"Hawke" wrote in message
...
On 3/30/2011 7:44 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
wrote in message
...

I still think you are envious. What you want to see is a country
where no one is rich. Where everyone works hard and no one gets
ahead. The people will not rise up and overthrow the government as
long as they have opportunities.

Dan
*************

Some people are easily indoctrinated and buy into the class envy
and
myth about how the rich "stole" their wealth from the "workers".
America is (was) great because there is unlimited opportunity for
someone to succeed IF they are smart, work hard, and have a
certain
amount of luck. It's rare if not impossible that anybody will get
rich punching a clock but those willing to take *RISK*, have an
idea
and the tenacity to follow through and probably failing a number of
times CAN succeed. The leftist minions believe that the wealth of
these national treasures of people should be confiscated and some
of
the wealth distributed among the people that have no idea, not
willing
to work hard, have no luck and won't take any risk. They have it
in
their minds, as they were indoctrinated, that wealth belongs to all
and has to be redistributed to all. Except that the masters get a
bigger share and votes in return. Should the wealthy pay more
taxes?
Probably. But, the leftists want it ALL! And, they want it to be
impossible for the wealthy to leave anything to their family.
Victimhood...what a concept! Without that myth, the left wouldn't
exist.




Here's what I want to know from you. We all know that giving
children too much isn't good for them. Most of us know that's true
for adults too. It's your idea of people being given the chance to
work hard, be smart, and be lucky, can make a really great life for
themselves in this country, and leave something to their kids. I
don't see anything wrong with that. But how about leaving huge
wealth to the next generation of your family? Leaving huge estates
guarantees that your kids will never need to work, that they will
have a life of ease, that they will have a life of the idle rich. Do
you think that is good for anyone? So not only do you get the
benefit from succeeding in America, from your hard work, but you
hand that same benefit to a number of your relatives who do nothing
to get what you worked for. They get all the benefits but do no work
for it. See anything wrong with that? Then they get to do the same
thing for their kids and on and on. That's good?

Hawke


Funny, all the "rich" people I know and their kids seem to never have
time to sleep. They are busy with jobs, charities, learning, teaching
and helping others. One friend of mine is an 87 year old Billionaire
that started poor (yes, billionaire with a "B") He's quite a
philanthropist, lives quite simply and his kids are all grown, show no
interest in a life of leisure and are all over the world working with
Doctors Without Borders, building schools, orphanages and water
supplies for African villages. I have no doubt that if YOU were rich
you would have servants to wipe your bum and peel grapes. Therefore,
you think ALL rich act that way. "To whom much is given, much is
expected." You think in small terms. Wealth is NOT finite but for
you it's much more expedient to confiscate the fruits of others'
labors. Do you have ANY morals? Do ANY liberals? I'm not rich but I
don't begrudge and hate them and want to destroy them and their
families like you do. Get a life that doesn't involve poisoning
yourself with class envy. Or, get rich yourself with hard work,
smarts and a bit of luck!

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Them, or Grenada.

Wasn't there a move in the seventies, about some Black
Africans who came to the US to teach us how to behave in a
civilized manner?


....and wash our genitals!

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
On 3/30/2011 8:11 PM, Rich Grise wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 30, 3:21 pm, wrote:

So when bandying around the term rich it's good to understand who
you
really mean. The well off millionaire you know in your local area
probably isn't really rich. If he was he'd live in Beverly Hills
or the
Hamptons. In America these days rich means really, really,
really, rich.
Anything less than hundreds of millions doesn't even cut it.

Who cares? I am not envious of the very rich. Why does it bother
you
so much?

Because his liberal philosophy is _based on_ the politics of envy.


Want to compare that with your philosophy which is based solely on
greediness? As well as inequality and injustice. You might just as
well say I'm for unfairness. And you find fault with my philosophy?
That's rich!

Hawke


Taking wealth away from those that earn it is not just and equitable.
You suffer from Schadenfreude, you long to punish the wealthy because
you will never be.

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in
message ...
snip
It should be crystal clear the politicians at every level of
government in the US will spend every cent they can get
their hands on, and the only way to prevent financial/fiscal
disaster is to chop the money tree down, i.e. no increase in
the debt limit. To be sure this will cause great hardship
and upheaval for many people, but nothing approaching the
universal catastrophe of a fiscal crisis with sovereign debt
default that is sure to occur in a few years if the US
national debt limit is again increased or, god forbid,
removed.


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)

I have the answer! The President (probably not this one, too
beholden) goes on national TV and "suggests" that citizens buy
American made products and announces term limits on ALL public
offices. The entire situation would change overnight.

"Tom Gardner" w@w wrote in message
...

I have the answer! The President (probably not this one, too beholden)
goes on national TV and "suggests" that citizens buy American made
products and announces term limits on ALL public offices. The entire
situation would change overnight.

You would have to kill all the lawyers first.
To much potential liability to manufacture anything in America.

Best Regards
Tom.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 22:17:47 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

One recent example of how this safeguard was bypassed and
circumvented was the disgraceful example of Bush v Gore in
2000, and how this election was decided [stolen?] not by the
people or their electors, but by 3 of the nine geezers on
the SCOTUS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore {I am still not
sure how that worked as I though at least 5 would be
required...}


I strongly suggest you get that bit of buffoonery out of your system
before it starts to rot and totally ****s up your world view.

Florida/Gore ****ed up..not SCOTUS.

