Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #350343 > unrolled thread
| Started by | 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-16 16:34 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-04-18 22:26 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 149 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 16:34 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-16 09:38 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 16:47 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <ahlstrom's_manhood@void.ca> - 2016-04-16 13:45 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-16 22:05 +0100
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-18 11:17 +0100
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 10:20 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 17:36 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 10:38 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 10:47 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 18:02 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 11:14 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 18:26 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 11:45 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-16 11:49 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 22:02 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 14:09 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 22:31 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 14:42 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 23:11 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 16:19 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 23:27 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 16:33 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 19:29 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-18 16:23 +0100
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 16:06 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-16 18:24 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 11:16 -0700
Re: Please, don't expect them to be able to read (or Google). "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-04-16 17:08 -0400
Re: Please, don't expect them to be able to read (or Google). Rick Sabian's Allstar Canadian Assworm Zydeco Band <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-04-16 20:00 -0700
Re: Please, don't expect them to be able to read (or Google). Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-04-19 20:00 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <ahlstrom's_manhood@void.ca> - 2016-04-16 15:02 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 12:59 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-16 16:03 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <ahlstrom's_manhood@void.ca> - 2016-04-17 09:40 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 10:53 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-17 17:00 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 14:25 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-17 21:50 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 15:47 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-17 16:31 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 00:01 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 17:22 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 00:40 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 17:54 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 01:46 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 19:13 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 02:39 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 19:50 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 03:09 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 20:26 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 08:41 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 09:40 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 13:31 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 11:08 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 11:21 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 08:39 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 09:46 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 13:36 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 11:07 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 17:27 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 00:50 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 18:08 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 01:51 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 19:09 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 04:22 +0200
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 19:47 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 04:58 +0200
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 20:22 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 05:26 +0200
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 20:43 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 05:50 +0200
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 21:27 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 02:24 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 04:34 +0200
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 02:45 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 04:49 +0200
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 20:30 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 05:35 +0200
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 20:47 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 05:55 +0200
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 21:26 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 10:21 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 22:38 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 02:46 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 11:42 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 19:39 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 02:55 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 20:20 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 03:50 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 21:29 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 08:33 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 09:53 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 10:14 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 10:27 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 13:39 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 10:58 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 11:12 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 14:27 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 11:55 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 18:39 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 16:53 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-19 08:38 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 09:31 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 09:36 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 09:34 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-19 12:52 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 09:56 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-20 14:14 -0700
Re: Am I poorer if you're richer ? No, _relative_ wealth doesn't matter. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-18 01:55 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 18:28 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 01:53 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 19:07 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 08:25 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 12:15 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 18:45 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 16:59 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-19 08:44 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 09:18 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 08:44 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <ahlstrom's_manhood@void.ca> - 2016-04-17 09:27 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-17 07:19 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-17 12:03 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-17 09:12 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-17 14:00 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 14:53 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-17 20:07 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 19:56 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 08:28 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 12:57 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-17 13:14 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-18 08:59 -0500
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 10:37 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-17 13:06 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-17 10:29 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-17 16:57 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 10:51 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 10:59 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <ahlstrom's_manhood@void.ca> - 2016-04-16 13:47 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 10:58 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 18:16 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 11:31 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 11:43 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-16 11:52 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <ahlstrom's_manhood@void.ca> - 2016-04-16 15:00 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 22:26 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-18 09:42 +0100
Re: Countless SMALL vendors write to the Microsoft Standard. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 22:26 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 22:26 -0700
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 18:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nf3nfs$cmi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #350712 |
On 2016-04-18 2:55 PM, Snit wrote: > On 4/18/16, 11:27 AM, in article nf38nh$iht$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" > <peter@klown.is> wrote: > >> On 2016-04-18 1:58 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 4/18/16, 10:39 AM, in article nf35uh$6ec$2@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" >>> <peter@klown.is> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>>> It's worse than that. A $15 minimum wage simply means that business >>>>>> owners will be encouraged to replace their workers with automatons which >>>>>> end up costing them less in the long run. >>>>> >>>>> While I can see arguing where the min. wage should be, and even see that >>>>> $15 >>>>> can be considered high, the argument that if we stop socializing the cost >>>>> of >>>>> labor for corporations they will make things worse for people is a very bad >>>>> reason to not insist they cover the full cost of their labor. >>>>> >>>>> If they want to buy labor THEY should pay for it. >>>> >>>> And they do... by moving their operating to another country where it >>>> costs them less. >>> >>> And their should be consequences to that, too. >> >> But there won't be. The only effective consequence would be to prevent >> their products from being sold within American borders but no politician >> would dare to do such a thing. > > Sanders has been pushing HARD to change our trade deals. I will say his main > focus is on how bad the current ones are. > > <https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/> > ----- > Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China > that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of > jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they > need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China > or other low-wage countries. > ----- > > Would like to see him pressed for details on this... though he does some in > the video at the bottom of the page. > > I had not watched it before... funny how he talks about the election being > seen as a sporting event. I have been saying that for some time. If he wants to get rid of NAFTA then he has my respect if not my support. >>> Sanders is pushing to stop socializing their labor costs *and* to move the >>> minimum wage up to $15... which even I say seems a bit high to me (means a >>> family with two working adults is making $60K / year at a *minimum*). >>> >>> But even with that, many economist think his plan would be a huge boon to >>> the economy. >> >> What "economists" think is inconsequential. These "economists" are the >> same ones who believed that it was a good idea to repeal the >> Glass-Steagall Act and that deregulation was the wave of the future. >> These are also the morons who believe that keynesian economics lead to >> prosperity. Essentially, they don't know shit and keep advocating for >> impoverishment under the guise of "helping." Keynesians LOVE Sanders >> because he'd spend, spend and spend some more regardless of whether he >> has money or not. > > I have offered my reasoning and shown there is strong expert support for > similar ideas. I am open to other ideas... but you know me, I will ask for > similar levels of support that I offer. :) I'm not one