gabriel writes:

Hey, no argument there... I am very willing to pay my own fair share.
In fact, I would raise taxes right now, not lower them. For example, I
would consider the state of the SS system as cause enough for some
temporary pain in the form of higher taxes. OTOH, I would scrap the new
manned mission to Mars initiative because the cost would be tremendous
and the ROI would be too small (national gloating rights?, Let's fix
health care first, no?).

Leave us not forget, too, that Bush is going to help us fix our marriages, to
the tune of 1-1/2 billion of our own bucks.

I doubt we can fix health care for the 16 billion aimed at Mars, but we don't
need to **** those bucks into space, either. Nor do we need to supply Iraq with
87 billion dollars to rebuild the country. Let them pay Halliburton with their
own revenues.

Charlie Self
"Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:37:28 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:


I doubt we can fix health care for the 16 billion aimed at Mars, but we don't
need to **** those bucks into space, either.

Interesting thought, loading a bunch of cash on a rocket and shooting it
into space. Actually, NASA's budget gets spent providing jobs and
generating tax revenue. As far as ROI, it would be interesting to see
what the ramifications of not "****ing away" the billions on the Apollo
program for example. Where would the computer industry be at this point?
Would we have PC's sitting on our desks or have the internet. Would
there be an Intel or Microsoft? What would be the difference in tax
revenues between then and now had we not done it? I'm betting that we
have gotten much more back in tax revenue than we spent.

-Doug

Doug Winterburn writes:

As far as ROI, it would be interesting to see
what the ramifications of not "****ing away" the billions on the Apollo
program for example. Where would the computer industry be at this point?
Would we have PC's sitting on our desks or have the internet. Would
there be an Intel or Microsoft? What would be the difference in tax
revenues between then and now had we not done it? I'm betting that we
have gotten much more back in tax revenue than we spent.

But we don't know. Particularly since major developments on the PC have pretty
much been consumer driven, I'm not at all certain a huge amount of difference
was made by government purchasing officers. Might be. I'm not at all convinced.
I know technology was government driven during WWII. I've seen damned little
evidence of it since, particularly since the early space "race" ended.


Charlie Self
"Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:24:08 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:


But we don't know. Particularly since major developments on the PC have pretty
much been consumer driven, I'm not at all certain a huge amount of difference
was made by government purchasing officers. Might be. I'm not at all convinced.
I know technology was government driven during WWII. I've seen damned little
evidence of it since, particularly since the early space "race" ended.

The microchip was a direct result of the space program, and is the basis
for all our modern electronics - computers, cell phones, home
entertainment, home appliances, automobiles, etc. It was developed
because of the need for miniturization and reduced weight. There were
many other inventions in technology and medicine as well. I suspect we
would have eventually developed all the things that came out of this, but
at a diminished rate - maybe years, maybe decades. And as we all know,
time is money - every day without a new business/industry making profits
to be taxed and employees in high paying jobs to be taxed is lost revenue.

-Doug

Doug Winterburn writes:

But we don't know. Particularly since major developments on the PC have
pretty
much been consumer driven, I'm not at all certain a huge amount of
difference
was made by government purchasing officers. Might be. I'm not at all
convinced.
I know technology was government driven during WWII. I've seen damned
little
evidence of it since, particularly since the early space "race" ended.

The microchip was a direct result of the space program, and is the basis
for all our modern electronics - computers, cell phones, home
entertainment, home appliances, automobiles, etc.

I'll buy the second part of your statement. I'm not at all sure the microchip
was a direct result of the space race, though miniaturization was certainly an
emphasis there. But the transistor, something of an early microchip, existed
before we really entered the space race. I'd like to check up on that before I
get into an argument I can't win, but don't have time right now. I do know that
in '60, the minimal autopilots available for military helicopters were tube
types early in the year, and switched to circuit boards and transistors later,
at least as far as reaching the troops was concerned (I went through several
weeks of training at MCAF Santa Ana because of that and a couple other
changes).

Of course, it's always a good idea to remember that until recent years, the
Marine Corps got the short end of the stick when it came to military supplies.
I'm told that's changed recently, but, then, I'm also told mess duty is a thing
of the past, with civilians doing the dirty work. Amazing if true.

