On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 07:35:00 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On 27 Jul 2004 23:41:48 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

SIGN SEEN ON A TIP JAR TODAY:

Hey, Republicans! Afraid of change? Leave it here! :-)

The jar was owned by a Democrat of course.

Yup. Just another hard working American trying to scratch a living together.
Just a single mom too proud to take welfare, and working for the subsistence
mini-wages paid by a billionaire "compassionate conservative". \


She was paid the wages dictated by the free market, which have nothing
to do with the government.

With a statement like this, Dave, you have demonstrated how naive and
simple-minded you are. There is no free market in the absence of
government.

Horsecrap.

Government is the ultimate impeder of the free market. A free market
needs no government to operate. The role of government in the free
market is to provide some protection, fairness, and oversight.
Excessive governmental intervention in the free market results in a
stifling or unnatural progression of the free market. Our present
healthcare situation is a prime example of the free market gone
horribly wrong. If the free market had been allowed to set the costs
for healthcare, rather than having insurance subsidies artificially
inflate the demand, the costs would not be nearly as high.

Free Market 101: A good or service is worth what the market is willing
to pay for it

A Corollary: A person's salary is directly proportional to their
relative value, which is dependant on the importance (demand) of the
job, divided by the amount of people (supply) qualified to do the
work.

In other words, if I offer a job sweeping streets for $1.00 an hour
and 10 people show up willing to work for that wage, then there is no
incentive for me to raise it.

On the other hand, if I advertise for an IT network professional, and
offer to pay them $5 an hour and no on shows up, then I have to raise
my salary offer until someone bites. If that figure turns out to be
$45,000 a year, then that is what that position is worth.

THAT is the free market.

I wouldn't expect a socialist to understand these concepts.

Dave

On 28 Jul 2004 14:10:13 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

I love to watch liberals spin. If your officials had told Boeing to
take some Heinz ketchup, and "shove it" instead, and Boeing then left
the area, you would be here right now bemoaning the loss of jobs, and
as an added touch, would probably blame it on Bush!

Dave


Boeing employs a steadily decreasing percentage of workers in this region.
Every time they cut back, there's a short term pain but the economy recovers.
When they go on hiring binges, tens of thousands of new families move here,
stress our physical and social infrastructure, and three years later they're
all on the dole or tryng to figure out how to earn a living clerking at Home
Depot for $10 an hour.

In the long run, we'd be better off with an orderly, progressive withdrawl
(which we continue to see, anyway) than riding the boom and bust "company town"
cycle.

A perfect microcosm model of what this whole country will have to deal
with as more and more of our economy becomes world-wide.

Dave

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

Sorry, Doug, but something that happened 30 years ago is not
news...it's
history.




In that case, it matters nothing to you that Clinton chose not to get
his
head blown off in a maniac's war.

No, it really doesn't. What bothers me more is someone like Kerry who,
35
years later, tries to exploit the fact that he spent approximately 4
more
months in Vietnam than George W. Bush. Are we supposed to believe that
we
can learn more about the man from the 4 months he spent in Vietnam than
from
the 20+ years he spent in Congress voting against military, defense, and
intelligence spending?

Puh-leeeeze!




1) You learn that Kerry made a committment and followed through with it,
as
opposed to Bush, who apparently has something to hide about his service
records. Otherwise, he'd explain the lapse in paychecks for 3 months.

2) Kerry voted against WHICH spending? Please provide specific bill
numbers,
and let us know which Republicans voted against them, too. Some
legislation
deserves to be killed. You know that.


Kerry knew that the supplemental to Senate bill 1689 included things like
body armor to troops, and pay raises and/or extension of benefits for
veterans. Yet, he voted to kill the entire bill. It's fine to be against
certain provisions in a bill, but must you kill the entire bill because of a
couple of provisions that you don't like? Particularly when those
provisions would save the life of soldiers at a time when they're in harm's
way? That was a terrible choice on Kerry's part...and no explanation is
satisfactory to the family of any soldier who could have been killed because
he didn't have the necessary body armor.

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:38:37 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Since politicians are always to
blame, any one who has to raise taxes might as well say good-bye to
his office.

I guess the answer is to eliminate all taxes on businesses. If every
community in this country imposed zero taxes (at the local level) on
businesses, then the playing field would be even, and businesses couldn't be
bribed to move.


Unfortunately, it's not that easy. Taxes are only one (Usually a
major) factor. Community services, logistical considerations, and
quality of local workforce are also worthy considerations.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:38:37 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Since politicians are always to
blame, any one who has to raise taxes might as well say good-bye to
his office.

I guess the answer is to eliminate all taxes on businesses. If every
community in this country imposed zero taxes (at the local level) on
businesses, then the playing field would be even, and businesses couldn't
be
bribed to move.


Unfortunately, it's not that easy. Taxes are only one (Usually a
major) factor. Community services, logistical considerations, and
quality of local workforce are also worthy considerations.


I was speaking tongue-in-cheek. All things being equal (workforce,
logistics, taxes, etc), Florida would have the most businesses flocking here
because the weather is nicer.

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:34:09 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
You're putting me on here, right?

Nope.

Boeing wasn't really "going" anywhere.

And you know that how? In today's day and age, Corporations aren't usually
bluffing when they say they're going to move a plant.

As long as it's legal for a states to selectively offer tax incentives
(aka--bribes) to certain businesses, the practice will continue. It would
take legislation from the Federal level to prohibit the act...and they'll
never get involved in a state's right to conduct business and commerce
within the state (as they shouldn't).

