
that means you probably had to buy your health care. how much did it cost?
>
> > Again, what happens when the poor increase in numbers? More crime.
More
> > illiteracy. Less priorities on education. The society weakens. Is
this
> > what a good leader wants to see happen to his country? He may, if he
> values
> > his own $$ and the $$ of his social class, more than people. Its not
like
> > they can't pay the minimum wage to lessen the suffering. They can, but
> > would rather increase their own high profits! This is greed at its
worst,
> > if there is such a thing!
>
> They did it to themselves, let them pay the price.
there is no excuse for prioritizing your own greed over the basic needs of
other people. If you don't see teh fault in this...you're definitely not a
buddhist, muslim, or Christian.. that's for sure!
>
>
> > > > Destroy minimum wage completely? I highly suggest looking into this
> > idea
> > > > and researching the effects of low wages on a people and the
> > exploitation
> > > of
> > > > workers by employers that could easily happen... as past experience
> has
> > > > shown.
> > >
> > > It's not exploitation. Why would you be forced into a job where you
have
> > to
> > > work for minimum wage in the first place! You should have gone to
> college
> > > and done well.
> >
> > Try this - there was nothing else! Again, refer to my comments about
the
> > job market and people settling for less. Try this - college costs too
> much.
>
> Try this: Bank Loans
hahahahahahahahaha! so you can start your own business? what if it fails?
how will you pay back your loans? what % of businesses fail? if you had a
family to support, would you give up a $20,000/yr job to run this business -
would you take this risk when live depend on your income????
> > Do the poor have an equal change of getting to college as the rich? UC
> > Irvine costs 4,000+ a year. If you qualify for fed. aid., what about
> > housing? What about transportation? what about parking?
>
> Are you saying that poor people *never* attend UC Irvine? I'd guess no,
why
> don't you ask them how they do it and whether they think that other poor
> people should follow in their foot steps.
not you're just getting silly. AGAIN, THIS IS NOT ABOUT *IF* ONE CAN MAKE
IT. THIS IS ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES IN EDUCATION BETWEEN RICH AND POOR. How
many people from UC Irvine are from poorer high schools and how many are
from rich high schools? a few from poor high schools. about 20 times more
from rich high schools. go ahead.. go to the UCLA campus.. ask people from
what high school they came from. Then research the high schools. Go ahead
and do it. My high school was considered a poor one, but i made it out
pretty well... but i was among very few. Only 12 people went to UC campus..
compare that number to rich H.S.s.
>
> >What if you're
> > H.S. lacked funds that would allow you to compete other applicants from
> rich
> > a H.S.?
>
> Private high schools don't lack funds -many catholic schools are free.
Go.
and what if you're not Catholic? Come now.. do Americans need to sink as
low as going to a Catholic school for a good education, even if i'm not a
bit Catholic? Why can't we improve our public school. Many private schools
*DO* charge you - you forgot that part .. ever heard of the school voucher
topic?
what about private universities? i'm sure people will love to pay $20000/yr
instead of $4000/yr.......
>
> Sure, it is still quite possible to succeed, but is their an equal
> > playing field - is there equal opportunity.
>
> No, but it's very very very far from impossible. And, btw, there will
never
> be an equal oppertunity for everyone. You cannot erradicate poverty: deal
> with it.
why not??? HOW DO YOU KNOW WE CAN'T ERADICATE POVERTY??? If we can't is
this any reason to NOT try to minimize it????
HOW DO YOU KNOW THERE WILL NEVER BE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYONE???? is
that any reason to NOT try to minimize it?
quit blowing off the issues, and deal with them. If you can't answer
intelligently, say so and try informing yourself! Just don't waste my time
with bullshit.
someone once said the problem with world malnutrition wasn't a shortage of
food in teh world... but the distribution.. and they are right.
then explain the differences in education between poor/black H.S. and a
rich/white H.S. Is there any reason for this? AGAIN, THIS IS NOT *IF* ONE
CAN SUCCEED.. but WHAT OPPORTUNITIES ARE AVAILABLE TO ALL.
>
>
> >and often sometimes, these "tools" are unfair advantages (such as
> > more books, more credentialed teachers, better college centers, more SAT
> > extra-time "excuses", etc.). Go ahead.. look into it.. find the
> connection
> > between race/income and education.
>
> No, I believe you, but it's irrelivent. The playing field will never be
> equal, deal with it. Anyone can do anything, people like you with the
> victicrat mentallity hold them back.
and how do you kow? how do you know things will change? how do you know we
hold them back? are you guessing or is this based on statistical evidence?
if it is, show me!
so the difference between $2.5 million and $3.0 million in your yearly
salary is worth the oppression and exploitation of your poor workers?
>
> - a nation's people are more important
> > than how fat a cat's wallet can get. I'm sure a salary that went from $3
> > million a year to $2.5 million a year won't starve him and take the roof
> > over his head.
>
> Too bad those "poor" people didn't climb to the top themsevles. You don't
> deserve to forcefully take my money, I don't care how just your cause is.
see my paragraph regarding the exploitation of workers, not for necessity,
but for greed, and what that makes you if you support such a thing. Take a
lesson in Ethics.. you're in desperate need of it.
>
>
> > 10% for all (individual and corporate)? No income tax income tax for
all?
> > Where will your federal revenue come from? Taxing products won't be
> enough.
>
> yes it would, you haven't done economics, have you?
didn't bother - i took courses in sociology, anthropology, and management
instead.. and i'm glad i did. What's your point? if you took economics,
then show me what you've learned and its relevance to this topic. What good
is a course if you've learned nothing???
"the man who doesn't know how to read is no different from teh man who knows
how to read, but chooses not to."
perhaps you should take a sociology/anthropology class and inform yourself
about our world and the lives of different kinds of people. Do you realize
the lives we oppress in the name of corporate profits? Of course, you don't
need a class to do this, as you could learn on your own.. but its a nice
tool to have.
>
> > Drop minimum wage? What would that accomplish? Nothing would hold back
> fat
> > cat employers from lowering wages for the workers.
>
> It would increase the number of jobs, combine that with backing paper
money
> with gold and you have a guaranteed no inflation, no deflation rate.
how is that going to increase the number of jobs? maybe it will when 5
people are earning the wage of what 1 person used to make! What good is
that?! You're making 1/5 of what you used to make!
and how would we back money with gold? what if the value of gold goes
down??? does this not imply that our money has just gone down in value?
> <snips rest>
>
> Final statement:
>
> It's my money, you don't deserve it. You want to help? Do it, leave me
out
> of it. You think the good of the people is more important than the good
of
> the self? Fine, don't force your shit on me. Pay out of your pocket.
keep believing in this blindly and ignorantly. I'm sorry to see that you've
joined the rest of the sheep in believing such nonsense, without having the
facts to support your philosophy. I've given you facts, with sources noted
which include the LA Times, and you respond with something like, "that's how
the system works". This doesn't have to be the way our system works. If we
created it, we can change it.
given this philosophy of your's, i've lost a lot of respect for you. You
defend the oppressive effects of greed. Not only that, but you persist in
defending this philosophy, not with fact, but with your own guesses. Your
pride has clearly blinded your reason and ability to think critically. Try
researching this philosophy to see if it holds true.
if you still claim you're a man of logic and reason, i leave you with this -
what good is the deduction when the premises are
clearly lacking in critical and essential information?
> --
> ----
> Sebastian
> -The New Inquisitor
>
--
- LocustSky
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĘ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
LocustSky
"Smagmapig333" <smagma...@aol.communism> wrote in message
are you hurt because i don't support republicans and their stupid stimulus
package or their support for waging war for economic interests?
I'm sorry :(
--
- LocustSky
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĆ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
LocustSky
>
> "LocustSky" <Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net> wrote in message
> news:5LKU9.8664$Dq.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "|sebAstian|" <N0for...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:avua0m$jd8g2$1...@ID-153809.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> > > "LocustSky" <Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net> wrote in message
> > > news:L4qU9.7007$Dq.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Red Schism" <reds...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:ee598ccf.03011...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "|sebAstian|" <N0for...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:<avl1kg$gou3v$1...@ID-153809.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> Listen, you think like the liberal that I defined above. You think that
> people who did well in their lives should have to sacrifice in order to
pay
> for those less fortunate. You think people are entitled to free money.
You
> look the other way when poor people do nothing with their lives and you
> blame it on "the man" or the "system" or a bunch of other liberal
> victicratic crap, then you expect me to take care of them. You are a
> typical liberal.
sure i am. respond to my other post.. the really really long one. not only
do i correct your misconceptions of "liberalism", but i find your value of
greed over basic human rights disgusting. see my other post. this isn't
about if you can make it. this is about equal rights and opportunity (for
the hundredth time).
>
> No, you're rights are in the bill of rights. Those are law. Anything
else
> is just your opinion, unofortunately your opinions violate *my* rights by
> forcing your government's benevolant compassion onto others.
yes, this is the same bill of rights that WE wrote, and the same that WE
changed over teh centuries.
>
> >Liberals believe
> > teh racial wars of the 60s have been transformed into class wars and
> they're
> > right. Don't believe me.. review all the stats i posted from teh L.A.
> > Times, USA Today, etc.
>
> Biased liberal media? no thanks. I read the facts and statistics; there
is
> no vast right wing conspiracy to hold black people down. They do it to
> themselves. Tons of black people in this coutry suceed, through hard work
> and determination and through not being victicratic.
see my other post.. yes, the long, long one.. i'm not gonna waste further
time repeating myself.
>
> > How many CEOs from Enron are currently in jail?
>
> In jail for what? Tax evasion? I don't agree with the tax system. They
> didn't kill anyone, they didn't rape anyone, they didn't sell poisoned
milk
> to school children.
ahahahahaha! you don't even fully know about enron?! they only swallowed
the earning and investments of people, all while destroying documentation
that the gov't told them to not touch! they only cheated their workers out
of millions in investements! WorldCom only misreported their earnings so
stockholders don't sell their stock before its worthless. Guess who sold
the stock before it dropped. Guess who got stuck with it. If you truly
think these fuckers from Enron aren't guilty, then you've been fooled or
you're simply uninformed - either way its ignorance. I'm surprised to see a
business man such as yourself so clueless.
>
> Why
> > did the pharmaceutical companies only get a fine when they were
> responsible
> > for the death of 40+ people?
>
> Because it wasn't murder, it wasn't manslaughter; it was reckless
> endangernment. Drug companies make drugs to help people, sometimes those
> drugs have dire condequences. They didn't intenionally kill or murder
> anyone; it's a byproduct of the industry. There has to be intent, in most
> cases, for a crime to warrant jail time. You don't seem like you know
much
> about the law.
>
> > Ford/Firestone faulty designs led to the
> > deaths of hundreds of people. How many were jailed? If i killed
hundreds
> > of people, i'd be undoubtedly put to death.
>
> Study law. It was reckless endangernment, not murder or manslaughter.
> Products are made, some of them debunked; there is not enough evidence to
> support that that it was intentional.
reckless endangerment? people were killed due to faulty designs they knew
about (tires on fords say 55? PSI while Ford says almost 20 PSI lower).
Why? The decease in pressure would lower the car. A lower SUV would lessen
the chance of roll-overs. Why are all the Explorers made after this event
all wider???? DOnt' just study law.. study the fucking car designs. The
reckless endangerment was a chance they took - and they killed hundreds of
people. It could have been avoided if they took the time and $$ to redesign
the vehicle as they have with the new models. Come on... get a clue.
>
>
> blah, blah, blah. Don't put yourself in this situation. be like Larry
> Elder, do what Jesse Jackson did. Two extreamely sucessful black men who
> came out of the ghettoes. Jesse didn't even have a dad, he didn't have a
> good education; he made it. Why? Listen to the Words of Booker T.
> Washington, a black man who preeches that blacks take responbillity for
> their actions and NOT blame other people like victicratic liberals.
so they made it. great. but do they deny the existence of unequal
opportunity among blacks and whites?
>
> > as i said before, indifference is a harmful thing. You don't have to
care
> > of me, but when you look the other way when the poor are exploited
> unjustly
> > by their employers, not becuase of necessity but greed and increased
> profit,
> > then you're contributing to the problem by doing nothing.
>
> And so are the people who are being exploited. So are the people on
welfare
> who never do shit. So are the people in the ghettoes doing drugs. The
> difference? It's not my job to care, it's them holding them down.
>
> This is your
> > fucking country. This is your fucking world. Is poverty any reason for
> one
> > to deny them basic human rights?
>
> Who defines "basic human rights"? What's a right? The only "rights" that
I
> recognize are the ones in our constitution and bill of rights; mainly,
life,
> liberty and the persuit of happyness. Persuit meaning you doing it, not me
> persuing for you.
see my other post re: greed Vs. Human rights
>
> >Is poverty any reason to look the other
> > way when their is clear injustice being committed against them? "Its
not
> my
> > problem", you say?
>
> Point the finger, blame the other, you'll never get anywhere.
>
> >Crime is something directly connected to poverty. What
> > happens when poverty increases, crime increases, and the value of
> education
> > decreases in their eyes? What good is your government then? You've
> failed
> > to govern!
>
> Dude, read out fucking constitution, please. The government's job is to
> protect us with military and police, mainly.... Please: Section I, Article
> 8.
dude, quit think the constitution is this static thing that was written by
god. it was written by man, and changed througout history.
are all the poor 15 year olds on welfare? let's not generalize.. this is
ignorant.
> the poor aren't entitled to
> > have their poor health treated by doctors?
>
> Privatize health care, it will be affordable. It's my money, you care so
> much? You pay for it out of your pockets.
affordable? tell me, how much do you pay for health care? surgery costs
thousands.
>
> given the conditions of the
> > woman in workfare as i clearly described, how much we she have to pay
for
> > medical costs?
>
> The glass ceiling is full of holes; it's all in your head. I've cited
> statistics that are supported by other statistics that are supported by
even
> more statistics. You're statistics are supported by nothing but
themselves.
you cited statistics? and what are those? you cited an economics site that
you didn't even properly read! You believed the the Swedes paid 60% tax,
when your cited article clearly said 20%!!!! Come now! let's not bullshit!
>
> She would be in debt. How could she get out of debt, when
> > her pay is as little as i stated (see last post)? Not only is this
wrong,
> > but why its happening makes it worse - its all because the employer
wants
> > not $2 million in his pocket, but $2.5 million. Its not our problem,
> right?
> > What happens when poverty increases, crime increases,
>
> What happends when welfare increases? Poorness increases, people don't
> work, more money is taken in taxes, oh, and BTW, every welfare hike in
> american history has shown an increase in crime.
really? is this based on your statistics as well? source?
how do you know? source?
>
> > they don't take the opportunities? last i saw, Wash Prep. H.S. in South
> > L.A. was in need of 8,000+ books. Last i saw, school dominated by
> > lower-class, minorities had 16% unqualified teachers compared with
> > upper-class white schools which averaged 4%.