Deal with it.

Gunner

--

"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once."
Robert A. Heinlein

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:44:22 -0400, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:


wrote in message
...

I still think you are envious. What you want to see is a country
where no one is rich. Where everyone works hard and no one gets
ahead. The people will not rise up and overthrow the government as
long as they have opportunities.

Dan
*************

Some people are easily indoctrinated and buy into the class envy and
myth about how the rich "stole" their wealth from the "workers".
America is (was) great because there is unlimited opportunity for
someone to succeed IF they are smart, work hard, and have a certain
amount of luck. It's rare if not impossible that anybody will get
rich punching a clock but those willing to take *RISK*, have an idea
and the tenacity to follow through and probably failing a number of
times CAN succeed. The leftist minions believe that the wealth of
these national treasures of people should be confiscated and some of
the wealth distributed among the people that have no idea, not willing
to work hard, have no luck and won't take any risk. They have it in
their minds, as they were indoctrinated, that wealth belongs to all
and has to be redistributed to all. Except that the masters get a
bigger share and votes in return. Should the wealthy pay more taxes?
Probably. But, the leftists want it ALL! And, they want it to be
impossible for the wealthy to leave anything to their family.
Victimhood...what a concept! Without that myth, the left wouldn't
exist.

Very well said.

Gunner

--

"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once."
Robert A. Heinlein

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:33:31 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:


Not true, Ed.
Bush 1 recognized the problematic direction the budget was headed in and
raised taxes significantly.

The govt debt increased under Bush1 as fast as under Reagon. By the time
those 12 years were done they had created 3 times more debt than all
debt combined of all the presidents preceding.

-jim

And now in just over 2 yrs..the Obamassiah has created debt 5x all those
that went before have created.

Leftwingers.....

Gunner

--

"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once."
Robert A. Heinlein

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 22:10:38 -0700, "azotic" wrote:


"Tom Gardner" w@w wrote in message
m...

I have the answer! The President (probably not this one, too beholden)
goes on national TV and "suggests" that citizens buy American made
products and announces term limits on ALL public offices. The entire
situation would change overnight.

You would have to kill all the lawyers first.
To much potential liability to manufacture anything in America.

Best Regards
Tom.

You say that like its a bad thing and difficult?

Gunner

--

"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once."
Robert A. Heinlein

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 12:53:52 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 1, 3:21*pm, Hawke wrote:

Follow my recommendations and I guarantee we'd be on the road to ending
the deficit spending in nothing flat. Is anyone in the government going
to do what I advise? Of course not.

Hawke

I do not agree with you. Not that your recommendations are bad, but
if the government did do what you advise, they would immediately say "
What wonderful folk are we. Now we can increase government
spending." And they would still be spending more than the revenue.

Dan
=====================
While unfortunate, this seems to be what government does.

The only answer appears to be iron clad spending and
personnel caps at all levels of government, possibly with
minimums of funding and manpower specified for critical
functions, backed by harsh criminal and civil penalties for
evasion. The cry is immediately raised by the government
functionaries "but this will tie our hands," but this is
exactly the intent and point of such caps.

Sadly, by the time the need for such caps becomes evident,
there are generally sufficient lobbying groups, PACs, and
interest groups in existence to block the passage, or at
least the rigorous enforcement of such restrictions. For
example, the constitutions of 49 of the 50 states explicitly
prohibit budget deficits, yet the majority of states have
evaded this restriction.


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

a.. OPINIONa.. APRIL 1, 2011We've Become a Nation of Takers, Not
Makers
More Americans work for the government than in manufacturing, farming,
fishing, forestry, mining and utilities combined.a..



If you want to understand better why so many states-from New York to
Wisconsin to California-are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy,
consider this depressing statistic: Today in America there are nearly
twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in
all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal
of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in
manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the
government.

It gets worse. More Americans work for the government than work in
construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and
utilities combined. We have moved decisively from a nation of makers
to a nation of takers. Nearly half of the $2.2 trillion cost of state
and local governments is the $1 trillion-a-year tab for pay and
benefits of state and local employees. Is it any wonder that so many
states and cities cannot pay their bills?

Every state in America today except for two-Indiana and Wisconsin-has
more government workers on the payroll than people manufacturing
industrial goods. Consider California, which has the highest budget
deficit in the history of the states. The not-so Golden State now has
an incredible 2.4 million government employees-twice as many as people
at work in manufacturing. New Jersey has just under two-and-a-half as
many government employees as manufacturers. Florida's ratio is more
than 3 to 1. So is New York's.

Even Michigan, at one time the auto capital of the world, and
Pennsylvania, once the steel capital, have more government bureaucrats
than people making things. The leaders in government hiring are
Wyoming and New Mexico, which have hired more than six government
workers for every manufacturing worker.

Now it is certainly true that many states have not typically been home
to traditional manufacturing operations. Iowa and Nebraska are farm
states, for example. But in those states, there are at least five
times more government workers than farmers. West Virginia is the
mining capital of the world, yet it has at least three times more
government workers than miners. New York is the financial capital of
the world-at least for now. That sector employs roughly 670,000 New
Yorkers. That's less than half of the state's 1.48 million government
employees.

View Full Image

ImageZoo/CorbisDon't expect a reversal of this trend anytime soon.
Surveys of college graduates are finding that more and more of our top
minds want to work for the government. Why? Because in recent years
only government agencies have been hiring, and because the offer of
near lifetime security is highly valued in these times of economic
turbulence. When 23-year-olds aren't willing to take career risks, we
have a real problem on our hands. Sadly, we could end up with a
generation of Americans who want to work at the Department of Motor
Vehicles.

