Eco-SocialismWatch: Save the world for 68¢ a day?
Winston Smith
Eco-SocialismWatch: Save the world for 68¢ a day?
Re: Earth Summit Terms for Redistribution of Western Wealth
In article <3D5BC3D4...@cid.alcatel.com , Robin Tessier
<rtes...@cid.alcatel.com wrote:
Winston Smith wrote:
Here are some terms for the redistribution of western wealth at the Earth
Summit in Johannesburg:
Subject: A lexicon for the Earth Summit
PARIS, Aug 13 2002 (AFP/clari.net fair use) - Here is a glossary of terms
that will be widely heard at the upcoming Earth Summit in Johannesburg:
AGENDA 21: Bible of nearly 2,500 recommended measures for protecting the
environment adopted by the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. The huge book is
intended for governments, development agencies and corporations, but
little has ever been implemented, a problem that the summit hopes to
address.
ODA: <AN INTERNATIONAL TAX> Official Development Aid, or
government-funded help by rich countries for poor ones. ODA levels have
fallen constantly since the 1992 Earth Summit, which reaffirmed a 1969
target of contributing 0.7 percent of gross national product (GNP) per
year...
Robin Tessier Wrote:
A target for voluntary donations is not a tax.
Let's put things in perspective:
US GDP ~ $10 trillion
Current contribution ~ $10 billion ~ 0.1% of GDP
Current contribution per capita ~ $10 billion / 280 million ~
$36/year ~
10 cents/day
Target contribution = 0.7% GDP ~ $70 billion
Target contribution per capita ~ $70 billion / 280 million ~
$250/year ~
68 cents/day -- Robin Tessier
Winston's reply:
This isn't correct by the way. I applaud your calculator savvy. I wish
more people would do that.
There are two problems, first this global aid is unconstitutional, I know
we have been doing it so long it seems legitimate, and the cost for this
is actually enormous, the 0.7% initial goal is only the camels nose under
the tent. They need TRILLIONS of dollars.
If we use your numbers of a 10 trillion dollar US economy, not everyone in
America files a tax return and of those some people get money back or pay
no tax. So on the low end taxpayers pay ZERO for the unconstitutional
global welfare tax. On the high end its a different story. We have heard
that the top 5% pay half the taxes, that would be .05 X 200 million actual
tax payers, or 10 million taxpayers funding 35 Billion in the
unconstitutional international tax which is $3,500 a return on average at
the high end. Peak amounts for top taxpayers are even higher yet. That's
not so much the point, this isn't nearly enough, its the camels nose under
the tent:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a fact that capital requirements to develop and improve the
infrastructure in the so-called emerging economies will be immense. The
World Bank estimates that for Asia alone, some 1.5 trillion dollars will
be needed in the next 10 years. *Public sources can only supply a fraction
of that amount. We all know that official aid flows having been
decreasing, and that is likely to continue for a while. So the bulk of
these much needed capital flows will have to come from private investors.
http://www.oecd.org/daf/cmis/mai/shelton.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last year's report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
included the economists' assessment that stabilising atmospheric carbon
dioxide at twice pre-industrial concentrations by 2100 would cost between
$1 trillion and $8 trillion.
- http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/climate (Aug. 23, 2002) <I
think these are low estimates>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This international welfare and Kyoto redistribution plan in the name of
CO2 reduction will cost multiple TRILLION$ AND ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
--
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution
which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of
benevolence, the money of their constituents.
-- James Madison
Lloyd Parker
<C0507CDB7B14DB03.951553AF...@lp.airnews.net>,
wsm...@minitrue.oceana.gov (Winston Smith) wrote:
>
>If we use your numbers of a 10 trillion dollar US economy, not
everyone in
>America files a tax return and of those some people get money back or
pay
>no tax. So on the low end taxpayers pay ZERO for the unconstitutional
>global welfare tax. On the high end its a different story. We have
heard
>that the top 5% pay half the taxes,
And control 90% of the wealth.
Tarver Engineering
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@NOSPAM.emory.edu> wrote in message
news:ak8hlu$po5$4...@puck.cc.emory.edu...
You are, as usual, being dishonest, Lloyd.
I think Lloyd has demonstrated the retard element of the Democratic Party.
John
Ian St. John
Nope. I think he may be overstating the case though. Most 'assets' are
tied up in housing, the major purchase of the majority.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p70-75.pdf
Of course, this is a fixed asset with high maintenance costs. Most of
the 'means of production' or wealth generation are in the hands of the
wealthy.
It is also true that the wealthiest 5% pay about 60% of the taxes,
indicating that they have a lot of the income (not wealth), though
this is partly a factor of the graduated income tax.
I think I saw that 80% of stocks are held by the wealthiest 5%, but
stocks and bonds form a small part of total assets.
The wealthiest 5% actually get under 20% of the total income
http://www.jointcenter.org/DB/detail/income.htm
John Musieewicz
wrote:
I believe this is ALL taxes not just income tax.
Scott Douglas
> Here are some terms for the redistribution of western wealth at the
> Earth Summit in Johannesburg:
> AGENDA 21: Bible of nearly 2,500 recommended measures for protecting
> the
> environment adopted by the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. The huge book is
> intended for governments, development agencies and corporations, but
> little has ever been implemented, a problem that the summit hopes to
> address.
There is no more evidence offered here that Agenda 21 is a transfer of
western wealth than there is evidence that the christian bible is all about
the transfer of western wealth.
Stupid. Stupid, Libertarian.
Winston Smith wrote in
> This international welfare and Kyoto redistribution plan in the name
> of CO2 reduction will cost multiple TRILLION$ AND ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
And according to Winston Smith's brethren the Montreal protocol was a
wealth redistribution plan in the name of CFC reduction that would cost
trillions of dollars and a billion lives, destroy the world economy, and it
was also Unconstitutional.
Thinking people know better.
Winston Smith wrote in
> ODA: <AN INTERNATIONAL TAX> Official Development Aid, or
> government-funded help by rich countries for poor ones. ODA levels
> have fallen constantly since the 1992 Earth Summit, which reaffirmed a
> 1969 target of contributing 0.7 percent of gross national product
> (GNP) per year...
ODA background
The objective mentioned above implies that the event will be focused on
financial aspect of development, more so than in defining an agenda in this
regard, since it is assumed that this has already been designed during the
conferences and summits of the 1990’s. The themes of the Conference are:
Mobilizing domestic financial resources
Mobilizing international resources for development: foreign direct
investment and other private flows
Increasing international financial cooperation for development through,
inter alia, official development assistance
Debt
Trade
Addressing systemic issues: enhancing he coherence and consistency of the
international monetary, financial and trading systems in support of
development
As noted, the document has three crucial elements that intersect with the
six themes mentioned above in which our attention should be focused:
the development model good governance
the role of the multi-laterals: UN, IMF, WB, WTO, Regional Banks, and other
important institutions.
1 . The Development Model
The six themes selected are found within the same theoretical framework and
neoliberal philosophy. It is from this framework that all these points are
approached, establishing in summary that: with the objective being
mobilizing resources for development, both national as well as foreign, and
as such foreign direct investment is increased, the official development
assistance and trade, which are the anchors for development, a balance must
be maintained in terms of the environment, which implies the realization of
the so-called sound macroeconomic politics. In general, these consist in
establishing medium-termed objectives, since focusing on short-term
objectives would indicate showing an impact by fluctuations in the
political environment. In the meantime, the focus should be on sustained
economic growth, the growth of employment, poverty reduction, having means
of maintaining low inflation and fiscal equilibrium, as well as the
consolidation of public finances (a new tax reform which includes the
informal sector), efficient mechanisms for the distribution of public
spending, and sufficient margin for action on the part of the private
sector. These measures indicate an obvious application of second-generation
structural adjustment reforms, although it is not mentioned explicitly, but
it is evident that the fiscal equilibrium and the low inflation require
less spending to generate more income on the part of the State.
Nevertheless, the installation of a suitable climate is not sufficient to
mobilize international resources. Aside from further needing the
liberalization of trade in a universal trend, the installation of
infrastructure (water, electricity, drainage, etc.), and the national
deregulation in the investment in less-developed countries, along with the
installation of mechanisms to encourage the flow of investments in more
developed countries as sources of information about the needs of countries
and what companies can earn. With the objective to decrease the possible
negative impacts in foreign direct investment, also required is the
realization of pacts and agreements whose goals should be to urge good
practices and the development of a local private sector. Furthermore, the
qualifying credit institutions should be transparent and objective so that
their contribution in promoting investment will truly efficient.
With the betterment of international financial cooperation as the
objective, it is necessary to agree that Official Development Assistance,
heretofore known as ODA, has a fundamental function of assuring that the
benefits of globalization reach everyone, especially the poor. It is
therefore necessary that the goal of 0.7% of ODA be met, but that this also
be subject to the necessities established by the governments of the
country. Nevertheless, these objectives should be coherent with the
policies that lead to the creation of a favorable environment, including
programs of sector reform. In addition to this, matters related to global
public property that may have been of national concern in the past, but are
now international due to globalization, such as the environment, water,
etc. should be included in the financing agenda of the ODA.
Finally, debt as a mechanism of financing to mobilize resources for public
and private foreign investment produces three types of countries: I) those
that raised their level of investment and with it their growth; ii) those
that became indebted for political military, or conflict-related reasons or
due to poor macroeconomic administration, whose final consequence is that
they cannot pay what is due, and that their capacity to sustain policies of
reduction of poverty is reduced; and iii) those that have debt levels that
are impossible to pay due to being of middle-range income, but that could
pay in a favorable economic climate. For the second group, the HIPIC
initiative exists, whose objective is to reduce the debt of the most
indebted countries to a sustainable level, that is, to one that they can
pay. For the third group, the possibility exists to renegotiate the debt
through the use of new mechanisms, including one of mediation in which
creditors, holders, the Paris Club and other multilateral and bilateral
creditors participate, whose objective would be to facilitate a
comprehensive financial package that diminishes the risks and costs of the
process, that is, that pay with “easy” terms.
In conjunction with HIPIC and PRGF, the PRSP (Poverty Reduction Strategy
Paper) is a document in which donors, along with governments and civil
society, design strategies for poverty reduction, and where the principal
strategy has to be that governments, and their civil societies, on the
receiving end appropriate the second generation adjustment and reforms
Winston Smith wrote in
> This international welfare and Kyoto redistribution plan in the name
> of CO2 reduction will cost multiple TRILLION$ AND ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
And according to Winston Smith's brethren the Montreal protocol was a
wealth redistribution plan in the name of CFC reduction that would cost
trillions of dollars and a billion lives, destroy the world economy, and it
was also Unconstitutional.
Thinking people know better.
> --
> I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the
> Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the
> objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
> -- James Madison
Apparenly Madison didn't comprehend the U.S. constitution.
"Section 8--1 The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all
Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United
States; - U.S. Constitution.
Scott Douglas
news:OtO99.6604$z16....@news.webusenet.com:
> It is my understanding that the U.S. is clean as a whistle compared to
> other areas. While we may burn 25% of the fossil fuels, it appears
> others expect us to clean theirs up too when they won't try to do it
> themselves.
"Americans continue to resist any kind of foreign aid to the wretched of
the Earth. The actual amount of foreign and humanitarian aid distributed
by the U.S. government is as low as $3.8 billion a year, a great deal
less, I'm sure, than we are spending to try to find Osama bin Laden.
Polls indicate that Americans think we spend about 15 percent of the
federal budget in foreign aid, which is about 150 times as much as the
reality: 0.1 percent." - George Rupp - President of Columbia University
- March 7, 2002 - March 31, 2001
Scott Douglas
> "Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@NOSPAM.emory.edu> wrote in message
>> And control 90% of the wealth.
