Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
Jeff McCann wrote
wrote SoCalMike wrote Sgt.Sausage wrote Anything else is simply theft -- rob from the rich to feed the poor. the rich get rich on the backs of the poor. Well, the poor can always do what the rich did. Start their own business, risk everything they own, and hope they don't go belly up. Or, they can sit around and whine and ask Uncle Sugar to save them. The vast majority of wealth in America in private hands is inherited wealth. Wrong, the vast bulk of it has been accumulated by the individual, and is the house they are paying off and their retirement savings. The above is typical of the Social-Darwinist myth put out by the rich to the effect that that the rich are rich because they deserve to be rich, because they earned their money by working for it. Nothing could be further from the truth. For every self-made multi-millionaire, there are probably hundreds of worthless, Paris Hilton-like, trust fund brats out there. Sure, but they are always a tiny part of the total number of individuals in any modern first world country. They don't even usually have brains enough to manage their own investment portfolios and require professional management to do it for them. Just as true of most individuals. Thus, their wealth may grow while in their hands, but it is a rare occasion when the owner of that wealth had anything to do with it. Just as true of most individuals. |
#42
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
Jeff McCann wrote: wrote: On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:55:12 -0800, SoCalMike wrote: Sgt.Sausage wrote: Anything else is simply theft -- rob from the rich to feed the poor. the rich get rich on the backs of the poor. Well, the poor can always do what the rich did. Start their own business, risk everything they own, and hope they don't go belly up. Or, they can sit around and whine and ask Uncle Sugar to save them. The vast majority of wealth in America in private hands is inherited wealth. The above is typical of the Social-Darwinist myth put out by the rich to the effect that that the rich are rich because they deserve to be rich, because they earned their money by working for it. Nothing could be further from the truth. For every self-made multi-millionaire, there are probably hundreds of worthless, Paris Hilton-like, trust fund brats out there. They don't even usually have brains enough to manage their own investment portfolios and require professional management to do it for them. Thus, their wealth may grow while in their hands, but it is a rare occasion when the owner of that wealth had anything to do with it. Jeff Jeff Heh..simple response to the conservatives who tout that rich people are that way because they are better/work harder....Ted Kennedy. That usually ****es em off. Reality of our economy is that the more cash you have, the greater the rate of returns on that cash. As far as schemes go, it insures that the hill climb is really steep when you start at the bottom and almost a downhill run once you have enough in the bank to play in the big leagues. Rich get richer at a far faster rate (and less hassle if you take into account the tax structure) than those climbing the hill. It's probably very similar to an exponential curve. Sure it's every man's right to aspire to wealth and to have that wealth if you win the prize, but the thing that needs to be flattened a bit is the ease of returns on that wealth. The exponential curve should be closer to a line. The rate at which Ted Kennedy's wealth insreases due to the fact that he already has a pile of money (no work or real effort) is so askew that redistribution to the rest of the society (which he so highly benefits from) via social security taxes on ALL income would have a near zero affect on his lifestyle. Too bad if he can't collect back the riches he put in over the years under this scheme. He collects back the riches by the sheer fact that the economy is skewed toward those with existing wealth increasing their wealth at a much higher rate than work/effort increasing wealth. Koz |
#43
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
In article et, Jeff McCann
says... The vast majority of wealth in America in private hands is inherited wealth. The above is typical of the Social-Darwinist myth put out by the rich to the effect that that the rich are rich because they deserve to be rich, because they earned their money by working for it. Nothing could be further from the truth. For every self-made multi-millionaire, there are probably hundreds of worthless, Paris Hilton-like, trust fund brats out there. They don't even usually have brains enough to manage their own investment portfolios and require professional management to do it for them. Thus, their wealth may grow while in their hands, but it is a rare occasion when the owner of that wealth had anything to do with it. Heh. The so-called "horatio alge story..." Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#45
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
Koz wrote:
Jeff McCann wrote: wrote: On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:55:12 -0800, SoCalMike wrote: Sgt.Sausage wrote: Anything else is simply theft -- rob from the rich to feed the poor. the rich get rich on the backs of the poor. Well, the poor can always do what the rich did. Start their own business, risk everything they own, and hope they don't go belly up. Or, they can sit around and whine and ask Uncle Sugar to save them. The vast majority of wealth in America in private hands is inherited wealth. The above is typical of the Social-Darwinist myth put out by the rich to the effect that that the rich are rich because they deserve to be rich, because they earned their money by working for it. Nothing could be further from the truth. For every self-made multi-millionaire, there are probably hundreds of worthless, Paris Hilton-like, trust fund brats out there. They don't even usually have brains enough to manage their own investment portfolios and require professional management to do it for them. Thus, their wealth may grow while in their hands, but it is a rare occasion when the owner of that wealth had anything to do with it. Heh..simple response to the conservatives who tout that rich people are that way because they are better/work harder....Ted Kennedy. That usually ****es em off. Reality of our economy is that the more cash you have, the greater the rate of returns on that cash. It aint the rate of return on cash that makes the rich rich. As far as schemes go, it insures that the hill climb is really steep when you start at the bottom and almost a downhill run once you have enough in the bank to play in the big leagues. Rich get richer at a far faster rate (and less hassle if you take into account the tax structure) than those climbing the hill. It's probably very similar to an exponential curve. Nope, nothing like it. Sure it's every man's right to aspire to wealth and to have that wealth if you win the prize, but the thing that needs to be flattened a bit is the ease of returns on that wealth. The exponential curve No such animal. should be closer to a line. Nope. The rate at which Ted Kennedy's wealth insreases due to the fact that he already has a pile of money (no work or real effort) is so askew that redistribution to the rest of the society (which he so highly benefits from) via social security taxes on ALL income would have a near zero affect on his lifestyle. Sure, but why should he be paying more taxes ? Too bad if he can't collect back the riches he put in over the years under this scheme. He collects back the riches by the sheer fact that the economy is skewed toward those with existing wealth increasing their wealth at a much higher rate than work/effort increasing wealth. Just another of your silly fantasys. |
#46
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
Rod Speed wrote:
Jeff McCann wrote wrote SoCalMike wrote Sgt.Sausage wrote Anything else is simply theft -- rob from the rich to feed the poor. the rich get rich on the backs of the poor. Well, the poor can always do what the rich did. Start their own business, risk everything they own, and hope they don't go belly up. Or, they can sit around and whine and ask Uncle Sugar to save them. The vast majority of wealth in America in private hands is inherited wealth. Wrong, the vast bulk of it has been accumulated by the individual, and is the house they are paying off and their retirement savings. I was referring to the estates of the rich, not the estates of the middle class, which I thought was apparent from the context, although middle class estates re indeed composed largely of home equity and retirement savings from earned income. The above is typical of the Social-Darwinist myth put out by the rich to the effect that that the rich are rich because they deserve to be rich, because they earned their money by working for it. Nothing could be further from the truth. For every self-made multi-millionaire, there are probably hundreds of worthless, Paris Hilton-like, trust fund brats out there. Sure, but they are always a tiny part of the total number of individuals in any modern first world country. They don't even usually have brains enough to manage their own investment portfolios and require professional management to do it for them. Just as true of most individuals. Thus, their wealth may grow while in their hands, but it is a rare occasion when the owner of that wealth had anything to do with it. Just as true of most individuals. My point exactly. The rich are no different than most folks in most ways. As a class, they certainly aren't possessed of any discernibly superior drive, intelligence, ambition, talent or ability. Mostly, their wealth was merely a fortunate accident of birth. On the other hand, someone who has perhaps a few hundred thousand to a few million dollars is quite a bit more likely to have earned it the old fashioned way, through enterprise and risk. Jeff |
#47
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
Antipodean Bucket Farmer wrote:
In article et, says... wrote: On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:55:12 -0800, SoCalMike wrote: Sgt.Sausage wrote: Anything else is simply theft -- rob from the rich to feed the poor. the rich get rich on the backs of the poor. Well, the poor can always do what the rich did. Start their own business, risk everything they own, and hope they don't go belly up. Or, they can sit around and whine and ask Uncle Sugar to save them. The vast majority of wealth in America in private hands is inherited wealth. The above is typical of the Social-Darwinist myth put out by the rich to the effect that that the rich are rich because they deserve to be rich, because they earned their money by working for it. Nothing could be further from the truth. For every self-made multi-millionaire, there are probably hundreds of worthless, Paris Hilton-like, trust fund brats out there. They don't even usually have brains enough to manage their own investment portfolios and require professional management to do it for them. Thus, their wealth may grow while in their hands, but it is a rare occasion when the owner of that wealth had anything to do with it. So? If I give you a gift, does that magically entitle somebody else to steal it from you, since you didn't earn it? No, and nothing in my post suggests otherwise. I was merely pointing out that the Social-Darwinist myth of the "deserving" rich is utter and complete nonsense in the vast majority of cases. Jeff |
#48
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
Rod Speed wrote:
The vast majority of wealth in America in private hands is inherited wealth. Wrong, the vast bulk of it has been accumulated by the individual, and is the house they are paying off and their retirement savings. Actually, both are incorrect. Under socialism (thanks to FICA/SocSec), there is no "private property" (owned absolutely). And as a "contributor" under FICA, you are bankrupted. For example, contact the IRS or the Federal Reserve and ask what the par value is for a Federal Reserve Note (aka "dollar bill"). The answer is : "No par value" (worthless). So you wonder, "How did a worthless piece of paper become 'legal tender'?" The law regarding notes, requires an obligated party to accept his own notes as tender in payment of debt. Every duly enrolled socialist, enumerated and enslaved, is a "contributor" equally liable for his share of the national debt *(those worthless notes ARE evidences of debt pursuant to Title 12 USC code Sec 411). There are court cites, before 1935, where the court ruled that one could object to the tender of "notes" in lieu of "real money" (gold or silver dollars). After 1935, Americans could no longer object. You can also check the pre-1933 Federal Reserve notes to verify that they did state, "Pay to the bearer on demand X dollars..." After the bankruptcy, the notes ceased to have that phrase. To sum it up, 99.9999% of Americans are victims of a gigantic fraud that has robbed them of their rights, their property, and their liberties. There is no security in Social Security, and robbery is not social behavior. In case you are wondering what happened, the triggering "emergency" in 1933 was the bankruptcy [1]. The bankruptcy was caused by usury [2]. Usury is impossible to pay [3]. Impossible contracts are illegal [4]. Ergo, the "emergency" is based on fraud. But since we consent to the fraud, it doesn't matter. When "we" have an agreement with usurers and their agents, the bankrupt government will not impair that agreement between you and their creditor. Sad, isn't it? "We" are trading with "the Enemy" (usurers). Every American with an interest bearing account or any other form of usury is self-condemned. And no Federal Reserve bank will open an interest bearing account for an unnumbered American who is not enrolled in FICA/SocSec. As long as "we, the people" embrace usury, an abomination, there is no recourse nor remedy in law nor religion. - - - - Footnotes: [1] House Joint Resolution 192, March 1933, Congress declared that they would no longer guarantee their notes - i.e., exchange them for real money. That triggered the bankruptcy and reorganization of the bankrupted United States, in Congress assembled. [2] The usury charged for the borrowing of federal reserve notes, though modest, was responsible for gutting the treasury within 20 years of enactment of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. In fact, the "Great Depression" was fomented by those same banksters who collapsed the economy in their favor. It is no coincidence that all competing banks folded, while the Federal Reserve Banks prospered. [3] Usury is the fee, in money, for the "use" (loan) of money. The exponential equation used to calculate interest is the reason why usury is impossible to pay in a finite money token system (gold and silver coin). The aggregate usury requires an increase in the money supply to pay interest AND principle. No matter what the interest rate is, there is a point in time when the sum owed exceeds the whole set of available money. After that point, all power transfers to the creditor. [4] Usury has been proscribed as an evil for thousands of years. According to the Bible, usury is an abomination, and the usurer shall surely die, his blood be on his own hands (Ezekiel 18:13 KJV). Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all originally prohibited usury. Over time, the usurers conquered their opponents. Even the Roman Catholic Church, which forbade usury for 19 centuries, finally succumbed. Islam still prohibits usury, which accounts for the unified attack upon them by the 'fee world'. .. . . . Biblical injunctions against Usury Exodus 22:25 If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury. Leviticus 25:36 Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Leviticus 25:37 Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase. Deuteronomy 23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury: Psalm 15:5 He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved. Ezekiel 18:13 Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him. [New Testament references are indirect, as in the incident where Jesus whips the money changers out of the temple. Usurers are also called exchangers of money, i.e., money changers.] .. . . . . . Quranic injunctions against Usury Al-Baqarah 2:275 Those who charge usury are in the same position as those controlled by the devil's influence. This is because they claim that usury is the same as commerce. However, God permits commerce, and prohibits usury. Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from his Lord, and refrains from usury, he may keep his past earnings, and his judgment rests with God. As for those who persist in usury, they incur Hell, wherein they abide forever Al-Baqarah 2:276-280 God condemns usury, and blesses charities. God dislikes every disbeliever, guilty. O you who believe, you shall observe God and refrain from all kinds of usury, if you are believers. If you do not, then expect a war from God and His messenger. But if you repent, you may keep your capitals, without inflicting injustice, or incurring injustice. If the debtor is unable to pay, wait for a better time. If you give up the loan as a charity, it would be better for you, if you only knew. Al-'Imran 3:130 O you who believe, you shall not take usury, compounded over and over. Observe God, that you may succeed. Al-Nisa 4:161 And for practicing usury, which was forbidden, and for consuming the people's money illicitly. We have prepared for the disbelievers among them painful retribution. Ar-Rum 30:39 The usury that is practiced to increase some people's wealth, does not gain anything at God. But if you give to charity, seeking God's pleasure, these are the ones who receive their reward many fold. "If you do not [refrain from usury], then expect a war from God and His messenger." Al-Baqarah 2:276-280 Usury has been known to be an abomination for thousands of years. It is a scheme to STEAL. It was and is proscribed by scriptures used by Jews, Christians and Muslims. Any individual who engages in usury, and claims to adhere to the religious tenets of the aforementioned is self deluded or deluding others. And if you ever wondered why God allows evil men to control and persecute Americans, consider that EVERY enumerated usurer is self condemned, and "...he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him." [Exekiel 18:13] Have you renounced usury in all its forms? If you haven't, it is unadvisable to pray for "Divine Wrath" on those who persecute you... His Fist would fall upon you, first! |
