On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:25:29 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/4/2012 11:41 PM, Deucalion wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:34:33 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 00:48:05 +0000 (UTC), Chakolate
wrote:

"Joan F wrote in
:

He says he would patch up any holes in the safey net but he endorsed
Cantor's budget which slashes Medicaid and other programs like food
stamps. I don't think existing services are all that good, otherwise
there would not be so many homeless.



I hate it when people talk about the safety net as though it's a solution
to poverty. We can spend a lot of dollars 'helping' people, but the real
low-cost solution is to make sure they become useful members of society.

Chak


The War on Poverty was declared in 1964...and either we have a genious
for an enemy..or our generals are utter ****wits. And I belive the
latter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty

48 years we have been fighting that SOB..and we are losing ..and losing
badly.

One would think its time to change generals and battle plans..no?

The war on drugs actually began in the early 20th century and we see
how well that has been going.



In 1900 there were a whole lot of poor people in the United States. In
the year 2000 there are a lot of poor people in the United States. So
whatever has been done to change that it hasn't had much effect. The
economic system is capitalism. If in the "richest" free market country
in the world you still have as many poor as you did a hundred years ago
what does that say about the ability of capitalism to provide a decent
lifestyle to everybody?

After 100 years it seem clear that in capitalism you have a relatively
small number of people who get a very large slice of the economic pie
and a very large number of people who get a very small slice of the pie.
So what's that mean? It's good to be in the small percent of folk who
have all the assets but life is crappy for most everyone else? And
that's the best economic system we can come up with? Obviously it is for
the few that are well off but why do the rest put up with it?

Hawke

So what do you advocate? Hiring poor, uneducated people for jobs that
they are not qualified for? Someone who is barely literate as a brain
surgeon?

I suggest that it would be far more beneficial to research why these
"poor" are not taking jobs? It seems very strange that the U.S. in
inundated with Mexicans taking unskilled, low paid work while there
are so many poor Americans who remain poor.

Perhaps instituting a new relief system based on the old WPA concept,
that ultimately employed approximately 1/3rd of the nation's
unemployed, and paid them a salary for their work, rather than the
current programs which essentially pay the poor to remain poor.

(Or perhaps that would be cruel and unusual punishment to actually
require people to work)

cheers,

Schweik

On 2/5/2012 6:17 PM, Schweik wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:25:29 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/4/2012 11:41 PM, Deucalion wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:34:33 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 00:48:05 +0000 (UTC), Chakolate
wrote:

"Joan F wrote in
:

He says he would patch up any holes in the safey net but he endorsed
Cantor's budget which slashes Medicaid and other programs like food
stamps. I don't think existing services are all that good, otherwise
there would not be so many homeless.



I hate it when people talk about the safety net as though it's a solution
to poverty. We can spend a lot of dollars 'helping' people, but the real
low-cost solution is to make sure they become useful members of society.

Chak


The War on Poverty was declared in 1964...and either we have a genious
for an enemy..or our generals are utter ****wits. And I belive the
latter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty

48 years we have been fighting that SOB..and we are losing ..and losing
badly.

One would think its time to change generals and battle plans..no?

The war on drugs actually began in the early 20th century and we see
how well that has been going.



In 1900 there were a whole lot of poor people in the United States. In
the year 2000 there are a lot of poor people in the United States. So
whatever has been done to change that it hasn't had much effect. The
economic system is capitalism. If in the "richest" free market country
in the world you still have as many poor as you did a hundred years ago
what does that say about the ability of capitalism to provide a decent
lifestyle to everybody?

After 100 years it seem clear that in capitalism you have a relatively
small number of people who get a very large slice of the economic pie
and a very large number of people who get a very small slice of the pie.
So what's that mean? It's good to be in the small percent of folk who
have all the assets but life is crappy for most everyone else? And
that's the best economic system we can come up with? Obviously it is for
the few that are well off but why do the rest put up with it?

Hawke

So what do you advocate? Hiring poor, uneducated people for jobs that
they are not qualified for? Someone who is barely literate as a brain
surgeon?

I suggest that it would be far more beneficial to research why these
"poor" are not taking jobs? It seems very strange that the U.S. in
inundated with Mexicans taking unskilled, low paid work while there
are so many poor Americans who remain poor.

Perhaps instituting a new relief system based on the old WPA concept,
that ultimately employed approximately 1/3rd of the nation's
unemployed, and paid them a salary for their work, rather than the
current programs which essentially pay the poor to remain poor.

(Or perhaps that would be cruel and unusual punishment to actually
require people to work)

cheers,

Schweik



The problem is that I don't have the solution to the problem. I don't
know anyone who does but I do know what we're doing isn't going to work
so we better start trying some new stuff.

The first thing in getting out of the hole is to stop digging. So we
need to quit what has gotten us here and start trying new ideas. There
are some things we can do but we don't seem to have the political will
to do them. The power of the status quo is immense in this country and
they will fight to keep things as they are. After all, things are really
great here for some people. I don't think they want us to change
anything, do you?

Hawke

On 2/6/2012 12:20 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/5/2012 6:17 PM, Schweik wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:25:29 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/4/2012 11:41 PM, Deucalion wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:34:33 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 00:48:05 +0000 (UTC), Chakolate
wrote:

"Joan F wrote in
:

He says he would patch up any holes in the safey net but he endorsed
Cantor's budget which slashes Medicaid and other programs like food
stamps. I don't think existing services are all that good, otherwise
there would not be so many homeless.



I hate it when people talk about the safety net as though it's a
solution
to poverty. We can spend a lot of dollars 'helping' people, but
the real
low-cost solution is to make sure they become useful members of
society.

Chak


The War on Poverty was declared in 1964...and either we have a genious
for an enemy..or our generals are utter ****wits. And I belive the
latter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty

48 years we have been fighting that SOB..and we are losing ..and
losing
badly.

One would think its time to change generals and battle plans..no?

The war on drugs actually began in the early 20th century and we see
how well that has been going.



In 1900 there were a whole lot of poor people in the United States. In
the year 2000 there are a lot of poor people in the United States. So
whatever has been done to change that it hasn't had much effect. The
economic system is capitalism. If in the "richest" free market country
in the world you still have as many poor as you did a hundred years ago
what does that say about the ability of capitalism to provide a decent
lifestyle to everybody?