The employment trends described here are explained in part by hugely
beneficial productivity improvements in such traditional industries as
farming, manufacturing, financial services and telecommunications.
These produce far more output per worker than in the past. The typical
farmer, for example, is today at least three times more productive
than in 1950.

Where are the productivity gains in government? Consider a core
function of state and local governments: schools. Over the period
1970-2005, school spending per pupil, adjusted for inflation, doubled,
while standardized achievement test scores were flat. Over roughly
that same time period, public-school employment doubled per student,
according to a study by researchers at the University of Washington.
That is what economists call negative productivity.

But education is an industry where we measure performance backwards:
We gauge school performance not by outputs, but by inputs. If quality
falls, we say we didn't pay teachers enough or we need smaller class
sizes or newer schools. If education had undergone the same
productivity revolution that manufacturing has, we would have half as
many educators, smaller school budgets, and higher graduation rates
and test scores.

The same is true of almost all other government services. Mass transit
spends more and more every year and yet a much smaller share of
Americans use trains and buses today than in past decades. One way
that private companies spur productivity is by firing underperforming
employees and rewarding excellence. In government employment, tenure
for teachers and near lifetime employment for other civil servants
shields workers from this basic system of reward and punishment. It is
a system that breeds mediocrity, which is what we've gotten.

Most reasonable steps to restrain public-sector employment costs are
smothered by the unions. Study after study has shown that states and
cities could shave 20% to 40% off the cost of many services-fire
fighting, public transportation, garbage collection, administrative
functions, even prison operations-through competitive contracting to
private providers. But unions have blocked many of those efforts.
Public employees maintain that they are underpaid relative to equally
qualified private-sector workers, yet they are deathly afraid of
competitive bidding for government services.

President Obama says we have to retool our economy to "win the
future." The only way to do that is to grow the economy that makes
things, not the sector that takes things.

Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal
editorial page.

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:33:31 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:


Not true, Ed.
Bush 1 recognized the problematic direction the budget was headed in and
raised taxes significantly.

The govt debt increased under Bush1 as fast as under Reagon. By the time
those 12 years were done they had created 3 times more debt than all
debt combined of all the presidents preceding.

-jim

And now in just over 2 yrs..the Obamassiah has created debt 5x all those
that went before have created.

Leftwingers.....

Gunner, numbers, whether it's miles per hour or dollars in an economy, are
not your strong suit. You just blew that one out your butt.

Try again. This will help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 00:46:09 -0400, "Tom Gardner" w@w
wrote:
snip
Taking wealth away from those that earn it is not just and equitable.
snip
===========
Another key point!!!!!!

There is however a huge difference between those that
earn/create wealth and those that simply inherited it as an
accident of birth.

This situation has been greatly amplified and exacerbated by
the legality of non-terminating "dynastic trusts" which
overturn common law precedents dating back to at least King
Edward I (1279 and 1290).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutes_of_Mortmain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortmain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities

Now about those estate taxes.....




-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 00:46:09 -0400, "Tom Gardner" w@w
wrote:
snip
Taking wealth away from those that earn it is not just and
equitable.
snip
===========
Another key point!!!!!!

There is however a huge difference between those that
earn/create wealth and those that simply inherited it as an
accident of birth.

This situation has been greatly amplified and exacerbated by
the legality of non-terminating "dynastic trusts" which
overturn common law precedents dating back to at least King
Edward I (1279 and 1290).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutes_of_Mortmain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortmain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities

Now about those estate taxes.....



Back then there WAS a finite supply of wealth, today there really
isn't. I figure the descendents of the rich have to constantly
re-earn their wealth or it WILL just dissipate. Stupid rich people
never stay both stupid and rich. Besides, I think if all wealth was
confiscated from the rich it wouldn't be enough to solve this
country's problems, politicians would squander it for votes and smart,
hard working people would earn it all back. Instead, why doesn't the
US encourage wealth creation instead of punishing it? Victimhood is a
powerful tool and "victims" are easily manipulated. Gee, who's doing
the manipulating? And, who sees themselves as victims?

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:33:31 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:


Not true, Ed.
Bush 1 recognized the problematic direction the budget was headed
in and
raised taxes significantly.

The govt debt increased under Bush1 as fast as under Reagon. By the
time
those 12 years were done they had created 3 times more debt than all
debt combined of all the presidents preceding.

-jim

And now in just over 2 yrs..the Obamassiah has created debt 5x all
those
that went before have created.

Leftwingers.....

Gunner


Leftists have so bought into this administration that they can't back
out now and actually admit they were wrong and the liberal philosophy
is a total failure. Their dreams of the Utopia are long lost but
they'll never admit it. Look at the "The recession is over", "The
economy is booming", "Unemployment is almost gone", etc., etc., etc.

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 22:10:38 -0700, "azotic" wrote:


"Tom Gardner" w@w wrote in message
om...

I have the answer! The President (probably not this one, too beholden)
goes on national TV and "suggests" that citizens buy American made
products and announces term limits on ALL public offices. The entire
situation would change overnight.

You would have to kill all the lawyers first.
To much potential liability to manufacture anything in America.

Best Regards
Tom.

You say that like its a bad thing and difficult?

