OT: Bush Resume (Ouch!) (Not my work)
Harry Krause
MY PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.
Purchased an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas.
Company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that
appropriated land by using tax-payer money.
Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago Cubs.
With father's considerable influence (and his name) was elected
Governor of Texas.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS DURING TERM AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:
Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the
most polluted state in the Union.
Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog-ridden city in
the United States.
Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions
in borrowed money.
Set the record for the most executions by any Governor in U.S.
history.
In 2000 Became President of the US after losing the popular vote
by over 500,000 votes. Was able to accomplish this with the help
of my brother who was Governor of Florida -- a pivotal state with
many voting irregularities that were never accounted for, or
explained
Further assistance for obtaining Presidency came with the help of my
father's appointments of revisionist conservatives to positions in
the Supreme Court of the United States during his earlier term as
President.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
Attacked and occupied two countries.
Spent a large budget surplus created mostly by a previous Democratic
administration, and bankrupted the treasury.
Shattered the record for biggest annual deficit in history of the US
Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12
month period.
Set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the
U.S. stock market.
First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.
First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation
by any president in US history.
After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, was faced
with the worst security failure in US history.
Set the record for more campaign fund-raising trips than any other
president in US history.
In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their
jobs.
I've cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any
president in US history.
Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than
any president in US history.
Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any
other president since the advent of television.
Signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than
any president in US history.
First president to overtly and covertly work against the separation of
church and state by supporting the use federal funding for
religion-operated schools, religion supported anti-choice counseling
clinics, and religion-based Sexual Abstinence presentations in public
schools.
Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to
intervene when corruption was revealed.
Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to
use the national reserves as past presidents have.
Slashed healthcare benefits for war veterans.
Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously
take
to the streets to protest me and my policies (15 million people),
shattering the record for protest against any person in history of
mankind.
(<http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/>)
Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US
history.
My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US
history.
Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US
history. (The 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleeza Rice has a
Chevron>
oil-tanker named after her).
First president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union
simultaneously go bankrupt.
Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market
in
any country in the history of the world.
I am the first president in US history to order a US attack and
military
occupation of a sovereign nation.
Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history
of
the United States.
Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget-spending increases,
More increases than any president in US history.
First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US
from the human rights commission.
First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US
from the elections monitoring board.
I have removed many more judicial checks and balances, and have the
least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential
administration
in US history.
I Refused to recognize Ecological concerns, or attend a World Wide
cological
Forum on Global warming.
I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
I withdrew from the World Court of Law.
Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war, and by
doing
that I no longer abided by the Geneva Conventions.
I am the first president in US history to refuse access to United
Nations
election inspectors (during 2002 US elections) for U.S. elections.
I have undermined the abilities of women in other countries to have
personal
control of their reproductive capabilities -- by witholding foreign
aid
to groups providing birth control choices and family planning
information.
I complicitly and overtly support anti-choice political groups and
fundamentalist Catholic and Protestant Religious groups in order to
eventually remove birth control and other family-planning choices
and options from all females in the US.
I hold the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate
campaign donations received.
My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the
largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay,
former CEO of Enron Corporation).
I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president
in US history.
I was the first president in US history to unilaterally attack a
sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the
world community.
First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and
then
blatantly and shamelessly lied saying that the enemy had obtained the
code to Air Force 1).
First US president to establish a secret shadow government.
Took the biggest upwelling of world sympathy for the US after 911,
and in less than a year made the US the most resented and unpopular
country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in
US and world history).
With a policy of 'dis-engagement' managed to create the most hostile
Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.
First US president in history to have a majority of the people of
Europe
(71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and
stability.
First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more
threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.
Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded
government
contracts.
Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who
violated
US law by not selling huge investments in corporations that were
bidding for
government contracts.
Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.
Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder congresional
leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After
18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.
Failed to conclusively find "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that I
claimed
would be found in Iraq after our invasion of that country.
In the 18 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully
prevented
any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the
history of the United States.
Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for US citizens than any
other
president in US history.
In a little over two years I have created the most divided country in
decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the
Civil War.
Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less
than
two years turned every single economic category-heading straight
down.
RECORDS:
At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine. (Texas driving
record has been erased and is not available).
AWOL from National Guard and Deserted the military during time of war.
(But I was serving as an aide to a congressman at the time!)
Refuse to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away
to
my father's library, sealed in secrecy and are un-available for
public view.
All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or
bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public
view.
All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the
board
are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.
Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding
public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and un-available for
public
review.
PERSONAL REFERENCES:
For personal references please contact my Father, or my Uncle, James
Baker
(They can be reached at the offices of the Carlyle Group for
war-profiteering.)
http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html>
Additionally you are welcome to contact any ultra-conservative,
conservative,
fundamentalist Christian religious organizations and Anti-Choice
groups of
your choice for more references
--
* * *
email sent to etaoin...@hotmail.com will *never* get to me.
Scott McFadden
Did the Democrats have some drooling, retarded idiot up against him?
I guess they did.
How else could it have happened?
Let's hope they choose a better nominee next time, huh?
Krause you are the antithesis of Gould.
While he maybe overly pessimistic, you are the classical, smug,
arrogant, left wing elitist. So obviously and sickenly sure of
yourself, you do more damage than good for the cause you wish to
promote.
--
SJM
Harry Krause <etaoin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<xKqcnVSRlvM...@comcast.com>...
<snipped tedious, left wing, political propaganda>
Gould 0738
By a minority of the electorate, in an elelction so fraught with corruption,
fraud, and chicanery (never mind which or both sides) it took the Supreme Court
to finally appoint a winner?
Harry Krause
Shhhhh. Don't let that out of the bag...
gatt
> Gould 0738 wrote:
>
> >>Boy, how did this guy ever get elected?
> >
> > By a minority of the electorate, in an elelction so fraught with
corruption,
> > fraud, and chicanery (never mind which or both sides) it took the
Supreme Court
> > to finally appoint a winner?
> >
> >
>
> Shhhhh. Don't let that out of the bag...
So how come Al Gore couldn't even carry his own state?
-c
Mark Browne
"gatt" <ga...@juggFUerbot.com> wrote in message
news:tn4Na.12528$C43....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net...
that could not even take his own state?
In terms of the popular vote, not even that good.
Mark Browne
Harry Krause
A specious argument, if you are referring to Tennessee. Gore was born in
Tennessee, but he didn't live there. His home state, meaning the state
where he lived, had been Washington, D.C., for the previous eight years.
Bush didn't carry the state in which he was born, either. Bush was born
in New Haven, Connecticut. His grandfather was U.S. Senator Prescott
Bush of Connecticut. His father lived in Connecticut for many years, and
so did Dubya himself.
Connecticut went for Gore.
Why didn't Bush carry the state in which he was born?
Now, Bush did carry Texas. But he wasn't born there. He moved there.
What does all this mean? The voters of Connecticut are smarter than the
voters of Tennessee or Texas. But we didn't need an election to prove that.
Harry Krause
> folks voted against Clinton than for him in BOTH elections. Remember Ross
> Perot?
>
> And as to your allegations about "corruption" in voting are you talking about
> Democrats handing out cartons of cigarettes to the homeless in return for
> their votes in the elections or something else? Maybe the dead Democrats
> that somehow registered to vote perhaps?
>
> That corruption and fraud works both ways (both parties) bubba.
>
> So what does it all mean?
>
> Right now it's nothing more than sour grapes on your part because your favored
> candidate didn't win. Get over it.
>
Get over what? That we have a nincompoop in the White House who is
destroying most of the good America stood for for a long, long time? A
man who is clueless about putting Americans back to work? A man who told
one lie after another in order to convince many Americans we needed to
invade Iraq?
We're supposed to get over that, eh?
In a pig's eye.
Harry Krause
> In article <kBWdnXVOqso...@comcast.com>, Harry Krause <etaoin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>gatt wrote:
>>> "Harry Krause" <etaoin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:jYKdnVdpgNY...@comcast.com...
>>>> Gould 0738 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>Boy, how did this guy ever get elected?
>>>> >
>>>> > By a minority of the electorate, in an elelction so fraught with
>>> corruption,
>>>> > fraud, and chicanery (never mind which or both sides) it took the
>>> Supreme Court
>>>> > to finally appoint a winner?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Shhhhh. Don't let that out of the bag...
>>>
>>> So how come Al Gore couldn't even carry his own state?
>>>
>>> -c
>>>
>>>
>>
>>A specious argument, if you are referring to Tennessee. Gore was born in
>>Tennessee, but he didn't live there. His home state, meaning the state
>>where he lived, had been Washington, D.C., for the previous eight years.
>>
>>Bush didn't carry the state in which he was born, either. Bush was born
>>in New Haven, Connecticut. His grandfather was U.S. Senator Prescott
>>Bush of Connecticut. His father lived in Connecticut for many years, and
>>so did Dubya himself.
>>
>>Connecticut went for Gore.
>
> So? That in itself is meaningless.
>>
>>Why didn't Bush carry the state in which he was born?
>
> Maybe they felt dissed because he moved to Texas.
>
>>
>>Now, Bush did carry Texas. But he wasn't born there. He moved there.
>
> So? Hillary wasn't born or raised in New York either. Do you dispute
> her current office as Senator?
>
>>
>>What does all this mean? The voters of Connecticut are smarter than the
>>voters of Tennessee or Texas. But we didn't need an election to prove that.
>
> And how do you deduce this? Your tainted opinion?
