|
I'd like you to attempt to explain this, if you can. Which government
services are in more demand from "rich" people? How about the Park Service? The gov't owns huge tracts of land which are very nice to visit... poor people can't afford to retire & tour the countryside in motor homes. Just one example... Gould 0738 wrote: If the United States of America did not exist, and we had some other country here instead, the lives of the poorest people in the country would be very little different than they are today. They would work crap jobs for wages that provide inadequate sustenance. And they'd probably clamor for the oppression of some minority lower than themselves, so as to feel "superior." Chuck, you've got a lot more patience than I have. These guys are just repeating the old racist mantra "I ain't payin' no mo' taxes when them lazy big-city ******s are all collectin' that welfare." We should be grateful that they try to say it in a more polite way, I guess. DSK The government would be keeping them off the street by providing artificially cheap housing and some free or artificially cheap food- thereby enabling the capitalists in the society (or the government itself) to exploit the poor by paying wages well below anything one could begin to live on. (They would probably have access to better health care). LIfe would be routinely disappointing, and while those with greater privilege in such a society might say "All you need to do is to decide to rise up to my level", the lower middle class and the poor would discover there are practical barriers to doing so. For example: How does one sign up for a night class, to improve education, when their employer puts them on an unpredictable schedule? This week you'll work 25 hours, mostly between 0900 and 1300 every day. Next week, you'll work 55 hours- between 1400 and 2300 every day- (but we'll pay you for 40, the other 15 are off the clock). The following week we're closing for inventory, so you won't work at all........ If the United States didn't exist, the poor would hardly know it. Their lives would be little different in most European, South American, or even some Asian countries. The well off? They'd see a difference right away. Most of the wealthy people in the United States achieved that wealth as a direct result of a social, economic, and physical infrastructure established, maintained, and defended by the government. Certainly those who made money, rather than merely inherited it, took some risks, invested some capital, and made good decisions- but the fact that the captial was invested, the risks assumed, and the decisions made in the United States made success a far more likely outcome. Our industries extract resources from public lands. Timber companies, mining companies, oil companies, cattle grazing operations, etc are all subsidized by the taxpayers via artificially cheap access to natural resources in national forests and other public areas. We provide an interstate highway system, dredge waterways, subsidize airports and operate an interstate air traffic control system to faciltate the transportation of goods and services. The government sponsors SBA loans and other start-up assistance to business people, and writes off billions of dollars in losses from these loans each year as some of the businesses fail. The government tax structure in the United States is very favorable to the wealthy. Our top tax bracket for federal income tax is much less than in most industrialized countries, and we have tens of thousands of pages in the tax code defining "tax shelters" that are used primarily by the well off and almost never by the poor. Above all else, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year "defending" this country. If we were overwhelmed by 21st Century Visigoths next week, whose lives would be most impacted and disrupted? When the mongol hordes come across the Rio Grande to rape and pillage throughout the US, do you suppose they will head straight to the public housing projects to avail themselves of all the abundance there? Seems like the terrorists like to target the government, (Pentagon), and high profile capitalism (WTC), when they attack the US. We all benefit from government funded defense, but those most likely to be targeted can be said to benefit the most. It's disgusting to listen to people who have done well in the US, but who wouldn't have amounted to a hill of frijoles elsewhere, sitting atop a sack of gold and proclaim, with a blank stare, "The US Government hasn't done anything for me, all the money and effort expended by the government goes directly to the poor.....(that built my business for me by providing cheap labor).....and those ignorant, immoral, lazy folks from diverse ethnic backgrounds just sit around making babies in return." Those of us with an extra buck or two, and owing a boat puts you in that category almost automatically- no matter how humble the craft, have a lot to be thankful for. We wouldn't have what we have accumulated and wouldn't have had the opportunities to do so in many countries around the world. Thanksgiving is just a couple of weeks away; how many of us will forget to be thankful for our special privileges in the US and simply be thankful that we aren't "poor" like some other folks? Never let it be said the the US government doesn't enable the accumulation and preservation of riches better than any other on the planet. That's the main reason why so many millions of people across the globe are (sometimes literally) dieing to come here. |
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:41:17 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: Do rich people need section 8 housing? Public schools? Healthcare subsidies? Welfare? W.I.C.? Planned parenthood? Social security? Of course...these programs help keep the poor folks "in their place," so they don't ride out to the suburbs in dump trucks and string whitey up on the nearest available trees. Just ask Rush. You really are a piece of work, Dave. Your personal feelings aside (they aren't relevant), the fact remains that the government pours a ton of tax money into these programs. None of which directly benefit "affluent" people. Dave |
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:26:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: JohnH wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:41:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: Do rich people need section 8 housing? Public schools? Healthcare subsidies? Welfare? W.I.C.? Planned parenthood? Social security? Of course...these programs help keep the poor folks "in their place," so they don't ride out to the suburbs in dump trucks and string whitey up on the nearest available trees. Just ask Rush. You really are a piece of work, Dave. They keep the poor folks in their place by removing any incentive to become educated and get gainfully employed. (No, drug dealing doesn't count.) John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! You know, John, you ought to be more careful. As a public employee working for a county school system in a fairly progressive community, your covertly and overtly racist remarks in this newsgroup might haunt you. Someone who wanted to get even could simply print out 20 or 30 of your posts that put down blacks and Hispanics, present them to an official with the super's office, and you'd be out on your butt. This isn't a threat or a warning...just an observation. I don't make trouble for people. But someone else you've offended might. It's interesting that when someone mentions the lazy and unmotivated, you automatically connect that with blacks and hispanics. Do you really feel that the terms "lazy and unmotivated" are mutually exchangeable with "blacks and hispanics"? Who's REALLY the racist here? Dave |
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:19:14 -0500, JohnH
wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:54:13 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: JohnH wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:26:21 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: JohnH wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:41:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: Do rich people need section 8 housing? Public schools? Healthcare subsidies? Welfare? W.I.C.? Planned parenthood? Social security? Of course...these programs help keep the poor folks "in their place," so they don't ride out to the suburbs in dump trucks and string whitey up on the nearest available trees. Just ask Rush. You really are a piece of work, Dave. They keep the poor folks in their place by removing any incentive to become educated and get gainfully employed. (No, drug dealing doesn't count.) John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! You know, John, you ought to be more careful. As a public employee working for a county school system in a fairly progressive community, your covertly and overtly racist remarks in this newsgroup might haunt you. Someone who wanted to get even could simply print out 20 or 30 of your posts that put down blacks and Hispanics, present them to an official with the super's office, and you'd be out on your butt. This isn't a threat or a warning...just an observation. I don't make trouble for people. But someone else you've offended might. Why don't you enlighten us with a reposting of the 20 or 30 'put downs' of Blacks and Hispanics, Harry. That should be interesting. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Why regurgitate your racism? It's not surprising you claim not to see it in yourself. I would simply like to see the 20 or 30 posts you consider to be racist. You made the accusation, follow it up! In Harry's mind every poor welfare slacker is either black or hispanic. So when you criticize those lazy unmotivated people, he feels that you're being racist. The real joke is that by making that connection, Harry reveals his own racism. Dave |
|
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:51:07 -0500, DSK wrote:
I'd like you to attempt to explain this, if you can. Which government services are in more demand from "rich" people? How about the Park Service? The gov't owns huge tracts of land which are very nice to visit... poor people can't afford to retire & tour the countryside in motor homes. Oh please! You are really reaching. The parks are free. Anyone can visit them, rich and poor alike. Just one example... Gould 0738 wrote: If the United States of America did not exist, and we had some other country here instead, the lives of the poorest people in the country would be very little different than they are today. They would work crap jobs for wages that provide inadequate sustenance. And they'd probably clamor for the oppression of some minority lower than themselves, so as to feel "superior." Chuck, you've got a lot more patience than I have. These guys are just repeating the old racist mantra "I ain't payin' no mo' taxes when them lazy big-city ******s are all collectin' that welfare." We should be grateful that they try to say it in a more polite way, I guess. Everyone has a responsibility to contribute to society to the best of their ability. Those who choose not do so, should not be surprised to learn that they have little to show for it. Those who think they are being "charitable" or "kind" by subsidizing these people are only enabling their continued lack of motivation, and preventing them from ever reaching the point where they finally realize that they'd better apply themselves or starve to death. I also find it curious that you, like Harry, equate the poor with a specific race, and then turn around and accuse those of us who criticize their "lifestyle" as being "racist". Maybe you should take a long hard look in a mirror when you make those statements. Dave |
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:05:10 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:23:28 -0500, Dave Hall wrote: And out the window goes a simplified tax code. ;-( How so? These items should be easily identified. Food and care items are a no-brainer. What constitutes a "luxury" item can be set by the purchase price. Come on, Dave, we are talking bureaucrats here. I can see 12,000 pages of tax code on food alone. Is caviar a luxury or a necessity? Simple is better when it comes to taxes. It doesn't have to be that way. You can have a "sales tax" and still keep it relatively simple so as to benefit those who need it most. Dave |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On 10 Nov 2004 18:18:21 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: I'd like you to attempt to explain this, if you can. Which government services are in more demand from "rich" people? The rich tend to use their own paid-for services rather than rely on the often inferior services provided by government subsidies. If the United States of America did not exist, and we had some other country here instead, the lives of the poorest people in the country would be very little different than they are today. They would work crap jobs for wages that provide inadequate sustenance. The fault for which is due to their own inability to rise above it. Get a viable skill, and this won't be a problem. The government would be keeping them off the street by providing artificially cheap housing and some free or artificially cheap food- thereby enabling the capitalists in the society (or the government itself) to exploit the poor by paying wages well below anything one could begin to live on. Wages are determined by the free market. You earn what your fellow citizen is willing to take. If someone advertises a job for $5.00 an hour and a hundred people apply, then where is the incentive to pay any more? You want the cheap wages to go away, stop people from "settling" for them. As the skill level rises and the pool of qualified people shrinks, the demand grows and so do the salaries. If the majority of this country was qualified to be a software programmer or I.T. professional, the salaries for those people would also be $5.00/hr. It's all about supply and demand. (They would probably have access to better health care). LIfe would be routinely disappointing, and while those with greater privilege in such a society might say "All you need to do is to decide to rise up to my level", the lower middle class and the poor would discover there are practical barriers to doing so. Most of which reside inside their heads. For example: How does one sign up for a night class, to improve education, when their employer puts them on an unpredictable schedule? This week you'll work 25 hours, mostly between 0900 and 1300 every day. Next week, you'll work 55 hours- between 1400 and 2300 every day- (but we'll pay you for 40, the other 15 are off the clock). The following week we're closing for inventory, so you won't work at all........ Making someone work "off the clock" violates the federal wage and hour standards. If you want to attend a night class, then you have to take a job with more stable working hours. Don't make it sound like these rotating hours are the norm. If the United States didn't exist, the poor would hardly know it. Their lives would be little different in most European, South American, or even some Asian countries. The well off? They'd see a difference right away. Most of the wealthy people in the United States achieved that wealth as a direct result of a social, economic, and physical infrastructure established, maintained, and defended by the government. Gee, you give little credit to their ability to achieve. You make it sound like there's some sort of "private club", where "selected" people pay their dues, and the path to easy street is paved with government provided taxpayer money, and it's just a walk in the park. The funny thing is he has it backwards.....the guvmint would not be abble to provide the infrastructure etc etc if it were not for the taxes the take from wealthy people. Certainly those who made money, rather than merely inherited it, took some risks, invested some capital, and made good decisions- Gee, thanks for the vote of confidence. but the fact that the captial was invested, the risks assumed, and the decisions made in the United States made success a far more likely outcome. Well, yea, this government doesn't tax the hell out of achievers to prop up the slackers the way socialist countries do. It is amazing how liebrals believe that all wealth creation is a direct result of guvmint.....when in reality....it is the exact opposite, guvmint is the result of wealth creation. Our industries extract resources from public lands. Timber companies, mining companies, oil companies, cattle grazing operations, etc are all subsidized by the taxpayers via artificially cheap access to natural resources in national forests and other public areas. How does the government provide "cheap access"? What exactly is "cheap access" anyway? You access the land by going to it and "doing your thing". If the government is making that path easier, it's by lifting their own government imposed barriers, to what should be a straight up simple process. So you want to thank the government for selectively lifting their own barriers? We provide an interstate highway system, Which benefits everyone. Paid for by gas taxes....i.e. the users. dredge waterways, subsidize airports and operate an interstate air traffic control system to faciltate the transportation of goods and services. And people. This benefits everyone. It's not the exclusive benefit of the "wealthy". The government sponsors SBA loans and other start-up assistance to business people, and writes off billions of dollars in losses from these loans each year as some of the businesses fail. And these loans enable the little guy to make his life better. It's the stepping stone that a poor guy can use to rise up out of the poverty pit. This is not a benefit to those already wealthy. What it enable are people with shaky business plans, bad idieas, and or no motivation to take money from others via the guvmint. The government tax structure in the United States is very favorable to the wealthy. Our top tax bracket for federal income tax is much less than in most industrialized countries But higher than the tax rate for lower earning brackets in THIS country. The sign of a losing arguement is the comparison to 'other' countries. , and we have tens of thousands of pages in the tax code defining "tax shelters" that are used primarily by the well off and almost never by the poor. A good case for throwing out the current tax code and replacing it with something simpler. Above all else, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year "defending" this country. Which again, benefits ALL of us. If we were overwhelmed by 21st Century Visigoths next week, whose lives would be most impacted and disrupted? When the mongol hordes come across the Rio Grande to rape and pillage throughout the US, do you suppose they will head straight to the public housing projects to avail themselves of all the abundance there? Seems like the terrorists like to target the government, (Pentagon), and high profile capitalism (WTC), when they attack the US. We all benefit from government funded defense, but those most likely to be targeted can be said to benefit the most. So you base this "benefit" to be more for the rich based on the notion that they have farther to fall? You are really grasping at straws....... It's disgusting to listen to people who have done well in the US, but who wouldn't have amounted to a hill of frijoles elsewhere, sitting atop a sack of gold and proclaim, with a blank stare, "The US Government hasn't done anything for me, all the money and effort expended by the government goes directly to the poor.....(that built my business for me by providing cheap labor).. That's plainly untrue. The government does not "provide" any labor. The market determines the labor rate. The government only set the rate floor. It is disgusting to listen to people that believe the guvmint is what makes everybody/everything function.......the fact is that motivated people will rise to the top regardless, and unmotivated people won't. The fact of the matter is that many people want the simple life of 8 hours in a mindless job and the twelve pack over the weekend next to the grill in the backyard. ...and those ignorant, immoral, lazy folks from diverse ethnic backgrounds just sit around making babies in return." It's a shame that there is a lot of truth in that. Otherwise we wouldn't need so many public assistance programs. When the guvmint hands out additional money for additional births.....it is not surprising (except to the liebrals) that the outcome is 'more births' Those of us with an extra buck or two, and owing a boat puts you in that category almost automatically- no matter how humble the craft, have a lot to be thankful for. For that we agree. I certainly have a lot to be thankful for. We wouldn't have what we have accumulated and wouldn't have had the opportunities to do so in many countries around the world. Which is why this is the greatest country on the planet, despite all those liberal whiners who insist there are so many "better" places to live (yet they, for some unknown reason, aren't in any great hurry to move there). Thanksgiving is just a couple of weeks away; how many of us will forget to be thankful for our special privileges in the US and simply be thankful that we aren't "poor" like some other folks? I am thankful to God for what I have and for the ability I have to achieve it. We have no "special privileges". I am no more special than anyone else. I just work hard and enjoy what I have. Never let it be said the the US government doesn't enable the accumulation and preservation of riches better than any other on the planet. That's the main reason why so many millions of people across the globe are (sometimes literally) dieing to come here. This is the land of opportunity. It is not the land of guarantee. Dave |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:51:07 -0500, DSK wrote: I'd like you to attempt to explain this, if you can. Which government services are in more demand from "rich" people? How about the Park Service? The gov't owns huge tracts of land which are very nice to visit... poor people can't afford to retire & tour the countryside in motor homes. Oh please! You are really reaching. The parks are free. Anyone can visit them, rich and poor alike. Just one example... Gould 0738 wrote: If the United States of America did not exist, and we had some other country here instead, the lives of the poorest people in the country would be very little different than they are today. They would work crap jobs for wages that provide inadequate sustenance. And they'd probably clamor for the oppression of some minority lower than themselves, so as to feel "superior." Chuck, you've got a lot more patience than I have. These guys are just repeating the old racist mantra "I ain't payin' no mo' taxes when them lazy big-city ******s are all collectin' that welfare." We should be grateful that they try to say it in a more polite way, I guess. Everyone has a responsibility to contribute to society to the best of their ability. Those who choose not do so, should not be surprised to learn that they have little to show for it. Those who think they are being "charitable" or "kind" by subsidizing these people are only enabling their continued lack of motivation, and preventing them from ever reaching the point where they finally realize that they'd better apply themselves or starve to death. I also