On Dec 14, 4:57 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

You are dead *wrong* about this. Bush did not crank up
the debt primarily because of war. He cranked up the debt to
pay for the mooching retirees who wanted "free" drugs.

Specifically, how much?

--

FF

Subject

Remember Orwell's book "Animal Farm"

When the farm house was empty, after the animals drove the farmer out,
the rules painted on the side of the barn read:

"All Animals Are Equal?

Later, after the pigs, alleged to be the smartest animals, moved into
the farm house, the rules painted on the side of the barn read:

"All Animals Are Equal, But Some Are More Equal Than Others"

Stll valid today as it was over 50 years ago when it was written.

Lew

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Dec 9, 6:38 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
...

Not sure why you want to exclude those who exceed a certain income
threshold from voting. That kind of shows a certain amount of dedication
and success capability. In truth, they don't have enough numbers to
significantly influence election results by much anyway.

What should be required is that people who are living from government
benefits should not be allowed to vote. This is the people voting
themselves the treasury that the founders were warned against. You have
a dependency class voting for those who promise to take money from the
people
who are working and provide it those who are not. Self-support should be
a pre-requisite for the franchise.

You mean like, no government contractor personel
would vote?

Quite a bit of difference between government contractors, civil servants,
military personnel, or even for that matter politicians. Those people are
providing a service in return for wages. Entirely different thing than
receiving government largesse with nothing being expected in return (other
than votes).

But then you knew that.


Wouldn't do any good because they would still
lobby.

--

FF

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Dec 19, 3:05 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:



On Dec 9, 6:38 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
...

Not sure why you want to exclude those who exceed a certain income
threshold from voting. That kind of shows a certain amount of dedication
and success capability. In truth, they don't have enough numbers to
significantly influence election results by much anyway.

What should be required is that people who are living from government
benefits should not be allowed to vote. This is the people voting
themselves the treasury that the founders were warned against. You have
a dependency class voting for those who promise to take money from the
people
who are working and provide it those who are not. Self-support should be
a pre-requisite for the franchise.

You mean like, no government contractor personel
would vote?

Quite a bit of difference between government contractors, civil servants,
military personnel, or even for that matter politicians. Those people are
providing a service in return for wages. Entirely different thing than
receiving government largesse with nothing being expected in return (other
than votes).

But then you knew that.



Wouldn't do any good because they would still
lobby.


We both also know that individuals living on welfare are an
insignificant voting block, and are not a significant source of
campaign funding either.

--

FF

On Dec 11, 2:17 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
...

So the boom during WWII was due to ther governmnent forcing the
private sector to produce more?

Umm, yes it was. It was called the "war effort". Businesses were pushed
to produce war materiel, strategic goods were rationed, women went to work
in the factories producing military products while men of military age were
serving in the armed forces. Now, those people who were working in those
factories and businesses were making money and being paid. They had to eat
and have services and other goods. The whole economy benefited from that
effect; however, this was still being done on government borrowing
(remember war bonds?).

I remember hearing about war bonds, I'm not old enough to have bought
any.

I also remember some of the lunatic fringe claiming that FDR
wanted war to pull the US out of the Depression--those megalomaniacs
trying to conquer the world must has escaped their attention...

.....

i.e., you would like to be able to mold the Constitution into anything
that you feel would be good at any one time. That is not how or why it was
written. Read the federalist and anti-federalist papers sometime. Nothing
in there about being a "living, breathing document that says whatever an
activist judiciary or other authority says at any time". Instead there is
concern about a runaway federal government and how the constitution was
designed to limit the powers of the federal government.

A living breathing approach is certainly appropriate when considering
such things as what constitutes "cruel and unusual". It is not such
a good thing when considering what constitutes 'interstate commerce.'

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
SNIP
We both also know that individuals living on welfare are an
insignificant voting block, and are not a significant source of
campaign funding either.


The number of older people extracting more from the system than
they ever put is large and growing. They are every bit the
same as the putative "welfare" recipients, they just don't like
being told so.

Oh, and they (the elders) are *the* voting block. I have no idea
if they contribute to political campaigns.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Some misinformed idiot wrote:

Umm, yes it was. It was called the "war effort". Businesses were
pushed
to produce war materiel, strategic goods were rationed, women went
to work
in the factories producing military products while men of military
age were
serving in the armed forces. Now, those people who were working in
those
factories and businesses were making money and being paid. They had
to eat
and have services and other goods. The whole economy benefited from
that
effect; however, this was still being done on government borrowing
(remember war bonds?).

Yes I remember war bonds, bought lots of them, a $0.10 red or $0.25
green stamp at a time out of my school lunch money.

Same was true of my grammar school classmates.

Also remember the ration coupon books for almost everything,
especially gasoline and tires.

There was no butter, only margarine, which by law was white, thanks to
the dairy lobby.

If you wanted yellow margarine, a little packet of colored dye was
included that you could mix with the margarine to color it.

People had lots of money, with good reason.

There was nothing to buy.

All materials were directed to the war effort to support your son,
daughter, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or whatever family member(s), or
maybe the next door neighbor's kin, who had gone off to war.

If you want too spout off, then at least have some knowledge of what
the f++k you are talking about.

Lew

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
...

I also remember some of the lunatic fringe claiming that FDR
wanted war to pull the US out of the Depression--those megalomaniacs
trying to conquer the world must has escaped their attention...

....

You must be a blissful individual.