for posting links. I share my knowledge and have no interest in forcing others to read articles. Take it with a grain of salt if you have to but I won't be playing that boring game. >>> <http://cnnmon.ie/1SEimUC> >>> ----- >>> Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says >>> >>> Median income would soar by more than $22,000. Nearly 26 million >>> jobs would be created. The unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%. >>> ----- >> >> Shockingly, CNN, a left-wing enterprise, believes it would work... > > I have seen right wing sites offer different analysis... so I know there is > no solid agreement. Keynes was a moron and his economic policy is a disaster for every country that uses it. It delays the inevitable but it doesn't do anything to stimulate the economy. It's just a policy of constant spending and one the American government is all too fond of using. >>> Now I realize there are other economists who do not paint as rosy of a >>> picture - but the idea it is somehow a given that his plans would be bad for >>> the economy is silly. >>> >>> And, really, it comes down to common sense for me. I think most would agree >>> with these facts / ideas: >>> >>> 1) The wealthy tend to not spend much of their money >> >> They do, but they're wealthy because they invest it in the hope of >> making more. Unlike the middle-class morons who enrich them, they DON'T >> believe that they need to buy the latest technology first and save last. > > The wealthy tend to not spend their money because they do not have to. The > poor have to so they can live. > > Does not mean people have to have the newest car and the biggest TV and the > fastest computer. I do get that and many spend beyond their means... but if > they actually had the money they earned they would be able to afford more. My wife and I could buy a new TV every year if we felt like it and could change either one of our cars every two years as well. Instead, we make due with a house smaller than we could afford. Our interest is to only buy as much as we need and replace if necessary only. The result is that our friends think we're rich even though we're just saving. ANYONE could do what we do but they simply don't want to. Once again, I have no pity on those who can't do it. >>> 2) The poor and middle class have relatively little savings >> >> Because they're buying things they don't need to keep up with the >> Joneses rather than invest in their own future. > > The truly poor cannot afford that. They are buying food and paying for > housing. The loud people clamoring for hand-outs are doing nothing to get off of welfare, educate themselves or get a real job. They expect that if ever they manage to live comfortably, it will be the result of government assistance. It's the same as my students expecting that if they ever succeed in my class, it will be because I gave them 30% for free without any kind of work. >>> 3) A strong tie between productivity and reward is good for the economy >> >> Yes, hence capitalism and its numerous rewards. > > But with massive socialization of the costs and risks of the rich, as we > have no, we do not have that. > > There as a lot of talk on Sanders' tax return. He finally released it. The > big scandal I see on it is that he paid more in income taxes than many > corporations do! How generous of him. >>> Right now the tie in #3 is weakening. Raising the minimum wage helps reduce >>> that problem. It also helps to get more money into the wage / wealth earners >>> and that gets the economy going. When you have more people looking to buy >>> TVs and cars and food and clothing and widgets and services in general, then >>> there is going to be more demand. Companies will do more business. Yes, >>> their labor costs will go up (though really not that much, and if they >>> balance paying those that do the front line work with reducing the cost of >>> their executives to what they have historically been maybe not at all). >>> >>> In the end they make MORE money. >>> >>> The idea that they cannot afford to pay their workers what they earn (or >>> closer to it) - and thus need socialized support for their labor AS their >>> profits go up AND they pay their top executives MASSIVELY more than they >>> have in the past just does not make sense. >> >> Nobody asked these workers who work for minimum wage to be in the shit >> as they are. > > We are talking the largest employers in the country: McDonald's, Walmart, > etc. While we can look at an individual and hypothesize that they can move > to another job, the reality is that spot will just be filled by someone > else. > > Those jobs are not going to change. Human rights will not be respected by > pure capitalism. As they shouldn't. If you want to be respected, you have to earn it. A player from the football team didn't respect me in grade 10 either. Hell, he told the whole school that he was going to kick my ass. When I kicked his - in front of his friends no less - he finally had no choice. >> If they work at McDonald's or Walmart and can't afford to pay their bills, >> it's nobody's fault but their own. Those minimum wage jobs were meant for >> young people and students as temporary work, not careers for the uneducated. > > That is not who is in these jobs. Does not match the stats at all. We are > talking the largest employers in the country here... not some small > percentage of the economy. Like I said, the jobs were MEANT for young, temporary workers. The fact that adults work there and make it their main form of employment is pathetic and it would be wrong for them to expect that these companies would provide them with the same kind of benefits as a real job would. If they want a career, they should have gotten an education and worked hard to move up the ladder. If they did neither, they only have themselves to blame. My brother's girlfriend is one such person. She sees all of us with real jobs (except my brother) and she can't help but feel intimidated that my family has young people studying to be doctors, dentists and other such things. However, she knows it's her own fault. >> Like everyone else, they were told from their youth that getting an education >> or gaining skills was of utmost importance if they planned on having money. If >> they ignored that lesson because they were too immature to recognize wisdom, >> it's not society's fault. > > Again: you are focusing on the individual and not the societal problem. > Individuals cannot change the system by getting a better education. And the > system is rigged there, too. The wealthy get a better education. Nothing forces people to try and go to Yale. In most cases, they can get the same kind of education in a community college. Unfortunately, the media and the culture has led people to believe that unless they go to an Ivy League college, they won't make it anywhere in life and they therefore don't bother to get a real education. It's high school, the end and then they wonder why they can't get anything better than a position as a cashier in a convenience store. >> It's survival of the fittest; the smart make the right decisions and >> thrive and the dumb die. I have no pity whatsoever for the dumb people >> who refused to do something to work their way out of the cesspool they >> live in, ESPECIALLY if they're black. > > Has little to do with whom is smart and whom is not. Oh, they can be smart without an education but who will care? Without a paper proving their intellect, they are as good as worthless to the system. A paper from Yale will be worth more, but they can prove their worth at the job even with a community college education. < snip > >> I don't believe in a minimum wage; Switzerland didn't raise theirs and >> the result is that people are paid BETTER than countries where there IS >> a minimum wage. > > I believe in human rights... and the min. wage is a part of that. If you > have another way to promote human rights for the poor I am open to them. One > idea is the libertarian idea I shared earlier of everyone getting a stipend > from the government. I believe in human rights, but I don't believe in hand-outs for ANYONE. -- Silver Slimer The silver-tongued heel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 16:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D33AC176.704A0%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350762 |
On 4/18/16, 3:39 PM, in article nf3nfs$cmi$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" <peter@klown.is> wrote: ... >>> But there won't be. The only effective consequence would be to prevent >>> their products from being sold within American borders but no politician >>> would dare to do such a thing. >> >> Sanders has been pushing HARD to change our trade deals. I will say his main >> focus is on how bad the current ones are. >> >> <https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/> >> ----- >> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China >> that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of >> jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they >> need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China >> or other low-wage countries. >> ----- >> >> Would like to see him pressed for details on this... though he does some in >> the video at the bottom of the page. >> >> I had not watched it before... funny how he talks about the election being >> seen as a sporting event. I have been saying that for some time. > > If he wants to get rid of NAFTA then he has my respect if not my support. He has been a very strong opponent to pretty much all of the big trade deals: NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, and others. >>>> Sanders is pushing to stop socializing their labor costs *and* to move the >>>> minimum wage up to $15... which even I say seems a bit high to me (means a >>>> family with two working adults is making $60K / year at a *minimum*). >>>> >>>> But even with that, many economist think his plan would be a huge boon to >>>> the economy. >>> >>> What "economists" think is inconsequential. These "economists" are the >>> same ones who believed that it was a good idea to repeal the >>> Glass-Steagall Act and that deregulation was the wave of the future. >>> These are also the morons who believe that keynesian economics lead to >>> prosperity. Essentially, they don't know shit and keep advocating for >>> impoverishment under the guise of "helping." Keynesians LOVE Sanders >>> because he'd spend, spend and spend some more regardless of whether he >>> has money or not. >> >> I have offered my reasoning and shown there is strong expert support for >> similar ideas. I am open to other ideas... but you know me, I will ask for >> similar levels of support that I offer. :) > > I'm not one for posting links. I share my knowledge and have no interest > in forcing others to read articles. Take it with a grain of salt if you > have to but I won't be playing that boring game. Well, I also offered my own reasoning. It is not like I simply point to an article. And I was completely open that you can find economists who disagree - the point being that there is no clear cut "right" answer on all of these things... but that my reasoning is at least well thought out and backed by expert opinion (not that I claim to be an expert). >>>> <http://cnnmon.ie/1SEimUC> >>>> ----- >>>> Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says >>>> >>>> Median income would soar by more than $22,000. Nearly 26 million >>>> jobs would be created. The unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%. >>>> ----- >>> >>> Shockingly, CNN, a left-wing enterprise, believes it would work... >> >> I have seen right wing sites offer different analysis... so I know there is >> no solid agreement. > > Keynes was a moron and his economic policy is a disaster for every > country that uses it. It delays the inevitable but it doesn't do > anything to stimulate the economy. It's just a policy of constant > spending and one the American government is all too fond of using. I am still waiting for any sign of trickle down working. It really is an absurd idea... pretty much the idea that if you bribe the rich they will give you back more than they give you. Or if you feed a horse enough hay you can live off their shit. It is asinine in my view. The idea that the poor and middle class drive the most demand, and that demand creates jobs and keeps the economy going, makes complete sense to me. To call the wealthy "job creators" and the poor "lazy" makes no sense and just pushes class warfare. >>>> Now I realize there are other economists who do not paint as rosy of a >>>> picture - but the idea it is somehow a given that his plans would be bad >>>> for the economy is silly. >>>> >>>> And, really, it comes down to common sense for me. I think most would agree >>>> with these facts / ideas: >>>> >>>> 1) The wealthy tend to not spend much of their money >>> >>> They do, but they're wealthy because they invest it in the hope of >>> making more. Unlike the middle-class morons who enrich them, they DON'T >>> believe that they need to buy the latest technology first and save last. >> >> The wealthy tend to not spend their money because they do not have to. The >> poor have to so they can live. >> >> Does not mean people have to have the newest car and the biggest TV and the >> fastest computer. I do get that and many spend beyond their