He is probably right on more working poor than welfare suck-em-ups. He is
wrong as to working. Anybody that says he is the boss and is working hard
and spends as much time on the newsgroups during the day is not working.
Just warming a seat. Hope his employees are better. The reason we have so
many working poor is the "War On Poverty"! We lost the war!!!!! The extra
spending has inflated the money so much, that the low end people could not
keep up. We, as a country have spent in excess of $7 trillion since 1964 on
the WOP. Enough money to have bought every airline, railroad, bus company,
in fact all the transportation companies. In fact every major corporation
in the USA, every hospital and still had enough money left over to rebuild
every school in the USA. 1964 a person could be a clerk in a department
store and afford to support a family. At least on the low end of middle
class (Al Bundy for example). Now we have inflated the money, but have not
really floated it against the international currencys. Therefore the
overseas workers are supplying Wal-mart, Home Depot, Mervyns, etc. Mainland
Asia is going to be the next economic rulers of the world, if not now. (The
oil countrys cannot raise the price as they did in the 70's as they started
a world wide recession. They lose to much cashflow in those times and the
rulers require lots of money to pacify the peons.) The Asians have figured
out how to take our scrap metal, ship it across the ocean (Boats
reference), process it and send it back cheaper than we can do it here.
Part of that is Union wages and part is lack of upgrades to the smelters.
The Rust belt is incapable of supply much new steel, as the ore is running
low. That lack of ore raises the price required to sell and make a profit.
There is one or two successful steel companies in the US and they have a
good relationship with the unions and the unions members are not trying to
make $100k / year for blue collar jobs. I do not know how much JPS pays his
progarmmers, but I doubt it is excess of $80k / year on average. Excluding
JPS who makes that per week of work as he is a corporate CEO
Bill



"Bill Cole" wrote in message
news:TJp7b.298533$Oz4.89781@rwcrnsc54...
Just as I thought, you have no basis for any of your political crap trap.
I
have never seen anyone who was more willing to prove anyone wrong, so the
fact that you ignored this opportunity, is proof that you pulled it out of
your ....


"jps" wrote in message
...
Go find out for yourself. I'm busy making a living.

"Bill Cole" wrote in message
news:XLo7b.298251$Oz4.89792@rwcrnsc54...
jps,
Are you projecting your employees problems onto the general
population?
PS
= where did you get you facts about what percent of those who can
not
meet
basic needs are working? Is it possible that you just made it up, or
do
you have some facts to back up your theory?

"jps" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

As opposed to you guys on the left, who would take away from those
who
work hard, in order to prop up those who won't? Yea, that's real
fair....

You go ahead and fool yourself into thinking that most of the poor
in
this
country are freeloaders.

In reality, they're not. Most of the people who have a hard time
meeting
basic needs are working. They simply cannot make enough to make
ends
meet.

Would you rather give someone a leg up who's trying or give the
money
to
a
wealthy family who's lives would not be materially changed?

"jps" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net...
He is probably right on more working poor than welfare suck-em-ups. He
is
wrong as to working. Anybody that says he is the boss and is working
hard
and spends as much time on the newsgroups during the day is not working.
Just warming a seat. Hope his employees are better.

I do not know how much JPS pays his
progarmmers, but I doubt it is excess of $80k / year on average.
Excluding JPS who makes that per week of work as he is a corporate CEO

Bill

A lot of half-baked, erroneous assumptions on your behalf. If you asked
first you might not make such an ass of yourself.

jps




Your employee(s) are worse?

jps wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

As opposed to you guys on the left, who would take away from those who
work hard, in order to prop up those who won't? Yea, that's real
fair....

You go ahead and fool yourself into thinking that most of the poor in this
country are freeloaders.

In reality, they're not. Most of the people who have a hard time meeting
basic needs are working. They simply cannot make enough to make ends meet.

Would you rather give someone a leg up who's trying or give the money to a
wealthy family who's lives would not be materially changed?


I would rather research into the reason WHY the poor are "working so
hard" but still "not making ends meet". Since there are millions of
other people, who HAVE found a way to "make ends meet", and manage to
live a reasonable lifestyle, then it would appear that the system is not
broken. We just have to understand why these "working poor" just aren't
"cutting it".

Are they in a job which is just not in high demand, and therefore pays
poorly? Are they formerly higher paid union employees, who saw their
jobs being sent out to foreign soil? Are they physically or mentally
handicapped?

I favor providing government assistance toward job skill retraining, or
enhancing. I favor any program which helps people to market themselves
better, in order to land a better paying job. I do not favor paying
people so that they can continue to be underachievers.

This is the land of opportunity, not the land of guarantees. There is
the potential to make whatever lifestyle that you want for yourself,
provided that you are willing to do what it takes. Some people have to
work hard to make their opportunity. Others have a natural talent, which
can be leveraged into a lucrative career. But there are also those who
will do tha bare minimum necessary. Ultimately, their inability to "make
ends meet" is their own fault. Society should make the road to self
improvement easy, but it should not put up rest stops on the way.

Dave

Gene Kearns wrote:

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 12:37:49 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:


As opposed to you guys on the left, who would take away from those who
work hard, in order to prop up those who won't? Yea, that's real
fair....

Dave


The straw man you have raised is truly unfair. I don't think anybody
would feel "that tak(ing) away from those who work hard, in order to
prop up those who won't" is fair or makes any sense, at all.