FDR commited or caused acts of war to be commited in an effort to get into
the war in Europe, and stated flatly that he preferred the Japanese to
strike the first blow as well.

The country, on the other hand, was pretty happy selling machinery and oil
for money, not Lend-Lease, FOB a US port. Did more for the economy than
simply make-work and printing money.

It might interest you to know that we supported colonial powers, and were
one ourselves in the Pacific. Imagine if the current crop of press-pigs had
had an opportunity to work on that?

Lew Hodgett wrote:

Some misinformed idiot wrote:

Umm, yes it was. It was called the "war effort". Businesses were
pushed
to produce war materiel, strategic goods were rationed, women went
to work
in the factories producing military products while men of military
age were
serving in the armed forces. Now, those people who were working in
those
factories and businesses were making money and being paid. They had
to eat
and have services and other goods. The whole economy benefited from
that
effect; however, this was still being done on government borrowing
(remember war bonds?).

Yes I remember war bonds, bought lots of them, a $0.10 red or $0.25
green stamp at a time out of my school lunch money.

Same was true of my grammar school classmates.

Also remember the ration coupon books for almost everything,
especially gasoline and tires.

There was no butter, only margarine, which by law was white, thanks to
the dairy lobby.

If you wanted yellow margarine, a little packet of colored dye was
included that you could mix with the margarine to color it.

People had lots of money, with good reason.

There was nothing to buy.

All materials were directed to the war effort to support your son,
daughter, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or whatever family member(s), or
maybe the next door neighbor's kin, who had gone off to war.

If you want too spout off, then at least have some knowledge of what
the f++k you are talking about.

Lew

Who crapped in your wheaties? You don't have a clue of the context of
the above comment; your comments only reinforce the point I was making.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Dec 19, 5:25 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
SNIP

We both also know that individuals living on welfare are an
insignificant voting block, and are not a significant source of
campaign funding either.

The number of older people extracting more from the system than
they ever put is large and growing. They are every bit the
same as the putative "welfare" recipients, they just don't like
being told so.


I realize that is the socialist perspective and I reject it.

First of all, any retirement plan functions like insurance,
some claimants get more than they put in while others
get less. Social Security was running a surplus up until
the time that LBJ convinced the Congress to merge it into
the General Fund, even without investing the money.

Social Security has become a Ponzi scam only because the
Feds managed it like Ponzi. Had it been managed responsibly,
there would be no problem.

People retiring today have spent a lifetime paying into their
SSA, or in some cases being married to someone who has.
Had that money been invested, as any good retirement fund
should be, there would be no problem. Their current situation
is quite analogous to that of a person who paid into a private
retirement plan and had their balance embezzled by the
management. They expect nothing more than would be
available were it nor for the gross malfeasance of the Federal
Government, holding the malfeasor responsible for it.

Whether or not the operation of such a mandatory retirement plan
falls within the Constitutional authority of the Federal Government
is an entirely separate matter.

Oh, and they (the elders) are *the* voting block. I have no idea
if they contribute to political campaigns.


I expect they do.

--

FF

On Dec 19, 10:39 am, "George" wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in ...



I also remember some of the lunatic fringe claiming that FDR
wanted war to pull the US out of the Depression--those megalomaniacs
trying to conquer the world must has escaped their attention...

....

You must be a blissful individual.

FDR commited or caused acts of war to be commited in an effort to get into
the war in Europe, and stated flatly that he preferred the Japanese to
strike the first blow as well.

Yes, have you ever heard of Hitler, Mussilini and Stalin? Fighting
the Nazis in Africa and Europe was quite preferable to waiting until
they landed on Long Island. Just my personal opinion.

Ironically, Hitler turned on his ally Stalin so that the Soviets
became
our ally, Hilter being the greater threat at the time. But keep in
mind that early in the War we sent aid to the Finns to fight against
the Soviets.FDR was anticipating a world war against Germany,
Japan, Italy, AND the Soviet Union.

...and stated flatly that he preferred the Japanese to
strike the first blow as well.

I'd like an exact quote with context for that statement.

My guess, at this point, is that FDR, if he said anything at all
on the subject, said something to the effect that we should not
declare war on Japan unless the Japanese attacked us first.


The country, on the other hand, was pretty happy selling
machinery and oil for money, not Lend-Lease, FOB a US
port. Did more for the economy than simply make-work
and printing money.

He did manage, over the objections of the Republicans, to
sell some arms to Finland to assist in their defense against
the Soviet Union.


It might interest you to know that we supported colonial powers, and were
one ourselves in the Pacific. Imagine if the current crop of press-pigs had
had an opportunity to work on that?

The contemporarary press-pigs supported American Colonialism
of course. Remember the Maine?

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
...

You must be a blissful individual.

FDR commited or caused acts of war to be commited in an effort to get
into
the war in Europe, and stated flatly that he preferred the Japanese to
strike the first blow as well.

Yes, have you ever heard of Hitler, Mussilini and Stalin? Fighting
the Nazis in Africa and Europe was quite preferable to waiting until
they landed on Long Island. Just my personal opinion.

Ironically, Hitler turned on his ally Stalin so that the Soviets
became
our ally, Hilter being the greater threat at the time. But keep in
mind that early in the War we sent aid to the Finns to fight against
the Soviets.FDR was anticipating a world war against Germany,
Japan, Italy, AND the Soviet Union.

...and stated flatly that he preferred the Japanese to
strike the first blow as well.

I'd like an exact quote with context for that statement.