After 100 years it seem clear that in capitalism you have a relatively
small number of people who get a very large slice of the economic pie
and a very large number of people who get a very small slice of the pie.
So what's that mean? It's good to be in the small percent of folk who
have all the assets but life is crappy for most everyone else? And
that's the best economic system we can come up with? Obviously it is for
the few that are well off but why do the rest put up with it?

Hawke

So what do you advocate? Hiring poor, uneducated people for jobs that
they are not qualified for? Someone who is barely literate as a brain
surgeon?

I suggest that it would be far more beneficial to research why these
"poor" are not taking jobs? It seems very strange that the U.S. in
inundated with Mexicans taking unskilled, low paid work while there
are so many poor Americans who remain poor.

Perhaps instituting a new relief system based on the old WPA concept,
that ultimately employed approximately 1/3rd of the nation's
unemployed, and paid them a salary for their work, rather than the
current programs which essentially pay the poor to remain poor.

(Or perhaps that would be cruel and unusual punishment to actually
require people to work)

cheers,

Schweik



The problem is that I don't have the solution to the problem.

You don't even have an honest and fact-based statement of a problem in
the first place.

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:20:57 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/5/2012 6:17 PM, Schweik wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:25:29 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/4/2012 11:41 PM, Deucalion wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:34:33 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 00:48:05 +0000 (UTC), Chakolate
wrote:

"Joan F wrote in
:

He says he would patch up any holes in the safey net but he endorsed
Cantor's budget which slashes Medicaid and other programs like food
stamps. I don't think existing services are all that good, otherwise
there would not be so many homeless.



I hate it when people talk about the safety net as though it's a solution
to poverty. We can spend a lot of dollars 'helping' people, but the real
low-cost solution is to make sure they become useful members of society.

Chak


The War on Poverty was declared in 1964...and either we have a genious
for an enemy..or our generals are utter ****wits. And I belive the
latter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty

48 years we have been fighting that SOB..and we are losing ..and losing
badly.

One would think its time to change generals and battle plans..no?

The war on drugs actually began in the early 20th century and we see
how well that has been going.



In 1900 there were a whole lot of poor people in the United States. In
the year 2000 there are a lot of poor people in the United States. So
whatever has been done to change that it hasn't had much effect. The
economic system is capitalism. If in the "richest" free market country
in the world you still have as many poor as you did a hundred years ago
what does that say about the ability of capitalism to provide a decent
lifestyle to everybody?

After 100 years it seem clear that in capitalism you have a relatively
small number of people who get a very large slice of the economic pie
and a very large number of people who get a very small slice of the pie.
So what's that mean? It's good to be in the small percent of folk who
have all the assets but life is crappy for most everyone else? And
that's the best economic system we can come up with? Obviously it is for
the few that are well off but why do the rest put up with it?

Hawke

So what do you advocate? Hiring poor, uneducated people for jobs that
they are not qualified for? Someone who is barely literate as a brain
surgeon?

I suggest that it would be far more beneficial to research why these
"poor" are not taking jobs? It seems very strange that the U.S. in
inundated with Mexicans taking unskilled, low paid work while there
are so many poor Americans who remain poor.

Perhaps instituting a new relief system based on the old WPA concept,
that ultimately employed approximately 1/3rd of the nation's
unemployed, and paid them a salary for their work, rather than the
current programs which essentially pay the poor to remain poor.

(Or perhaps that would be cruel and unusual punishment to actually
require people to work)

cheers,

Schweik



The problem is that I don't have the solution to the problem. I don't
know anyone who does but I do know what we're doing isn't going to work
so we better start trying some new stuff.

The first thing in getting out of the hole is to stop digging. So we
need to quit what has gotten us here and start trying new ideas. There
are some things we can do but we don't seem to have the political will
to do them. The power of the status quo is immense in this country and
they will fight to keep things as they are. After all, things are really
great here for some people. I don't think they want us to change
anything, do you?

Hawke


You are basically correct, I believe, when you say "political will".
Certainly a WPA scheme would be easy to implement and in fact the
state of Maine has, or had, a provision that the town/city can call
for people receiving public assistance to perform work for the
city/state and have in the past called out people on the relief rolls
to clean snow off sidewalks which is considered to be for the public
benefit.

A program requiring everyone who is on the relief rolls to fall out at
05:00 and sweep the city's streets would improve the cleanliness of
the city as well as, perhaps, impress on some that it is a better
decision to get a job.

But of course that would ensure that every one of these early morning
street sweepers would vote for the "other guy" in the next election
and is thus political suicide.

cheers,

Schweik

Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor...

i

On 2/6/2012 6:07 PM, Ignoramus8327 wrote:
Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor...

Why?

"Schweik" wrote in message
You are basically correct, I believe, when you say "political will".
Certainly a WPA scheme would be easy to implement and in fact the
state of Maine has, or had, a provision that the town/city can call
for people receiving public assistance to perform work for the
city/state and have in the past called out people on the relief rolls
to clean snow off sidewalks which is considered to be for the public
benefit.

A program requiring everyone who is on the relief rolls to fall out at
05:00 and sweep the city's streets would improve the cleanliness of
the city as well as, perhaps, impress on some that it is a better
decision to get a job.

But of course that would ensure that every one of these early morning
street sweepers would vote for the "other guy" in the next election
and is thus political suicide.

cheers,

Schweik

I've personally seen both sides of that. The city uses welfare recipients to
clean up trash on abandoned lots, which men can do but not single mothers
with infants to care for and no RELIABLE friends available to take them.

I couldn't believe the mess of spilled food and pet waste some of them raise
their kids in. Civilization hasn't taken on everyone. Glad I moved out. That
neighborhood was poor because they were obstinately dysfunctional.

"Ignoramus8327" wrote in message
...
Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor...
i

Show me Democrats who try to help them achieve self-sufficiency instead of
buying votes by propagating envy, dependency and delusions of entitlement.

There are an exceptional few, like Joe Kennedy:
http://www.citizensenergy.com/main/Home.html

Start with free English lessons for legal Hispanics. The Southeast Asians I
worked with didn't need help.

My mother volunteered to teach remedial English after she retired, but the
only classes they had established were meant for low-performing native
speakers.