>
> So you think more books will solve the problems? If kids don't want to
> learn, they aren't going to all of a sudden start because they got a
> shipment of books in.
how do you know they won't? should we not at least give them this
opportunity that was given to other's? how can we just assume they won't
use them?
okay.. explain that SAT stat about rich, white kids getting extra time on
the SAT due to a doctor's note. Why do these students seeem to only come
from rich high schools? do the rich only suffer from this?? Explain why
teh College Board reports, that AMONG ALL TEST TAKERS in 1996, as family
incomes levels went higher, do did SAT scores? Explain that. This wasn't a
sample. This was statistical data from ALL THE TEST TAKERS. What about
having more unqualified teachers in poor schools? Why does have to be this
way in the first place? all can succeed, but what's with the big
differences in education? W
>
> > want another example you can find for yourself? Examine the tuition of
> UCLA
> > (or any UC campus) and that of USC. Examine the average stats of the
> > incoming freshman. If your grades suck and you're rich, just go to a
> school
> > with a ridiculously high tuition. George W. Bush went to Stanford,
didn't
> > he? You have a university to go to if you didn't do to well in H.S....
> > Another opportunity given to the rich that isn't given to the poor - you
> can
> > buy your education if you screwed up!
>
> Do you have any proof of people buying their way into colleges? GWB had a
a
> 3.9 and a 1350 SAT Score, that's pretty damn good. he wen't to yale,
IIRC.
where did you hear he had a 3.9? 1350 SAT? how do you know? buying their
way? Yes, buying their way. USC is easier to get into than UCLA, UCB, UCI,
and UCSB, but about 5 times more as far as tuition is concerned. If you
can't get into those UCs but have $$, try USC!
> > We don't owe the poor anything, but an equally fair chance for success
and
> > their BASIC human rights to education and health care... the levels of
> > opportunities clearly differ.
>
> These aren't rights, they are your opinions. I've shown by the 112 kids
> above that the problem isn't oppertunity.
you have 112 kids as your stat. I have the entire student population that
took the SATs in 1996, given by The College Entrance Exam Board and the
Educational Testing Service - yes, the same people who give the SATs. The
other stats are given by the L.A. Times? Which stats would you rely on?
you didn't even give a source for your 112 student sample.....
>
> > Who is more likely to build the better house?
> > THe person with a limited set of tools, or one with a much larger,
better
> > set? This answer is obvious.
>
> Work harder, buy better tools.
and if you're poor? the poor have to work harder than the rich if they want
the same education.. now isn't that fair [sarcasm]....
> > poor people will never get anywhere when they are exploited by employers
> > strictly for maximum profit and their basic human rights consume their
> > wealth and income.
>
> Poor people will never get anywhere as long as people like you keep
telling
> them that it's someone elses fault, that someone owes them something.
keep guessing and keep throwing around facts that seem to be guessing.
private schools cost less than public schools? check out UCLA's tuition and
USC's tuition.
the SATs are given with the same rules throughout hte country.
the standards for qualified teachers are not defined by the city, but by the
state and nation.
>
> > rid yourself of all these misinformed, skewed preconceptions, and go out
> > there and research this. GO AHEAD. RESEARCH THE EDUCATION OF THE POOR
AND
> > THAT OF THE RICH!
> >
> > I'm NOT TALKING ABOUT *IF* THE POOR CAN MAKE IT. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE
> > OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE TO THE POOR AND THE RICH. Whether you can make
it
> > or not is your problem to deal with - BUT EVERYONE MUST HAVE THE
> > OPPORTUNITIES AND RESOURCES TO BEGIN WITH!
> >
> > LET'S MAKE THIS CLEAR - ITS NOT ABOUT *IF*. ITS ABOUT OPPORTUNITY. Why
> do
> > you persist in this wrong idea?
>
> Read what I wrote about Mr. George weiss. he completly ruins your theory;
> with actual research.
yes, his 112 student sample ruins my factual statistics that use the ENTIRE
1996 SAT test takers, taken directly from the ETS. Come now, Sebastian,
which do you believe... this guy and his sample.. or the L.A. Times and the
actual Educational Testing Service statistics regarding the test takers?
DOn't swallow everything you hear! The LA Times reports and those of the
ETS are consistent with each other. rather turning to the actual statistics
provided by the College Board and teh ETS, what do you turn to? some guy
and his sample of 112 students. Hmmm..........
>
> > > Conservatives say: we're against helping the poor but we don't want to
> > stop
> > > you from helping the poor.
> > > Liberals say: YOU HAVE TO HELP THE POOR!!!!! IT'S YOUR DUTY!!!!
> >
> > if you don't want to help the weakest aspects of your country, then why
> are
> > you in involved in your countries politics?
>
> To instill the values of our constitition, and our blll of rights. I
> believe, with adaquit proof, that welfare hurts people more than it helps
> them.
>
>
> Answer the question: If I will give you 13,000 a year to do nothing at
all,
> nothing. Why would you take minimum wage job? Many people on welfare
make
> more than they would if they took entry level jobs. It's a fact.
really? then why are people on workfare making $2.47/hr? is that
13,000/yr?
hahahahaha.. now my doubts have been confirmed.. you've been brainwashed by
the idiots of America! and you want the palestinians to be freed?!
>
> > I'm not saying hinder your own happiness..
> > all i'm saying is don't turn your back on our faults and our injustices
> > against the poor. health care is a human right, and your wealth is
> > irrelevant.
>
> My wealth is relevent, and health care is not a human right.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Let's not assume and let's not let's not be so quick to formulate
> > > uniformed
> > > > arguments. Liberals believe that everyone "is entitled to 100K a
> year,
> > > with
> > > > full salaries, medical coverage, etc. etc."
> > >
> > > he was exagerating, but his point is this: liberals mean well, but
they
> do
> > > more damage than good. Welfare makes people lazy, public education
> sucks,
> > > and people are victicrates.
> >
> > again, HOW DO YOU KNOW? HOW ARE YOU CERTAIN? don't swallow people feed
> > you. let's not generalize based on little information and very limited
> > experience... i don't have to tell you about the faults of
> generalizations..
> > you should have learned that in middle school.
>
> Fact: a major majority of people on welfare do nothing with their lives.
how do you know? have you spoken to everyone on welfare? let's not
generalize.
> Fact: public education sucks is crap; private is better and costs less.
WRONG. USC, a private school, has tuition that is about 5 times more than
that of UCI. This is fact. Check it for yourself. Did you swallow what
heard? or did you just make this up and hope i didn't know better?
> Fact: people blame other people for their problems: the definition of
> vitcicracy. Those are all facts.
>
> >
> > > >Come now.. let's not post
> > > > bullshit exaggerations based, not on reason, but ignorance. Show me
a
> > > > liberal who stated such a thing.
> > >
> > > Hillory Clinton says shit like this all the time...it takes a village,
> > > remember? Perhaps it not as extreame as 100K a year, but it's not too
> far
> > > off.
> >
> > what??? she's saying people should be paid something not far from 100K?
> DO
> > you realize what you're saying? You do realize how much 100K a year is
> > right? MBAs are paid less (starting). I definitely need a source for
> this
> > quote of your's. Come on Sebastian, you're not fooling anyone and
you're
> > just wasting my time.. let's cut the bullshit.
>
> Did i not say "Perhaps it not as extreame as 100K a year"? The it takes a
> village attitude wants everyone to be happy, regardless of how hard they
> try. They want other people to pay for those who didn't work as hard.
"They want other people to pay for those who didn't work as hard." Tell
me... you didn't answer this before when i asked... of all the arab men that
were voted to political offices, how many had clearly arab names? ever
heard of WASP?
look it up. research what the rulers of this country look like. many are
men. many are white.
>
>
>
> --
> ----
> Sebastian
> -The New Inquisitor
>
>
see my other post.. the long long one for further detail.
--
- LocustSky
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TÆ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
LocustSky
and what is their source of this info? $30,000? what kind of bullshit is
this?! this is $4000 higher than the MEDIAN, yes MEDIAN, income of a black
family in 1995, according to Money magazine !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (by Hacker,
1997, p. 147). Go ahead.. go to your local library and look up this
source... i even gave you the page.
the workfare info can be found anywhere.. hell, you can even find it in
Michael Moore's recent documentary!
don't believe everything you hear.. find a second source that states info
that is consistent with your's. A H.S. teacher makes about $30,000/yr., so
this source's statement that this is what welfare recipients recieve is
quite hard to believe.
> --
> ----
> Sebastian
> -The New Inquisitor
--
- LocustSky
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĘ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
|sebAstian|
"LocustSky" <Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net> wrote in message
The bill of rights was never changed, and it wasn't written by any of us.
I'm not clueless, I just don't believe that what they did warrants jail
time, appearantly a judge didn't either.
Come on, study law.
> > blah, blah, blah. Don't put yourself in this situation. be like Larry
> > Elder, do what Jesse Jackson did. Two extreamely sucessful black men who
> > came out of the ghettoes. Jesse didn't even have a dad, he didn't have
a
> > good education; he made it. Why? Listen to the Words of Booker T.
> > Washington, a black man who preeches that blacks take responbillity for
> > their actions and NOT blame other people like victicratic liberals.
>
> so they made it. great. but do they deny the existence of unequal
> opportunity among blacks and whites?
No, and neither do I. All I'm saying is that it's no fault of mine, and
it's not my job to clean it up, and it's your own fucking fault if you can't
suceed.
See these defintions: law, opinion.
Maybe it's because more affluent famillies tend to have greater morals and
ethics about hard work and determination; I'd think so being that the
parents made it, they'd probably teach their kids the same values.
This wasn't a
> sample. This was statistical data from ALL THE TEST TAKERS. What about
> having more unqualified teachers in poor schools? Why does have to be
this
> way in the first place? all can succeed, but what's with the big
> differences in education? W
It's irrelivent even if it is true: I just showed you an example of 112
people with more oppertunity than most rich, white kids; they did no better
than normal inner-city kids.
Ever consider the fact that inner-city kids don't want to learn and work
hard? Studies prove that black teens in the ghettoes watch an average of
50% more TV than whites. Could it be that they aren't doing their home
work? Is anyone saying "don't go to school" or "take drugs" or "have
children out of wedlock"? No, and those are the biggest problems facing the
poor community, not lack of oppertunity. You still haven't said anything
about teh study of 112 kids who had more oppertunity; all you did was bring
up a statistic that showed that some people have less oppertunity, it
doesn't explain why people with more oppertunity did the same as their peers
with your idea of less opertunity..
> >
> > > want another example you can find for yourself? Examine the tuition
of
> > UCLA
> > > (or any UC campus) and that of USC. Examine the average stats of the
> > > incoming freshman. If your grades suck and you're rich, just go to a
> > school
> > > with a ridiculously high tuition. George W. Bush went to Stanford,
> didn't
> > > he? You have a university to go to if you didn't do to well in
H.S....
> > > Another opportunity given to the rich that isn't given to the poor -
you
> > can
> > > buy your education if you screwed up!
> >
> > Do you have any proof of people buying their way into colleges? GWB had
a
> a
> > 3.9 and a 1350 SAT Score, that's pretty damn good. he wen't to yale,
> IIRC.
>
> where did you hear he had a 3.9? 1350 SAT? how do you know?
Are you disputing it? Find evidence to the contrary, it's all over the
internet and was published in Time Magazine in 2000.
>buying their
> way? Yes, buying their way. USC is easier to get into than UCLA, UCB,
UCI,
> and UCSB, but about 5 times more as far as tuition is concerned. If you
> can't get into those UCs but have $$, try USC!
So, you're saying that people buy their way into college because UCS charges
more but has easier admission standards? What? Poor people can't get
education loans all of a sudden.. There are soooo many private
orginizations who give money to the poor and to minorites to go to college,
that is, if you get good grades and good SAT scores.
> > > We don't owe the poor anything, but an equally fair chance for success
> and
> > > their BASIC human rights to education and health care... the levels of
> > > opportunities clearly differ.
> >
> > These aren't rights, they are your opinions. I've shown by the 112 kids
> > above that the problem isn't oppertunity.
>
> you have 112 kids as your stat. I have the entire student population that
> took the SATs in 1996, given by The College Entrance Exam Board and the
> Educational Testing Service - yes, the same people who give the SATs. The
> other stats are given by the L.A. Times? Which stats would you rely on?
> you didn't even give a source for your 112 student sample.....
Are you disputing that it's true? I gave you the guy who did the study;
george weiss, if you're only combat is questioning the source, here you go:
The Philadelphia Inquirer, look it up.
Your stat proves what? That affluent people perform better on SATs? well,
duh. Affluent parents are affluent for a reason, they got there the old
fasioned way and taught their kids their values.
> >
> > > Who is more likely to build the better house?
> > > THe person with a limited set of tools, or one with a much larger,
> better
> > > set? This answer is obvious.
> >
> > Work harder, buy better tools.
>
> and if you're poor? the poor have to work harder than the rich if they
want
> the same education.. now isn't that fair [sarcasm]....
Who told you life was fair? I just ended a relationship with a girl because
she told me she loved me, spent tons of time with me and then wouldn't break
up with her boyfriend...is that *fair*? Fuck no, boo fucking hoo.
> > > poor people will never get anywhere when they are exploited by
employers
> > > strictly for maximum profit and their basic human rights consume their
> > > wealth and income.
> >
> > Poor people will never get anywhere as long as people like you keep
> telling
> > them that it's someone elses fault, that someone owes them something.
>
> keep guessing and keep throwing around facts that seem to be guessing.
> private schools cost less than public schools? check out UCLA's tuition
and
> USC's tuition.
Doesn't prove anything but a difference in college tuitions...community
colleges are fucking easy to get into, and they aren't expensive at all;
you don't even need to do SATs to get in, almost anyone can get in...as long
as you don't play the victim, as long as you work hard.
|sebAstian|
"LocustSky" <Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net> wrote in message
Michael Moore is racist liberal garbage.
I gave you my source, look it up: here it is again:
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, "Signifigant Features of
Fiscal Federalism: Budget Processes and Tax Systems, 1994" June 1994.
Look it up, then talk to me.
> don't believe everything you hear.. find a second source that states info
> that is consistent with your's. A H.S. teacher makes about $30,000/yr.,
so
> this source's statement that this is what welfare recipients recieve is
> quite hard to believe.
What a coincidance, in the conclusion of the study the writer mentions that
there hard-core welfare reciepiants make more than teachers.
--
----
Sebastian
-The New Inquisitor
> > --
> > ----
> > Sebastian
> > -The New Inquisitor
>
>
> --
> - LocustSky
>
> AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĆ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|sebAstian|
"LocustSky" <Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net> wrote in message
>
> "Smagmapig333" <smagma...@aol.communism> wrote in message
> news:20030113123239...@mb-dh.aol.com...
> > >Even though I'm
> > >not a democrat or a republican, if it came down to these two parties,
> i'd
> > >vote democrat over republican any day.
> > >
> > >
> > > - LocustSky
> >
> > yes, because that is the closest thing that we have to the socialist
party
> at
> > this time.
> >
> > mike
>
> are you hurt because i don't support republicans and their stupid stimulus
> package or their support for waging war for economic interests?
You admitted that you've not studied economics yet you just jump on the
liberal bandwagon critisizing a stiumulus package that many economists hail
as a great thing for the economy. is it great for health care? nope. is it
great for public education? nope, but it's an *economic* stimulus package,
borne right outta capatialsim, baby. And you'll see, bush will get re
elected, his approval ratings will stay high and we'll get more and more
republicans and libertarians into office -eventually we'll get damn close to
capitalism.
