jps wrote:

In article . net,
says...


Most people with a ****ing brain would consider this an acceptable trade
off. That means that 97.8% of the employed people are being paid a
living wage instead of an unacceptable percentage living in poverty.

No, it doesn't. A lot of them are laid off and find
work in other jobs right away, at no better wage than
they had.


Then we're not doing a very good job at training them for making a wage
that'd keep them out of jobs that cannot provide a living wage.

I'd rather have the training problem than the poverty issue any day. It
doesn't surprise me you don't understand since your team's only real
concern is making certain corporate profits are maximized.

Hey poopsy! Corporate America would like nothing better than to have a
large pool of trained workers to draw from. Whose fault is it that such
a pool doesn't exist? Our public schools? Delinquent parents? Lack of
ambition? Or is this Corporate America's fault?

If anyone needs a kick in the shorts it's parents and the NEA.
LZ

Lone Haranguer wrote:

jps wrote:

In article k.net,
says...


You just fall completely flat trying to sound like a caring capitalist.



Fact is, it makes you look like the selfish asshole you are and you
can't stand it.

I'm in business to make money but not without helping the people who
work for my company also earn a living wage and ensuring them access
to first class medical insurance.

You go ahead and **** people to your heart's content. Hope you don't
believe in an afterlife and you've got a good therapist -- or,
alternatively, someone you screw punches you in the nose for being a
heartless *******.


But if you trample people and get rich, you can be a caring
philanthropist like Bill Gates. That should buy several tickets into
heaven, right?

I'm not apologist for Gates, but there is ample
evidence that he got Microsoft, and himself, to where
they are by developing superior products, and by
legally exploiting a phenomenon called network economies.

Some economists - oooh, dirty word to 'jps' - showed
some years ago that, contrary to public belief,
Microsoft non-OS products attained market dominance
through performance and feature superiority, not by
riding on the coattails of the company's OS dominance.
They showed this by looking at trade publication
reviews of Microsoft software available for
non-Microsoft OS platforms, mostly Macintosh, where
Microsoft's non-OS products would not enjoy any
coattail effect. Microsoft products consistently were
rated very highly.

Network economies, something the illiterate 'jps' knows
nothing about, occur when having everyone on the same
platform eliminates some sizable transaction costs. If
everyone is using Excel, you don't need to worry about
the compatibility of a file between Excel and 1-2-3.

Microsoft got huge *mostly* through legitimate means.
They probably are guilty, though, of some specific
anti-trust violations that helped them get even bigger.
The legitimate growth dwarfs the illegal part.

'jps' and Harry Dumbo Krause just don't like Microsoft
because they're big business, and as
accomplishment-free whiners, they feel they have no
choice but to hate the accomplished.

In article ,
says...
jps wrote:

From a recent ABC news report:

This group bulged in size, largely due to a deliberate process of
"deinstitutionalization" first begun in the 1950s. A patient's best
interest, mental health experts then agreed, was served not so much by
long-term residential care, as by community outpatient treatment. As a
result, the number of resident mental health patients in the U.S.
dropped from 559,000 in 1955 to only 54,000 in 2000, Manderscheid
reports.

But the community outpatient care system that mental health providers
had hoped to build failed to blossom. A federal grant helped construct
about 750 new community health centers between 1963 and 1978; but when
the Reagan administration converted remaining funding into block grants
to states, most opted to finance currently existing mental health
centers, rather than build new ones. According to Manderscheid, the
envisioned community mental health system "froze at that point in time."

The psychiatric ER stepped in to fill the gap in community mental health
care. Variously described as a place patients choose over prison or a
homeless shelter, or where social service agencies "dump" their toughest
cases, the psychiatric ER can play a recurring role in a patient's
behavioral pattern or disease cycle and is often the last line of
defense for repeat patients known as "frequent fliers."

As deinstitutionalization continued, releasing many of the mentally ill
to their hometowns, large numbers discovered they lacked families and
communities willing or able to care for them. Now homeless, unemployed
and uninsured, any health crisis brought them to the steps of the ER =3F
the one place that cannot turn them away.

According to logic, you should blame the states for diverting the money,
not Reagan for making the funds available in a different format.

Nitwit.
LZ

Certainly, the states bear some responsibility but I don't think our
national mental health policy should be administered at the state level.

Further, it's a long known strategy to decentralized in order to weaken.
The Reagan and the present Bush Administration know the easiest way to
eviscerate a program is to hand the money to the states. They're all in
terrible shape and would divert the money in a moment's notice to those
with a louder voice.

