John Chase wrote:

"The Real Bev" wrote:

The hard-core poor are mostly stupid. Stupid people used to die before
they were old enough to reproduce. We've changed all that. We keep them
alive, we keep their children alive and we keep their grandchildren alive.
We actually pay them to have more children.

Perhaps the humane thing is to allow them to move to special "cities" with
all the usual city things -- grocery stores, shops, movies, apartments,
TV, doctors, etc. -- with no requirement that the inhabitants be useful at
all. All will be provided. Classes for those who wish to improve will be
offered, along with scholarships to real schools to those who can qualify.
No poverty, no crime, no disease, no drugs and you can leave if you want
to but you may not return for 30 days.

Such a system has got to be better for them than what they have, and it
has to be cheaper than what we're doing now since we won't have to gear
everything to the lowest common denominator.

Can somebody tell me what's wrong with this scenario? Your turn.

USConst. Amdt. XIII.

What slavery or involuntary servitude? The place is voluntary. Come and go
as you please, with the proviso that if you go you can't come back for 30
days. Kids are forced to go to school now. Why not their underage mothers?
Or not. Nobody has to do anything. They're fed and clothed and housed and
entertained -- and perhaps educated if they so choose -- until they leave or
die. Up to them.

Oh yeah. No welfare payments outside. If you can't support yourself you can
move to the reservation and all your needs will be provided. Medical too.
Probably no gold star tooth implants, though.

Where in the thirteenth amendment does it say we have to support people who
won't support themselves? We'd be doing them a favor, not selling them into
slavery. I have no problem with keeping useless people alive as long as they
don't cause me any trouble, and I bet you feel the same way.

We can't make "You don't work, you don't eat" stick because we're squeamish
about having people drop dead in the streets. This is just a kinder solution
to the problem.

Next?

--
Cheers, Bev
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
Why should I be tarred with the epithet "loony" merely
because I have a pet halibut? --Monty Python

Rod Speed wrote:

Lew Hartswick wrote
wrote

We've kept them alive by artificial measures. In nature, the stupid would
perish promptly.

There's plenty of stupid animals around, like sheep and chickens.

Yeah, because we want to eat them. You advocating cannibalism? Many do, of
course...

Indeed. all one has to do is look at the "special ed" classes in public
schools.

Dunno, that one is more arguable.

It makes some sense to put some extra effort in with the
stupids so they can at least read by the time they leave etc.

Sure. Some, however, are just NOT teachable. No matter what happens they
will have to be cared for for their entire lives. This is NOT a school
problem, it's a medical problem.

Better than the earlier approach of just giving up
on them and have them end up close to completely
unemployable even in the most menial work.

That's all been abolished with the 'no child left behind' policy. What that
means is that the teachers are forced to spend inordinate amounts of time with
those who have no wish or ability to learn, apparently leaving those who
actually can learn to fend for themselves.

Is this a great country or what?

--
Cheers, Bev
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
Why should I be tarred with the epithet "loony" merely
because I have a pet halibut? --Monty Python

Rod Speed wrote:

Janie wrote:
"The Real Bev" wrote:
We could probably eliminate the drug problem by handing out whatever
people want at no cost to them. The easy availability of free drugs
wipes out a lot of crime as well as a lot of people who will
overdose within the next couple of months.

Are we willing to do this? Is it proper? It's certainly cheaper
than what we're doing now...

Free drugs! Heavens, the cops aren't going to allow
that to happen. Half of them would become unemployed. .

The cops get no say on stuff like that.

People who carry guns have louder voices.

--
Cheers, Bev
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
Why should I be tarred with the epithet "loony" merely
because I have a pet halibut? --Monty Python

The Real Bev wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Lew Hartswick wrote
wrote

We've kept them alive by artificial measures. In nature, the stupid would
perish promptly.

There's plenty of stupid animals around, like sheep and chickens.

Yeah, because we want to eat them.

Stupid animals were around well before we started to eat them.

You advocating cannibalism?

Nope, you americans are FAR too fat to provide healthy eating.

I prefer real chicken myself.

Many do, of course...

Indeed. all one has to do is look at the "special ed" classes in public
schools.

Dunno, that one is more arguable.

It makes some sense to put some extra effort in with the
stupids so they can at least read by the time they leave etc.

Sure. Some, however, are just NOT teachable.

Sure.

No matter what happens they will have to be cared for for their entire lives.

Not that many, actually. Even the mentally defective
can be quite useful at a place like McDs, even if its
just sweeping the floors and cleaning the toilets etc.

This is NOT a school problem, it's a medical problem.

Wrong. Any properly organised school should be
able to teach the basics even to mentally defectives.

Corse it can make sense to have specific schools for those.

Better than the earlier approach of just giving up
on them and have them end up close to completely
unemployable even in the most menial work.

That's all been abolished with the 'no child left behind' policy.

Nope.

What that means is that the teachers are forced to spend inordinate
amounts of time with those who have no wish or ability to learn,
apparently leaving those who actually can learn to fend for themselves.

Most of the kids fend for themselves quite well.

Is this a great country or what?

What.