--
----
Sebastian
-The New Inquisitor
> I'm sorry :(
|sebAstian|
"LocustSky" <Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net> wrote in message
>
> "|sebAstian|" <N0for...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:avud1m$jjeta$1...@ID-153809.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "LocustSky" <Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net> wrote in message
> > news:i4qU9.7003$Dq.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >
>
> > >
> > > i'm sorry, but i just have to cut in on some of these points... the
> poor
> > > are making $13,000 and $21,000 a year? I really doubt that. $21,000
is
> > > over the income limit (family of four) for school lunch program and
> many,
> > if
> > > not all, people who are "poor" utilize this program. I'd realy like
to
> a
> > > see a source, please.
> >
> > SOURCE: The advisory board commission on Intergovernmental Relations,
> > "Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism: Budget Processes and Tax
> > Systems, 1994," June 1994.
>
> really? then why does an article in Money, 1997,(p. 147) state that
median
> Black family income in teh U.S. is $25,970 (1995)???
Money's statistic probably doesn't factor in other welfare benefits such as
food stams, among other things.
> of the "poor" how many are many $21,000 a year? how many people
> per family are working? and how much "wealth" do these people have? what
> are they worth after paying for health care, food, housing, etc.? $7,000
> year?
Couldn't tell you.
>and if they had a family to support?
I've gone over this with you: don't have a familly if you can't support them
and try to get something that
> was less than 5 years ago.
Why? Welfare hasn't been decreased in the last 5 years.
> tell me... why are more than 30,000 people in NY on the workfare program
> earning $2.47 an hour? How much are they earning yearly?
Didn't you say that they're on workfare + they pick up a welfare check?
> i'd like to see the hardcopy or the electronic copy (link is fine) of this
> article if
> available.
It''s not, but I'm sure you can check it out at a library if you want to.
I don't have a scannar or anything like that.
I just found another interesting statistic for you though, and yes I'll give
a source but you hae to buy the shit yourself;
only 1 in 7 welfare reciepiants claim not to be able to find a job
When asked why they don't take jobs:
"Most reciepiants said that they considered low-end jobs to be chump change
and too medial to consider"
Source:
The new politics of Poverty: the non working poor in America by Lawrence
Mead.
> just to return the favor, i'll be happy to let you see hardcopies of all
the
> materials i cite, including that from other posts.
No thanks, I'm sure I know why money's article differes, and I outlined it
above.
Richard Barker
Hey, you're the capitalist, right? It's people like you that put a price
on everything and made money an unavoidable prerequisite for survival.
Don't complain when it comes back to bite you in the ass.
Christ. I usually consider myself a capitalist, but reading how people
like you can take it and turn it into isolationism, I understand why it
gets a bad name.
> No, you're rights are in the bill of rights. Those are law. Anything else
> is just your opinion, unofortunately your opinions violate *my* rights by
> forcing your government's benevolant compassion onto others.
As someone else said, there are human rights way above and beyond those
set out in any country's "laws". Hiding behind the Bill of Rights won't
make your argument any more sensible.
> Biased liberal media? no thanks. I read the facts and statistics; there is
> no vast right wing conspiracy to hold black people down. They do it to
> themselves. Tons of black people in this coutry suceed, through hard work
> and determination and through not being victicratic.
Jesus ... "I'm not gonna read that, it's biased!" Anyone who truly
considers that he is well-informed reads media of *all* persuasions in
order to make a balanced decision. And victicratic is not a word. If
anything it's an oxymoron.
> In jail for what? Tax evasion? I don't agree with the tax system. They
> didn't kill anyone, they didn't rape anyone, they didn't sell poisoned milk
> to school children.
But they broke those laws you were so passionate about a few paragraphs
further up....
> Because it wasn't murder, it wasn't manslaughter; it was reckless
> endangernment. Drug companies make drugs to help people, sometimes those
> drugs have dire condequences. They didn't intenionally kill or murder
> anyone; it's a byproduct of the industry. There has to be intent, in most
> cases, for a crime to warrant jail time. You don't seem like you know much
> about the law.
You don't seem to know whether you support it or not.
> Study law. It was reckless endangernment, not murder or manslaughter.
> Products are made, some of them debunked; there is not enough evidence to
> support that that it was intentional.
Doesn't seem to bother the judges who award in these malpractice suits
that force the cost of healthcare up ... and don't imagine that
privatisation would alter that situation in the slightest.
I was going to respond to a lot more of your post, but your evident
inability to edit the stuff you're replying to, leaving four- or
five-post-old stuff in there, makes it very laborious to read. Fuck
learn to quote, learn to snip!
Rich
|sebAstian|
"Richard Barker" <ric...@tool.com> wrote in message
news:3E24B3A0...@tool.com...
> > You think people are entitled to free money.
>
> Hey, you're the capitalist, right? It's people like you that put a price
> on everything and made money an unavoidable prerequisite for survival.
> Don't complain when it comes back to bite you in the ass.
In a capitalistic society I wouldn't have to complain, we live in a Diet
SocialistT society.
> Christ. I usually consider myself a capitalist, but reading how people
> like you can take it and turn it into isolationism, I understand why it
> gets a bad name.
>
> > No, you're rights are in the bill of rights. Those are law. Anything
else
> > is just your opinion, unofortunately your opinions violate *my* rights
by
> > forcing your government's benevolant compassion onto others.
>
> As someone else said, there are human rights way above and beyond those
> set out in any country's "laws". Hiding behind the Bill of Rights won't
> make your argument any more sensible.
And those human rights don't entitle anyone else to my money due to my hard
work. You have the right to work hard, do well in school, get a good job
and make money; not to take my money for free.
> > Biased liberal media? no thanks. I read the facts and statistics; there
is
> > no vast right wing conspiracy to hold black people down. They do it to
> > themselves. Tons of black people in this coutry suceed, through hard
work
> > and determination and through not being victicratic.
>
> Jesus ... "I'm not gonna read that, it's biased!" Anyone who truly
> considers that he is well-informed reads media of *all* persuasions in
> order to make a balanced decision. And victicratic is not a word. If
> anything it's an oxymoron.
Victicratic - A governmental system or belief system related to self and
exterior victimization in order to dissuade personal responsibility. The
liberal media easilly twists facts, read: "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How
the Media Distort the News"
A quote from the book by CBS news President Andrew Hays: "Look, Bernie, of
course there's a liberal bias in the news. All networks tilt left" So, do
I want to listen to news that is admittadly distorted? No thanks.
> > In jail for what? Tax evasion? I don't agree with the tax system.
They
> > didn't kill anyone, they didn't rape anyone, they didn't sell poisoned
milk
> > to school children.
>
> But they broke those laws you were so passionate about a few paragraphs
> further up....
And I don't think that those laws merit jail time.
> > Because it wasn't murder, it wasn't manslaughter; it was reckless
> > endangernment. Drug companies make drugs to help people, sometimes
those
> > drugs have dire condequences. They didn't intenionally kill or murder
> > anyone; it's a byproduct of the industry. There has to be intent, in
most
> > cases, for a crime to warrant jail time. You don't seem like you know
much
> > about the law.
>
> You don't seem to know whether you support it or not.
Support it? no, I don't support what they did; I support a fine, I don't
support jail. I like the laws the way they are.
> > Study law. It was reckless endangernment, not murder or manslaughter.
> > Products are made, some of them debunked; there is not enough evidence
to
> > support that that it was intentional.
>
> Doesn't seem to bother the judges who award in these malpractice suits
> that force the cost of healthcare up ... and don't imagine that
> privatisation would alter that situation in the slightest.
Malpractice suits give monitary fines almost everytime; that's fine with me.
All doctors are required to hve malpractice insurance, if you have some
evidence that malpractice suits bring a substantial raise to health costs,
please, by all means, present it.
> I was going to respond to a lot more of your post, but your evident
> inability to edit the stuff you're replying to, leaving four- or
> five-post-old stuff in there, makes it very laborious to read. Fuck
> learn to quote, learn to snip!
Thanks, brightwell.
*hopefully*wild*
>
> > ahahahahaha! you don't even fully know about enron?! they only
swallowed
> > the earning and investments of people, all while destroying
documentation
> > that the gov't told them to not touch! they only cheated their workers
> out
> > of millions in investements! WorldCom only misreported their earnings
so
> > stockholders don't sell their stock before its worthless. Guess who
sold
> > the stock before it dropped. Guess who got stuck with it. If you truly
> > think these fuckers from Enron aren't guilty, then you've been fooled or
> > you're simply uninformed - either way its ignorance. I'm surprised to
see
> a
> > business man such as yourself so clueless.
>
> I'm not clueless, I just don't believe that what they did warrants jail
> time, appearantly a judge didn't either.
>
>
I've agreed with you for the most part in this discussion. I got a problem
here though. The employees of Enron followed your formula. They worked hard,
got good jobs complete with 401Ks and stock options. They got royally
screwed. They are left with nothing left of what they worked so hard to
achieve. Either what the Enron fuckers did was wrong and warrents jail, or
your formula of work hard, study and get educated and don't fuck up is
bullshit, and I don't believe that it is.
~Lauri
Smagmapig333
>From: "LocustSky" Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net
>Message-id: <7pOU9.9423$Qr4.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
why would i be hurt? i could give a shit about the party, it's the issue that
gets my vote. voting a party reguardless of issue is pretty stupid in my
opinion.
mike
LocustSky
hahahah! so humans much like us didn't write the bill of rights???? that's
silly sebastian.. let's put more intelligence into your posts!
could it be that or the $666 million donated by these corporations to
political campaigns in 1998 (LA Times, 1/19/99, A20)???
Unions gave about $60 million. Corporations gave more than 10 times more!
Come now, Sebastian, i thought you were a researcher who wanted logic!
what about law? so if a company ends up killing people due to faulty
designs that WERE NOT corrected due to cost to the company, the company does
not deserve punishment? Have you looked at the difference between the PSI
levels recommended by Ford and Firestone? THe differ almost by 20 PSI! Did
engineers not understand that this decrease in tire pressure builds more
heat and thus, increases the likelyhood of tire tread seperating??? They
knew about risk, but were willing to take that risk even if lives were at
stake... and they were wrong. Hundreds died due to all this. Do you
believe these people shouldn't be jailed?
what about WorldCom? You don't honestly support what them did do you? they
misreported their earnings and then sold their stock before it dropped. Is
this fair? they let the other investers pay the price. This wasn't
killing. This was theft. Theft of millions. If i stole thousands, i'd be
in jail. Why aren't the boys from WOrldCom, Enron, etc. in jail? again, see
the stat behind corporate contributions to politics.
>
>
> > > blah, blah, blah. Don't put yourself in this situation. be like
Larry
> > > Elder, do what Jesse Jackson did. Two extreamely sucessful black men
who
> > > came out of the ghettoes. Jesse didn't even have a dad, he didn't
have
> a
> > > good education; he made it. Why? Listen to the Words of Booker T.
> > > Washington, a black man who preeches that blacks take responbillity
for
> > > their actions and NOT blame other people like victicratic liberals.
> >
> > so they made it. great. but do they deny the existence of unequal
> > opportunity among blacks and whites?
>
> No, and neither do I. All I'm saying is that it's no fault of mine, and
> it's not my job to clean it up, and it's your own fucking fault if you
can't
> suceed.
so you don't bother to fix the levels of inequality? is that meaningless?!
is it fair that one has to work harder to get to the same place as another?
is it? You're ignoring this aspect.
opinion? so if you steal, yes steal, from people by misreporting your
companies earning to stockholders, you aren't guilty of a crime? If you pay
people 25 cents an hour to pick tobacco all day when the cost of life is 4
times more, and you have the money, but would rather seem them suffer so
your salary goes up from $2.5 to $3 million, you aren't committed a crime?
and get over this "its not in the bill rights" shit. We produced that, and
its been corrected over the year.. it can very well be wrong. is this
oppression and exploitation of the poor a moral crime or not?
tool can play HUGE stadiums and charge us $60 a ticket (before ticketbastard
fees)... all while playing the major cities and skipping the smaller ones..
as many acts today do. People would pay that amount to see them.. remember
how fast the first tool tour sold out? Tool doesn't do this. They
understand that it isn't fair to fans... and that's something i truly
respect. If only many more could learn this lesson.........
<snip piece on how you believe the constitution outlines your rights fully
accurately and fairly>
still waiting.. how much do you pay for health care? do you HAVE health
care?
still waiting.....
still waiting........
> >
> > >
> > > > they don't take the opportunities? last i saw, Wash Prep. H.S. in
> South
> > > > L.A. was in need of 8,000+ books. Last i saw, school dominated by
> > > > lower-class, minorities had 16% unqualified teachers compared with
> > > > upper-class white schools which averaged 4%.
> > >
> > > So you think more books will solve the problems? If kids don't want
to
> > > learn, they aren't going to all of a sudden start because they got a
> > > shipment of books in.
> >
> > how do you know they won't? should we not at least give them this
> > opportunity that was given to other's? how can we just assume they
won't
> > use them?
> >
> > >
> > > Illigitamacy, drugs: these are the things that cause the most harm.
And
> > > they are both choices.
> > >
> > > Here's something for you:
> > >
<snip anecdotal evidence of 112 students> > >
> > > Fact: if you took 100 kids from the same pool, with no guaranted
> > education,
> > > the results would have been the same.
> > >
> > > To quote Mr. Weiss: "The study shows that it isn't about money. It's
> > about
> > > values. It's about hard work. It's about disipline and application.
> > It's
> > > about character and workding hard when you don't want to. And these
> > values
> > > are instilled in the home".
> > >
> > > Go ahead, take a shot. There goes your oppertunity defence.
> >
> > okay.. explain that SAT stat about rich, white kids getting extra time
on
> > the SAT due to a doctor's note. Why do these students seeem to only
come
> > from rich high schools? do the rich only suffer from this?? Explain
why
> > teh College Board reports, that AMONG ALL TEST TAKERS in 1996, as family
> > incomes levels went higher, do did SAT scores? Explain that.
>
> Maybe it's because more affluent famillies tend to have greater morals and
> ethics about hard work and determination; I'd think so being that the
> parents made it, they'd probably teach their kids the same values.
again, HOW DO YOU KNOW? DO YOU HAVE STATISTICS THAT WOULD SUGGEST
THIS???!!!! QUIT GENERALIZING AND QUIT BULLSHITTING AND POST SOMETHING OF
SOME INTELLIGENCE AND TRUE REASON! IRONIC HOW YOU ASK FOR REASON! "MAYBE".
you know what that leaves open??? MAYBE YOU COULD BE WRONG! This is the
trivial fault of generalizations! Go back to school because you seemed to
have learned nothing from it!
are you guessing and generalizing based on the little that you know and that
which you fear? what is it you fear? seeing youself guessing desperately
where you should be stating facts? Do the poor pass on poor values to their
children? I know many people from poor families that went on to great
universities. I also know many rich that quit schools due to poor values.
>
> This wasn't a
> > sample. This was statistical data from ALL THE TEST TAKERS. What about
> > having more unqualified teachers in poor schools? Why does have to be
> this
> > way in the first place? all can succeed, but what's with the big
> > differences in education? W
>
> It's irrelivent even if it is true: I just showed you an example of 112
> people with more oppertunity than most rich, white kids; they did no
better
> than normal inner-city kids.
yes, and where did you get this info from? tell me which
sociological/anthropological journal this came from.
how are my stats irrelevant??!!!!!! It uses ALL (tens of thousands of
students) the test-takers and the info is straight from teh College Board
and the Educational Testing Service, instead of a 112 sample from who knows
which magazine you swallowed without question!!! You're valuing a sample of
112 students over a sample of tens of thousands of students??!! DO NOT CALL
MY STATS IRRELEVANT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT DISPROVES YOUR BOGUS SAMPLE!