My guess, at this point, is that FDR, if he said anything at all
on the subject, said something to the effect that we should not
declare war on Japan unless the Japanese attacked us first.


The country, on the other hand, was pretty happy selling
machinery and oil for money, not Lend-Lease, FOB a US
port. Did more for the economy than simply make-work
and printing money.

He did manage, over the objections of the Republicans, to
sell some arms to Finland to assist in their defense against
the Soviet Union.


It might interest you to know that we supported colonial powers, and were
one ourselves in the Pacific. Imagine if the current crop of press-pigs
had
had an opportunity to work on that?

The contemporarary press-pigs supported American Colonialism
of course. Remember the Maine?


As I said. Blissful. I could give you chapter and verse on the FDR
reference, but you REALLY need to read up on some History before you appear
even more ignorant. So I'll leave it to you.

While you're shopping, look up the meaning of "neutral."

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

I realize that is the socialist perspective and I reject it.

First of all, any retirement plan functions like insurance,
some claimants get more than they put in while others
get less. Social Security was running a surplus up until
the time that LBJ convinced the Congress to merge it into
the General Fund, even without investing the money.

SS is still running a surplus and will be for the next decade or so.
From it's inception under FDR, the SS surplus has been "invested" in
intra governmental bonds by law. This means any surplus has always been
bought from SS by the federal government in exchange for an IOU. What
was changed is the federal government accounting of this - the surplus
received from SS is counted as revenue for the current fiscal year, and
the IOU is NOT counted as an expenditure. This leads folks to believe
there really was a surplus in the late '90s when in fact the national
debt has increased every year since 1960.

The SS and the 150 or so other trust funds account for $4 trillion of
the $9 trillion debt.

Politicians who talk about "raiding" the trust fund are either ignorant
of the current law and situation or trying to obfuscate thinking that
the public doesn't know there's no money in the fund to be raided and
there never has been. They also reject the only other form of
investment which would be non governmental notes and equities
(privatization) as being too "risky" and instead suggest increasing the
withholding thereby accumulating debt at an even faster rate!

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On Dec 19, 5:25 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
SNIP

We both also know that individuals living on welfare are an
insignificant voting block, and are not a significant source of
campaign funding either.
The number of older people extracting more from the system than
they ever put is large and growing. They are every bit the
same as the putative "welfare" recipients, they just don't like
being told so.


I realize that is the socialist perspective and I reject it.

First of all, any retirement plan functions like insurance,
some claimants get more than they put in while others
get less. Social Security was running a surplus up until
the time that LBJ convinced the Congress to merge it into
the General Fund, even without investing the money.

Social Security has become a Ponzi scam only because the
Feds managed it like Ponzi. Had it been managed responsibly,
there would be no problem.

That's not the only reason. The underlying root cause that
LBJ did what he did is that the sheeple demanded more and more
from government while simultaneously objecting to increased
taxation. The money had to come from somewhere and LBJ practiced
some creative accounting.

Even if he had not, though, it is far from clear that the system
was sustainable in the long-term. People are living longer and longer.
A whole generation from the 1960s has failed, on average, to save
much for their own retirement (partly because many did not trust
capital markets and partly because many wanted to wish socialism
into existence in this nation - the exceptions prove the rule.)


People retiring today have spent a lifetime paying into their
SSA, or in some cases being married to someone who has.
Had that money been invested, as any good retirement fund
should be, there would be no problem. Their current situation

Social security was NOT EVER conceived to be a "good retirement
fund". It was supposed to be "supplemental". The aforementioned
refugees from the 1960s have decided that it is to be the
former, not the latter, and have the bullying voting block to
make it so.

is quite analogous to that of a person who paid into a private
retirement plan and had their balance embezzled by the
management. They expect nothing more than would be
available were it nor for the gross malfeasance of the Federal
Government, holding the malfeasor responsible for it.

Mostly I agree with what you wrote, with two important exceptions:

1) The "rights" under Social Security/Medicare have been steadily
expanding. It started out as a supplemental insurance program,
but now is increasingly seen as much more than that. The
Bush "drug benefit" is completely off the reservation, without
merit, and excruciatingly expensive.

2) If all this had been privately done, as should have been the
case, people who abused the system or stole from it could at
least have been jailed for embezzlement (or worse). What
are we going to do to the political scoundrels that are
bankrupting the system? Isn't it ironic that LBJ (who was a
malignant fool on many, many levels) used one form of socialism
to pay for another? The results speak for themselves.

Whether or not the operation of such a mandatory retirement plan
falls within the Constitutional authority of the Federal Government
is an entirely separate matter.

It certainly does not appear as one of the enumerated powers.

Oh, and they (the elders) are *the* voting block. I have no idea
if they contribute to political campaigns.


I expect they do.

--

FF



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Dec 19, 12:25 am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Some misinformed idiot wrote:
Umm, yes it was. It was called the "war effort". Businesses were
pushed
to produce war materiel, strategic goods were rationed, women went
to work
in the factories producing military products while men of military
age were
serving in the armed forces. Now, those people who were working in
those
factories and businesses were making money and being paid. They had
to eat
and have services and other goods. The whole economy benefited from
that
effect; however, this was still being done on government borrowing
(remember war bonds?).

Yes I remember war bonds, bought lots of them, a $0.10 red or $0.25
green stamp at a time out of my school lunch money.

Same was true of my grammar school classmates.