The Real Bev wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Janie wrote
The Real Bev wrote

We could probably eliminate the drug problem by handing out
whatever people want at no cost to them. The easy availability of free
drugs wipes out a lot of crime as well as a lot of people who will overdose
within the next couple of months.

Are we willing to do this? Is it proper? It's certainly cheaper than what
we're doing now...

Free drugs! Heavens, the cops aren't going to allow
that to happen. Half of them would become unemployed. .

The cops get no say on stuff like that.

People who carry guns have louder voices.

Not on stuff like that they dont.

We invented this ****y system that works a lot better
than the goons with the guns get the most say.

The Real Bev wrote
Janie wrote
The Real Bev wrote

We could probably eliminate the drug problem by handing out whatever people
want at no cost to them. The easy availability of free drugs wipes out a
lot of crime as well as a lot of people who will overdose within the next
couple of months.

Are we willing to do this? Is it proper? It's certainly cheaper than what
we're doing now...

Free drugs! Heavens, the cops aren't going to allow that to happen. Half of
them would become unemployed.

That in itself might be a good enough reason to give it a shot. Not only
cops, though. Whole armies involved in the war on drugs. Shrinks. Doctors
who pronounce the addict cured when his insurance
runs out, and all the auxiliary personnel who work for them. Jailers.

I've always maintained that a better approach with the 'war on drugs'
would be to lace the supply with high strength pure drugs with drugs
like heroin and dont allow the paramedics to have narcan in their trucks.

Cant see even the likes of Rummy buying that any time soon tho.

The Real Bev wrote:
John Chase wrote:

"The Real Bev" wrote:

The hard-core poor are mostly stupid. Stupid people used to die
before they were old enough to reproduce. We've changed all that. We keep
them alive, we keep their children alive and we keep their
grandchildren alive. We actually pay them to have more children.

Perhaps the humane thing is to allow them to move to special
"cities" with all the usual city things -- grocery stores, shops,
movies, apartments, TV, doctors, etc. -- with no requirement that
the inhabitants be useful at all. All will be provided. Classes
for those who wish to improve will be offered, along with
scholarships to real schools to those who can qualify. No poverty,
no crime, no disease, no drugs and you can leave if you want to but
you may not return for 30 days. Such a system has got to be better for them
than what they have,
and it has to be cheaper than what we're doing now since we won't
have to gear everything to the lowest common denominator.

Can somebody tell me what's wrong with this scenario? Your turn.

USConst. Amdt. XIII.

What slavery or involuntary servitude? The place is voluntary. Come
and go as you please, with the proviso that if you go you can't come
back for 30 days. Kids are forced to go to school now. Why not
their underage mothers? Or not. Nobody has to do anything. They're
fed and clothed and housed and entertained -- and perhaps educated if
they so choose -- until they leave or die. Up to them.

Oh yeah. No welfare payments outside. If you can't support yourself
you can move to the reservation and all your needs will be provided.

We tried it, with forced containment in the reservations too.

Didnt work.

Didnt work when you lot tried with with your savages either.

Medical too. Probably no gold star tooth implants, though.

Where in the thirteenth amendment does it say we have to support
people who won't support themselves? We'd be doing them a favor, not selling
them into slavery. I have no problem with keeping useless
people alive as long as they don't cause me any trouble, and I bet
you feel the same way.

I dont, and many dont either. Too many bludgers already.

We can't make "You don't work, you don't eat" stick because we're squeamish
about having people drop dead in the streets.

Yeah, specially their little kids.

This is just a kinder solution to the problem.

Next?

Seig Heil.

Rod Speed wrote:
The Real Bev wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Lew Hartswick wrote
wrote

We've kept them alive by artificial measures. In nature, the stupid would
perish promptly.

There's plenty of stupid animals around, like sheep and chickens.

Yeah, because we want to eat them.

Stupid animals were around well before we started to eat them.

Not for long. Darwin said so. Well, maybe we'd have to redefine stupid to
exclude sharks, though. And coelecanths. OK, "smart" means being able to
thrive in the environment in which you find yourself. If you drop a shark out
in the desert, is he still smart? What if you drop a person into the middle
of the ocean? Anyway, we've bred turkeys and chickens that are helpless to
survive in the wild. You want to give them an IQ test, go ahead.

You advocating cannibalism?

Nope, you americans are FAR too fat to provide healthy eating.

I prefer real chicken myself.

Ah, so you've tried long pig then?

Many do, of course...

Indeed. all one has to do is look at the "special ed" classes in public
schools.

Dunno, that one is more arguable.

It makes some sense to put some extra effort in with the
stupids so they can at least read by the time they leave etc.

Sure. Some, however, are just NOT teachable.

Sure.

No matter what happens they will have to be cared for for their entire lives.

Not that many, actually. Even the mentally defective
can be quite useful at a place like McDs, even if its
just sweeping the floors and cleaning the toilets etc.

They still require care and supervision. You just don't turn a 6-year old out
to fend for himself. Not in the US, anyway. I hope.

This is NOT a school problem, it's a medical problem.

Wrong. Any properly organised school should be
able to teach the basics even to mentally defectives.

Corse it can make sense to have specific schools for those.