find it curious that you, like Harry, equate the poor with a specific race, and then turn around and accuse those of us who criticize their "lifestyle" as being "racist". Maybe you should take a long hard look in a mirror when you make those statements. I also find it curious that they see nothing wrong with repeating the 'clas warfare' mantra. Dave |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Dave Hall wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:51:07 -0500, DSK wrote: I'd like you to attempt to explain this, if you can. Which government services are in more demand from "rich" people? How about the Park Service? The gov't owns huge tracts of land which are very nice to visit... poor people can't afford to retire & tour the countryside in motor homes. Oh please! You are really reaching. The parks are free. Anyone can visit them, rich and poor alike. The parks are free, eh? Simpleton. No, they are not anymore. The government is making it a cash cow. Under Clinton and the Park Service. (I mention Clinton, to blunt you putting it on the current administration) they raised the fees at Yosemite to $20 entry. This did price out the single mom from Madera, or other nearby areas from a day trip. And most of the people who go to Yosemite are not driving motor homes. It is a local park to a lot of California. Is only 150 miles from San Francisco. But a lot of the subsidized transportation directly benefits the poor. They can now jump on BART and head to the burb's to rob and jump back on the train to home. |
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:30:37 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:51:07 -0500, DSK wrote: I'd like you to attempt to explain this, if you can. Which government services are in more demand from "rich" people? How about the Park Service? The gov't owns huge tracts of land which are very nice to visit... poor people can't afford to retire & tour the countryside in motor homes. Oh please! You are really reaching. The parks are free. Anyone can visit them, rich and poor alike. Dave, have you been to Yellowstone lately? I doubt many poor people could afford to spend a couple days there seeing the place. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:59:00 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:26:21 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: JohnH wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:41:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: Do rich people need section 8 housing? Public schools? Healthcare subsidies? Welfare? W.I.C.? Planned parenthood? Social security? Of course...these programs help keep the poor folks "in their place," so they don't ride out to the suburbs in dump trucks and string whitey up on the nearest available trees. Just ask Rush. You really are a piece of work, Dave. They keep the poor folks in their place by removing any incentive to become educated and get gainfully employed. (No, drug dealing doesn't count.) John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! You know, John, you ought to be more careful. As a public employee working for a county school system in a fairly progressive community, your covertly and overtly racist remarks in this newsgroup might haunt you. Someone who wanted to get even could simply print out 20 or 30 of your posts that put down blacks and Hispanics, present them to an official with the super's office, and you'd be out on your butt. This isn't a threat or a warning...just an observation. I don't make trouble for people. But someone else you've offended might. It's interesting that when someone mentions the lazy and unmotivated, you automatically connect that with blacks and hispanics. Do you really feel that the terms "lazy and unmotivated" are mutually exchangeable with "blacks and hispanics"? Who's REALLY the racist here? Dave Ahhh, you've missed all of John's direct and indirect comments about blacks and Hispanics. As an example, he talks about sub teaching in a school with a mostly black student body, then in another post talks negatively about the students without necessarily mentioning their race. Tricky, eh? He also puts down hard-working Hispanics in his neigbhorhood because their lifestyle is different than his. They work hard... I have never subbed in a school with a mostly black student body. It would probably be hard to find one in Fairfax County. I've never mentioned 'hard-working' Hispanics in my neighborhood. I've mentioned a house in which ten or twelve Hispanics lived, parked cars in the lawn, partied much or the night (outside), and left trash in the yard and around the house. This was bringing down the looks and peacefulness of the neighborhood. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:40:34 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: In Harry's mind every poor welfare slacker is either black or hispanic. Actually, Harry is knowledgeable enough to know that general welfare is a thing of the past, and that most of those receiving assistance are children. I don't know what the current stats are, but some years ago, most of those receiving AFDC were white. It's almost impossible to get general welfare these days if you are an able-bodied, able-minded adult, and there's very little available for the physically or mentally challenged, either, other than the pittance from Social Security disability. We're a nation that doesn't give a crap about those of us in trouble. - - - Embarrassed to be an American So where are my 20-30 racially biased posts, Harry? You made the accusation, follow it up please. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:59:00 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:26:21 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: JohnH wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:41:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: Do rich people need section 8 housing? Public schools? Healthcare subsidies? Welfare? W.I.C.? Planned parenthood? Social security? Of course...these programs help keep the poor folks "in their place," so they don't ride out to the suburbs in dump trucks and string whitey up on the nearest available trees. Just ask Rush. You really are a piece of work, Dave. They keep the poor folks in their place by removing any incentive to become educated and get gainfully employed. (No, drug dealing doesn't count.) John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! You know, John, you ought to be more careful. As a public employee working for a county school system in a fairly progressive community, your covertly and overtly racist remarks in this newsgroup might haunt you. Someone who wanted to get even could simply print out 20 or 30 of your posts that put down blacks and Hispanics, present them to an official with the super's office, and you'd be out on your butt. This isn't a threat or a warning...just an observation. I don't make trouble for people. But someone else you've offended might. It's interesting that when someone mentions the lazy and unmotivated, you automatically connect that with blacks and hispanics. Do you really feel that the terms "lazy and unmotivated" are mutually exchangeable with "blacks and hispanics"? Who's REALLY the racist here? Dave Ahhh, you've missed all of John's direct and indirect comments about blacks and Hispanics. As an example, he talks about sub teaching in a school with a mostly black student body, then in another post talks negatively about the students without necessarily mentioning their race. Tricky, eh? He also puts down hard-working Hispanics in his neigbhorhood because their lifestyle is different than his. They work hard... I have never subbed in a school with a mostly black student body. It would probably be hard to find one in Fairfax County. I've never mentioned 'hard-working' Hispanics in my neighborhood. I've mentioned a house in which ten or twelve Hispanics lived, parked cars in the lawn, partied much or the night (outside), and left trash in the yard and around the house. This was bringing down the looks and peacefulness of the neighborhood. Look now for krause to do alot of backpeddling to cover his racisim. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Dave Hall wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:51:07 -0500, DSK wrote: I'd like you to attempt to explain this, if you can. Which government services are in more demand from "rich" people? How about the Park Service? The gov't owns huge tracts of land which are very nice to visit... poor people can't afford to retire & tour the countryside in motor homes. Oh please! You are really reaching. The parks are free. Anyone can visit them, rich and poor alike. The parks are free, eh? Simpleton. No, they are not anymore. The government is making it a cash cow. Under Clinton and the Park Service. (I mention Clinton, to blunt you putting it on the current administration) they raised the fees at Yosemite to $20 entry. This did price out the single mom from Madera, or other nearby areas from a day trip. And most of the people who go to Yosemite are not driving motor homes. It is a local park to a lot of California. Is only 150 miles from San Francisco. But a lot of the subsidized transportation directly benefits the poor. They can now jump on BART and head to the burb's to rob and jump back on the train to home. Jesus. Even when there wasn't an admittance charge, the parks were not free. Can't you understand the concept? If there is no specific user fee, but it is a public facility, the cost of operating and maintaining it is buried in a budget somewhere. There is no free lunch. Are you upset that poor folks can hop on "subsidized" transportation and get to work? How about the rich lawyers who ride to work on public transportation Are they not subsidized, too? If you are caught offshore in your boat and have to be rescued by the Coast Guard, is that service not subsidized? I love your line about the poor riding BART so they can commit robbery in the suburbs. How about the defense contractor employees who ride BART and once they get to their office, rob the public's treasury? Who do you think steals more? Probably you Harry. Charging your clients for lots of billable hours while on the internet. You a corporation? I guess then you are allowed to steal in your thinking. |
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:25:43 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Dave Hall wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:51:07 -0500, DSK wrote: I'd like you to attempt to explain this, if you can. Which government services are in more demand from "rich" people? How about the Park Service? The gov't owns huge tracts of land which are very nice to visit... poor people can't afford to retire & tour the countryside in motor homes. Oh please! You are really reaching. The parks are free. Anyone can visit them, rich and poor alike. The parks are free, eh? Simpleton. No, they are not anymore. The government is making it a cash cow. Under Clinton and the Park Service. (I mention Clinton, to blunt you putting it on the current administration) they raised the fees at Yosemite to $20 entry. This did price out the single mom from Madera, or other nearby areas from a day trip. And most of the people who go to Yosemite are not driving motor homes. It is a local park to a lot of California. Is only 150 miles from San Francisco. But a lot of the subsidized transportation directly benefits the poor. They can now jump on BART and head to the burb's to rob and jump back on the train to home. Jesus. Even when there wasn't an admittance charge, the parks were not free. Can't you understand the concept? If there is no specific user fee, but it is a public facility, the cost of operating and maintaining it is buried in a budget somewhere. There is no free lunch. Are you upset that poor folks can hop on "subsidized" transportation and get to work? How about the rich lawyers who ride to work on public transportation Are they not subsidized, too? If you are caught offshore in your boat and have to be rescued by the Coast Guard, is that service not subsidized? I love your line about the poor riding BART so they can commit robbery in the suburbs. How about the defense contractor employees who ride BART and once they get to their office, rob the public's treasury? Who do you think steals more? Probably you Harry. Charging your clients for lots of billable hours while on the internet. You a corporation? I guess then you are allowed to steal in your thinking. Sorry, but I only charge for billable hours when I am doing billable work. Harry, are you going to back up your allegations? Where are the 20-30 racist posts you saw? Or was that just another Krausism? John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Dave Hall wrote: Oh please! You are really reaching. The parks are free. Wrong again, Dave. Many many parks are no longer free. ... Anyone can visit them, rich and poor alike. JohnH wrote: Dave, have you been to Yellowstone lately? I doubt many poor people could afford to spend a couple days there seeing the place. Thank you , JohnH. And it's for certain that very few poor people are visiting national parks in huge motor homes, such as the ones lining up for miles around Yellowstone. In any event, that was just *one* example. Besides, it's a basic credo of the American principles that our system encourages people to work & improve their lot in life. If that's not true, as many of the right-wingers are insisting, then what's wrong with the picture? Why aren't Bush & Cheney fixing it? Make up your minds, you can't have it both ways. DSK |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Dave Hall wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:51:07 -0500, DSK wrote: I'd like you to attempt to explain this, if you can. Which government services are in more demand from "rich" people? How about the Park Service? The gov't owns huge tracts of land which are very nice to visit... poor people can't afford to retire & tour the countryside in motor homes. Oh please! You are really reaching. The parks are free. Anyone can visit them, rich and poor alike. The parks are free, eh? Simpleton. No, they are not anymore. The government is making it a cash cow. Under Clinton and the Park Service. (I mention Clinton, to blunt you putting it on the current administration) they raised the fees at Yosemite to $20 entry. This did price out the single mom from Madera, or other nearby areas from a day trip. And most of the people who go to Yosemite are not driving motor homes. It is a local park to a lot of California. Is only 150 miles from San Francisco. But a lot of the subsidized transportation directly benefits the poor. They can now jump on BART and head to the burb's to rob and jump back on the train to home. Jesus. Even when there wasn't an admittance charge, the parks were not free. Can't you understand the concept? If there is no specific user fee, but it is a public facility, the cost of operating and maintaining it is buried in a budget somewhere. There is no free lunch. Are you upset that poor folks can hop on "subsidized" transportation and get to work? How about the rich lawyers who ride to work on public transportation Are they not subsidized, too? If you are caught offshore in your boat and have to be rescued by the Coast Guard, is that service not subsidized? I love your line about the poor riding BART so they can commit robbery in the suburbs. How about the defense contractor employees who ride BART and once they get to their office, rob the public's treasury? Who do you think steals more? Probably you Harry. Charging your clients for lots of billable hours while on the internet. You a corporation? I guess then you are allowed to steal in your thinking. Sorry, but I only charge for billable hours when I am doing billable work. While on the internet. |