Gunner

In appreciation of thier auratory skills they should
get colombian neckties.

Best Regards
Tom.

On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 02:40:51 -0700, "azotic" wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 22:10:38 -0700, "azotic" wrote:


"Tom Gardner" w@w wrote in message
news:vOOdnfiheP2nNgvQnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@giganews. com...

I have the answer! The President (probably not this one, too beholden)
goes on national TV and "suggests" that citizens buy American made
products and announces term limits on ALL public offices. The entire
situation would change overnight.

You would have to kill all the lawyers first.
To much potential liability to manufacture anything in America.

Best Regards
Tom.

You say that like its a bad thing and difficult?

Gunner

In appreciation of thier auratory skills they should
get colombian neckties.

Best Regards
Tom.

Works for me. Indeed.

Gunner

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

Tom Gardner wrote:

"azotic" wrote in message
...

"Tom Gardner" w@w wrote in message
...

I have the answer! The President (probably not this one, too
beholden) goes on national TV and "suggests" that citizens buy
American made products and announces term limits on ALL public
offices. The entire situation would change overnight.

You would have to kill all the lawyers first.
To much potential liability to manufacture anything in America.

Best Regards
Tom.

We designed and sell a new product. Which do you thing took longer
and cost more; the design, prototyping, testing, production planning,
fixturing, sales and production....OOOORRRRRR....product liability
insurance hoop-jumping, FDA approval and the patent process?

You are advertizing your incompetence

I work in design and prototyping of durable goods.
It is my observation that there are two types:

those who blame all their problems on the govt
and those who get the job done

Gunner Asch wrote:

The govt debt increased under Bush1 as fast as under Reagon. By the time
those 12 years were done they had created 3 times more debt than all
debt combined of all the presidents preceding.

-jim

And now in just over 2 yrs..the Obamassiah has created debt 5x all those
that went before have created.

No sorry.. you are giving Obama way too much credit

The debt has about $6 trillion to go to make it 2x
what it was when Obama took office.

Maybe this will make you feel better about the debt:

http://moslereconomics.com/wp-conten...oints/7DIF.pdf

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
On 3/31/2011 12:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...

They're trying to regain the mantle of being the fiscally conservative
party, which they were at one time but which they completely abandoned
under
Reagan. When you're in a recession with high unemployment, it's not
difficult to play the demagogue and win votes from people who are looking
for anything that sounds like an answer.

It's a good time, politically, to revive all of their old chestnuts.
They'd
resurrect Herbert Hoover if they could. d8-)

I wonder if they actually know better, and are just playing on the lack
of
economics education on the part of most voters, or if they actually
believe
their nonsense. I'm not sure. Most likely, it's some of each.



I'd say thirty five years of nothing but deficits defines a party as the
party of deficit spending, and you do remember when "deficits don't
matter", was the slogan of the day, don't you? So, it's all baloney. The
republicans are not going to do anything any different when they get
control than they always do. Look at what they have done since they have
taken over the House. They talked about jobs, jobs, jobs, when they were
in the minority but since taking over jobs has taken the back seat. It's
back to the good old social issues like abortion, gays in the military,
and other social issues.

The republicans are simply not built to rule. They're great as an
opposition party but once you give them the reins they revert to form.
It's all conservative social issues, military adventures, tax cuts for the
rich, gifts to business and Wall Street, and cuts in services for
everybody else. I've seen it all my life. They do the same thing over and
over. They say they're for small government and the first thing they do
when in power is expand the power of the government, and the next thing
they do is cut taxes on the rich while increasing spending. It just amazes
me that they continue this way and still get anyone to believe a word they
say. It just confirms how ignorant and foolish the public really is. No
wonder the founding fathers were so dead set against democracy.



http://www.mainstreet.com/slideshow/...states-america

Most Socialist State: West Virginia
2nd Most Socialist State: Alaska
3rd Most Socialist State: Alabama
4th Most Socialist State: Vermont
5th Most Socialist State: New Mexico
6th Most Socialist State: Mississippi
7th Most Socialist State: Wyoming
8th Most Socialist State: Arkansas
9th Most Socialist State: Hawaii
10th Most Socialist State: Rhode Island

"jim" "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote in message
...


Tom Gardner wrote:

"azotic" wrote in message
...

"Tom Gardner" w@w wrote in message
...

I have the answer! The President (probably not this one, too
beholden) goes on national TV and "suggests" that citizens buy
American made products and announces term limits on ALL public
offices. The entire situation would change overnight.

You would have to kill all the lawyers first.
To much potential liability to manufacture anything in America.

Best Regards
Tom.

We designed and sell a new product. Which do you thing took longer
and cost more; the design, prototyping, testing, production
planning,
fixturing, sales and production....OOOORRRRRR....product liability
insurance hoop-jumping, FDA approval and the patent process?

You are advertizing your incompetence

I work in design and prototyping of durable goods.
It is my observation that there are two types:

those who blame all their problems on the govt
and those who get the job done

I see you don't answer the question. Diversion is the mark of
somebody incapable of, or unwilling to support a losing position in a
discussion. So, whoever you punch a clock for understands the
question, you clearly don't. You are clearly oblivious of the issues
involved but you choose to embarrass yourself for the chance to fling
lame insults.

Tom Gardner wrote:

"jim" "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote in message
...