means... but if >> they actually had the money they earned they would be able to afford more. > > My wife and I could buy a new TV every year if we felt like it and could > change either one of our cars every two years as well. Instead, we make > due with a house smaller than we could afford. Our interest is to only > buy as much as we need and replace if necessary only. The result is that > our friends think we're rich even though we're just saving. ANYONE could > do what we do but they simply don't want to. Once again, I have no pity > on those who can't do it. The stats do not back it... you likely make more than many. And there will always be the people on the low end of the scale. We know they are being more productive: I can point to stats that show that but really we can see it just in the corporate profits. They go up and up but the workers do not make more (but the executives). This proves they can pay their workers more and not have to raise prices. And we can and should back human rights. >>>> 2) The poor and middle class have relatively little savings >>> >>> Because they're buying things they don't need to keep up with the >>> Joneses rather than invest in their own future. >> >> The truly poor cannot afford that. They are buying food and paying for >> housing. > > The loud people clamoring for hand-outs are doing nothing to get off of > welfare, educate themselves or get a real job. Yeah, but why talk about Trump? :) Really: many of the poor work as hard or harder than many of the rich. In the US people equate value of a person with money. I do not. > They expect that if ever they manage to live comfortably, it will be the > result of government assistance. It's the same as my students expecting that > if they ever succeed in my class, it will be because I gave them 30% for free > without any kind of work. Again, nobody here is saying people should not work hard... I am saying that working hard / productivity should be tied to reward. Right now that tie is much weaker than it was in the past. That reduces incentive to work. >>>> 3) A strong tie between productivity and reward is good for the economy >>> >>> Yes, hence capitalism and its numerous rewards. >> >> But with massive socialization of the costs and risks of the rich, as we >> have no, we do not have that. >> >> There as a lot of talk on Sanders' tax return. He finally released it. The >> big scandal I see on it is that he paid more in income taxes than many >> corporations do! > > How generous of him. The corporate taxes in the US are insanely low. Apple got into trouble for paying too low of a percentage - the media ate them alive. But what was left out of the story is how they paid something like 5% of all US corporate income taxes. Yes, they are a large corporation, but not THAT large. They pay a very low amount of taxes but that amount is FAR more than the norm. I say income is income. I do not care if you make it as an individual or as a corporation. You pay your fair share. Earned or unearned: you pay your fair share. And no more housing and food assistance for the rich (or even middle class). Why should I pay for the interest on someone else's mortgage (or they pay for mine)? Why should tax payers help pay for a rich man's personal food bill merely because he claims it is a business expense? Why should we pay for his personal entertainment simply because he takes a business partner there? We give far more housing and food and even entertainment assistance to the rich than we do the poor... and the excuse is if we do not they will refuse to hire people. So what? If they will not others will... if there is a demand for widgets and people are willing to pay then someone will fill it (with caveats... but we do not need a specific company to do so in most cases). ... >>> Nobody asked these workers who work for minimum wage to be in the shit as >>> they are. >>> >> We are talking the largest employers in the country: McDonald's, Walmart, >> etc. While we can look at an individual and hypothesize that they can move to >> another job, the reality is that spot will just be filled by someone else. >> >> Those jobs are not going to change. Human rights will not be respected by >> pure capitalism. > > As they shouldn't. If you want to be respected, you have to earn it. A > player from the football team didn't respect me in grade 10 either. > Hell, he told the whole school that he was going to kick my ass. When I > kicked his - in front of his friends no less - he finally had no choice. Let us take this to an extreme: slavery. It used to be legal. Now it is not. The law came in and pushed human rights. It insisted people could not be owned. It insisted people had to be paid to work. The law set up all sorts of rules to help regulate an unfettered market. And it has to or we go back to slavery (well, go back to having it MORE... slavery is STILL legal and practiced in the US). >>> If they work at McDonald's or Walmart and can't afford to pay their bills, >>> it's nobody's fault but their own. Those minimum wage jobs were meant for >>> young people and students as temporary work, not careers for the uneducated. >> >> That is not who is in these jobs. Does not match the stats at all. We are >> talking the largest employers in the country here... not some small >> percentage of the economy. > > Like I said, the jobs were MEANT for young, temporary workers. The fact > that adults work there and make it their main form of employment is > pathetic and it would be wrong for them to expect that these companies > would provide them with the same kind of benefits as a real job would. But these are the jobs that exist. People end up entering these jobs under duress: it is literally take these jobs or die ... or at best go hungry and homeless. > If they want a career, they should have gotten an education and worked > hard to move up the ladder. One: you assume they had that opportunity. Some did. Some did not. Two: even if ALL did, someone would STILL be filling those jobs. They cannot all move up. In fact, many of these people in these jobs are grossly over qualified but those are the jobs that exist. > If they did neither, they only have themselves to blame. My brother's > girlfriend is one such person. She sees all of us with real jobs (except my > brother) and she can't help but feel intimidated that my family has young > people studying to be doctors, dentists and other such things. However, she > knows it's her own fault. > >>> Like everyone else, they were told from their youth that getting an >>> education >>> or gaining skills was of utmost importance if they planned on having money. >>> If >>> they ignored that lesson because they were too immature to recognize wisdom, >>> it's not society's fault. >> >> Again: you are focusing on the individual and not the societal problem. >> Individuals cannot change the system by getting a better education. And the >> system is rigged there, too. The wealthy get a better education. > > Nothing forces people to try and go to Yale. In most cases, they can get > the same kind of education in a community college. Which is still not free. And assumes you have the time and health to do it. AND it assumes that those who work at McDonald's and Walmart do not have such an education. > Unfortunately, the media and the culture has led people to believe that unless > they go to an Ivy League college, they won't make it anywhere in life and they > therefore don't bother to get a real education. It's high school, the end and > then they wonder why they can't get anything better than a position as a > cashier in a convenience store. I am not pushing the idea you need to go to an Ivy League school to do well. >>> It's survival of the fittest; the smart make the right decisions and >>> thrive and the dumb die. I have no pity whatsoever for the dumb people >>> who refused to do something to work their way out of the cesspool they >>> live in, ESPECIALLY if they're black. >> >> Has little to do with whom is smart and whom is not. > > Oh, they can be smart without an education but who will care? Without a > paper proving their intellect, they are as good as worthless to the > system. A paper from Yale will be worth more, but they can prove their > worth at the job even with a community college education. To some extend true... but many of the poor are educated. Heck, in the mid '90s I moved to Tucson and got a job at a school where I had to have a college education. It paid $7.81 / hour. Yes, I left that job and moved up later, but just having an education does not mean you will get a decent job. Just working hard does not. Again: imagine if EVERYONE worked hard and got an education and pushed themselves and even was capable and healthy and whatever else we want to add to this list. People would STILL work at McDonald's and Walmart. They would still be the largest employers. > < snip > > >>> I don't believe in a minimum wage; Switzerland didn't raise theirs and >>> the result is that people are paid BETTER than countries where there IS >>> a minimum wage. >> >> I believe in human rights... and the min. wage is a part of that. If you >> have another way to promote human rights for the poor I am open to them. One >> idea is the libertarian idea I shared earlier of everyone getting a stipend >> from the government. > > I believe in human rights, but I don't believe in hand-outs for ANYONE. For those truly in need I do... but I do not want the MASSIVE handouts we give to the rich. I do not support income redistribution to the rich. Those are completely wrong. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 08:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nf58m5$pq7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #350769 |
On 2016-04-18 7:53 PM, Snit wrote: > On 4/18/16, 3:39 PM, in article nf3nfs$cmi$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" > <peter@klown.is> wrote: > > ... >>>> But there won't be. The only effective consequence would be to prevent >>>> their products from being sold within American borders but no politician >>>> would dare to do such a thing. >>> >>> Sanders has been pushing HARD to change our trade deals. I will say his main >>> focus is on how bad the current ones are. >>> >>> <https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/> >>> ----- >>> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China >>> that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of >>> jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they >>> need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China >>> or other low-wage countries. >>> ----- >>> >>> Would like to see him pressed for details on this... though he does some in >>> the video at the bottom of the page. >>> >>> I had not watched it before... funny how he talks about the election being >>> seen as a sporting event. I have been saying that for some time. >> >> If he wants to get rid of NAFTA then he has my respect if not my support. > > He has been a very strong opponent to pretty much all of the big trade > deals: NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, and others. I frankly don't believe that any of those will have a beneficial effect on any of the countries involved either. In fact, it makes you wonder why any of the politicians even bother to support them. < snip > >> Keynes was a moron and his economic policy is a disaster for every >> country that uses it. It delays the inevitable but it doesn't do >> anything to stimulate the economy. It's just a policy of constant >> spending and one the American government is all too fond of using. > > I am still waiting for any sign of trickle down working. It really is an > absurd idea... pretty much the idea that if you bribe the rich they will > give you back more than they give you. Or if you feed a horse enough hay you > can live off their shit. It is asinine in my view. > > The idea that the poor and middle class drive the most demand, and that > demand creates jobs and keeps the economy going, makes complete sense to me. > To call the wealthy "job creators" and the poor "lazy" makes no sense and > just pushes class warfare. The rich do create jobs but so does the middle class. The poor, in general, doesn't do much other than fill the menial jobs that the middle class and the rich create. However, what Keynes proposes is not so much trickle-down as much as it is "give money to everyone to as to stimulate the economy." A recession is going to happen soon regardless of what the governments of the world and their banks do. Lowering the interest rate helped to delay the problem and they are now in the negative interest rates in some places but if that fails as well (and it is), then there's nowhere to go. They can keep spending in the hope that it never happens but whether they like it or not, the governments of the world eventually have to pay their bills and cutting aid to the lazy losers of society is inevitable as well. < snip > >>> Again: you are focusing on the individual and not the societal problem. >>> Individuals cannot change the system by getting a better education. And the >>> system is rigged there, too. The wealthy get a better education. >> >> Nothing forces people to try and go to Yale. In most cases, they can get >> the same kind of education in a community college. > > Which is still not free. And assumes you have the time and health to do it. > AND it