Clearly. The idea was to mainstream them, which may have been of marginal
social benefit to them, but also absorbs teaching time that could be better
spent elsewhere.

Better than the earlier approach of just giving up
on them and have them end up close to completely
unemployable even in the most menial work.

That's all been abolished with the 'no child left behind' policy.

Nope.

What that means is that the teachers are forced to spend inordinate
amounts of time with those who have no wish or ability to learn,
apparently leaving those who actually can learn to fend for themselves.

Most of the kids fend for themselves quite well.

Then there's no need for the smart kids to go to school at all, is there?

Is this a great country or what?

What.

Pessimist.

--
Cheers, Bev
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++
Warning -- Driver carries less than $20 worth of ammunition

Rod Speed wrote:

The Real Bev wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Janie wrote
The Real Bev wrote

We could probably eliminate the drug problem by handing out
whatever people want at no cost to them. The easy availability of free
drugs wipes out a lot of crime as well as a lot of people who will overdose
within the next couple of months.

Are we willing to do this? Is it proper? It's certainly cheaper than what
we're doing now...

Free drugs! Heavens, the cops aren't going to allow
that to happen. Half of them would become unemployed.

The cops get no say on stuff like that.

People who carry guns have louder voices.

Not on stuff like that they dont.

What, you think the Rodney King film was a fluke? The fluke was that it
happened on camera. OJ's glove may or may not have been planted by a cop, but
stuff like that certainly happens.

We invented this ****y system that works a lot better
than the goons with the guns get the most say.

Would you care to rephrase that in standard English?

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== ===============
"In all recorded history there has not been one economist who has
had to worry about where the next meal would come from."
-- Peter S. Drucker, who invented management

The Real Bev wrote
Rod Speed wrote
The Real Bev wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Lew Hartswick wrote
wrote

We've kept them alive by artificial measures. In nature, the stupid would
perish promptly.

There's plenty of stupid animals around, like sheep and chickens.

Yeah, because we want to eat them.

Stupid animals were around well before we started to eat them.

Not for long.

Yep, for countless millennia, actually.

Darwin said so.

No he didnt.

Well, maybe we'd have to redefine stupid to exclude sharks, though. And
coelecanths.

Pig about the slugs, snails, coral, etc etc etc.

OK, "smart" means being able to thrive in the environment in which you find
yourself.

Nope. That is just well adapted, not smart.

If you drop a shark out in the desert, is he still smart? What if you drop a
person into the middle of the ocean? Anyway, we've bred turkeys and chickens
that are helpless to survive in the wild. You want to give them an IQ test,
go ahead.

There's plenty of wild ones even stupider.

You advocating cannibalism?

Nope, you americans are FAR too fat to provide healthy eating.

I prefer real chicken myself.

Ah, so you've tried long pig then?

Not americans, not THAT desperate.

Even the savages didnt bother eating too many americans.

Many do, of course...

Indeed. all one has to do is look at the "special ed" classes in public
schools.

Dunno, that one is more arguable.

It makes some sense to put some extra effort in with the
stupids so they can at least read by the time they leave etc.

Sure. Some, however, are just NOT teachable.

Sure.

No matter what happens they will have to be cared for for their entire
lives.

Not that many, actually. Even the mentally defective
can be quite useful at a place like McDs, even if its
just sweeping the floors and cleaning the toilets etc.

They still require care and supervision.

Sure, but so do the dregs of any labor market.

You just don't turn a 6-year old out to fend for himself. Not in the US,
anyway. I hope.

Happens quite a bit outside the US.

This is NOT a school problem, it's a medical problem.

Wrong. Any properly organised school should be
able to teach the basics even to mentally defectives.

Corse it can make sense to have specific schools for those.

Clearly. The idea was to mainstream them, which may have been of marginal
social benefit to them, but also absorbs teaching time that could be better
spent elsewhere.

Very likely, but special ed classes are basically
just selective ed in the same physical place.

Better than the earlier approach of just giving up
on them and have them end up close to completely
unemployable even in the most menial work.

That's all been abolished with the 'no child left behind' policy.

Nope.

What that means is that the teachers are forced to spend inordinate
amounts of time with those who have no wish or ability to learn,
apparently leaving those who actually can learn to fend for themselves.

Most of the kids fend for themselves quite well.

Then there's no need for the smart kids to go to school at all, is there?

Does help with their socialisation.

The geeks do tend to have big enough problems in those areas anyway.

Is this a great country or what?

What.

Pessimist.

Realist.

The Real Bev wrote
Rod Speed wrote
The Real Bev wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Janie wrote
The Real Bev wrote

We could probably eliminate the drug problem by handing out
whatever people want at no cost to them. The easy availability
of free drugs wipes out a lot of crime as well as a lot of
people who will overdose within the next couple of months.

Are we willing to do this? Is it proper? It's certainly cheaper than
what we're doing now...

Free drugs! Heavens, the cops aren't going to allow
that to happen. Half of them would become unemployed.

The cops get no say on stuff like that.

People who carry guns have louder voices.

Not on stuff like that they dont.

What, you think the Rodney King film was a fluke?

Nope, that it aint relevant to the sort of policy you were proposing.