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sierratel.com> wrote in
> You are, as usual, being dishonest, Lloyd.
> I think Lloyd has demonstrated the retard element of the Democratic
> Party.
"The three wealthiest Americans - (Bill) Gates, Warren Buffet, and John
Walton (and family) - have more combined assets ($94 billion U.S.) than
50 million of the poorest Americans. In purely financial assets, the
same three have a combine wealth worth as much as that of the poorest
100 million Americans. "Welcome to cyber capitalism, American-style."
(James) Laxer writes." (James Laxer -Undeclared War - Penguin Books). -
Conservative columnest Dalton Camp - Toronto Star - May 17, 1998
Winston Smith
Douglas <s_do...@hotmail.com> is in denial:
> Winston Smith wrote in
> > Here are some terms for the redistribution of western wealth at the
> > Earth Summit in Johannesburg:
>
> > AGENDA 21: Bible of nearly 2,500 recommended measures for protecting
> > the
> > environment adopted by the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. The huge book is
> > intended for governments, development agencies and corporations, but
> > little has ever been implemented, a problem that the summit hopes to
> > address.
>
> There is no more evidence offered here that Agenda 21 is a transfer of
> western wealth than there is evidence that the christian bible is all about
> the transfer of western wealth.
>
> Stupid. Stupid, Libertarian.
>
Subject: Johannesburg Summit Set to Convene
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa (AP/clari.net, 24 Aug 2002 fair use) -- It's
the Olympics of world politics.
For nearly two weeks, starting Monday, more than 100 nations and 65,000
delegates will convene in Johannesburg.
The mission of the World Summit for Sustainable Development has been
stated many ways but those involved say it boils down to this: (...save
the planet) ... rescue billions of people from wretched poverty.
...
>
>
> Winston Smith wrote in
> > This international welfare and Kyoto redistribution plan in the name
> > of CO2 reduction will cost multiple TRILLION$ AND ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
>
> And according to Winston Smith's brethren the Montreal protocol was a
> wealth redistribution plan in the name of CFC reduction that would cost
> trillions of dollars and a billion lives, destroy the world economy, and it
> was also Unconstitutional.
>
> Thinking people know better.
>
It costed millions changing to the new freon.
>
> Winston Smith wrote in
> > ODA: <AN INTERNATIONAL TAX> Official Development Aid, or
> > government-funded help by rich countries for poor ones. ODA levels
> > have fallen constantly since the 1992 Earth Summit, which reaffirmed a
> > 1969 target of contributing 0.7 percent of gross national product
> > (GNP) per year...
>
> ODA background
>
> The objective mentioned above implies that the event will be focused on
> financial aspect of development, more so than in defining an agenda in this
> regard, since it is assumed that this has already been designed during the
> conferences and summits of the 1990’s. The themes of the Conference are:
>
http://www.oecd.org/daf/cmis/mai/shelton.htm
It is a fact that capital requirements to develop and improve the
infrastructure in the so-called emerging economies will be immense. The
World Bank estimates that for Asia alone, some 1.5 trillion dollars will
be needed in the next 10 years. Public sources can only supply a fraction
of that amount. We all know that official aid flows having been
decreasing, and that is likely to continue for a while. So the bulk of
these much needed capital flows will have to come from private investors.
http://www.oecd.org/subject/climatechange/kyoto.htm
Climate Change and Sustainable Development - Goals of the OECD
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is
committed to helping its Member countries and the entire international
community to move towards sustainable development.
Governments can play a key role in encouraging technical and behavioural
innovation.
On a broader level, OECD countries act through their development
co-operation programmes to help strengthen the Agenda 21 links between
environmental goals and those of development itself. In particular, they
committed themselves in 1996 <UNRATIFIED> to a development partnership
strategy to achieve concrete targets (including, among others, reduction
of poverty by one half by the year 2015) in support of sustainable
development in the worldąs developing countries.
---
>
>
>
> Winston Smith wrote in
> > This international welfare and Kyoto redistribution plan in the name
> > of CO2 reduction will cost multiple TRILLION$ AND ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
>
> And according to Winston Smith's brethren the Montreal protocol was a
> wealth redistribution plan in the name of CFC reduction that would cost
> trillions of dollars and a billion lives, destroy the world economy, and it
> was also Unconstitutional.
>
> Thinking people know better.
>
Last year's report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
included the economists' assessment that stabilising atmospheric carbon
dioxide at twice pre-industrial concentrations by 2100 would cost between
$1 trillion and $8 trillion.
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/climate
>
> > --
> > I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the
> > Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the
> > objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
> > -- James Madison
>
>
> Apparenly Madison didn't comprehend the U.S. constitution.
>
>
> "Section 8--1 The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
> Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
> common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all
> Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United
> States; - U.S. Constitution.
Where does it say to give the money to provide Welfare of the deadbeat
nations? Bwhahaha. You can't read.
Winston Smith
<s_do...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "James" <jra...@dcr.net> wrote in
> news:OtO99.6604$z16....@news.webusenet.com:
>
> > It is my understanding that the U.S. is clean as a whistle compared to
> > other areas. While we may burn 25% of the fossil fuels, it appears
> > others expect us to clean theirs up too when they won't try to do it
> > themselves.
>
> "Americans continue to resist any kind of foreign aid to the wretched of
> the Earth. The actual amount of foreign and humanitarian aid distributed
> by the U.S. government is as low as $3.8 billion a year,
It would be ZERO if Libertarians were in charge.
Winston Smith
<s_do...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Class warfare is a typical tactic of socialist to steal everyones assets.
Robin Tessier
I know it's a gross oversimplification, but it was only intended to show
an international aid target of 0.7% of the GDP is not that painful.
>
> There are two problems, first this global aid is unconstitutional, I know
> we have been doing it so long it seems legitimate, and the cost for this
> is actually enormous, the 0.7% initial goal is only the camels nose under
> the tent. They need TRILLIONS of dollars.
What they need and what we, through our elected representatives, choose
to give are totally different things.
>
> If we use your numbers of a 10 trillion dollar US economy, not everyone in
> America files a tax return and of those some people get money back or pay
> no tax. So on the low end taxpayers pay ZERO for the unconstitutional
> global welfare tax. On the high end its a different story. We have heard
> that the top 5% pay half the taxes, that would be .05 X 200 million actual
> tax payers, or 10 million taxpayers funding 35 Billion in the
> unconstitutional international tax which is $3,500 a return on average at
> the high end. Peak amounts for top taxpayers are even higher yet. That's
> not so much the point, this isn't nearly enough, its the camels nose under
> the tent:
Remember that the goal is 0.7% of the GDP, not 0.7% of tax revenue.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> It is a fact that capital requirements to develop and improve the
> infrastructure in the so-called emerging economies will be immense. The
> World Bank estimates that for Asia alone, some 1.5 trillion dollars will
> be needed in the next 10 years. *Public sources can only supply a fraction
> of that amount. We all know that official aid flows having been
> decreasing, and that is likely to continue for a while. So the bulk of
> these much needed capital flows will have to come from private investors.
> http://www.oecd.org/daf/cmis/mai/shelton.htm
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Last year's report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
> included the economists' assessment that stabilising atmospheric carbon
> dioxide at twice pre-industrial concentrations by 2100 would cost between
> $1 trillion and $8 trillion.
> - http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/climate (Aug. 23, 2002) <I
> think these are low estimates>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This international welfare and Kyoto redistribution plan in the name of
> CO2 reduction will cost multiple TRILLION$ AND ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
>
> --
> I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution
> which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of
> benevolence, the money of their constituents.
> -- James Madison
As Scott pointed out in one of his replies, section 8.1 of the US
constitution says:
"The Congress shall have the power To lay and collect taxes, duties,
imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence
and general welfare of the United States;"
Have you ever considered that international aid may well provide in part
for the general welfare of the United States?
Lloyd Parker
<1E52AEC7A8D68B28.ACAEF30D...@lp.airnews.net>,
wsm...@minitrue.oceana.gov (Winston Smith) wrote:
>In article <Xns9275C41C9...@216.221.81.119>, Scott Douglas
><s_do...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "James" <jra...@dcr.net> wrote in
>> news:OtO99.6604$z16....@news.webusenet.com:
>>
>> > It is my understanding that the U.S. is clean as a whistle
compared to
>> > other areas. While we may burn 25% of the fossil fuels, it appears
>> > others expect us to clean theirs up too when they won't try to do
it
>> > themselves.
>>
>> "Americans continue to resist any kind of foreign aid to the
wretched of
>> the Earth. The actual amount of foreign and humanitarian aid
distributed
>> by the U.S. government is as low as $3.8 billion a year,
>
>
>It would be ZERO if Libertarians were in charge.
As would things like law enforcement, meat inspection, public fire
departments, parks, nontoll roads,...
Lloyd Parker
other measures of wealth, the top 10% control 90% of the wealth in this
country.
Winston Smith
(Lloyd Parker) wrote:
> In article
> <1E52AEC7A8D68B28.ACAEF30D...@lp.airnews.net>,
> wsm...@minitrue.oceana.gov (Winston Smith) wrote:
> >In article <Xns9275C41C9...@216.221.81.119>, Scott Douglas
> ><s_do...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "James" <jra...@dcr.net> wrote in
> >> news:OtO99.6604$z16....@news.webusenet.com:
> >>
> >> > It is my understanding that the U.S. is clean as a whistle
> compared to
> >> > other areas. While we may burn 25% of the fossil fuels, it appears
> >> > others expect us to clean theirs up too when they won't try to do
> it
> >> > themselves.
> >>
> >> "Americans continue to resist any kind of foreign aid to the
> wretched of
> >> the Earth. The actual amount of foreign and humanitarian aid
> distributed
> >> by the U.S. government is as low as $3.8 billion a year,
> >
> >
> >It would be ZERO if Libertarians were in charge.
>
> As would things like law enforcement, meat inspection, public fire
> departments, parks, nontoll roads,...
>
Lies. There is no authorization for many federal functions who waste 75%
on Federal bureaucracy and overhead. Keep necessary functions in the state
or the local area and save a bundle. BTW, post roads are constitutional.
Ian St. John
"Winston Smith" <wsm...@minitrue.oceana.gov> wrote in message
news:0D3C0274F6F2F018.D8B4F392...@lp.airnews.net...
> In article <ake9nq$d24$3...@puck.cc.emory.edu>, lpa...@NOSPAM.emory.edu
> (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <1E52AEC7A8D68B28.ACAEF30D...@lp.airnews.net>,
> > wsm...@minitrue.oceana.gov (Winston Smith) wrote:
> > >In article <Xns9275C41C9...@216.221.81.119>, Scott Douglas
> > ><s_do...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> "James" <jra...@dcr.net> wrote in
> > >> news:OtO99.6604$z16....@news.webusenet.com:
> > >>
> > >> > It is my understanding that the U.S. is clean as a whistle
> > compared to
> > >> > other areas. While we may burn 25% of the fossil fuels, it appears
> > >> > others expect us to clean theirs up too when they won't try to do
> > it
> > >> > themselves.
> > >>
> > >> "Americans continue to resist any kind of foreign aid to the
> > wretched of
> > >> the Earth. The actual amount of foreign and humanitarian aid
> > distributed
> > >> by the U.S. government is as low as $3.8 billion a year,
> > >
> > >
> > >It would be ZERO if Libertarians were in charge.
> >
> > As would things like law enforcement, meat inspection, public fire
> > departments, parks, nontoll roads,...
> >
>
> Lies. There is no authorization for many federal functions
So sue them. If you can prove this in court...