assumes that those who work at McDonald's and Walmart do not have > such an education. Community colleges, as far as I know, cost about as much as would a higher education here in Montreal. We have the lowest price as far as I know and there is no shortage of people willing to protest if even a single dollar is added to the bill. Americans are welcome to study here and it would still cost them less than it would at home. However, the cost is about the same as community colleges as far as I know. The only real benefit is that our universities have an international reputation whereas community colleges don't. >> Unfortunately, the media and the culture has led people to believe that unless >> they go to an Ivy League college, they won't make it anywhere in life and they >> therefore don't bother to get a real education. It's high school, the end and >> then they wonder why they can't get anything better than a position as a >> cashier in a convenience store. > > I am not pushing the idea you need to go to an Ivy League school to do well. I know that if I lived in the United States, I would either try very hard to get the best grade possible to earn a scholarship to an Ivy League school or I would settle for the community college. There is no way in Hell I'd pay $50,000 per semester or whatever the Hell your schools ask for. That price makes no sense. Let the rich pay it and let the corporations who insist on getting employees with an Ivy League school attached to their résumé hire those graduates. There will be lots of employers just as reputable and just as generous who will be willing to hire people _without_ Harvard attached to their name. Perhaps if people stop enrolling in those "reputable" schools, they will be prompted to lower their asking price to something more reasonable... that's how capitalism works after all; if the demand is lower, so is the price. < snip > -- Silver Slimer The silver-tongued heel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 09:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D33BAB61.70564%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350819 |
On 4/19/16, 5:38 AM, in article nf58m5$pq7$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" <peter@klown.is> wrote: ... >>>> <https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/> >>>> ----- >>>> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China >>>> that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of >>>> jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they >>>> need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China >>>> or other low-wage countries. >>>> ----- >>>> >>>> Would like to see him pressed for details on this... though he does some in >>>> the video at the bottom of the page. >>>> >>>> I had not watched it before... funny how he talks about the election being >>>> seen as a sporting event. I have been saying that for some time. >>> >>> If he wants to get rid of NAFTA then he has my respect if not my support. >> >> He has been a very strong opponent to pretty much all of the big trade >> deals: NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, and others. > > I frankly don't believe that any of those will have a beneficial effect > on any of the countries involved either. In fact, it makes you wonder > why any of the politicians even bother to support them. Because they are paid to. The US has a massively corrupt system... listen to Clinton now repeatedly pushing the insane and absolutely unbelievable claim that politicians can somehow fail to be impacted by massive money flowing into their campaigns (and in her case her "Foundation") without this impacting their polices. People blame Sanders of making unrealistic claims, but NOTHING he says comes close to the absurdity of that. But Clinton is right that it is politics as normal in the US. She might be a bit of an extreme... at least in the level of corruption we know about, but part of that is because both the Republicans and Sanders have been pointing it out, and she does have the benefit of the "Clinton machine". Not sure others are much better. ... >>> Keynes was a moron and his economic policy is a disaster for every >>> country that uses it. It delays the inevitable but it doesn't do >>> anything to stimulate the economy. It's just a policy of constant >>> spending and one the American government is all too fond of using. >> >> I am still waiting for any sign of trickle down working. It really is an >> absurd idea... pretty much the idea that if you bribe the rich they will >> give you back more than they give you. Or if you feed a horse enough hay you >> can live off their shit. It is asinine in my view. >> >> The idea that the poor and middle class drive the most demand, and that >> demand creates jobs and keeps the economy going, makes complete sense to me. >> To call the wealthy "job creators" and the poor "lazy" makes no sense and >> just pushes class warfare. > > The rich do create jobs but so does the middle class. The poor, in > general, doesn't do much other than fill the menial jobs that the middle > class and the rich create. They do a lot of the actual, physical work that gets done. Does not mean this is more important than planning and the like, but it is certainly not unimportant work and it will always be needed, no matter how much education people have. > However, what Keynes proposes is not so much trickle-down as much as it is > "give money to everyone to as to stimulate the economy." I have never heard anyone suggesting to give money to anyone other than the handicapped or otherwise incapable of working. If you have examples I would like to see it. Wait: plenty have suggested giving money and massive discounts to the rich... but I mean giving money as you say. The alternative is that you can bribe the rich to help make the people bribing them better off. This works in limited cases, say with those with power (politicians) but as a general rule it is idiotic. > A recession is going to happen soon regardless of what the governments of the > world and their banks do. Lowering the interest rate helped to delay the > problem and they are now in the negative interest rates in some places but if > that fails as well (and it is), then there's nowhere to go. They can keep > spending in the hope that it never happens but whether they like it or not, > the governments of the world eventually have to pay their bills and cutting > aid to the lazy losers of society is inevitable as well. I know of nobody suggesting to encourage people to be lazy... though the current policies of reducing the tie of productivity to reward has that effect. >>>> Again: you are focusing on the individual and not the societal problem. >>>> Individuals cannot change the system by getting a better education. And the >>>> system is rigged there, too. The wealthy get a better education. >>> >>> Nothing forces people to try and go to Yale. In most cases, they can get >>> the same kind of education in a community college. >> >> Which is still not free. And assumes you have the time and health to do it. >> AND it assumes that those who work at McDonald's and Walmart do not have >> such an education. > > Community colleges, as far as I know, cost about as much as would a > higher education here in Montreal. We have the lowest price as far as I > know and there is no shortage of people willing to protest if even a > single dollar is added to the bill. Americans are welcome to study here > and it would still cost them less than it would at home. However, the > cost is about the same as community colleges as far as I know. The only > real benefit is that our universities have an international reputation > whereas community colleges don't. I know the community college I work at is better than the universities I work at. Absolutely. And I know people who went to Harvard and Yale and then ended up at UNLV (not a community college but not a high-priced university like they are). Universally they say UNLV offered as good or better of an education. If nothing else it made you have to be more independent. With Harvard specifically the general comment is the hardest thing is getting in... after that they hand-hold you the whole way. >>> Unfortunately, the media and the culture has led people to believe that >>> unless they go to an Ivy League college, they won't make it anywhere in life >>> and they therefore don't bother to get a real education. It's high school, >>> the end and then they wonder why they can't get anything better than a >>> position as a cashier in a convenience store. >>> >> I am not pushing the idea you need to go to an Ivy League school to do well. >> > I know that if I lived in the United States, I would either try very hard to > get the best grade possible to earn a scholarship to an Ivy League school or I > would settle for the community college. There is no way in Hell I'd pay > $50,000 per semester or whatever the Hell your schools ask for. That price > makes no sense. Let the rich pay it and let the corporations who insist on > getting employees with an Ivy League school attached to their résumé hire > those graduates. There will be lots of employers just as reputable and just as > generous who will be willing to hire people _without_ Harvard attached to > their name. Perhaps if people stop enrolling in those "reputable" schools, > they will be prompted to lower their asking price to something more > reasonable... that's how capitalism works after all; if the demand is lower, > so is the price. There are different ways to do it, but as a country we should make sure education is available to all who want it and are qualified... it is not a benefit to them but the country as a whole and we need to see it that way. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 09:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6878e82b-626e-4c5c-a972-f0ee93da6b3c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #350859 |
On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 10:31:22 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/19/16, 5:38 AM, in article nf58m5$pq7$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" > <peter@klown.is> wrote: > > ... > >>>> <https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/> > >>>> ----- > >>>> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China > >>>> that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of > >>>> jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they > >>>> need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China > >>>> or other low-wage countries. > >>>> ----- > >>>> > >>>> Would like to see him pressed for details on this... though he does some in > >>>> the video at the bottom of the page. > >>>> > >>>> I had not watched it before... funny how he talks about the election being > >>>> seen as a sporting event. I have been saying that for some time. > >>> > >>> If he wants to get rid of NAFTA then he has my respect if not my support. > >> > >> He has been a very strong opponent to pretty much all of the big trade > >> deals: NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, and others. > > > > I frankly don't believe that any of those will have a beneficial effect > > on any of the countries involved either. In fact, it makes you wonder > > why any of the politicians even bother to support them. > > Because they are paid to. > > The US has a massively corrupt system... listen to Clinton now repeatedly > pushing the insane and absolutely unbelievable claim that politicians can > somehow fail to be impacted by massive money flowing into their campaigns > (and in her case her "Foundation") without this impacting their polices. > People blame Sanders of making unrealistic claims, but NOTHING he says comes > close to the absurdity of that. > > But Clinton is right that it is politics as normal in the US. She might be a > bit of an extreme... at least in the level of corruption we know about, but > part of that is because both the Republicans and Sanders have been pointing > it out, and she does have the benefit of the "Clinton machine". Not sure > others are much better. > > ... > >>> Keynes was a moron and his economic policy is a disaster for every > >>> country that uses it. It delays the inevitable but it doesn't do > >>> anything to stimulate the economy. It's just a policy of constant > >>> spending and one the American government is all too fond of using. > >> > >> I am still waiting for any sign of trickle down working. It really is an > >> absurd idea... pretty much the idea that if you bribe the rich they will > >> give you back more than they give you. Or if you feed a horse enough hay you > >> can live off their shit. It is asinine in my view. > >> > >> The idea that the poor and middle class drive the most demand, and that > >> demand creates jobs and keeps the economy going, makes complete sense to me. > >> To call the wealthy "job creators" and the poor "lazy" makes no sense and > >> just pushes class warfare. > > > > The rich do create jobs but so does the middle class. The poor, in > > general, doesn't do much other than fill the menial jobs that the middle > > class and the rich create. > > They do a lot of the actual, physical work that gets done. There is no "work" without startup and operating capital. Guess where the middle class gets that from?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 09:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c0acc34e-34ff-488e-983f-87977649a445@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #350819 |