The fluke was that it happened on camera. OJ's glove may or may not have been
planted by a cop, but stuff like that certainly happens.

Still aint relevant to the sort of policy you were proposing.

We invented this ****y system that works a lot better
than the goons with the guns get the most say.

Would you care to rephrase that in standard English?

Sorry, I really should proof read, cant be bothered.

We invented this funky system that works a lot better
than the goons with the guns get the most say.

Some call it democracy.

Rod Speed wrote:

The Real Bev wrote:
John Chase wrote:

"The Real Bev" wrote:

The hard-core poor are mostly stupid. Stupid people used to die
before they were old enough to reproduce. We've changed all that. We keep
them alive, we keep their children alive and we keep their
grandchildren alive. We actually pay them to have more children.

Perhaps the humane thing is to allow them to move to special
"cities" with all the usual city things -- grocery stores, shops,
movies, apartments, TV, doctors, etc. -- with no requirement that
the inhabitants be useful at all. All will be provided. Classes
for those who wish to improve will be offered, along with
scholarships to real schools to those who can qualify. No poverty,
no crime, no disease, no drugs and you can leave if you want to but
you may not return for 30 days. Such a system has got to be better for them
than what they have,
and it has to be cheaper than what we're doing now since we won't
have to gear everything to the lowest common denominator.

Can somebody tell me what's wrong with this scenario? Your turn.

USConst. Amdt. XIII.

What slavery or involuntary servitude? The place is voluntary. Come
and go as you please, with the proviso that if you go you can't come
back for 30 days. Kids are forced to go to school now. Why not
their underage mothers? Or not. Nobody has to do anything. They're
fed and clothed and housed and entertained -- and perhaps educated if
they so choose -- until they leave or die. Up to them.

Oh yeah. No welfare payments outside. If you can't support yourself
you can move to the reservation and all your needs will be provided.

We tried it, with forced containment in the reservations too.

Didnt work.

Didnt work when you lot tried with with your savages either.

I think the hope was that they would die off, but some obstinately insisted on
living. I see a difference -- the intent then was subjugation and possible
extermination. I would hope that a more humane attitude would prevail today,
and it would be a definite plus if people could be recovered rather than just
left to rot.

Medical too. Probably no gold star tooth implants, though.

Where in the thirteenth amendment does it say we have to support
people who won't support themselves? We'd be doing them a favor, not selling
them into slavery. I have no problem with keeping useless
people alive as long as they don't cause me any trouble, and I bet
you feel the same way.

I dont, and many dont either. Too many bludgers already.

Do you really have to deal with people either dropping dead in the street or
resorting to crime? I suspect the reservation idea might work a bit better.

We can't make "You don't work, you don't eat" stick because we're squeamish
about having people drop dead in the streets.

Yeah, specially their little kids.

This is just a kinder solution to the problem.

Next?

Seig Heil.

You misspelled 'sieg,' asshole. In German, the second vowel of the diphthong
is pronounced long.

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== ===============
"In all recorded history there has not been one economist who has
had to worry about where the next meal would come from."
-- Peter S. Drucker, who invented management

The Real Bev wrote
Rod Speed wrote
The Real Bev wrote
John Chase wrote
The Real Bev wrote

The hard-core poor are mostly stupid. Stupid people used to die
before they were old enough to reproduce. We've changed all
that. We keep them alive, we keep their children alive and we keep their
grandchildren alive. We actually pay them to have more children.

Perhaps the humane thing is to allow them to move to special
"cities" with all the usual city things -- grocery stores, shops,
movies, apartments, TV, doctors, etc. -- with no requirement that
the inhabitants be useful at all. All will be provided. Classes
for those who wish to improve will be offered, along with
scholarships to real schools to those who can qualify. No poverty,
no crime, no disease, no drugs and you can leave if you want to
but you may not return for 30 days. Such a system has got to be
better for them than what they have,
and it has to be cheaper than what we're doing now since we won't
have to gear everything to the lowest common denominator.

Can somebody tell me what's wrong with this scenario? Your turn.

USConst. Amdt. XIII.

What slavery or involuntary servitude? The place is voluntary. Come and go
as you please, with the proviso that if you go you can't come
back for 30 days. Kids are forced to go to school now. Why not
their underage mothers? Or not. Nobody has to do anything. They're
fed and clothed and housed and entertained -- and perhaps educated
if they so choose -- until they leave or die. Up to them.

Oh yeah. No welfare payments outside. If you can't support yourself you
can move to the reservation and all your needs will be provided.

We tried it, with forced containment in the reservations too.

Didnt work.

Didnt work when you lot tried with with your savages either.

I think the hope was that they would die off,

Yep, and that wasnt going to happen if you hand out free food.

but some obstinately insisted on living.

Rather inconsiderate, but then the dregs usually are.

Ours do kill themselves at quite a high rate, but they
also have lots of kids, so the numbers keep increasing.

I see a difference -- the intent then was subjugation

Segregation, actually, just like you are proposing.

and possible extermination.

Not much of that.

I would hope that a more humane attitude would prevail today,

Ours are even worse today than they were in the past.