>
> From what I can deduce about the voters and populace in Connecticut
> is that they seemed to be well-educated
My guess would be that the percentage of Connecticut residents with
advanced degrees is much higher than the percentage of Tennessee or
Texas residents with advanced degrees.
>Socialists
Socialists? Don't tell me...you're another of those idiotic
right-wingers who belive that programs that help people are sure signs
of socialism.
Don White
Those characters think it's ok to give tax breaks and incentives to
profitable corporations, but if you try to help
the little guy, it's socialism.
A former leader of The New Democratic Party labeled these
companies..'Corporate Welfare Bums'.
Harry Krause <etaoin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yHCdnWD89p7...@comcast.com...
NOYB
"Don White" <wh...@nsknospm.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:5QrNa.1039$jL2.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> Don't you just love that.
> Those characters think it's ok to give tax breaks and incentives to
> profitable corporations, but if you try to help
> the little guy, it's socialism.
A tax *break* means you pay *less* of something...in this case, less taxes.
You're not *giving* anything to anybody. The Government doesn't *give* us
anything when they cut taxes. They're just not taking as much away from us
in the first place. Socialism, on the other hand, is *taking* something
from one person and redistributing to another. Why don't you liberals get
it?
john
http://www.crossbearer.com/resume/The_Truth.pdf
If one does not have an acrobat reader,
You can download Adobe Acrobat Reader for free at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readermain.html
Click on the "Get Acrobat Reader" logo in the lower left.
It is a very useful thing to have, many "pdf" documents on the web are
put in that format.
Harry Krause <etaoin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<xKqcnVSRlvM...@comcast.com>...
jps
news:dYrNa.16384$bK5.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Yes, why don't liberals ever understand the concept of not wanting to pay a
fair share based on success, or the concept of hording money? If they had
money they'd understand why Republicans don't want to give it away.
Maintaining one's level of affluence is so much more important than health,
education or the public welfare.
jps
news:be72j2$4ju$3...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> In article <vgdu5nt...@corp.supernews.com>, "jps" <tr...@thedump.com>
wrote:
> Do you believe that the income tax system in the United States should be
used
> for redistribution of the wealth?
I believe in a progressive tax. If I'm making $1mm annually, I believe I
should pay a significantly higher tax rate than someone who's making $25 to
50K a year.
The basic cost to maintain a human life (food, clothing, health care, etc.)
needs to be accounted for, that's what a progressive tax helps equalize.
Further, if we didn't have a capitalist system and infrastructure that
supports and allows me to profit so handsomely, I wouldn't have an
opportunity to leverage my brains and ingenuity (and luck) into such
wonderful spoils.
For that potential I am grateful and willing to support the very
infrastructure that allows such opportunity.
You don't have to agree, but do you understand my point of view?
jps
jps
> We had a sex-freak in the White House just recently who taught our
> nation's children what a blowjob was and started the "blowjob party"
> fad that junior high school kids engage in. After all oral sex isn't
really
> sex at all is it? Our nation's kids certainly believed and followed the
> President's example. But course that wouldn't be construed as
"destroying
> most of the good America stood for for a long, long time" statement that
> you made right? You get to draw the lines on that vague statement
filled
> with generality right?
And now we have a pseudo-GI Joe in office who puts American kids lives at
risk.
So, would you rather have us include "blowjob" in the American lexicon or
sacrafice a bunch of innocent kids and civilians in the name of oil?
Harry Krause
> In article <vgdu5nt...@corp.supernews.com>, "jps" <tr...@thedump.com> wrote:
>
>>> A tax *break* means you pay *less* of something...in this case, less
>>taxes.
>>> You're not *giving* anything to anybody. The Government doesn't *give* us
>>> anything when they cut taxes. They're just not taking as much away from
>>us
>>> in the first place. Socialism, on the other hand, is *taking* something
>>> from one person and redistributing to another. Why don't you liberals get
>>> it?
>>
>>Yes, why don't liberals ever understand the concept of not wanting to pay a
>>fair share based on success, or the concept of hording money? If they had
>>money they'd understand why Republicans don't want to give it away.
>>Maintaining one's level of affluence is so much more important than health,
>>education or the public welfare.
>
> Do you believe that the income tax system in the United States should be used
> for redistribution of the wealth?
Yup
> Let me elaborate here, should the government in effect transfer money via the
> income tax system directly from one group of people to another?
Yup
>
> Or to further clarify it, should folks that DON"T PAY ANY INCOME TAXES
> receive money from the income tax system from others that do pay?
Yup
> Answer the question straight out without any spinning left-wing mumbo jumbo
> please.
Yup
Harry Krause
>>Get over what? That we have a nincompoop in the White House who is
>>destroying most of the good America stood for for a long, long time?
>
> We had a sex-freak in the White House just recently who taught our
> nation's children what a blowjob was and started the "blowjob party"
> fad that junior high school kids engage in.
And, even if all that were true, it doesn't add up to Bush's lies and
war-mongering.
After all oral sex isn't really
> sex at all is it? Our nation's kids certainly believed and followed the
> President's example.
Sex is good. War is stupid.
--
* * *
Q
(Spirulina) wrote:
>Do you believe that the income tax system in the United States should be used
>for redistribution of the wealth?
>
>Let me elaborate here, should the government in effect transfer money via the
>income tax system directly from one group of people to another?
>
>Or to further clarify it, should folks that DON"T PAY ANY INCOME TAXES
>receive money from the income tax system from others that do pay?
Rich people and rich corporations get more services and government
help, and should pay for it. The way things are now, they pay bribes
(err contributions) to elected officials. Why don;t they take the
money they pay lobbyists and give it to the Treasury Dept?
It's the middle class that is getting screwed. Don't forget Leona
(Taxes are for the little people) Helmsly. Five years back, Kenny Boy
Lay purchased annuities that cannot be touched by the courts. In
another 3-4 years he will be pulling down a million per year. Steal
big and have friends in high places!!!
I cannot understand why middle class folk think that giving huge tax
breaks for the rich will help anyone except the rich. Well, also the
politicians they bribe...
Q
Harry Krause
> And guess what? You are a Socialist plain and simple. No bones about it.
> Although I am sure that you will agrue otherwise.
You have no idea what socialism is. Or much of what anything else is.
So, I'll just put you on the list of "usually skip over."
>
> Nice that you admit your true colors.
>
> Maybe you should have purchased a cheaper and smaller boat so some poor
> unfortunate soul with no boat could have possibly bought a canoe or something?
I have another boat, much more expensive than our Parker.
> You should feel shamed at your display of wealth riding around in your Parker.
Not me. Happy to have it and my other boats and toys and quite happy to
pay top-bracket income taxes.
> Or are you like most Socialists and you only feel comfortable controlling and
> spending other people's hard-earned money rather than your own?
Again, you are clueless.
jps
> In article <E5ycnZ4Dw81...@comcast.com>, Harry Krause
<etaoin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> And as far as war goes then you would allow hundreds of thousands more
> Iraqi's to be tortured and murdered rather than take out Saddam eh?
> And then can we assume that you would have been for allowing the Jews
> to be exterminated by Hitler instead of going to war? And then there is
> Stalin whom Saddam adored and patterned himself after.
>
> You certainly are a very disturbed old man.
And you, young silly ass need to have a dose of reality. You and your party
didn't give two shits about the poor downtrodden tortured in Iraq. Now
you're standing behind human rights? What a laugh. The Republican Party:
"We care about you right up until you're born. Then you better be rich or
ready to pull yourself by your bootstraps. And, by the way...we'll be doing
everything we can to keep you down..."
And for your day's history lesson, this country stayed out of WWII as long
as possible. You think this government didn't know what was happening to
the Jews? Right.
Harry Krause
> In article <r5SdnaP7htT...@comcast.com>, Harry Krause <etaoin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> And guess what? You are a Socialist plain and simple. No bones about it.
>>> Although I am sure that you will agrue otherwise.
>>
>>
>>You have no idea what socialism is. Or much of what anything else is.
>>So, I'll just put you on the list of "usually skip over."
>
> Uh-huh, you admittingly believe in using the income tax system to
> redistribute the wealth directly from one person's pocket to another by
> giving tax rebates (payments from one pocket) to somebody who didn't
> even pay any income tax at all (going to another pocket) and I call
> you a Socialist and you tell me that I don't know what a Socialist is?
>
> That income-tax structure that you support is very much a Socialist
> ideal.
>
> I bet that if you actually had met any of the 56 signers of the Declaration
> of Independence and espoused your twisted ideals to them that one or more
> of them would have wanted your head on a stick....
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Nice that you admit your true colors.
>>>
>>> Maybe you should have purchased a cheaper and smaller boat so some poor
>>> unfortunate soul with no boat could have possibly bought a canoe or
>> something?
>>
>>I have another boat, much more expensive than our Parker.
>>
>>
>>
>>> You should feel shamed at your display of wealth riding around in your
>> Parker.
>>
>>
>>Not me. Happy to have it and my other boats and toys and quite happy to
>>pay top-bracket income taxes.
>
> And I suppose that you don't have one or more accountants to help wheedle
> you out of as much of it that you can too right?
>
> You are an old fool.
>
>
>
>>
>>> Or are you like most Socialists and you only feel comfortable controlling and
>>
>>> spending other people's hard-earned money rather than your own?
>>
>>Again, you are clueless.
>
> Sure. And your favorite color is red too eh? Make that "colour" since you
> love Socialist Canada so much.
>
>>
>>
Canada is a great country. I love to visit it on business or for pleasure.