Why don't PBS or Univision offer ESL? I picked up a lot of French and a
little Russian (from Vremya) on TV.

jsw

On 2/6/2012 12:44 PM, George Plimpton wrote:


The problem is that I don't have the solution to the problem.

You don't even have an honest and fact-based statement of a problem in
the first place.

That may be but it still puts me way out front of you.

Hawke

On 2/6/2012 6:07 PM, Ignoramus8327 wrote:
Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor...

i


You won't get any takers.

Hawke

On 2/6/2012 7:08 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/6/2012 6:07 PM, Ignoramus8327 wrote:
Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor...

Why?


We know you would ask a question like that because we know you only care
about yourself. After all, you're a libertarian, aren't you? And that's
how they roll.

Hawke

On 2/7/2012 12:03 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/6/2012 12:44 PM, George Plimpton wrote:


The problem is that I don't have the solution to the problem.

You don't even have an honest and fact-based statement of a problem in
the first place.

That may be but it still puts me way out front of you.

Nope - miles behind.

On 2/7/2012 12:06 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/6/2012 7:08 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/6/2012 6:07 PM, Ignoramus8327 wrote:
Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor...

Why?


We know you would ask a question like that because we know you only care
about yourself.

No, you know no such thing. What you know is that I don't allow the
likes of you to dictate to me how *much* I am to care about others, nor
do you get to dictate to me what my response will be.

After all, you're a libertarian, aren't you?

Yes, I'm proud to say I am. It's the only ethical political philosophy.
Conservatism and contemporary illiberal "liberalism" are unethical.

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:07:28 -0600, Ignoramus8327
wrote:

Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor...

Show me one Democrat who is concerned with the very poor...
They're all the same: uncaring, greedy buttheads.

--
Energy and persistence alter all things.
--Benjamin Franklin

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:42:46 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:07:28 -0600, Ignoramus8327
wrote:

Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor...

Show me one Democrat who is concerned with the very poor...
They're all the same: uncaring, greedy buttheads.

Nonsense. That's the cynicism that comes from not having much actual
experience.

I'm surrounded by Democrats. They're more involved with the homeless
than anyone I know in the local Republican Party (where I still go to
occassional cocktail parties). My neighbor, for example, puts in time
in a soup kitchen every week. He ain't no Republican.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:04:27 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/5/2012 2:02 PM, wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:25 pm, wrote:



In 1900 there were a whole lot of poor people in the United States. In
the year 2000 there are a lot of poor people in the United States. So
whatever has been done to change that it hasn't had much effect. The
economic system is capitalism. If in the "richest" free market country
in the world you still have as many poor as you did a hundred years ago
what does that say about the ability of capitalism to provide a decent
lifestyle to everybody?


Hawke

The poor in 1900 did not have cell phones, HD televisions, cars,
microwave ovens, and such. The poor in 2000 have all of those things.

My father was born in 1898. His family was not poor, but they did not
have electricity, running water, a car, or flush toilets.

Dan



Lots of people seem to have a problem with this. They equate what life
is today with what it was like many years ago and don't understand that
life has changed radically between then and now. Today we have all kinds
of things they didn't have 100 years ago; TV, Aircraft, cars, computers,
microwave ovens, cellphones, etc., in other words, new technology they
lacked. Today most everyone in the U.S. has access to all these things
but they're still poor.

So having access to modern technology does not mean no one is poor. As
Sean Hannity has said, poor people have flat screen TVs, microwave
ovens, cars, cell phones, and computers so are they really poor?

I know if I wanted to I could get a cellphone for 29 bucks, a used
computer and microwave for a couple hundred, or less. A junky car can be
had for very little if you know what you are doing too. So for a very
small amount of money you can have all the things the rich people have.
But you don't. The difference between what the rich have and what the
poor have is huge. So even though you may watch TV on a Flat screen in
an apartment with heat, running water, plumbing, and you have a cell
phone and computer you still are poor. You're a lot better off than the
guy living 100 years ago in a tenement building with none of those
things, which didn't exist at the time. But you're still poor. Because
the difference between being rich and poor is a relative term. Always
has been and always will be. Living standards have improved but poor is
still much different than rich in any era.

Hawke

The problem is that when you say POOR PEOPLE you are really saying
that they are in the lowest 15% of the population. However that
doesn't really mean anything if you have a hand phone, TV, computer,
housing, enough to eat, does it really mean that he is poor?.

Or are you simply saying that they are poor in relation to the posh
American life style. I remember considerable discussion on this group
about "My dishwasher stinks". Is a dish washer really an important
accessory to life. Does it mean that the lack there of is an
indication that you are poor?

The fact that someone else has a yacht, houses in Bermuda and Aspen
and two cars in the garage simply means that they are better off then
the poor people but isn't really meaningful when you talk about the
"Poor People".

Is it really meaningful to bitch because, although one has all the
amenities to live comfortably, that he is somehow deprived because he
doesn't have the house in Aspen?

Or is that simply jealousy?

The fact that someone else has more or less then I do is immaterial to
a discussion of whether I am rich or poor.

cheers,

Schweik

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 18:47:22 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 6, 9:07*pm, Ignoramus8327
wrote:
Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor...

i

Me

Dan
==================

Is that buy, sell or trade?
--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

On 2/7/2012 4:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:42:46 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:07:28 -0600, Ignoramus8327
wrote:

Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor...

Show me one Democrat who is concerned with the very poor...
They're all the same: uncaring, greedy buttheads.

Nonsense. That's the cynicism that comes from not having much actual
experience.

I'm surrounded by Democrats. They're more involved with the homeless
than anyone I know in the local Republican Party (where I still go to
occassional cocktail parties). My neighbor, for example, puts in time
in a soup kitchen every week. He ain't no Republican.

Nor are you.

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:31:07 -0800, Delvin Benet ýt wrote:

On 2/7/2012 4:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:42:46 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:07:28 -0600, Ignoramus8327
wrote:

Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor...

Show me one Democrat who is concerned with the very poor...
They're all the same: uncaring, greedy buttheads.

Nonsense. That's the cynicism that comes from not having much actual
experience.

I'm surrounded by Democrats. They're more involved with the homeless
than anyone I know in the local Republican Party (where I still go to
occassional cocktail parties). My neighbor, for example, puts in time
in a soup kitchen every week. He ain't no Republican.