Oh? Thin air? An 'opinion' worth as much as the other 300 milllion+
opinions.
> who waste 75% on Federal bureaucracy and overhead.
Prove it. Define 'waste'. Define the function of government. Get enough
agreement to support any case you make..
My opinion is that most government functions are a lot less 'wasteful' than
believed. Few actually compete since they are in areas that are nto serviced
by business, but where business does take over, there is not much of an
improvement.
> Keep necessary functions in the state or the
> local area and save a bundle.
And eliminate local authority or federal?
What is your agenda. Eliminating representation of local citizens or
eliminate the overall authority that keeps the country together?
Enquiring minds want to know..
> BTW, post roads are constitutional.
Kinda dated wouldn't you say? Darn few horses needed for the local post
office and keeping roads for horse based mail delivery seems a bit silly...
Lloyd Parker
<0D3C0274F6F2F018.D8B4F392...@lp.airnews.net>,
"provide for the general welfare..."
>ho waste 75%
>on Federal bureaucracy and overhead. Keep necessary functions in the
state
>or the local area and save a bundle. BTW, post roads are
constitutional.
So are many other things -- Article I, section 8.
Bryan
--
bp
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@NOSPAM.emory.edu> wrote in message
news:akje16$r12$3...@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> "provide for the general welfare..." WRONG!!!
Here's the correct quote, "...provide for the common defence, promote the
general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty...."
Big difference, read the Federalists Papers.
Winston Smith
<ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
It is a common term applied to federal waste. This calculation is left as
an exercise for the student. Not morons like you.
Ian babbbbbles:
Witless Smith thinks that Kyoto is politics..
No No . it's socialism... No No. It's about distributing Western
Wealth.
Witless Smith thinks that Ecology is politics..
No No . it's socialism... No No. It's about distributing Western
Wealth.
Witless Smith thinks that Science is politics..
No No . it's socialism... No No. It's about distributing Western
Wealth.
Witless Smith thinks that Global Warming is politics..
No No . it's socialism... No No. It's about distributing Western
Wealth.
Witless Smith thinks that Ozone is politics..
No No . it's socialism... No No. It's about distributing Western
Wealth.
Witless Smith thinks that French Fries is politics..
No No . it's socialism... No No. It's about distributing Western
Wealth.
Witless Smith thinks that (fill in the blank) is politics..
No No . it's socialism... No No. It's about distributing Western
Wealth.
All he has really demonstrated is that he has no room for any actual
mental
activity. The echo is all that is there...
( one more reverberation... )
Ian St. John
No support for your positions, I see. Opinions we can get free. And worth
everything we pay for them...
The ignorant can claim waste when there is none. The actual calculations of
waste are not a 'student exercise' since they involve questions that are not
easily answered.
On the other hand. "morons like you" is an obvious ad-hominem and
establishes your lack of interest in serious questions.
But we knew that. Your repetitive and ignorant posts are tiresome.
Lloyd Parker
"Bryan" <brya...@cox.net> wrote:
>See below
>
Here's the correct quote, "...provide for the common defence, promote
the
general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty...."
Big difference, read the Federalists Papers.
No, this is a common mistake right-wingers who haven't read the
constitution make. Article I, section 8.
Try reading the damn constitution before commenting on it next time.
Winston Smith
<ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
If you send 1$ to Washington, how much is left to do research for instance
at a local .edu? What's left out of a dollar to buy bullets. Not Much.
This is so over discussed you may find numbers almost everywhere, the
reason they are inexact is that the Federal books are CRAP. They were
investigated and found to be ENRONIZED! (try www.lp.org)
How come everyone knows this but you comrade blowhard?
> The ignorant can claim waste when there is none.
You are an idiot. You lefties claimed there was all kinds of waste, the
examination of the 50$ hammer and 500$ toilet seat were examples, but I'm
talking about OVERHEAD in a massive wasteful bureaucracy. Do you like to
argue to warm up the air?
The actual calculations of
> waste are not a 'student exercise' since they involve questions that are not
> easily answered.
It was easy when Reagan was president, right comrade?
>
> On the other hand. "morons like you" is an obvious ad-hominem and
> establishes your lack of interest in serious questions.
>
> But we knew that. Your repetitive and ignorant posts are tiresome.
You mean YOU are tired of hearing the truth?
Ian St. John
> > No support for your positions, I see. Opinions we can get free. And
worth
> > everything we pay for them...
> >
> If you send 1$ to Washington, how much is left to do research for instance
> at a local .edu? What's left out of a dollar to buy bullets. Not Much.
> This is so over discussed you may find numbers almost everywhere, the
> reason they are inexact is that the Federal books are CRAP. They were
> investigated and found to be ENRONIZED! (try www.lp.org)
>
> How come everyone knows this but you comrade blowhard?
Not everyone takes what the libertarian party says as gospel. That seems to
be your job.
As for the rest, the question is whether the job is being done, not if it is
being paid for, and whether it could be done cheaper by private industry.
Guess what? I can't find any instance of private industry doing things
cheaper. They tend to be interested in the profit beyond the mere job, so
they tend to increase costs. The old conservative 'theory' of competition
leading to more efficiency fails because both the industry and the
government *have the same tools to use*, and the jobs done generally have
*no competitive edge* which might develop more efficient methods.
>
>
> > The ignorant can claim waste when there is none.
>
> You are an idiot. You lefties claimed there was all kinds of waste, the
> examination of the 50$ hammer and 500$ toilet seat were examples, but I'm
> talking about OVERHEAD in a massive wasteful bureaucracy. Do you like to
> argue to warm up the air?
And you have not shown a wasteful bureaucracy. To do so, you would have to
compare the job being done by government with a similar or the same job done
by a private company for similar wages.
> The actual calculations of
> > waste are not a 'student exercise' since they involve questions that are
not
> > easily answered.
>
> It was easy when Reagan was president, right comrade?
I wouldn't know.
> > On the other hand. "morons like you" is an obvious ad-hominem and
> > establishes your lack of interest in serious questions.
> >
> > But we knew that. Your repetitive and ignorant posts are tiresome.
>
> You mean YOU are tired of hearing the truth?
I never tire of hearing the truth. I just don't get to do so unless I post
it myself....
Your factually and rationally deficient posts do nothing to change this.
Winston Smith
<ist...@spamcop.net> kangassized:
> "Winston Smith" <wsm...@minitrue.oceana.gov> wrote in message
> news:51EEA0E4F2CDC6B5.F46F7FEF...@lp.airnews.net...
> > In article <3d6e2538$1...@audacity.velocet.net>, "Ian St. John"
> > <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> <snip>
> > > No support for your positions, I see. Opinions we can get free. And
> worth
> > > everything we pay for them...
> > >
> > If you send 1$ to Washington, how much is left to do research for instance
> > at a local .edu? What's left out of a dollar to buy bullets. Not Much.
> > This is so over discussed you may find numbers almost everywhere, the
> > reason they are inexact is that the Federal books are CRAP. They were
> > investigated and found to be ENRONIZED! (try www.lp.org)
> >
> > How come everyone knows this but you comrade blowhard?
>
> Not everyone takes what the libertarian party says as gospel. That seems to
> be your job.
Wrong:
--
"When you have an efficient government, you have a dictatorship."
----Harry Truman
>
> As for the rest, the question is whether the job is being done, not if it is
> being paid for, and whether it could be done cheaper by private industry.
> Guess what? I can't find any instance of private industry doing things
> cheaper.
Really, you looked real hard?
Why is it that the Government contracts out most things if they could do
them cheaper? Why is it that nationalized companies (in foreign
governments) are being returned to private ownership? Because business is
more efficient than government.
They tend to be interested in the profit beyond the mere job, so
> they tend to increase costs. The old conservative 'theory' of competition
> leading to more efficiency fails because both the industry and the
> government *have the same tools to use*, and the jobs done generally have
> *no competitive edge* which might develop more efficient methods.
>
What? This is socialist drivel. The government doesn't have to compete
with anyone. They have a monopoly and the guns.
> >
> >
> > > The ignorant can claim waste when there is none.
> >
> > You are an idiot. You lefties claimed there was all kinds of waste, the
> > examination of the 50$ hammer and 500$ toilet seat were examples, but I'm
> > talking about OVERHEAD in a massive wasteful bureaucracy. Do you like to
> > argue to warm up the air?
>
> And you have not shown a wasteful bureaucracy.
Bwhaha, because EVERY bureaucracy is wasteful, isn't that the definition
of a bureaucracy? Where have you been???
The government is the largest employer and they produce nothing. Their
major function is the military. They don't produce anything other than
mounds of paper and redistribute money in an inefficient manner.
--
"Government does not produce revenue. It consumes it."
--Ronald Reagan
To do so, you would have to
> compare the job being done by government with a similar or the same job done
> by a private company for similar wages.
The main function of government is to provide military protection, which
they do a good job at, but it is also wasteful.
The government is really good at two things, killing people and wasting
money, or is it killing money and wasting people?
>
> > The actual calculations of
> > > waste are not a 'student exercise' since they involve questions that are
> not
> > > easily answered.
> >
> > It was easy when Reagan was president, right comrade?
>
> I wouldn't know.
>
> > > On the other hand. "morons like you" is an obvious ad-hominem and
> > > establishes your lack of interest in serious questions.
> > >
> > > But we knew that. Your repetitive and ignorant posts are tiresome.
> >
> > You mean YOU are tired of hearing the truth?
>
> I never tire of hearing the truth. I just don't get to do so unless I post
> it myself....
Doubleplusungood arrogant pretentious conceited fat-head , but then I
said that, didn't I?
>
> Your factually and rationally deficient posts do nothing to change this.
Rather, its your socialist blindness.
--
"The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a
few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving,
regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
---Ronald Reagan Address, 15 Aug. 1986, to the White House
Conference on Small Business.
Republican@never.again Embarrassed Republican
they can Commission a Privateer to go after OBL....
It is in our Constitution and would save us Billions of Dollars.
Part of it looks like it is in the 2d Ammendment and do not know where else
it is located.
But we have a lot of crazies practicing for just a cause in the NW.
Could try there....the CIA would be too Obvious
I believe Captain Kid was a Privateer for the US and before that England.
I believe Gen Chennault and Fei Hu would fall qualify as being a Privateer.
-ER-
Lloyd Parker
"Embarrassed Republican" <Embarrased Repub...@Never.Again> wrote:
>If President bush or Congress wants to REALLY go after OBL or Saddam
or SA,
>they can Commission a Privateer to go after OBL....
>
>It is in our Constitution and would save us Billions of Dollars.
>Part of it looks like it is in the 2d Ammendment and do not know
where else
>it is located.
Nope; it's in Article I, Section 8, where Congress can issue letters
of marque and reprisal.
But what private entity could come up with planes, ships, etc., to
take on a nation-state's army? Bill Gates?
Other Tom
>>or SA, they can Commission a Privateer to go after OBL....
>>
>>It is in our Constitution and would save us Billions of Dollars.
>>Part of it looks like it is in the 2d Ammendment and do not know where
else
>>it is located.
>
> Nope; it's in Article I, Section 8, where Congress can issue letters
> of marque and reprisal.
Sounds like an old _National Lampoon_ issue, National Revenge Issue(?)...
cover had cartoon of an 'Saudi Arab' getting punched in the face by a big
fist with "USMC" tattooed on it...
Inside, there was a photo of a U.S. nuclear attack sub setting sail with
the crew dressed in whites standing at attention... flying from the mask is
the Jolly Roger and the crew singing "Yo ho ho and three dollars a barrel
for crude".