I see you don't answer the question. Diversion is the mark of
somebody incapable of, or unwilling to support a losing position in a
discussion. So, whoever you punch a clock for understands the
question, you clearly don't.

I didn't recognize that as a question
It was a sniveling whine that I have heard before
but I never hear it from those who get things done

and I don't punch a clock

But your attempt to portray anybody who
does punch a clock as sub-human
is a good clue as to why you are failing


You are clearly oblivious of the issues
involved but you choose to embarrass yourself for the chance to fling
lame insults.

I chose to make an observation based on working
with dozens of manufacturing facilities.

On 4/2/2011 2:45 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:

As in the late night movies, the drums are getting louder
[but we don't need to worry until they stop...]


Bass solo?


Kevin Gallimore

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:06:50 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:
snip
A, perhaps the, foundational principal of American
government is "the consent of the governed," and it should
be obvious that when the governmental and business power
structures are largely isolated and insulated from
meaningful contact with the huge majority of people, and the
polls/surveys are spun/massaged to reflect elites
preconceptions and prejudices, there can be no consent.
Among the most critical items [in no particular order] are
"too big to fail" businesses, endless wars, continuing
deficits and unsustainable debt, deindustrialization/job
exports, and dependence on imported energy [oil].

Bravo! Well said, Unka G.
snip

Thanks for the kind words.

As in the late night movies, the drums are getting louder
[but we don't need to worry until they stop...]
see
http://www.marke****ch.com/story/tax...ion-2011-03-29


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On 3/31/2011 7:38 PM, CaveLamb wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:
John R. Carroll wrote:
Another that is at least equally good and perhaps better is
"Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and
Turned
Its Back on the Middle Class"
Paul Pierson (Author), Jacob S. Hacker

I'm not going to talk about the politcs of envy, but your use of the term
"Winner take all" made me think of the perverse electoral system.
California
has 55 electoral votes. What happens is, if Al gets 28 electoral
votes, and Bob gets 27, they report that Al got all 55 votes.
In other words, if you voted for Bob, and Bob loses, THEY CHANGE YOUR
VOTE!
California turns in 55 electoral votes for Al.

That's just evil.

Thanks,
Rich



That's a Republic.

What? You thought we were a Democracy?


All you have to do to stop that kind of inequity is to switch to a
proportional system like many other "democracies" have. By the way, both
the U.S. and the U.K. are democracies. Ask anyone who knows anything
about it if you don't believe it. We are a democracy. So are other
countries that have different ways of doing things. This, we're a
republic not a democracy assertion is hogwash. Are we a republic? Yeah,
but we're still a democracy too. That's because there are many kinds of
democracy besides a "pure democracy". HTH.

Hawke

On 3/31/2011 2:20 PM, wrote:
On Mar 31, 2:34 pm, wrote:

It's not that. I just don't understand the need for 100 million dollars.
Maybe it was my Christian upbringing, but in the first place I was
taught that greed is wrong. Then my life experience has taught me that
no one has any need for 100 million dollars, let alone billions. I think
any society that allows some of its members to accumulate that kind of
wealth, regardless of how they come by it, is making a big mistake. Once
a person has their basic material needs taken care of then what's left
is just what one wants. If you want so much and you need the luxury of a
pharaoh I think you have a screw loose. It's just not rational to desire
so much. Not only that, allowing a handful of people that kind of money
gives them way too much power, and they often abuse it. So for many
reasons I don't like the idea of a few people accumulating vast sums of
money. It's not good for anyone in my book. Just my opinion but that's
what I think. Would I like to have more wealth than I do? Sure. But do I
want to be grossly rich? No. Do I envy those people? No, because like I
said, I don't want that much. Besides that, I think it's a sign of
weakness to be that needy.

Hawke

Howard Hughes accumulated vast sums of money. Andrew Carnegie
accumulated vast sums of money. So take a look at what they did with
the money. You can do a lot of good things if you have a lot of
money.

Dan



I won't argue that having huge sums of money doesn't give one the
ability to do a lot of good things with it. But I would argue that the
facts show that rather than doing that with their riches most act rather
differently. Most act like greedy hogs. Both spending lavishly on luxury
and totally unnecessary things and in continuing on a quest to gain ever
more wealth. Someone not doing this is Bill Gates. He's finished trying
to maximize his wealth and is looking how to give it away. Which is my
point to begin with. You can't actually use billions of dollars so why
let any one person even accumulate that much? It's better to tax that
money from the individual and use it for the common good. After all,
isn't that exactly what Gates is doing in his own way? And if he is
doesn't that prove my point?

I'm not against people being successful or in making a lot of money. I
just see that there's a point where it is too much. I would think a net
worth of 50 million would be plenty for anyone. Why someone would need a
billion makes no sense to me. I know others think the opposite though.
But I think history shows it's actually harmful when a country allows a
few to have so much of it's wealth. Like when John D. Rockefeller was at
his peak of wealth it was said that out of every eight dollars in
America one of them belonged to him.

The same thing is going on right now. I think it's wrong. But that's a
philosophical idea.

Hawke

On 3/31/2011 12:05 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 30, 6:44 pm, wrote:


Last, you mistake realizing a problem as envy. I do not envy the rich
Like Obama, I want a country where the wealth is spread around.
Would you like to see the
people rise up and overthrow the government? If not then you should
understand why I'm against so few having so much. But then maybe you
won't.

Hawke

I still think you are envious. What you want to see is a country
where no one is rich. Where everyone works hard and no one gets
ahead. The people will not rise up and overthrow the government as
long as they have opportunities.