Nor are you.

You're a moron, Delvin. But if you mean by "Republican" a hateful,
bigoted, authoritarian ignoramus, then no, I'm not that kind of
Republican. I'm the old kind, like the ones who pushed for welfare
reform and gun rights at the same time they supported the Civil Rights
Act.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2/7/2012 8:40 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:31:07 -0800, Delvin ýt wrote:

On 2/7/2012 4:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:42:46 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:07:28 -0600, Ignoramus8327
wrote:

Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor...

Show me one Democrat who is concerned with the very poor...
They're all the same: uncaring, greedy buttheads.

Nonsense. That's the cynicism that comes from not having much actual
experience.

I'm surrounded by Democrats. They're more involved with the homeless
than anyone I know in the local Republican Party (where I still go to
occassional cocktail parties). My neighbor, for example, puts in time
in a soup kitchen every week. He ain't no Republican.

Nor are you.

You're a moron, Delvin.

You're not a Republican, eddie.

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:55:50 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/7/2012 2:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/7/2012 1:40 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/7/2012 5:27 AM, wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:22 am, Jeff wrote:

The poor in 1900 did not have cell phones, HD televisions, cars,
microwave ovens, and such. The poor in 2000 have all of those things.

Neither did the rich. What is your point? Lots of things have changed,
usually for the better, over the past 112 years, even for the poor. The
poor of today are better off than the poor of 1900, just like everybody
else is. So what?

My point is that Hawke is wrong when he says there has been no
change. If you use constant standards, the poor today are well off.
But if you say the poor is the fifteen percent of the population that
has the lowest income, there is no way to change things. There will
always be people that make less than others.

Dan



Of course things have changed over the course of hundreds of years. But
someone living in a 20' trailer with a small flat screen and the other
things that come with it has all the modern conveniences from hot
running water to a microwave and a computer but he's still poor. Compare
him to a rich person in the mid 1800s who has non of those things but
has a lot of wealth. You could take a Texas cattle rancher of the late
1800s and he's got none of the things today's guy in the trailer has.
But he's got a big ranch house, thousands of acres of land, and all
kinds of livestock and equipment. He's got no micro, no computer, no hot
running water, and has an outhouse. So who is poorer?

Yeah, who is? That rich guy with all his wealth couldn't afford *any* of
that stuff. He didn't live as well, in many aspects, as a poor person of
today.


Yeah, that's probably true. When it comes to comfort and medical care
the cattle rancher was a lot worse off. In other ways he was a lot
better off. What that says is that it's not always a good idea to
compare things now with what they used to be.

My parents are in their eighties and in their youth they didn't have
hardly any of what we take for granted. People lived in 600-900 square
foot homes. They were lucky to have one car. Things are so different in
the last 60 years it probably isn't a good idea to compare anything
today with anything more than in the last fifty years. The world is too
different now that at any time in the past to be used for comparison
purposes.

Hawke

And, if they were a typical family of that era your mother didn't have
to work to support the luxuries. They probably ate fresh vegetables in
the summer and likely thought that they were pretty well off.

By the way, what did you mean about "to have one car". Are you
implying that anyone with ONLY one car is poor?

cheers,

Schweik

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:23:30 -0800, Delvin Benet ýt wrote:

On 2/7/2012 8:40 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:31:07 -0800, Delvin ýt wrote:

On 2/7/2012 4:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:42:46 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:07:28 -0600, Ignoramus8327
wrote:

Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor...

Show me one Democrat who is concerned with the very poor...
They're all the same: uncaring, greedy buttheads.

Nonsense. That's the cynicism that comes from not having much actual
experience.

I'm surrounded by Democrats. They're more involved with the homeless
than anyone I know in the local Republican Party (where I still go to
occassional cocktail parties). My neighbor, for example, puts in time
in a soup kitchen every week. He ain't no Republican.

Nor are you.

You're a moron, Delvin.

You're not a Republican, eddie.

How would you know, moron?

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:39:22 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 2/7/2012 4:50 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/7/2012 1:57 PM, George Plimpton wrote:


What you fail to realize is that even if every single working
person in
America had a Ph.D there would still be loads of poor people. You seem
to think that there are enough high paying jobs so that if everyone
wanted to they could get one.

As is usually the case with economics illiterates, you are tripped
up by
committing the lump of labor fallacy. You believe, wrongly, that there
is only so much work to be done. In fact, the amount of work to be done
is limitless.

Is it now?

Yes.


How about the amount of available resources and the amount of
human beings?

Irrelevant; have nothing to do with how much work people would like to
have done.

How much work people would like to do and the amount of resources
available to them have a lot to do with each other.

There is always more work to be done than there are workers to do it;
not necessarily at wages that equate the supply and demand for labor.

Actually that isn't correct. If the work actually needs to get done
then wages do follow supply and demand.

If, for example, a new factory opens they will, in order to get
workers, have to pay a large enough salary to entice people to come to
work there. It is only when there is an over supply of workers that
the factories really squeeze the workers.




Much clipped
Cheers

John B.

On 2/8/2012 3:20 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:23:30 -0800, Delvin ýt wrote:

On 2/7/2012 8:40 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:31:07 -0800, Delvin ýt wrote:

On 2/7/2012 4:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:42:46 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:07:28 -0600, Ignoramus8327
wrote:

Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor...

Show me one Democrat who is concerned with the very poor...
They're all the same: uncaring, greedy buttheads.

Nonsense. That's the cynicism that comes from not having much actual
experience.

I'm surrounded by Democrats. They're more involved with the homeless
than anyone I know in the local Republican Party (where I still go to
occassional cocktail parties). My neighbor, for example, puts in time
in a soup kitchen every week. He ain't no Republican.

Nor are you.

You're a moron, Delvin.

You're not a Republican, eddie.

How would you know, moron?

By the well-left-of-center crap you right here, not-so-fast eddie. Your
sentiments are all left-wing - well to the left of center, even for the
left-leaning area in which you live.

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:51:51 -0800, Delvin Benet ýt wrote:

On 2/8/2012 3:20 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:23:30 -0800, Delvin ýt wrote:

On 2/7/2012 8:40 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:31:07 -0800, Delvin ýt wrote:

On 2/7/2012 4:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:42:46 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:07:28 -0600, Ignoramus8327
wrote:

Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor...