On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 6:38:43 AM UTC-6, Silver Slimer wrote: > On 2016-04-18 7:53 PM, Snit wrote: > > On 4/18/16, 3:39 PM, in article nf3nfs$cmi$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" > > <peter@klown.is> wrote: > > > > ... > >>>> But there won't be. The only effective consequence would be to prevent > >>>> their products from being sold within American borders but no politician > >>>> would dare to do such a thing. > >>> > >>> Sanders has been pushing HARD to change our trade deals. I will say his main > >>> focus is on how bad the current ones are. > >>> > >>> <https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/> > >>> ----- > >>> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China > >>> that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of > >>> jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they > >>> need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China > >>> or other low-wage countries. > >>> ----- > >>> > >>> Would like to see him pressed for details on this... though he does some in > >>> the video at the bottom of the page. > >>> > >>> I had not watched it before... funny how he talks about the election being > >>> seen as a sporting event. I have been saying that for some time. > >> > >> If he wants to get rid of NAFTA then he has my respect if not my support. > > > > He has been a very strong opponent to pretty much all of the big trade > > deals: NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, and others. > > I frankly don't believe that any of those will have a beneficial effect > on any of the countries involved either. In fact, it makes you wonder > why any of the politicians even bother to support them. > > < snip > > > >> Keynes was a moron and his economic policy is a disaster for every > >> country that uses it. It delays the inevitable but it doesn't do > >> anything to stimulate the economy. It's just a policy of constant > >> spending and one the American government is all too fond of using. > > > > I am still waiting for any sign of trickle down working. It really is an > > absurd idea... pretty much the idea that if you bribe the rich they will > > give you back more than they give you. Or if you feed a horse enough hay you > > can live off their shit. It is asinine in my view. > > > > The idea that the poor and middle class drive the most demand, and that > > demand creates jobs and keeps the economy going, makes complete sense to me. > > To call the wealthy "job creators" and the poor "lazy" makes no sense and > > just pushes class warfare. > > The rich do create jobs but so does the middle class. Where does the middle class get the start up and operating capital? Have you ever looked at the savings rate of the bottom 90% of the population of just about any country? Ask your wife about it, then ask her if what you just wrote here is actually more true than false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 12:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nf5nip$jdv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #350861 |
On 2016-04-19 12:34 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 6:38:43 AM UTC-6, Silver Slimer wrote: >> On 2016-04-18 7:53 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 4/18/16, 3:39 PM, in article nf3nfs$cmi$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" >>> <peter@klown.is> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>>> But there won't be. The only effective consequence would be to prevent >>>>>> their products from being sold within American borders but no politician >>>>>> would dare to do such a thing. >>>>> >>>>> Sanders has been pushing HARD to change our trade deals. I will say his main >>>>> focus is on how bad the current ones are. >>>>> >>>>> <https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/> >>>>> ----- >>>>> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China >>>>> that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of >>>>> jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they >>>>> need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China >>>>> or other low-wage countries. >>>>> ----- >>>>> >>>>> Would like to see him pressed for details on this... though he does some in >>>>> the video at the bottom of the page. >>>>> >>>>> I had not watched it before... funny how he talks about the election being >>>>> seen as a sporting event. I have been saying that for some time. >>>> >>>> If he wants to get rid of NAFTA then he has my respect if not my support. >>> >>> He has been a very strong opponent to pretty much all of the big trade >>> deals: NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, and others. >> >> I frankly don't believe that any of those will have a beneficial effect >> on any of the countries involved either. In fact, it makes you wonder >> why any of the politicians even bother to support them. >> >> < snip > >> >>>> Keynes was a moron and his economic policy is a disaster for every >>>> country that uses it. It delays the inevitable but it doesn't do >>>> anything to stimulate the economy. It's just a policy of constant >>>> spending and one the American government is all too fond of using. >>> >>> I am still waiting for any sign of trickle down working. It really is an >>> absurd idea... pretty much the idea that if you bribe the rich they will >>> give you back more than they give you. Or if you feed a horse enough hay you >>> can live off their shit. It is asinine in my view. >>> >>> The idea that the poor and middle class drive the most demand, and that >>> demand creates jobs and keeps the economy going, makes complete sense to me. >>> To call the wealthy "job creators" and the poor "lazy" makes no sense and >>> just pushes class warfare. >> >> The rich do create jobs but so does the middle class. > > Where does the middle class get the start up and operating capital? Have you ever looked at the savings rate of the bottom 90% of the population of just about any country? Ask your wife about it, then ask her if what you just wrote here is actually more true than false. They get loans. If they have a decent business proposal and show that they know where they are going, banks are all too willing to give them the money to start their enterprise. -- Silver Slimer The silver-tongued heel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 09:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9cf3177c-21ba-4de1-bdb2-1a581fabe2db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #350867 |
On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 10:52:55 AM UTC-6, Silver Slimer wrote: > On 2016-04-19 12:34 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 6:38:43 AM UTC-6, Silver Slimer wrote: > >> On 2016-04-18 7:53 PM, Snit wrote: > >>> On 4/18/16, 3:39 PM, in article nf3nfs$cmi$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" > >>> <peter@klown.is> wrote: > >>> > >>> ... > >>>>>> But there won't be. The only effective consequence would be to prevent > >>>>>> their products from being sold within American borders but no politician > >>>>>> would dare to do such a thing. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sanders has been pushing HARD to change our trade deals. I will say his main > >>>>> focus is on how bad the current ones are. > >>>>> > >>>>> <https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/> > >>>>> ----- > >>>>> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China > >>>>> that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of > >>>>> jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they > >>>>> need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China > >>>>> or other low-wage countries. > >>>>> ----- > >>>>> > >>>>> Would like to see him pressed for details on this... though he does some in > >>>>> the video at the bottom of the page. > >>>>> > >>>>> I had not watched it before... funny how he talks about the election being > >>>>> seen as a sporting event. I have been saying that for some time. > >>>> > >>>> If he wants to get rid of NAFTA then he has my respect if not my support. > >>> > >>> He has been a very strong opponent to pretty much all of the big trade > >>> deals: NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, and others. > >> > >> I frankly don't believe that any of those will have a beneficial effect > >> on any of the countries involved either. In fact, it makes you wonder > >> why any of the politicians even bother to support them. > >> > >> < snip > > >> > >>>> Keynes was a moron and his economic policy is a disaster for every > >>>> country that uses it. It delays the inevitable but it doesn't do > >>>> anything to stimulate the economy. It's just a policy of constant > >>>> spending and one the American government is all too fond of using. > >>> > >>> I am still waiting for any sign of trickle down working. It really is an > >>> absurd idea... pretty much the idea that if you bribe the rich they will > >>> give you back more than they give you. Or if you feed a horse enough hay you > >>> can live off their shit. It is asinine in my view. > >>> > >>> The idea that the poor and middle class drive the most demand, and that > >>> demand creates jobs and keeps the economy going, makes complete sense to me. > >>> To call the wealthy "job creators" and the poor "lazy" makes no sense and > >>> just pushes class warfare. > >> > >> The rich do create jobs but so does the middle class. > > > > Where does the middle class get the start up and operating capital? Have you ever looked at the savings rate of the bottom 90% of the population of just about any country? Ask your wife about it, then ask her if what you just wrote here is actually more true than false. > > They get loans. If they have a decent business proposal and show that > they know where they are going, banks are all too willing to give them > the money to start their enterprise. Where do the banks get it to loan to them (think about the savings rate I mentioned)?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 14:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D33D3F55.7073F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350867 |
On 4/19/16, 9:52 AM, in article nf5nip$jdv$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" <peter@klown.is> wrote: >>>> The idea that the poor and middle class drive the most demand, and that >>>> demand creates jobs and keeps the economy going, makes complete sense to >>>> me. >>>> To call the wealthy "job creators" and the poor "lazy" makes no sense and >>>> just pushes class warfare. >>> >>> The rich do create jobs but so does the middle class. >> >> Where does the middle class get the start up and operating capital? Have you >> ever looked at the savings rate of the bottom 90% of the population of just >> about any country? Ask your wife about it, then ask her if what you just >> wrote here is actually more true than false. > > They get loans. If they have a decent business proposal and show that > they know where they are going, banks are all too willing to give them > the money to start their enterprise. Do you think this is based solely on the business proposal? -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 01:55 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Am I poorer if you're richer ? No, _relative_ wealth doesn't matter. |
| Message-ID | <571476df$0$2879$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #350566 |
On 04/17/2016 10:28 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > > Am I poorer if you're richer ? No, _relative_ wealth doesn't matter. > > America's poor are very rich, compared to the third world. > > Yeah, Rolf, but the Third World has much better cell and internet service than we do. Perhaps you would should all illegally break into Africa in search of "a better (digital) Life".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 18:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f901fb1b-5107-4295-88a9-374cff2c346e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #350554 |