Also remember the ration coupon books for almost everything,
especially gasoline and tires.

There was no butter, only margarine, which by law was white, thanks to
the dairy lobby.

If you wanted yellow margarine, a little packet of colored dye was
included that you could mix with the margarine to color it.

People had lots of money, with good reason.

There was nothing to buy.

All materials were directed to the war effort to support your son,
daughter, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or whatever family member(s), or
maybe the next door neighbor's kin, who had gone off to war.

If you want too spout off, then at least have some knowledge of what
the f++k you are talking about.

Lew

16 million served in the Armed Forces during WWII, if my memory is
working. I still ahve a partial book or two of the green stamps
around, stamps my parents bought for me when I was 3-4-5-6.

Now, we get revisionist assholes stating that A-bombing Japan was
immoral, and killed far more people than necessary. Oh, yeah. And it
was racist because we didn't A-bomb Germany. True enough, but, IIRC,
Germany quit about the same day Truman was sworn in to replace
Roosevelt, who had just died. Hitler suicided that same day and that
war was effectively over. Too, I guess the revisionists haven't heard
of the fire bombing of Dresden, nor the fears that all the top brass
in the U.S. had at the time that the Japanese were prepared to defend
their land to the last person. I still believe that.

Semper fi.

On Dec 19, 9:20 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:



On Dec 19, 5:25 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
SNIP

We both also know that individuals living on welfare are an
insignificant voting block, and are not a significant source of
campaign funding either.
The number of older people extracting more from the system than
they ever put is large and growing. They are every bit the
same as the putative "welfare" recipients, they just don't like
being told so.

I realize that is the socialist perspective and I reject it.

First of all, any retirement plan functions like insurance,
some claimants get more than they put in while others
get less. Social Security was running a surplus up until
the time that LBJ convinced the Congress to merge it into
the General Fund, even without investing the money.

Social Security has become a Ponzi scam only because the
Feds managed it like Ponzi. Had it been managed responsibly,
there would be no problem.

That's not the only reason. The underlying root cause that
LBJ did what he did is that the sheeple demanded more and more
from government while simultaneously objecting to increased
taxation. The money had to come from somewhere and LBJ practiced
some creative accounting.

I'm not so sure that the people demanded we go to war in Vietnam,
so much as they were indifferent about it until there were half a
million US troops in theater.


Even if he had not, though, it is far from clear that the system
was sustainable in the long-term. People are living longer and longer.
A whole generation from the 1960s has failed, on average, to save
much for their own retirement (partly because many did not trust
capital markets and partly because many wanted to wish socialism
into existence in this nation - the exceptions prove the rule.)

It would only be sustainable if the monies were invested.




People retiring today have spent a lifetime paying into their
SSA, or in some cases being married to someone who has.
Had that money been invested, as any good retirement fund
should be, there would be no problem. Their current situation

Social security was NOT EVER conceived to be a "good retirement
fund". It was supposed to be "supplemental". The aforementioned
refugees from the 1960s have decided that it is to be the
former, not the latter, and have the bullying voting block to
make it so.

Regardless of how much it was to provide, a promise was made
to the payees that they would receive benefits later and only a
dishonest person belyaches about having to make good on that
promise.


is quite analogous to that of a person who paid into a private
retirement plan and had their balance embezzled by the
management. They expect nothing more than would be
available were it nor for the gross malfeasance of the Federal
Government, holding the malfeasor responsible for it.

Mostly I agree with what you wrote, with two important exceptions:

1) The "rights" under Social Security/Medicare have been steadily
expanding. It started out as a supplemental insurance program,
but now is increasingly seen as much more than that.

The 'rights' under Social Security were established by promising
benefits later in exchange for payments now, which is how any
retirement plan works.

The
Bush "drug benefit" is completely off the reservation, without
merit, and excruciatingly expensive.

Medicare is another issue entirely.

Again, can you provide a number for the estimated cost of the
prescription drug plan? I'd like to see how that compares to the
estimated trillion dollar budget for the war with Iraq.


2) If all this had been privately done, as should have been the
case, people who abused the system or stole from it could at
least have been jailed for embezzlement (or worse). What
are we going to do to the political scoundrels that are
bankrupting the system?

Name places for them and put their images on stamps and coins.

Isn't it ironic that LBJ (who was a
malignant fool on many, many levels) used one form of socialism
to pay for another? The results speak for themselves.


The Vietnam war was not a form of socialism.



Whether or not the operation of such a mandatory retirement plan
falls within the Constitutional authority of the Federal Government
is an entirely separate matter.

It certainly does not appear as one of the enumerated powers.


IMHO, the proper course of action in the 1930's would have been
a very small number, perhaps 2 or 3 Constitutional amendments,
rather than twisting the ICC and other clauses beyond recognition.
The approach to the interpretation of the ICC implied by Thomas'
dissent in the medical marijuana case should be how the ICC
is generally viewed.

Note that agricultural subsidies would remain Constitutional as
they only apply restrict commodities sold in interstate commerce.

--

FF

On Dec 19, 8:08 pm, "George" wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in ...





You must be a blissful individual.

FDR commited or caused acts of war to be commited in an effort to get
into
the war in Europe, and stated flatly that he preferred the Japanese to
strike the first blow as well.

Yes, have you ever heard of Hitler, Mussilini and Stalin? Fighting
the Nazis in Africa and Europe was quite preferable to waiting until
they landed on Long Island. Just my personal opinion.