Charlie Self
"Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:32:02 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:


I'll buy the second part of your statement. I'm not at all sure the microchip
was a direct result of the space race, though miniaturization was certainly an
emphasis there. But the transistor, something of an early microchip, existed
before we really entered the space race. I'd like to check up on that before I
get into an argument I can't win, but don't have time right now.

You are correct on the transistor - it was developed in the late forties
or early fifties, but it's a huge jump from a transistor to a microchip
with thousands or millions of transistors and the accompanying several
orders of magnitude reduction in speed, size and weight.

-Doug

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 07:27:45 GMT, Dave Mundt wrote:


Neither does Iraq have a "brave new political system". It has protests
on the streets against a US-led war to bring "democracy", where this
appears to be US-selected non-elected placemen.

And the amazing thing is that there are no reports of
those protestors vanishing, or getting gunned down in those same
streets.

Wrong. There have been a number of reports of protesting Iraqis being
gunned down by American troops - certainly in our press.

I suppose the American press doesn't like to show that sort of thing
to the American people though - don't want to show them that bringing
`democracy' to those ungrateful foreigners means mountains of body
bags on both sides.

500+ US troops dead & counting....when does the US start to cut & run
and abandon the `democratisation' experiment? & where are those WMD?

--

Frank

http://www.freebsd.org/

On 20 Jan 2004 15:12:15 GMT, SteveC1280 wrote:

I was in Europe last week and met with people of several nationalities,
including the UK. I was struck with the impression that the people were
completely mis-informed and had no access to, or didn't care about the truth.
Now I know why.

Stick with CNN, Fox and the rest. You can then have your opinions
served up to you and you'll find it a lot less painful.

I'm afraid in Europe we like to make our own minds up which is what
probably confused you.

--

Frank

http://www.freebsd.org/

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:56:24 +0000, Doug Winterburn wrote:


You are correct on the transistor - it was developed in the late forties
or early fifties, but it's a huge jump from a transistor to a microchip
with thousands or millions of transistors and the accompanying several
orders of magnitude reduction in speed, size and weight.

Sheesh, that's increase in speed.

BTW, I have found references to a ROI for the Apollo program of 7 to 1 and
9 to 1 for the shuttle program. These are dollars generated in the
economy as a result of tax dollars spent.

-Doug

In article m,
says...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:23:05 +0000, gabriel wrote:

Therein lies the disagreement. I would measure "fair share" by the
percentage of TRUE gross income that is paid in taxes paid by _each_
person, not by the whole group. The document you guys are wavnig around
does NOT measure true income. Furthermore, it says rich people pay most
(or a big chunk) of the taxes that are collected, and not anything else.
The statistic is meaningless.

So you think taxes should be calculated on gross income rather than net
income? You don't like the thought of more people being more successful?
I suppose that if it showed the rich paid a small fraction of all income
tax, it would be meaningful? The point _was_ that as you say, "rich
people pay most (or a big chunk) of the taxes that are collected". I find
that very meaningful.

-Doug

Doug,

You're getting muddy.

In article , fatheree21
@NOcomcastSPAM.net says...

"Renata" wrote in message
...

snip

Spending might be out of control, but I don't think too much of it is
actually going for "social programs". Though they certainly are
trying to give that impression w/their words. Looking at actualy
dollars might tell a different story. e.g. the $24 billion for pork
projects in the current omnibus funding bill - an all time record far
surpassing the past pork allocations.

Renata

From the most recent chart I could find from 2001, the breakdown is as
follows:

Social Security: 23%
Medica 12%
Medicaid: 7%
Other Entitlements: 6%

There's 48% of the budget that goes to social programs, assuming there isn't
more in the 6% described as "other mandatory".

I would agree that all of the politicians in DC are too free with spending
out money.

todd


From OMB figures for 2004 (as a percent of federal budget):
Social Security, Medicare, Other Mandatory: 55.4%
Non-Defense Discretionary: 19.2%
Defense 17.5%
Net Interest 7.9%

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 03:54:27 +0000, Mark & Juanita wrote:



Doug,

You're getting muddy.