On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 6:50:41 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > On 4/17/16, 5:01 PM, in article ghjde93.aa3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>> On 4/17/16, 2:50 PM, in article ghjdkei0tqa.f@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>> > >>>>> There is a lot of complexity to it but I think these cover the basics well > >>>>> and in a very digestible form: > >>>>> > >>>>> <http://imgur.com/a2BEHjL>, > >>>> > >>>> What is it that you think that graph shows? > >>> > >>> It is quite clearly labeled. Not sure where you might find it confusing. > >>> > >> > >> I'm not confused by it. You are. But then, communists are easily > >> confused. > >> > >>>> To me, it shows that in 1971 about 1% of the population made over > >>>> $200K in 2014 dollars. And in 2015, nearly 8% of the population made > >>>> over $200K in 2014 dollars. And across the board the number of people > >>>> making over $100K appears to have at least doubled, while the number of > >>>> people making less than $100K dropped by a similar amount. All of that > >>>> makes sense in terms of incomes rising to keep up with inflation. > >>> > >>> Look at the header of the chart. It is inflation corrected dollars. > >>> > >> > >> Yes, the header which tells you that the y-axis shows percentage of > >> adults. 0-8 on the y-axis is population percentage, not income. > >> Income is the x-axis, from $0K - $200K. What you see decreasing > >> on the left, i.e. the purple bars, represents population percentage > >> decreases in those lower income brackets. > >> > >>> It shows MASSIVE income redistribution... to the rich. The middle class is > >>> shrinking and the rich are getting their money, even as the middle class > >>> becomes more and more productive. > >>> > >> > >> It doesn't show that at all. The x-axis is income. The y-axis is > >> percentage of households. It shows that over time the percentage > >> of households in higher income brackets has increased, with the most > >> marked increase in the percent of households making over $200K, while > >> the percentage of households in lower income brackets has decreased. > >> > >> The same trend is shown in the section marked "middle income" as in the > >> overall graph That is to say, decreases in percent of population on the > >> lower-income side of the "middle income" group is balanced by increases > >> in percent of population in the higher end, with the entire "middle income" > >> group moving toward higher incomes. > >> > >> > > Already replied once, but this article goes into MUCH more detail. I offer a > > couple key points, but worth reading the whole thing: > > > > <http://pewrsr.ch/1TBwoTq> > > ----- > > The American Middle Class Is Losing Ground > > No longer the majority and falling behind financially > > ... > > And middle-income Americans have fallen further behind financially > > in the new century. In 2014, the median income of these households > > was 4% less than in 2000. Moreover, because of the housing market > > crisis and the Great Recession of 2007-09, their median wealth > > (assets minus debts) fell by 28% from 2001 to 2013. > > ... > > The middle class shrinks > > > > Share of adults living in middle-income households is fallingThe > > hollowing of the American middle class has proceeded steadily for > > more than four decades. Since 1971, each decade has ended with a > > smaller share of adults living in middle-income households than at > > the beginning of the decade, and no single decade stands out as > > having triggered or hastened the decline in the middle. > > > > Based on the definition used in this report, the share of American > > adults living in middle-income households has fallen from 61% in > > 1971 to 50% in 2015. The share living in the upper-income tier > > rose from 14% to 21% over the same period. Meanwhile, the share in > > the lower-income tier increased from 25% to 29%. Notably, the 7 > > percentage point increase in the share at the top is nearly double > > the 4 percentage point increase at the bottom. > > ----- > > Is it supposed to be a bad thing that more Americans are living at above > the "middle class" level? Or that the very top income group has had a > greater increase in population than did the very lowest? http://reason.com/blog/2015/12/10/the-middle-class-is-shrinking-because-th
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 01:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nnvbhdi92afe.k@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #350558 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 6:50:41 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> > On 4/17/16, 5:01 PM, in article ghjde93.aa3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> > >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/17/16, 2:50 PM, in article ghjdkei0tqa.f@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>> There is a lot of complexity to it but I think these cover the basics well >> >>>>> and in a very digestible form: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> <http://imgur.com/a2BEHjL>, >> >>>> >> >>>> What is it that you think that graph shows? >> >>> >> >>> It is quite clearly labeled. Not sure where you might find it confusing. >> >>> >> >> >> >> I'm not confused by it. You are. But then, communists are easily >> >> confused. >> >> >> >>>> To me, it shows that in 1971 about 1% of the population made over >> >>>> $200K in 2014 dollars. And in 2015, nearly 8% of the population made >> >>>> over $200K in 2014 dollars. And across the board the number of people >> >>>> making over $100K appears to have at least doubled, while the number of >> >>>> people making less than $100K dropped by a similar amount. All of that >> >>>> makes sense in terms of incomes rising to keep up with inflation. >> >>> >> >>> Look at the header of the chart. It is inflation corrected dollars. >> >>> >> >> >> >> Yes, the header which tells you that the y-axis shows percentage of >> >> adults. 0-8 on the y-axis is population percentage, not income. >> >> Income is the x-axis, from $0K - $200K. What you see decreasing >> >> on the left, i.e. the purple bars, represents population percentage >> >> decreases in those lower income brackets. >> >> >> >>> It shows MASSIVE income redistribution... to the rich. The middle class is >> >>> shrinking and the rich are getting their money, even as the middle class >> >>> becomes more and more productive. >> >>> >> >> >> >> It doesn't show that at all. The x-axis is income. The y-axis is >> >> percentage of households. It shows that over time the percentage >> >> of households in higher income brackets has increased, with the most >> >> marked increase in the percent of households making over $200K, while >> >> the percentage of households in lower income brackets has decreased. >> >> >> >> The same trend is shown in the section marked "middle income" as in the >> >> overall graph That is to say, decreases in percent of population on the >> >> lower-income side of the "middle income" group is balanced by increases >> >> in percent of population in the higher end, with the entire "middle income" >> >> group moving toward higher incomes. >> >> >> >> >> > Already replied once, but this article goes into MUCH more detail. I offer a >> > couple key points, but worth reading the whole thing: >> > >> > <http://pewrsr.ch/1TBwoTq> >> > ----- >> > The American Middle Class Is Losing Ground >> > No longer the majority and falling behind financially >> > ... >> > And middle-income Americans have fallen further behind financially >> > in the new century. In 2014, the median income of these households >> > was 4% less than in 2000. Moreover, because of the housing market >> > crisis and the Great Recession of 2007-09, their median wealth >> > (assets minus debts) fell by 28% from 2001 to 2013. >> > ... >> > The middle class shrinks >> > >> > Share of adults living in middle-income households is fallingThe >> > hollowing of the American middle class has proceeded steadily for >> > more than four decades. Since 1971, each decade has ended with a >> > smaller share of adults living in middle-income households than at >> > the beginning of the decade, and no single decade stands out as >> > having triggered or hastened the decline in the middle. >> > >> > Based on the definition used in this report, the share of American >> > adults living in middle-income households has fallen from 61% in >> > 1971 to 50% in 2015. The share living in the upper-income tier >> > rose from 14% to 21% over the same period. Meanwhile, the share in >> > the lower-income tier increased from 25% to 29%. Notably, the 7 >> > percentage point increase in the share at the top is nearly double >> > the 4 percentage point increase at the bottom. >> > ----- >> >> Is it supposed to be a bad thing that more Americans are living at above >> the "middle class" level? Or that the very top income group has had a >> greater increase in population than did the very lowest? > > http://reason.com/blog/2015/12/10/the-middle-class-is-shrinking-because-th Exactly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 19:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3398F82.702D0%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350563 |
On 4/17/16, 6:53 PM, in article nnvbhdi92afe.k@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> Is it supposed to be a bad thing that more Americans are living at above >>> the "middle class" level? Or that the very top income group has had a >>> greater increase in population than did the very lowest? >> >> http://reason.com/blog/2015/12/10/the-middle-class-is-shrinking-because-th > > Exactly. Well, it is half the story... half you want to believe. I prefer to look at the WHOLE picture. <http://goo.gl/6cMDxC> -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 08:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nf2ji6$v6d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #350531 |
On 2016-04-17 5:25 PM, Snit wrote: > On 4/17/16, 2:00 PM, in article nf0ta7$31s$3@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" > <peter@klown.is> wrote: > >>>>> Ditto with me. Slimer has been not-so-kind to me in the past. Whatever. I >>>>> do >>>>> not hold a grudge against him in any way. Nor most others. >>>> >>>> I can't stand your left-wing stance on things and will never ever >>>> appreciate your line of thinking. I hate leftists in general and find >>>> them to be an absolute stain on humanity. As long as you don't advocate >>>> left-wing politics, I have no reason to be against you. >>> >>> I tend back equal rights when I see others pushing against them. >> >> Whereas I have no reason to treat people who refuse to educate >> themselves, who refuse to work and who refuse to accept common sense as >> equals. If a person is a lazy, stupid moron who expects hand-outs, he is >> a parasite and not worth even a second of my time nor anyone else's. I >> will _never_ defend these creatures. > > I do not excuse laziness... I think that is a misrepresentation of what I > and people on the left generally want to do. It isn't. In Canada like in the United States, the left wants to make sure that the government is larger and that the citizens spend more money on taxes so that it can be used to produce more government work (making the government even larger) and given away to people who don't feel like doing anything at all. It's much worse in the United States, especially among black populations and sand parasites who seem to believe that their purpose in life is to eat fried chicken and make babies. > No. I want to make a STRONGER > tie between hard work / productivity and financial reward. Right now people > are being more productive but getting less. This discourages people from > working. Right now most of the new wealth in the country is going to the > wealthiest people. It is not up to the government to decide what the rewards of hard work will be. In reality, the RIGHT wing wants to make sure that hard work, loyalty and dedication are rewarded. In fact, that's how capitalism used to be and you could easily start in the mail room and eventually become the CEO of the company. It technically still is this way (my wife is the perfect example of this) but people aren't as dedicated and especially not as loyal as they used to be. > There is a lot of complexity to it but I think these cover the basics well > and in a very digestible form: > > <http://imgur.com/a2BEHjL>, <https://goo.gl/9etB7G> > > We have to fix this. If we do not there is less and less incentive to work. > And we have to stop socializing the costs and risks of the wealthy. > > I also think the idea of fair contracts needs to be recognized as something > that is not natural. There is no "natural" market. We have to have > government intervention to back human rights and equality. If not you have > people pushed to enter contracts under duress: sign or literally go hungry, > homeless, and possibly even die. I do not feel sorry for the people who go hungry, become homeless and die. To me, society is an extension of the "survival of the fittest" concept. The working population of a country is not responsible for the uneducated and lazy segment. If they don't want to be homeless and hungry, nothing is stopping them from working. Unless they are handicapped, I have no pity whatsoever toward them. > I also support helping those truly in need - and my definition of that might > be broader than yours. But I suspect that where we differ on that is a very > small amount of money compared to what the rich get with their socialized > support... literally just a few pennies, or less, to every dollar the rich > get. > > Anyway, no need to reply to this and not looking for a debate... just making > clear my views. They most certainly are NOT in any way a defense of people > not doing what they can to take care of themselves or in any way backing > laziness. My view is that if *I* was able to scrape myself up from nothing and become something, no one else has any excuse. As a teenager, I had every reason to give up on _everything_ and make _nothing_ of myself. However, unlike most human beings who face obstacles like mine, I refused to allow the world to spit on me and treat me like I'm less than they are and became not only an exemplary student but an exemplary worker. If the lazy, uneducated morons holding onto the left side of things want a better life, they can go ahead and get it; waiting for the government to help them will get them nowhere. -- Silver Slimer The silver-tongued heel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 12:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D33A804D.70438%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350632 |