Jim Elbrecht
-snip-
>
>I bet that if you actually had met any of the 56 signers of the Declaration
>of Independence and espoused your twisted ideals to them that one or more
>of them would have wanted your head on a stick....
I don't understand why folks want to drag those 56 into everything.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you think are Harry's "twisted
ideals".
I'm curious what writing of the which Signers makes you think that
they didn't believe in government's/society's obligation to take care
of its less fortunate members.
At least four founded free libraries for people who couldn't afford to
buy books. A couple founded hospitals that were supported by tax
dollars. [as well as private $$]
Benjamin Rush founded a free clinic to take care of the poor.
Several founded free schools.
Jim
Q
(Spirulina) wrote:
>
>What is it about the question of redistribution of the wealth via the
>income tax system and giving cash rebates to those who haven't
>even paid a dime into the system don't you understand?
>
>That's a mighty big jump between my direct question and your
>abstract answer that doesn't even come close to answering
>what was asked.
The present White House gang is taking my hard earned tax dollars and
redistributing them to the rich bitches. The really sad part about it
is that this is being financed by borrowing. Bush quietly signed into
law a provision raising the National Debt limit by nearly a trillion
dollars. My children and yours will be paying for this largesse.
Also, it would seem that your anger is misplaced. Bush is pushing the
rebates to the poor so he can ram home the big gift to his rich
contributors. Why don't you call him (like Kenny Boy Lay used to do)
and ask him to stop this foolishness??
Q
NOYB
"jps" <tr...@thedump.com> wrote in message
news:vgdu5nt...@corp.supernews.com...
Precisely.
> Maintaining one's level of affluence is so much more important than
health,
> education or the public welfare.
Why should a successful person's hard work pay to improve someone else's
quality of life? Everyone that is able to should pay their fair share.
However, that means a flat tax rate...not the progressive one we have now.
And then exempt income under a certain level. Let's use 15% as the rate,
and make the threshold the first $35k of income:
If person "A" earns $35k, he pays ZERO taxes
If person "B" earns $100k, he pays $9750 in taxes.
If person "C" earns $1 million, he pays $144,750 in taxes.
Sounds pretty fair to me...
What's wrong with that?
NOYB
> "Spirulina" <spi...@spiraling.ember.cc> wrote in message
> news:be72j2$4ju$3...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> > In article <vgdu5nt...@corp.supernews.com>, "jps"
<tr...@thedump.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Do you believe that the income tax system in the United States should be
> used
> > for redistribution of the wealth?
>
> I believe in a progressive tax. If I'm making $1mm annually, I believe I
> should pay a significantly higher tax rate than someone who's making $25
to
> 50K a year.
Absurd. There's no good reason for that.
>
> The basic cost to maintain a human life (food, clothing, health care,
etc.)
> needs to be accounted for, that's what a progressive tax helps equalize.
A flat tax that exempts the amount necessary for the "basic cost to maintain
a human life" would do the same thing, but in a much more equitable way.
NOYB
Great. Harry's views clear cut and to the point. He's a Socialist.
NOYB
'em and redistribute it to those that don't have any. How's that sound?
That shouldn't bother someone that believes in the redistribution of wealth.
"Harry Krause" <etaoin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:r5SdnaP7htT...@comcast.com...
jps
> Really? And you know this to be a fact eh? All Republicans are
heartless
> and uncaring in your book (or should I say 'handbook') eh?
You'd have to be to associate with the sick foch leaders of the Republican
party. The party of the selfish.
> > Now
> >you're standing behind human rights? What a laugh. The Republican
Party:
> >"We care about you right up until you're born. Then you better be rich
or
> >ready to pull yourself by your bootstraps. And, by the way...we'll be
doing
> >everything we can to keep you down..."
>
> It's not so much a matter of "standing behind human rights" as it is
disputing
> your absurd claims that the US had no justification for invading Iraq.
There
> was justification enough just on the fact that Saddam was a mass-murderer
> and systematically exterminating hundreds of thousands of his own people.
> I suppose that you think that the Iraqi people were much better off with
> Saddam running the show?
There's no reason to dispute the fact that Saddam was doing horrible things
to his enemies. However, it remains a convenient excuse for this
administration after the WMD and nuclear threat arguments were found to be
baseless. We'd have never made the move on humanitarian grounds without
knowing that Iraq sports the SECOND LARGEST KNOWN OIL FIELD IN THE WORLD.
> >And for your day's history lesson, this country stayed out of WWII as
long
> >as possible. You think this government didn't know what was happening to
> >the Jews? Right.
>
> So you support what FDR did then eh? Sacrificing American lives to get us
> into the war?
Just don't use humanitarian as the reason we were there. We were forced
into the conflict, not inspired to save innocent lives.
> Wouldn't it had been nice though if Hitler could have been taken out
before
> he did so much damage? Would you have been against that?
I would've been but I'm only a voter, not the President.
> Btw the Red Cross know what was going on concerning the extermination
> of the Jews too along with the Pope and the Vatican. Do you support
> the Red Cross today?
>
> Your party (Demorats) are just as fucked up as anything else and only
> a mindless hard-line party droid could actually believe and claim
otherwise.
I'm not pleased with the Dems leadership. The party has played for the
middle, and while I understand that, you cannot be the "worthy adversary"
playing for the middle.
> You don't really eat that "We are the party of heart" shit up do ya?
No, I don't. They're just better than the alternatives, including the
stupid foching Greens who handed the Presidency to Bush.
Gould 0738
And thanks for agreeing with me, twice.
First, we agree that GWB was elected by a minority of the electorate. Thank
you.
Then we agree that
>an elelction so fraught with corruption,
>>fraud, and chicanery (never mind which or both sides)
properly characterizes the 2000 pres election.
Thanks again.
Gould 0738
>a mindless hard-line party droid could actually believe and claim otherwise.
>
These two paragaphs couldn't have been posted by the same guy who was, earlier
in this thread, condemning BJ Clinton for setting bad examples for Jr. High
School kids to follow, could they?
bb
>Isn't Spirulina a breakfast cereal?
It was my perception that it is poop that is the result of a breakfast
cereal. A breakfast cereal high in empty calories.
bb
Gould 0738
>Baggins.
I had no idea this was the newsgroup Bilbo Baggins.
Gee, I found just as many Jr. High School kids on the NG as frequent the Oval
Office and the private family quarters of the White House.......which is where
the whole sordid
Monica Lewinsky mess, (a private, family problem) should have stayed in the
first place. Must have been those darn pinkoid, commie leftists that kept
shoving the situation in front of the nation's schoolkids and tried so
desperately to discredit the Clinton presidency. If it was, those darn pinkoid,
commie leftists sure did look pathetic- $40mm plus of taxpayer money spent
investigating the guy and the worst they could turn up was a minor incident of
sexual infidelity.
The greater shame on whom? The philandering public official, (latest in a long
line of same), or the overly reactive, pinkoid commie leftist reactionaries who
had to stoop so low in a failed attempt to bring him down?
>Incidently William Faulkner's novel titled "The Wild Palms" had the word
>"shit" in it. The words "prick" and "cunt" also appeared in the novel first
>
>published in the 1930's.
You turned that up where? Off the local reactionary list of "unsuitable" books
that should be removed from public sale?
The 1930's?
The first incident of extra marital oral sex involving a national leader
undoubtedly dates to several thousand years BC. The type of reading material
where the words, "prick, cunt, blowjob, shit, fuck," and the like is common
enough. One or two uses of such words in appropriate places in a book doesn't
eradicate its literary credibility.
Faulkner, Steinbeck and a host of others
have used such language.
I assume that you would have no problem with your twelve year old speaking like
that
at the dinner table, since, after all, the words can be found in works by Nobel
Prize winning authors. (Personally, I'm not sure I care one way or the
other....*you* introduced the idea that certain behaviors
are bad influences on the Jr. High crowd- I'm merely agreeing that you are
probably right.)
In a lot of the literature where such words are used routinely, they are
selected for shock value. They also occur on almost every page of pornographic
novels sold in "adult" bookstores.
You post has nothing in common with Faulkner. It has neither literary
credibility, nor is it particularly shocking. The use of foul language in your
post merely indicates an inadequate vocabulary. Why shouldn't Jr. High students
be exposed to this? Perhaps they should- as an incentive to continue developing
language skills that will serve them more effectively in high school and
college.
Q
(Spirulina) wrote:
The best rebuttal you can make is a series of whiny questions?
No, kid, I won't do your homework for you. Read some independent news
sources and start to think for yourself.
>>Why don't you call him (like Kenny Boy Lay used to do)
>>and ask him to stop this foolishness??
>
>Why don't you?
This one I will answer. Even if it were possible for a regular
taxpayer to talk to Bush, I would take a pass. Don't like talking
with dummies.
Q
jps
> Why should a successful person's hard work pay to improve someone else's
> quality of life? Everyone that is able to should pay their fair share.
> However, that means a flat tax rate...not the progressive one we have now.
> And then exempt income under a certain level. Let's use 15% as the rate,
> and make the threshold the first $35k of income:
>
>
> If person "A" earns $35k, he pays ZERO taxes
> If person "B" earns $100k, he pays $9750 in taxes.
> If person "C" earns $1 million, he pays $144,750 in taxes.
>
> Sounds pretty fair to me...
>
> What's wrong with that?
So, does that add up to the same revenue we currently have or much less, as
I suspect?
If you expect no social security and no military, I think you could afford
to do that.
Would you also do away with medicare?