Taxes aren't the only thing at an all time low.
Class mobility has rarely been lower than it is today, Dan.
Income disparity, on the other hand is even greater today than it was in
1929.

All of these go hand in hand.



Exactly. And these kinds of things happen every time the conservative
philosophy prevails in the country. It's the pendulum swinging away from
the government doing what's good for the people and over to doing what's
good for business and wealth. Every time that happens it's the majority
who suffers.

Hawke

On 4/1/2011 9:31 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 3/30/2011 7:44 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
wrote in message
...

I still think you are envious. What you want to see is a country
where no one is rich. Where everyone works hard and no one gets
ahead. The people will not rise up and overthrow the government as
long as they have opportunities.

Dan
*************

Some people are easily indoctrinated and buy into the class envy
and
myth about how the rich "stole" their wealth from the "workers".
America is (was) great because there is unlimited opportunity for
someone to succeed IF they are smart, work hard, and have a
certain
amount of luck. It's rare if not impossible that anybody will get
rich punching a clock but those willing to take *RISK*, have an
idea
and the tenacity to follow through and probably failing a number of
times CAN succeed. The leftist minions believe that the wealth of
these national treasures of people should be confiscated and some
of
the wealth distributed among the people that have no idea, not
willing
to work hard, have no luck and won't take any risk. They have it
in
their minds, as they were indoctrinated, that wealth belongs to all
and has to be redistributed to all. Except that the masters get a
bigger share and votes in return. Should the wealthy pay more
taxes?
Probably. But, the leftists want it ALL! And, they want it to be
impossible for the wealthy to leave anything to their family.
Victimhood...what a concept! Without that myth, the left wouldn't
exist.




Here's what I want to know from you. We all know that giving
children too much isn't good for them. Most of us know that's true
for adults too. It's your idea of people being given the chance to
work hard, be smart, and be lucky, can make a really great life for
themselves in this country, and leave something to their kids. I
don't see anything wrong with that. But how about leaving huge
wealth to the next generation of your family? Leaving huge estates
guarantees that your kids will never need to work, that they will
have a life of ease, that they will have a life of the idle rich. Do
you think that is good for anyone? So not only do you get the
benefit from succeeding in America, from your hard work, but you
hand that same benefit to a number of your relatives who do nothing
to get what you worked for. They get all the benefits but do no work
for it. See anything wrong with that? Then they get to do the same
thing for their kids and on and on. That's good?

Hawke


Funny, all the "rich" people I know and their kids seem to never have
time to sleep. They are busy with jobs, charities, learning, teaching
and helping others. One friend of mine is an 87 year old Billionaire
that started poor (yes, billionaire with a "B") He's quite a
philanthropist, lives quite simply and his kids are all grown, show no
interest in a life of leisure and are all over the world working with
Doctors Without Borders, building schools, orphanages and water
supplies for African villages. I have no doubt that if YOU were rich
you would have servants to wipe your bum and peel grapes. Therefore,
you think ALL rich act that way. "To whom much is given, much is
expected." You think in small terms. Wealth is NOT finite but for
you it's much more expedient to confiscate the fruits of others'
labors. Do you have ANY morals? Do ANY liberals? I'm not rich but I
don't begrudge and hate them and want to destroy them and their
families like you do. Get a life that doesn't involve poisoning
yourself with class envy. Or, get rich yourself with hard work,
smarts and a bit of luck!


Way to go. I see you failed to address any of my questions and instead
gave your anecdote about your billionaire friend who lives like a
plumber, and tell me how you're not envious of people with wealth, who
all earned it the hard way.

Do you know how the really rich spend their money? Do you know how many
of the super rich inherit that wealth? Do you care if a lucky few
control most of the nation's wealth? Nope. All you care about is
yourself and the upper class. Funny thing is that people like you think
your an American. You're not. You're a Tory.

Hawke

On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 09:31:05 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:



Gunner Asch wrote:

The govt debt increased under Bush1 as fast as under Reagon. By the time
those 12 years were done they had created 3 times more debt than all
debt combined of all the presidents preceding.

-jim

And now in just over 2 yrs..the Obamassiah has created debt 5x all those
that went before have created.

No sorry.. you are giving Obama way too much credit

The debt has about $6 trillion to go to make it 2x
what it was when Obama took office.

Maybe this will make you feel better about the debt:

http://moslereconomics.com/wp-conten...oints/7DIF.pdf

Seems you dont like the truth....

http://stutteringmessiah.wordpress.c...l-u-s-economy/


"President Obama projects that the gross federal debt will top $15
trillion this year, officially equalling the size of the entire U.S.
economy, and will jump to nearly $21 trillion in five years’ time.

Amid the other staggering numbers in the budget Mr. Obama sent to
Congress on Monday, the debt stands out — both because Congress will
need to vote to raise the debt limit later this year, and because the
numbers are so large.

Mr. Obama‘s budget said 2011 will see the biggest one-year jump in debt
in history, or nearly $2 trillion in a single year. And the
administration says it will reach $15.476 trillion by Sept. 30, the end
of the fiscal year, to reach 102.6 percent of gross domestic product
(GDP) — the first time since World War II that dubious figure has been
reached.

In one often-cited study, two economists have argued that when gross
debt passes 90 percent it hinders overall economic growth.

The president’s budget said debt as a percentage of GDP will top out at
106 percent in 2013, but only if the economy booms.