On 4/18/16, 5:25 AM, in article nf2ji6$v6d$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" <peter@klown.is> wrote: > On 2016-04-17 5:25 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 4/17/16, 2:00 PM, in article nf0ta7$31s$3@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" >> <peter@klown.is> wrote: >> >>>>>> Ditto with me. Slimer has been not-so-kind to me in the past. Whatever. I >>>>>> do >>>>>> not hold a grudge against him in any way. Nor most others. >>>>> >>>>> I can't stand your left-wing stance on things and will never ever >>>>> appreciate your line of thinking. I hate leftists in general and find >>>>> them to be an absolute stain on humanity. As long as you don't advocate >>>>> left-wing politics, I have no reason to be against you. >>>> >>>> I tend back equal rights when I see others pushing against them. >>> >>> Whereas I have no reason to treat people who refuse to educate >>> themselves, who refuse to work and who refuse to accept common sense as >>> equals. If a person is a lazy, stupid moron who expects hand-outs, he is >>> a parasite and not worth even a second of my time nor anyone else's. I >>> will _never_ defend these creatures. >> >> I do not excuse laziness... I think that is a misrepresentation of what I >> and people on the left generally want to do. > > It isn't. It is antithetical to my views and I sincerely know of no liberal / progressive who shares the views you express. If you can show an example of someone saying it is fine for people to be lazy I would like to see it. > In Canada like in the United States, the left wants to make sure that the > government is larger and that the citizens spend more money on taxes so that > it can be used to produce more government work (making the government even > larger) and given away to people who don't feel like doing anything at all. Do you have any evidence that government spending is more under liberals? That there are more government workers? > It's much worse in the United States, especially among black populations and > sand parasites who seem to believe that their purpose in life is to eat fried > chicken and make babies. Your use of bigoted terms such as "sand parasites" is why I feel we should not discuss this issue. I do not back bigotry... a form of intellectual laziness. >> No. I want to make a STRONGER >> tie between hard work / productivity and financial reward. Right now people >> are being more productive but getting less. This discourages people from >> working. Right now most of the new wealth in the country is going to the >> wealthiest people. > > It is not up to the government to decide what the rewards of hard work > will be. Yet we socialize the costs and risks of the wealthy. And, in my view it IS the role of the government to protect human rights. Absolutely. > In reality, the RIGHT wing wants to make sure that hard work, loyalty and > dedication are rewarded. I would like to see evidence of this. > In fact, that's how capitalism used to be and you could easily start in the > mail room and eventually become the CEO of the company. Can you name this time period? > It technically still is this way (my wife is the perfect example of this) but > people aren't as dedicated and especially not as loyal as they used to be. The stats show otherwise. >> There is a lot of complexity to it but I think these cover the basics well >> and in a very digestible form: >> >> <http://imgur.com/a2BEHjL>, <https://goo.gl/9etB7G> >> >> We have to fix this. If we do not there is less and less incentive to work. >> And we have to stop socializing the costs and risks of the wealthy. >> >> I also think the idea of fair contracts needs to be recognized as something >> that is not natural. There is no "natural" market. We have to have >> government intervention to back human rights and equality. If not you have >> people pushed to enter contracts under duress: sign or literally go hungry, >> homeless, and possibly even die. > > I do not feel sorry for the people who go hungry, become homeless and > die. To me, society is an extension of the "survival of the fittest" > concept. And this is where we differ: I am a strong supporter of backing human rights and equality. Not equal outcomes but equal treatment. > The working population of a country is not responsible for the > uneducated and lazy segment. If they don't want to be homeless and > hungry, nothing is stopping them from working. Unless they are > handicapped, I have no pity whatsoever toward them. I think you look at individuals and blame them and fail to see the sociatal problems. >> I also support helping those truly in need - and my definition of that might >> be broader than yours. But I suspect that where we differ on that is a very >> small amount of money compared to what the rich get with their socialized >> support... literally just a few pennies, or less, to every dollar the rich >> get. >> >> Anyway, no need to reply to this and not looking for a debate... just making >> clear my views. They most certainly are NOT in any way a defense of people >> not doing what they can to take care of themselves or in any way backing >> laziness. > > My view is that if *I* was able to scrape myself up from nothing and > become something, no one else has any excuse. As a teenager, I had every > reason to give up on _everything_ and make _nothing_ of myself. However, > unlike most human beings who face obstacles like mine, I refused to > allow the world to spit on me and treat me like I'm less than they are > and became not only an exemplary student but an exemplary worker. If the > lazy, uneducated morons holding onto the left side of things want a > better life, they can go ahead and get it; waiting for the government to > help them will get them nowhere. Again: you assume others are lazy. Some are... but many are not. Nobody here is defending laziness. I am defending human rights and equal rights. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 18:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nf3nrb$dko$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #350715 |
On 2016-04-18 3:15 PM, Snit wrote: > On 4/18/16, 5:25 AM, in article nf2ji6$v6d$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" > <peter@klown.is> wrote: > >> On 2016-04-17 5:25 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 4/17/16, 2:00 PM, in article nf0ta7$31s$3@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" >>> <peter@klown.is> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> Ditto with me. Slimer has been not-so-kind to me in the past. Whatever. I >>>>>>> do >>>>>>> not hold a grudge against him in any way. Nor most others. >>>>>> >>>>>> I can't stand your left-wing stance on things and will never ever >>>>>> appreciate your line of thinking. I hate leftists in general and find >>>>>> them to be an absolute stain on humanity. As long as you don't advocate >>>>>> left-wing politics, I have no reason to be against you. >>>>> >>>>> I tend back equal rights when I see others pushing against them. >>>> >>>> Whereas I have no reason to treat people who refuse to educate >>>> themselves, who refuse to work and who refuse to accept common sense as >>>> equals. If a person is a lazy, stupid moron who expects hand-outs, he is >>>> a parasite and not worth even a second of my time nor anyone else's. I >>>> will _never_ defend these creatures. >>> >>> I do not excuse laziness... I think that is a misrepresentation of what I >>> and people on the left generally want to do. >> >> It isn't. > > It is antithetical to my views and I sincerely know of no liberal / > progressive who shares the views you express. If you can show an example of > someone saying it is fine for people to be lazy I would like to see it. Black America. >> In Canada like in the United States, the left wants to make sure that the >> government is larger and that the citizens spend more money on taxes so that >> it can be used to produce more government work (making the government even >> larger) and given away to people who don't feel like doing anything at all. > > Do you have any evidence that government spending is more under liberals? > That there are more government workers? Conservatives in Canada left office with a $1 billion surplus; Liberals in Canada took office in October and are already $31.2 billion in the hole. >> It's much worse in the United States, especially among black populations and >> sand parasites who seem to believe that their purpose in life is to eat fried >> chicken and make babies. > > Your use of bigoted terms such as "sand parasites" is why I feel we should > not discuss this issue. I do not back bigotry... a form of intellectual > laziness. They come from countries with sand and they are parasites, it's the truth. < snip > >> In fact, that's how capitalism used to be and you could easily start in the >> mail room and eventually become the CEO of the company. > > Can you name this time period? From the 1940s to the 1960s. < snip > ( I can't stand long posts) -- Silver Slimer The silver-tongued heel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 16:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D33AC2DC.704A2%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350763 |
On 4/18/16, 3:45 PM, in article nf3nrb$dko$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" <peter@klown.is> wrote: ... >>>> I do not excuse laziness... I think that is a misrepresentation of what I >>>> and people on the left generally want to do. >>> >>> It isn't. >> >> It is antithetical to my views and I sincerely know of no liberal / >> progressive who shares the views you express. If you can show an example of >> someone saying it is fine for people to be lazy I would like to see it. > > Black America. What about it? The fact that when someone with a "black" name applies for a job they are MUCH less likely to be given a chance than you plays into it... that and a lot of other racism still left in this country. Not saying there are not poor in the US who should and could work harder - people of all colors - but I do not blame blacks in general for the racist society they live in. >>> In Canada like in the United States, the left wants to make sure that the >>> government is larger and that the citizens spend more money on taxes so that >>> it can be used to produce more government work (making the government even >>> larger) and given away to people who don't feel like doing anything at all. >> >> Do you have any evidence that government spending is more under liberals? >> That there are more government workers? > > Conservatives in Canada left office with a $1 billion surplus; Liberals > in Canada took office in October and are already $31.2 billion in the hole. In the US we have historically done better under Democrats. This is true if you look at the legislative or executive branches. <http://goo.gl/zPfvg1> >>> It's much worse in the United States, especially among black populations and >>> sand parasites who seem to believe that their purpose in life is to eat >>> fried >>> chicken and make babies. >> >> Your use of bigoted terms such as "sand parasites" is why I feel we should >> not discuss this issue. I do not back bigotry... a form of intellectual >> laziness. > > They come from countries with sand and they are parasites, it's the truth. Again, I do not accept that type of racist / bigoted / lazy thinking. But it is what Trump pushes... that the financial problems are from those with the least power to cause the financial problems and not those who actually cause them. > < snip > > >>> In fact, that's how capitalism used to be and you could easily start in the >>> mail room and eventually become the CEO of the company. >> >> Can you name this time period? > > From the 1940s to the 1960s. You mean the time after the New Deal? The time when civil rights and worker rights were being pushed perhaps harder than any time in history before that? > < snip > ( I can't stand long posts) -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 08:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nf591k$rj0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #350770 |
On 2016-04-18 7:59 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 4/18/16, 3:45 PM, in article nf3nrb$dko$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
> <peter@klown.is> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>>> I do not excuse laziness... I think that is a misrepresentation of what I
>>>>> and people on the left generally want to do.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't.
>>>
>>> It is antithetical to my views and I sincerely know of no liberal /
>>> progressive who shares the views you express. If you can show an example of
>>> someone saying it is fine for people to be lazy I would like to see it.
>>
>> Black America.
>
> What about it? The fact that when someone with a "black" name applies for a
> job they are MUCH less likely to be given a chance than you plays into it...
> that and a lot of other racism still left in this country.
>
> Not saying there are not poor in the US who should and could work harder -
> people of all colors - but I do not blame blacks in general for the racist
> society they live in.