QUIT WASTING MY TIME WITH THIS BULLSHIT!
what issue in 2000? Time has over 52 issues out each year. Who is the
author of the information? its all over the internet? then send over a
link. You probably can't. Why? because dubya didnt' get 1350 on his SAT.
you must quit bullshitting, Sebastian. Bush got a 1206 on his SAT and yet,
was accepted to one of the best private schools in the nation.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-08-27-sat-cover_x.htm
1206? I know people with 1300s, 3.8 GPAs who didnt' get into UCLA!!!!
>
> >buying their
> > way? Yes, buying their way. USC is easier to get into than UCLA, UCB,
> UCI,
> > and UCSB, but about 5 times more as far as tuition is concerned. If you
> > can't get into those UCs but have $$, try USC!
>
>
> So, you're saying that people buy their way into college because UCS
charges
> more but has easier admission standards? What? Poor people can't get
> education loans all of a sudden.. There are soooo many private
> orginizations who give money to the poor and to minorites to go to
college,
> that is, if you get good grades and good SAT scores.
yes.. look at dubya.. he had a 1206 on his SAT and got into Yale and
Harvard!
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/feb2001/nf20010215_777.htm
you haven't taken out loans for schools, now have you? anyone can take out
a school loan and, but must pay it back after graduation and with interest.
good SAT scores? according to the same stats i've posted numerous times
now, SAT scores rise with families of greater incomes. Why? Try differing
standards among poor and rich schools! Don't take my word for it.. take the
College Board and the Educational Testing Board's word for it!
>
>
> > > > We don't owe the poor anything, but an equally fair chance for
success
> > and
> > > > their BASIC human rights to education and health care... the levels
of
> > > > opportunities clearly differ.
> > >
> > > These aren't rights, they are your opinions. I've shown by the 112
kids
> > > above that the problem isn't oppertunity.
> >
> > you have 112 kids as your stat. I have the entire student population
that
> > took the SATs in 1996, given by The College Entrance Exam Board and the
> > Educational Testing Service - yes, the same people who give the SATs.
The
> > other stats are given by the L.A. Times? Which stats would you rely on?
> > you didn't even give a source for your 112 student sample.....
>
> Are you disputing that it's true? I gave you the guy who did the study;
> george weiss, if you're only combat is questioning the source, here you
go:
> The Philadelphia Inquirer, look it up.
>
> Your stat proves what? That affluent people perform better on SATs?
well,
> duh. Affluent parents are affluent for a reason, they got there the old
> fasioned way and taught their kids their values.
again, HOW DO YOU KNOW? AGAIN, why are the students with disabilities that
give them extra time dominated by rich, white students, as shown in my other
stats from the L.A. TImes (1/19/00, A20)??? Did it ever occur to you that
these students may be getting notes signed by their parents or family
friends who may be doctors? how many books are these schools lacking? Try
8000+. (LA Times 2/8/98 A3).
again don't give me this generalized bullshit. "Give me reason and
legality".
>
> > >
> > > > Who is more likely to build the better house?
> > > > THe person with a limited set of tools, or one with a much larger,
> > better
> > > > set? This answer is obvious.
> > >
> > > Work harder, buy better tools.
> >
> > and if you're poor? the poor have to work harder than the rich if they
> want
> > the same education.. now isn't that fair [sarcasm]....
>
> Who told you life was fair? I just ended a relationship with a girl
because
> she told me she loved me, spent tons of time with me and then wouldn't
break
> up with her boyfriend...is that *fair*? Fuck no, boo fucking hoo.
you're comparing your failure with some girl to institutionalized
racism???!!! Again, see the stats regarding USC and UCLA tuition and the
SATs.
>
>
> > > > poor people will never get anywhere when they are exploited by
> employers
> > > > strictly for maximum profit and their basic human rights consume
their
> > > > wealth and income.
> > >
> > > Poor people will never get anywhere as long as people like you keep
> > telling
> > > them that it's someone elses fault, that someone owes them something.
> >
> > keep guessing and keep throwing around facts that seem to be guessing.
> > private schools cost less than public schools? check out UCLA's tuition
> and
> > USC's tuition.
>
> Doesn't prove anything but a difference in college tuitions...community
> colleges are fucking easy to get into, and they aren't expensive at all;
> you don't even need to do SATs to get in, almost anyone can get in...as
long
> as you don't play the victim, as long as you work hard.
what?! did you not say private schools are cheaper than public schools?
that's the reason i told you to check out their tuitions!
"Fact: public education sucks is crap; private is better and costs less." -
Sebastian (in his post before this one)
let's not try to crawl away from misinformation! this is pathetic. your
knowledge of this is pathetic - INFORM YOURSELF.
you obviously haven't tried transfering from community college to a
university have you? it seems as if you haven't gone to a university
either.. you would have some idea of the tuitions if you did. Community
College students are required to take many classes that universities won't
even look at - they're worthless for other than credit once a student
transfers. You could work as hard as you want - the classes are worthless,
but you're required to take them by the collge. Go ahead and go to your
college center to see if all your community college classes are
transferable, if you go to a community college. If a university student
took a class at a community college, the universtiy would only recognize the
units, not the grade - it would have no bearing on your GPA. Go ahead and
verifty this. I went to El Camino College in Torrance, CA this past summer
and when i returned to the UC system, they only recognized the credits -
not the grade.
if you have the $$, save yourself the worthless work (in eyes of
universities), and go straight to the university. as i've said many times
now, you can work less if you have the $$! You mentioned wanting to go to
UCLA. Go ahead and see what they'll take. Don't have the cash or the SAT
score? Have the cash but don't have the SAT score? You're not getting in!
Come now, you really don't believe that community colleges are of the same
standards as universities, do you? now that's really funny.. you're
ignorance is truly funny. What kind of bachelor's of science degree can you
get at a community college? if you can, how will you compete against a
bachelor's of science recieved from UCLA? Don't fool yourself. DOn't let
your pride blind your reason!
> --
> ----
> Sebastian
> -The New Inquisitor
and how about acknoledging these other points i made, which you didnt'
bother replying? you didn't reply... why? you can't? were they too
critical for you???you're afraid they might show you how your precious
libertarian beliefs are faulty? get over it. quit the bullshit. Rid
yourself of this fucking ignorant pride and get hold of some true reason and
logic. Your version of logic is pathetic.
--
- LocustSky
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĆ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
|sebAstian|
"*hopefully*wild*" <hopefu...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:jd4V9.55121$Dn.9947@sccrnsc03...
Huh? No, it doesn't warrant jail, not according to the laws of our country.
Those guys made a mistake: they broke the law, those laws don't, however,
constitute the use of jail for punishment.
Yes, they worked hard, yes they got to the top, but then they broke the law,
laws which don't warrant jail time.
--
----
Sebastian
-The New Inquisitor
> ~Lauri
>
>
|sebAstian|
> news:b00t0k$kfkbj$1...@ID-153809.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > > ahahahahaha! you don't even fully know about enron?! they only
> swallowed
> > > the earning and investments of people, all while destroying
> documentation
> > > that the gov't told them to not touch! they only cheated their
workers
> > out
> > > of millions in investements! WorldCom only misreported their earnings
> so
> > > stockholders don't sell their stock before its worthless. Guess who
> sold
> > > the stock before it dropped. Guess who got stuck with it. If you
truly
> > > think these fuckers from Enron aren't guilty, then you've been fooled
or
> > > you're simply uninformed - either way its ignorance. I'm surprised to
> see
> > a
> > > business man such as yourself so clueless.
> >
> > I'm not clueless, I just don't believe that what they did warrants jail
> > time, appearantly a judge didn't either.
> >
> >
>
> I've agreed with you for the most part in this discussion.
Oh yea, I wanted to say that that really suprises me that you followed my
side on this; but you're a smart girl, so I knew there was a little
conservative in ya :-).
LocustSky
and why is that? becuase he disagrees with you?? watch his fucking movie
already and quit the childish, ignorant name calling that lacks no basis.
Why is he wrong? can you prove his facts wrong? he didn't tell you... he
SHOWED you.
>
> I gave you my source, look it up: here it is again:
>
> Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, "Signifigant Features
of
> Fiscal Federalism: Budget Processes and Tax Systems, 1994" June 1994.
>
> Look it up, then talk to me.
give me a quote from this source. if you have the source, that shouldn't be
too hard. give me a quote, not a interpretation, but a quote.
what are their sources? how do they know? how can you be sure they are
right?
>
>
> > don't believe everything you hear.. find a second source that states
info
> > that is consistent with your's. A H.S. teacher makes about $30,000/yr.,
> so
> > this source's statement that this is what welfare recipients recieve is
> > quite hard to believe.
>
> What a coincidance, in the conclusion of the study the writer mentions
that
> there hard-core welfare reciepiants make more than teachers.
really? are you sure they're right? let's examine this using info from
NY's very own Department of Labor.. see the thread "a favor for those of you
who live in NY" for an analysis of this info. You wanted logic.. so let's
dive into logic!
We can continue this in that newer thread.
>
>
>
> --
> ----
> Sebastian
> -The New Inquisitor
>
--
- LocustSky
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĘ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
LocustSky
"How many CEOs from Enron are currently in jail?" - me
"In jail for what? Tax evasion? I don't agree with the tax system. They
didn't kill anyone, they didn't rape anyone, they didn't sell poisoned
milk to school children." - Sebastian
(posted here Tuesday, January 14, 2003 11:39 PM)
either he is bullshitting, a supporter of corrupt (and illegal!) business
practices, or simply ignorant of these matters.. that's for you to decide.
--
- LocustSky
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĘ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
|sebAstian|
"LocustSky" <Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net> wrote in message
You didn't say "like us", you said "we", meaning someone alive and here
today, you also said that the bill of rights has changed by, again, "we",
you're wrong on both accounts.
Could it be? Sure. Is it? Do you have proof that the judge acted
prejudicially? Have to ever reviewed the laws involved with this crime? I
doubt it. You haven't studied law, so who do you think you are to accuse
the *judges* involved in this case of being corrupt, without any evidence,
none the less. In law we would call that "prejudicial", do you know what
that means?
Review the laws involved with these crimes; those laws are the only thing
that apply to these situations, if you don't understand the law, don't talk
about it. In other words, don't talk about it.
Do you have proof that they *knew* that the tires would kill, and that they
then went ahead and did it anyway? No, you don't, and neither does anyone
else. All the evidence is completely circumstantial, do you know what that
means in law terms?
> what about WorldCom? You don't honestly support what them did do you?
they
> misreported their earnings and then sold their stock before it dropped.
Is
> this fair? they let the other investers pay the price. This wasn't
> killing. This was theft. Theft of millions. If i stole thousands, i'd
be
> in jail. Why aren't the boys from WOrldCom, Enron, etc. in jail? again,
see
> the stat behind corporate contributions to politics.
See that thing about circumstantial evidence not being adaquit to apply to
corperate law standards? And what do political contributions matter? It's
not like those CEO's are going to contribute anymore money, so what the hell
do politicians care to help them out? Out of the kindness of their hearts?
hehe, right.
Judges judge based on what the laws and the constitions permit, that's how
the law works. Corperate laws are different from personal laws; and that
applies to *all* corperations, not just the ones that contribute.
Again, do you have any proof that these contributions got anyone off? Or do
you just have coincidances? When you have evidence, bring it to the table.
>
> >
> >
> > > > blah, blah, blah. Don't put yourself in this situation. be like
> Larry
> > > > Elder, do what Jesse Jackson did. Two extreamely sucessful black men
> who
> > > > came out of the ghettoes. Jesse didn't even have a dad, he didn't
> have
> > a
> > > > good education; he made it. Why? Listen to the Words of Booker T.
> > > > Washington, a black man who preeches that blacks take responbillity
> for
> > > > their actions and NOT blame other people like victicratic liberals.
> > >
> > > so they made it. great. but do they deny the existence of unequal
> > > opportunity among blacks and whites?
> >
> > No, and neither do I. All I'm saying is that it's no fault of mine, and
> > it's not my job to clean it up, and it's your own fucking fault if you
> can't
> > suceed.
>
> so you don't bother to fix the levels of inequality? is that
meaningless?!
Did I create the inequality? No, and being that I believe in personal
responsibility, I will clean up the messes that *I* make. Did you know that
70% of social welfare program's money (which is approx. 40% of the tax
spends) is lost in bureaucratic costs? And you trust our government, a
fucking bureaucracy choked molasses of shit to distribute our welfare,
health care, and education, regardless of a 70% loss in funds? If you don't
believe me, I'll find the source, let me know.
> is it fair that one has to work harder to get to the same place as
another?
> is it? You're ignoring this aspect.
Is life fair? you're failing to understand this aspect. But let's just
assume that it should be, for a second: is it fair to make other people pay
for other people's problems?
If a customer left a shopping cart in the middle of an aisle at a
supermarket, and you walked into it instead of walking around it, was it the
fault of the other shoppers to pay for your pain? Fuck no, you should have
walked it around it, else you're a victicratic, lazy unmotived fucker who
will never suceed.
No, it hasen't. The bill of rights has never been changed, where the fuck
do you get this from?
> it can very well be wrong.
It's a matter of opinion; i view the founding fathers of this country to be
moral people, more so than you, it's my opinion; in my opinion: you're
wrong, they are right.
is this
> oppression and exploitation of the poor a moral crime or not?
Not according to the law.
> tool can play HUGE stadiums and charge us $60 a ticket (before
ticketbastard
> fees)... all while playing the major cities and skipping the smaller
ones..
> as many acts today do. People would pay that amount to see them..
remember
> how fast the first tool tour sold out? Tool doesn't do this. They
> understand that it isn't fair to fans... and that's something i truly
> respect. If only many more could learn this lesson.........
Are you sure that that's why they do what they do? Maybe they don't *like*
to play for lots of people. Do you understand that there is no such thing
as a selfless, altruistic act?
> <snip piece on how you believe the constitution outlines your rights fully
> accurately and fairly>
Since that's what I believe, what makes you think I'm going to change my
mind to your liberal point of view? I live in LA, one of the most liberal
places in the country, everyday I hear liberal anti-constitution bullshit,
you think I'm going to change my opinions because of you?
Let's look at some statistics:
1.Poor black kids watch TV 50% more often than rich white kids
2. 70% of poor black babies are born out of wedlock
3. More than 1/3 of poor blacks are involved in the criminal justice system,
which the whole black population is only 12% of the country.
4. Poor people use drugs nearly 60% more than Middle class and rich people.
5. Highest drop out rates in the country...another question which you've
failed to answer: why would adding more books and better teachers make
people want to learn? I hated public high school, and for my freshman year
I went to one of the best public schools in the state, yet didn't show up to
class and I eventually dropped out. But I had the chance for an awesome
education.
Wow, those are fucking awesome. I can't believe that I would even consider
that poor people's ethics and morals are below that of the average middle
class, non-welfare reciepiant, hard working man or women. What the hell was
I thinking?
> are you guessing and generalizing based on the little that you know and
that
> which you fear?
Are *you*? I use logic and statistics, you use anti-poor leftist-based
conspiracy theories.
what is it you fear? seeing youself guessing desperately
> where you should be stating facts? Do the poor pass on poor values to
their
> children?
yea, the values I mentioned above. What work ethic do people on welfare
have? They don't work, their kids sure as hell ain't gonna. Unless you
think that kids don't model themselves after their parents.