#49
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
Rod Speed wrote:
Just another of your silly fantasys. Your fantasies are having job,life,education,friends and money. How long did that fast food job last, two hours or three? |
#50
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
Too_Many_Tools wrote: Social Security could be big chill for 50-somethings By Susan Page, USA [Snip...] And that is nothing compared to the issues with Medicare. But you need to remember that people like Vic need our help, so I see no problem with wrecking the economy to help out such deserving folk. -Tom |
#51
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
Jeff McCann wrote
Rod Speed wrote Jeff McCann wrote wrote SoCalMike wrote Sgt.Sausage wrote Anything else is simply theft -- rob from the rich to feed the poor. the rich get rich on the backs of the poor. Well, the poor can always do what the rich did. Start their own business, risk everything they own, and hope they don't go belly up. Or, they can sit around and whine and ask Uncle Sugar to save them. The vast majority of wealth in America in private hands is inherited wealth. Wrong, the vast bulk of it has been accumulated by the individual, and is the house they are paying off and their retirement savings. I was referring to the estates of the rich, not the estates of the middle class, which I thought was apparent from the context, although middle class estates re indeed composed largely of home equity and retirement savings from earned income. And they vastly outnumber 'the rich' and are where 'the vast majority of wealth in America in private hands' resides. The above is typical of the Social-Darwinist myth put out by the rich to the effect that that the rich are rich because they deserve to be rich, because they earned their money by working for it. Nothing could be further from the truth. For every self-made multi-millionaire, there are probably hundreds of worthless, Paris Hilton-like, trust fund brats out there. Sure, but they are always a tiny part of the total number of individuals in any modern first world country. They don't even usually have brains enough to manage their own investment portfolios and require professional management to do it for them. Just as true of most individuals. Thus, their wealth may grow while in their hands, but it is a rare occasion when the owner of that wealth had anything to do with it. Just as true of most individuals. My point exactly. The rich are no different than most folks in most ways. The main difference is with those who get rich starting from nothing or nothing significant to them getting rich. Most of those are recent immigrants, but not all, most obviously with some like Gates. As a class, they certainly aren't possessed of any discernibly superior drive, intelligence, ambition, talent or ability. Thats not true of those who do get rich thru their own efforts. Mostly, their wealth was merely a fortunate accident of birth. Not sure thats even true in the mostly sense. On the other hand, someone who has perhaps a few hundred thousand to a few million dollars is quite a bit more likely to have earned it the old fashioned way, through enterprise and risk. Yep, nothing like the average wage slave even when that is a decent professional wage or two. |
#52
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
Jet Graphics wrote
Rod Speed wrote The vast majority of wealth in America in private hands is inherited wealth. Wrong, the vast bulk of it has been accumulated by the individual, and is the house they are paying off and their retirement savings. Actually, both are incorrect. Nope. Under socialism (thanks to FICA/SocSec), there is no "private property" (owned absolutely). Wrong. And as a "contributor" under FICA, you are bankrupted. Wrong again. For example, contact the IRS or the Federal Reserve and ask what the par value is for a Federal Reserve Note (aka "dollar bill"). The answer is : "No par value" (worthless). Mindlessly silly, and that clearly aint true with a paid off house anyway. So you wonder, "How did a worthless piece of paper become 'legal tender'?" Its a convenient way of doing a currency, stupid. reams of mindless raving about currency notes flushed where it belongs Most arent stupid enough to keep much of their wealth in currency notes. There is no security in Social Security, Most arent stupid enough to rely in that for their time past working. and robbery is not social behavior. We have different words for a reason, stupid. reams of mindless raving flushed where it belongs |
#53
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
Rod Speed wrote:
Yep, nothing like the average wage slave even when that is a decent professional wage or two. What would you know about wages and professions, welfare boy? |
#54
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
In some sense "rich" is the Buddhist definition of balancing
wants with what one has. There are people who have an ever escalating set of wants. The reach one level, then pine for the next level. I myself may have been as happy as college student with virtually no assets than anytime later. However, I concede there may be true poverty floor where one can really be poor. (The precise Buddhist teaching that most people suffer to some degree, suffering is cauld by unmet desire, controling desire in a moderate way reduces suffering.) |
#55
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
"tonyp" wrote in message ... "Robert Sturgeon" wrote ... because it was sold as an insurance program in which one got back money roughly commensurate with what one paid in. On average, maybe. Insurance emphatically does _not_ pay you, individually, "money roughly commensurate with" your premiums. The whole point of insurance is that some people get more out of it than they ever paid into it. Just like taxes. Hawke |
#56
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
In article ,
wrote: On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:56:37 +1100, Terry Collins wrote: wrote: Well, the poor can always do what the rich did. Start their own business, risk everything they own, and hope they don't go belly up. Would you care to provide the names of rich people who did this. 1) many rich kids actually fail repeatedly in their businesses. 2) rich kids are often propped up by mummy and daddy Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Dave Thomas,. (of Wendy's fame. IIRC, he was an orphan), Ray Kroc, (of McDonalds). Sam Walton. A myriad of small business owners, especially immigrants, who own chains of markets, bodegas, dry cleaners, etc. 3) rich people don't risk their money. they risk dumb schmucks money No one ever said rich people were dumb. Rick Bowen Texas State Rifle Association Life Member lex talionis. Gates and Allen were born stinking rich. The prep school they went to costs more per year than Harvard. They are, in fact, the death of the American dream. And thier product sucks, and costs the US, oh, say, a trillion dollars in productivity a year. Not counting all the innovative businesses they destroy. -- Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee Party of one candidate, President of the United States of America Maryland, USA Ground troops out of Iraq Put the CIA under INS Semi-legalize drugs Prosecute Bush Tighten the borders Isolate Israel Tax churches halve military aquisitions platform http://www.smart.net/~humbubba/platform Hohensee-Feingold Amendment http://www.smart.net/~humbubba |
#57
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
In article , Tim May says...