I know, I'll try to wash if off :-)

Doug Winterburn wrote:

You are correct on the transistor - it was developed in the late forties
or early fifties, but it's a huge jump from a transistor to a microchip
with thousands or millions of transistors and the accompanying several
orders of magnitude reduction in speed, size and weight.





maybe your confusing coincidence with cause.


About the tax thing? Others have stated it better than I could.




--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart.
(S. Clemens, A.K.A. Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure
ends the suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
todd


From OMB figures for 2004 (as a percent of federal budget):
Social Security, Medicare, Other Mandatory: 55.4%
Non-Defense Discretionary: 19.2%
Defense 17.5%
Net Interest 7.9%

The interesting part of that is that the percentage of the budget spent to
service the debt went down from 11% in the year I was looking at to about 8%
in 2004.

todd

"Mark" wrote
How much do you think is their fair share? According to IRS reports,
the top 10% of wage earners pay 65% of income taxes, while they only
earn 43% of all income. The top 5% of wage earners pay 53% of income
taxes while earning only 32% of all income.

Is that what they actually pay, or is that what they owe
before their accountants start their work?

Mark thinks Bill Gates earns too much money.

Also, your figures don't state what percentage of income
these wage earners pay in taxes.

Its none of your business what other people do with their money.
Focus on your own problems, thanks.

These 'figures' you've posted really mean nothing. Their a
small part of the story. I see them as misleading.

Of course you see them as misleading. duh.

"mel" wrote in message
...
(tapping on the desktop wondering if I really want to get involved in this
thread....awww...what the heck..)

no numbers or percentages...no demand for fairness...just an
observation...if I wasn't working for a rich man I probably wouldn't be
working.

Something I've learned in my years on this earth,
not everyone is like you.

Dennis Vogel

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
s.com...

The information you don't want to believe is in this document:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/00inrate.pdf

You will observe that the top income earners are paying a higher and
higher percentage of total income tax over time.

It's supposed to be that way. Our tax system is
designed to be progressive.

Dennis Vogel

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
s.com...

The microchip was a direct result of the space program, and is the basis
for all our modern electronics - computers, cell phones, home
entertainment, home appliances, automobiles, etc. It was developed
because of the need for miniturization and reduced weight. There were
many other inventions in technology and medicine as well. I suspect we
would have eventually developed all the things that came out of this, but
at a diminished rate - maybe years, maybe decades. And as we all know,
time is money - every day without a new business/industry making profits
to be taxed and employees in high paying jobs to be taxed is lost revenue.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I've read that frequently
the computers used in space vehicles are many
generations behind the current consumer products.
Same with air traffic control.

These products (including the software that is used to
develop the software that runs on them and that
software itself) need to be tested and certified fifty
ways from Sunday and once completed, they are
used for many years. If this is true, the space program
isn't really driving the development of new computers.
I'd say the kids playing Call to Duty and the other
computer games are driving technology to advance
faster that just about anything.

Dennis Vogel

Mark & Juanita wrote in message

From OMB figures for 2004 (as a percent of federal budget):
Social Security, Medicare, Other Mandatory: 55.4%
Non-Defense Discretionary: 19.2%
Defense 17.5%
Net Interest 7.9%



Someone please explain what government spending is "mandatory". I
don't remember any specific government programs or spending being
delineated in the Constitution. I do believe that it is ALL
discreationary - certainly Social Security and Medicare is. I do
however believe that many a politician refers to welfare programs for
the "poor" as "entitlements" and I know that they all see corporate
welfare as an "entitlement" in order to keep their jobs.

Dave Hall

Charlie Self wrote:

I doubt we can fix health care for the 16 billion aimed at Mars, but

I heard on a radio show that bush did not bring up Mars for several reasons
at the state of the union address, but one was that the total-total cost is
estimated to be about $160B, not just the "get started" figure that has
been publicized more.

That's a staggering cost. I cannot give you an official source for this
figure, though, so take it with a grain of salt.

--
gabriel

Doug Winterburn wrote:

I'm afraid the federal and state corporate tax rates are a touch
higher than 8%:

Whatever... The point was not to give exact figures, but to show how income
can be hidden and "buffered" by using several corps of different types (ie,
a c-corp with a july-june fiscal year, an s-corp with a jan-dec fiscal
year, a fund, etc...).