Ironically, Hitler turned on his ally Stalin so that the Soviets
became
our ally, Hilter being the greater threat at the time. But keep in
mind that early in the War we sent aid to the Finns to fight against
the Soviets.FDR was anticipating a world war against Germany,
Japan, Italy, AND the Soviet Union.

...and stated flatly that he preferred the Japanese to
strike the first blow as well.

I'd like an exact quote with context for that statement.

My guess, at this point, is that FDR, if he said anything at all
on the subject, said something to the effect that we should not
declare war on Japan unless the Japanese attacked us first.

The country, on the other hand, was pretty happy selling
machinery and oil for money, not Lend-Lease, FOB a US
port. Did more for the economy than simply make-work
and printing money.

He did manage, over the objections of the Republicans, to
sell some arms to Finland to assist in their defense against
the Soviet Union.

It might interest you to know that we supported colonial powers, and were
one ourselves in the Pacific. Imagine if the current crop of press-pigs
had had an opportunity to work on that?

The contemporarary press-pigs supported American Colonialism
of course. Remember the Maine?

As I said. Blissful. I could give you chapter and verse on the FDR
reference,

Evidently not, else you would have by now.

--

FF

Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 19, 12:25 am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Some misinformed idiot wrote:
Umm, yes it was. It was called the "war effort". Businesses
were pushed to produce war materiel, strategic goods were
rationed,
women went to work in the factories producing military products
while men of military age were serving in the armed forces. Now,
those people who were working in those factories and businesses
were making money and being paid. They had to eat and have
services and other goods. The whole economy benefited from that
effect; however, this was still being done on government borrowing
(remember war bonds?).

Yes I remember war bonds, bought lots of them, a $0.10 red or $0.25
green stamp at a time out of my school lunch money.

Same was true of my grammar school classmates.

Also remember the ration coupon books for almost everything,
especially gasoline and tires.

There was no butter, only margarine, which by law was white, thanks
to the dairy lobby.

If you wanted yellow margarine, a little packet of colored dye was
included that you could mix with the margarine to color it.

People had lots of money, with good reason.

There was nothing to buy.

All materials were directed to the war effort to support your son,
daughter, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or whatever family member(s),
or maybe the next door neighbor's kin, who had gone off to war.

If you want too spout off, then at least have some knowledge of
what
the f++k you are talking about.

Lew

16 million served in the Armed Forces during WWII, if my memory is
working. I still ahve a partial book or two of the green stamps
around, stamps my parents bought for me when I was 3-4-5-6.

Now, we get revisionist assholes stating that A-bombing Japan was
immoral, and killed far more people than necessary. Oh, yeah. And it
was racist because we didn't A-bomb Germany. True enough, but, IIRC,
Germany quit about the same day Truman was sworn in to replace
Roosevelt, who had just died. Hitler suicided that same day and that
war was effectively over. Too, I guess the revisionists haven't
heard
of the fire bombing of Dresden, nor the fears that all the top brass
in the U.S. had at the time that the Japanese were prepared to
defend
their land to the last person. I still believe that.

Firestorming is apparently Politically Correct. None of those nasty
ol' atoms involved I guess.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Dec 19, 9:37 pm, Charlie Self wrote:

...

I guess the revisionists haven't heard
of the fire bombing of Dresden, nor the fears that all the top brass
in the U.S. had at the time that the Japanese were prepared to defend
their land to the last person. I still believe that.


Some revisionists clearly have.

If you compare the civilian casualty estimates published in the 1950's
for the bombing of Cologne, Hamburg, and Dresden with those currently
in vogue you will find that they have been reduced by a factor of ten
or more.

That doesn't tell us which was closer to the truth.

It has also been argued that although the US did not directly attack
Japanese agricultural production, the destruction of the Japanese
rail system crippled Japan's ability to move food from rural to
urban areas. Had the war NOT ended by September, the rail
system could not have been repaired in time to prevent up to 25
million civilian deaths from starvation over the following winter.

I'm not convince that the Japanese could not have mitigated that
through labor intensive low-tech means, even foot traffic. But
there is no rational doubt that the rapid end to the war after the
atomic bombing saved millions of lives in Japan as well as
on the Asian Mainland where fatalities among Chinese, Japanese,
and Soviets were in excess of ten thousand per day.

Also, my father was scheduled to be in the second wave for the
invasion of the Japanese mainland.. He was on a train, broken
down in West Texas on it's way to Bakersfield, CA when Truman
dropped the bomb, quite probably saving MY life as well.

--

FF

Mr. Self,

I don't consider myself a "revisionist asshole" but I do believe that the
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were immoral. As were the fire bombings
of Dresden, the raids over Tokyo, the bombing of London, the concentration
and the internment camps, et al.

War is an immoral business, no matter who starts it.

It if solved anything, we wouldn't need to keep having them.

John E.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...



16 million served in the Armed Forces during WWII, if my memory is
working. I still ahve a partial book or two of the green stamps
around, stamps my parents bought for me when I was 3-4-5-6.

Now, we get revisionist assholes stating that A-bombing Japan was
immoral, and killed far more people than necessary. Oh, yeah. And it
was racist because we didn't A-bomb Germany. True enough, but, IIRC,
Germany quit about the same day Truman was sworn in to replace
Roosevelt, who had just died. Hitler suicided that same day and that
war was effectively over. Too, I guess the revisionists haven't heard
of the fire bombing of Dresden, nor the fears that all the top brass
in the U.S. had at the time that the Japanese were prepared to defend
their land to the last person. I still believe that.