Including some of the goof-offs here who claim that those with money not yet confiscated must have gotten it by inheritance. Saying 'all those who say that many rich folks in america inherited their wealth are slackers' is the same thing as saying 'all rich folks inherited their wealth. If you know so many folks who have climbed up the hawspipe to become billionares, I think I want to get to know you better.... Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#58
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:56:37 +1100, Terry Collins wrote: wrote: Well, the poor can always do what the rich did. Start their own business, risk everything they own, and hope they don't go belly up. Would you care to provide the names of rich people who did this. 1) many rich kids actually fail repeatedly in their businesses. 2) rich kids are often propped up by mummy and daddy Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Dave Thomas,. (of Wendy's fame. IIRC, he was an orphan), Ray Kroc, (of McDonalds). Sam Walton. A myriad of small business owners, especially immigrants, who own chains of markets, bodegas, dry cleaners, etc. And most recently, google. 3) rich people don't risk their money. they risk dumb schmucks money No one ever said rich people were dumb. Rick Bowen Texas State Rifle Association Life Member lex talionis. |
#59
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
Jet Graphics wrote:
Rod Speed wrote: The vast majority of wealth in America in private hands is inherited wealth. Wrong, the vast bulk of it has been accumulated by the individual, and is the house they are paying off and their retirement savings. Actually, both are incorrect. Under socialism (thanks to FICA/SocSec), there is no "private property" (owned absolutely). And as a "contributor" under FICA, you are bankrupted. are you one of those people that thinks they can get away without paying income tax, because "theres no law that says we have to"? |
#60
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
Rod Speed wrote:
Jet Graphics wrote Rod Speed wrote The vast majority of wealth in America in private hands is inherited wealth. Wrong, the vast bulk of it has been accumulated by the individual, and is the house they are paying off and their retirement savings. Actually, both are incorrect. Nope. And without any facts in support of the objection, moving on... Under socialism (thanks to FICA/SocSec), there is no "private property" (owned absolutely). Wrong. Again, your opinion lacks facts. Here's the facts of property: Private property is absolutely owned by an individual. Pursuant to the 5th amendment, "private property" is protected from being taken for public use without just compensation. Estate is synonymous with real and personal property. Estate is held with qualified ownership (less than absolute) by a person or persons. If one has NOT enrolled into national socialism (FICA/SocSec) one is not a "person liable" for the SS wage tax. Furthermore, if one does NOT have a number, one cannot file a Form 1040, because the IRS will not accept unnumbered form. Since there is NO LAW requiring the enrollment into national socialism, nor punishing one for not participating, one who has no number cannot be charged with "willful failure to file" an income tax return. Likewise, all states that enact ad valorem (property) taxes are limited to real and personal property, not "private property". Socialism, by definition, abolishes private property (so does communism, but that's another issue). The "human resources" of national socialism who are claimed by the creditor, are not the free inhabitants, domiciled in the USA, who have not consented to national socialism, and are not subject to nor object of the socialist policies of the government. And as a "contributor" under FICA, you are bankrupted. Wrong again. I suggest you go to the nearest Federal Reserve Bank, and ask them to exchange one of those "notes" for a real dollar (gold or silver coin), pursuant to the Coinage Act of 1792, et seq. They will not. I suspect that everything you bought was paid for with "notes". Since the Constitution explicitly forbids States from using anything BUT silver and gold coin as tender in payment of debts, YOU have never, ever "paid a lawful debt". Those who cannot pay debts are bankrupted. However, you might have been misled to presume that "discharging" a debt, with another debt instrument (note) was the same as paying a debt. It is not. Interesting coincidence: In the bankruptcy code, the term "bankrupt" has been removed, and the term "debtor" is now used. When you apply for a "loan" check out the title of the form you sign. I bet it is a "Creditor - Debtor Agreement". For example, contact the IRS or the Federal Reserve and ask what the par value is for a Federal Reserve Note (aka "dollar bill"). The answer is : "No par value" (worthless). Mindlessly silly, and that clearly aint true with a paid off house anyway. If you think you "absolutely own" a "paid off house", stop paying your socialist tithe (property tax) to the government. See how long you can keep it before it is taken for "public use" WITHOUT just compensation. So you wonder, "How did a worthless piece of paper become 'legal tender'?" Its a convenient way of doing a currency, stupid. No. It is not a convenience. In law, there are specific definitions for legal terms. For example, "real money" is defined as gold or silver coin. "Money" is defined as either "real money" OR certificates of deposit of real money. A note is a promise to PAY real money on demand. However, since 1933, the Congress will not honor that promise. Ergo, the paper currency is NOT real money, money, nor a legitimate note. It is WORTHLESS - no par value - not negotiable. reams of mindless raving about currency notes flushed where it belongs Most arent stupid enough to keep much of their wealth in currency notes. If one is enrolled into national socialism, one has no real wealth, nor property rights that were eligible for protection. There is no security in Social Security, Most arent stupid enough to rely in that for their time past working. Apparently you agree that there is no security in it. and robbery is not social behavior. We have different words for a reason, stupid. What part of forcibly taking one man's property for the benefit of another is NOT robbery? If the taking is by consent, then force is unnecessary. However, the government will use FORCE to take property of the obligated socialist. Of course, you are unaware that by the terms of their law, EVERYONE has consented to being robbed. reams of mindless raving flushed where it belongs I fear that you have been a victim of propaganda. The hurling of epithets is a poor means of supporting your opinion. I suggest you take some time to visit your local county courthouse law library. They should have a law library, and it is open to the public, not just for lawyers. And don't be afraid to ask the law clerk for help in finding information, it's their job. References: 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. From the Communist manifesto: "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private profit. --- Webster's Dictionary "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 "TITLE - ... a short hand term used to denote the facts which, if proved, will enable a plaintiff to recover possession or a defendant to retain possesion of a thing." Cribbet, Principles of the Law of Property 15 (1962)" - - - Barron's Law Dictionary, p. 210 "OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. " - - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106 "ESTATE - The degree, quantity, nature and extent of interest which a person has in real and personal property. An estate in lands, tenements, and hereditaments signifies such interest as the tenant has therein." - - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.547 "INTEREST - ...More particularly it means a right to have the advantage of accruing from anything ; any right in the nature of property, but less than title." - - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 812 PROPERTY TAX - "An ad valorem tax, usually levied by a city or county, on the value of real or personal property that the taxpayer owns on a specified date." Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1218 This is HOW the scam operates. Most people presume that they own private property but they don't. They register it as "estate" (real and personal property held with qualified ownership - an interest LESS THAN TITLE. A "title deed" to estate is not a title to private property). Depending on the nature of the local socialism, the "owner" is obligated to pay a fee (taxes) to the collective for the civil liberty of holding property claimed by the collective. Failure to pay (or breach any regulatory law) may result in confiscation of the estate by the collective. Note: Collective ownership and private property (absolute ownership by an individual) are mutually exclusive. Qualified ownership means that two or more people have a claim. That's how the government can "condemn" estate, without paying just compensation to the owners, who are misled to believe they are losing "private property". More info at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/I-Am-Anti-Socialist |
#61
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
Jet Graphics wrote