The whole point was not to show that corp taxes are lower or higher, it was
to show that money can be shifted around so as to bypass some or all
taxation.

--
gabriel

Don wrote:

Also, your figures don't state what percentage of income
these wage earners pay in taxes.
Its none of your business what other people do with their money.
Focus on your own problems, thanks.

For what it's worth: I agree with you we should be free to do whatever we
want with our money, but with income taxes, equality has to be assured
somehow, so some figures _must_ be freely available, and must be
verifiable. Privacy is a huge concern as well.

I think the right balance between availability and privacy is struck every
time the IRS releases overall tax figures by city, zip, or county and no
more specific than that... I don't need to know what my neighbor makes,
but knowing the average income of my zip code has countless benefits.

--
gabriel

Someone please explain what government spending is "mandatory". I
don't remember any specific government programs or spending being
delineated in the Constitution. I do believe that it is ALL
discreationary - certainly Social Security and Medicare is. I do
however believe that many a politician refers to welfare programs for
the "poor" as "entitlements" and I know that they all see corporate
welfare as an "entitlement" in order to keep their jobs.

Dave Hall

snipped From the US Constitution Section 8 first paragraph

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

IMHO then, anything the government spends money for needs to fall under
these guidelines which have gotten pretty damn broadly interpreted over
the last 225 years.

Allen
Catonsville, MD

Greetings and Salutations.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:37:16 GMT, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:35:21 +0000, Mark wrote:



Yeah, OK,

How about posting the link directly to your cite, I could
wade through the IRS site all day before finding what you
want me to see.

Or is that your point?


This comes under the trick of making me do the work of
proving your argument.

It's not a java site, you can post a direct link.

The information you don't want to believe is in this document:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/00inrate.pdf

You will observe that the top income earners are paying a higher and
higher percentage of total income tax over time.

-Doug

-Doug

Well, many numbers there. I have a few thoughts, though.
0) Cash to a politician is like crack to an addict.
There is never enough of it, and, they WILL sell their
sister or mother into prostitution to get more of it.
1) To them that much has been given, of them,
much will be required.
2) If a class of people is acquiring 90% of
the total income, is it not fairer that they
pay 90% of the taxes.
Regards
Dave Mundt

Dave Mundt responds:

2) If a class of people is acquiring 90% of
the total income, is it not fairer that they
pay 90% of the taxes.

Not to that class. It's a "burden." I've got a somewhat different point of
view, having been up and down on the scale. It is obviously a higher percentage
of one's income if you pay 100 grand in taxes on 250K than if someone pays 2
grand on 10K.

For the hell of it, just work at who is having a bigger problem paying his
bills.

Fairness may or may not enter into it, but the fact is, 40% taxation of someone
in the higher brackets (where taxes are also more easily avoided, anyway) is
LESS of a real burden than is 20% taxation of someone in the lower brackets.

Damned few poor people can buy tax shelters.

Charlie Self
"Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:48:38 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:


Fairness may or may not enter into it, but the fact is, 40% taxation of someone
in the higher brackets (where taxes are also more easily avoided, anyway) is
LESS of a real burden than is 20% taxation of someone in the lower brackets.

Damned few poor people can buy tax shelters.

If the above numbers are take home amounts, the federal income tax on
$10K would be $127 for single and $[4010] for married with 2 kids. In
other words, the married with 2 kids gets back $4010 more than what he
paid in because of the EIC.

-Doug

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:09:32 +0000, Doug Winterburn wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:48:38 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:


Fairness may or may not enter into it, but the fact is, 40% taxation of someone
in the higher brackets (where taxes are also more easily avoided, anyway) is
LESS of a real burden than is 20% taxation of someone in the lower brackets.

Damned few poor people can buy tax shelters.

If the above numbers are take home amounts, the federal income tax on
$10K would be $127 for single and $[4010] for married with 2 kids. In
other words, the married with 2 kids gets back $4010 more than what he
paid in because of the EIC.

That should be he get back all he paid in plus $4010.

Doug Winterburn wrote:

If the above numbers are take home amounts, the federal income tax on
$10K would be $127 for single and $[4010] for married with 2 kids. In
other words, the married with 2 kids gets back $4010 more than what
he paid in because of the EIC.