Is it? When you have democratic presidential hopefulls attempting to
create class warfare by declaring that a nominal tax cut is a "tax break
for the rich"(even though everyone gets the same percentage of tax
relief), the underlying message is that when the people who pay the
most, get more back, it's somehow unfair to those who put in little or
nothing. The obvious implication is that these politicians are
acknowleging that those who pay the most, are the ones providing the
money to fund those who aren't. If those who pay more get a bigger
break, then there won't be money left to fund programs to support those
who aren't paying. In other words, they are defending redistribution of
wealth, by denouncing tax breaks.


Trouble is, your straw man just doesn't reflect reality.

Not quite yet, but if those on the left have their way, we will move
closer and closer to a socialist system, where the burden of providing
cradle to grave services, will be borne by the middle and upper economic
classes (according to their means). It costs tons of money to provide
services like universal healthcare, child care, etc.

True, there
are some that would abuse the system... but they are a small
percentage and workfare has helped reduce that number.

But bear in mind that human nature dictates that your degree of
motivation is directly proportional to the urgency of your situation. If
you are somewhat "comfortable", barely making ends meet, especially if
the government is subsidizing you in some way, then you are less likely
to invest a lot of effort into improving your skillset or your
marketability. If you are about to be put out on the street, and you
know there are no safety nets, you will be a little more interested in
making changes to improve your situation.


Bear in mind that a working American is also a tax paying American.

Some much more than others.


When you go to the polls vote for a candidate that lends a helping
hand to those that need it,

And that is the basic bone of contention; the definition of "need". To
me, a "needy" person is someone who is unable to make a better life for
themselves, due to a physical or mental condition. Anyone else, can be
trained to work in a productive manner. To simply throw your hands up,
and give up because you aren't qualified for any job which pays higher
than McDonalds or Wal-Mart, does not make you "needy".

The issue of the ever changing job market, and the erosion of manual
manufacturing labor jobs, makes this all the more important to
understand. Everyone of high school age, needs to be responsible enough
to pick a good career path and receive the proper education.

Dave

Gene Kearns wrote:

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 12:36:27 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

Gene Kearns wrote:

It stands to reason that a liberal fails to comprehend the difference
between "right to life" and "guarantee of it".

Dave


I am sitting here with my mouth hanging open..... This has to the
most incredibly outrageously stupid statement I have *ever* read...
anywhere.


Really? Stupid? I am forced to conclude one of two possibilities. You
either:

A. failed to understand the point I was making. Or:

B. Are a hopeless liberal, who advocates a "cradle to grave" entitlement
philosophy, in leau of earning your lifestyle.

I'm hedging toward "A", since if "B" were true, while we may have a
idealogical difference in how one maintains their lifestyle, most mature
people would be able to refute the rationale without resorting to
labeling, out of hand, those disagreements as "stupid".

In this country, you are free to the pursuit of life, liberty and
happiness, but there are no guarantees. Part of the price of freedom, is
the responsibility to take the proper care of yourself. If you fail to
do that, it's not government's or society's place to bail you out for
more than a temporary measure.

Dave


Bearing in mind the context:

...only care about preventing the abortion of a fetus. Once there is a
live birth into an impoverished family, the "right to life" ends.

Perhaps I totally missed the point. You said,

"It stands to reason that a liberal fails to comprehend the difference
between "right to life" and "guarantee of it".

Thus, I conclude that every child has the right to be born, but to
starve to death, thereafter, is reasonable, since there is no
guarantee of life. It follows that, from your premisses, that each
newborn has the responsibility to take the proper care of themselves
and any ensuing death is the fault of the infant.

C'mon, that's a little ridiculous, in light of our society. No one would
advocate that an infant be left to care for themselves. My statement was
more of a testament that every person has a right to life, but no
guarantees of any particular lifestyle.


Come to think of it, what does, "guarantee of life mean?" Seems a
non-sensical concept since all of us are terminally ill, anyway.

Think of it in the more colloquial usage, such as in the statement: "get
a life".



I don't subscribe to the ultra-liberal craving for crade-to-grave
care, nor do I buy into the ultra conservative belief that human life
begins with the first lustful thought.

Neither do I. But at some point there is a life, and is has a right to
be recognized, and has a right o be given the chance to "make a life"
for itself at some point.

Until the ultra conservatives
became obsessed with abortion as an anti-liberal idea, it was not such
an issue

Of course not. When liberals desensitize people to what an abortion is
actually doing, and boil it down to a simple medical procedure, it's
easy to buy into the whole deal.

The barometer of how you feel depends on whether you feel that abortion
has no more impact than removing a wart, or whether you feel that
abortion is killing another independent life.


and in practice, it still isn't. As proof, I offer a point to
ponder. If abortion is the ending of a human life, have you ever
been to a funeral for a miscarriage? Why not?

Never thought of it. Although if you knew a few women who had gone
through a miscarriage, the emotional trauma and depression that follows
is just as sad.


And no, I'm neither mindless, nor a "liberal." And I don't see the
dichotomy of abortion vs. welfare, either.

The two issues are not connected at the hip. Although statistically, the
number of lower income people who get abortions is somewhat higher than
those in higher income brackets.

Dave

Does this have anything to do with boats?

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"jps" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net...
He is probably right on more working poor than welfare suck-em-ups.
He
is
wrong as to working. Anybody that says he is the boss and is working
hard
and spends as much time on the newsgroups during the day is not
working.
Just warming a seat. Hope his employees are better.

I do not know how much JPS pays his
progarmmers, but I doubt it is excess of $80k / year on average.
Excluding JPS who makes that per week of work as he is a corporate CEO

Bill

A lot of half-baked, erroneous assumptions on your behalf. If you asked
first you might not make such an ass of yourself.

jps




Your employee(s) are worse?