Other Tom;
PS
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the
black flag, and begin slitting throats." --- H. L. Mencken
Ian St. John
> In article <3d6e...@audacity.velocet.net>, comrade "Ian St. John"
> <ist...@spamcop.net> kangassized:
>
> > "Winston Smith" <wsm...@minitrue.oceana.gov> wrote in message
> >
news:51EEA0E4F2CDC6B5.F46F7FEF...@lp.airnews.net...
> > > In article <3d6e2538$1...@audacity.velocet.net>, "Ian St. John"
> > > <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > No support for your positions, I see. Opinions we can get free. And
> > worth
> > > > everything we pay for them...
> > > >
> > > If you send 1$ to Washington, how much is left to do research for
instance
> > > at a local .edu? What's left out of a dollar to buy bullets. Not Much.
> > > This is so over discussed you may find numbers almost everywhere, the
> > > reason they are inexact is that the Federal books are CRAP. They were
> > > investigated and found to be ENRONIZED! (try www.lp.org)
> > >
> > > How come everyone knows this but you comrade blowhard?
> >
> > Not everyone takes what the libertarian party says as gospel. That seems
to
> > be your job.
>
> Wrong:
>
> --
> "When you have an efficient government, you have a dictatorship."
> ----Harry Truman
Oh,,, gee You came up with a quote. How exciting. Now I guess we can all
give up on politics and leave it to you...
Or. Just a minute. Libertarians want efficient government..... Hmm..Who did
you have in mind for supreme leader?
> > As for the rest, the question is whether the job is being done, not if
it is
> > being paid for, and whether it could be done cheaper by private
industry.
> > Guess what? I can't find any instance of private industry doing things
> > cheaper.
>
> Really, you looked real hard?
For decades. Last example we had was the electricity deregulation of
California. They will be paying for that for generations in higher bills.
Only the large cities that maintained their own local generators were immune
and actually benefitted by selling excess capacity to the rest of the state
when the companies put the squeeze on.
>
> Why is it that the Government contracts out most things if they could do
> them cheaper?
Developing a department of <whatever> makes no sense if the need is
occasional and can be performed by industry.
> Why is it that nationalized companies (in foreign
> governments) are being returned to private ownership?
Under pressure from capitalists in other countreis that will not lend money
for maintenance and upgrading if they cannot make big ( and private)
profits.
> Because business is more efficient than government.
Not shown, and no evidence for it that I know of.
> > They tend to be interested in the profit beyond the mere job, so
> > they tend to increase costs. The old conservative 'theory' of
competition
> > leading to more efficiency fails because both the industry and the
> > government *have the same tools to use*, and the jobs done generally
have
> > *no competitive edge* which might develop more efficient methods.
> >
>
> What? This is socialist drivel. The government doesn't have to compete
> with anyone. They have a monopoly and the guns.
And USE THE SAME TOOLS. Are you stupid or just dumb? For the governmetn to
build a power generator, you buy the latest development from GE. If a
private developer wants to build a power generator, guess what? He also buys
the latest developmnet from GE. The efficiency of the generator does not
change with governmetn or private ownership. It is pretty much set by the
'state of the industry'.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > The ignorant can claim waste when there is none.
> > >
> > > You are an idiot. You lefties claimed there was all kinds of waste,
the
> > > examination of the 50$ hammer and 500$ toilet seat were examples, but
I'm
> > > talking about OVERHEAD in a massive wasteful bureaucracy. Do you like
to
> > > argue to warm up the air?
> >
> > And you have not shown a wasteful bureaucracy.
>
> Bwhaha, because EVERY bureaucracy is wasteful, isn't that the definition
> of a bureaucracy? Where have you been???
So, you substantiate your claim that every bureaucracy is wasteful because
'everyone know that'?? Rather, everyone you know has bought into that
republican plank whether it is factual or not.
>
> The government is the largest employer and they produce nothing.
Oh? Funny. I feel a signiificant sense of security knownign that the
government labs are analysing my foods to esnure a safe supply. Every time I
hear of a company adding red lead to paprika, or diluting their 'virgin'
olive oil with second run leavings , I thank the government for doing a good
job. The governmetn is effectively the 'brain' of the economy, and a brain
is a terrible thing to waste. Yours for instance.
> Their major function is the military.
That is actually not true. The enlarged military left after WWII is not
contemplated in the constition. In fact, they would have been apalled at
the miltary/industrial complex and their $50 hammers... Oh, but you consider
these private companies to be part of government? After all, you used the
example in you rant..
> They don't produce anything other than
> mounds of paper and redistribute money in an inefficient manner.
Well, then. Let us get rid of governmetn entirely then. They do nothing
according to you. How would this work? Hmm. I keep coming up with services
they provide that I cannot provide for myself like testing of teh water
supply. They tried a private industry solution to that in.. Walkerton, I
believe. Guess what? People died.... All to save a few bucks by hiring
incompetents and ignore the government testing regulations.
> --
> "Government does not produce revenue. It consumes it."
> --Ronald Reagan
Our brains provide no muscle power either, yet the brain is crucial to a
human being. To have only an economy( muscle ) and no brain is a scary
situation... Of course, the brain utilizes some of the energy, but his is a
price we pay for not being FUCKING IDIOTS like Mr. Reagan.
> > To do so, you would have to compare the job being done by
> > government with a similar or the same job done
> > by a private company for similar wages.
>
> The main function of government is to provide military protection, which
> they do a good job at, but it is also wasteful.
Incorrect. You cannot convert government into a waste by 'redefining' their
purpose. What a loony...
> The government is really good at two things, killing people and wasting
> money, or is it killing money and wasting people?
A mind is a terrible thing to waste, but obviously yours is beyond help.
<snip>
> >
> > > > On the other hand. "morons like you" is an obvious ad-hominem and
> > > > establishes your lack of interest in serious questions.
> > > >
> > > > But we knew that. Your repetitive and ignorant posts are tiresome.
> > >
> > > You mean YOU are tired of hearing the truth?
> >
> > I never tire of hearing the truth. I just don't get to do so unless I
post
> > it myself....
>
> Doubleplusungood arrogant pretentious conceited fat-head , but then I
> said that, didn't I?
In mind chilling detail, showing not the slightest hint of higher brain
function.
Must be too much TV.
> > Your factually and rationally deficient posts do nothing to change this.
>
>
> Rather, its your socialist blindness.
I am not a socialist. I have always stated that communism requires too much
altruism to ever be an efficient system. You need to harness individual
effort and reward proportionally. Only in systems ( such as on a lifeboat,
in a subsistence economy, or during a war ) where fair distribution is the
primary need do command economies come into their own.
> --
> "The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a
> few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving,
> regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
> ---Ronald Reagan Address, 15 Aug. 1986, to the White House
> Conference on Small Business.
I'm guessing but I have this weird feeling that Ronald Reagan was your
hero... You must have grown up watching old VCR tapes of his presidency.
"Taxes and Government Spending:
In his campaign for governor, Reagan spoke against higher taxes and urged
that state spending be trimmed. Yet during his eight years in office, the
state budget increased from $4.6 billion to $10.2 billion. "
"The administration's economic policies had mixed results. Unemployment rose
to a level of 10.6% by the end of 1982 but declined to around 5.5% late in
1988. Inflation, which had peaked at 13.5% during the Carter years,
gradually fell to about 4%-6%. Massive federal deficits piled up, however--a
reflection of tax cutting, greater defense spending, and other economic
factors."
"He was, it was said, Teflon-coated. Nothing stuck to him: not revelations
of wrongdoing by aides, not occasional failures in foreign policy, not
evidence that astrology may have influenced some of his decisions.
Approaching his 78th birthday as his presidency drew to a close, Reagan was
seen by many as the personification of Uncle Sam or as the grandfather of
the nation. A scholar had called the presidency an "awesome burden," but
Reagan neared the end of his second term as a remarkably untroubled man."
Reminds me of the old adage:"if you are calm and untroubled while all about
you people are screaming and shouting, you may just be too stupid to know
what is going on.."
Not a good record over all. He too an economic recovery and stifled it while
spending the U.S. into a legacy of massive debt. But rest assured, he
didn't care..
Winston Smith
<ist...@spamcop.net> kangassized:
Libertarians want little tiny government, moron.
> > > As for the rest, the question is whether the job is being done, not if
> it is
> > > being paid for, and whether it could be done cheaper by private
> industry.
> > > Guess what? I can't find any instance of private industry doing things
> > > cheaper.
> >
> > Really, you looked real hard?
>
> For decades. Last example we had was the electricity deregulation of
> California. They will be paying for that for generations in higher bills.
> Only the large cities that maintained their own local generators were immune
> and actually benefitted by selling excess capacity to the rest of the state
> when the companies put the squeeze on.
>
Blame the greens and Red Davis for CAs energy problems.
> >
> > Why is it that the Government contracts out most things if they could do
> > them cheaper?
>
> Developing a department of <whatever> makes no sense if the need is
> occasional and can be performed by industry.
>
> > Why is it that nationalized companies (in foreign
> > governments) are being returned to private ownership?
>
> Under pressure from capitalists in other countreis that will not lend money
> for maintenance and upgrading if they cannot make big ( and private)
> profits.
>
> > Because business is more efficient than government.
>
> Not shown, and no evidence for it that I know of.
>
Government has a monopoly, they need no efficiency moron. How come
everyone reading knows this but you?
> > > They tend to be interested in the profit beyond the mere job, so
> > > they tend to increase costs. The old conservative 'theory' of
> competition
> > > leading to more efficiency fails because both the industry and the
> > > government *have the same tools to use*, and the jobs done generally
> have
> > > *no competitive edge* which might develop more efficient methods.
> > >
> >
> > What? This is socialist drivel. The government doesn't have to compete
> > with anyone. They have a monopoly and the guns.
>
> And USE THE SAME TOOLS. Are you stupid or just dumb? For the governmetn to
> build a power generator, you buy the latest development from GE. If a
> private developer wants to build a power generator, guess what? He also buys
> the latest developmnet from GE. The efficiency of the generator does not
> change with governmetn or private ownership. It is pretty much set by the
> 'state of the industry'.
If the government made generators we would freeze in the dark.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The ignorant can claim waste when there is none.
> > > >
> > > > You are an idiot. You lefties claimed there was all kinds of waste,
> the
> > > > examination of the 50$ hammer and 500$ toilet seat were examples, but
> I'm
> > > > talking about OVERHEAD in a massive wasteful bureaucracy. Do you like
> to
> > > > argue to warm up the air?
> > >
> > > And you have not shown a wasteful bureaucracy.
> >
> > Bwhaha, because EVERY bureaucracy is wasteful, isn't that the definition
> > of a bureaucracy? Where have you been???
>
> So, you substantiate your claim that every bureaucracy is wasteful because
> 'everyone know that'?? Rather, everyone you know has bought into that
> republican plank whether it is factual or not.
>
Look it up in the dictionaty, it is synonomus with red tape and proliferation.
> >
> > The government is the largest employer and they produce nothing.
>
> Oh? Funny. I feel a signiificant sense of security knownign that the
> government labs are analysing my foods to esnure a safe supply. Every time I
How is it when the government was smaller people were not dying without
government inspections?
> hear of a company adding red lead to paprika, or diluting their 'virgin'
> olive oil with second run leavings , I thank the government for doing a good
> job. The governmetn is effectively the 'brain' of the economy, and a brain
> is a terrible thing to waste. Yours for instance.
>
Are you going to support these assertions moron?
> The government is effectively the 'brain' of the economy???
Bwhahaha, in a communist country...
> > Their major function is the military.
>
> That is actually not true. The enlarged military left after WWII is not
> contemplated in the constition. In fact, they would have been apalled at
> the miltary/industrial complex and their $50 hammers... Oh, but you consider
> these private companies to be part of government? After all, you used the
> example in you rant..