Semper fi.

John E. wrote:

Mr. Self,

I don't consider myself a "revisionist asshole" but I do believe that the
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were immoral. As were the fire bombings
of Dresden, the raids over Tokyo, the bombing of London, the concentration
and the internment camps, et al.

War is an immoral business, no matter who starts it.


That may be the case, but it would be even more immoral to allow despotic
tyrants free reign in the attempt to avoid war. Wars are sometimes
unavoidable and necessary (i.e, the lesser evil) to prevent those who
would, by force, enslave the citizens of free countries.


It if solved anything, we wouldn't need to keep having them.


Since you were writing the above post in English and not German or
Russian; I would venture to say that WWII and the Cold War at least
prevented a few things.



John E.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...



16 million served in the Armed Forces during WWII, if my memory is
working. I still ahve a partial book or two of the green stamps
around, stamps my parents bought for me when I was 3-4-5-6.

Now, we get revisionist assholes stating that A-bombing Japan was
immoral, and killed far more people than necessary. Oh, yeah. And it
was racist because we didn't A-bomb Germany. True enough, but, IIRC,
Germany quit about the same day Truman was sworn in to replace
Roosevelt, who had just died. Hitler suicided that same day and that
war was effectively over. Too, I guess the revisionists haven't heard
of the fire bombing of Dresden, nor the fears that all the top brass
in the U.S. had at the time that the Japanese were prepared to defend
their land to the last person. I still believe that.

Semper fi.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

John E. wrote:
Mr. Self,

I don't consider myself a "revisionist asshole" but I do believe
that
the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were immoral. As were the
fire
bombings of Dresden, the raids over Tokyo, the bombing of London,
the
concentration and the internment camps, et al.

War is an immoral business, no matter who starts it.

It if solved anything, we wouldn't need to keep having them.

So what would you have done about the Japanese and Hitler?
Surrendered?

John E.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...



16 million served in the Armed Forces during WWII, if my memory is
working. I still ahve a partial book or two of the green stamps
around, stamps my parents bought for me when I was 3-4-5-6.

Now, we get revisionist assholes stating that A-bombing Japan was
immoral, and killed far more people than necessary. Oh, yeah. And
it
was racist because we didn't A-bomb Germany. True enough, but,
IIRC,
Germany quit about the same day Truman was sworn in to replace
Roosevelt, who had just died. Hitler suicided that same day and
that
war was effectively over. Too, I guess the revisionists haven't
heard
of the fire bombing of Dresden, nor the fears that all the top
brass
in the U.S. had at the time that the Japanese were prepared to
defend
their land to the last person. I still believe that.

Semper fi.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Dec 22, 12:17 am, "John E." wrote:
Mr. Self,

I don't consider myself a "revisionist asshole" but I do believe that the
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were immoral. As were the fire bombings
of Dresden, the raids over Tokyo, the bombing of London, the concentration
and the internment camps, et al.

War is an immoral business, no matter who starts it.

It if solved anything, we wouldn't need to keep having them.

John E.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message

...

16 million served in the Armed Forces during WWII, if my memory is
working. I still ahve a partial book or two of the green stamps
around, stamps my parents bought for me when I was 3-4-5-6.

Now, we get revisionist assholes stating that A-bombing Japan was
immoral, and killed far more people than necessary. Oh, yeah. And it
was racist because we didn't A-bomb Germany. True enough, but, IIRC,
Germany quit about the same day Truman was sworn in to replace
Roosevelt, who had just died. Hitler suicided that same day and that
war was effectively over. Too, I guess the revisionists haven't heard
of the fire bombing of Dresden, nor the fears that all the top brass
in the U.S. had at the time that the Japanese were prepared to defend
their land to the last person. I still believe that.

Semper fi.

I am not in favor of war when less costly--in terms of lives and
emotions, as well as the lesser problem of money--methods work.
Unfortunately, that is not always the case...let's recall that WWII
gained some major impetus, on the European side at least, by an
attempt at being easy, taking the other side's word, and
then...blitzkrieg.

Pacifism only works when non-pacifists kick the crap out of enemies of
the pacifists.

Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 22, 12:17 am, "John E." wrote:
Mr. Self,

I don't consider myself a "revisionist asshole" but I do believe
that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were immoral. As were
the fire bombings of Dresden, the raids over Tokyo, the bombing of
London, the concentration and the internment camps, et al.

War is an immoral business, no matter who starts it.

It if solved anything, we wouldn't need to keep having them.

John E.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message

...

16 million served in the Armed Forces during WWII, if my memory is
working. I still ahve a partial book or two of the green stamps
around, stamps my parents bought for me when I was 3-4-5-6.

Now, we get revisionist assholes stating that A-bombing Japan was
immoral, and killed far more people than necessary. Oh, yeah. And
it
was racist because we didn't A-bomb Germany. True enough, but,
IIRC,
Germany quit about the same day Truman was sworn in to replace
Roosevelt, who had just died. Hitler suicided that same day and
that
war was effectively over. Too, I guess the revisionists haven't
heard of the fire bombing of Dresden, nor the fears that all the
top brass in the U.S. had at the time that the Japanese were
prepared to defend their land to the last person. I still believe
that.

Semper fi.

I am not in favor of war when less costly--in terms of lives and
emotions, as well as the lesser problem of money--methods work.
Unfortunately, that is not always the case...let's recall that WWII
gained some major impetus, on the European side at least, by an
attempt at being easy, taking the other side's word, and
then...blitzkrieg.