I know many people from poor families that went on to great
> universities. I also know many rich that quit schools due to poor values.
And I hear people saying "I don't know anyone who voted for Bush, everyone I
know voted for gore". But guess what....he won. The people you know are
hardly an example for the poor population. The poor people you know are in
schools to begin with, which means that they do *more* than the average poor
teen, which means that they probably didn't have the same background as the
average black poor teenager. Kids model after their parents; if your
parents are lazy, welfare reciepiant drug users, you probably ain't gonna do
shit.
>
> >
> > This wasn't a
> > > sample. This was statistical data from ALL THE TEST TAKERS. What
about
> > > having more unqualified teachers in poor schools? Why does have to be
> > this
> > > way in the first place? all can succeed, but what's with the big
> > > differences in education? W
> >
> > It's irrelivent even if it is true: I just showed you an example of 112
> > people with more oppertunity than most rich, white kids; they did no
> better
> > than normal inner-city kids.
>
> yes, and where did you get this info from? tell me which
> sociological/anthropological journal this came from.
Look up George Weiss and his study of the Belmont 112. The stats were
published, among other places, in the back of the book "ten things you can't
say in america" by larry elder.
> how are my stats irrelevant??!!!!!! It uses ALL (tens of thousands of
> students) the test-takers and the info is straight from teh College Board
> and the Educational Testing Service, instead of a 112 sample from who
knows
> which magazine you swallowed without question!!! You're valuing a sample
of
> 112 students over a sample of tens of thousands of students??!! DO NOT
CALL
> MY STATS IRRELEVANT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT DISPROVES YOUR BOGUS SAMPLE!
Your stats are irrelivent because they fail to show that oppertunity is
important, they do prove a difference in oppertunity, but that's it. My
stats prove that oppertunity is a very, very small piece of a pie.
But please, take it apart: Explain why the 112 kids who had ever
oppertunity in the world did the same as all of their peers...go ahead, I've
asked you three times to do it. You can't, because it proves that
oppertunity is not as important as good parenting, lack of drug use, hard
work and determination
> QUIT WASTING MY TIME WITH THIS BULLSHIT!
You know what's bullshit? Emotions mixing with intellect, it's a catalyst
for destruction.
yea, you're right, actually it was 1206, sorry. Still a damn good SAT score.
> you must quit bullshitting, Sebastian. Bush got a 1206 on his SAT and
yet,
> was accepted to one of the best private schools in the nation.
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-08-27-sat-cover_x.htm
>
> 1206? I know people with 1300s, 3.8 GPAs who didnt' get into UCLA!!!!
And this proves...what? More circumstantial evidence from anti-bush
leftists!
>
> >
> > >buying their
> > > way? Yes, buying their way. USC is easier to get into than UCLA,
UCB,
> > UCI,
> > > and UCSB, but about 5 times more as far as tuition is concerned. If
you
> > > can't get into those UCs but have $$, try USC!
> >
> >
> > So, you're saying that people buy their way into college because UCS
> charges
> > more but has easier admission standards? What? Poor people can't get
> > education loans all of a sudden.. There are soooo many private
> > orginizations who give money to the poor and to minorites to go to
> college,
> > that is, if you get good grades and good SAT scores.
>
> yes.. look at dubya.. he had a 1206 on his SAT and got into Yale and
> Harvard!
>
> http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/feb2001/nf20010215_777.htm
>
> you haven't taken out loans for schools, now have you? anyone can take
out
> a school loan and, but must pay it back after graduation and with
interest.
Actually I took out $12,000 to Attend the Trade school I went to, I'll
hopefully be going to UCLA in which case I'll be taking out more loans. Of
course you have to pay the loans back, wtf? are you complaining about that
too? You just went to school: get a job, pay your loans.
> good SAT scores? according to the same stats i've posted numerous times
> now, SAT scores rise with families of greater incomes. Why? Try
differing
> standards among poor and rich schools! Don't take my word for it.. take
the
> College Board and the Educational Testing Board's word for it!
You attribute it to lack of opptertunity, please, comment on the Belmont
112, I really really really want to hear what you have to say about that.
Do you have *any* proof that the signitures are forged? No? Ok, try again.
> again don't give me this generalized bullshit. "Give me reason and
> legality".
It's not my fault that your eyes of emotion cloud your eyes of logic.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Who is more likely to build the better house?
> > > > > THe person with a limited set of tools, or one with a much larger,
> > > better
> > > > > set? This answer is obvious.
> > > >
> > > > Work harder, buy better tools.
> > >
> > > and if you're poor? the poor have to work harder than the rich if
they
> > want
> > > the same education.. now isn't that fair [sarcasm]....
> >
> > Who told you life was fair? I just ended a relationship with a girl
> because
> > she told me she loved me, spent tons of time with me and then wouldn't
> break
> > up with her boyfriend...is that *fair*? Fuck no, boo fucking hoo.
>
> you're comparing your failure with some girl to institutionalized
> racism???!!! Again, see the stats regarding USC and UCLA tuition and the
> SATs.
I'm saying that life isn't fair and never will be. God damn, you're toe
tagged for life.
> >
> >
> > > > > poor people will never get anywhere when they are exploited by
> > employers
> > > > > strictly for maximum profit and their basic human rights consume
> their
> > > > > wealth and income.
> > > >
> > > > Poor people will never get anywhere as long as people like you keep
> > > telling
> > > > them that it's someone elses fault, that someone owes them
something.
> > >
> > > keep guessing and keep throwing around facts that seem to be guessing.
> > > private schools cost less than public schools? check out UCLA's
tuition
> > and
> > > USC's tuition.
> >
> > Doesn't prove anything but a difference in college tuitions...community
> > colleges are fucking easy to get into, and they aren't expensive at all;
> > you don't even need to do SATs to get in, almost anyone can get in...as
> long
> > as you don't play the victim, as long as you work hard.
>
> what?! did you not say private schools are cheaper than public schools?
> that's the reason i told you to check out their tuitions!
I was talking about private secondary schools; universities are a different
story, private universities don't have to compete for applicants because
good students don't want to go to public schools; hence, they don't have to
lower prices. If *all* schools were privatized they would have to compete
for applicants because education quality would go up. Private secondary
schools, for the most part, aren't looking for the same criteria that
private universities are looking for. Private universities want students
that are better than the ones who go to community colleges; private
secondary schools are looking for students, period. Not over achievers, not
scholastic geniuses, they are looking for normal and sub-normal kids.
> "Fact: public education sucks is crap; private is better and costs
less." -
> Sebastian (in his post before this one)
And it's true.
> let's not try to crawl away from misinformation! this is pathetic. your
> knowledge of this is pathetic - INFORM YOURSELF.
With liberal propaganda, emotion and conspiracy theories with circumstantial
evidence? no thanks.
> you obviously haven't tried transfering from community college to a
> university have you? it seems as if you haven't gone to a university
> either.. you would have some idea of the tuitions if you did. Community
> College students are required to take many classes that universities won't
> even look at - they're worthless for other than credit once a student
> transfers. You could work as hard as you want - the classes are
worthless,
> but you're required to take them by the collge. Go ahead and go to your
> college center to see if all your community college classes are
> transferable, if you go to a community college. If a university student
> took a class at a community college, the universtiy would only recognize
the
> units, not the grade - it would have no bearing on your GPA. Go ahead and
> verifty this. I went to El Camino College in Torrance, CA this past
summer
> and when i returned to the UC system, they only recognized the credits -
> not the grade.
Did I say oppertunity was equal? no. I knew tons of people who started off
at community college and then transfered to CU after two years. And you did
it, so wtf?
> if you have the $$, save yourself the worthless work (in eyes of
> universities), and go straight to the university. as i've said many times
> now, you can work less if you have the $$! You mentioned wanting to go to
> UCLA. Go ahead and see what they'll take. Don't have the cash or the SAT
> score? Have the cash but don't have the SAT score? You're not getting
in!
Did I ever say that it was fair? Why do you keep working on this premise?
> Come now, you really don't believe that community colleges are of the same
> standards as universities, do you?
No, they aren't, but it's your fault if you wern't smart enough to get into
a normal college. If you were smart enough you could get accepted and get
loans and go. If you're not, it's your fault for not trying harder.
>now that's really funny.. you're
> ignorance is truly funny. What kind of bachelor's of science degree can
you
> get at a community college? if you can, how will you compete against a
> bachelor's of science recieved from UCLA?
Not everyone is entitled to the same education. what are you gonna do?
Force USC to lower their prices?
> Don't fool yourself. DOn't let
> your pride blind your reason!
Pride in what? My hard work? My determination to succeed? How would that
blind me? And the audacity and conceitedness of you to assume that someone
who doesn't agree with your leftist policies is blind, completly
self-rightous about you're above average morals.
> and how about acknoledging these other points i made, which you didnt'
> bother replying? you didn't reply... why? you can't? were they too
> critical for you???you're afraid they might show you how your precious
> libertarian beliefs are faulty? get over it. quit the bullshit. Rid
> yourself of this fucking ignorant pride and get hold of some true reason
and
> logic. Your version of logic is pathetic.
Right. Like you discussed the belmont 112, right? I applied to almost
anything of relevance.
Read the books I recommended, stop listening to your liberal profs at
Irvine, take economics, take law, then talk to me.
--
----
Sebastian
-The New Inquisitor
|sebAstian|
"LocustSky" <Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net> wrote in message
What are you talking about? I don't support their illegal business
practices, I just don't support jail as a punishment. Ignorant of the
matters? If I recall, I'm the one out of two of us who has studied law.
--
----
Sebastian
-The New Inquisitor
> --
|sebAstian|
"LocustSky" <Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net> wrote in message
>> >
> > Michael Moore is racist liberal garbage.
>
> and why is that? becuase he disagrees with you?? watch his fucking movie
> already and quit the childish, ignorant name calling that lacks no basis.
> Why is he wrong? can you prove his facts wrong? he didn't tell you... he
> SHOWED you.
He wrote a book called "stupid white men", sounds racist to me. I even hear
liberals calling him stupid, when your own statrts calling you names, you
have problems. Michael Moore refuses to go on conservative talk shows and
TV shows, yet he's got no problem talking to other liberals who can't help
spread his message. I've heard his arguments for gun control, and he is
sooooo fucking irresponsible with his claims that it causes anyone who knows
the facts behind the issues to not respect what he has to say. His facts
are not facts, they are distortions of fact. Michael Moore has no
credibillity here.
> > I gave you my source, look it up: here it is again:
> >
> > Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, "Signifigant
Features
> of
> > Fiscal Federalism: Budget Processes and Tax Systems, 1994" June 1994.
> >
> > Look it up, then talk to me.
>
> give me a quote from this source. if you have the source, that shouldn't
be
> too hard. give me a quote, not a interpretation, but a quote.
Huh? I did, what are you talking about?
> what are their sources? how do they know? how can you be sure they are
> right?
They are a nonpartisan intergovernmental orginization.
> >
> >
> > > don't believe everything you hear.. find a second source that states
> info
> > > that is consistent with your's. A H.S. teacher makes about
$30,000/yr.,
> > so
> > > this source's statement that this is what welfare recipients recieve
is
> > > quite hard to believe.
> >
> > What a coincidance, in the conclusion of the study the writer mentions
> that
> > there hard-core welfare reciepiants make more than teachers.
>
> really? are you sure they're right? let's examine this using info from
> NY's very own Department of Labor.. see the thread "a favor for those of
you
> who live in NY" for an analysis of this info. You wanted logic.. so let's
> dive into logic!
The department of labor talks about labor; doesn't talk about all the other
benefits of welfare, like I mentioned twice before: public housing, food
stamps etc.etc.
How is it that you have no problem questioning me and my sources, yet you
assume that your sources are correct?
Richard Barker
> > on everything and made money an unavoidable prerequisite for survival.
> > Don't complain when it comes back to bite you in the ass.
>
> In a capitalistic society I wouldn't have to complain, we live in a Diet
> SocialistT society.
Good of you to actually address my point. In your capitalist utopia
you'd still have the poor, except there'd be an even larger gap.
> And those human rights don't entitle anyone else to my money due to my hard
> work. You have the right to work hard, do well in school, get a good job
> and make money; not to take my money for free.
Wait, didn't you just say we lived in a society (a system of human
organisations generating distinctive cultural patterns and institutions
and *providing protection, security,* continuity and a national identity
*for its members* (CED))? You want to go live on an island in tax exile,
then you can try and pull this kind of crap. Until then, deal with it.
> Victicratic - A governmental system or belief system related to self and
> exterior victimization in order to dissuade personal responsibility.
I can see what it's supposed to mean. The notion of anyone taking
seriously a word that literally means "rule by victims" is laughable. If
they're ruling, they aren't victims.
> The
> liberal media easilly twists facts, read: "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How
> the Media Distort the News"
> A quote from the book by CBS news President Andrew Hays: "Look, Bernie, of
> course there's a liberal bias in the news. All networks tilt left" So, do
> I want to listen to news that is admittadly distorted? No thanks.
No more news for you, then. All news is distorted in one direction or
another. Best you go off and bury your head in the sand. Oh, wait, you
do that already: reading only the news sources you know are going to
reinforce your world-view. Hope that works out for you.
> And I don't think that those laws merit jail time.
Of course they do, otherwise a lot more people would break them,
yourself included.
> Support it? no, I don't support what they did; I support a fine, I don't
> support jail. I like the laws the way they are.
Then stop complaining about laws.
> Malpractice suits give monitary fines almost everytime; that's fine with me.
> All doctors are required to hve malpractice insurance, if you have some
> evidence that malpractice suits bring a substantial raise to health costs,
> please, by all means, present it.
Someone already did it for me. I think it night have been Naturelle.
Could have been any of four or five threads though. I'll look for it
later, but you replied to the message concerned, so you know it's there.
Rich
*hopefully*wild*
> "How many CEOs from Enron are currently in jail?" - me
>
> "In jail for what? Tax evasion? I don't agree with the tax system.
They
> didn't kill anyone, they didn't rape anyone, they didn't sell poisoned
> milk to school children." - Sebastian
>
> (posted here Tuesday, January 14, 2003 11:39 PM)
>
> either he is bullshitting, a supporter of corrupt (and illegal!) business
> practices, or simply ignorant of these matters.. that's for you to decide.
>
Well, I think misunderstood him at first and it seems that you got the same
misinterpretation that I did. Sebastian, I think, is not saying what they
did was not wrong and not punishable in some form, what he's saying is that
it should not be a punishment of *jail time*, not that they shouldn't be
punished at all. I'm sure Sebastian will correct me if I am wrong.
~Lauri
*hopefully*wild*
>
> Oh yea, I wanted to say that that really suprises me that you followed my
> side on this; but you're a smart girl, so I knew there was a little
> conservative in ya :-).
