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 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.

I'll bet you can't condense this to one sentence....

Later,

Tom

"Beware the one legged man in a butt
kicking contest - he is there for a
reason."

Wun Hung Lo - date unknown

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!

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:06:20 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On 10 Nov 2004 18:18:21 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:
About 500 lines which were snipped. Then, Tom wrote:

I'll bet you can't condense this to one sentence....

Later,

Tom

"Beware the one legged man in a butt
kicking contest - he is there for a
reason."

Wun Hung Lo - date unknown

Yes he can. "Get a Red Dot Heater."

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:04:07 -0500, JohnH wrote:


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, your knowledge of the welfare system is quite outdated. You must
not have been paying attention during the '90s. For a quick update, do a
search on TANF (*Temporary* Assistance for Needy Families). You could
start he

http://www.plu.edu/~poverty/solutions/home.html

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:31:44 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:04:07 -0500, JohnH wrote:


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, your knowledge of the welfare system is quite outdated. You must
not have been paying attention during the '90s. For a quick update, do a
search on TANF (*Temporary* Assistance for Needy Families). You could
start he

http://www.plu.edu/~poverty/solutions/home.html

In Washington, DC, during the period 2001-2002, almost 60% of the
births were to unwed mothers. That's close to double the national
average.

Why?

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 04:42:09 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

I see you are logic challenged.

No, but I decided to invoke the sub-thread rule where-by one is
allowed to deviate from posters initial intent if said poster heaps
pity on himself to the point of having no self respect. Your pitiful
whining about your situation forced me to action.

The argument by DSK is the higher income
person receives more from Government than the poor person.

Since we're determining just what can be discussed in a thread, and
sub-thread, go back to the original post. It was about how the
republicans have run the budget, and deficit, to the limit. How does
your $135 boat registration vs the other guys $12 boat registration
relate to the republican tendency towards borrow and spend fiscal
policy?

I ask again,
what more services do I get for my $135 vs. the guy that pays $12?

I'd really need a whole lot more information out of you about why the
other guys registration is $12 and yours in $135, what that money goes
to pay for, etc.

I'll guess there's nothing keeping you from buying that guys boat that
gets away with paying $12, so you have an easy option for saving the
$123 that seems to pain you so.

bb

Still avoiding the questions I see. As to the $12 vs. $135. We are taxed
in the value of the boat. Same as our houses. Do we in more expensive
houses or boats get 11 times the services of the other? As to the
Republicans running the debt to the limit. Same as the Democrats have done
numerous times. You think the Debt limit has always been 8 Trillion $$$. I
think these Congress is just as forked as most of the others we have had
since the early 1970's and probably before. Base Line budgeting, instituted
during the Carter years of 17% inflation, has been a crime against all the
people in this country. Probably the poor more than the rich. As inflation
is a nasty tax, that hits food, and necessities probably harder than luxury
items. You have to buy necessities!

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

bb

Still avoiding the questions I see. As to the $12 vs. $135. We are
taxed
in the value of the boat. Same as our houses. Do we in more expensive
houses or boats get 11 times the services of the other? As to the
Republicans running the debt to the limit. Same as the Democrats have
done
numerous times. You think the Debt limit has always been 8 Trillion
$$$. I
think these Congress is just as forked as most of the others we have had
since the early 1970's and probably before.


It warms my heart on this cold day to see you whine about $120 in taxes.

I doubt if you have a heart. And the discussion is about services vs.
taxes. If your brain worked, then you could understand.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Your argument that somehow I receive more direct, or indirect (I'll
allow you that) benefits than others is silly and I've proved it.

No, you haven't "proved" anything other than that you are unable to
consider what the gov't does and what it costs.

Here's the deal- the fed, state & local gov't all do a *huge* number of
things. Some are beneficial to just a few (the SEC), some benefit all
(the EPA), some waffle back & forth, some don't do anything.

Because a very small part of the gov't gives money to poor people, and
you're not poor, you assume that the whole assembly is useless,
wasteful, and you think your share of the cost is unfair.

Pardon me for being blunt, but that's stupid & short sighted. However,
let me congratulate you on being right in style... stupid & short
sighted is the new way to be cool.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Your argument that somehow I receive more direct, or indirect (I'll
allow you that) benefits than others is silly and I've proved it.

No, you haven't "proved" anything other than that you are unable to
consider what the gov't does and what it costs.

Here's the deal- the fed, state & local gov't all do a *huge* number of
things. Some are beneficial to just a few (the SEC), some benefit all (the
EPA), some waffle back & forth, some don't do anything.

Because a very small part of the gov't gives money to poor people, and
you're not poor, you assume that the whole assembly is useless, wasteful,
and you think your share of the cost is unfair.

Pardon me for being blunt, but that's stupid & short sighted. However, let
me congratulate you on being right in style... stupid & short sighted is
the new way to be cool.

DSK


Thought I would give you a second chance but I see that you are just as
obnoxious as ever....back to the bozo bin you go.

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:51:16 -0500, DSK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Your argument that somehow I receive more direct, or indirect (I'll
allow you that) benefits than others is silly and I've proved it.

No, you haven't "proved" anything other than that you are unable to
consider what the gov't does and what it costs.

Here's the deal- the fed, state & local gov't all do a *huge* number of
things. Some are beneficial to just a few (the SEC), some benefit all
(the EPA), some waffle back & forth, some don't do anything.

Because a very small part of the gov't gives money to poor people, and
you're not poor, you assume that the whole assembly is useless,
wasteful, and you think your share of the cost is unfair.

Pardon me for being blunt, but that's stupid & short sighted. However,
let me congratulate you on being right in style... stupid & short
sighted is the new way to be cool.

Clearly you are the superior intellect here.

Later,

Tom