“I still don’t see a sense of urgency from the president about the
massive federal debt,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander, Tennessee Republican.
“His budget calls for too much government borrowing – even though the
debt is already at a level that makes it harder to create private-sector
jobs.”


So you are calling your Obamassiah a liar???

Gunner

--

"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once."
Robert A. Heinlein

On 4/1/2011 9:46 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 3/30/2011 8:11 PM, Rich Grise wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 30, 3:21 pm, wrote:

So when bandying around the term rich it's good to understand who
you
really mean. The well off millionaire you know in your local area
probably isn't really rich. If he was he'd live in Beverly Hills
or the
Hamptons. In America these days rich means really, really,
really, rich.
Anything less than hundreds of millions doesn't even cut it.

Who cares? I am not envious of the very rich. Why does it bother
you
so much?

Because his liberal philosophy is _based on_ the politics of envy.


Want to compare that with your philosophy which is based solely on
greediness? As well as inequality and injustice. You might just as
well say I'm for unfairness. And you find fault with my philosophy?
That's rich!

Hawke


Taking wealth away from those that earn it is not just and equitable.
You suffer from Schadenfreude, you long to punish the wealthy because
you will never be.


By some standards I am considered wealthy. So your premise is wrong to
begin with. But there's more. The idea of taking from the rich and
giving to the poor comes straight from the Bible. It was Jesus who
thought that was proper behavior. So you are against the teaching of Jesus.

Schadenfreude is defined as gaining pleasure from the misfortunes of
others. So your use of the word is wrong too. Taxing those with the most
to use for the common good has nothing to do with that. But instead
that's the whole idea behind self government. Tax those with money and
use that money for the good of the people. You're against that too? Like
I said, I think your views are completely unamerican, unchristian too.
They're completely based on greed and selfishness. All that seems to
count to you is that those who make a lot owe nothing and everyone
should work only for themselves, and you should help others only if you
feel like it.

Hawke

On 4/1/2011 10:38 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

In other words, supply-side economics is a load of crap, as is nearly all of
the conservative economics agenda.


Obviously true, but you'll never be able to get the republican dogs to
drop that bone.

Hawke

Gunner Asch wrote:


“I still don’t see a sense of urgency from the president about the
massive federal debt,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander, Tennessee Republican.
“His budget calls for too much government borrowing – even though the
debt is already at a level that makes it harder to create private-sector
jobs.”




I called you misinformed. And Sen. Lamar Alexander is as dumb as you
are. How is the private-sector being denied jobs? Does he think at 10%
unemployment the private-sector can't get anybody to come in and fill
out a job application

On 4/1/2011 12:53 PM, wrote:
On Apr 1, 3:21 pm, wrote:

Follow my recommendations and I guarantee we'd be on the road to ending
the deficit spending in nothing flat. Is anyone in the government going
to do what I advise? Of course not.

Hawke

I do not agree with you. Not that your recommendations are bad, but
if the government did do what you advise, they would immediately say "
What wonderful folk are we. Now we can increase government
spending." And they would still be spending more than the revenue.

Dan



Except for one thing. It wasn't that long ago that we had a balanced
budget and were paying down the debt. That's when Clinton was in office.
So it's not simply a rule that government always will spend more than it
takes in. It may be that is true for some countries and for some periods
of time but it's not a universal feature of government in general. It's
up to the people and the representatives they send to the government. If
we demand balanced budgets we'll get them eventually. But it wasn't that
long ago when the republicans were saying that deficits didn't matter.
They said we're growing our way out of debt and that the debt is an ever
smaller percentage of the economy. With that kind of thinking you're
right, there will always be more spending. But it doesn't have to be
that way.


As a matter of fact the one thing that I think is good that has come
from the Tea Party is a recognition that we must stop adding to our debt
and we need to start paying it off. I think most Americans agree with
that. So the next step is just agreeing on how to do it. I think my
ideas are pretty basic and should be agreeable to most people. But like
I said I doubt it'll happen because of the undue influence of special
interest groups.

Hawke

On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 14:42:30 -0400, axolotl
wrote:

On 4/2/2011 2:45 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:

As in the late night movies, the drums are getting louder
[but we don't need to worry until they stop...]

Bass solo?

Worse, Kev. TALKING bass solo.

--
Not merely an absence of noise, Real Silence begins
when a reasonable being withdraws from the noise in
order to find peace and order in his inner sanctuary.
-- Peter Minard

On 4/2/2011 12:30 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
"F. George wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 00:46:09 -0400, "Tom Gardner"w@w
wrote:
snip
Taking wealth away from those that earn it is not just and
equitable.
snip
===========
Another key point!!!!!!

There is however a huge difference between those that
earn/create wealth and those that simply inherited it as an
accident of birth.

This situation has been greatly amplified and exacerbated by
the legality of non-terminating "dynastic trusts" which
overturn common law precedents dating back to at least King
Edward I (1279 and 1290).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutes_of_Mortmain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortmain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities

Now about those estate taxes.....



Back then there WAS a finite supply of wealth, today there really
isn't. I figure the descendents of the rich have to constantly
re-earn their wealth or it WILL just dissipate. Stupid rich people
never stay both stupid and rich. Besides, I think if all wealth was
confiscated from the rich it wouldn't be enough to solve this
country's problems, politicians would squander it for votes and smart,
hard working people would earn it all back. Instead, why doesn't the
US encourage wealth creation instead of punishing it? Victimhood is a
powerful tool and "victims" are easily manipulated. Gee, who's doing
the manipulating? And, who sees themselves as victims?