Have you tried living with 2 kids on $14K? these people are not Exactly
taking European vacations...

Anyway, 4-person American families taking home $10K a year is hardly
exemplary of anything except extreme poverty.

--
gabriel

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:27:09 +0000, gabriel wrote:


Have you tried living with 2 kids on $14K? these people are not Exactly
taking European vacations...

Anyway, 4-person American families taking home $10K a year is hardly
exemplary of anything except extreme poverty.

It indicates some very poor decision making. Perhaps they should get back
$40K in EIC so they can be real motivated to do better? And maybe more
kids as EIC goes up with more kids.

-Doug

Doug Winterburn writes:


Have you tried living with 2 kids on $14K? these people are not Exactly
taking European vacations...

Anyway, 4-person American families taking home $10K a year is hardly
exemplary of anything except extreme poverty.

It indicates some very poor decision making. Perhaps they should get back
$40K in EIC so they can be real motivated to do better? And maybe more
kids as EIC goes up with more kids.


Nonsense. How do you know WHY that particular person might be making 10K or
14K? Decision making may well not enter into it.

Charlie Self
"Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:00:34 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:


Nonsense. How do you know WHY that particular person might be making 10K or
14K? Decision making may well not enter into it.


I'm sure not everyone in that situation is there because of poor
decisions, but I've watched far too many including some family crank out
kids with no job and no prospects. I've also watched co-workers making in
the six digits live paycheck to paycheck and put nothing away for
emergencies/retirement/jobless-periods/etc. I myself have been jobless,
however I had the forsight to save when times were good and have never had
my family go without, never used government or family assistance and can
retire with no government assistance.

Some decisions we all make include how much to invest in school and
studying, what career path we choose, whether or not to marry/have family
and under what conditions, whether or not to save for
emergencies/retirement/etc. so that one can be independent, and many more.
As someone once said, "where ever you go, there you are".

-Doug

In article ,
says...
Mark & Juanita wrote in message

From OMB figures for 2004 (as a percent of federal budget):
Social Security, Medicare, Other Mandatory: 55.4%
Non-Defense Discretionary: 19.2%
Defense 17.5%
Net Interest 7.9%



Someone please explain what government spending is "mandatory". I
don't remember any specific government programs or spending being
delineated in the Constitution.

Only a few fall into that category, defense being one. I believe a
significant number of items would cause the founders to scream in
anguish if they realized what politicians were doing with OPM (other
peoples' money).

I only used the term above because that is how it is reported.
Basically, "mandatory" means money that no-backbone politicians
determined to spend years ago and passed the legislation such that it
does not have to be approved year after year -- i.e. no political
fallout.

I do believe that it is ALL
discreationary - certainly Social Security and Medicare is. I do
however believe that many a politician refers to welfare programs for
the "poor" as "entitlements" and I know that they all see corporate
welfare as an "entitlement" in order to keep their jobs.

Dave Hall

In article ,
says...
Greetings and Salutations.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:37:16 GMT, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:35:21 +0000, Mark wrote:



Yeah, OK,

How about posting the link directly to your cite, I could
wade through the IRS site all day before finding what you
want me to see.

Or is that your point?


This comes under the trick of making me do the work of
proving your argument.

It's not a java site, you can post a direct link.

The information you don't want to believe is in this document:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/00inrate.pdf

You will observe that the top income earners are paying a higher and
higher percentage of total income tax over time.

-Doug

-Doug

Well, many numbers there. I have a few thoughts, though.
0) Cash to a politician is like crack to an addict.
There is never enough of it, and, they WILL sell their
sister or mother into prostitution to get more of it.
1) To them that much has been given, of them,
much will be required.
2) If a class of people is acquiring 90% of
the total income, is it not fairer that they
pay 90% of the taxes.

But it's really a class of people paying 96% of taxes who are
acquiring only 86% of total income.

Regards
Dave Mundt

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 02:39:19 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:


Yes. But what happens if you're one of the children some clown and her
boyfriend cank out, one after one, and have no idea those options are
available. Or, in fact, have no access to those options.

Then it continues generation after generation as a result of a system that
rewards it. I have seen this as well, unfortunately in some of my family
as well as others.