Essentially because in the past we used to ban alcohol and now we
have been stupid enough to decide that we cant discriminate anymore.

That terminal stupidity ripped away most of the jobs they had
too. They were useful when you didnt have to pay the much,
basically just food and board, but when you had to pay them
full first world wages, they were never going to be worth that.

and it would be a definite plus if people could be recovered rather than just
left to rot.

No one has ever worked out how to do that.

And there's been plenty of attempts at doing that.

It did work out eventually with the irish and the jews and
the asians, but its unlikely to ever work with the rest.

Medical too. Probably no gold star tooth implants, though.

Where in the thirteenth amendment does it say we have to support people who
won't support themselves? We'd be doing them a favor, not selling them into
slavery. I have no problem with keeping useless people alive as long as
they don't cause me any trouble, and I bet you feel the same way.

I dont, and many dont either. Too many bludgers already.

Do you really have to deal with people either dropping dead in the street or
resorting to crime? I suspect the reservation idea might work a bit better.

It never ever has whenever its been tried.

And its been tried a hell of a lot more than you realise.

Some were exclusively volunteers and that didnt work either.

We can't make "You don't work, you don't eat" stick because we're squeamish
about having people drop dead in the streets.

Yeah, specially their little kids.

This is just a kinder solution to the problem.

Next?

Seig Heil.

You misspelled 'sieg,' asshole.

I'm an arsehole, not an asshole.

In German, the second vowel of the diphthong is pronounced long.

I've never given a flying red **** about english spelling, let alone kraut.

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:48:44 +0000, Guido wrote:

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 04:40:21 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 05:27:41 GMT, Anthony
wrote:

I don't know what eutopia you live in, but here in the real live world,
people starve in the US every day. Maybe you need to get off your ass
and out in the real world once in a while and have a look around. These
aren't drug addicts, or criminals either.

I've always wondered how addicts earn $100,000 ++ to
pay for their hobby.
Anyone have any clues? No Rush jokes now ....


Mostly by theft, robbery, burglary, etc.

I doubt that nearly enough of that goes on to support the
claimed number of hobbiests, after the discounted values.
And where to sell the hot merchandise in volume?
--
Cliff

The poorer person can't get a break. If a less affluent person puts a
thousand dollars in the bank and agrees to leave it there as long as a
wealthy person agrees to leave their $100,000 then why doesn't the less
affluent person deserve to receive the same interest rate on their money?
It
doesn't work that way.

It shouldn't either. There's a fixed overhead cost to servicing every
deposit account what with the monthly account statements, 1099's and
record-keeping and that cost doesn't change whether the account holds a
$100,000 or a penny. It costs less to service one $100,000 account than it
is to service a hundred $1,000 accounts so those who want $1,000 accounts
can expect to give up something to make it worth the bank's while.

This is basic economies of scale and is nothing unusual.

http://www.capitalvigilfundingdept.com

In article ,
SpammersDie wrote:


The poorer person can't get a break. If a less affluent person puts a
thousand dollars in the bank and agrees to leave it there as long as a
wealthy person agrees to leave their $100,000 then why doesn't the less
affluent person deserve to receive the same interest rate on their money?
It
doesn't work that way.

It shouldn't either. There's a fixed overhead cost to servicing every
deposit account what with the monthly account statements, 1099's and
record-keeping and that cost doesn't change whether the account holds a
$100,000 or a penny. It costs less to service one $100,000 account than it
is to service a hundred $1,000 accounts so those who want $1,000 accounts
can expect to give up something to make it worth the bank's while.

This is basic economies of scale and is nothing unusual.

Furthermore, the small accounts are where the most "service" is
required, in many cases. Namely, the counter service with customers
complaining about overdrawing their accounts, late fees, bounced check
charges, asking for lower rates, etc.

This is why many of us use private banking services, to avoid the
riff-raff.


--Tim May

"Tim May" wrote in message
...
In article ,
SpammersDie wrote:


The poorer person can't get a break. If a less affluent person puts a
thousand dollars in the bank and agrees to leave it there as long as a
wealthy person agrees to leave their $100,000 then why doesn't the
less
affluent person deserve to receive the same interest rate on their
money?
It
doesn't work that way.

It shouldn't either. There's a fixed overhead cost to servicing every
deposit account what with the monthly account statements, 1099's and
record-keeping and that cost doesn't change whether the account holds a
$100,000 or a penny. It costs less to service one $100,000 account than
it
is to service a hundred $1,000 accounts so those who want $1,000
accounts
can expect to give up something to make it worth the bank's while.

This is basic economies of scale and is nothing unusual.

Furthermore, the small accounts are where the most "service" is
required, in many cases. Namely, the counter service with customers
complaining about overdrawing their accounts, late fees, bounced check
charges, asking for lower rates, etc.

This is why many of us use private banking services, to avoid the
riff-raff.


--Tim May

When did banks start charging late fees on saving accounts? Bounced checks
on saving accounts and CD's ?(A few savings accounts do allow limited
checking but not most.) Asking for lower rates, on what, not on a savings
account. I was talking about savings, not checking. My point was that
since smaller accounts receive lower interest rates poorer people are
somewhat discouraged from saving since they don't get the higher rate
received by those who can afford to make larger deposits. I can understand
the bank's side of things when it comes to the cost of servicing an account,
but wouldn't simply be better to impose an account service fee rather than
discouraging smaller deposits? Seems to me that banks should encourage
customers to save.