>
>
Well, to me it doesn't seem to me that there is much to understand. Who
worked (and still is currently) like a maniac to pay for the education that
is going to get me the degree that is going to get me the job that is going
to support me? I did. No one helped me. Not my parents, not the federal
government, not the state government. I worked my ass off. I get good grades
(still have my place on The Dean's List). I believe I should be able to
donate what *I* see fit out of the money that *I* earned to the charities
that *I* chose, if *I* even chose to do so. *I* worked for that money. *I*
donate the money that *I* earned to the charities that *I* believe in. I
volunteer my time to shelters that *I* feel make a difference. I don't think
it is their *right* to have my money or time, but rather it is *my choice*
to give it to them if I see fit. If I make $30,000/year or $30,000/week, it
is money that I worked to earn. I worked hard and am getting an education to
get where I am today. I shouldn't be required to support people that don't
have the motivation or initiative that I do, even if to just make enough to
support oneself and live comfortably. I'm not saying that I would not be
willing to extend a hand to someone in circumstances where all they need is
that little push and they could get themselves in line. But I don't like the
incinuation that I am obligated to do so. I have no obligations to anyone
but myself.
I know I'm going to be called a heartless bitch in accordance with
Sebastian's heartless bastard position, but I am willing to bet that I have
put in more time at homeless and battered women's shelters than the accusers
themselves, not because I had to, but because I wanted to.
~Lauri
|sebAstian|
Lauri, know if I ever say anything remotly negative about you in the future,
it comes from my head, not my heart, which is just full of
(((((((((((((((Lauri)))))))))))))))).
Seriiously, you said it better than I have been trying to say it.
|sebAstian|
You're absolutly correct.
|sebAstian|
> > > Hey, you're the capitalist, right? It's people like you that put a
price
> > > on everything and made money an unavoidable prerequisite for survival.
> > > Don't complain when it comes back to bite you in the ass.
> >
> > In a capitalistic society I wouldn't have to complain, we live in a Diet
> > SocialistT society.
>
> Good of you to actually address my point. In your capitalist utopia
> you'd still have the poor, except there'd be an even larger gap.
I did address the point; in a capitalistic society it *wouldn't* come back
to bite me in the ass. Welfares would be a non issue, and so would high
taxes. Yes, there would still be poor, but they would be responsible for
themselves, and money would come from private charity. Just like now,
private charities, most of the time, make stipulations on people if they
wan't money...like: you have to get a job, or stop doing drugs etc. etc.
The government can't do that
> > And those human rights don't entitle anyone else to my money due to my
hard
> > work. You have the right to work hard, do well in school, get a good
job
> > and make money; not to take my money for free.
>
> Wait, didn't you just say we lived in a society (a system of human
> organisations generating distinctive cultural patterns and institutions
> and *providing protection, security,* continuity and a national identity
> *for its members* (CED))? You want to go live on an island in tax exile,
> then you can try and pull this kind of crap. Until then, deal with it.
I want this country to abide by the laws of it's constitution. I want it to
provide protection and security like our constitution permits. I want it to
have a limited government with no involvement in socialist ideals; just like
our constitution permits.
> > Victicratic - A governmental system or belief system related to self and
> > exterior victimization in order to dissuade personal responsibility.
>
> I can see what it's supposed to mean. The notion of anyone taking
> seriously a word that literally means "rule by victims" is laughable. If
> they're ruling, they aren't victims.
Actually, it literally means: A participant in or supporter of victimhood;
but if you understand the word why the hell are you even bringing up?
> > The
> > liberal media easilly twists facts, read: "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes
How
> > the Media Distort the News"
>
> > A quote from the book by CBS news President Andrew Hays: "Look, Bernie,
of
> > course there's a liberal bias in the news. All networks tilt left" So,
do
> > I want to listen to news that is admittadly distorted? No thanks.
>
> No more news for you, then. All news is distorted in one direction or
> another. Best you go off and bury your head in the sand. Oh, wait, you
> do that already: reading only the news sources you know are going to
> reinforce your world-view. Hope that works out for you.
Of course everything is biased, but some are more biased than others. I
read defenceivly, I watch defencivly; both the conservative and liberal
news. I don't watch, listen or read liberal commentators, except for one; I
haven't heard one with any validity other than alan combs, he's a good guy.
Don't assume what I do and don't do.
> > And I don't think that those laws merit jail time.
>
> Of course they do, otherwise a lot more people would break them,
> yourself included.
Ummm, no, they don't. Jail is not applicible to those crimes, yet more
people don't do them, so wtf are you talking about?
> > Support it? no, I don't support what they did; I support a fine, I don't
> > support jail. I like the laws the way they are.
>
> Then stop complaining about laws.
I was speaking specifically about the laws in said subject. Some laws are
in direct opposition to the constitution. I like the criminal and civil
justice system very much; I love our constitution very much. The laws I
don't like are the ones that are unconstitutional
> > Malpractice suits give monitary fines almost everytime; that's fine with
me.
> > All doctors are required to hve malpractice insurance, if you have some
> > evidence that malpractice suits bring a substantial raise to health
costs,
> > please, by all means, present it.
>
> Someone already did it for me. I think it night have been Naturelle.
> Could have been any of four or five threads though. I'll look for it
> later, but you replied to the message concerned, so you know it's there.
I don't remember it, actually.
--
----
Sebastian
-The New Inquisitor
> Rich
Richard Barker
> to bite me in the ass. Welfares would be a non issue, and so would high
> taxes. Yes, there would still be poor, but they would be responsible for
> themselves, and money would come from private charity. Just like now,
> private charities, most of the time, make stipulations on people if they
> wan't money...like: you have to get a job, or stop doing drugs etc. etc.
> The government can't do that
So, if everyone was, like you, unwilling to give up any of their
hard-earned money, where would the private charities get their money
from to help the poor?
> I want this country to abide by the laws of it's constitution. I want it to
> provide protection and security like our constitution permits. I want it to
> have a limited government with no involvement in socialist ideals; just like
> our constitution permits.
And so, in your world, where money is the ultimate weapon, what better
protection?
> > I can see what it's supposed to mean. The notion of anyone taking
> > seriously a word that literally means "rule by victims" is laughable. If
> > they're ruling, they aren't victims.
>
> Actually, it literally means: A participant in or supporter of victimhood;
> but if you understand the word why the hell are you even bringing up?
Because a) it doesn't exist and b) it's a fucking oxymoron! For you to
have read my definition and from it divine that I have "understood" your
point leads me to the question: have you learned any English lately? It
literally means (splitting into components): rule (-cracy/-cratic/-crat
suffix) by victims (victi- prefix). Compare meritocracy, theocracy,
democracy. Rule by merit, religious figure/church and populus,
respectively. Therefore, the notion that victims are ruling anything is
ridiculous to anyone who knows the meaning of the word "victim".
Man this word doesn't even exist. Did you make it up?
Sorry, Changey, but, you know, had to be done.
> Of course everything is biased, but some are more biased than others. I
> read defenceivly, I watch defencivly; both the conservative and liberal
> news. I don't watch, listen or read liberal commentators, except for one; I
> haven't heard one with any validity other than alan combs, he's a good guy.
> Don't assume what I do and don't do.
You told me you avoid biased liberal media. Sorry for assuming you avoid
biased liberal media when I replied. Admitting that you choose to avoid
one section of the media is like saying, I'm gonna listen to Tool, but
only the songs on even track numbers.
> Ummm, no, they don't. Jail is not applicible to those crimes, yet more
> people don't do them, so wtf are you talking about?
OK, I dunno about the states, but over here, if the sums involved are
remotely big, you go to jail for tax evasion.
> I don't remember it, actually.
I'll have a look for it then.
Rich
*hopefully*wild*
From: "|sebAstian|" <N0for...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.music.tool
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: rush limbaugh quotes
>
> "*hopefully*wild*" <hopefu...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:ujlV9.1432$1q3.757@sccrnsc01...
((((((((((Sebastian)))))))))) I ***LOVE*** hugs! :)
Well, I'm going to try not to be all preachy and shit, and I'm not saying
that this is how you are, but just as a simple observation from an outsider
here, it sometimes sounded like you were saying that you wanted to hoard all
your money and never help anyone but yourself (even though that isn't
*wrong*, just not very thoughtful ;)) . I know you probably didn't mean
that, but I think that's why some people were a bit harsh.
There are some great charities that help people in those circumstances that
are uncontrollabe and heartbreaking and your donation is VOLUNTARY. There is
an ex Bruins player by the name of Cam Neeley who has a super charity here
in Boston called the Neeley house. See, there are some amazing doctors in
Boston, Cancer specialists, and many people from around the country bring
their ailing children here for treatment, which drains the bank account
while paying for a place to stay (Boston is not a reasonable place when it
comes to prices). The Neeley House provides a place for the family to stay
while here receiving treatment for $10 a night:
http://www.camneelyfoundation.com/frameset.htm
There is also RAINN, that provides free councelling to rape and incest
survivors: http://www.rainn.org/
These are the examples of circumstances where, even if you are the most
diligent employee or student, life can be downright impossible.
To me, I'd rather share my money with these people than people who are able
to work and support themselves, but opt to stay at home.
~Lauri
These are a couple of my favorites.
|sebAstian|
> > I did address the point; in a capitalistic society it *wouldn't* come
back
> > to bite me in the ass. Welfares would be a non issue, and so would high
> > taxes. Yes, there would still be poor, but they would be responsible
for
> > themselves, and money would come from private charity. Just like now,
> > private charities, most of the time, make stipulations on people if they
> > wan't money...like: you have to get a job, or stop doing drugs etc. etc.
> > The government can't do that
>
> So, if everyone was, like you, unwilling to give up any of their
> hard-earned money, where would the private charities get their money
> from to help the poor?
Why do you assume that no one would be willing to give money? Americans are
fuckn generous people; just look at the bllions of dollars raised after
9.11. In a capitalistic society, there would still be charity, it just
wouldn't be run by the government, it would require stipulations for people
to get money and it wouldn't violate people's rights who don't want to give
money, and there would be more private charity since we wouldn't already be
taxed so much. Lets also not forget that the government itself hired a
commitee to oversee the loss of funds due to bureocratic costs and it
totaled approx 70%!! Think about that, 40% of the taxes are diverted to
social programs, yet 70% of that money is lost!
> > I want this country to abide by the laws of it's constitution. I want
it to
> > provide protection and security like our constitution permits. I want
it to
> > have a limited government with no involvement in socialist ideals; just
like
> > our constitution permits.
>
> And so, in your world, where money is the ultimate weapon, what better
> protection?
huh?
> > > I can see what it's supposed to mean. The notion of anyone taking
> > > seriously a word that literally means "rule by victims" is laughable.
If
> > > they're ruling, they aren't victims.
> >
> > Actually, it literally means: A participant in or supporter of
victimhood;
> > but if you understand the word why the hell are you even bringing up?
>
> Because a) it doesn't exist and b) it's a fucking oxymoron! For you to
> have read my definition and from it divine that I have "understood" your
> point leads me to the question: have you learned any English lately? It
> literally means (splitting into components): rule (-cracy/-cratic/-crat
> suffix) by victims (victi- prefix). Compare meritocracy, theocracy,
> democracy. Rule by merit, religious figure/church and populus,
> respectively. Therefore, the notion that victims are ruling anything is
> ridiculous to anyone who knows the meaning of the word "victim".
>
> Man this word doesn't even exist. Did you make it up?
>
> Sorry, Changey, but, you know, had to be done.
no, you don't have to do this. You understand the word, dictionary.com
defines "crat" as "A participant in or supporter of a specified form of
government". That form being victimhood. Merrium-webster.com's first
definition is "advocate or partisan of a (specified) theory of government".
Neither of those say anything about a majority or a rulling. I don't get
you, you understand what I mean by the word, why the hell are you talking
about it?
> > Of course everything is biased, but some are more biased than others. I
> > read defenceivly, I watch defencivly; both the conservative and liberal
> > news. I don't watch, listen or read liberal commentators, except for
one; I
> > haven't heard one with any validity other than alan combs, he's a good
guy.
> > Don't assume what I do and don't do.
>
> You told me you avoid biased liberal media. Sorry for assuming you avoid
> biased liberal media when I replied. Admitting that you choose to avoid
> one section of the media is like saying, I'm gonna listen to Tool, but
> only the songs on even track numbers.
If those tracks shared an inherant negative, I would do that.
> > Ummm, no, they don't. Jail is not applicible to those crimes, yet more
> > people don't do them, so wtf are you talking about?
>
> OK, I dunno about the states, but over here, if the sums involved are
> remotely big, you go to jail for tax evasion.
Study the enron case, study the laws on the subject for the US. I can't
even believe that you'd make an assumption like that based on UK laws.
|sebAstian|
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "|sebAstian|" <N0for...@aol.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.music.tool
> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 7:05 PM
> ((((((((((Sebastian)))))))))) I ***LOVE*** hugs! :)
> Well, I'm going to try not to be all preachy and shit, and I'm not saying
> that this is how you are, but just as a simple observation from an
outsider
> here, it sometimes sounded like you were saying that you wanted to hoard
all
> your money and never help anyone but yourself (even though that isn't
> *wrong*, just not very thoughtful ;)) . I know you probably didn't mean
> that, but I think that's why some people were a bit harsh.
> There are some great charities that help people in those circumstances
that
> are uncontrollabe and heartbreaking and your donation is VOLUNTARY.
That's what I'm saying. I, personally, do donate money to charaties who
offer stipulations to the people who get the money, and a lot less of the
money is lost through governmental middlemen. I do believe, with evidence
to support, that a free handout by the government with no stipulations
(such as: you have to stop doing drugs, you have to quit drinking, you have
to enroll in school) is a very very bad thing for the poor. I asked this
question many times and no one answered it: If I give you $13,000 a year for
absolutly doing *nothing*, why would you work? No one has answered that
question. The welfare state creates dependance, and it's obvious to anyone
who looks at the situation phycologically, with human nature in mind and
with logic.
I will *always* defend the right of the person to choose whether he will
donate to or not, I will *never* support liberals forcing us to give our
hard earned fuckin money, and I won't accept excuses for not trying in the
most awesome country in the world.
>There is
> an ex Bruins player by the name of Cam Neeley who has a super charity here
> in Boston called the Neeley house. See, there are some amazing doctors in
> Boston, Cancer specialists, and many people from around the country bring
> their ailing children here for treatment, which drains the bank account
> while paying for a place to stay (Boston is not a reasonable place when it
> comes to prices). The Neeley House provides a place for the family to stay
> while here receiving treatment for $10 a night:
> http://www.camneelyfoundation.com/frameset.htm
> There is also RAINN, that provides free councelling to rape and incest
> survivors: http://www.rainn.org/
> These are the examples of circumstances where, even if you are the most
> diligent employee or student, life can be downright impossible.
> To me, I'd rather share my money with these people than people who are
able
> to work and support themselves, but opt to stay at home.
That's really awesome, I usually give to the salvation army just because I
like what they make the reciepiants do; they make them listen to a sermon,
and they have to take a vow of faith. It isn't much, but it's a start.
And there is another charity which I just heard about, and it's the coolest
fuckin thing I've ever heard about. A nun, in NY I think, started a home
for people on welfare. The people live there for free, they get free meals,
but they cannot keep their welfare checks. The sister holds onto it untill
their commitment is over, to fill their commitment they have to keep a job
for a certain amount of time, quit doing all drugs, among other things.
When it's over she gives them back their money in a lump sum so that they
have the abillity to pay for a couple months rent while they keep working.
She says that she gets letters all the time from ex-welfare reciepiants
saying how glad they are that she got them off of well fare. On of those
people actually described welfare as an addictive drug!
I'm glad a couple people here look at the situation the way I do. Maybe
conservatives are a minority in the Tool community, or maybe it's just AMT.