-Doug

Doug Winterburn responds:

Some decisions we all make include how much to invest in school and
studying, what career path we choose, whether or not to marry/have family
and under what conditions, whether or not to save for
emergencies/retirement/etc. so that one can be independent, and many more.
As someone once said, "where ever you go, there you are".

Yes. But what happens if you're one of the children some clown and her
boyfriend cank out, one after one, and have no idea those options are
available. Or, in fact, have no access to those options.

Charlie Self
"Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

"Dave Mundt" wrote in message
.. .

Well, many numbers there. I have a few thoughts, though.
0) Cash to a politician is like crack to an addict.
There is never enough of it, and, they WILL sell their
sister or mother into prostitution to get more of it.

No doubt about this one.

1) To them that much has been given, of them,
much will be required.

For most of these people, they've worked very hard for what they have and
not had it "given" to them.

2) If a class of people is acquiring 90% of
the total income, is it not fairer that they
pay 90% of the taxes.

Works for me. So you're advocating a tax cut for the top 1%?

Regards
Dave Mundt

todd

Someone please explain what government spending is "mandatory". I
don't remember any specific government programs or spending being
delineated in the Constitution. I do believe that it is ALL
discreationary - certainly Social Security and Medicare is. I do
however believe that many a politician refers to welfare programs for
the "poor" as "entitlements" and I know that they all see corporate
welfare as an "entitlement" in order to keep their jobs.

Dave Hall

snipped From the US Constitution Section 8 first paragraph

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

IMHO then, anything the government spends money for needs to fall under
these guidelines which have gotten pretty damn broadly interpreted over
the last 225 years.

Allen
Catonsville, MD

Yes, I understand that the Constitution ALLOWS the gov't to spend money on
certain activities. However, without getting into what is allowed vs. what is
not allowed, I want to know what is MANDATORY. The prior poster said that 50%+
of federal spending was mandatory and only 19% discreationary.

Dave Hall

Doug Winterburn writes:


Yes. But what happens if you're one of the children some clown and her
boyfriend cank out, one after one, and have no idea those options are
available. Or, in fact, have no access to those options.

Then it continues generation after generation as a result of a system that
rewards it. I have seen this as well, unfortunately in some of my family
as well as others.

I don't think the system rewards this as well as it used to, but,
unfortunately, education, whether as to choices or as to real education so
those choices can be achieved, is not all that easy, especially in families
with no tradition of learning (or achieving).

I don't know how you break the cycle permanently: all the tearjerker stories
seem to show individuals breaking out, leaving the rest of the family group
behind.

We have discovered that just supporting people physically and fiscally is not
enough, but how do you help make someone who has no idea life can even BE
meaningful live that meaningful life? Is it a one-on-one process? Does everyone
of us have to mentor someone in that category?

Or do we leave them to the every night half gallon screw top and make sure all
have effective birth control, whether they wish the latter or not. I recall my
first wife telling me that enforced birth control was a form of slavery,
forcing someone else to fit my (or society's) preconceived notions. My reponse
was that my having to work extra hours to pay for the raising (if that's what
it is) of someone else's children is also a form of slavery. It's just a matter
of which is preferable.

Or do we go with the concept of the social sciences: the triple P groups. ****
Poor Protoplasm?

Charlie Self
"Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

The way a set of 'facts' are presented can absolutely be biased to
reflect the presenter's opinion. Yes, they are facts, they just don't
tell the complete story. If I showed a few 'facts' about Brit
crossdressers, it could be made to look as if the whole country was a
bunch of gay flamers. Mark

Andy Dingley wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:14:49 GMT, "Bob Schmall"
wrote:


A less slanted article would have also included
statistics showing our economic improvement, the reconstruction of Iraq's
infrastructure and its brave new political system, etc.


As someone who was laid off from a large US corporate during Bush's
reign, I'm not seeing much "economic improvement". The dollar is
through the floor, the deficit is enormous and all your manufacturing
base are belong to China.

Iraq has almost no infrastructure. Now I'm hardly surprised by this -
we've just fought a war through the place. I hope they will have one
soon, and I have faith that many well-intentioned soldiers are doing
their damnedest to assist this.