Gov't subsidies for farms, corporations and schools?
jps
> Yeah, I am "selfish" because I don't believe that stealing money from
folks
> that are perceived to be "rich" or "richer" than other folks that are
> perceived to be "poor" is right & just OR what the income tax system was
> created for.
You just don't want to pay your fair share. You'd probably like to keep
every cent you make and let others foot the bill.
Have you bothered to figure out what it takes to run a country and how much
the services available to you cost? What would be your rate of tax if you
were paying your fair share?
jps
> Incidently William Faulkner's novel titled "The Wild Palms" had the word
> "shit" in it. The words "prick" and "cunt" also appeared in the novel
first
> published in the 1930's.
What an idiot. You seemingly fail to recognize the difference between
fiction, literature and drivel. Your writing qualifies as the third of
those options.
Gould 0738
>downtrodden line up at my fucking door every week on payday so I can share my
>
>paycheck with them.
I believe that's what GWB had in mind when he floated the idea of "faith based"
public funding of charitable needs as a substitute for government services. You
may yet get your wish. :-)
>If that attitude makes me "selfish" then give me "selfish" any day. It's
>better than being a yellow socialist anti-American dumb "foch" with shit on
>their nose any day of the week.
>Fuck all of you lefties and your Robin Hood socialist ideals and the
>jackasses
>that you rode in on too on this one too!
>That's a fucking laugh.
>and
>that is why your party is collapsing. The party is over. Like Eminem
>says "You have one shot, one opportunity"
Aha! Eminem. Wise political savant.
May indicate something about your age, and the rapper vocabulary.
Tell us, Spiral, how does one reconcile outrage that Jr. High School kids were
able to read about an adult theme (oral sex) in daily newspapers and an
endorsement of rap music? Listen to any rap music lately? More appropriate (in
your opinion) for most 12-year olds than an AP story that mentions the phrase
"oral sex"?
Mark Browne
of paying corporate welfare.
Don't stop there.
We can turn this into a fair system yet; lets get rid of the child tax
credits and those pesky mortgage exemptions!
This will be a real winner for folks trying to build up the family values;
naturally, two low wage earners will have to stay single to stay under the
tax limit.
This flat tax thing is starting to sound better all the time.
Mark Browne
NOYB
> "NOYB" <NO...@NOYB.com> wrote in message
> news:AsMNa.27598$bK5.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> > Why should a successful person's hard work pay to improve someone else's
> > quality of life? Everyone that is able to should pay their fair share.
> > However, that means a flat tax rate...not the progressive one we have
now.
> > And then exempt income under a certain level. Let's use 15% as the
rate,
> > and make the threshold the first $35k of income:
> >
> >
> > If person "A" earns $35k, he pays ZERO taxes
> > If person "B" earns $100k, he pays $9750 in taxes.
> > If person "C" earns $1 million, he pays $144,750 in taxes.
> >
> > Sounds pretty fair to me...
> >
> > What's wrong with that?
>
> So, does that add up to the same revenue we currently have or much less,
as
> I suspect?
>
Well, if you believe the Laffer Curve (as JFK did), then you expect total
tax receipts to increase (due to an improved economy), as taxes are cut.
Also, I'd suggest doing away with the many write-offs that are currently
available.
> If you expect no social security and no military, I think you could afford
> to do that.
Are you expecting to see any of the Social Security you paid into when you
retire? I'm not.
>
> Would you also do away with medicare?
No. Keep FICA the same. The federal income tax rate has nothing to do with
Social Security and Medicare. I thought you "own your own company"? You
should have known that.
>
> Gov't subsidies for farms, corporations and schools?
Government doesn't really subsidize corporations. They might provide a *cut
in its tax rate*...but they don't give direct federal aid to corporations.
Schools should be mostly State funded. Florida has no State income tax. If
the top marginal rate is cut in half (via a flat tax), *I* certainly
wouldn't complain if I had to pay 3-5% in State income tax to subsidize
schools and highways. However, there's a much better method in
Florida...tax the hell out of non-residents who purchase second homes down
here. They use a disproportionate amount of our resources (to water their
golf courses, etc), and drive the cost of housing up...causing working
folks to pay more. Leave the hotel and rental property taxes the same,
however, so as not to hurt tourism too much.
Farms wouldn't need funding if we were able to pressure countries that have
a very high trade deficit with to buy more of our farm goods...or we'll tax
the heck out their imports.
NOYB
> "NOYB" <NO...@NOYB.com> wrote in message
> news:AsMNa.27598$bK5.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> > Why should a successful person's hard work pay to improve someone else's
> > quality of life? Everyone that is able to should pay their fair share.
> > However, that means a flat tax rate...not the progressive one we have
now.
> > And then exempt income under a certain level. Let's use 15% as the
rate,
> > and make the threshold the first $35k of income:
> >
> >
> > If person "A" earns $35k, he pays ZERO taxes
> > If person "B" earns $100k, he pays $9750 in taxes.
> > If person "C" earns $1 million, he pays $144,750 in taxes.
> >
> > Sounds pretty fair to me...
> >
> > What's wrong with that?
>
> So, does that add up to the same revenue we currently have or much less,
as
> I suspect?
Since I've already responded to the bulk of your post, I'll ask again: Why
is not fair for a person earning $1 million to pay $144,750 in taxes, and
the guy earning $35k to pay ZERO taxes? How come that isn't good enough?
You want the guy earning $35k to pay ZERO and the guy earning $1 million to
pay $400,000!?!? That's nothing more than wealth distribution...aka
Socialism.
NOYB
"Mark Browne" <markdeb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:sm_Na.51109$926.6126@sccrnsc03...
Huh? *You're* not paying corporate welfare. Corporations pay a lot more in
taxes than you. None of *your* money goes to them. A tax incentive isn't
"welfare"...it's just a reduction in the amount of taxes paid.
> Don't stop there.
> We can turn this into a fair system yet; lets get rid of the child tax
> credits and those pesky mortgage exemptions!
Yes, get rid of the mortgage exemption, but keep the child tax credit. The
mortgage exemption currently does nothing to help the poverty stricken
living in Federal housing...nor does it help recent college grads or young
parents without the down payment or credit to buy their own home. If you
cut everybody's rate then the mortgage exemption isn't needed.
>
> This will be a real winner for folks trying to build up the family values;
> naturally, two low wage earners will have to stay single to stay under the
> tax limit.
No. Make the level of exemption different based upon the number of
dependents. A single person has the first $20k of income exempt. Married
people have the first $40k of income exempt. Each kid can raise the level
of exemption $5000. Therefore, a husband, wife, and four kids could earn
$60k and pay ZERO Federal income taxes.
>
> This flat tax thing is starting to sound better all the time.
Glad you agree.
jps
>
> > If you expect no social security and no military, I think you could
afford
> > to do that.
>
> Are you expecting to see any of the Social Security you paid into when you
> retire? I'm not.
>
> >
> > Would you also do away with medicare?
>
> No. Keep FICA the same. The federal income tax rate has nothing to do
with
> Social Security and Medicare. I thought you "own your own company"? You
> should have known that.
Okay, so two paragraphs above you didn't expect to see anything from Social
Security even though you're paying into the system. Now you're saying that
medicare needs to stay in place and you're magically expecting payment for
that service but not from SS?????
> >
> > Gov't subsidies for farms, corporations and schools?
>
> Government doesn't really subsidize corporations.
If they're given tax breaks in order to compete or stay in business the tax
revenue has to shift somewhere, or did you think in those instances pennies
rain from heaven?
> They might provide a *cut
> in its tax rate*...but they don't give direct federal aid to corporations.
> Schools should be mostly State funded.
With Federal mandates such as "no child left behind?" How can the feds do
that and not supply funding to help insure a good education for all?
Florida has no State income tax. If
> the top marginal rate is cut in half (via a flat tax), *I* certainly
> wouldn't complain if I had to pay 3-5% in State income tax to subsidize
> schools and highways. However, there's a much better method in
> Florida...tax the hell out of non-residents who purchase second homes down
> here. They use a disproportionate amount of our resources (to water their
> golf courses, etc), and drive the cost of housing up...causing working
> folks to pay more. Leave the hotel and rental property taxes the same,
> however, so as not to hurt tourism too much.
Oh, now you're saying that rich people use a disproportionate amount of
services (but shouldn't pay more than a flat tax)??? Wow, you
(pseudo)conservatives really know how to waffle, eh? Following in the
footsteps of the elder Bush?
> Farms wouldn't need funding if we were able to pressure countries that
have
> a very high trade deficit with to buy more of our farm goods...or we'll
tax
> the heck out their imports.
We use farming methods (pesticides and genetic engineered crops) that other
countries cannot, in good conscience, feed their citizens. Perhaps we
should pay some attention to their concerns and produce a product they're
interested in buying (free market economy, remember?) instead of trying to
railroad shit they don't want to buy down their throats...
This is so damn funny to witness given the conservatives consider themselves
purveyors of reality. Whew.
thunder
> So, does that add up to the same revenue we currently have or much
> less, as I suspect?
Much less. Federal tax load, as a percentage of the GDP, has been
fairly consistently in the high teens. This has been true for 50
years.
Dave Hall
>
> GEORGE W. BUSH RESUME
Another example of your insightful original thought?
Dave
Doug Kanter
>
> "Don White" <wh...@nsknospm.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:5QrNa.1039$jL2.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> > Don't you just love that.
> > Those characters think it's ok to give tax breaks and incentives to
> > profitable corporations, but if you try to help
> > the little guy, it's socialism.
>
taxes.