That's why I blame the Reagan Admin. It was a cynical "improvement" to
a system they were interested in dismantling.

Like Nancy's reversal on stem cell research, I'm sure she'd argue on the
other side of that decision now...

jps

"Lone Haranguer" wrote

Probably Republican Pioneers or Rangers. Scum.

Hey poopsy! How much combat time do you have? Any?

Uh, may need to adjust your hair-trigger. I believe
the "Republican Pioneers or Rangers" refers solely to
the very marketable sobriquets the Elect Bush camp
have used to describe their mega-donors.

--
Toucan
Be heard. Spread the word.
http://www.YouSaidit.org
An experiment in hypermedia Democracy

In article ,
says...
jps wrote:

In article k.net,
says...

jps wrote:


The Olin *Foundation* does not own a munitions factory.


No, the Olin family owns both the munitions factory and the Olin
Foundation Little nebbishball.

Show us the deed.
LZ

Here, find it for yourself. I don't need to spoon feed you.

http://www.cursor.org/about/themoney.php

In article ,
says...

Don't use logic on JPS. It just confuses him.
LZ

Giggle all you want LZ, I think we need a national health policy that
looks after people in states that would be as backwards as possible
given the chance.

If you don't understand this I'm afraid you're not much of a judge of
logic yourself.

jps

In article . net,
says...

Ah, but where's the emotional satisfaction in that?
Lying hate-blinded ideologues like 'jps' NEED devils
with names and faces to blame for what they falsely
consider to be injustice.

In my eyes a society is meant to look after all its peoples, even those
with mental illness.

Those without a voice are least able to affect the system. They require
advocates and you're certainly not one of them.

Someone has to argue against you selfish ****ers who'd gladly sacrifice
a person's well being for a penny or two.

jps

In article ,
says...
jps wrote:

In article k.net,
says...


You just fall completely flat trying to sound like a
caring capitalist.


Fact is, it makes you look like the selfish asshole you are and you
can't stand it.

I'm in business to make money but not without helping the people who
work for my company also earn a living wage and ensuring them access to
first class medical insurance.

You go ahead and **** people to your heart's content. Hope you don't
believe in an afterlife and you've got a good therapist -- or,
alternatively, someone you screw punches you in the nose for being a
heartless *******.

But if you trample people and get rich, you can be a caring
philanthropist like Bill Gates. That should buy several tickets into
heaven, right?
LZ

Bill is obviously soothing his sole the same way Carnegie did. Thank
God someone is doing something about people who'd be forgotten
otherwise. Bush's promise to fully fund AIDS research was a complete
****ing lie.

That said, please tell me how Bill enslaved people at the company store
and made them work for slave wages or no wages at all...

Personally, I don't give a **** about heaven because I think this is it.
Like any decent guest, I'm trying to leave the place better than I found
it.

jps

jps wrote:

In article . net,
says...


Why is it's Reagan's fault. He gave the states some funding, they abused
it. Where is it the Federal governments job to fund state mental health
programs? Did the Fed's fund the state hospitals?


Please Bill...it's the same tactic Bush just tried to employ in his
effort to dismantle Head Start. The first thing is to give the money to
the states and let them administrate it. Second thing is the state
decides to use the money for something else since neither crazy nor poor
people have much of a voice in our "democracy."

It's up to decent citizens to demand our society treats the mentally ill
and infirmed in a humane fashion.

What a dummkopf! Those same decent citizens didn't elect those who run
their state? People can't trust their state officials to do the right
thing so it has to come down as a command from Washington?

Fortunately, Bush's plan was thwarted by an onslaught of people who saw
through his transparent agenda.

So you don't trust your state government to be humane to mentally ill
and the infirm but you trust the bureaucrats in Washington?

Power to the people.

Sounds to me like you are taking power from the people and shipping it
to Washington.

Are you on dope?
LZ

In article ,
says...
jps wrote:

At least my data reflects reality vs. your skewed crapola that only
serves to forward the "conservative" agenda of screwing those who cannot
make a living wage.

Heartless screwballs. I'll bet none of their kids are in Iraq right now
risking their lives while their parents make nice profits from the
munitions they sell to the US Government.

Probably Republican Pioneers or Rangers. Scum.

Hey poopsy! How much combat time do you have? Any?
LZ

Perhaps you'd care to lead me through the "logic" of this question? Are
you under the impression that Rangers and Pioneers are military
distinctions?