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:24:58 -0500, DSK wrote:
Dave Hall wrote: Oh please! You are really reaching. The parks are free. Wrong again, Dave. Many many parks are no longer free. ... Anyone can visit them, rich and poor alike. JohnH wrote: Dave, have you been to Yellowstone lately? I doubt many poor people could afford to spend a couple days there seeing the place. Thank you , JohnH. And it's for certain that very few poor people are visiting national parks in huge motor homes, such as the ones lining up for miles around Yellowstone. In any event, that was just *one* example. Besides, it's a basic credo of the American principles that our system encourages people to work & improve their lot in life. If that's not true, as many of the right-wingers are insisting, then what's wrong with the picture? Why aren't Bush & Cheney fixing it? Make up your minds, you can't have it both ways. DSK The "American system" does encourage people to work and improve their lot in life. This is the system that let's a Pakistani immigrate, buy a clunker, paint it yellow, and start a cab business making $30,000 a year. But it's also the system that allows 59% of the babies born in DC to be born out of wedlock. (Ironically, this rate is exceeded only by the Virgin Islands, in the TANF data.) Many of us 'right-wingers' (if it's necessary to call names) understand that personal responsibility *does* fall both ways - some folks have it, some don't. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:37:48 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: JohnH wrote: On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:25:43 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Dave Hall wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:51:07 -0500, DSK wrote: I'd like you to attempt to explain this, if you can. Which government services are in more demand from "rich" people? How about the Park Service? The gov't owns huge tracts of land which are very nice to visit... poor people can't afford to retire & tour the countryside in motor homes. Oh please! You are really reaching. The parks are free. Anyone can visit them, rich and poor alike. The parks are free, eh? Simpleton. No, they are not anymore. The government is making it a cash cow. Under Clinton and the Park Service. (I mention Clinton, to blunt you putting it on the current administration) they raised the fees at Yosemite to $20 entry. This did price out the single mom from Madera, or other nearby areas from a day trip. And most of the people who go to Yosemite are not driving motor homes. It is a local park to a lot of California. Is only 150 miles from San Francisco. But a lot of the subsidized transportation directly benefits the poor. They can now jump on BART and head to the burb's to rob and jump back on the train to home. Jesus. Even when there wasn't an admittance charge, the parks were not free. Can't you understand the concept? If there is no specific user fee, but it is a public facility, the cost of operating and maintaining it is buried in a budget somewhere. There is no free lunch. Are you upset that poor folks can hop on "subsidized" transportation and get to work? How about the rich lawyers who ride to work on public transportation Are they not subsidized, too? If you are caught offshore in your boat and have to be rescued by the Coast Guard, is that service not subsidized? I love your line about the poor riding BART so they can commit robbery in the suburbs. How about the defense contractor employees who ride BART and once they get to their office, rob the public's treasury? Who do you think steals more? Probably you Harry. Charging your clients for lots of billable hours while on the internet. You a corporation? I guess then you are allowed to steal in your thinking. Sorry, but I only charge for billable hours when I am doing billable work. Harry, are you going to back up your allegations? Where are the 20-30 racist posts you saw? Or was that just another Krausism? John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! I have no interest in watching your d.f. posts regurgitate through my news reader. Well Harry, I guess you've just proven again that you really *aren't* worthy of any civility. You can't seem to handle it. You "have no interest" because you are, quite simply, a liar. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... JohnH wrote: Harry, are you going to back up your allegations? Where are the 20-30 racist posts you saw? Or was that just another Krausism? John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! I have no interest in watching your d.f. posts regurgitate through my news reader. Well Harry, I guess you've just proven again that you really *aren't* worthy of any civility. You can't seem to handle it. You "have no interest" because you are, quite simply, a liar. Sorry, Herring. My lack of interest in looking through your old posts is based on the fact you're not worth any particular effort. But you may spin it anyway you like. What is there to spin? You made a specific allegation and threat. When called on to prove it you can't. Yes, you are a liar. You have proved it here time and time again. How's doctor doctor doing? Has she helped you pack the custom made 36 foot lobster boat away for the winter? Where do you winter store it? Where do you dock it? John may want to actually see this boat of yours if he is in the area. |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 07:52:29 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: JohnH wrote: But it's also the system that allows 59% of the babies born in DC to be born out of wedlock. (Ironically, this rate is exceeded only by the Virgin Islands, in the TANF data.) Are there some things you'd like to say about the mothers of these babies, John? Don't hold back on us...don't be covert...just say it...go ahead...come out of the closet. The mothers of these babies are sorely lacking in personal and parental responsibility. Because the parental responsibility is non-existent, the same traits get passed to the next generation, which becomes the next crop of middle- and high school dropouts. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 07:49:05 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: JohnH wrote: Harry, are you going to back up your allegations? Where are the 20-30 racist posts you saw? Or was that just another Krausism? John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! I have no interest in watching your d.f. posts regurgitate through my news reader. Well Harry, I guess you've just proven again that you really *aren't* worthy of any civility. You can't seem to handle it. You "have no interest" because you are, quite simply, a liar. Sorry, Herring. My lack of interest in looking through your old posts is based on the fact you're not worth any particular effort. But you may spin it anyway you like. No. You are a liar. You continue to prove it, and it becomes difficult to overlook. Maintaining civil discourse with a liar is difficult, if not impossible. But, I tried. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 07:55:30 -0500, "JimH" wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... JohnH wrote: Harry, are you going to back up your allegations? Where are the 20-30 racist posts you saw? Or was that just another Krausism? John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! I have no interest in watching your d.f. posts regurgitate through my news reader. Well Harry, I guess you've just proven again that you really *aren't* worthy of any civility. You can't seem to handle it. You "have no interest" because you are, quite simply, a liar. Sorry, Herring. My lack of interest in looking through your old posts is based on the fact you're not worth any particular effort. But you may spin it anyway you like. What is there to spin? You made a specific allegation and threat. When called on to prove it you can't. Yes, you are a liar. You have proved it here time and time again. How's doctor doctor doing? Has she helped you pack the custom made 36 foot lobster boat away for the winter? Where do you winter store it? Where do you dock it? John may want to actually see this boat of yours if he is in the area. I'm in the area all the time, Jim. Harry debunked his own myth when he posted that his lobsta boat was a 36" radio controlled job. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:40:34 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: In Harry's mind every poor welfare slacker is either black or hispanic. Actually, Harry is knowledgeable enough to know that general welfare is a thing of the past, and that most of those receiving assistance are children. I don't know what the current stats are, but some years ago, most of those receiving AFDC were white. Then why do YOU bring the issue of race into a discussion which pivots on socio-econimic criteria? It's almost impossible to get general welfare these days if you are an able-bodied, able-minded adult, As it should be. and there's very little available for the physically or mentally challenged, either, other than the pittance from Social Security disability. This is probably the only area of government assistance that I am in favor of. IF someone CAN'T work, for physical or mental reasons, they should be entitled to some compensation. We're a nation that doesn't give a crap about those of us in trouble. We don't give a crap when the "trouble" is self-inflicted. Dave |
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:56:29 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:41:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: Do rich people need section 8 housing? Public schools? Healthcare subsidies? Welfare? W.I.C.? Planned parenthood? Social security? Of course...these programs help keep the poor folks "in their place," so they don't ride out to the suburbs in dump trucks and string whitey up on the nearest available trees. Just ask Rush. You really are a piece of work, Dave. Your personal feelings aside (they aren't relevant), the fact remains that the government pours a ton of tax money into these programs. None of which directly benefit "affluent" people. Dave Of course they do. Without these programs, corporate America would have a harder time finding workers it could underpay and overwork. Most of "corporate America" needs people with greater skillsets than the people who tend to favor government handouts to working. In actuality, if a slacker can scam a handout from the government, that effectively raises the minimum wage that these same people would be willing to accept to leave the welfare roles. If there were no public assistance, desperation would force people to work for a much lower wage. Dave |
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:42:06 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:51:07 -0500, DSK wrote: I'd like you to attempt to explain this, if you can. Which government services are in more demand from "rich" people? How about the Park Service? The gov't owns huge tracts of land which are very nice to visit... poor people can't afford to retire & tour the countryside in motor homes. Oh please! You are really reaching. The parks are free. Anyone can visit them, rich and poor alike. The parks are free, eh? I've never had to pay an admission fee, and that's what I was referring to, in the context that both rich and poor can enjoy a national park. In other words, the cost of admission is not a barrier to the economically challenged.. Dave |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Dave Hall wrote: In Harry's mind every poor welfare slacker is either black or hispanic. Actually, Harry is knowledgeable enough to know that general welfare is a thing of the past, and that most of those receiving assistance are children. I don't know what the current stats are, but some years ago, most of those receiving AFDC were white. It's almost impossible to get general welfare these days if you are an able-bodied, able-minded adult, and there's very little available for the physically or mentally challenged, either, other than the pittance from Social Security disability. We're a nation that doesn't give a crap about those of us in trouble. Bull****. Take a look at charitable donations, especially in times of need. Take a look at the outpouring of support for the families affected by 9-11 or from recent hurricanes. Perhaps you don't give a damn about folks in trouble but the majority of Americans certainly do. - - - Embarrassed to be an American |
"JimH" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Dave Hall wrote: In Harry's mind every poor welfare slacker is either black or hispanic. Actually, Harry is knowledgeable enough to know that general welfare is a thing of the past, and that most of those receiving assistance are children. I don't know what the current stats are, but some years ago, most of those receiving AFDC were white. It's almost impossible to get general welfare these days if you are an able-bodied, able-minded adult, and there's very little available for the physically or mentally challenged, either, other than the pittance from Social Security disability. We're a nation that doesn't give a crap about those of us in trouble. Bull****. Take a look at charitable donations, especially in times of need. Take a look at the outpouring of support for the families affected by 9-11 or from recent hurricanes. Perhaps you don't give a damn about folks in trouble but the majority of Americans certainly do. No, it is that liebral like krause want the guvmint to determine where those dollars go, not the individual.....that is the only way the weak minded liebrals can retain power. - - - Embarrassed to be an American |
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:09:19 -0500, JohnH
wrote: On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:30:37 -0500, Dave Hall wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:51:07 -0500, DSK wrote: I'd like you to attempt to explain this, if you can. Which government services are in more demand from "rich" people? How about the Park Service? The gov't owns huge tracts of land which are very nice to visit... poor people can't afford to retire & tour the countryside in motor homes. Oh please! You are really reaching. The parks are free. Anyone can visit them, rich and poor alike. Dave, have you been to Yellowstone lately? I doubt many poor people could afford to spend a couple days there seeing the place. No, but I live near Valley Forge Park, and it's a common spot to head for a quick picnic, a day of sledding, or as a make-out spot at night..... There are no fees to enter, so it's open to anyone who can get there. Dave |
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:24:58 -0500, DSK wrote:
Dave Hall wrote: Oh please! You are really reaching. The parks are free. Wrong again, Dave. Many many parks are no longer free. The ones I can get too pretty much are. As for the rest, the fee is small. Less than a dinner at Denny's ... Anyone can visit them, rich and poor alike. JohnH wrote: Dave, have you been to Yellowstone lately? I doubt many poor people could afford to spend a couple days there seeing the place. Thank you , JohnH. And it's for certain that very few poor people are visiting national parks in huge motor homes, such as the ones lining up for miles around Yellowstone. In any event, that was just *one* example. Besides, it's a basic credo of the American principles that our system encourages people to work & improve their lot in life. If that's not true, as many of the right-wingers are insisting, then what's wrong with the picture? Why aren't Bush & Cheney fixing it? Make up your minds, you can't have it both ways. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. This is the land of opportunity, not of guarantee. You can't "fix" a problem that is endemic in human nature, unless you provide a very motivating incentive. I guess, to some people, a roof over their heads and food in their bellies isn't strong enough. Especially when there are some who insist that the government should "ease" their plight rather than give them the "tough love" push to get out of it. Dave |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 07:52:29 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: JohnH wrote: But it's also the system that allows 59% of the babies born in DC to be born out of wedlock. (Ironically, this rate is exceeded only by the Virgin Islands, in the TANF data.) Are there some things you'd like to say about the mothers of these babies, John? Don't hold back on us...don't be covert...just say it...go ahead...come out of the closet. What's there to say, except that they're irresponsible and have seriously juxtaposed priorities. Dave |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:24:58 -0500, DSK wrote: Dave Hall wrote: Oh please! You are really reaching. The parks are free. Wrong again, Dave. Many many parks are no longer free. The ones I can get too pretty much are. As for the rest, the fee is small. Less than a dinner at Denny's ... Anyone can visit them, rich and poor alike. JohnH wrote: Dave, have you been to Yellowstone lately? I doubt many poor people could afford to spend a couple days there seeing the place. Thank you , JohnH. And it's for certain that very few poor people are visiting national parks in huge motor homes, such as the ones lining up for miles around Yellowstone. In any event, that was just *one* example. Besides, it's a basic credo of the American principles that our system encourages people to work & improve their lot in life. If that's not true, as many of the right-wingers are insisting, then what's wrong with the picture? Why aren't Bush & Cheney fixing it? Make up your minds, you can't have it both ways. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. This is the land of opportunity, not of guarantee. You can't "fix" a problem that is endemic in human nature, unless you provide a very motivating incentive. I guess, to some people, a roof over their heads and food in their bellies isn't strong enough. Especially when there are some who insist that the government should "ease" their plight rather than give them the "tough love" push to get out of it. he"s just displaying the liebral mindset.........that guvmint must take care of everything. Dave |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:40:12 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote: On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 07:52:29 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: JohnH wrote: But it's also the system that allows 59% of the babies born in DC to be born out of wedlock. (Ironically, this rate is exceeded only by the Virgin Islands, in the TANF data.) Are there some things you'd like to say about the mothers of these babies, John? Don't hold back on us...don't be covert...just say it...go ahead...come out of the closet. What's there to say, except that they're irresponsible and have seriously juxtaposed priorities. Dave I suppose Harry considers me a racist because I believe in parental responsibility. I suppose Bill Cosby is also a racist. He feels much the same way. http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/1...sby/index.html John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:21:49 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:
Most of "corporate America" needs people with greater skillsets than the people who tend to favor government handouts to working. In actuality, if a slacker can scam a handout from the government, that effectively raises the minimum wage that these same people would be willing to accept to leave the welfare roles. If there were no public assistance, desperation would force people to work for a much lower wage. I guess the news of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 has yet to reach you. It is no longer welfare, more accurately, it is workfare. http://www.cbpp.org/1-22-02tanf2.htm http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofa/ |
JohnH wrote:
The "American system" does encourage people to work and improve their lot in life. This is the system that let's a Pakistani immigrate, buy a clunker, paint it yellow, and start a cab business making $30,000 a year. Well, if the theory was true that the sum of all gov't prgrams overwhelmingly benefits the poor, and taxes penalize the rich, then this would rarely happen. Most people would happily sink into "poverty" while sucking the gov't teat. This doesn't happen. Therefor the theory is false. Very simple logic, based on very obvious real-world facts. So why do so many people try and claim otherwise? But it's also the system that allows 59% of the babies born in DC to be born out of wedlock. (Ironically, this rate is exceeded only by the Virgin Islands, in the TANF data.) AFAIK procreation is not regulated by the government. Is this the next step in the new faith-based "moral values" federal government? It seems rather incongruous for a group of people who claim to want to reduce the size & scope of government, in theory. Many of us 'right-wingers' (if it's necessary to call names) understand that personal responsibility *does* fall both ways - some folks have it, some don't. Maybe that's the difference between a "right-winger" and a conservative. Without using it as a pejorative, a "right-winger" is somebody who believes at least 3 totally incompatible & illogical things and tries to apply them rigidly as political principles. A conservative at least will give a passing nod to reality. DSK |
Wrong again, Dave. Many many parks are no longer free.
Dave Hall wrote: The ones I can get too pretty much are. As for the rest, the fee is small. Less than a dinner at Denny's In other words, you were wrong. Now let's work on the scope & scale of your erroneous conclusions. BTW if you spend more than $20 on dinner at Denny's then I suspect your claims about your weight are equally false. DSK |
Harry Krause wrote: We're a nation that doesn't give a crap about those of us in trouble. Many of us here have long realised that you are in trouble, and have repeatly tried to help you. However, like a certain percentage of those who are ascribed as 'in trouble', you have bullheadedly refused to be helped. -- Charlie |
this time 46 post, sheesh!
|
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:57:29 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:21:49 -0500, Dave Hall wrote: Most of "corporate America" needs people with greater skillsets than the people who tend to favor government handouts to working. In actuality, if a slacker can scam a handout from the government, that effectively raises the minimum wage that these same people would be willing to accept to leave the welfare roles. If there were no public assistance, desperation would force people to work for a much lower wage. I guess the news of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 has yet to reach you. It is no longer welfare, more accurately, it is workfare. In theory anyway....... I find it almost laughable, in a sick sort of pathetic way, that these people have the balls to complain about the "work" that they now have to do to get their welfare money. I also wonder just how strict the people at the "workfare" office are about making sure these people are actually "working". Dave |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:36 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com