Saw a graph today that showed if we had just not continued the Bush tax
cuts for the rich that alone would have reduced our deficit by 50%, and
that only raised their rates from 35 to 39%. So increasing taxes on the
top bracket would help a lot to reduce our debt. Those people would
still be very rich too.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
On 4/1/2011 10:38 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

In other words, supply-side economics is a load of crap, as is nearly all
of
the conservative economics agenda.


Obviously true, but you'll never be able to get the republican dogs to
drop that bone.

Hawke

I wouldn't waste my time trying to change their minds. That's not why I post
facts and figures.

--
Ed Huntress

On Apr 2, 3:55*pm, Hawke wrote:

Saw a graph today that showed if we had just not continued the Bush tax
cuts for the rich that alone would have reduced our deficit by 50%, and
that only raised their rates from 35 to 39%. So increasing taxes on the
top bracket would help a lot to reduce our debt. Those people would
still be very rich too.

Hawke

Can you remember where you saw that graph?

Dan

On Apr 2, 3:55*pm, Hawke wrote:

Saw a graph today that showed if we had just not continued the Bush tax
cuts for the rich that alone would have reduced our deficit by 50%, and
that only raised their rates from 35 to 39%. So increasing taxes on the
top bracket would help a lot to reduce our debt. Those people would
still be very rich too.

Hawke

All I have found is that extending the Bush Tax Cuts for those making
$200,000 or more would have made a 350 Billion dollar difference over
10 years. The current federal deficit is roughly 14 Trillion dollars.

Dan

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 09:31:05 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:



Gunner Asch wrote:

The govt debt increased under Bush1 as fast as under Reagon. By the
time
those 12 years were done they had created 3 times more debt than all
debt combined of all the presidents preceding.

-jim

And now in just over 2 yrs..the Obamassiah has created debt 5x all those
that went before have created.

No sorry.. you are giving Obama way too much credit

The debt has about $6 trillion to go to make it 2x
what it was when Obama took office.

Maybe this will make you feel better about the debt:

http://moslereconomics.com/wp-conten...oints/7DIF.pdf

Seems you dont like the truth....

http://stutteringmessiah.wordpress.c...l-u-s-economy/


"President Obama projects that the gross federal debt will top $15
trillion this year, officially equalling the size of the entire U.S.
economy, and will jump to nearly $21 trillion in five years' time.

Amid the other staggering numbers in the budget Mr. Obama sent to
Congress on Monday, the debt stands out - both because Congress will
need to vote to raise the debt limit later this year, and because the
numbers are so large.

Mr. Obama's budget said 2011 will see the biggest one-year jump in debt
in history, or nearly $2 trillion in a single year. And the
administration says it will reach $15.476 trillion by Sept. 30, the end
of the fiscal year, to reach 102.6 percent of gross domestic product
(GDP) - the first time since World War II that dubious figure has been
reached.

In one often-cited study, two economists have argued that when gross
debt passes 90 percent it hinders overall economic growth.

The president's budget said debt as a percentage of GDP will top out at
106 percent in 2013, but only if the economy booms.

"I still don't see a sense of urgency from the president about the
massive federal debt," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, Tennessee Republican.
"His budget calls for too much government borrowing - even though the
debt is already at a level that makes it harder to create private-sector
jobs."


So you are calling your Obamassiah a liar???

Gunner


Ah, yes, the world according to the Stuttering Messiah. You're a living
indictment of public education, Gunner. d8-)

At the end of Bush II's last budget, the national debt was $11.9 trillion.
Almost all of that was incurred during Reagan's and the two Bush's terms.

Right now it's $14.2 trillion. So your statement, "And now in just over 2
yrs..the Obamassiah has created debt 5x all those that went before have
created" is not only ridiculous, but sad.

--
Ed Huntress

Tom Gardner wrote:



I HAVE to operate in a competitive, fiscally responsible, quality
oriented environment. If I operated like ANY part of government, I'd
be gone in a heartbeat. Who's wrong, me or government?

You are wrong.
If you operated like a hockey team or
a rock band or hive of bees you would probably fail also
What does that prove?


If the government ever gets to the point
where it starts to act like you do
its all over but the shouting

Fiscal
responsibility --- does the gov have any?

The government does have a responsibility
to not muck up the economy

what does ‘fiscal responsibility’ mean?
Fiscal Responsibility means not spending
so much or taxing so little that the economy
‘overheats’ and inflation sets in
Fiscal responsibility means cutting taxes
when you have high unemployment to get things going again
Fiscal responsibility means making decisions
on where to tax and what to spend to promote the general welfare
Making government ineffective is not fiscally responsible

The deficit you are whining about is
really just people loaning the government money.
At current interest rates the people loaning the gov money
are almost
giving the government money - that makes it a good time to borrow





Competition --- the gov
squashes it.

I agree
The US military adventures are all about squashing competition
The US should mind its own business and let other
nations mind their own business.
But there again we can blame foreign policy on the US whiners
who think the US can't possibly survive without robbing the oil
and other resources from other nations

Quality --- look at the product of gov schools!

I'm from Wisconsin. This state has the best schools in the nation
And it is going to stay that way, in spite of
the efforts of people like you to tear our educational system down