I avoid the bank and invest elsewhere to get a better yield on my
investment. Since the banks discourage smaller accounts, people without
much to save or invest should look elsewhere.

I do have to agree though that many people are a major problem for the
banking system because they so often overdraw checking accounts. Here in PA
the problem has increased because even the totally stupid are required to
have someplace to automatically deposit welfare, SSI payments, etc. These
people don't have a clue about how to keep a checkbook balanced or how to
reconcile a bank statement, or even correctly write a check. They are at
the bank or on the phone frequently asking for assistance with their
accounts. The bank should impose a fee for providing this service for the
stupid. I've never had an error in a bank account in more than 40 years and
have never bounced a check. My bank provides me with free checking , free
checks, free ATM service if I use their system, and other related services.

Smaller depositors should shop around before investing their money at a bank
because as you have correctly pointed out, the bank favors those with more
funds to deposit. JMO, but a Credit Union is often a good choice for those
who don't much money but want to get started on a savings plan.

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:20:16 -0500, "Janie"
wrote:


"Tim May" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
SpammersDie wrote:


The poorer person can't get a break. If a less affluent person puts a
thousand dollars in the bank and agrees to leave it there as long as a
wealthy person agrees to leave their $100,000 then why doesn't the
less
affluent person deserve to receive the same interest rate on their
money?
It
doesn't work that way.

It shouldn't either. There's a fixed overhead cost to servicing every
deposit account what with the monthly account statements, 1099's and
record-keeping and that cost doesn't change whether the account holds a
$100,000 or a penny. It costs less to service one $100,000 account than
it
is to service a hundred $1,000 accounts so those who want $1,000
accounts
can expect to give up something to make it worth the bank's while.

This is basic economies of scale and is nothing unusual.

Furthermore, the small accounts are where the most "service" is
required, in many cases. Namely, the counter service with customers
complaining about overdrawing their accounts, late fees, bounced check
charges, asking for lower rates, etc.

This is why many of us use private banking services, to avoid the
riff-raff.


--Tim May

When did banks start charging late fees on saving accounts? Bounced checks
on saving accounts and CD's ?(A few savings accounts do allow limited
checking but not most.) Asking for lower rates, on what, not on a savings
account. I was talking about savings, not checking. My point was that
since smaller accounts receive lower interest rates poorer people are
somewhat discouraged from saving since they don't get the higher rate
received by those who can afford to make larger deposits. I can understand
the bank's side of things when it comes to the cost of servicing an account,
but wouldn't simply be better to impose an account service fee rather than
discouraging smaller deposits? Seems to me that banks should encourage
customers to save.

I avoid the bank and invest elsewhere to get a better yield on my
investment. Since the banks discourage smaller accounts, people without
much to save or invest should look elsewhere.

I do have to agree though that many people are a major problem for the
banking system because they so often overdraw checking accounts. Here in PA
the problem has increased because even the totally stupid are required to
have someplace to automatically deposit welfare, SSI payments, etc. These
people don't have a clue about how to keep a checkbook balanced or how to
reconcile a bank statement, or even correctly write a check. They are at
the bank or on the phone frequently asking for assistance with their
accounts. The bank should impose a fee for providing this service for the
stupid. I've never had an error in a bank account in more than 40 years and
have never bounced a check. My bank provides me with free checking , free
checks, free ATM service if I use their system, and other related services.

Smaller depositors should shop around before investing their money at a bank
because as you have correctly pointed out, the bank favors those with more
funds to deposit. JMO, but a Credit Union is often a good choice for those
who don't much money but want to get started on a savings plan.



None profit credit unions are becoming quite popular for many of these
reasons.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

Rod Speed wrote:
Lew Hartswick wrote

wrote


We've kept them alive by artificial measures. In nature, the stupid would
perish promptly.


There's plenty of stupid animals around, like sheep and chickens.


And can you picture either of them without human supervision? :-)
...lew...

The Real Bev wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:

Lew Hartswick wrote

wrote

We've kept them alive by artificial measures. In nature, the stupid
would perish promptly.

There's plenty of stupid animals around, like sheep and chickens.

Yeah, because we want to eat them. You advocating cannibalism? Many
do, of course...

Indeed. all one has to do is look at the "special ed" classes in
public schools.

Dunno, that one is more arguable.

It makes some sense to put some extra effort in with the
stupids so they can at least read by the time they leave etc.

Sure. Some, however, are just NOT teachable. No matter what happens
they will have to be cared for for their entire lives. This is NOT a
school problem, it's a medical problem.

The ones I'm refring to are the ones that are still wearing diapers in
mid and senior high school. and drooling at the corners of their mouths.
...lew...

Lew Hartswick wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Lew Hartswick wrote
wrote

We've kept them alive by artificial measures. In nature, the stupid would
perish promptly.

There's plenty of stupid animals around, like sheep and chickens.