Show me one Democrat who is concerned with the very poor...
They're all the same: uncaring, greedy buttheads.

Nonsense. That's the cynicism that comes from not having much actual
experience.

I'm surrounded by Democrats. They're more involved with the homeless
than anyone I know in the local Republican Party (where I still go to
occassional cocktail parties). My neighbor, for example, puts in time
in a soup kitchen every week. He ain't no Republican.

Nor are you.

You're a moron, Delvin.

You're not a Republican, eddie.

How would you know, moron?

By the well-left-of-center crap you right here, not-so-fast eddie. Your
sentiments are all left-wing - well to the left of center, even for the
left-leaning area in which you live.

I'm anti-bull****, Delvin. If you ignore TMT and Hawke (which I mostly
do), almost all of it comes from the right. Like, for example, your
stupid propaganda about the birther issue. You still don't seem to
know what dicta is, and your novel idea about "basic citizenship" is a
pile of bull that you made up on the spot.

So I mostly contradict you rightards. Relative to you, I'm to the
left. But so were Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2/8/2012 8:44 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:51:51 -0800, Delvin ýt wrote:

On 2/8/2012 3:20 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:23:30 -0800, Delvin ýt wrote:

On 2/7/2012 8:40 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:31:07 -0800, Delvin ýt wrote:

On 2/7/2012 4:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:42:46 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:07:28 -0600, Ignoramus8327
wrote:

Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor...

Show me one Democrat who is concerned with the very poor...
They're all the same: uncaring, greedy buttheads.

Nonsense. That's the cynicism that comes from not having much actual
experience.

I'm surrounded by Democrats. They're more involved with the homeless
than anyone I know in the local Republican Party (where I still go to
occassional cocktail parties). My neighbor, for example, puts in time
in a soup kitchen every week. He ain't no Republican.

Nor are you.

You're a moron, Delvin.

You're not a Republican, eddie.

How would you know, moron?

By the well-left-of-center crap you right here, not-so-fast eddie. Your
sentiments are all left-wing - well to the left of center, even for the
left-leaning area in which you live.

I'm anti-bull****, Delvin.

Ha ha ha ha ha! No, you're just highly partisan in your choice of
palatable bull****, not-so-fast eddie.



If you ignore TMT and Hawke (which I mostly
do), almost all of it comes from the right. Like, for example, your
stupid propaganda about the birther issue. You still don't seem to
know what dicta is,

That would be you, not-so-fast eddie. You called the Happersett
discussion of citizenship dicta, then said it wasn't dicta and denied
having called it dicta. You're not only not a lawyer, not-so-fast
eddie, but you're not even a well-read layman regarding the law. What
you are, not-so-fast eddie, is a left-wing blowhard who for some bizarre
reason (shame? dunno) is afraid just say you're a leftist and *be* a
leftist.


and your novel idea about "basic citizenship" is a
pile of bull that you made up on the spot.

No, not-so-fast eddie, you're lying - again. You said the court
"explicitly said that it was not deciding the question of 'natural
born.'" It said no such thing. You quoted, then misinterpreted, the
court in Happersett:

"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born
within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of
their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never
as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary
to solve these doubts."

"Those doubts", not-so-fast eddie, were *not* regarding natural born
citizenship - they were about simple, or basic, citizenship.

I invented nothing, you incompetent and unimaginative liar.


So I mostly contradict you rightards.

You are a leftard, not-so-fast eddie - and a dishonest one, but that
goes without saying.


Relative to you, I'm to theleft.

You are well to the left of the American center.


But so were Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.

No, not-so-fast eddie. Reagan was an avowed conservative. I'm
libertarian. Goldwater ran for president as a libertarian-inclined
conservative, and became more libertarian in the rest of his Senate career.

You are an in-denial leftist, not-so-fast eddie.

On 2/7/2012 7:35 PM, Schweik wrote:

The problem is that when you say POOR PEOPLE you are really saying
that they are in the lowest 15% of the population. However that
doesn't really mean anything if you have a hand phone, TV, computer,
housing, enough to eat, does it really mean that he is poor?.

Or are you simply saying that they are poor in relation to the posh
American life style. I remember considerable discussion on this group
about "My dishwasher stinks". Is a dish washer really an important
accessory to life. Does it mean that the lack there of is an
indication that you are poor?

The fact that someone else has a yacht, houses in Bermuda and Aspen
and two cars in the garage simply means that they are better off then
the poor people but isn't really meaningful when you talk about the
"Poor People".

Is it really meaningful to bitch because, although one has all the
amenities to live comfortably, that he is somehow deprived because he
doesn't have the house in Aspen?

Or is that simply jealousy?

The fact that someone else has more or less then I do is immaterial to
a discussion of whether I am rich or poor.


If someone having more or less than you is immaterial to whether you are
rich or poor then what is? Because having a lot of material things or
the means to buy them is what means a person is rich and an absence of
material things is what makes one poor. If that's not the case then what
is it that distinguishes rich and poor?

Hawke

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:15:04 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/7/2012 7:35 PM, Schweik wrote:

The problem is that when you say POOR PEOPLE you are really saying
that they are in the lowest 15% of the population. However that
doesn't really mean anything if you have a hand phone, TV, computer,
housing, enough to eat, does it really mean that he is poor?.

Or are you simply saying that they are poor in relation to the posh
American life style. I remember considerable discussion on this group
about "My dishwasher stinks". Is a dish washer really an important
accessory to life. Does it mean that the lack there of is an
indication that you are poor?

The fact that someone else has a yacht, houses in Bermuda and Aspen
and two cars in the garage simply means that they are better off then
the poor people but isn't really meaningful when you talk about the
"Poor People".

Is it really meaningful to bitch because, although one has all the
amenities to live comfortably, that he is somehow deprived because he
doesn't have the house in Aspen?

Or is that simply jealousy?

The fact that someone else has more or less then I do is immaterial to
a discussion of whether I am rich or poor.


If someone having more or less than you is immaterial to whether you are
rich or poor then what is? Because having a lot of material things or
the means to buy them is what means a person is rich and an absence of
material things is what makes one poor. If that's not the case then what
is it that distinguishes rich and poor?

