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 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

"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

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!

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

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!

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

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:06:40 -0500, DSK wrote:

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.

But many do. To any normal person with some pride and ambition, living
off the government teat would not be enough. But there are those who
lack either shame or ambition, and they are perfectly happy to let the
rest of us pay for their living costs.

This doesn't happen. Therefor the theory is false.

It does happen, so the theory is true. It doesn't have to be 100% to
make it so. You also left out an important detail; most recent
immigrants come here from places which are not so "kind" with respect
to welfare. They're used to working hard for a pittance. When they get
here, they are rewarded far more for their hard work. The typical
welfare slacker, on the other hand, is an "American" by birth, and
never had a good work ethic instilled in them. They are content to
feed off the government.

One need only look at all the outrage when the welfare program was
tightened up to force recipients to "work" to be eligible, to see just
how lazy these people are.

Very simple logic,
based on very obvious real-world facts. So why do so many people try and
claim otherwise?

Because your logic is flawed, and human beings are not always logical.


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.

No one is talking about the government regulating procreation
(Although if certain people are happy to let the government pay for
their care, the government should impose some restrictions as part of
the deal), only drawing a parallel that the same people who lack the
ambition to earn their own living also lack the responsibility to
avoid having children in a less than honorable or financially stable
environment.


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.

Which are?

A conservative at least will give a passing nod to reality.


Does that include backing an obvious liberal who flies in the face of
conservative ideals?

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

"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