And can you picture either of them without human supervision? :-)

Yep, there have always been quite a few in the wild,
and much more stupid animals again in spades.

Lemmings arent exactly rocket scientist material.

Rod Speed wrote:

Lemmings arent exactly rocket scientist material.




Nor are lifetime welfare leeches.

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:19:53 -0500, wrote:

I'm okay with our Irag policy.
Better to have a jihadi die there then here.

Who told you that one???
There was none. Iraq was NOT involved at all
with a smallish group of criminal wingers & fundies.

That was then. NOW you are despised by billions.
For good cause.
--
Cliff

Hawke wrote:
Private property is defined as land, houses and chattels owned
absolutely. Ownership can be (a) absolute, or (b) qualified.
Estate is held with an interest (less than title).
Can one conclude that estate is held with qualified ownership?

The fifth amendment says PRIVATE property shall not be taken for public
use
without just compensation. There's no mention that ESTATE shall not be
taken for public use without just compensation.

Absolute ownership is a right, not subject to taxation.
Qualified ownership is a privilege, granted by government and subject to
taxation.

?There is no Georgia statute compelling the recording of a deed.?
- - - Encyclopedia of Georgia Law, 8 A, p. 265, Sec. 132

See, here is your problem. You have a supposed fact here. There is no
Georgia statute compelling the recording of a deed. But look at the
reality. Are deeds recorded in Georgia? Yes they are, but according to
your citation there is no statute compelling this. So what?

Were people led to believe that they were obligated?
Yes.
By whom?
You figure it out.

Whether there
is a statute or not is irrelevant.

Certainly it is relevant. Law is law. False assumptions are not law. Those
who promulgate fraud to your detriment are your persecutors.

By custom, tradition, or whatever you
want to call it all transfers of real property in the state of Georgia are
recorded.

Governments do not act upon a whim, but upon specific delegations of
authority. To believe otherwise, is to be deluded.
Go and read the specific taxing authority in your state's constitution.
Then read the explicit taxing statute as enacted by your state.
Then re-read the definitions for estate and private property.
No state taxes private property. They only tax estate (real and personal
property held with qualified ownership).

If you try to sell real estate without recording it you will
fail. Because the interconnection of laws and customs is so well set that
there is a defacto compulsion to record deeds. So you see, your fact is
meaningless.

No, factual information has much meaning. For example, if you do NOT record
your deed, and do not register with the real estate clerk, you won't be
levied a property tax, since you are not listed in their records as a
holder of estate.

Of course, ignorance of the real law favors those who are preying upon us.

Is it a coincidence that the creditor demands that you record your deed as
"estate"?

Feel free to ask your public servants.
They may even answer you.
But don't hold your breath waiting ...

Hawke wrote:

What does that have to do with socialism?

Common law is the law of the land, based on justice, reason and common
sense. Common law is the prerogative of sovereigns. Sovereigns absolutely
own their property (sounds like private property!).

IF socialism, by definition, abolishes "private property", then all
socialists cannot own private property.
And that means everyone can only have an interest in estate, subject to
taxation and confiscation and condemnation by the collective State.
And that also means that the usurer can steal your property without fear.

Slaves who do not know they are enslaved, will never attempt to free
themselves.
1805 - no license needed to live, work, travel, marry, etc.
1905 - no license needed to live, work, travel, marry, etc.
2005 - need a license (or pay a tax) to work, to have a dog, marry,
travel (drive), build a house, engage in business, etc, etc.

You have no argument.

Are you disagreeing with the facts presented?
Do you know of any requirement to have a license BEFORE 1935 to marry, have
a dog, travel in private automobiles, build a house, engage in business,
etc, etc.?

Do you know of any law, prior to 1935, that abolished the common law rights
of curtesy, dower, coverture, marriage, and the absolute rights of parents
to own their children?

George Orwell was right, however, his timetable was woefully off. IngSoc and
AmSoc were enacted early in the 20th century.

None of your statements make sense and they are in
no way connected with each other.

Perhaps you fail to comprehend. If I failed to convey the information, I
apologize.

Socialism, as defined, abolishes private property.

Since 1935, the USA has been socialist (no absolute ownership).

The imposition has been voluntary, since there is no law requiring
enrollment into national socialism, nor punishing one for not
participating.

However, few Americans are aware of it.


And Socialism is not the system used in
the United States.

Socialism is not "the system used", it is the nature of enslavement. Or in a
more politically correct form - voluntary servitude. Involuntary servitude
is unconstitutional, except after a conviction.

If you are enrolled in "Social Security" you are "in" socialism.
You cannot absolutely own a thing, including yourself.
It's a crime to deliberately injure or attempt to kill yourself (because
there are others who claim you as a "human resource").

Where you get that idea is unclear but it is certainly
wrong. The US is a republican form of democracy.

Incorrect. The republican form as defined, is mutually exclusive to a
democracy.

In the republican form, the people are sovereign, and directly exercise
sovereignty.

In a democracy, the whole body of free citizens indirectly exercise
sovereignty (majority rule) via representatives in government.