> You're not *giving* anything to anybody. The Government doesn't *give* us
> anything when they cut taxes. They're just not taking as much away from
us
> in the first place. Socialism, on the other hand, is *taking* something
> from one person and redistributing to another. Why don't you liberals get
> it?
I'd venture a guess that every state in the union gives special tax
incentives to certain corporations, in order to get them to open facilities
their states. You've heard of that. Drop everything and listen, next time
you hear a news story about where Boeing is opening their newest plant,
which has been in the news quite a bit lately.
Doug Kanter
>
>
> Great. Harry's views clear cut and to the point. He's a Socialist.
>
>
You have no real problem with socialism, and the important word here is
"real". The only objection we *ALL* have to it is that past efforts to
institute it were done via brutality. That doesn't mean that some of its
tenets might not be valuable here or elsewhere.
Doug Kanter
> >>
> >> We had a sex-freak in the White House just recently who taught our
> >> nation's children what a blowjob was and started the "blowjob party"
> >> fad that junior high school kids engage in.
> >
> >And, even if all that were true, it doesn't add up to Bush's lies and
> >war-mongering.
>
> Oh it's true all right. Don't you keep up with current events much?
> Do you think that I am making this up?
>
You have information to indicate that before Clinton, high school kids knew
nothing of blowjobs? :-) You intended that as a joke, right?
Gould 0738
>nothing of blowjobs? :-) You intended that as a joke, right?
If some folks had more direct knowledge of
blowjobs, they might not go through life so
hateful, frustrated, and unhappy. :-)
Here's some recent mail (some with verifiable e-mail addresses) from Rush
Limbaugh fans to a Rush Limbaugh parody website. A bunch of happy, well
adjusted, people. I especially like the one from the high school kid- about 70
percent of the words are misspelled and he complains that he is forced to spend
his day "blocking out" liberal teachers. Looks like he's been enjoying some
success for several years.
Dave Hall
Any system which removes the freedom of self-determination, is not a
good thing. I will ALWAYS prefer making my own choices, and living the
consequences, than having the government tell me what's best for me....
Dave
NOYB
"Doug Kanter" <dka...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:oCgOa.466$Mb....@news01.roc.ny...
> "NOYB" <NO...@NOYB.com> wrote in message
> news:gxMNa.27714$bK5.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
>
> >
> > Great. Harry's views clear cut and to the point. He's a Socialist.
> >
> >
>
> You have no real problem with socialism, and the important word here is
> "real". The only objection we *ALL* have to it is that past efforts to
> institute it were done via brutality.
That's not *MY* objection. My objection is with any system that operates
under the premise if governmental collective ownership of the economy.
>That doesn't mean that some of its
> tenets might not be valuable here or elsewhere.
The only "tenet" that is acceptable to me is governmental ownership of
non-private roads, parks, the military, and government buildings. The
government ought to stay out of all other areas of "ownership".
NOYB
> "NOYB" <NO...@NOYB.com> wrote in message
> news:dYrNa.16384$bK5.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Don White" <wh...@nsknospm.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:5QrNa.1039$jL2.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> > > Don't you just love that.
> > > Those characters think it's ok to give tax breaks and incentives to
> > > profitable corporations, but if you try to help
> > > the little guy, it's socialism.
> >
> > A tax *break* means you pay *less* of something...in this case, less
> taxes.
> > You're not *giving* anything to anybody. The Government doesn't *give*
us
> > anything when they cut taxes. They're just not taking as much away
from
> us
> > in the first place. Socialism, on the other hand, is *taking* something
> > from one person and redistributing to another. Why don't you liberals
get
> > it?
>
> I'd venture a guess that every state in the union gives special tax
> incentives to certain corporations
"Tax incentives" are not the same thing as handing them money! It just
means that one community will *steal* (via taxes) less of the corporation's
money than another community. You
It's like going to the store and getting a rebate on a purchase. You don't
get the rebate if you don't spend money in the first place. Nobody is
giving these corporations something for nothing.
NOYB
"NOYB" <NO...@noyb.com> wrote in message
news:0PlOa.87932$Io.77...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "Doug Kanter" <dka...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:oCgOa.466$Mb....@news01.roc.ny...
> > "NOYB" <NO...@NOYB.com> wrote in message
> > news:gxMNa.27714$bK5.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > Great. Harry's views clear cut and to the point. He's a Socialist.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > You have no real problem with socialism, and the important word here is
> > "real". The only objection we *ALL* have to it is that past efforts to
> > institute it were done via brutality.
>
> That's not *MY* objection. My objection is with any system that operates
> under the premise if governmental collective ownership of the economy.
...premise *OF*...
jps
news:386D5B...@worldlynx.net...
> Doug Kanter wrote:
> > You have no real problem with socialism, and the important word here is
> > "real". The only objection we *ALL* have to it is that past efforts to
> > institute it were done via brutality. That doesn't mean that some of its
> > tenets might not be valuable here or elsewhere.
>
>
> Any system which removes the freedom of self-determination, is not a
> good thing. I will ALWAYS prefer making my own choices, and living the
> consequences, than having the government tell me what's best for me....
>
> Dave
Or your wife...
jps
> > I'd venture a guess that every state in the union gives special tax
> > incentives to certain corporations
>
> "Tax incentives" are not the same thing as handing them money! It just
> means that one community will *steal* (via taxes) less of the
corporation's
> money than another community. You
>
> It's like going to the store and getting a rebate on a purchase. You
don't
> get the rebate if you don't spend money in the first place. Nobody is
> giving these corporations something for nothing.
You're forgetting about the cost to service that business and however many
taxpayers come with it. Chances are, the reason that state is offering tax
incentives is to take the business away from another state. All states
lose. The tax revenue per paying customer goes down.
jps
> I pay more than my "fair share" on a regular basis suffice it to say.
I'll bet you try to escape every penny possible. God forbid you put your
money into socialist hands!!!
You failed to answer my question, instead just avoiding it.
You're a poor excuse for a conservative. I'll bet you're just a tightwad
who uses your little socialist bullshit to avoid holding your mud.
jps
jps
> In article <20030706035602...@mb-m19.aol.com>,
goul...@aol.com (Gould 0738) wrote:
> It wasn't so much about the sex Gould. I know that this is hard to grok
from
> somebody of your political leanings where Clinton was nearly God-like for
you
> and a Zen experience. But it was about LIEING TO A GRAND JURY.
> Remember that.
Are you a product of the American school system?
> In high school I did a report on a Kurt Vonnegut Jr short story entitled
"The
> Big Space Fuck". I got an A.
Wow Spiro, nice work. Maybe you should write another really cool paper.
I'm sure Rush would love you to submit some of your very thoughtful drivel
to his most informative website.
jps
> In article <vggmgj8...@corp.supernews.com>, "jps" <tr...@thedump.com>
wrote:
Too bad, 'cause then I'd've been an order of magnitude more a man than you,
instead of just several times.
You're just a bad excuse for a selfish cheapskate. You probably don't have
two nickles to rub together anyway. Just a little trailer trash boy hoping
to strike it rich on the lottery. Don't want no socialist takin' my winnins
away, no sir!!!
jps
> >You have information to indicate that before Clinton, high school kids
knew
> >nothing of blowjobs? :-) You intended that as a joke, right?
>
> They knew a lot more after Clinton's Presidency and no it is not a joke.
> Feel free to study the matter and the current trend in the United States
> concerning the afore-mentioned topic.
>
> G'day
If you truly did any study on the subject (instead of spewing vapid
assumptions) you'd know that trend started long before Clinton made it to
the headlines (courtesy of the Republican leadership).
Gould 0738
>>blowjobs, they might not go through life so
>>hateful, frustrated, and unhappy. :-)
>
Spin it anyway you like. Fact is, I never said I advocated blow job parties for
pre teens. Limbaugh logic at work, Spiro.
You're likely to sprain an ankle, leaping that far to a tenuous conclusion.
Would you respond to the comment,
"DNA evidence, when available, should be reviewed before a capital sentence is
carried out" with......."So you endorse cold blooded murder or innocent victims
and police officers?"
NOYB
All sides lose from competition? No wonder you're so confused. Competition
is good for consumers...which in turn is good for a strong economy. To say
that "all states lose" because a company left one state for another is
ridiculous.
Jim Elbrecht
>In article <9knegvolp4p80riaj...@4ax.com>, elbr...@email.com wrote:
>
-snip-
>>I'm curious what writing of the which Signers makes you think that
>>they didn't believe in government's/society's obligation to take care
>>of its less fortunate members.
-snip my quick 5 lines of some examples-
>
>Are you really that far out there in left-field or are you just being funny?
You might find that life is easier to understand if you don't succumb
to your need to make everyone either "right=correct" or "left=wrong".
-snip a few dozen lines of sniping-
>
>Have you read The Federalist Papers, The Constitution of the United States
>The Bill of Rights and The Declaration of Independence?
Yes-- And most of the Journals of the Continental Congress, as well as
a few thousand letters, a handful of diaries & few autobiographies of
the Signers of the Declaration. And probably a dozen or so
biographies of the Signers.
.
>
>I hope that your curiousity is now satiated.
Yes. I'm certain now that you have no idea of "what writing of which
Signer" makes you think they didn't believe in taxing the rich to help
the poor.
Thank you,
Jim
Mark Browne
> In article <pm5ggvgmb174k1t7c...@4ax.com>,
WallyI...@erewhon.not wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 05:21:57 GMT, spi...@spiraling.ember.cc
> >(Spirulina) wrote:
> >
> >The best rebuttal you can make is a series of whiny questions?