Neither does Iraq have a "brave new political system". It has protests
on the streets against a US-led war to bring "democracy", where this
appears to be US-selected non-elected placemen.

The US government _hates_ democracy. Democracy keeps giving the wrong
answer, so America has to depose the freshly-elected popular leader.
As democracy in a united Iraq would almost certainly give power to a
Shia majority, this would lead to rapprochment with Iraq and
everything that America is most scared of. America's best hope for a
permissible democracy in Iraq is to Balkanize it (in the original
sense of the term) into federal states where no one state can dominate
the others. And then try to mollify Turkey when they have a US-created
Kurdistan on the doorstep.


I am not a fan of
Bush nor am I defending him, but that article does not represent American
opinion, merely British.


I wouldn't say that article represents anyone's opinion. It's a
collection of isolated facts that doesn't look anything like the
"opinion" of either a "My President, right or wrong" Blairite, or a
"Make noise, not war" Spartist.

Nor is the Indie a British tabloid. No tits, no royals, no soapstars.
If anyone can see a single erroneous figure in that list, then please
correct it so that we may all learn.


--
Socialism: Eric, not Tony

Greetings and Salutations...

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:38:00 GMT, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:27:09 +0000, gabriel wrote:


Have you tried living with 2 kids on $14K? these people are not Exactly
taking European vacations...

Anyway, 4-person American families taking home $10K a year is hardly
exemplary of anything except extreme poverty.

It indicates some very poor decision making. Perhaps they should get back
$40K in EIC so they can be real motivated to do better? And maybe more
kids as EIC goes up with more kids.

-Doug

Hum...decision making...Yea...while my FIRST reaction is that
I hear this being said with that faintly superior and smug tone
that folks use to indicate that THEY have never made a bad decision,
I am not going to go with that.
Instead...how about a concrete example. I have an
acquaintance who is a single mother with three kids, one of which
has just gone to college. She came out of college with no useful
degree, and, few life skills because her parents, in order to
"protect" her had kept her so isolated from reality while growing
up that she had not, for example, learned to cook. She married
a fairly pleasant-seeming fellow and got moved several thousand
miles from home. Alas, he turned out to be abusive, not a good
provider, so, finally, she divorced him and moved back to her
home town. She struggles along with help from family, and working
when she can, clerking, and, some gov. assistence.
True...there were some bad decisions there, but a big
chunk of them were not hers, nor did she have any control
over them. She has made a bunch of good, but hard decisions
in the past few years, and while they have left her in a
very difficult and scary financial position, she is managing
to raise three bright kids, who are still in school, and, will
likely end up with good moral values and more of a work
ethic than they would have if she had stayed married. In the
long run, a relatively small amount of aid now will produce four
productive citizens who will contribute to society instead of
being a drain on it.
Just to rant a bit further...until one has spent some
time trying to survive in America with an income well below
the poverty line, one should be careful with judgements. One
somewhat under-rated aspect of this struggle is the mental
strain and drag it puts on a person. That constant, nagging
problem of having to balance whether to pay taxes, buy groceries
or keep the lights and heat on in the house causes one to lay
awake at night, and drains energy needed to "get ahead".
There are abuses of the system, of course, and, there
are folks that, if they put as much time and energy into
pursuing a job as they did in working the system, they might
well be CEO in a decade. There are good workers who try to
short-cut these abuses though, but it is really hard these
days to get folks sanctioned. However, a big chunk of the
folks on public assistance are either temporary clients
who have been struck down by disaster beyond their control or
folks that are not going to be able to keep a job because
of mental or physical impairment. I suppose we could
save a few bucks by cutting off the latter catagory, and
letting them become someone else's problem. If we are
comfortable with an increase in stories of folks being
found dead from exposure, or starvation, then that should
not be a problem. We could also change public aid from
a grant to a loan, however, since many of the folks
that DO get jobs tend to remain in the "working poor"
catagory, the likelyhood of getting any money back
would be pretty small.
I could go on, but, this has VERY little to do with
woodworking, so, will cut off with the thought that
the way we treat the poorest and least able citizens
of our society pretty much defines what sort of
society we are. We can be warm and compassionate, or
we can be cold, merciless *******s. It is up to
us.
Regards
Dave Mundt

Regards
Dave Mundt