Rod Speed wrote Jet Graphics wrote Rod Speed wrote The vast majority of wealth in America in private hands is inherited wealth. Wrong, the vast bulk of it has been accumulated by the individual, and is the house they are paying off and their retirement savings. Actually, both are incorrect. Nope. And without any facts in support of the objection, moving on... Lie. The facts are still there in the quoting. Under socialism (thanks to FICA/SocSec), there is no "private property" (owned absolutely). Wrong. Again, your opinion lacks facts. YOU made that stupid pig ignorant claim. YOU get to provide the facts that support that stupid pig ignorant claim. THATS how it works. Here's the facts of property: You wouldnt know what a fact was if it bit you on your lard arse. Private property is absolutely owned by an individual. Pursuant to the 5th amendment, "private property" is protected from being taken for public use without just compensation. So that claim you made above is clearly a complete pack of lies. Estate is synonymous with real and personal property. Estate is held with qualified ownership (less than absolute) by a person or persons. Irrelevant waffle. If one has NOT enrolled into national socialism (FICA/SocSec) one is not a "person liable" for the SS wage tax. And if you are enrolled and are not getting a wage, there is no personal liability owing, so you clearly do have absolute ownership of your private property that has been fully paid for. So your original pig ignorant claim is a complete pack of lies. reams of mindless pig ignorant raving flushed where it belongs |
#62
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
Rod Speed wrote:
Jet Graphics wrote Rod Speed wrote Jet Graphics wrote Rod Speed wrote The vast majority of wealth in America in private hands is inherited wealth. Wrong, the vast bulk of it has been accumulated by the individual, and is the house they are paying off and their retirement savings. Actually, both are incorrect. Nope. And without any facts in support of the objection, moving on... Lie. The facts are still there in the quoting. Incorrect conclusion. No facts in evidence to rebut the statement that both were wrong, because absolute ownership is abolished by national socialism. The collective has a superior claim to all property. Ergo, there is no real wealth in the hands of most Americans. Under socialism (thanks to FICA/SocSec), there is no "private property" (owned absolutely). Wrong. Again, your opinion lacks facts. YOU made that stupid pig ignorant claim. YOU get to provide the facts that support that stupid pig ignorant claim. THATS how it works. Incorrect conclusion. The references were attached to prior post, that you apparently failed to comprehend. Private property is absolutely owned. Estate is not. Socialism abolishes private property. Since 1935, the U.S.A. has been socialist. Estate is subject to taxation and regulation. Private property is not subject to nor object of taxation and regulation. Check your own state constitution for further proof. From the Texas Constitution: * * *ARTICLE 8 *TAXATION AND REVENUE * * *Sec. 1. *EQUALITY AND UNIFORMITY; TAX IN PROPORTION TO * * *VALUE; TAXATION OF TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE PROPERTY; * * *OCCUPATION TAXES; INCOME TAX; EXEMPTION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS. * * *(a) Taxation shall be equal and uniform. * * *(b) All real property and tangible personal property in * * *this State, unless exempt as required or permitted by this * * *Constitution, whether owned by natural persons or * * *corporations, other than municipal, shall be taxed in * * *proportion to its value, which shall be ascertained as may * * *be provided by law. * * *The Texas constitution states that all real and personal * * *property is subject to their taxing power. * * *PROPERTY TAX - An ad valorem tax, usually levied by a city * * *or county, on the value of real or personal property that * * *the taxpayer owns on a specified date. *BL 6, p.1218 * * *That definition agrees with the Texas constitution. From Georgia Constitution, Art VII, Sec I, Par III (b) 1: ... classes of property subject to taxation shall consist of tangible property and one or more classes of intangible personal property including money. TANGIBLE PROPERTY - all property which is touchable and has real existence (physical) whether it is real or personal. BL6, p. 1218 Of course, you might need to double back and realize that "real or personal property" refers to estate, which is NOT private property. If lawyers weren't so prone to obfuscation, they might have stated, "tangible property is real or personal property that is touchable." But "real or personal property" is not private property, owned absolutely. "REAL ESTATE .... is synonymous with real property" Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., From p.1263 "REAL PROPERTY ... A general term for lands, tenements, heriditaments; which on the death of the owner intestate, passes to his heir." Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1218 "ESTATE - The degree, quantity, nature and extent of interest which a person has in real and personal property. An estate in lands, tenements, and hereditaments signifies such interest as the tenant has therein." - - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.547 Note: estate = real estate = real and personal property = tangible property INTEREST - ...More particularly it means a right to have the advantage of accruing from anything ; any right in the nature of property, but less than title. - - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 812 TITLE - "The formal right of ownership of property..." Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1485 Estate is held with an interest that is not the FORMAL RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP. It is a privilege! "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 "OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. " - - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106 In short, the states have no delegation of power to tax land, houses or chattels absolutely owned (a right). But they DO have a delegation of power to tax estate held by qualified ownership (a privilege). If you were misled to believe "estate" = "all land", that is easily corrected. "LAND. ... The land is one thing, and the estate in land is another thing, for an estate in land is a time in land or land for a time." - - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.877 "Land for a time" is TEMPORARY, not absolute ownership. Recapping: Private property = land, houses, chattels owned ABSOLUTELY by an individual. Estate = land, tenements, and heriditaments held with an interest (qualified ownership) by a person or persons. Socialists have an interest in their estate, but it is shared with the Collective. Whoever controls the collective, controls all estate. Here's the facts of property: You wouldnt know what a fact was if it bit you on your lard arse. Vulgarity denigrates the speaker, not the subject of the vulgarity. Do you have any facts to rebut the legal definitions previously posted? All you have to do is produce ONE definition from a legal authority that rebuts the previous post and then you would have made one valid point. There are many reputable sources: Statutes at Large of the United States of America, American law review, Corpus Juris Secundum, American law digest, Black's Law dictionary, Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Ballantine's Law Dictionary, Law of Nations by Vattel, Annotated State and Federal publications of their respective codes. Private property is absolutely owned by an individual. Pursuant to the 5th amendment, "private property" is protected from being taken for public use without just compensation. So that claim you made above is clearly a complete pack of lies. Incorrect conclusion. Try again. Estate is synonymous with real and personal property. Estate is held with qualified ownership (less than absolute) by a person or persons. Irrelevant waffle. Incorrect conclusion. Try again. If one has NOT enrolled into national socialism (FICA/SocSec) one is not a "person liable" for the SS wage tax. And if you are enrolled and are not getting a wage, there is no personal liability owing, so you clearly do have absolute ownership of your private property that has been fully paid for. So your original pig ignorant claim is a complete pack of lies. Incorrect conclusion. Try again. Every American enrolled into FICA/SocSec is a "person liable". In fact, every beneficiary is obligated to pay his own benefit. Since being a donor and beneficiary is a legal impossibility, the Supreme court overturned the 1st SocSec Act. FDR scurried out and got an international treaty (*totalization agreement) that allowed the 2nd act to be "legal". There is no law requiring Americans to enroll in national socialism before working in the USA. There is no law punishing employers who hire unnumbered Americans. [See Title 18 U.S. Code] reams of mindless pig ignorant raving flushed where it belongs Incorrect conclusion. Since you consider definitions from legal authorities to be "mindless... raving", you must also consider "the LAW" to be mindless raving. That is not a good sign that you have a grasp of reality or mentally competent. Perhaps you should see a health practitioner for an examination. For further enlightenment, research the legal definitions of the following terms: national v. citizen sovereign v. subject inhabitant v. resident domicile v. residence natural liberty v. civil liberty personal liberty v. civil liberty unalienable rights v. political liberty private property v. estate (real and personal property) absolute ownership v. qualified ownership You might be surprised that there is a huge difference between an American national, domiciled upon private property, exercising natural and personal liberty, and the U.S. citizen, residing upon estate, exercising civil and political liberty. In case you are unaware that there ARE Americans who are NOT CITIZENS, read the following: "The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states;..." [Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)] "INHABITANT -One who resides actually and permanently in a given place, and has his domicile there." - - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.782 "DOMICILE - A person's legal home. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning." - - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.484 "RESIDENCE - Place where one actually lives ... Residence implies something more than physical presence and something less than domicile. The terms 'resident' and 'residence' have no precise legal meaning... [One can have many residences but only one domicile] - - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.1308, 1309 Note: A residence is something LESS than domicile. A legal residence is NOT a domicile. One can have many residences but only ONE domicile. If one has NO domicile, one has no "legal home". A U.S. citizen can only "reside" in a state (See 14th amendment). "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." [14th Amendment, Section 1.] Why can't U.S. citizens inhabit? FEDERAL CORPORATIONS - The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state. - - - Volume 19, Corpus Juris Secundum XVIII. Foreign Corporations, Sections 883,884 How did "EVERY AMERICAN" become a citizen in a "foreign corporation"? The United States, in Congress assembled, only has exclusive jurisdiction over its federal property, not over the States united. In fact, you can contact the State department and ask them if they issue passports to AMERICAN NATIONALS who are not U.S. citizens. I did. And they do issue passports to American nationals who are not U.S. citizens. Quick summary: A U.S. citizen, residing in a state, at a residence, with an interest in real estate, is a person subject to and object of the government. And failure to perform his duties, as a resident, will result in confiscation of real and personal property. An American free inhabitant, domiciled in private property, is a sovereign, not a "person" identified in statutes. His private property is protected from being taken by government for public use. Perhaps there is an interested party who does not wish Americans to learn that they voluntarily surrendered their property rights in exchange for access to "entitlements". And that by doing so, they lost the birthright of freedom, sovereignty, and liberty that their forefathers fought and died for. |
#63
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
SoCalMike wrote:
Jet Graphics wrote: Rod Speed wrote: The vast majority of wealth in America in private hands is inherited wealth. Wrong, the vast bulk of it has been accumulated by the individual, and is the house they are paying off and their retirement savings. Actually, both are incorrect. Under socialism (thanks to FICA/SocSec), there is no "private property" (owned absolutely). And as a "contributor" under FICA, you are bankrupted. are you one of those people that thinks they can get away without paying income tax, because "theres no law that says we have to"? No. Those who are "persons liable" should pay their taxes. |
#64
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
Jet Graphics wrote
Rod Speed wrote Jet Graphics wrote Rod Speed wrote Jet Graphics wrote Rod Speed wrote The vast majority of wealth in America in private hands is inherited wealth. Wrong, the vast bulk of it has been accumulated by the individual, and is the house they are paying off and their retirement savings. Actually, both are incorrect. Nope. And without any facts in support of the objection, moving on... Lie. The facts are still there in the quoting. Incorrect conclusion. It isnt a conclusion, its a statement of fact. No facts in evidence to rebut the statement that both were wrong, Lie, the evidence that I wasnt wrong was in that bit still in the quoting. because absolute ownership is abolished by national socialism. Complete pack of pig ignorant silly lies. And since this is the best you can manage, here goes the chain on the rest of your mindless silly ****. |
#65
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
"Nick Hull" wrote in message ... In article , Robert Sturgeon wrote: Julia Roberts makes about $200,000,000 a year, paying in only about $5000 in SS. She SHOULD pay $28,000,000 in SS. Then she'd get even more when she's old. How does that help SS's solvency? I think he was trying to say "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". We all know politicians 'need' more I heard that if you make $100,000 a year you were in the top 1% of the income bracket. If that is true, then where is all the money going to come from? |
#66
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
Rod Speed wrote:
Jet Graphics wrote Rod Speed wrote Jet Graphics wrote Rod Speed wrote Jet Graphics wrote Rod Speed wrote The vast majority of wealth in America in private hands is inherited wealth. Wrong, the vast bulk of it has been accumulated by the individual, and is the house they are paying off and their retirement savings. Actually, both are incorrect. Nope. And without any facts in support of the objection, moving on... Lie. The facts are still there in the quoting. Incorrect conclusion. It isnt a conclusion, its a statement of fact. So far, you haven't provided any "fact" but your uneducated opinion. Everyone has opinions, but when you can't quote one fact in support, your opinion is not persuasive. No facts in evidence to rebut the statement that both were wrong, Lie, the evidence that I wasnt wrong was in that bit still in the quoting. It appears that you do not comprehend written language nor definitions of terms. Perhaps I should use smaller words: Slaves - do - not - own - themselves. Voluntary - slaves - do - not - own - themselves. Even if Massuh lets the slave into the big house and keep a few things for himself, if Massuh wants, slave gets the boot, and loses all those things. because absolute ownership is abolished by national socialism. Complete pack of pig ignorant silly lies. So far, you have not provided one shred of evidence to dispute the definitions previously posted. Ergo, you must be the one filled to the brim with "pig ignorant silly lies." And since this is the best you can manage, here goes the chain on the rest of your mindless silly ****. Apparently you have comprehension issues with language. When facts, with authoritative references are presented, you become so defensive of your ignorance that you have to resort to vulgarity to express yourself. The vulgarity and invective reflects poorly upon you and your arguments. But, then, you may be the "new socialist man" that the system relies upon to remain in harness, deaf and dumb. Good luck, don't rattle your chains too loudly, and pass into oblivion. |
#67
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
Jet Graphics
wrote just mindless pig ignorant silly stuff. |
#68
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
On 2 Dec 2005 11:16:33 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Sylvio's_Learning_Center" quickly quoth: TM said: America needs to clean house, to tell those who have taken funds to support their idle lifestyles to pay back what they took, with compounded interest, or face organ harvesting. Yeah, sure. And Randy Cunningham still gets to retain his golden parachute... i.e. his retirement salary, paid for by Yours Truly and Tim May Inc., et al. He certainly doesn't have to bet on Social Security, now does he? Hopefully, he,ll be limited to spending his booty on cholesterol-loaded snacks while he's in prison. That would be good. (Maybe he won't need a retirement salary.) But to give a known criminal a pension after he screwed the gov't is just plain NUTS. I wish they'd take away his Super-Platinum-plated Golden Retirement Fund and stick him in with the commoners getting SS and Medicaid Bennies instead. That'd teach him. We, the people, need to take that (OK, all of them) totally-out-of- control sector of the gov't and overhaul the **** out of it so it's not sucking the tills dry even -after- they've raped us. sigh -- The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature cures the disease. --Voltaire (1694-1778) -- www.diversify.com - Medicine-free Website Development |
#69
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
wrote in message ... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:56:37 +1100, Terry Collins wrote: wrote: Well, the poor can always do what the rich did. Start their own business, risk everything they own, and hope they don't go belly up. Would you care to provide the names of rich people who did this. 1) many rich kids actually fail repeatedly in their businesses. 2) rich kids are often propped up by mummy and daddy Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Dave Thomas,. (of Wendy's fame. IIRC, he was an orphan), Ray Kroc, (of McDonalds). Sam Walton. A myriad of small business owners, especially immigrants, who own chains of markets, bodegas, dry cleaners, etc. 3) rich people don't risk their money. they risk dumb schmucks money No one ever said rich people were dumb. If you are unaware that there are indeed people who think rich people are dumb you need to know there are. Me for one. Plenty of people that are rich are dumb too. In case you didn't know it, having money doesn't imply much of anything about a person. Rich are no different than other people; they can be dumb, smart, nice, mean, generous, stingy. You can't make any pronouncements about the rich with any validity. But one thing is for sure, plenty of people with lots of money are dumb. I know, I've met some of them. Hawke |
#70
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