> >No, kid, I won't do your homework for you. Read some independent news
> >sources and start to think for yourself.
>
> So basicaly you are another redistribution of the wealth type Robin
> Hood Socialists then eh? Well you came to the right newgroup
> because you have plenty of company here.
>
<snip>
Odd, I don't remember reading any posts from you about the Federal Reserve
Act, repeal of the usury laws, or similar redistribution of wealth laws. Why
are you so one sided?
Mark Browne
Dave Hall
>
> And I take it that you too find it appalling that the state of Connecticut is
> now requiring divorced fathers and absentee fathers to pay for their child's
> college education after the legal age of eighteen?
Well, I can certainly see how some, on the left, would consider this an
extension of a father's "child support" responsibilities, and are simply
trying to push the age out further, by which a child is considered an
"adult" and no longer dependant on "child support".
And arguable case could be made to support this premise. But of course,
this is just a smoke screen to deflect the financial burden of a college
education to someone other than the individual in question. I don't
believe the law allows that a college education is a "right", so it may
be a hard case to make.
But speaking as a father, I would want my daughter to go to college, so
I would not be too resistant to contributing to that. But I would be (as
I am on any child support) an advocate of strict accounting of where my
money is going, to ensure that my kid is geting the benefit, and not the
"X".
Dave
Doug Kanter
Karl Marx, born 1818. Right. The founder of this country knew what socialism
was. There were quite a few socialist experiments going on in the late
1700s. I think. Maybe. Or something.
> Neither were our forefathers Socialist because many of them were
philanthropistic.
That's "philanthropic", professor.
Unfortunately, certain right-wing couch potatoes in this and other
discussions believe that philanthropy means socialism.
Doug Kanter
Doug Kanter
> In article <oCgOa.466$Mb....@news01.roc.ny>, "Doug Kanter"
> the next...
>
Oh really? Tell the assembled masses here what socialism is, please.
Doug Kanter
> In article <zGgOa.477$45...@news01.roc.ny>, "Doug Kanter"
> Feel free to study the matter and the current trend in the United States
> concerning the afore-mentioned topic.
>
Scenario: You and your wife decide that sex in your outdoor hot tub is the
greatest thing since sliced bread. This goes on for three years without a
hitch. One day, a reporter and photographer are stalking the 'hood because
they have a tip that one of your neighbors is about to be busted for
printing money in his cellar. With enormous effort that has nothing to do
with their original mission, they spot you and your wife, giggle, and take
pictures.
Back at their office, their editor, Dave "God Forbid Anyone Should Enjoy
Themselves" Hall, sees the proof sheet and publishes a couple of pictures
along with a story about eroding sexual morals in Pleasantville.
You are now famous. Whose fault is it? Yours, for doing it in the privacy of
your fenced in yard, or the reporters, for going out of their ways to climb
the fence?
JohnH
I think the difference lies in the freedom to choose aspect. Of course, if
you're 'liberal' then the 'freedom' to choose is anathema.
John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
NOYB
Fault for what? Fault for eroding sexual morals? Oh, that'd be Clinton's
fault.
Doug Kanter
I'm feeling charitable, so I'll help you: It's the fault of the reporters
for looking for trouble, just like the impotent little monkeys who went
looking for trouble with Clinton.
jps
> > You're forgetting about the cost to service that business and however
many
> > taxpayers come with it. Chances are, the reason that state is offering
> tax
> > incentives is to take the business away from another state. All states
> > lose. The tax revenue per paying customer goes down.
>
> All sides lose from competition? No wonder you're so confused.
Competition
> is good for consumers...which in turn is good for a strong economy. To
say
> that "all states lose" because a company left one state for another is
> ridiculous.
Not if the state has to raise taxes in order to provide the services it
normally performs for a higher rate of return.
Do you run your practice or is that left to the hygenists?
NOYB
To see how your logic is flawed, ask yourself this:
Why would a State even *want* to lure in a corporation if all that does is
cost the state more money?
Do you think the States are doing this to be charitable?
Corporations create jobs, vital economies, and the resulting boon in tax
receipts. If companies were just parasites (like you contend), the states
would institute *dis-incentives*...not tax incentives. That's why your
argument makes no sense at all.
Gould 0738
>somebody of your political leanings where Clinton was nearly God-like for you
>and a Zen experience. But it was about LIEING TO A GRAND JURY.
>Remember that.
Answering a question that had no bearing on the national interest and did not
involve commission of a felony. Clinton's conduct during this affair ruined my
respect for the man. He proved to be a moral coward. He should have either told
the truth and lived with the national shock (would have lasted 4-5 days) or
told Ken Starr and the rest of the witch hunters to go to hell.
How many times has anybody been asked to give forthright answers about private
sexual practices in a non-criminal investigation?
>Would you have any problem with your Junior High School age daughter (if you
>had one) going to a blowjob party?
My daughter is now 25. I know for a fact that oral sex was a topic of
discussion among Jr. High School students long before she was born. *If* my
daughter were invited to such a party when in Jr. High, (at her present age she
can and will do as she pleases) I would have expected her to refuse the
opportunity to attend. Twelve years of parental influence are unlikely to be
overcome by a 15-second sound bite associated with a national scandal. If
parents can't control their kids and instll appropriate morals, blaming the
POTUS is one of the great copouts of all time.
>And it is quite amusing, at least to me Gould. How you never take anyone to
>task for doing much the same thing such as jps and Krause because they
>are fellow Socialists or at least lean more in your direction with whatever
>political flavor that you fancy
You're new here? I don't usually find myself on opposite sides of the issues
with Harry, jps, and a few others- although I have at times. Harry will do as
Hary will do, he's incorrigible. And I did, on one occassion not long ago,
suggest to jps that his language was demeaning his message.......as the use of
gratuitous profanity always does, regardless of the politics involved.
Doug Kanter
>
>
> To see how your logic is flawed, ask yourself this:
> Why would a State even *want* to lure in a corporation if all that does is
> cost the state more money?
>
> Do you think the States are doing this to be charitable?
>
> Corporations create jobs, vital economies, and the resulting boon in tax
> receipts. If companies were just parasites (like you contend), the states
> would institute *dis-incentives*...not tax incentives. That's why your
> argument makes no sense at all.
>
In most cases, you're right: A company lured by a tax break will probably
create jobs. Rich individuals, however, generally do not provide that
benefit to the community when they receive tax breaks. That's where this
discussion began, if I recall: tax breaks.
Dave Hall
If there was nothing to take pictures of, they wouldn't have had any
pictures now, would they?
Dave
Dave Hall
>
> "Spirulina" <spi...@spiraling.ember.cc> wrote in message
> news:bedlel$69d$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> Unfortunately, certain right-wing couch potatoes in this and other
> discussions believe that philanthropy means socialism.
The difference between philathropy and socialism is the difference
between voluntary (Charity) and mandatory (taxes) contributions.
Dave
Doug Kanter
> >
> > I'm feeling charitable, so I'll help you: It's the fault of the
reporters
> > for looking for trouble, just like the impotent little monkeys who went
> > looking for trouble with Clinton.
>
>
> If there was nothing to take pictures of, they wouldn't have had any
> pictures now, would they?
>
> Dave
Go sit in a corner, be quiet and sip your chocolate milk.
jps
> > Not if the state has to raise taxes in order to provide the services it
> > normally performs for a higher rate of return.
>
> To see how your logic is flawed, ask yourself this:
> Why would a State even *want* to lure in a corporation if all that does is
> cost the state more money?
>
> Do you think the States are doing this to be charitable?
>
> Corporations create jobs, vital economies, and the resulting boon in tax
> receipts. If companies were just parasites (like you contend), the states
> would institute *dis-incentives*...not tax incentives. That's why your
> argument makes no sense at all.
Here's why my argument makes complete and total sense.
When a (sole owner, corporation or government agency) is fighting to keep
it's head above water, it'll do anything, included trading dollars, to
remain in business. It's akin to the old adage "Live to fight another day."
That's the way entities act in the real world, like it or not. When states
fight over the company's locating in their state at the cost of tax revenue,
they're trading dollars in hopes of coming out okay at the other end.
Sometimes, such tactics end in bankruptcy. I think we're experiencing that
right now in the corporated world and in state government.
Try to grok it doc. It's the truth.
NOYB
I still don't see how you think that by giving tax breaks to a new
corporation coming into a state will cut the total amount of revenue that
state receives.
Let's look at a hypothetical:
A small town with no industry or jobs creates no tax revenue for the state.
In fact, it's a drain on the state because most of the people are unemployed
and/or on welfare. Then along comes a corporation that hires 2,500 people.
Those people pay state taxes, buy gas (which is taxed) for their cars, buy
houses (which have property taxes), buy cars, tv's, stereos, furniture (all
taxed again), go out to eat (taxed again)...and the list goes on. Now there
are new jobs for the people working the gas stations, selling the cars,
houses, furniture, tv's, stereos, etc, cooking in the restaurants, building
the houses, roads, and newly needed infrastructure.
Tell me again...
How does tax revenue fall when a corporation, that used to be in another
state, comes into a new state?
Put Name Here
grader than with jps.
"NOYB" <NO...@noyb.com> wrote in message
news:p_EOa.34578$C83.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
NOYB
than jps.
"Put Name Here" <pute...@here.com> wrote in message
news:1jIOa.8699$OZ2.1664@rwcrnsc54...
Q
(Spirulina) wrote:
>Funny how that "dummy" is President of the United States which
>is the most powerful country in the world.