Hawke


I can only assume that you are deliberately misconstruing everything
that deviates from your side of the discussion.

But, lets say get personal. You have written, I believe, that you have
an income from investments of around 40 - 50,000 dollars and that you
live on a 5 acre place in N. California.

Does this mean that everyone with more then $50,000 a year is rich?
Or, that anyone who owns more then 5 acres is rich?

Cheers

John B.

On 2/8/2012 7:18 PM, Hawwke-ptooey wrote:
On 2/7/2012 5:40 PM, wrote:
On Feb 7, 8:17 pm, wrote:

We need a capitalistic system with a lot of government involvement. Too
much of either one messes things up. Getting the right balance is the
hard part. But look around at other countries and you see some that have
done a lot better than we have.

Hawwke-ptooey

But you have been saying capitalism is bad, yet now you say we need
it. You can not argue both ways.

Dan



Capitalism can be bad or good depending on how it is run. The way we do
it is bad because it is benefiting a few tremendously and the majority
quite poorly. If you changed it to where it benefited the majority
tremendously and the rich not very then it would be a pretty good
system. It has potential but is not close to it at this point. It's not
a matter of all bad or all good. It's more complicated than that.

Hawwke-ptooey

"...how it is run."

Thank you, Hawwke-ptooey, you've really shown us all the depth of your
knowledge and wisdom. You've shown us how aware you are of the lives of
most of those in what was once known as the Third World. What you
consider poor would be to them unimagined wealth.

Guys, I think we should retire this thread and dedicate it as a memorial
to all the wisdom and knowledge that Hawwke-ptooey has displayed in his
time here. As a highly educated man, as evidenced by his having a poli
sci BA from ...somewhere..., we know we can look to him for guidance in
these uncertain times and also know that he can always be depended on to
tell us vaguely what the DNC wants us to think. Or feel. Or whatever...

David

Delvin Benet ýt wrote:



You're not a Republican, eddie.

How would you know, moron?

By the well-left-of-center crap you right here, not-so-fast eddie. Your
sentiments are all left-wing - well to the left of center, even for the
left-leaning area in which you live.



Since when was being "right winged", "bigoted", "conservative" or any
other form of nutcase isim, a requirement to be a "Republican" or a
"republican".

Given the almost binary nature of our political choice, I suspect that
the majority of the people registered as Big D or Big R do not espouse
all of the official line of their party, much less the hot wind from
the flapping exttrrrrrrrreeme wings.

He could be the biggest liberal, touchy feely wingnut, and still be a
registered Republican. You have not clue if he is or not, and
certainly no control over it.

If you want that you need to go to main land china, where they DO
control who joins the party.
jk

On 2/8/2012 7:20 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:15:04 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/7/2012 7:35 PM, Schweik wrote:

The problem is that when you say POOR PEOPLE you are really saying
that they are in the lowest 15% of the population. However that
doesn't really mean anything if you have a hand phone, TV, computer,
housing, enough to eat, does it really mean that he is poor?.

Or are you simply saying that they are poor in relation to the posh
American life style. I remember considerable discussion on this group
about "My dishwasher stinks". Is a dish washer really an important
accessory to life. Does it mean that the lack there of is an
indication that you are poor?

The fact that someone else has a yacht, houses in Bermuda and Aspen
and two cars in the garage simply means that they are better off then
the poor people but isn't really meaningful when you talk about the
"Poor People".

Is it really meaningful to bitch because, although one has all the
amenities to live comfortably, that he is somehow deprived because he
doesn't have the house in Aspen?

Or is that simply jealousy?

The fact that someone else has more or less then I do is immaterial to
a discussion of whether I am rich or poor.


If someone having more or less than you is immaterial to whether you are
rich or poor then what is? Because having a lot of material things or
the means to buy them is what means a person is rich and an absence of
material things is what makes one poor. If that's not the case then what
is it that distinguishes rich and poor?

Hawke


I can only assume that you are deliberately misconstruing everything
that deviates from your side of the discussion.

But, lets say get personal. You have written, I believe, that you have
an income from investments of around 40 - 50,000 dollars and that you
live on a 5 acre place in N. California.

Does this mean that everyone with more then $50,000 a year is rich?
Or, that anyone who owns more then 5 acres is rich?


To communicate people have to agree on what things mean. With a lot of
people you get a lot of different ideas of what things mean. Ask what
socialism means and you get a lot of different answers. Ask what is rich
and you also get a lot of different answers. I would suggest that we
would stipulate that rich is what is commonly accepted as rich in our
society. Most people think pro athletes, entertainers, and successful
businessmen, are rich. But usually it depends on where you are that
determines what you think rich is. Mitt Romney doesn't think the 370,000
a year he makes from speaking events is very much. I think most people
disagree with him.

If we look at what the average man makes it's about 43K a year according
to the 2006 census. Also, the census says that 1.93% of all households
earned more than 250K a year. In my book, I'd say anyone making that
kind of money is rich. Other people say it's wealth that matters not
income. I agree. Warren Buffet and Bull Gates don't earn that much
income but they are the wealthiest men in the country. So I would say
wealth is a lot better measure than income for determining who is rich.
But all things are relative. Compared to those guys I'm in poverty.
Compared to a Latin American peasant I'm rich. So it all depends on what
we are talking about and that we agree on what things mean. Bottom line
is rich means that compared to the average, you are in a very small
percentage of people who have a large amount of income or wealth. The
bad thing is that according to those standards I don't qualify. But I
already knew that.


Hawke

On 2/8/2012 7:56 PM, David R. Birch wrote:


Capitalism can be bad or good depending on how it is run. The way we do
it is bad because it is benefiting a few tremendously and the majority
quite poorly. If you changed it to where it benefited the majority
tremendously and the rich not very then it would be a pretty good
system. It has potential but is not close to it at this point. It's not
a matter of all bad or all good. It's more complicated than that.

Hawwke-ptooey

"...how it is run."

Thank you, Hawwke-ptooey, you've really shown us all the depth of your
knowledge and wisdom. You've shown us how aware you are of the lives of
most of those in what was once known as the Third World. What you
consider poor would be to them unimagined wealth.