Pacifism only works when non-pacifists kick the crap out of enemies
of
the pacifists.

Or when the non-pacifists see themselves as decent sporting gents like
the Brits in India. The Nazis or Soviets would have just rounded up
Gandhi and his lot sent them to the camps.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Dec 22, 6:00 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
John E. wrote:
Mr. Self,

I don't consider myself a "revisionist asshole" but I
do believe that the bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki were immoral. As were the fire bombings
of Dresden, the raids over Tokyo, the bombing
of London, the concentration and the internment
camps, et al.

You may want to read up on Hamburg and Cologne,
as well.



War is an immoral business, no matter who starts it.

That may be the case, but it would be even more
immoral to allow despotic tyrants free reign in the
attempt to avoid war. Wars are sometimes
unavoidable and necessary (i.e, the lesser evil) to
prevent those who would, by force, enslave the
citizens of free countries.

That's my point about FDR attempting to get the US
into the war in Europe early on.


It if solved anything, we wouldn't need to keep having them.

Since you were writing the above post in English and not German or
Russian; I would venture to say that WWII and the Cold War at least
prevented a few things.


Starting those wars didn't prevent anything bad from happening.
Ending them did.

--

FF

On Dec 19, 8:08 pm, "George" wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in ...





You must be a blissful individual.

FDR commited or caused acts of war to be commited in an effort to get
into
the war in Europe, and stated flatly that he preferred the Japanese to
strike the first blow as well.

Yes, have you ever heard of Hitler, Mussilini and Stalin? Fighting
the Nazis in Africa and Europe was quite preferable to waiting until
they landed on Long Island. Just my personal opinion.

Ironically, Hitler turned on his ally Stalin so that the Soviets
became
our ally, Hilter being the greater threat at the time. But keep in
mind that early in the War we sent aid to the Finns to fight against
the Soviets.FDR was anticipating a world war against Germany,
Japan, Italy, AND the Soviet Union.

...and stated flatly that he preferred the Japanese to
strike the first blow as well.

I'd like an exact quote with context for that statement.

My guess, at this point, is that FDR, if he said anything at all
on the subject, said something to the effect that we should not
declare war on Japan unless the Japanese attacked us first.

The country, on the other hand, was pretty happy selling
machinery and oil for money, not Lend-Lease, FOB a US
port. Did more for the economy than simply make-work
and printing money.

He did manage, over the objections of the Republicans, to
sell some arms to Finland to assist in their defense against
the Soviet Union.

It might interest you to know that we supported colonial powers, and were
one ourselves in the Pacific. Imagine if the current crop of press-pigs
had
had an opportunity to work on that?

The contemporarary press-pigs supported American Colonialism
of course. Remember the Maine?

As I said. Blissful. I could give you chapter and verse on the FDR
reference, but you REALLY need to read up on some History before you appear
even more ignorant. So I'll leave it to you.

While you're shopping, look up the meaning of "neutral."

I'm quite familiar with the term.

I do not see what that has to do with FDR's motivation for
trying to end American neutrality sooner, rather than later.

Could you explain why you think his motivation was to
boost the American economy, rather than to opposed
Fascist and Imperial expansion?

--

FF

On Dec 22, 12:17 am, "John E." wrote:
Mr. Self,

I don't consider myself a "revisionist asshole" but I do believe that the
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were immoral. As were the fire bombings
of Dresden, the raids over Tokyo, the bombing of London, the concentration
and the internment camps, et al.

War is an immoral business, no matter who starts it.

It if solved anything, we wouldn't need to keep having them.

John E.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message

...

16 million served in the Armed Forces during WWII, if my memory is
working. I still ahve a partial book or two of the green stamps
around, stamps my parents bought for me when I was 3-4-5-6.

Now, we get revisionist assholes stating that A-bombing Japan was
immoral, and killed far more people than necessary. Oh, yeah. And it
was racist because we didn't A-bomb Germany. True enough, but, IIRC,
Germany quit about the same day Truman was sworn in to replace
Roosevelt, who had just died. Hitler suicided that same day and that
war was effectively over. Too, I guess the revisionists haven't heard
of the fire bombing of Dresden, nor the fears that all the top brass
in the U.S. had at the time that the Japanese were prepared to defend
their land to the last person. I still believe that.

Semper fi.

It would have been more moral, then, to invade the Japanese home
islands which they had sworn to defend the last person?

During WWII, the Japanese showed an unusual taste for last ditch
defense, actually suiciding in preference to being captured. They were
tough, tenacious fighters with good (in the terms of fighting)
leadership, and more than a little ability to dream up new ways of
killing U.S. troops.

Estimated casualties for an invasion of the Japanese homeland ran from
one to five million, including Japanese civilians.

A-bombing immoral? Actually, the invasion would have been immoral.

Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 22, 12:17 am, "John E." wrote:
Mr. Self,

I don't consider myself a "revisionist asshole" but I do believe
that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were immoral. As were
the fire bombings of Dresden, the raids over Tokyo, the bombing of
London, the concentration and the internment camps, et al.

War is an immoral business, no matter who starts it.

It if solved anything, we wouldn't need to keep having them.

John E.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message

...

16 million served in the Armed Forces during WWII, if my memory is
working. I still ahve a partial book or two of the green stamps
around, stamps my parents bought for me when I was 3-4-5-6.