Moron, the reason the hammers are 50$ is because the government specifies
and pays for them.
>
> > They (Governments) don't produce anything other than
> > mounds of paper and redistribute money in an inefficient manner.
>
> Well, then. Let us get rid of governmetn entirely then. They do nothing
> according to you. How would this work? Hmm. I keep coming up with services
> they provide that I cannot provide for myself like testing of teh water
> supply. They tried a private industry solution to that in.. Walkerton, I
> believe. Guess what? People died.... All to save a few bucks by hiring
> incompetents and ignore the government testing regulations.
>
Another straw man argument. I didn't say get rid of government, only the
unconstitutional part, which now is around 3/4. Unfortunatrely we have run
up an unonstiturtional debt, or should I say a debt run up on
unconstitutional expendatures.
--
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution
which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of
benevolence, the money of their constituents.
-- James Madison
> > --
> > "Government does not produce revenue. It consumes it."
> > --Ronald Reagan
>
> Our brains provide no muscle power either, yet the brain is crucial to a
> human being. To have only an economy( muscle ) and no brain is a scary
> situation... Of course, the brain utilizes some of the energy, but his is a
> price we pay for not being FUCKING IDIOTS like Mr. Reagan.
>
Bwahahaha, crappy example. If government doesn't produce revenue, but only
consumes it, how can you compare it to businesses? Not only that, they
can print money and leave the books unbalanced and hidden from the public.
Find the idiot in your mirror.
> > > To do so, you would have to compare the job being done by
> > > government with a similar or the same job done
> > > by a private company for similar wages.
> >
> > The main function of government is to provide military protection, which
> > they do a good job at, but it is also wasteful.
>
> Incorrect. You cannot convert government into a waste by 'redefining' their
> purpose. What a loony...
>
Moron, that is their main purpose, which is as wasteful as the rest. You
are wasting CO2 and my time.
> > The government is really good at two things, killing people and wasting
> > money, or is it killing money and wasting people?
>
> A mind is a terrible thing to waste, but obviously yours is beyond help.
>
Ad hominem again.
> <snip>
> > >
> > > > > On the other hand. "morons like you" is an obvious ad-hominem and
> > > > > establishes your lack of interest in serious questions.
> > > > >
> > > > > But we knew that. Your repetitive and ignorant posts are tiresome.
> > > >
> > > > You mean YOU are tired of hearing the truth?
> > >
> > > I never tire of hearing the truth. I just don't get to do so unless I
> post
> > > it myself....
> >
> > Doubleplusungood arrogant pretentious conceited fat-head , but then I
> > said that, didn't I?
>
> In mind chilling detail, showing not the slightest hint of higher brain
> function.
>
> Must be too much TV.
bwhahaha... arrogant pretentious conceited fat-head , but then I said
that, didn't I?
>
> > > Your factually and rationally deficient posts do nothing to change this.
> >
> >
> > Rather, its your socialist blindness.
>
> I am not a socialist. I have always stated that communism requires too much
> altruism to ever be an efficient system. You need to harness individual
> effort and reward proportionally. Only in systems ( such as on a lifeboat,
> in a subsistence economy, or during a war ) where fair distribution is the
> primary need do command economies come into their own.
>
You get some government cheese or something?
>
> > --
> > "The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a
> > few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving,
> > regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
> > ---Ronald Reagan Address, 15 Aug. 1986, to the White House
> > Conference on Small Business.
>
> I'm guessing but I have this weird feeling that Ronald Reagan was your
> hero... You must have grown up watching old VCR tapes of his presidency.
>
Is this your hero:
--
"I left religion at age 12, and conservatism at age 26, to become the
godless pinko commie lying socialist weasel."
-- Steve Kangas
Tim Worstall
> In article <umv5ad7...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Embarrassed Republican" <Embarrased Repub...@Never.Again> wrote:
> >If President bush or Congress wants to REALLY go after OBL or Saddam
> or SA,
> >they can Commission a Privateer to go after OBL....
> >
> >It is in our Constitution and would save us Billions of Dollars.
> >Part of it looks like it is in the 2d Ammendment and do not know
> where else
> >it is located.
>
> Nope; it's in Article I, Section 8, where Congress can issue letters
> of marque and reprisal.
>
> But what private entity could come up with planes, ships, etc., to
> take on a nation-state's army? Bill Gates?
Montanta Freemen ? Aryan Nation ?
Two birds with one stone ?
Tim Worstall
Ian St. John
They want *publicly supported* government out of their way so they can form
their own 'old boys network' as a shadow government.
>
>
>
> > > > As for the rest, the question is whether the job is being done, not
> > > > if it is being paid for, and whether it could be done cheaper by
> > > > private industry. Guess what? I can't find any instance of private
> > > > industry doing things cheaper.
> > >
> > > Really, you looked real hard?
> >
> > For decades. Last example we had was the electricity deregulation of
> > California. They will be paying for that for generations in higher
bills.
> > Only the large cities that maintained their own local generators were
immune
> > and actually benefitted by selling excess capacity to the rest of the
state
> > when the companies put the squeeze on.
> >
> Blame the greens and Red Davis for CAs energy problems.
Nope. Two errors to this response.
1: It does not show private industry as cheaper than government ( in fact
the opposite )
2: Why blame Davis when he neither proposed nor implemented the
deregulation?
http://republican.assembly.ca.gov/members/36/Editorial810.html
"In 1996, the Legislature enacted, and Governor Wilson signed, Assembly Bill
1890 that established a system that regulated the power industry
differently. What has become known as "deregulation" actually restructured
the system in such a way as to regulate the electric industry in a
supposedly more competitive fashion. "
Davis wasn't elected until after the deregulation had been enacted and
changes made. He then made a good 'scapegoat' for the republicans to try to
blame for the problems they created.
> > >
> > > Why is it that the Government contracts out most things if they could
do
> > > them cheaper?
> >
> > Developing a department of <whatever> makes no sense if the need is
> > occasional and can be performed by industry.
> >
> > > Why is it that nationalized companies (in
foreign
> > > governments) are being returned to private ownership?
> >
> > Under pressure from capitalists in other countreis that will not lend
money
> > for maintenance and upgrading if they cannot make big ( and private)
> > profits.
> >
> > > Because business is more efficient than government.
> >
> > Not shown, and no evidence for it that I know of.
> >
>
> Government has a monopoly, they need no efficiency moron. How come
> everyone reading knows this but you?
You haven't shown that everyone else knows this or even believes this
either.
You certainly haven't shown it to be true.
> > > > They tend to be interested in the profit beyond the mere job, so
> > > > they tend to increase costs. The old conservative 'theory' of
> > competition
> > > > leading to more efficiency fails because both the industry and the
> > > > government *have the same tools to use*, and the jobs done generally
> > have
> > > > *no competitive edge* which might develop more efficient methods.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What? This is socialist drivel. The government doesn't have to compete
> > > with anyone. They have a monopoly and the guns.
> >
> > And USE THE SAME TOOLS. Are you stupid or just dumb? For the governmetn
to
> > build a power generator, you buy the latest development from GE. If a
> > private developer wants to build a power generator, guess what? He also
buys
> > the latest developmnet from GE. The efficiency of the generator does not
> > change with governmetn or private ownership. It is pretty much set by
the
> > 'state of the industry'.
>
> If the government made generators we would freeze in the dark.
You again make a statement that you do not back up and show no evidence for.
You seem to be composed of 100% sense free hot air.
> > > > > > The ignorant can claim waste when there is none.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are an idiot. You lefties claimed there was all kinds of
> > > > > waste, the examination of the 50$ hammer and 500$ toilet
> > > > > seat were examples, but I'm talking about OVERHEAD in
> > > > > a massive wasteful bureaucracy. Do you like to argue to
> > > > > warm up the air?
> > > >
> > > > And you have not shown a wasteful bureaucracy.
> > >
> > > Bwhaha, because EVERY bureaucracy is wasteful, isn't that the
definition
> > > of a bureaucracy? Where have you been???
> >
> > So, you substantiate your claim that every bureaucracy is wasteful
because
> > 'everyone know that'?? Rather, everyone you know has bought into that
> > republican plank whether it is factual or not.
> >
> Look it up in the dictionaty, it is synonomus with red tape and
proliferation.
Red tape is one of the *possible* definitions, but to use it in this context
you must first prove that the burearcracy in question is one in which these
problems occur. It is not 'synonymous' which would imply that there is only
one context ( there are three or four ) and that by definition, bureacracy
must be "officialism, red tape, and proliferation " in which case a
bureaucracy which is not marked by these factors would have to be given a
new word to distinguish it.
Main Entry: bu·reau·cra·cy
Pronunciation: byu-'rä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: French bureaucratie, from bureau + -cratie -cracy
Date: 1818
1 a : a body of nonelective government officials b : an administrative
policy-making group
2 : government characterized by specialization of functions, adherence to
fixed rules, and a hierarchy of authority
3 : a system of administration marked by officialism, red tape, and
proliferation
That a bureaucracy *can* be "marked by officialism, red tape, and
proliferation" is undoubtably true. It is hardly shown as a synonym for
waste. It is more correctly defined as " a body of nonelective government
officials". Nor does the definition talk about waste. Red tape is not waste,
merely delay and irritation. Proliferation is not waste. Merely a tendency
to grow, which must be contained.
P.S. you meant 'dictionary' and 'synonymous'. Perhaps you need to open a few
dictionaries yourself...
> > > The government is the largest employer and they produce nothing.
> >
> > Oh? Funny. I feel a signiificant sense of security knownign that the
> > government labs are analysing my foods to esnure a safe supply. Every
time I
>
> How is it when the government was smaller people were not dying without
> government inspections?
How is it that when government was smaller nobody knew or cared. The date of
birth and death were all that might be carved into the cross. Why was just
'fate'. Elixirs of Arsenic, Cocaine, etc could be sold as medicine with
nobody the wiser.
> > hear of a company adding red lead to paprika, or diluting their 'virgin'
> > olive oil with second run leavings , I thank the government for doing a
good
> > job. The governmetn is effectively the 'brain' of the economy, and a
brain
> > is a terrible thing to waste. Yours for instance.
> >
> Are you going to support these assertions moron?
Well, I remember the news stories, about barring imports of paprika from
Hungary due to local contamination with 'minium' a compound including red
lead which restored a bright color to the paprika.
http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/NPP/00-155.pdf
"The recent increased need for natural spices and colourants expanded the
demand for high quality condiment paprika worldwide. Hungary has produced
the high quality condiment paprika required in the past, however, exports
have declined significantly over the last 10 years. This is the result of
contamination caused by air pollution and bad publicity because of some
Hungarian companies were selling adulterated paprika."
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~rpsmith/Heavy_Metals.html
"Hungarians are the world's leading producers, consumers and exporters of
paprika. Government licensed mills in southern Hungary produce products that
are regularly tested. In 1994, government officials discovered some paprika
marketed locally was adulterated with lead oxide, a red to red-yellow
pigment. At least fifty people were hospitalized with intestinal cramps,
paralysis and other signs of lead poisoning. Unscrupulous private
manufacturers had added the lead pigment to heighten the color of the
paprika, which is an indication of its freshness. There may be hazards to
the unrestrained consumption of goulash, but presumably lead poisoning is no
longer one of them."
http://www.carleton.ca/Capital_News/12031999/f2.htm
"Thanks to Bacler, the federal government has charged 10 olive oil importers
in Ontario since 1997 for selling misleading products. Six have pleaded
guilty.
"There's profit to be made" from fraud, says Bacler. Olive oil is expensive
and can be easily "adulterated" by diluting it with cheaper oils."