Guys, I think we should retire this thread and dedicate it as a memorial
to all the wisdom and knowledge that Hawwke-ptooey has displayed in his
time here. As a highly educated man, as evidenced by his having a poli
sci BA from ...somewhere..., we know we can look to him for guidance in
these uncertain times and also know that he can always be depended on to
tell us vaguely what the DNC wants us to think. Or feel. Or whatever...


Or we could ask David for some of his brilliant thoughts and ideas on a
few of life's weightier issues. Since he believes himself to be of
superior intellect and able to judge others it would be nice for him to
help us out and one day give us a taste of his brilliant mind in action.
But until that time I guess we have to be satisfied with the excellence
he has shown in finding fault with something I have said. The
unfortunate thing is that like always he has nothing else of value to
add to any discussion unless you consider ad hominem attacks to be a
positive thing.

So keep up the good work, David. I don't know how we could function
without your insightful criticism into everything I say. But one does
wonder why it is you have nothing else to add but criticism? Is that all
you've got? All you can do is find fault and criticize other people?
That's lame actually. Try putting something else up sometime that proves
to the group how smart you are. I'm sure I can find something wrong with
it pretty fast.

Hawke

On 2/9/2012 11:15 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/8/2012 7:20 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:15:04 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/7/2012 7:35 PM, Schweik wrote:

The problem is that when you say POOR PEOPLE you are really saying
that they are in the lowest 15% of the population. However that
doesn't really mean anything if you have a hand phone, TV, computer,
housing, enough to eat, does it really mean that he is poor?.

Or are you simply saying that they are poor in relation to the posh
American life style. I remember considerable discussion on this group
about "My dishwasher stinks". Is a dish washer really an important
accessory to life. Does it mean that the lack there of is an
indication that you are poor?

The fact that someone else has a yacht, houses in Bermuda and Aspen
and two cars in the garage simply means that they are better off then
the poor people but isn't really meaningful when you talk about the
"Poor People".

Is it really meaningful to bitch because, although one has all the
amenities to live comfortably, that he is somehow deprived because he
doesn't have the house in Aspen?

Or is that simply jealousy?

The fact that someone else has more or less then I do is immaterial to
a discussion of whether I am rich or poor.


If someone having more or less than you is immaterial to whether you are
rich or poor then what is? Because having a lot of material things or
the means to buy them is what means a person is rich and an absence of
material things is what makes one poor. If that's not the case then what
is it that distinguishes rich and poor?

Hawke


I can only assume that you are deliberately misconstruing everything
that deviates from your side of the discussion.

But, lets say get personal. You have written, I believe, that you have
an income from investments of around 40 - 50,000 dollars and that you
live on a 5 acre place in N. California.

Does this mean that everyone with more then $50,000 a year is rich?
Or, that anyone who owns more then 5 acres is rich?


To communicate people have to agree on what things mean. With a lot of
people you get a lot of different ideas of what things mean. Ask what
socialism means and you get a lot of different answers. Ask what is rich
and you also get a lot of different answers. I would suggest that we
would stipulate that rich is what is commonly accepted as rich in our
society.

There is no commonly accepted meaning, and even if there were, that
doesn't mean it's usable.


Most people think pro athletes, entertainers, and successful
businessmen, are rich.

That's not defining "being rich".


But usually it depends on where you are that
determines what you think rich is. Mitt Romney doesn't think the 370,000
a year he makes from speaking events is very much. I think most people
disagree with him.

Compared to executives earning millions, and many lawyers and doctors
and other professionals earning $500,000 and more, it isn't very much.


If we look at what the average man makes it's about 43K a year according
to the 2006 census. Also, the census says that 1.93% of all households
earned more than 250K a year. In my book, I'd say anyone making that
kind of money is rich. Other people say it's wealth that matters not
income. I agree. Warren Buffet and Bull Gates don't earn that much
income but they are the wealthiest men in the country. So I would say
wealth is a lot better measure than income for determining who is rich.

If I own a $10 million dollar house and nothing else, and earn just
enough money to pay for property taxes, utilities and enough left over
to buy myself some dog food, am I rich?


But all things are relative. Compared to those guys I'm in poverty.
Compared to a Latin American peasant I'm rich. So it all depends on what
we are talking about and that we agree on what things mean.

There is no agreement, and there never will be as long as extremist
liars like you are in on the discussion.

On 2/8/2012 3:12 AM, Schweik wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:55:50 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/7/2012 2:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/7/2012 1:40 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/7/2012 5:27 AM, wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:22 am, Jeff wrote:

The poor in 1900 did not have cell phones, HD televisions, cars,
microwave ovens, and such. The poor in 2000 have all of those things.

Neither did the rich. What is your point? Lots of things have changed,
usually for the better, over the past 112 years, even for the poor. The
poor of today are better off than the poor of 1900, just like everybody
else is. So what?

My point is that Hawke is wrong when he says there has been no
change. If you use constant standards, the poor today are well off.
But if you say the poor is the fifteen percent of the population that
has the lowest income, there is no way to change things. There will
always be people that make less than others.

Dan



Of course things have changed over the course of hundreds of years. But
someone living in a 20' trailer with a small flat screen and the other
things that come with it has all the modern conveniences from hot
running water to a microwave and a computer but he's still poor. Compare
him to a rich person in the mid 1800s who has non of those things but
has a lot of wealth. You could take a Texas cattle rancher of the late
1800s and he's got none of the things today's guy in the trailer has.
But he's got a big ranch house, thousands of acres of land, and all
kinds of livestock and equipment. He's got no micro, no computer, no hot
running water, and has an outhouse. So who is poorer?

Yeah, who is? That rich guy with all his wealth couldn't afford *any* of
that stuff. He didn't live as well, in many aspects, as a poor person of
today.


Yeah, that's probably true. When it comes to comfort and medical care
the cattle rancher was a lot worse off. In other ways he was a lot
better off. What that says is that it's not always a good idea to
compare things now with what they used to be.

My parents are in their eighties and in their youth they didn't have
hardly any of what we take for granted. People lived in 600-900 square
foot homes. They were lucky to have one car. Things are so different in
the last 60 years it probably isn't a good idea to compare anything
today with anything more than in the last fifty years. The world is too
different now that at any time in the past to be used for comparison
purposes.

Hawke

And, if they were a typical family of that era your mother didn't have
to work to support the luxuries. They probably ate fresh vegetables in
the summer and likely thought that they were pretty well off.