More succinctly:
RFOG = People are sovereigns
DFOG = Citizens are subjects

Despite the fact that
some institutions have a collective basis in no way does that make the US
a socialist system. You need to colate and organize your facts into some
kind of coherent argument. As it is your ideas and statements are
incoherent and nonsensical. Reems of facts that don't apply can work as a
blanket approach to make an argument but if you have no rational premise
and conclusion you're just wasting time and effort. Put another way, you
really need to get your **** together, intellectually. Right now you're
just out of it.

If private property, as defined in law, means ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP, and the
constitution forbids the government from taking private property without
just compensation, then it is evident that when government CONDEMNS and
confiscates property and does not compensate, that property CANNOT be
private property.
Estate (real and personal property) is defined as qualified ownership NOT
specifically protected by constitution.

What property does the government take, without compensation?
[] Real estate, for unpaid taxes
[] automobiles, for traffic violations
[] your labor, for socialist dues
[] your property, for failure to pay socialist dues

In case you are unaware, if you do not have a socialist insecurity number,
you cannot be held liable for "willful failure to file". The IRS will not
accept unnumbered forms, and if you haven't volunteered to get your number,
you can't be a "person liable".

Connect the dots.

References:

COMMUNISM - the ownership of property, or means of production,
distribution and supply, by the whole of a classless society, with
wealth shared on the principle of 'to each according to his need',
each yielding fully 'according to his ability'. Webster's Dictionary

SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective
ownership of the means of production and control of distribution.
It is based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the
good of the community, are equally entitled to the care and
protection which the community can provide. Webster's Dictionary

Socialism = collective ownership
Communism = collective ownership
Capitalism = private ownership by individuals

CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production,
distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for
private profit. Webster's Dictionary

A farmer who owns his farm enjoys capitalism.
A laborer who owns the fruits of his labor enjoys capitalism.
A merchant who distributes the fruits of another's labor enjoys capitalism.

From the Communist manifesto:
" * * * In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the
single sentence: Abolition of private property."

"PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such
property as belongs ABSOLUTELY to an INDIVIDUAL, and of which he has the
exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible
nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as
houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217

What is abolished by Marxism?
Absolute ownership of houses, lands and chattels.

Good little socialists are slaves of the collective.

The TRUTH of Communism (and Socialism) is that absolute ownership of your
person, your labor, your children, and the fruits of your labor is
ABOLISHED.

The collective State becomes an interested party to you and yours. And thus
you have no freedom to act without first acquiring permission of the State,
your superior.

Why must socialism and communism fight Christianity?

Genesis 1:26 And God said, ... let man ... have dominion... over all the
earth.

Dominion = sovereignty = absolute ownership = private property.

Christianity teaches (or should've taught) that each individual absolutely
owns himself, his labor, the fruits of his labor, and the land which he
acquired lawfully.

Those who wish to live by preying upon others, and taking their property,
are predators. In short, socialists are pirates, sharing the booty stolen
from the people.

The "Ship of State" is flying the Jolly Roger.
It's dangerous to be a chaplain on a pirate ship...

In article ,
says...

My point was that
since smaller accounts receive lower interest rates poorer people are
somewhat discouraged from saving since they don't get the higher rate
received by those who can afford to make larger deposits.


Why would I be discouraged from saving, merely because
some wealthy person is getting a better return?

That's like someone claiming that they are discouraged
from working hard, merely because they wouldn't earn as
much as some other person.

What I can receive through saving (and working hard) is
that much more than I would get if I refused to do
those things.


I can understand
the bank's side of things when it comes to the cost of servicing an account,
but wouldn't simply be better to impose an account service fee rather than
discouraging smaller deposits?


What matters is the bottom line. For a small amount in
savings, that fee could cancel out the higher interest
for the customer. And vice-versa for the bank.


Seems to me that banks should encourage
customers to save.


They do. But, being profit-oriented businesses, they
are going to be more interested in attracting customers
with lots of money, and a better ratio of revenue to
overhead costs.


I do have to agree though that many people are a major problem for the
banking system because they so often overdraw checking accounts. Here in PA
the problem has increased because even the totally stupid are required to
have someplace to automatically deposit welfare, SSI payments, etc. These
people don't have a clue about how to keep a checkbook balanced or how to
reconcile a bank statement, or even correctly write a check. They are at
the bank or on the phone frequently asking for assistance with their
accounts. The bank should impose a fee for providing this service for the
stupid.


They do impose fees. Bounced cheque fees. Excess
phone call fees. Teller-assisted transaction fees.


--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:36:16 GMT, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Dont forget that the illegal alien usage of the medical system, via
the ER, adds an unremembursed cost factor of about 11 Billion dollars
a year that has to get paid for somehow..and we are the how...

Sort of like the uninsured with heart problems?
--
Cliff

Dont forget that the illegal alien usage of the medical system, via
the ER, adds an unremembursed cost factor of about 11 Billion dollars
a year that has to get paid for somehow..and we are the how...

Sort of like the uninsured with heart problems?
--
Cliff

Exactly like that. Except in our case add that they also have the opinion
that everyone should have to pay for everything themselves. That would make
them a conservative, er, a hypocrite, oh year they're the same, aren't
they?

Hawke