As to the claim that government forms the 'brain', this seems to be a
consequence of the fact that the "higher functions" are there. That is the
ability to learn, sense, feel, etc. The individual and business interests do
not even know what their competitiors are doing, while government oversees
the whole economy and makes decisions.
>
> > The government is effectively the 'brain' of the economy???
>
> Bwhahaha, in a communist country...
In any country. A dictatorship even, though that is a case of a pretty
stupid brain. One mind ( the dictators ) cannot compete with many
(legistature or representatives ). Your only 'argument' seems to be to
associate anything you do not want to agree with to either communism or
socialism. This is, of course, not applicable to the analogy of the country
as having a brain( government ) and a body ( the economy). All countries
have the same basic shape of leadership vs the population.
> > > Their major function is the military.
> >
> > That is actually not true. The enlarged military left after WWII is not
> > contemplated in the constition. In fact, they would have been apalled
at
> > the miltary/industrial complex and their $50 hammers... Oh, but you
consider
> > these private companies to be part of government? After all, you used
the
> > example in you rant..
>
> Moron, the reason the hammers are 50$ is because the government specifies
> and pays for them.
No. The reasons is that the companies billed the government for $50 for a
hammer. This was either 'caught' as an overcharge, or allowed as a
legitimate price by govenment auditors. In the case of aerospace, it may
indeed be a $50 hammer, depending on the purpose and the need for research.
Taking a hardware store hammer to the space station would be stupid beyond
belief. The steel of the striking face would shatter at the temperatures of
space and would waste the $10,000/lb to lift it to orbit as well as leaving
the astronauts with no hammer in need. The question becomes what is the
proper allow for a hammer in space and the exotic materials needed may not
be cheap.
On many aerospace items saving a pound of weight saves $10,000 in liftoff
costs, so it makes sense to spend a fair bit of money on making the lightest
and more reliable device possible. Wrenches worth millions are possible and
indeed cost effective. I'm glad we have government to make these evaluations
of value rather than a total asshole like you.
> > > They (Governments) don't produce anything other than
> > > mounds of paper and redistribute money in an inefficient manner.
> >
> > Well, then. Let us get rid of governmetn entirely then. They do nothing
> > according to you. How would this work? Hmm. I keep coming up with
services
> > they provide that I cannot provide for myself like testing of teh water
> > supply. They tried a private industry solution to that in.. Walkerton, I
> > believe. Guess what? People died.... All to save a few bucks by hiring
> > incompetents and ignore the government testing regulations.
> >
> Another straw man argument. I didn't say get rid of government, only the
> unconstitutional part, which now is around 3/4. Unfortunatrely we have run
> up an unonstiturtional debt, or should I say a debt run up on
> unconstitutional expendatures.
1: It is not a strawman argument.
2: Identify the components that you say are unconstitutional and prove it.
3: Take the government to court over it, if it is provable.
4: Ah, yes. The government debt, which balooned under your hero Ronnie
Raygun...
>
> --
> I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution
> which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of
> benevolence, the money of their constituents.
> -- James Madison
One can hardly require government to 'promote the general welfare' or to
defend the country without incurring expenses. The details of these are
fully constitutional as they are the result of the amendments and bills of
the constitutionally defined and legally elected representatives.
>
> > > --
> > > "Government does not produce revenue. It consumes it."
> > > --Ronald Reagan
And Ronnie Raygun consumed a LOT of it. Leaving a hugely increased national
debt. Well, nobody can say he didn't practice what he preached.....
> >
> > Our brains provide no muscle power either, yet the brain is crucial to a
> > human being. To have only an economy( muscle ) and no brain is a scary
> > situation... Of course, the brain utilizes some of the energy, but his
is a
> > price we pay for not being FUCKING IDIOTS like Mr. Reagan.
> >
>
> Bwahahaha, crappy example. If government doesn't produce revenue, but only
> consumes it, how can you compare it to businesses? Not only that, they
> can print money and leave the books unbalanced and hidden from the public.
> Find the idiot in your mirror.
You aren't in my mirror, idiot.
<analogy to your argument>
The brain produces no muscle power. It 'only' consumes energy. How can you
compare it to muscle.
</analogy>
Sounds kinda stupid doesn't it? We have a brain because it is necessary to
have a control system, not just raw power. Nor is economic activity
necessarily all good. Robber barons are certainly an example of 'economic
actiivity', and is slavery, war, etc. An effective brain makes for more
effective use of the muscles and an effective governmetn makes for a more
effective economic actiivity measured in terms of the benefit of economic
activity to the population.
> > > > To do so, you would have to compare the job being done by
> > > > government with a similar or the same job done
> > > > by a private company for similar wages.
> > >
> > > The main function of government is to provide military protection,
which
> > > they do a good job at, but it is also wasteful.
> >
> > Incorrect. You cannot convert government into a waste by 'redefining'
their
> > purpose. What a loony...
> >
> Moron, that is their main purpose, which is as wasteful as the rest. You
> are wasting CO2 and my time.
Again, you cannot convert government into a waste by 'redefining' their
purpose. What a loony...
>
> > > The government is really good at two things, killing people and
wasting
> > > money, or is it killing money and wasting people?
> >
> > A mind is a terrible thing to waste, but obviously yours is beyond help.
> >
> Ad hominem again.
Rather I find your statement not worth trying to argue as it is stupid on
the face of it, which leads me to my conclusiion, which is therefore not an
ad-hominem. I said nothing about the argument you made and therefore it does
not consitute a rebuttal of the arguments by an attack on the man (
ad-hominem ) . In fact you *make* no arugment but only an unsupported and
ludicrous statement.
> > <snip>
<snip>
> > > Doubleplusungood arrogant pretentious conceited fat-head , but then
I
> > > said that, didn't I?
> >
> > In mind chilling detail, showing not the slightest hint of higher brain
> > function.
> >
> > Must be too much TV.
>
> bwhahaha... arrogant pretentious conceited fat-head , but then I said
> that, didn't I?
Repeating yourself? Again? I suggest a visit to a doctor..
> > > > Your factually and rationally deficient posts do nothing to change
this.
> > >
> > >
> > > Rather, its your socialist blindness.
> >
> > I am not a socialist. I have always stated that communism requires too
much
> > altruism to ever be an efficient system. You need to harness individual
> > effort and reward proportionally. Only in systems ( such as on a
lifeboat,
> > in a subsistence economy, or during a war ) where fair distribution is
the
> > primary need do command economies come into their own.
> >
>
> You get some government cheese or something?
No. I am an independent consultant, when I'm not working fulltime in either
engineering or science.
> > > "The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a
> > > few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving,
> > > regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
> > > ---Ronald Reagan Address, 15 Aug. 1986, to the White House
> > > Conference on Small Business.
> >
> > I'm guessing but I have this weird feeling that Ronald Reagan was your
> > hero... You must have grown up watching old VCR tapes of his presidency.
> >
> Is this your hero:
>
> --
> "I left religion at age 12, and conservatism at age 26, to become the
> godless pinko commie lying socialist weasel."
> -- Steve Kangas
I was never aware of Steve Kangas's posting so I would say no.
Did you kill him:
Winston Smith
<ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
What the heck are you talking about comrade? Are you wasting CO2 again?
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > As for the rest, the question is whether the job is being done, not
> > > > > if it is being paid for, and whether it could be done cheaper by
> > > > > private industry. Guess what? I can't find any instance of private
> > > > > industry doing things cheaper.
> > > >
> > > > Really, you looked real hard?
> > >
> > > For decades. Last example we had was the electricity deregulation of
> > > California. They will be paying for that for generations in higher
> bills.
> > > Only the large cities that maintained their own local generators were
> immune
> > > and actually benefitted by selling excess capacity to the rest of the
> state
> > > when the companies put the squeeze on.
> > >
> > Blame the greens and Red Davis for CAs energy problems.
>
> Nope. Two errors to this response.
>
> 1: It does not show private industry as cheaper than government ( in fact
> the opposite )
>
> 2: Why blame Davis when he neither proposed nor implemented the
> deregulation?
I said blame the greens and Davis... why can't you read. Davis panicked
and wasted taxpayers money on expensive contracts. You are trying to
rewrite history again comrade.
Perhaps someone should pipe up. They are probably sick of you throwing a
temper tantrum ands erasing my posts.
> You certainly haven't shown it to be true.
>
> > > > > They tend to be interested in the profit beyond the mere job, so
> > > > > they tend to increase costs. The old conservative 'theory' of
> > > competition
> > > > > leading to more efficiency fails because both the industry and the
> > > > > government *have the same tools to use*, and the jobs done generally
> > > have
> > > > > *no competitive edge* which might develop more efficient methods.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > What? This is socialist drivel. The government doesn't have to compete
> > > > with anyone. They have a monopoly and the guns.
> > >
> > > And USE THE SAME TOOLS. Are you stupid or just dumb? For the governmetn
> to
> > > build a power generator, you buy the latest development from GE. If a
> > > private developer wants to build a power generator, guess what? He also
> buys
> > > the latest developmnet from GE. The efficiency of the generator does not
> > > change with governmetn or private ownership. It is pretty much set by
> the
> > > 'state of the industry'.
> >
> > If the government made generators we would freeze in the dark.
>
> You again make a statement that you do not back up and show no evidence for.
>
Government is inefficient, government making anything wastes money. QED
> You seem to be composed of 100% sense free hot air.
>
> > > > > > > The ignorant can claim waste when there is none.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are an idiot. You lefties claimed there was all kinds of
> > > > > > waste, the examination of the 50$ hammer and 500$ toilet
> > > > > > seat were examples, but I'm talking about OVERHEAD in
> > > > > > a massive wasteful bureaucracy. Do you like to argue to
> > > > > > warm up the air?
> > > > >
> > > > > And you have not shown a wasteful bureaucracy.
> > > >
> > > > Bwhaha, because EVERY bureaucracy is wasteful, isn't that the
> definition
> > > > of a bureaucracy? Where have you been???
> > >
> > > So, you substantiate your claim that every bureaucracy is wasteful
> because
> > > 'everyone know that'?? Rather, everyone you know has bought into that
> > > republican plank whether it is factual or not.
> > >
> > Look it up in the dictionaty, it is synonomus with red tape and
> proliferation.
>
> Red tape is one of the *possible* definitions, but to use it in this context
> you must first prove that the burearcracy in question is one in which these
> problems occur. It is not 'synonymous' which would imply that there is only
> one context ( there are three or four ) and that by definition, bureacracy
> must be "officialism, red tape, and proliferation " in which case a
> bureaucracy which is not marked by these factors would have to be given a
> new word to distinguish it.
>
Where does it say they are efficient comrade? You are tiresome, a liar,
and wrong.
Ian St. John
> In article <3d71...@audacity.velocet.net>, "Ian St. John"
> <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > "Winston Smith" <wsm...@minitrue.oceana.gov> wrote in message
> >
news:C261DA007E9CCE74.32E491E4...@lp.airnews.net...
> > > >
> > >
> > > Libertarians want little tiny government, moron.
> >
> > They want *publicly supported* government out of their way so they can
form
> > their own 'old boys network' as a shadow government.
> >
> What the heck are you talking about comrade? Are you wasting CO2 again?
Without a public government promoting the general welfare, the power will
rest with he who has the gold.
Which is pretty well known so you nonsense is just wasting electronic bits.
<snip>
> > > > For decades. Last example we had was the electricity deregulation of
> > > > California. They will be paying for that for generations in higher
> > > > bills. Only the large cities that maintained their own local
generators
> > > > were immune and actually benefitted by selling excess capacity to
the
> > > > rest of the state when the companies put the squeeze on.