Richard Barker
> fuckn generous people;
I'm going on your repeated assertions that you don't like to have any of
your hard-earned money taken away from you. This is a society you want
to implement, filled presumably with like minded people who are intent
on not seeing any of their money used to help the poor, because the poor
are fuckin lazy and are, frankly, asking for it. Right? So where would
the charitable instinct suddenly spring from?
> > And so, in your world, where money is the ultimate weapon, what better
> > protection?
>
> huh?
What better protection (which you state you want to provide) could you
possibly give the poor in the ultimate monetary society than money?
> no, you don't have to do this.
Heh I enjoy this as much as you do. But Changey doesn't like it, and you
know how it's his newsgroup and all, so....
> You understand the word, dictionary.com
> defines "crat" as "A participant in or supporter of a specified form of
> government".
It also defines "-cracy" as "Government, rule". So, a victicrat must
subscribe to a victicracy. Which, by any sane definition of victim,
can't exist, as it is a logical contradiction.
> > Admitting that you choose to avoid
> > one section of the media is like saying, I'm gonna listen to Tool, but
> > only the songs on even track numbers.
>
> If those tracks shared an inherant negative, I would do that.
Heh interesting slip of the tongue there :). Actually, it's not like
listening to half a Tool album at all. That was merely an attempt to
show you the absurdity of your "*holds hands over ears* No! No! NO!
NOOOO!" approach to the liberal media. Clearly it failed, possibly
because you were too busy avoiding the liberal media....
> Study the enron case, study the laws on the subject for the US. I can't
> even believe that you'd make an assumption like that based on UK laws.
Yeah, gosh, what a ridiculous notion that the US would share many laws
with the UK, especially give that so many of its laws originally were
"borrowed" from the UK. And, incidentally, if it's really true that you
cannot go to jail for tax evasion, then dude, I can't even believe that.
Why the fuck are you moaning about taxes at all? Just don't pay them!
What the fuck are they gonna do to you?
Rich
*hopefully*wild*
I'll answer your question for my own personal reason, which is that I can't
take something I didn't earn myself. But, it is a small majority of people
who are like that. And I will say that although I have a firm belief
structure when it comes to not taking what I didn't earn myself, the
temptation to do nothing and collect checks would be very appealing, almost
to the point of not being able to resist it. Now imagine that temptation
dangled in front of someone without such a belief.
> I will *always* defend the right of the person to choose whether he will
> donate to or not, I will *never* support liberals forcing us to give our
> hard earned fuckin money, and I won't accept excuses for not trying in the
> most awesome country in the world.
>
I completly agree. Besides, how is it a gesture of compassion and
selflessness when you are *forced* to give?
> >snip
>
> And there is another charity which I just heard about, and it's the
coolest
> fuckin thing I've ever heard about. A nun, in NY I think, started a home
> for people on welfare. The people live there for free, they get free
meals,
> but they cannot keep their welfare checks. The sister holds onto it
untill
> their commitment is over, to fill their commitment they have to keep a job
> for a certain amount of time, quit doing all drugs, among other things.
> When it's over she gives them back their money in a lump sum so that they
> have the abillity to pay for a couple months rent while they keep working.
> She says that she gets letters all the time from ex-welfare reciepiants
> saying how glad they are that she got them off of well fare. On of those
> people actually described welfare as an addictive drug!
>
Wow, that is amazing. Do you have any information in the way of articles or
links I could check out?
> I'm glad a couple people here look at the situation the way I do. Maybe
> conservatives are a minority in the Tool community, or maybe it's just
AMT.
>
Well, I must admit that at first I was thinking, "Goddamn, Sebastian is an
asshole."
But, after the initial emotional reaction, I starting thinking and instead
of figuring a way to change your mind, I tried to understand you, and I
found that I had not one argument that could dismiss what you were trying to
say. When that happens, one must reexamine their initial reaction.
~Lauri
Richard Barker
> your hard-earned money taken away from you. This is a society you want
> to implement, filled presumably with like minded people who are intent
> on not seeing any of their money used to help the poor, because the poor
> are fuckin lazy and are, frankly, asking for it. Right? So where would
> the charitable instinct suddenly spring from?
Just read another part of this thread (you and Lauri) ... this might not
be so accurate, but I'm sure it still holds for a lot of people, even if
not you.
Rich
|sebAstian|
> > Why do you assume that no one would be willing to give money? Americans
are
> > fuckn generous people;
>
> I'm going on your repeated assertions that you don't like to have any of
> your hard-earned money taken away from you. This is a society you want
> to implement, filled presumably with like minded people who are intent
> on not seeing any of their money used to help the poor, because the poor
> are fuckin lazy and are, frankly, asking for it. Right? So where would
> the charitable instinct suddenly spring from?
I don't want it forced upon us. I'ts our *choice* to give. I don't want a
society where people think one way or another, I want a society where people
can think and act as they want as long as they don't infringe on
constitutionally given rights. I have no problem with charity; charity does
a better job at getting people off their feet, and more of the money donated
to charity actually gets to the subject. The goverment of the US does not
have the abillity to distribute forced welfare funds in an efficiant manner,
they don't even deny it. They hired a subcomitee to look into it.I believe
in hard work and determination, I believe that you should rely on familly,
friends, churches and private charities and the generosity of people if you
*need* to. It is not my responsibillity to take care of the poor, it is my
*choice* to partake.
> > > And so, in your world, where money is the ultimate weapon, what better
> > > protection?
> >
> > huh?
>
> What better protection (which you state you want to provide) could you
> possibly give the poor in the ultimate monetary society than money?
Protection meaning military and police.
> > no, you don't have to do this.
>
> Heh I enjoy this as much as you do. But Changey doesn't like it, and you
> know how it's his newsgroup and all, so....
>
> > You understand the word, dictionary.com
> > defines "crat" as "A participant in or supporter of a specified form of
> > government".
>
> It also defines "-cracy" as "Government, rule". So, a victicrat must
> subscribe to a victicracy. Which, by any sane definition of victim,
> can't exist, as it is a logical contradiction.
Well, blame the english and not me!
> > > Admitting that you choose to avoid
> > > one section of the media is like saying, I'm gonna listen to Tool, but
> > > only the songs on even track numbers.
> >
> > If those tracks shared an inherant negative, I would do that.
>
> Heh interesting slip of the tongue there :). Actually, it's not like
> listening to half a Tool album at all. That was merely an attempt to
> show you the absurdity of your "*holds hands over ears* No! No! NO!
> NOOOO!" approach to the liberal media. Clearly it failed, possibly
> because you were too busy avoiding the liberal media....
The facts are there: read the book I recommended, its' written by a CBS
insider who knows wtf he's talking about. I've listened to the liberal
media. I, yes I, who probably isn't well read on inside politics, finds
many many many inconsistancies and obvious bias everytime I listen, watch or
read.
> > Study the enron case, study the laws on the subject for the US. I can't
> > even believe that you'd make an assumption like that based on UK laws.
>
> Yeah, gosh, what a ridiculous notion that the US would share many laws
> with the UK, especially give that so many of its laws originally were
> "borrowed" from the UK. And, incidentally, if it's really true that you
> cannot go to jail for tax evasion, then dude, I can't even believe that.
> Why the fuck are you moaning about taxes at all? Just don't pay them!
> What the fuck are they gonna do to you?
The case is more complex then that. Some forms of tax evasion are
punishible by jail; what enron execs did is not, not according to the judge
anyway. And I'd imagine he is more a scholar in law than I, or you.
--
----
Sebastian
-The New Inquisitor
> Rich
|sebAstian|
And it's their choice to live that way, and that choice to me is one of the
most important civil liberties offered on this earth.
|sebAstian|
<snip>
> > I will *always* defend the right of the person to choose whether he will
> > donate to or not, I will *never* support liberals forcing us to give our
> > hard earned fuckin money, and I won't accept excuses for not trying in
the
> > most awesome country in the world.
> >
>
> I completly agree. Besides, how is it a gesture of compassion and
> selflessness when you are *forced* to give?
Well said.
> > >snip
> >
> > And there is another charity which I just heard about, and it's the
> coolest
> > fuckin thing I've ever heard about. A nun, in NY I think, started a
home
> > for people on welfare. The people live there for free, they get free
> meals,
> > but they cannot keep their welfare checks. The sister holds onto it
> untill
> > their commitment is over, to fill their commitment they have to keep a
job
> > for a certain amount of time, quit doing all drugs, among other things.
> > When it's over she gives them back their money in a lump sum so that
they
> > have the abillity to pay for a couple months rent while they keep
working.
> > She says that she gets letters all the time from ex-welfare reciepiants
> > saying how glad they are that she got them off of well fare. On of those
> > people actually described welfare as an addictive drug!
> >
>
> Wow, that is amazing. Do you have any information in the way of articles
or
> links I could check out?
http://members.tripod.com/~barbspad/stmartin2.html
I have her name here and her address as well if you wanted to donate:
Sister Connie Driscoll
St. Martin de Porres House of hope
6423 S. Woodlawn
Chicago, Il 60637 (sorry, I thought I read NY)
I read about it in the book "The ten things you can't say in America" by
Larry Elder. You should head to the book store and read all about this
orginization, as well as an interview with the Sister starting on page 196.
I guarantee those pages will compell you to buy the book :-).
--
----
Sebastian
-The New Inquisitor
> > I'm glad a couple people here look at the situation the way I do. Maybe
|sebAstian|
> > I'm glad a couple people here look at the situation the way I do. Maybe
> > conservatives are a minority in the Tool community, or maybe it's just
> AMT.
> >
>
> Well, I must admit that at first I was thinking, "Goddamn, Sebastian is an
> asshole."
> But, after the initial emotional reaction, I starting thinking and instead
> of figuring a way to change your mind, I tried to understand you, and I
> found that I had not one argument that could dismiss what you were trying
to
> say. When that happens, one must reexamine their initial reaction.
>
Sorry, I missed this part the first time around.
You're absolutely right. That's the problem with the liberal ideology,
while they all mean well, it's all based on emotion, and to quote myself:
"Emotion infringing on intellect is a catalyst for destruction".
Richard Barker
> society where people think one way or another, I want a society where people
> can think and act as they want as long as they don't infringe on
> constitutionally given rights. I have no problem with charity; charity does
> a better job at getting people off their feet, and more of the money donated
> to charity actually gets to the subject. The goverment of the US does not
> have the abillity to distribute forced welfare funds in an efficiant manner,
> they don't even deny it. They hired a subcomitee to look into it.I believe
> in hard work and determination, I believe that you should rely on familly,
> friends, churches and private charities and the generosity of people if you
> *need* to. It is not my responsibillity to take care of the poor, it is my
> *choice* to partake.
Well, as I just said, perhaps what I said earlier doesn't apply to you,
for which I apologise, but there are many people who do think like that;
I suspect too many for your ideal to be feasible.
> Protection meaning military and police.
From what? All the rich people mugging them? (joke; I know, poor-on-poor
crime is a problem. My point is that there are better forms of
protection for poor people than spending money on police and weapons
when it could go directly to helping them. That's surely one of the
government middlemen you were talking about.
> Well, blame the english and not me!
*slaps self*
> The facts are there: read the book I recommended, its' written by a CBS
> insider who knows wtf he's talking about. I've listened to the liberal
> media. I, yes I, who probably isn't well read on inside politics, finds
> many many many inconsistancies and obvious bias everytime I listen, watch or
> read.
I'll give the book a look, but I maintain you are doing yourself a
disservice in choosing to ignore a huge chunk of the media because you
disagree with their politics. If nothing else, know your enemy.
> The case is more complex then that. Some forms of tax evasion are
> punishible by jail; what enron execs did is not, not according to the judge
> anyway. And I'd imagine he is more a scholar in law than I, or you.
OK.
Rich
Mike Smith
>
> I'm going on your repeated assertions that you don't like to have any of
> your hard-earned money taken away from you.
Key words: *taken away*.
> This is a society you want
> to implement, filled presumably with like minded people who are intent
> on not seeing any of their money used
Not "used" - *taken away*.
> to help the poor, because the poor
> are fuckin lazy and are, frankly, asking for it. Right? So where would
> the charitable instinct suddenly spring from?
Because money that is given freely is not *taken away*. It's not just about the
money, it's about being *coerced* into satisfying someone else's political
agenda. (At least that's my take on it.) Personally, I'd be a lot more
charitable if I didn't already know that my taxes were being used for so-called
"entitlements" ("handouts" has *such* an un-PC ring to it) for the poor.
> And, incidentally, if it's really true that you
> cannot go to jail for tax evasion, then dude, I can't even believe that.
You most certainly can go to jail for tax evasion - if *you* don't pay your own
taxes. In this case, though, it's a corporation that didn't pay. You can't put
a corporation in jail. (I suppose one could dissolve the corporation, but
that's sort of moot in the case of Enron.)
--
Mike Smith
|sebAstian|
The point is that the money that goes to help them doesn't help them most of
the time. Here, you're a logical guy. You answer the question that so far
only another thinker like me in this group has answered: If I gave you
$13,$15,000 a year, or however much, for absolutly *nothing*, meaning you
didn't have to go to school, find a job or quit drugs: why would you get a
job? Welfare creates dependancy.
Look at a private charity like the Salvation army. They give you a few
stipulations, they know you, they know your face and you're a human to them,
not a number like you are to the blind welfare system. They give you a few
chances, they don't let you fuck around with the help they give you. You
have to conform to certain stipulations, else you don't get money.
Look at the government.
You're broke? Here's money, well, some of the money. 70% was lost to
bureocracy, but hey! The tax payers don't mind having their rights
infringed? nevermind that it's unconstitutional!
> > Well, blame the english and not me!
>
> *slaps self*
>
> > The facts are there: read the book I recommended, its' written by a CBS
> > insider who knows wtf he's talking about. I've listened to the liberal
> > media. I, yes I, who probably isn't well read on inside politics, finds
> > many many many inconsistancies and obvious bias everytime I listen,
watch or
> > read.
>
> I'll give the book a look, but I maintain you are doing yourself a
> disservice in choosing to ignore a huge chunk of the media because you
> disagree with their politics. If nothing else, know your enemy.
Read this: http://maddox.xmission.com/cnn_sucks.html
It's a comedy, but it's distgustingly accurate. Seriously, read the book,
you'll understand. I find that a network like Foxnews doesn't try to push an
agenda like CNN, ABC, CBS etc. Unless you're watching commentary proggrams,
but just the news on Fox is obviously a lot less biased than liberal
networks.
> > The case is more complex then that. Some forms of tax evasion are
> > punishible by jail; what enron execs did is not, not according to the
judge
> > anyway. And I'd imagine he is more a scholar in law than I, or you.
>
> OK.
KO!
*hopefully*wild*
>
> "*hopefully*wild*" <hopefu...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:B5pV9.4011$1q3.1372@sccrnsc01...
>
> <snip>
> >
> or
> > links I could check out?
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~barbspad/stmartin2.html
>
> I have her name here and her address as well if you wanted to donate:
> Sister Connie Driscoll
> St. Martin de Porres House of hope
> 6423 S. Woodlawn
> Chicago, Il 60637 (sorry, I thought I read NY)
>
Thanks, that's what I was after.
> I read about it in the book "The ten things you can't say in America" by
> Larry Elder. You should head to the book store and read all about this
> orginization, as well as an interview with the Sister starting on page
196.
> I guarantee those pages will compell you to buy the book :-).