The society is not racist; they are simply trying to get everyone to
believe that it is. Here in Canada, blacks are not treated any
differently at all but like in the United States, they will be all too
willing to claim racism if they're not treated like precious snowflakes.
We just ignore it.
>>>> In Canada like in the United States, the left wants to make sure that the
>>>> government is larger and that the citizens spend more money on taxes so that
>>>> it can be used to produce more government work (making the government even
>>>> larger) and given away to people who don't feel like doing anything at all.
>>>
>>> Do you have any evidence that government spending is more under liberals?
>>> That there are more government workers?
>>
>> Conservatives in Canada left office with a $1 billion surplus; Liberals
>> in Canada took office in October and are already $31.2 billion in the hole.
>
> In the US we have historically done better under Democrats. This is true if
> you look at the legislative or executive branches.
>
> <http://goo.gl/zPfvg1>
In Canada, all the Liberals and left-wing governments ever do is spend
like crazy, leave the job of paying off the debt to the Conservatives
and then blame the Conservatives for the debt AND for their inability to
pay it off four years later. Unfortunately, that strategy keeps getting
them elected people we have a group of morons (Ontario) with short
memory spans.
>>>> It's much worse in the United States, especially among black populations and
>>>> sand parasites who seem to believe that their purpose in life is to eat
>>>> fried
>>>> chicken and make babies.
>>>
>>> Your use of bigoted terms such as "sand parasites" is why I feel we should
>>> not discuss this issue. I do not back bigotry... a form of intellectual
>>> laziness.
>>
>> They come from countries with sand and they are parasites, it's the truth.
>
> Again, I do not accept that type of racist / bigoted / lazy thinking.
Fact: There are 50 million Muslims in Europe, 80% are on welfare.
Whether it sounds pretty or not, the truth remains that they are
parasites and should be driven out of the continent with flame throwers
and machine guns.
> But it is what Trump pushes... that the financial problems are from those
> with the least power to cause the financial problems and not those who
> actually cause them.
The financial problems are from the left-wing insistence on giving
welfare to anyone who wants it. Clearly, the sand parasites were going
to take advantage of this and go there. Sweden and Germany are the most
generous and that's why they are all headed there. Poland and Russia
insists that they work and will beat the living shit out of them if they
don't assimilate; they stay away.
>> < snip >
>>
>>>> In fact, that's how capitalism used to be and you could easily start in the
>>>> mail room and eventually become the CEO of the company.
>>>
>>> Can you name this time period?
>>
>> From the 1940s to the 1960s.
>
> You mean the time after the New Deal? The time when civil rights and worker
> rights were being pushed perhaps harder than any time in history before
> that?
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/usa/successorfailurerev1.shtml>
Successes
Roosevelt restored confidence in the American people.
Millions of people were given work in government projects.
A lot of valuable work was carried out by the in building schools,
roads and hospitals.
Roosevelt rescued the banking system from collapse and saved
capitalism.
Failures
There was a new recession - the 'Roosevelt recession' in 1937.
Unemployment was not conquered by the New Deal.
Many of the jobs created by the New Deal were only temporary.
The New Deal was the most costly government programme in American
History and some of its projects could be accused of wasting money.
--
Silver Slimer
The silver-tongued heel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 09:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D33BA86D.7055B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350823 |
On 4/19/16, 5:44 AM, in article nf591k$rj0$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" <peter@klown.is> wrote: > On 2016-04-18 7:59 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 4/18/16, 3:45 PM, in article nf3nrb$dko$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" >> <peter@klown.is> wrote: >> >> ... >>>>>> I do not excuse laziness... I think that is a misrepresentation of what I >>>>>> and people on the left generally want to do. >>>>> >>>>> It isn't. >>>> >>>> It is antithetical to my views and I sincerely know of no liberal / >>>> progressive who shares the views you express. If you can show an example of >>>> someone saying it is fine for people to be lazy I would like to see it. >>> >>> Black America. >> >> What about it? The fact that when someone with a "black" name applies for a >> job they are MUCH less likely to be given a chance than you plays into it... >> that and a lot of other racism still left in this country. >> >> Not saying there are not poor in the US who should and could work harder - >> people of all colors - but I do not blame blacks in general for the racist >> society they live in. > > The society is not racist; they are simply trying to get everyone to > believe that it is. Here in Canada, blacks are not treated any > differently at all but like in the United States, they will be all too > willing to claim racism if they're not treated like precious snowflakes. > We just ignore it. I do not know the stats and facts in Canada, but I know racism is alive and active in the US. It is absolutely, positively a fact. The evidence is overwhelming in terms of stats, but I have also seen it myself over and over and over. It was worse in NV than what I have seen in AZ, but that could just be my perception. >>>>> In Canada like in the United States, the left wants to make sure that the >>>>> government is larger and that the citizens spend more money on taxes so >>>>> that it can be used to produce more government work (making the government >>>>> even larger) and given away to people who don't feel like doing anything >>>>> at all. >>>>> >>>> Do you have any evidence that government spending is more under liberals? >>>> That there are more government workers? >>>> >>> Conservatives in Canada left office with a $1 billion surplus; Liberals in >>> Canada took office in October and are already $31.2 billion in the hole. >>> >> In the US we have historically done better under Democrats. This is true if >> you look at the legislative or executive branches. >> >> <http://goo.gl/zPfvg1> > > In Canada, all the Liberals and left-wing governments ever do is spend > like crazy, leave the job of paying off the debt to the Conservatives > and then blame the Conservatives for the debt AND for their inability to > pay it off four years later. Unfortunately, that strategy keeps getting > them elected people we have a group of morons (Ontario) with short > memory spans. In the US the conservatives want to spend the money on the rich and the military, the liberals / progressives want to spend it on pushing equality (sometimes to a fault). That is, of course, a very brief summary - there are counter examples for both. ... >> But it is what Trump pushes... that the financial problems are from those >> with the least power to cause the financial problems and not those who >> actually cause them. > > The financial problems are from the left-wing insistence on giving > welfare to anyone who wants it. Not the case at all in the US. ... >>>>> In fact, that's how capitalism used to be and you could easily start in >>>>> the >>>>> mail room and eventually become the CEO of the company. >>>> >>>> Can you name this time period? >>> >>> From the 1940s to the 1960s. >> >> You mean the time after the New Deal? The time when civil rights and worker >> rights were being pushed perhaps harder than any time in history before >> that? > > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/usa/successorfailurerev > 1.shtml> > > Successes > > Roosevelt restored confidence in the American people. > Millions of people were given work in government projects. > A lot of valuable work was carried out by the in building schools, > roads and hospitals. > Roosevelt rescued the banking system from collapse and saved > capitalism. > > Failures > > There was a new recession - the 'Roosevelt recession' in 1937. > Unemployment was not conquered by the New Deal. > Many of the jobs created by the New Deal were only temporary. > The New Deal was the most costly government programme in American > History and some of its projects could be accused of wasting money. Of course some would waste money, but it is absolutely imperative to rebuild and improve the infrastructure of our country now, as it was then. The jobs will not be forever... or at least many will not. Sure. But it is needed work... not for the workers but for the country. But this is the time period you pointed to as being so great. Do you think it was? -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 08:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f90c50c8-37b5-4cee-b4a1-91e713b86328@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #350422 |
On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 5:03:53 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/16/16, 12:59 PM, in article > x_idncjQT-s3BI_KnZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com, "Marek Novotny" > <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote: > > > On 2016-04-16, Silver Slimer <ahlstrom's_manhood@void.ca> wrote: > >> On 2016-04-16 2:02 PM, 7 wrote: > >>> Bloomberg analyst when discussing why Google had overtaken > >>> Appil at least twice this year already. > >> > >> See, Marek? This is the behaviour you can expect from the Linux > >> advocates in comp.os.linux.advocacy. Now you know why us Windows users > >> hate these people so much. They are the most effective repellant against > >> Linux adoption. > > > > Okay, yes I see this. And I get you and snit and others are angry about > > whatever you're angry about. > > I am not angry. I am disappointed in desktop Linux and in the "advocates" > who cannot be honest, but I am not angry. > > > But you when don't stick to principles it makes it very hard to take you > > seriously. You have to be willing to be honest even when it works against you. > > I am. Notice how Carroll, who has by his own admission been stalking me for > over a decade (he calls it other things Then it's not an "admission" of what you just falsely claimed, liar. But why spoil a perfect record (of lying), right? > The herd does much the same: they claim I am lying but they NEVER quote any > lies. Nah... virtually everyone you have come into contact with on usenet in the last decade or so has noted your absurdly delusional and extremely dishonest behavior. But you deny this, you claim it's everyone else who is screwed up but you're ok. And everyone knows why that makes sense only to you ;) > They say my noting how I do not use socks is a lie... but then never > show that I have posted to COLA with any name other than Snit. Gee, more BS from you... what a shock, Brock <eyeroll>. > It is not as though I have never faltered, but I do a very good job of > sticking to the high ground. LOL! Sure Snit! And who *hasn't* seen your propensity to be the sole arbiter of any argument you're engaged in? On the topic of you doing "a very good job of sticking to the high ground", feel free to explain why so many people don't believe this about you any time you'd like. Oh, wait... you already have... I forgot that you consider yourself to be a rare "breed" of honest in COLA and CSMA: 'I am honest which makes me a rare "breed" in CSMA and COLA.' https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/dv8fAJ53cgs/559IyIGiiCwJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web