> > > >
> > > Blame the greens and Red Davis for CAs energy problems.
> >
> > Nope. Two errors to this response.
> >
> > 1: It does not show private industry as cheaper than government ( in
fact
> > the opposite )
> >
> > 2: Why blame Davis when he neither proposed nor implemented the
> > deregulation?
>
> I said blame the greens and Davis... why can't you read.
I can read. The policy was driven by Republican party 'theory' of the
efficiency of private industry, by a Republican governor.
What an asshole.
> Davis panicked and wasted taxpayers money on expensive contracts.
No. Davis had no TIME to panick as the crisis pretty well hit right after he
was elected and he had no power to change the rules on such notice. The
rules said that the wholesale price was set by the spot market, and passed
on to retail prices. What 'contracts' are you talking about??? The Wilson
rule PREVENTED long term contracts for stability. Davis was just forced to
pay the consequences. He could do nothing with the way that the REPUBLICAN
idiots set it up.
> You are trying to rewrite history again comrade.
I don't need to rewrite it. I just have to know it..
Your ignorance will do the rest..
> > http://republican.assembly.ca.gov/members/36/Editorial810.html
> > "In 1996, the Legislature enacted, and Governor Wilson signed, Assembly
Bill
> > 1890 that established a system that regulated the power industry
> > differently. What has become known as "deregulation" actually
restructured
> > the system in such a way as to regulate the electric industry in a
> > supposedly more competitive fashion. "
> >
> > Davis wasn't elected until after the deregulation had been enacted and
> > changes made. He then made a good 'scapegoat' for the republicans to try
to
> > blame for the problems they created.
What? No response?? Funny that...
<deletia of my point that were not responded to>
> > > Government has a monopoly, they need no efficiency moron. How come
> > > everyone reading knows this but you?
> >
> > You haven't shown that everyone else knows this or even believes this
> > either.
> >
> Perhaps someone should pipe up. They are probably sick of you throwing a
> temper tantrum ands erasing my posts.
In what way does this statement show inefficiency in government????
We already known you are as asshole. No need to demonstrate.
<snip of more points that were not resonded to>
<snip>
> > >
> > > If the government made generators we would freeze in the dark.
> >
> > You again make a statement that you do not back up and show no evidence
for.
> >
>
> Government is inefficient, government making anything wastes money. QED
This doesn even make a circular argument. It is just an ignorant statement
and there is nothing demonstrated. Please look up the definition of QED.
> > You seem to be composed of 100% sense free hot air.
And continue to be....
> >
<Snip>
> > > Look it up in the dictionaty, it is synonomus with red tape and
> > proliferation.
> >
> > Red tape is one of the *possible* definitions, but to use it in this
context
> > you must first prove that the burearcracy in question is one in which
these
> > problems occur. It is not 'synonymous' which would imply that there is
only
> > one context ( there are three or four ) and that by definition,
bureacracy
> > must be "officialism, red tape, and proliferation " in which case a
> > bureaucracy which is not marked by these factors would have to be given
a
> > new word to distinguish it.
> >
> Where does it say they are efficient comrade? You are tiresome, a liar,
> and wrong.
It does not claim that they are efficient. Nor do I. Just that they are *as*
efficient in most cases where the job could be done by private industry, and
in some cases *more* efficient because it is a job without a profit motive
and private industry *won't* bother with it.
The more imporant issue is that government does many jobs that require
public trust, not private profit.
Obviously hasn't happened...
<extensive deletia>
Winston Smith
<ist...@spamcop.net> lies again:
Tell us why CA was shutting down power plants and not building new ones.
>
> What an asshole.
>
> > Davis panicked and wasted taxpayers money on expensive contracts.
>
> No. Davis had no TIME to panick as the crisis pretty well hit right after he
> was elected and he had no power to change the rules on such notice. The
> rules said that the wholesale price was set by the spot market, and passed
> on to retail prices. What 'contracts' are you talking about??? The Wilson
> rule PREVENTED long term contracts for stability. Davis was just forced to
> pay the consequences. He could do nothing with the way that the REPUBLICAN
> idiots set it up.
>
> > You are trying to rewrite history again comrade.
>
> I don't need to rewrite it. I just have to know it..
>
Like Zambia?
You are telling another lie like the Zambia fiasco. What a moron.
> >
> > > Main Entry: bu·reau·cra·cy
> > > Pronunciation: byu-'rä-kr&-sE
> > > Function: noun
> > > Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
> > > Etymology: French bureaucratie, from bureau + -cratie -cracy
> > > Date: 1818
> > > 1 a : a body of nonelective government officials b : an administrative
> > > policy-making group
> > > 2 : government characterized by specialization of functions, adherence
> to
> > > fixed rules, and a hierarchy of authority
> > > 3 : a system of administration marked by officialism, red tape, and
> > > proliferation
> > >
> > > That a bureaucracy *can* be "marked by officialism, red tape, and
> > > proliferation" is undoubtably true. It is hardly shown as a synonym for
> > > waste. It is more correctly defined as " a body of nonelective
> government
> > > officials". Nor does the definition talk about waste. Red tape is not
> waste,
> > > merely delay and irritation. Proliferation is not waste. Merely a
> tendency
> > > to grow, which must be contained.
bwhahaha
> > >
> > > P.S. you meant 'dictionary' and 'synonymous'. Perhaps you need to open a
> few
> > > dictionaries yourself...
You Are telling us red tape isn't synonymous with inefficiency? Bwhahahaha
- If I were you I'd change my pseudonym.
Ian St. John
You mean in the years prior to the Wilson deregulation? That was the
response of industry to low demand and low power growth projections. There
was some hysterical shit about it being 'the greens' again, but I found that
to be full of crap since the moment there was a need, the approvals just
started rolling in. No project's approval was even delayed signficantly by
environmental concerns. I couldn't find a single example.
Note: The problem was not due to inadequate capacity. The state had a
comformtable margin of power production over power expectations wth a 5%
downtime for routine maintenance. The power game started with 15% or more of
capacity being taken offline for 'unexpected service' which just *happened*
to coincide with high demand and low reserves, etc. The question was not of
capacity but of gaming the system to force the spot market into massive
price increases for 'that last little bit'. Nobody in the industry really
believes that over 15% of the generator capacity *really* needed service.
But there was no regulation of this aspect, so ...
There were no rules that forced generator companies to maintain online
capacity so a company could make a killing by stopping a generator for
'service', forcing a high spot price and a bid from the same conglomerates
external energy company,which was then fulfilled the contract by *the same
California generator that was taken offline* being restarted. The
transmission across the Rockies was limited so it made more sense to use the
generator in the state than any external supply. So, capacity wthin the
state that might be paid X dollars per kilowatt if it was online would be
converted to 100X dollars per KW, by the SAME generator making the SAME
electricity, by taking it offline at the right moment to force a price
spike.
Another factor was Natural Gas. This had been deregulated earlier and this
led to problems with supplies for the generator capacity that needed it. You
see, a natural gas pipeline has a fixed capacity. Don't use that capacity
and you fail to move the maximum amount of energy into the state, but this
is exactly what happened. Prior to deregulation, the pipeline was held at
full capacity all the time with the excess being stored in local storage
facilities for when there would be a high demand. With deregulation, this
'foresight' disappeared and the expensive storage facilities were not
utilized, so when peak demands hit, the pipeline could not supply enough
from outside the state and again prices spiked in Natural gas prices. Some
low pollutions generator capacity that could have been run was taken offline
because of these high prices.
Markets can be efficient tools for supply/demand adjustments, but there are
two factors that interfere in this area. First is the fact that electricity
is a inflexible market which forces insane price increases for marginal
requirements. The second is the lack of financial incentives for the
industry to meet demands such as foresighted storage or generator capacity
that is underutilized because it is not part of the revenue producing 'base
load' but is part of the 'peaking load' for high demand crisis.
>
>
> >
> > What an asshole.
> >
> > > Davis panicked and wasted taxpayers money on expensive contracts.
> >
> > No. Davis had no TIME to panick as the crisis pretty well hit right
after he
> > was elected and he had no power to change the rules on such notice. The
> > rules said that the wholesale price was set by the spot market, and
passed
> > on to retail prices. What 'contracts' are you talking about??? The
Wilson
> > rule PREVENTED long term contracts for stability. Davis was just forced
to
> > pay the consequences. He could do nothing with the way that the
REPUBLICAN
> > idiots set it up.
> >
> > > You are trying to rewrite history again comrade.
> >
> > I don't need to rewrite it. I just have to know it..
> >
> Like Zambia?
What are you babbling about now?? We've gone over your idiocies before.
I say again, "What contracts"?
Long term contracts could have stabilized the supply but were contrary to
the republican philosophy of marketing.
<snip>
> > It does not claim that they are efficient. Nor do I. Just that they are
*as*
> > efficient in most cases where the job could be done by private industry,
and
> > in some cases *more* efficient because it is a job without a profit
motive
> > and private industry *won't* bother with it.
> >
> > The more imporant issue is that government does many jobs that require
> > public trust, not private profit.
> >
> You are telling another lie like the Zambia fiasco. What a moron.
Your lies are a fiasco in themselves..
Is that the most intelligent response you can make to being shown to be in
error AGAIN?
> > > > P.S. you meant 'dictionary' and 'synonymous'. Perhaps you need to
open a
> > few
> > > > dictionaries yourself...
>
>
>
> You Are telling us red tape isn't synonymous with inefficiency? Bwhahahaha
> - If I were you I'd change my pseudonym.
No. I am telling your that government is not synonymous with inefficiency.
YOU are the one that insists that government is defined as inefficient,
based on the passing gas for all the facts you can show.
Keep it up. You show yourself to be a completely clueless zero with every
new post. At this rate, you will have the entire libertarian ideology
discredited before long. A feat that I could never hope to accomplish by
mere logic.
Winston Smith
They reported that CA power plants were shut down without replacement.
Shut down because of green eco-politics. What does this have to do with
saving the worls for 68 cents a day? Compare TX power plants being built
to CA between 1990 and 2001 and the number (MWH) being retired. BIG
DIFFERENCE! Then compare the population increase of each state.
> Note: The problem was not due to inadequate capacity.
Tell Californians.
The state had a
> comformtable margin of power production over power expectations wth a 5%
> downtime for routine maintenance. ...
> Markets can be efficient tools for supply/demand adjustments, but there are
> two factors that interfere in this area. First is the fact that electricity
> is a inflexible market which forces insane price increases for marginal
> requirements. The second is the lack of financial incentives for the
> industry to meet demands such as foresighted storage or generator capacity
> that is underutilized because it is not part of the revenue producing 'base
> load' but is part of the 'peaking load' for high demand crisis.
>
bla bla, shortage of power plants cause higher prices, eco-socialist...
xxx
Ian St. John
> In article <3d71...@audacity.velocet.net>, "Ian St. John"
> <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > "Winston Smith" <wsm...@minitrue.oceana.gov> wrote in message
> >
news:95785791271F274E.527620F4...@lp.airnews.net...
> > > > > > 2: Why blame Davis when he neither proposed nor implemented the
> > > > > > deregulation?
> > > > >
> > > > > I said blame the greens and Davis... why can't you read.
> > > >
> > > > I can read. The policy was driven by Republican party 'theory' of
the
> > > > efficiency of private industry, by a Republican governor.
> > >
> > >
> > > Tell us why CA was shutting down power plants and not building new
ones.
> >
> > You mean in the years prior to the Wilson deregulation? That was the
> > response of industry to low demand and low power growth projections.