Now, we get revisionist assholes stating that A-bombing Japan was
immoral, and killed far more people than necessary. Oh, yeah. And
it
was racist because we didn't A-bomb Germany. True enough, but,
IIRC,
Germany quit about the same day Truman was sworn in to replace
Roosevelt, who had just died. Hitler suicided that same day and
that
war was effectively over. Too, I guess the revisionists haven't
heard of the fire bombing of Dresden, nor the fears that all the
top brass in the U.S. had at the time that the Japanese were
prepared to defend their land to the last person. I still believe
that.

Semper fi.

It would have been more moral, then, to invade the Japanese home
islands which they had sworn to defend the last person?

During WWII, the Japanese showed an unusual taste for last ditch
defense, actually suiciding in preference to being captured.

I think that it should be made clear that that penchant for suicide
extended to the civilians, it wasn't just the soldiers. On Saipan
about 20 percent of the civilian population committed suicide. I
don't know the number for Okinawa but it was also substantial. If 20
percent of the Japanese home islands population did the same that
would have been 14 million dead over and above however many died in
the fighting.

They were
tough, tenacious fighters with good (in the terms of fighting)
leadership, and more than a little ability to dream up new ways of
killing U.S. troops.

Estimated casualties for an invasion of the Japanese homeland ran
from
one to five million, including Japanese civilians.

A-bombing immoral? Actually, the invasion would have been immoral.

Perhaps he feels that Japan should have just been blockaded forever?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Dec 24, 1:14 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 22, 12:17 am, "John E." wrote:
Mr. Self,

...

It would have been more moral, then, to invade the Japanese home
islands which they had sworn to defend the last person?

During WWII, the Japanese showed an unusual taste for last ditch
defense, actually suiciding in preference to being captured.

I think that it should be made clear that that penchant for suicide
extended to the civilians, it wasn't just the soldiers. On Saipan
about 20 percent of the civilian population committed suicide. I
don't know the number for Okinawa but it was also substantial. If 20
percent of the Japanese home islands population did the same that
would have been 14 million dead over and above however many died in
the fighting.

They were
tough, tenacious fighters with good (in the terms of fighting)
leadership, and more than a little ability to dream up new ways of
killing U.S. troops.

Estimated casualties for an invasion of the Japanese homeland ran
from one to five million, including Japanese civilians.

But those are combat casualties only, and do nto take into
consideration
starvation.


A-bombing immoral? Actually, the invasion would have been immoral.

Perhaps he feels that Japan should have just been blockaded forever?


Most people who advocate an indefinite blockade aren't considering
the one million Japanese troops on the Asian Mainland.

--

FF

On Dec 9 2007, 7:56 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 9, 11:17 am, wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

SNIP

Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is necessarily a
good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.
This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence cannot
add to the GDP. But even if it did so, the Federal Government
has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".

Step Three
----------
Instantiate a flat tax like the Fair Tax via a Constitutional
Amendment that forbids the institution of *any* other kind of tax.
So no protective tariffs on foreign trade even if other countries do
enact such tariffs?
Right. Tariffs are yet another attempt to "manage" economics.

The "Fair Tax" proposal seems to be a 23% sales

tax, which is a "soak the poor" scheme.
Go reread it. It does no such thing. It rebates *everyone* the
amount of money a "poor" family would pay in taxes. This means
the truly poor pay no taxes.

Basic problem: the poor have to lay out
the 23% and wait for the
rebate, and some are at a marginal level
that does not allow paying
23% out. They are already paying only
whatever the local sales tax is,
and not much, or anything, else, so, for
example, a 5% sales tax state
would see the poor paying the further 18%
out-of-pocket, when their
pockets are already empty. When is the
rebate made? Instantly? Will
that work?

Monthly, in the form of a stipend check to each and every taxpayer.



All these flat tax and simple tax ideas work
nicely on paper. I'm not
at all sure they will work any better in practice
than the horrendous and untrackable mishmash
we already have. Then again, if a few simple
objections, as above, can be answered, they
sure as hell cannot be worse.

Of course they would work better. Do you spend *any* significant
amount of time/money/effort to pay your state or local sales taxes?

Merchants do. And the costs of that time and effort are
passed onto the consumer (in essence, a hidden operating
tax) by way of higher prices for the merchandise.

I'm not clear on how forcing (at the point of a gun,
no doubt) every merchant to be a pro bono tax
collector for the Federal government is any more
moral or even efficient than requiring the taxpayer
pay the government directly.

If more efficient, it is only because some state and
local governments already force (again, at the point
of a gun no doubt) to collect THEIR taxes for them
gratis.


This is no different. It abolishes the IRS and places the burden
of collection on the *seller* of goods/services who already has
the capacity to do this because of said local/state taxation
systems. Moreover, it taxes the underground economy - evendrug
dealers buy Ferraris, for example.

How naive. The underground economy relies heavily on
unreported cash transactions. No sales tax is collected.
One time a person selling me a used car offered to falsify
the sale price on the paperwork to save me taxes. There
was nothing in it for him--he thought he was doing me
a favor.

It is indeed fairer, simpler,
cheaper to administer, and has all kinds of other indicidental
benefits (like making markets more efficient by eliminating
capital gains taxation).



It comes with it's own host of problems and the only
reason why sales tax is not currently as big a mess
as income taxes is because the rates are still small
enough to not inspire the same degree of evasion
as does the income tax.

--

FF