Sure. It's the states competing for future tax revenue. They offer
"sweet" deals to attract companies, who will (hopefully) settle there
for the long term. Even at the reduced tax rate (Which usually rises
over time), the states (and counties) make more tax money than if the
company never located there.

Corporate tax revenue offsets residential taxes. That's why counties
which have a high density of commercial businesses usually have lower
residential taxes.

Of course there are some third world countries who don't tax at all...
Uh oh......

Dave

On 28 Jul 2004 14:04:36 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

She was paid the wages dictated by the free market,

Ah yes. The prinicple that compassionate conservatives substitute for a moral
conscience.


How else would you do it and be fair to all involved?

We went down this road before, and predictably, when the broader
aspects of a "fair living wage" were explored, the proponents of such
a strategy dropped the issue like a hot potato.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 07:35:00 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On 27 Jul 2004 23:41:48 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

SIGN SEEN ON A TIP JAR TODAY:

Hey, Republicans! Afraid of change? Leave it here! :-)

The jar was owned by a Democrat of course.

Yup. Just another hard working American trying to scratch a living together.
Just a single mom too proud to take welfare, and working for the subsistence
mini-wages paid by a billionaire "compassionate conservative". \


She was paid the wages dictated by the free market, which have nothing
to do with the government.

With a statement like this, Dave, you have demonstrated how naive and
simple-minded you are. There is no free market in the absence of
government.

Horsecrap.

Government is the ultimate impeder of the free market. A free market
needs no government to operate.


Government is involved fundamentally through the creation and
enforcement of property rights, without which what you are calling a
"free market" cannot be achieved.

I'm involved in a worldwide project that has as one of its goals the
establishment of a methodology that enables poor people in undeveloped
countries to rebuild their little villages and set up businesses.
Financial resources are needed to finance these projects, as is some way
to "secure" the real property on which these businesses might be
established. But in some of these countries, the concept of land title
or even ownership is unknown. Right now, I suppose, these folks have a
true free market...they can barter...but they are going nowhere. They
need government to help them establish a framework in which they can
developed a real marketplace.

As I stated, your knowledge is a mile wide but only a millimeter deep.
Read some books.



--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

Sorry, Doug, but something that happened 30 years ago is not
news...it's
history.




In that case, it matters nothing to you that Clinton chose not to
get
his
head blown off in a maniac's war.

No, it really doesn't. What bothers me more is someone like Kerry
who,
35
years later, tries to exploit the fact that he spent approximately 4
more
months in Vietnam than George W. Bush. Are we supposed to believe
that
we
can learn more about the man from the 4 months he spent in Vietnam
than
from
the 20+ years he spent in Congress voting against military, defense,
and
intelligence spending?

Puh-leeeeze!




1) You learn that Kerry made a committment and followed through with it,
as
opposed to Bush, who apparently has something to hide about his service
records. Otherwise, he'd explain the lapse in paychecks for 3 months.

2) Kerry voted against WHICH spending? Please provide specific bill
numbers,
and let us know which Republicans voted against them, too. Some
legislation
deserves to be killed. You know that.


Kerry knew that the supplemental to Senate bill 1689 included things like
body armor to troops, and pay raises and/or extension of benefits for
veterans. Yet, he voted to kill the entire bill. It's fine to be against
certain provisions in a bill, but must you kill the entire bill because of
a
couple of provisions that you don't like? Particularly when those
provisions would save the life of soldiers at a time when they're in
harm's
way? That was a terrible choice on Kerry's part...and no explanation is
satisfactory to the family of any soldier who could have been killed
because
he didn't have the necessary body armor.



So, you don't know why he voted against it? Are you aware that some slobs in
Congress tag totally unrelated (and often hideous) riders onto bills?

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:21:29 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

Sorry, Doug, but something that happened 30 years ago is not
news...it's
history.




In that case, it matters nothing to you that Clinton chose not to
get
his
head blown off in a maniac's war.

No, it really doesn't. What bothers me more is someone like Kerry
who,
35
years later, tries to exploit the fact that he spent approximately 4
more
months in Vietnam than George W. Bush. Are we supposed to believe
that
we
can learn more about the man from the 4 months he spent in Vietnam
than
from
the 20+ years he spent in Congress voting against military, defense,
and
intelligence spending?

Puh-leeeeze!




1) You learn that Kerry made a committment and followed through with it,
as
opposed to Bush, who apparently has something to hide about his service
records. Otherwise, he'd explain the lapse in paychecks for 3 months.

2) Kerry voted against WHICH spending? Please provide specific bill
numbers,
and let us know which Republicans voted against them, too. Some
legislation
deserves to be killed. You know that.


Kerry knew that the supplemental to Senate bill 1689 included things like
body armor to troops, and pay raises and/or extension of benefits for
veterans. Yet, he voted to kill the entire bill. It's fine to be against
certain provisions in a bill, but must you kill the entire bill because of
a
couple of provisions that you don't like? Particularly when those
provisions would save the life of soldiers at a time when they're in
harm's
way? That was a terrible choice on Kerry's part...and no explanation is
satisfactory to the family of any soldier who could have been killed
because
he didn't have the necessary body armor.



So, you don't know why he voted against it? Are you aware that some slobs in
Congress tag totally unrelated (and often hideous) riders onto bills?


Yea, and usually those same people are democrats.

Dave