"Jet Graphics" wrote in message ... Rod Speed wrote: Jet Graphics wrote Rod Speed wrote Jet Graphics wrote Rod Speed wrote Jet Graphics wrote Rod Speed wrote The vast majority of wealth in America in private hands is inherited wealth. Wrong, the vast bulk of it has been accumulated by the individual, and is the house they are paying off and their retirement savings. Actually, both are incorrect. Nope. And without any facts in support of the objection, moving on... Lie. The facts are still there in the quoting. Incorrect conclusion. It isnt a conclusion, its a statement of fact. So far, you haven't provided any "fact" but your uneducated opinion. Everyone has opinions, but when you can't quote one fact in support, your opinion is not persuasive. No facts in evidence to rebut the statement that both were wrong, Lie, the evidence that I wasnt wrong was in that bit still in the quoting. It appears that you do not comprehend written language nor definitions of terms. Perhaps I should use smaller words: Slaves - do - not - own - themselves. Voluntary - slaves - do - not - own - themselves. Even if Massuh lets the slave into the big house and keep a few things for himself, if Massuh wants, slave gets the boot, and loses all those things. because absolute ownership is abolished by national socialism. Complete pack of pig ignorant silly lies. So far, you have not provided one shred of evidence to dispute the definitions previously posted. Ergo, you must be the one filled to the brim with "pig ignorant silly lies." And since this is the best you can manage, here goes the chain on the rest of your mindless silly ****. Apparently you have comprehension issues with language. When facts, with authoritative references are presented, you become so defensive of your ignorance that you have to resort to vulgarity to express yourself. The vulgarity and invective reflects poorly upon you and your arguments. But, then, you may be the "new socialist man" that the system relies upon to remain in harness, deaf and dumb. Good luck, don't rattle your chains too loudly, and pass into oblivion. Facts you have. But the conclusions you draw from them are non sequitur and your comprehension of them is sorely lacking. Find a teacher to explain to you what you have read. You're not getting it on your own. Hawke |
#71
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
Julia Roberts makes about $200,000,000 a year, paying in only about $5000 in SS. She SHOULD pay $28,000,000 in SS. Then she'd get even more when she's old. How does that help SS's solvency? I think he was trying to say "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". We all know politicians 'need' more I heard that if you make $100,000 a year you were in the top 1% of the income bracket. If that is true, then where is all the money going to come from? Where is all what money going to come from? I'm not surprised that 100,000 puts one in the top 1% of income. I heard today that the place with the highest per capita income was in Connecticut and the income was 56K. People need to understand what that means. If 56K is the highest average income then nationally everywhere else it's less. Last I heard average income nationwide was about 45K. Now this is per household and assumes two people working. Consider that 10 dollars an hour is equal to a 20K per year income. That means most Americans have two people working at about 12 dollars per hr. jobs. To me that doesn't sound too prosperous. Then consider that the average household has about 13,000 in credit card debt. So, most people don't make enough to get by and have to borrow every year to make ends meet. Meanwhile, the wealth of those in the top 1% has skyrocketed in the last decade or two. Which means regular working Americans, even though they have jobs, are losing ground and are not gaining financially. The poor and working poor have done very badly. So what you have is a situation where everyone that doesn't have a "great" job is barely making ends meet, poor people are getting poorer, but the wealthiest Americans are having a field day. This has created the greatest gap between rich and poor since the 1890s. When you look at the facts one can only conclude that capitalism has not brought prosperity to the vast majority of Americans but it has been a bonanza to those at the top. In other words, we're now just like Mexico. Hawke |
#72
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
Hawke wrote:
If you are unaware that there are indeed people who think rich people are dumb you need to know there are. Me for one. Plenty of people that are rich are dumb too. In case you didn't know it, having money doesn't imply much of anything about a person. Rich are no different than other people; they can be dumb, smart, nice, mean, generous, stingy. You can't make any pronouncements about the rich with any validity. After having spent a few years around a lot of rich people, my conclusion was that rich people usually fall into one of four categories: 1) Lucky. Inherited the money or just was in the right place at the right time to make their own fortune. Got rich through no fault of their own, basically. 2) Excellent at something. So good at their job or whatever it is they do that they just become rich even though that isn't a primary goal. They almost can't help making money because they rise to the top of their field naturally. 3) Money-infatuated. People who have no particular talent, smarts, wisdom, or whatever, but have just always wanted to be rich their whole lives and have made it a very high priority to become rich. It apparently doesn't require much else if you have a single-minded devotion to money. 4) Crooked. Drug dealers, inside traders, scam artists, etc. People that pick a crime and make it work for them. At least for a while. Thankfully, I didn't really know any of type 4, at least not that I know of. I just included it in the list because I know it definitely exists. Out of them all, type 2 rich people are usually the coolest people, although they're probably also the least common. I didn't meet too many of type 1 either, leading me to believe that many rich people earn it themselves, but on the other hand, maybe the crowd I was hanging around was a little too nouveau riche for me to meet very many of the type 1 people. ;-) - Logan |
#73
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote: Jet Graphics wrote just mindless pig ignorant silly stuff. How imbegulous. -- Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee Party of one candidate, President of the United States of America Maryland, USA Ground troops out of Iraq Put the CIA under INS Semi-legalize drugs Prosecute Bush Tighten the borders Isolate Israel Tax churches halve military aquisitions platform http://www.smart.net/~humbubba/platform Hohensee-Feingold Amendment http://www.smart.net/~humbubba |
#74
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
"Hawke" wrote in message ... Julia Roberts makes about $200,000,000 a year, paying in only about $5000 in SS. She SHOULD pay $28,000,000 in SS. Then she'd get even more when she's old. How does that help SS's solvency? I think he was trying to say "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". We all know politicians 'need' more I heard that if you make $100,000 a year you were in the top 1% of the income bracket. If that is true, then where is all the money going to come from? Where is all what money going to come from? I'm not surprised that 100,000 puts one in the top 1% of income. I heard today that the place with the highest per capita income was in Connecticut and the income was 56K. People need to understand what that means. If 56K is the highest average income then nationally everywhere else it's less. Last I heard average income nationwide was about 45K. Now this is per household and assumes two people working. Consider that 10 dollars an hour is equal to a 20K per year income. That means most Americans have two people working at about 12 dollars per hr. jobs. To me that doesn't sound too prosperous. Then consider that the average household has about 13,000 in credit card debt. So, most people don't make enough to get by and have to borrow every year to make ends meet. Meanwhile, the wealth of those in the top 1% has skyrocketed in the last decade or two. Which means regular working Americans, even though they have jobs, are losing ground and are not gaining financially. The poor and working poor have done very badly. So what you have is a situation where everyone that doesn't have a "great" job is barely making ends meet, poor people are getting poorer, but the wealthiest Americans are having a field day. This has created the greatest gap between rich and poor since the 1890s. When you look at the facts one can only conclude that capitalism has not brought prosperity to the vast majority of Americans but it has been a bonanza to those at the top. In other words, we're now just like Mexico. Hawke +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ It certainly does seem that way. Think about it: The poorest people end up paying the highest rates for credit because they are most likely to end up missing a credit account payment because the money had to be used for some emergency. And poorer people have many more financial emergencies than the wealthy! . Today it isn't just one account that increases the interest but perhaps all of them. And who gets the interest, the banks of course! And who owns the banks--the wealthy. Who is selling all the insurance related to credit? Big insurance companies who want $8-10 a month to protect one card from ID theft and some more to make a minimum payment if you become disabled. The wealthy are always dreaming up more ways to gouge the poor. And folks we all know, poor folks are more likely to be uneducated, unthinking, and unlikely to figure out they don't need all of this stuff. 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. Larger deposits get a better interest rate. It's the old it takes money to make money principle at work. It seems as though banks don't want bothered with the small depositer today. The less affluent also end up paying higher interest rates for mortgages, auto loans, and personal loans too A person can be employed but find themselves falling deeper and deeper into debt unless they are especially frugal. Once that happens, the pit only keeps getting deeper and the person finds themselves paying higher interest rates on old debts. Older people need to be especially careful to not fall into this trap because their incomes are not going to increase to help handle any debt they accumulate. Whatever you do, don't get into debt if SS is your major portion of retirement income. |
#75
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