>
I'll definately give it a look. Thanks. :)
~Lauri
Mark Shea
"Smagmapig333" <smagma...@aol.communism> wrote in message
news:20030113123659...@mb-dh.aol.com...
> >People under
> >the workrafe program in NY make about $2.47, which is well below
minimum
> >wage.
>
checked you were
> not forced to pick particular employment.
This is a common point by those who believe in supply-side labour
market economics. It's really fairly stupid, because it overlooks
fundamental properties of the labour market.
*Even if* supply and demand for labour equilibrate at a
price-of-labour sufficient to allow work to result in
opportunity-gain, the labour market is not perfectly flexible in terms
of skills.
Supposing, briefly, that the portion of the economy in which you
employed (lets say...painting) contracts by 60%. This could be for
dozens of reasons out of your control; a company may begin making
robots that paint your house, who gives a fuck? Now people who were
even very good at their jobs (certainly 10% would have been among the
top half of their profession, and there'd be a lot who were the best
at say, kitchen tile painting decoration that would now be useless)
don't have them. Painting, unfortunately, is a difficult skill to do
well, and it takes time and effort to acquire it.
Now at this point, let us suppose again, and let us think of a
situation in which the dream of equal demand and supply is maintained.
Demand for employment in the software engineering department climbs
skyward. At this point, demand for work in the economy as a whole, and
its supply, are exactly the same as before. There has simply been a
structural change in the way the economy utilises its resources.
Structural change is a continuous and unavoidable process in an
economy, although the rate at which it takes place varies.
However, employment cannot rise to the levels which it was at
previously. There are a lot of painters now, who simply do not have
the skills to fill software engineering positions. Now you might say,
'well, they can be janitors,' but there are plenty of janitors at the
moment, and they don't have *those* skills either.
(Incidentally, the software engineers probably demanded and got a pay
rise. Huge numbers of students are shifting into engineering-computer
science double degrees.)
Now that happens in the wonderful idealistic world where supply for
labour equals it's demand. Structural unemployment happens *all the
time* and if don't have it, it's an indication that your economy is
stagnating. That's bad.
If demand for labour outstrips supply, usually you get inflation.
That's bad too. If it's the other way around, you get cyclical
unemployment. That's also bad.
In fact, the issue is a lot more complex than this, and microeconomic
management is essentially the controlling factor in the
inflation-growth-unemployment triangle.
So, no, it's not that simple.
Mark Shea
LocustSky
and where did you study law? a 100 page "law for dummies" book? Come now..
let's not fool ourselves. Enron ripped people off. they swallow the
investments of average people like you and me. they knew what htey were
doing. they committed a crime, and should be jailed for it. if i cheated
people and stole their money, i'd be in jail. the same standards should be
applied to both rich and poor, individual and corporate.
LocustSky
so you don't think the leeches from Enron deserve jail time? do you know
what they did? the swallowed the investments of their workers, misreported
the numbers, and then announced their losses after they pulled out of
company stock. To top if off, they shredded documents that outlines their
company's financial records.
they cheated people. if i did such a thing, i'd be in jail. the same
standards should be applied to rich, poor, individual, and corporate.
oh, i admire your statements about the giving to charity. i'm not asking
you to give up a dime, but just understand that people are paying others
less than livable wages, not for necessity, but for increasing the $$ going
in their pocket. Do people really deserve $2.47/hr.(NY Workfare Prog) ? Do
tobacco pickers working for Phllip Morris really deserve cents an hours?
can they live off that? Its unacceptable to exploit the poor simply for
labor. An honest days wage for an honest day's work. Levi Stauss closed
down its plants in Bangladesh, but realized the child workers were teh only
source of income for their families. They paid the children to go to
school, an in exchange, they got great positive press coverage worth more
than the wages they paid the children. That's good business.
>
> ~Lauri
--
- LocustSky
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĆ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]
|sebAstian|
"LocustSky" <Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net> wrote in message
In your opinion; your opinion is irrelivent. The law stands as it does.
Smagmapig333
>Date: 1/15/03 11:53 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <b05dl9$lo1li$1...@ID-103131.news.dfncis.de>
Yes it is that simple Mark have you ever heard of an entry level position?
McDonalds, Burger King etc.....
Yes they pay above minimum wage and humdreds of others do the same.
mike
Mark Shea
"Smagmapig333" <smagma...@aol.communism> wrote in message
> Yes it is that simple Mark have you ever heard of an entry level
position?
> McDonalds, Burger King etc.....
>
> Yes they pay above minimum wage and humdreds of others do the same.
Did you actually read my post? Did you understand it?
Since clearly the answer is 'no', I'll summarise and simplify
ridiculously:
An economy offers X employment positions, varying all the time in
amount, pay, and required skills. X is a function of economic activity
in both size and type.
As an available resource, there is Y amount of labour, which also
continuously varies in amount, required pay, and skills available. Y
is a function of population, general economic conditions, cost of
living, and education mainly.
X and Y are actually much more complex than that.
If, by sheerest miracle, X and Y coincide, they will immediately
change away from that point, due to structural changes in the economy
that occur all the time. Hence there is a base level of unemployment.
Add to that:
Cyclical unemployment due to lack of economic activity.
Seasonal unemployment due to seasonal changes in work, like
crayfishing or something.
Hardcore unemployment, which appears to be your main bitch-topic, is
composed of those who do not wish to work, combined with the crippled,
infirm, etc.
Into the mix, then add the Phillips curve, which basically says (and
by God, this is simplifying) that unemployment and inflation have a
reciprocal relationship. Both are linked to growth. Growth is a
requirement of economic policy, and it requires low inflation and low
unemployment. Since this is not really possible, you *deliberately*
gear monetary and fiscal policy to compromise between the two, using
Keynesian methods to control cyclical unemployment and demand
inflation.
Now to change the nature of the Phillips curve, so you can have lower
and lower rates of unemployment *without* triggering inflation and
destroying your perfectly good economy is the role of microeconomic
reform, which
1. is ridiculously hard to explain, harder even than the previous post
you seem to have ignored.
2. has worked amazingly well *already* in America. Dammit you can
tolerate levels of unemployment as low as 3 and 4% and still have
manageable inflation. That, by world standards, is phenomanal.
Now you expect, in a structually changing economy (like the US, even
if growth is slow) at least 1.5-2% structual unemployment. That's
about half of all your unemployment, accounted for by an unavoidable
property of change. The rest of it it a mix of hardcore and seasonal
unemployment with a nudge of cyclical unemployment under the influence
of various other policies.
Mark Shea
Smagmapig333
>Message-id: <b06knc$ma7re$1...@ID-103131.news.dfncis.de>
sorry to make you type all that again, i did and do understand. i was targeting
the people in particular that are making $2.47 an hour (below minimum wage) to
keep the government handout checks rolling in. the main point is yes they are
recieving less than minimum wage BUT it is supplimented by an additional
amount, of which is not factored in the equation. these people can find job
oppening and choose not to because the welfare system is much easier to squeeze
a dime out of.
mike
|sebAstian|
> just because one is greedy, is not worthwhile to try to show them their
> faults? is greed to the point where it seriously hinders the lives of
> others wrong? you seem to support SmithKline, even though they're greed
led
> to the deaths of 40+ people. Is this not wrong.
As far as I can tell this never happened. I looked at cnn.com,
washtintonpost.com and latimes.com.
I looked at your primary source: "Public Citizen Health Research Group",
their site has nothing about this subject, so I really don't know what
you're talking about. A search on their site from the 1st of 1998 till the
31st of november with the word "smithkline" as he search phrase on all
secions of the site brought up nothing about a trail.
Why?
Your source also failed to mention any illegal crimes by Lilly. Are you
actually looking at your sources?
Richard Barker
> the time. Here, you're a logical guy. You answer the question that so far
> only another thinker like me in this group has answered: If I gave you
> $13,$15,000 a year, or however much, for absolutly *nothing*, meaning you
> didn't have to go to school, find a job or quit drugs: why would you get a
> job? Welfare creates dependancy.
Self respect? The fact that there's no point taking drugs if that's all
you do?
> Look at a private charity like the Salvation army. They give you a few
> stipulations, they know you, they know your face and you're a human to them,
> not a number like you are to the blind welfare system. They give you a few
> chances, they don't let you fuck around with the help they give you. You
> have to conform to certain stipulations, else you don't get money.
Don't forget that the notion of the Welfare State, if not the
institution itself, has existed longer than most charities and in fact
grew out a need not being met by any other institution. That there are
numerous such now is no reason to dismantle the apparatus.
> Look at the government.
>
> You're broke? Here's money, well, some of the money. 70% was lost to
> bureocracy, but hey! The tax payers don't mind having their rights
> infringed? nevermind that it's unconstitutional!
That's not the fault of the idea, but the incompetent implementation.
Rich
*hopefully*wild*
>
> "*hopefully*wild*" <hopefu...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:jTkV9.488$kH3.239@sccrnsc03...
> > "LocustSky" <Zen3...@NOSPAMjps.net> wrote in message
> > news:W39V9.10720$Dq.11...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > "How many CEOs from Enron are currently in jail?" - me
> > >
> > > "In jail for what? Tax evasion? I don't agree with the tax system.
> > They
> > > didn't kill anyone, they didn't rape anyone, they didn't sell poisoned
> > > milk to school children." - Sebastian
> > >
> > > (posted here Tuesday, January 14, 2003 11:39 PM)
> > >
> > > either he is bullshitting, a supporter of corrupt (and illegal!)
> business
> > > practices, or simply ignorant of these matters.. that's for you to
> decide.
> > >
> >
> > Well, I think misunderstood him at first and it seems that you got the
> same
> > misinterpretation that I did. Sebastian, I think, is not saying what
they
> > did was not wrong and not punishable in some form, what he's saying is
> that
> > it should not be a punishment of *jail time*, not that they shouldn't be
> > punished at all. I'm sure Sebastian will correct me if I am wrong.
>
> so you don't think the leeches from Enron deserve jail time?
No, Sebastian doesn't think that they deserve jail time.
>do you know
> what they did?
yes.
>
>snip
>Do people really deserve $2.47/hr.(NY Workfare Prog) ? Do
> tobacco pickers working for Phllip Morris really deserve cents an hours?
Is it *my* fault that they make $2.47 an hour? Should *I* have to pay for
them to live because I worked hard, got an education and a good job and they
didn't? I've had to work for everything I have. I didn't have a rich family.
I've been through periods where I worked three jobs. If someone doesn't have
the motovation to do that to get themselves an education that will get them
a decent paying job, tell me how the responsibility to support them falls on
my shoulders.
>Its unacceptable to exploit the poor simply for
> labor.
It is also unaceptable to expect me to be obligated to support someone that
doesn't have any motivation to work to support themselves.
> An honest days wage for an honest day's work. Levi Stauss closed
> down its plants in Bangladesh, but realized the child workers were teh
only
> source of income for their families. They paid the children to go to
> school, an in exchange, they got great positive press coverage worth more
> than the wages they paid the children. That's good business.
>
Look, I don't support child labor. I don't support paying someone less based
on their race, religion or sex. I support the idea that charities should be
privatized, that is that it should not be *required* that I give, but I
should give because I *want* to. I should not be told who the money I worked
to make is going to help, I should be able to decide, it's my money, I
worked to earn it.
Let's look at the word charity for a second. Charity is giving to those that
are less fortunate than you, are we in agreement on that? Good.
Let's look at welfare. What is it? Welfare is using tax money to help those
that are less fortunate, agreed? Good.
Welfare is a charity. A charity that I am *required* to donate to, that I am
*required* to give the money that I earned to.
~Lauri
Mark Shea
"Smagmapig333" <smagma...@aol.communism> wrote in message
> >Subject: Re: rush limbaugh quotes
> >From: "Mark Shea" zad...@hotmail.com
> >Date: 1/16/03 11:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
> sorry to make you type all that again, i did and do understand.
Sorry to imply you didn't.
> i was targeting
> the people in particular that are making $2.47 an hour (below
minimum wage) to
> keep the government handout checks rolling in.
Well that's a government policy issue. Employ them or not, this
halfway business is fairly ineffective. I don't have an issue with
demanding some productive activity on the part of welfare recipients
(provided they're not single mothers abandoning they're kids or
whatnot), but I think this particular legislation is of fairly low
quality.
> the main point is yes they are
> recieving less than minimum wage BUT it is supplimented by an
additional
> amount, of which is not factored in the equation.
The additional amount is their welfare amount?
> these people can find job
> oppening and choose not to because the welfare system is much easier
to squeeze
> a dime out of.
A poorly designed welfare system like that is only going to worsen the
hardcore unemployment situation. I think that is *is* an obligation on
the part of being a nice, rich, powerful nation to make sure your
citizens don't starve in your streets, and that they have some kind of
quality of life, but that that mark shouldn't be overstepped by too
far a margin.
Mark Shea
LocustSky
the law does not define right and wrong. right and wrong is supposed to
define law. Don't swallow what you read without question. Why is this law
just? how is it not? put some more of yourself into your knowledge. they
won't think critically for you. you have to do that for yourself.
> --
> ----
> Sebastian
> -The New Inquisitor
LocustSky
he doesn't think they deserve jail time. what do YOU think? Sebastian is
one person. You are another. What do you think?
> >snip
> >Do people really deserve $2.47/hr.(NY Workfare Prog) ? Do
> > tobacco pickers working for Phllip Morris really deserve cents an hours?
>
> Is it *my* fault that they make $2.47 an hour? Should *I* have to pay for
> them to live because I worked hard, got an education and a good job and
they
> didn't? I've had to work for everything I have. I didn't have a rich
family.
> I've been through periods where I worked three jobs. If someone doesn't
have
> the motovation to do that to get themselves an education that will get
them
> a decent paying job, tell me how the responsibility to support them falls
on
> my shoulders.
if someone fucks up in life, then that's their problem.. but that's no
reason to exploit them for their labor. $2.47/hr. is NOT a livable wage.
I'm not saying give them a lot. All i'm saying is, if you're gonna put them
to work, give them what the honest's days wage. THere's no reason to pay
someone less than they can sustain BASIC living with. what is working in
hospitals (many work in hospitals and many others work restuarants as seen
in Michael Moore's flick, Bowling For Columbine - i recommend it) worth as a
wage? Certainly more than $2.47/hr. If you're not gonna pay them min.
wage.. fine. At least pay them something decent.. something the work
deserves.
>
> >Its unacceptable to exploit the poor simply for
> > labor.
>
> It is also unaceptable to expect me to be obligated to support someone
that
> doesn't have any motivation to work to support themselves.
i'm not saying to you should support a single person.. just undertstand that
people AREN'T being paid an honest's days $$ for an honest days work. If
you don't want pay for welfare fine.. at least understand this labor
exploitation. Fix that problem and you're guaranteed to see a decline in
the numbers on welfare - Much of the people on welfare are the ones being
exploited!
yes, it comes down to a moral question. I admire and respect your answer.
What about those who do nothing to fix problems of labor exploitation in
third world countries by western corporations? Phillip Morris has the $$ to
pay its tobacco pickers, but doesn't due to its own greed. Phillip Morris
tobacco pickers make cents an hour! Is that fair? It definitely a moral
question, but in my opinion, there's only 1 thing worse than ignorance and
that's greed.. greed to the point where it hinders the lives of others.
>
> ~Lauri
--
- LocustSky
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĘ][A5][L+][Sx][B ][FAJ][P+][CO]