>
>And just who exactly are you?
Someone who worked hard to get where I am, unlike your heroes Bush,
Rush, etc. Another Texas warmonger came up with a colorful saying
that describes Bush perfectly. "That boy's so dumb he couldn't pour
piss out of a boot -- with the directions printed on the bottom."
Q
jps
1st
> grader than with jps.
Well, I just explained why the Mariners traded Omar Visquel away when he was
still very young to my first grader. She didn't understand prior to that so
I'm assuming you're wrong. So is your counterpart, Mr. Tooth.
jps
> Let's look at a hypothetical:
> A small town with no industry or jobs creates no tax revenue for the
state.
> In fact, it's a drain on the state because most of the people are
unemployed
> and/or on welfare.
Where the hell does that assumption come from? Most of the people hired by
the new plant are likely to be trained or skilled workers hired away from
other jobs.
> Then along comes a corporation that hires 2,500 people.
Or 200 people.
> Those people pay state taxes,
If they reside in a state having an income tax. Mine doesn't and there are
a handful more.
> buy gas (which is taxed) for their cars, buy
> houses (which have property taxes), buy cars, tv's, stereos, furniture
(all
> taxed again), go out to eat (taxed again)...and the list goes on. Now
there
> are new jobs for the people working the gas stations, selling the cars,
> houses, furniture, tv's, stereos, etc, cooking in the restaurants,
building
> the houses, roads, and newly needed infrastructure.
Your theory only applies to new ventures. Those generally aren't the ones
putting up new plants. What happens to the state who had the old factory
shut down get? The new state is selling their services for less. You don't
get it, do you?
Here Doc, let's make it easy for you. Let's say there's a price war on
dental work and you're having to lower prices to compete or risk losing your
revenue. What are you going to do?
Take more patients on?
Offer them fewer services for less or only ones that make you a proper
margin?
Chances are, either you or your competitor are going out of business or
having your revenues cut to the quick.
This is the same dilemma faced by states trying to attract industry. Sell
your services for less than the next guy. Unfortunately, states don't have
the option of going bankrupt like happens in a free market.
Still don't get it?
NOYB
Bad analogy. If you sell quality and service, you don't have to sell price.
There are plenty of clinic-type practices down here that do crowns for half
of my fee... and I get more patients transferring to me from them than any
other source.
You still haven't answered the question I asked you before: "Why would a
State go out of its way to attract new corporations if those same
corporations are a negative draw on its budget?" Until you can effectively
answer that question, you're argument doesn't hold water.
jps
> Bad analogy. If you sell quality and service, you don't have to sell
price.
So what do states have to sell other than tax breaks? Sure, an educated
population or environment but the real attraction is the thing that's going
to the bottom line, and that's money.
> There are plenty of clinic-type practices down here that do crowns for
half
> of my fee... and I get more patients transferring to me from them than any
> other source.
>
> You still haven't answered the question I asked you before: "Why would a
> State go out of its way to attract new corporations if those same
> corporations are a negative draw on its budget?"
New corporations don't build huge facilities to employ thousands of workers
so your question isn't valid. It's older, established corps like Boeing who
can twist arms with promises of jobs and revenue, albeit at a lower rate.
Until you can effectively
> answer that question, you're argument doesn't hold water.
Your question sunk before you launched it.
Put Name Here
> "NOYB" <NO...@noyb.com> wrote in message
> news:p_EOa.34578$C83.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > Let's look at a hypothetical:
> > A small town with no industry or jobs creates no tax revenue for the
> state.
> > In fact, it's a drain on the state because most of the people are
> unemployed
> > and/or on welfare.
>
> Where the hell does that assumption come from? Most of the people hired
by
> the new plant are likely to be trained or skilled workers hired away from
> other jobs.
>
Are you sure your daughter didn't explain the economics situation in
Baseball to you. Damn you are dumb as dirt. If the new company hires the
experienced and trained employees by "stealing" them from company A, then
Company A must go out and hire more employees, thus the state employment
roles must increase.
NOYB
> "NOYB" <NO...@noyb.com> wrote in message
> news:p_EOa.34578$C83.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > Let's look at a hypothetical:
> > A small town with no industry or jobs creates no tax revenue for the
> state.
> > In fact, it's a drain on the state because most of the people are
> unemployed
> > and/or on welfare.
>
> Where the hell does that assumption come from? Most of the people hired
by
> the new plant are likely to be trained or skilled workers hired away from
> other jobs.
That's not true. Many times, in a town with a depressed economy, local
governments give concessions as long as the new business agrees to hire as
many people as possible from that town.
>
> > Then along comes a corporation that hires 2,500 people.
>
> Or 200 people.
200 newly employed people also has a very large impact on a smaller town.
That's 200 homes, 200+ cars, 200 people grocery shopping for themselves and
their families (could be 600-800 total people).
>
> > Those people pay state taxes,
>
> If they reside in a state having an income tax. Mine doesn't and there
are
> a handful more.
Mine doesn't either...but they sure as hell make it up on consumption and
property taxes.
NOYB
> "NOYB" <NO...@NOYB.com> wrote in message
> news:46LOa.70446$ic1.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> > Bad analogy. If you sell quality and service, you don't have to sell
> price.
>
> So what do states have to sell other than tax breaks? Sure, an educated
> population or environment but the real attraction is the thing that's
going
> to the bottom line, and that's money.
Access to major highways, rail lines, and airports...higher education
institutions nearby...etc. There's a myriad of things a State can offer.
>
> > There are plenty of clinic-type practices down here that do crowns for
> half
> > of my fee... and I get more patients transferring to me from them than
any
> > other source.
> >
> > You still haven't answered the question I asked you before: "Why would
a
> > State go out of its way to attract new corporations if those same
> > corporations are a negative draw on its budget?"
>
> New corporations don't build huge facilities to employ thousands of
workers
> so your question isn't valid.
Bullshit. My Toyota Sequoia was built in Princeton, IN...a town that didn't
have shit going for it before the Toyota plant went in. There are hundreds
of other examples of both foreign and domestic companies building new "huge
facilities" to employ hundreds or thousands of workers.
>It's older, established corps like Boeing who
> can twist arms with promises of jobs and revenue, albeit at a lower rate.
Boeing plans to build a "huge facility" (very likely in Texas). That won't
bring new jobs and an improved economy to whichever town they build it in?
>
> Until you can effectively
> > answer that question, you're argument doesn't hold water.
>
> Your question sunk before you launched it.
Nice try. Let me ask again: "Why would a State go out of its way to attract
new corporations if those same corporations are a negative draw on its
budget?"
Hmmmm??? Why would that be?
Gould 0738
>Baseball to you. Damn you are dumb as dirt. If the new company hires the
>experienced and trained employees by "stealing" them from company A, then
>Company A must go out and hire more employees, thus the state employment
Tilt.
One whole big bunch of the current "let your state compete for our
manufacturing plant" doesn't involve the creation of additional jobs. The old
jobs are merely relocated to the new state. The current 7E7 Boeing bidding war
is a prime example. Boeing has cut 30,000 plus jobs in the last 18 months,
about 20,000 of them in the Seattle area. The State of Washington just offered
an incentive package to Boeing, worth something like
$2 billion, to bribe it to build the new 7E7 plane here. Several other states
have offered similar packages. It's tough to say the $2 billion would result in
"new" jobs, and we're talking "restoring" a whalloping 800-1200 jobs, according
to Boeing. At 1200 workers, we have offered Boeing $1.66mm per each of 1200 new
jobs. At an average of $60,000 per year, the state has just offered to pay the
*entire 7E7 payroll* for just under 28 years! (And if the plane is only built
for ten or fifteen years- and if we then need to trot out $3 billion to keep
them here for the next red hot plane? Oh well, right?) Free labor- that ain't
bad, is it?
Now, tell me again just who is outraged about people living off the public tit?
"We ain't got no dough for Head Start or school lunch vouchers for kids living
in poverty- but bring your multi billion corporation to our state and our
taxpayers will fund your entire payroll for the next 28 years."
We've already seen every major city in the US ripped off by the "gotta build a
new stadium to keep your pro sports teams from moving to East Overshirt, where
the folks are willing to build a marble palace at taxpayers' expense......."
phenomenon.
Why shouldn't major employers get in on the same blackmail action? Your
baseball analogy was a good one.
Put Name Here
incentives because they believe it is good for their economy. Why the hell
should Oregon or California care about Seattle's unemployed if they have
unemployed to worry about. They can see the benefit of having the plant to
build 7E7, even if they give the tax incentives, even if their logic is
flawed they think it is in their own best interest to give the incentives.
If Seattle does not want to offer the incentive, and they think they think
it is bad for the taxpayer to offer incentives to major employers to create
jobs, they don't have to offer them. Let the other cities and states offer
the incentives, let them make the mistakes, let them bring the jobs and
headaches, let them create great big tits for everyone to suck on, and why
they are paying for these marble palaces, you can sit back and say that you
made the correct decision.
Damn you are dumb.
"Gould 0738" <goul...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030709083049...@mb-m23.aol.com...
Gould 0738
"Put name here" your train of logic is failing to follow the tracks.
I pointed out that state subsidies to giant corporations do not always result
in the creation of "new" jobs, as NOYB claimed, and used the 7E7 blackmail as
an example. Sure the jobs are "new" to the winning state, but if the presence
of a new plant in (example) Kansas with 1200 jobs
only serves to attract 1500 newly unemployed people from Washington to relocate
as well, what is the net employment benefit to the pre-blackmail population of
Kansas? Shall we consider "zero" a reasonably defensible answer?