"Hawke" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:56:37 +1100, Terry Collins wrote: wrote: Well, the poor can always do what the rich did. Start their own business, risk everything they own, and hope they don't go belly up. Would you care to provide the names of rich people who did this. 1) many rich kids actually fail repeatedly in their businesses. 2) rich kids are often propped up by mummy and daddy Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Dave Thomas,. (of Wendy's fame. IIRC, he was an orphan), Ray Kroc, (of McDonalds). Sam Walton. A myriad of small business owners, especially immigrants, who own chains of markets, bodegas, dry cleaners, etc. 3) rich people don't risk their money. they risk dumb schmucks money No one ever said rich people were dumb. If you are unaware that there are indeed people who think rich people are dumb you need to know there are. Me for one. Plenty of people that are rich are dumb too. In case you didn't know it, having money doesn't imply much of anything about a person. Rich are no different than other people; they can be dumb, smart, nice, mean, generous, stingy. You can't make any pronouncements about the rich with any validity. But one thing is for sure, plenty of people with lots of money are dumb. I know, I've met some of them. Hawke So you have met lots of lottery winners....money today, gone tomorrow. Even when they do get their hands on a bundle they don't have the sense to hang on to it far less increase the size of the bundle. Your points about rich people are true. Some are smart, nice, generous others are the direct opposite. |
#76
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
Janie wrote:
...It certainly does seem that way. Think about it: The poorest people end up paying the highest rates for credit because they are most likely to end up missing a credit account payment because the money had to be used for some emergency. And poorer people have many more financial emergencies than the wealthy! . Today it isn't just one account that increases the interest but perhaps all of them. And who gets the interest, the banks of course! And who owns the banks--the wealthy... remainder snipped 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. -- Cheers, Bev ================================================ The beatings will continue until morale improves |
#77
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
Hawke wrote:
Facts you have. But the conclusions you draw from them are non sequitur and your comprehension of them is sorely lacking. Find a teacher to explain to you what you have read. You're not getting it on your own. Hawke Care to specify which conclusion is incorrect? Perhaps we can recap private property. 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 If you check your own state's laws, you should find that there is no law compelling the recording of a deed. Can one conclude that recording one's land purchase at the "REAL ESTATE" registry is counter productive? Another interesting fact - check the typical "title deed" that a lawyer writes up for the "real estate" transaction. You may find that the deed states : "For $1 in hand..." or "For $5 in hand..." But rarely will it state the actual transaction price. According to the 7th amendment, the rules of the common law are preserved IF the value in controversy exceeds 20 dollars. [Of course, no lawyer will make the faux pas of confusing repudiated notes with real money. In fact, I asked a judge if he'd rule that Federal Reserve notes were dollars. He declined.] Oddly enough, if you bought the property with financing, the bank will place a lien denominated in the FULL AMOUNT borrowed. Perhaps the lawyer (and the banker) does not want you to establish any fact that the rules of the common law are preserved. 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. |
#78
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
Hawke wrote:
Julia Roberts makes about $200,000,000 a year, paying in only about $5000 in SS. She SHOULD pay $28,000,000 in SS. Then she'd get even more when she's old. How does that help SS's solvency? I think he was trying to say "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". We all know politicians 'need' more I heard that if you make $100,000 a year you were in the top 1% of the income bracket. If that is true, then where is all the money going to come from? Where is all what money going to come from? I'm not surprised that 100,000 puts one in the top 1% of income. I heard today that the place with the highest per capita income was in Connecticut and the income was 56K. People need to understand what that means. If 56K is the highest average income then nationally everywhere else it's less. Last I heard average income nationwide was about 45K. Now this is per household and assumes two people working. Consider that 10 dollars an hour is equal to a 20K per year income. That means most Americans have two people working at about 12 dollars per hr. jobs. To me that doesn't sound too prosperous. Then consider that the average household has about 13,000 in credit card debt. Mindlessly superficial number. The majority pay off their cards in full every month. So, most people don't make enough to get by That 'most' claim is just plain wrong when the majority pay of their cards in full every month. and have to borrow every year to make ends meet. Another lie. Meanwhile, the wealth of those in the top 1% has skyrocketed in the last decade or two. Which means regular working Americans, even though they have jobs, are losing ground and are not gaining financially. Complete and utter pack of lies. You've only got to consider the assets they have in the houses they are buying to prove that that is a lie. The poor and working poor have done very badly. Depends entirely on how you define badly. With an unemployment rate of 5%, there is a job for anyone who wants one. Sure, the 'living' standards for the dregs of society that choose not to work arent that great, but they clearly arent starving and neither are their kids. So what you have is a situation where everyone that doesn't have a "great" job is barely making ends meet, Bull**** when the majority pay off their cards in full every month and home ownership rates are at all time highs and interest rates for housing loans are at historical lows. poor people are getting poorer, Another lie. but the wealthiest Americans are having a field day. Another lie. This has created the greatest gap between rich and poor since the 1890s. Another lie. And the living standards of 'the poor' are vastly better now than they were then. When you look at the facts one can only conclude that capitalism has not brought prosperity to the vast majority of Americans Oh bull**** when you consider the quality of housing alone. And as someone pointed out recently even the 'poor' in the US have more housing space than the average in europe do. but it has been a bonanza to those at the top. In other words, we're now just like Mexico. Nope, nothing like. The US certainly does have a much higher percentage of 'the poor' than in any other modern first world country, but thats essentially a result of history, initially slavery and more recently illegal immigration. |
#79
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
snip
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. snip Don't confuse ignorant with stupid. Ignorant can be fixed, stupid is forever. One problem is that the median level of abstract intelligence required to function in society is continuing to increase while jobs for those with less abstract/verbal intelligence are disappearing. Another problem is that while the decisions that the poor make may seem stupid to the middle class, they may be perfectly logical when seen from inside the poverty society/culture. For example, the poor are some times faulted for being unable to delay gratification. From their point of view, why delay gratification? Nothing is going to change, except I am not gratified. We can complain all we like but nothing is going to change until we answer the WIIFM [what's in it for me] question from the viewpoint of the poor person [which is all they know.] One of the criteria for a successful species is the ability to reproduce and possibly expand their polulation numbers. By this criteria the poor are a much more successful species than the European middle class. The birth rate for this group, both in Europe and the United States, remains below the replacement level. The case can be made that the middle class has deferred so much gratification and made such heavy investments of time and attention in education that we are breeding ourselves out of existance. Its time to step back and look at the data. Uncle George |
#80
Posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.crafts.metalworking,misc.survivalism,alt.politics
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Betting On Social Security?
The Real Bev wrote
Janie wrote ...It certainly does seem that way. Think about it: The poorest people end up paying the highest rates for credit because they are most likely to end up missing a credit account payment because the money had to be used for some emergency. And poorer people have many more financial emergencies than the wealthy! . Today it isn't just one account that increases the interest but perhaps all of them. And who gets the interest, the banks of course! And who owns the banks--the wealthy... remainder snipped The hard-core poor are mostly stupid. Stupid people used to die before they were old enough to reproduce. Nope, they got used for manual labor. There is a real sense in which you need the stupid for that sort of work. We've changed all that. We have indeed, basically by the mechanisation of agriculture. You dont need anything like as many stupids as were once needed. We keep them alive, we keep their children alive and we keep their grandchildren alive. And we do that with those so stupid that they cant see that their pathetic excuse for a country is never going to be able to sustain the huge numbers of kids they keep pumping out. 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? Its basically what is there now, just with ghettos instead of separate citys. It doesnt work. Its never going to be possible to eliminate crime with the dregs of any society. Drugs in spades. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT - Social Security...Your Money Or Theirs? | Metalworking | |||
Johnny Carson, late-night TV legend, dies at 79 | Metalworking | |||
OT Guns more Guns | Metalworking |