Like I said, thing were so different for them that we can't compare our
lives to theirs. My parents lived in the Depression. After that they
thought life was great. It was compared to what they had gone through.
They really felt well off after WWII. Life was good for them. I don't
know that it's better because of the things we have now that they didn't.




By the way, what did you mean about "to have one car". Are you
implying that anyone with ONLY one car is poor?

I meant most people in those days were lucky to own "A" car. Nowadays
you see many cars in most family driveways. I wasn't implying one car
means someone is poor. But show me a rich man and I'll show you a guy
with a bunch of cars.

Hawke

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:15:45 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/8/2012 7:20 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:15:04 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/7/2012 7:35 PM, Schweik wrote:

The problem is that when you say POOR PEOPLE you are really saying
that they are in the lowest 15% of the population. However that
doesn't really mean anything if you have a hand phone, TV, computer,
housing, enough to eat, does it really mean that he is poor?.

Or are you simply saying that they are poor in relation to the posh
American life style. I remember considerable discussion on this group
about "My dishwasher stinks". Is a dish washer really an important
accessory to life. Does it mean that the lack there of is an
indication that you are poor?

The fact that someone else has a yacht, houses in Bermuda and Aspen
and two cars in the garage simply means that they are better off then
the poor people but isn't really meaningful when you talk about the
"Poor People".

Is it really meaningful to bitch because, although one has all the
amenities to live comfortably, that he is somehow deprived because he
doesn't have the house in Aspen?

Or is that simply jealousy?

The fact that someone else has more or less then I do is immaterial to
a discussion of whether I am rich or poor.


If someone having more or less than you is immaterial to whether you are
rich or poor then what is? Because having a lot of material things or
the means to buy them is what means a person is rich and an absence of
material things is what makes one poor. If that's not the case then what
is it that distinguishes rich and poor?

Hawke


I can only assume that you are deliberately misconstruing everything
that deviates from your side of the discussion.

But, lets say get personal. You have written, I believe, that you have
an income from investments of around 40 - 50,000 dollars and that you
live on a 5 acre place in N. California.

Does this mean that everyone with more then $50,000 a year is rich?
Or, that anyone who owns more then 5 acres is rich?


To communicate people have to agree on what things mean. With a lot of
people you get a lot of different ideas of what things mean. Ask what
socialism means and you get a lot of different answers. Ask what is rich
and you also get a lot of different answers. I would suggest that we
would stipulate that rich is what is commonly accepted as rich in our
society. Most people think pro athletes, entertainers, and successful
businessmen, are rich. But usually it depends on where you are that
determines what you think rich is. Mitt Romney doesn't think the 370,000
a year he makes from speaking events is very much. I think most people
disagree with him.

If we look at what the average man makes it's about 43K a year according
to the 2006 census. Also, the census says that 1.93% of all households
earned more than 250K a year. In my book, I'd say anyone making that
kind of money is rich. Other people say it's wealth that matters not
income. I agree. Warren Buffet and Bull Gates don't earn that much
income but they are the wealthiest men in the country. So I would say
wealth is a lot better measure than income for determining who is rich.
But all things are relative. Compared to those guys I'm in poverty.
Compared to a Latin American peasant I'm rich. So it all depends on what
we are talking about and that we agree on what things mean. Bottom line
is rich means that compared to the average, you are in a very small
percentage of people who have a large amount of income or wealth. The
bad thing is that according to those standards I don't qualify. But I
already knew that.


Hawke


Lets see.

Warron Buffet had an adjusted gross income in 2010 of
$62,855,038 and his taxable income was $39,814,784. He paid federal
income tax bill of $6,923,494.

Bill Gates, on the other hand, has a paltry income of only
$16,866,662,400.

But you say that Warron and Billie don't earn "that much", which
certainly leaves a certain amount of doubt about either your
comprehension or your veracity.

Cheers

John B.

On Feb 6, 8:07*pm, Ignoramus8327
wrote:
Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor...

i

I'm with Ig on this...he's right.

TMT

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:07:28 -0600, Ignoramus8327
wrote:

Show me one Republican who is concerned with the very poor...

i

Gunner raises his hand while looking over at the two roommates he took
in when they lost their jobs and their home.


One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:00:00 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/8/2012 9:36 PM, jk wrote:
George wrote:


The idea is that millions and millions are making less than 10.00 an
hour and Bill O'Reilly is making millions a year at his job.

So?

The difference between what each is paid is huge.

So?


Apparently, O'Reilly is
able to add a lot more value than Walmart employees are. At least that
is what the market is saying.

And it's correct.

That would be true if everything the market said was correct or the
right thing to do. But

No "buts" about it. It is correct: O'Reilly adds more value than any


That's where you loose me.
I don't think he adds value, clearly others do. I think he is a puffed
up windbag, but some times amusing.

But then I don't think entertainers must "add value" to be well paid,
just be amusing. The good ones do add value, and are better paid.
But then I though Rush was a comedian the first sever times I heard
him on the radio. I just wondered WHEN he was EVER going to get to
the punch line.

jk


I think you can see my point, which is that just because the "market"
decided what someone gets paid that doesn't' mean it makes sense is
fair, or is rational. Katie Couric got paid 15 million a year to read
the news for 30 minutes a day. Supposedly that was decided by the
market. I say it was determined by a group of executives. The thing is a
lot of jobs pay way too much for what they provide and a lot pay way too
little for what is done. That's what the market decides but who said the
market actually makes any sense or is the least bit fair? As we all know
in many cases it's neither. It's just that some people are so
ideologically wedded to the idea that nothing is better than the free
market they can't imagine anything could ever be better.

Hawke

And, as usual, you are wrong.

The glamour faces on TV are there for the same reason that sports
events are. to get a higher "viewer count". It is that simple, you
want the big advertising accounts you got to prove that the
advertisers have the most exposure on your station so you hire
beautiful people and pay substantial sums to be able to show the
National League play-offs.

During the 2011 Tour de France some 15,000,000 watched the race from
the course and millions more on TV. The price that advertisers will
pay for that amount of exposure is what governs how much the
competitors are paid.

So actually it is market pressure that is the basis of the high paid
athletes and the glamour pusses.

Cheers

John B.