There
> > was some hysterical shit about it being 'the greens' again, but I found
that
> > to be full of crap since the moment there was a need, the approvals just
> > started rolling in. No project's approval was even delayed signficantly
by
> > environmental concerns. I couldn't find a single example.
> >
>
> They reported that CA power plants were shut down without replacement.
Who reported what???
Plants which were beyond their useful life (~50 years) were generally shut
down without replacement, yes.
AS I SAID, they didn't build new capacity because of low demand. Because of
low demand! They had 20-30% overcapacity. NOTHING to do with 'greens'.
Why would they spend billions to build capacity that would ( by their power
projections) just sit idle, costing them money and delivering no revenues???
> Shut down because of green eco-politics.
Nope. Because of ageing and because they were expensive to run. Most of the
plants built in the '40's and '50s were oil fueled with oil being extremely
cheap. When oil skyrocketed in price with the rise of OPEC, they became
white elephants. Essentially ALL new generators are Natural Gas.
> What does this have to do with saving the worls for 68 cents a day?
Beats me. This is your subject heading, not mine..
> Compare TX power plants being built
> to CA between 1990 and 2001 and the number (MWH) being retired. BIG
> DIFFERENCE! Then compare the population increase of each state.
So? As I said, they stopped building new capacity because of low demand, and
then got hit by a rapid increase in population without the time to build
more. The point is, though, that they HAD adequate capacity even for the
booming population. In order to generate the spot market price spikes *OVER
15%* of the generator capacity had to be shut down by the private
companies!!! This would cause price increases of 10 to 100 times for THE
SAME POWER which they then supplied from the same generators!
> > Note: The problem was not due to inadequate capacity.
>
> Tell Californians.
Why?? Do you think they don't know??? YOU are ignorant, as shown in your
posts. I have no evidence that Califronians have been fooled. It is
dangerous to treat people as complete idiots ready to buy in to whatever
crap you sell. They tend to have more brains that you give them credit for
and to figure it out on their own.
I'll leave further analysis up to the I.E.E.E and other groups which have a
more authoritative voice in this area. Note that not a single 'green' issue
is mentioned? Gee. I wonder why?
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/pubs/spectrum/0601/spea.html
"Until the 1990s, U.S. utilities retained a comfortable capacity margin of
20-30 percent over peak demand; but since restructuring began in 1992 with
passage of the National Energy Policy Act, margins have declined to less
than 15 percent on average. " ( note: 5% is minimal for servicing
downtime )
"Three serious market flaws are also illustrated by the California
experience. First, wholesale power was made too dependent on the spot
market. Utilities had been strongly encouraged by regulatory policy to sell
their fossil-fuel generation facilities, yet discouraged from locking in
stable prices through long-term contracts. Second, the wholesale market
organization was fragmented by a poorly structured separation of the
independent system operator (ISO) from the power exchange (PX). This
separation allowed generators to "game" the market by bidding only a portion
of their capacity ahead of time into the PX, and then reaping exceptionally
high prices when the ISO was forced to buy power in real time to balance
supply and demand. Third, retail prices were frozen, which meant rising
wholesale prices could in no way be moderated by being passed on to
consumers so as to reduce their demand. "
> The state had a
> > comformtable margin of power production over power expectations wth a 5%
> > downtime for routine maintenance. ...
>
> > Markets can be efficient tools for supply/demand adjustments, but
> > there are two factors that interfere in this area. First is the fact
that
> > electricity is a inflexible market which forces insane price increases
> > for marginal requirements. The second is the lack of financial
> > incentives for the industry to meet demands such as foresighted
> > storage or generator capacity that is underutilized because it is not
> > part of the revenue producing 'base load' but is part of the
> > 'peaking load' for high demand crisis.
> >
>
> bla bla, shortage of power plants cause higher prices, eco-socialist...
Bla bla, idiotic republicans, shortage of brains, crypto capitalist mother
fuckers...
Do you have any RATIONAL arguments or facts to present?
Lloyd Parker
"Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>"Winston Smith" <wsm...@minitrue.oceana.gov> wrote in message
energy market to drive prices up.
Lloyd Parker
<2DE55E2503D6549C.A6A1A23D...@lp.airnews.net>,
wsm...@minitrue.oceana.gov (Winston Smith) wrote:
>In article <3d71...@audacity.velocet.net>, "Ian St. John"
><ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> "Winston Smith" <wsm...@minitrue.oceana.gov> wrote in message
>>
news:95785791271F274E.527620F4...@lp.airnews.net
..
John"
>> > <ist...@spamcop.net> lies again:
>> >
>> > > "Winston Smith" <wsm...@minitrue.oceana.gov> wrote in message
>> > >
>>
news:A9107BD3D0D6E56C.6023E4F7...@lp.airnews.net
..
>> > > > <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > "Winston Smith" <wsm...@minitrue.oceana.gov> wrote in
message
>> > > > >
>> > >
>>
Who's "they"?
>Shut down because of green eco-politics.
Your opinion does not constitute a fact.
>What does this have to do with
>saving the worls for 68 cents a day? Compare TX power plants being
built
>to CA between 1990 and 2001 and the number (MWH) being retired. BIG
>DIFFERENCE! Then compare the population increase of each state.
Yes, and compare the governors and their positions on the environment
and helping their corporate friends.
>
>
>
>> Note: The problem was not due to inadequate capacity.
>
>Tell Californians.
Why don't you look at the memos from Enron, Mirant, and others
detailing how they manipulated the CA market to drive up prices?
Winston Smith
<ist...@spamcop.net> covers for CA Red Davis:
Thanks for agreeing with me. No, the plants were not past their "useful
life," they were regulated out of business. The EAST coast is doing the
same thing with perfectly good coal plants so they can buy ENRON gas
plants.
> AS I SAID, they didn't build new capacity because of low demand. Because of
> low demand! They had 20-30% overcapacity. NOTHING to do with 'greens'.
>
Bwhahaha, then let's call them the Cheese and Crescent Crowd comrade.
> Why would they spend billions to build capacity that would ( by their power
> projections) just sit idle, costing them money and delivering no revenues???
Idle? Is this like the weather reports or global warming forecasts?
Bwhahaha. CA is growing, the power infrastructure was not.
[delete hot air]
Ian St. John
Where?? I rarely agree with fools, and you are no exception.
> No, the plants were not past their "useful life," they
> were regulated out of business.
Not. There were very few plants that ceased operation ( current plants
are aging and in the 40 to 50 year range for the most part ). Those
that did, did so because they were beyond help. Nothing to do with
greens and there is nothing you can show to substantiate you idiocies.
> The EAST coast is doing the same thing with
> perfectly good coal plants so they can buy ENRON gas
> plants.
What? Another Enron scandal?
Was the collapse of ENRON a eco-socialist plot too?
Please. I'm trying to make some sense out of your nonsense and having
a hard time. What do you really mean...
> > AS I SAID, they didn't build new capacity because of low demand. Because of
> > low demand! They had 20-30% overcapacity. NOTHING to do with 'greens'.
> >
>
> Bwhahaha, then let's call them the Cheese and Crescent Crowd comrade.
I see that you have nothing to say and so have to revert to your
normal idiocies.
> > Why would they spend billions to build capacity that would ( by their power
> > projections) just sit idle, costing them money and delivering no revenues???
>
> Idle? Is this like the weather reports or global warming forecasts?
> Bwhahaha. CA is growing, the power infrastructure was not.
It was idle for a long time because they had an oversupply of
capacity. WHen CA suddenly started growing fast, they were unprepared,
and had no reason to panick since the STILL had a margin of safety for
the system until ENRON and others started shutting down huge numbers
of generators to make artificial shortages.
It was helped by a lack of Oregon hydro power which had been their
mainstay, due to low snowpack level. So they had a growing
poplulation, their main baseload power was reduced by drought, they
had no Natural Gas stored because of earlier deregulation and they
STILL had almost enough power, if they had kept to a 5 to 10% margin.
The companies had to take ***15 percent*** of the generator capacitiy
offline at the same time to nake the artificial crisis.
God you are an asshole.
Now,they are pushing to build new capacity to replace the retiring oil
fired plants ( since they still don't have cheap hydro back ) but it
takes up to five years to build a plant. The long lead time made it
impossible to 'fix' the problem by building new capacity very fast.
> [delete hot air]
I would, but then nobody would know what I was replying to.
Or are you saying that the reference to the Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers is 'hot air'.
I'll repost it so others may judge..
Ray
> > In article
> > <C0507CDB7B14DB03.951553AF...@lp.airnews.net>,
> > wsm...@minitrue.oceana.gov (Winston Smith) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >If we use your numbers of a 10 trillion dollar US economy, not
> everyone in
> > >America files a tax return and of those some people get money back or
> pay
> > >no tax. So on the low end taxpayers pay ZERO for the unconstitutional
> > >global welfare tax. On the high end its a different story. We have
> heard
> > >that the top 5% pay half the taxes,
> >
> > And control 90% of the wealth.
>
> You are, as usual, being dishonest, Lloyd.
>
> I think Lloyd has demonstrated the retard element of the Democratic Party.
>
> John
Yeah. Send the UN more money so people like Herr Bob Mugabe can
practice his ethnic cleansing on whites and people who oppose his left
wing fascism.
Mugabe destroys the farms then begs for food and money in another
scam. America, UK and EU send money and food.
The Big Weasel
Where do you get the notion that Mugabe is pulling his crap under UN
auspices? This one of those shitbag right "all furriners is bad"
things?
>
>Mugabe destroys the farms then begs for food and money in another
>scam. America, UK and EU send money and food.
"If [congressional] people start treating war plans like they're paper airplanes and they can fly them around this building and throw them to anyone who wants them, I think it's outrageous. It's inexcusable and they ought to be in jail."
-- Donald Rumsfeld, fuming over the notion that Congress can decide whether we go to war with Iraq or not
**************************************
Three reasons to support separation of church and state:
1. It prevents churches from encroaching on the state.
2. It prevents the state from encroaching on the churches.
3. It prevents both from encroaching on the people.
ot dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary, go to http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/zeppol.htm
To subscribe to Zepp's News: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zepps_News/join
For Essays delivered to your mailbox: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/zepps_essays/join
Or, if you don't want to dick with Yahoo, just email me.
To order a CD in PDF format of 125 of Zepp's essays, go to http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/form_to_order_cd.htm
Ian St. John
Actually not. They send contaminated food that they cannot sell
elsewhere and they demand money for it. The financing for the purchase
is thought the World Bank.
Try to get a few facts straight. It is not AID, it is dumping of
contaminated grain onto a third world country.
I don't agree with Mugabes expropriation of farms, but even there, it
is hard to say whether white landowners would have done better in the
face of drought.
Nor are the farms 'destroyed'. THe problem is one of non-farmers
learning how.
Your 'ethnic cleansing' is a bit overboard. The land grab is in line
with the practices of the minority whites during apartheid and
therefore just as BAD. But it hardly constitutes 'ethnic cleansing' so
much as payback.
The problem is not the expropriatin of the farms but that that a fair
price was not paid, and this goes back to the fact that the land was
effectively 'stolen' in the first place.
But you can't fix history, and the driving out of trained and educated
whites is just as BAD as before with a different side doing the
damage. I don't agree with it for this reason.
It is a BAD decision driven partly by the move to democracy forced by
the World Bank which makes the leaders vulnerable to the 'evening of
the scales' by the majority.
TruthAndReason
> Shut down because of green eco-politics. What does this have to do with
> saving the worls for 68 cents a day? Compare TX power plants being built
> to CA between 1990 and 2001 and the number (MWH) being retired. BIG
> DIFFERENCE! Then compare the population increase of each state.
Still trying to find excuses to coverup Enrons corruption Winston?
How Libertarian of you.