The entire question, "Should Washington, or any other state, offer tax
incentives etc.
equal to 28 years' total payroll expense to attract a manufacturing plant" is
slightly different from "does such an action create
'new' jobs." I was adressing the latter.
NOYB
> >Baseball to you. Damn you are dumb as dirt. If the new company hires
the
> >experienced and trained employees by "stealing" them from company A, then
> >Company A must go out and hire more employees, thus the state employment
>
> Tilt.
>
> One whole big bunch of the current "let your state compete for our
> manufacturing plant" doesn't involve the creation of additional jobs. The
old
> jobs are merely relocated to the new state. The current 7E7 Boeing bidding
war
> is a prime example. Boeing has cut 30,000 plus jobs in the last 18 months,
> about 20,000 of them in the Seattle area. The State of Washington just
offered
> an incentive package to Boeing, worth something like
> $2 billion
Please explain the incentive package. Are they writing a check to Boeing
for $2 billion? Of course not. Are they agreeing to take less money in the
form of taxes from Boeing? Of course!
>to bribe it to build the new 7E7 plane here. Several other states
> have offered similar packages. It's tough to say the $2 billion
What $2 billion? It's Boeing's money in the first place.
>would result in
> "new" jobs, and we're talking "restoring" a whalloping 800-1200 jobs,
according
> to Boeing. At 1200 workers, we have offered Boeing $1.66mm per each of
1200 new
> jobs.
No you didn't. You're just offering to let Boeing keep their $1.66 million
per each of 1200 new jobs.
>At an average of $60,000 per year, the state has just offered to >pay the
> *entire 7E7 payroll* for just under 28 years!
The State isn't paying squat! Why do you keep making stuff up?
>(And if the plane is only built
> for ten or fifteen years- and if we then need to trot out $3 billion to
keep
> them here for the next red hot plane? Oh well, right?) Free labor- that
ain't
> bad, is it?
Free? Nope again. The State is letting Boeing keep money that would have
been paid in taxes (forcing them to pay for infrastructural improvements is
the same thing as taxes), and then divert it to the hiring of new employees.
>
> Now, tell me again just who is outraged about people living off the public
tit?
> "We ain't got no dough for Head Start or school lunch vouchers for kids
living
> in poverty- but bring your multi billion corporation to our state and our
> taxpayers will fund your entire payroll for the next 28 years."
Ummm. Because those 1200 employees will spend oodles of money on homes,
cars, boats, clothes, food, TV's, gas, etc., your city will reap the
benefits by way of an improved economy and more tax revenue. You can then
use the new tax revenue on the "kids living in poverty"...or better yet,
maybe there won't be as many kids in poverty if their parents are among the
1200 employees hired by Boeing. Or perhaps their parents will work in a
business that caters to the 1200 new families up there.
> We've already seen every major city in the US ripped off by the "gotta
build a
> new stadium to keep your pro sports teams from moving to East Overshirt,
where
> the folks are willing to build a marble palace at taxpayers'
expense......."
> phenomenon.
Not the same thing. The stadium would be built by the city. The Boeing
plant will be built by Boeing.
> Why shouldn't major employers get in on the same blackmail action? Your
> baseball analogy was a good one.
Your baseball analogy wasn't.
Put Name Here
will allow the United States to provide additional jobs for Americans?
If so, the tax incentive will create additional jobs for Americans because
it will allow Boeing to be more competitive in the Global Marketplace.
Now if you are saying, will it create more jobs worldwide, that may not be
true. But when Ford first started to make cars, it was really "stealing"
business from the wagon maker. The other thing you have to understand that
a "tax incentive" is really not giving anything to the corporation, it just
is not taxing them at the higher rate.
If I go to buy a car, and the car dealer gives me a $2,000 discount, he
really is not "giving" me anything. He is making a business decision that
he is willing to work for less profit margin and make it up in volume. When
a government gives a company a tax incentive, they are not actually giving
them anything, they are just deciding that it is in their best interest to
tax the company less and make more tax money by dealing in volume.
It is amazing how some people have so much trouble seeing outside of the
box.
"Gould 0738" <goul...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030709091327...@mb-m23.aol.com...
Put Name Here
It is good to see someone understand basic economics.
"NOYB" <NO...@noyb.com> wrote in message
news:cNUOa.36261$C83.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
NOYB
>
>
> "Put name here" your train of logic is failing to follow the tracks.
>
> I pointed out that state subsidies to giant corporations do not always
result
> in the creation of "new" jobs, as NOYB claimed, and used the 7E7 blackmail
as
> an example. Sure the jobs are "new" to the winning state, but if the
presence
> of a new plant in (example) Kansas with 1200 jobs
> only serves to attract 1500 newly unemployed people from Washington to
relocate
> as well, what is the net employment benefit to the pre-blackmail
population of
> Kansas? Shall we consider "zero" a reasonably defensible answer?
Absolutely not! Even if you have 1500 unemployed people move to Kansas from
Washington in order to fill the new positions, then you've also created
"new" jobs for those 1200 Kansans. How? Well, the Washingtonians will spend
money on all sorts of things, and businesses will sprout up to give the
Washingtonians a place to spend their money...and guess who will work in
*those* businesses?
I'll agree that Washington will lose an equal number of jobs in the service
industries (restaurants, retailers, grocers that used to support the 1500
employees that left), but you already said that they weren't working
anyhow...which means they weren't spending money unless it came from the
government. In essence, you're better off without the 1500 unemployed that
moved to Kansas since they were really just a non-tax-paying drain on *your*
economy.
NOYB
society".
You gotta understand...jps's and Gould's arguments are correct, too.
However, it just so happens that their concept applies only to a Socialist
economy.
"Put Name Here" <pute...@here.com> wrote in message
news:GfVOa.14648$sY2....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
Gould 0738
>Please explain the incentive package. Are they writing a check to Boeing
>for $2 billion? Of course not. Are they agreeing to take less money in the
>form of taxes from Boeing? Of course!
>What $2 billion? It's Boeing's money in the first place.
>
>You're just offering to let Boeing keep their $1.66 million
>per each of 1200 new jobs.
>The State isn't paying squat! Why do you keep making stuff up?
>
>Free? Nope again. The State is letting Boeing keep money that would have
>been paid in taxes (forcing them to pay for infrastructural improvements is
>the same thing as taxes), and then divert it to the hiring of new employees.
Ya missed something very important.
The state isn't going to reduce the amount of services provided to Boeing. Just
the opposite, it is offering to increase the amount of services, (like building
a mega-million dollar specialized pier at public expense-that will have a sole
function of being able to offload aricraft wings *built in Asia*). No, the
state isn't about to reduce services to Boeing, it's just going to ask for the
rest of the taxpayers in the state to pick up the slack.
Coincidentally, one of the larger components of the Boeing package in WA state
is a major reduction in the amount of money Boeing will pay for unemployment
insurance (not just for the 1200 workers, but for its entire workforce). Now
there's a hearty laugh. One of the major reasons we have major unemployment
problems in the region on a cyclical basis is that when the airplane business
is good, Boeing brings in tens of thousands of new workers to take jobs here.
Three years, later, when the cycle turns down, Boeing lays those same tens of
thousands of people off and the economy simply cannot absorb a dumping of that
many involuntarily unemployed people into the labor market.
Boeing has been a major factor in the unemployment problem in this region, and
now they are being given a "pass." The slack is being picked up by every other
business in the state, of course, and by a recently announced reduction in the
amount of unemployment insurance benefits laid off workers can hope to receive.
>Ummm. Because those 1200 employees will spend oodles of money on homes,
>cars, boats, clothes, food, TV's, gas, etc., your city will reap the
>benefits by way of an improved economy and more tax revenue.
The region is paying $1.6mm apiece for these jobs. About 28 years worth of $60k
a year wages per job. Each of these 1200 people will return more than their
entire salary in taxes? Hardly. The Fed Govt (not the state govt) will get a
third of the earnings before the workers have a chance to spend a dime on
anything. As profits generated from business done with the 1200 are taxed at
various federal and municipal levels, there is even less money left over to go
back to the state to replace the $2 billion.
Money spent on consumption doesn't multiply in the economy the same way that
money spent for capital investment does.
The average techie-wrench at Boeing will spend nearly all of his/her income on
consumption related expenditures rather than capital investment.
>You can then
>use the new tax revenue on the "kids living in poverty"...or better yet,
>maybe there won't be as many kids in poverty if their parents are among the
>1200 employees hired by Boeing. Or perhaps their parents will work in a
>business that caters to the 1200 new families up there.
As prominent Republican, (father of the current POTUS) has observed, that type
of logic is "voodoo economics".
And, after all this discussion? WHAT 1200 new families?? In the local
situation, we'd merely be reducing the number of aerospace-related unemployed
families from 20,000 to 18,800. We don't need new houses, pizza joints, and
shoe stores for folks who already live here.
If we could close our state borders, a better use of the funds would be to pay
10,000 people $200k@ to relocate to Florida and study dentistry. Just think of
all the money the new dentists would spend to stimulate your economy. More
people would eat sugary fast foods, so more business for you. Right? :-)
Gould 0738
>NOYB,
>It is good to see someone understand basic economics.
Thanks very much. Always happy to offer folks who struggle with the concept as
much help as I can muster. :-)
Put Name Here
are just a parasitic, tit sucking corporation who you don't need in your
state.
"Gould 0738" <goul...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030709103110...@mb-m23.aol.com...