New DSLR lenses from Nikon

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Bruce, Feb 9, 2010.

  1. Bruce

    Ray Fischer Guest

    George Kerby <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >On 2/13/10 1:46 PM, in article 4b7701ae$0$1601$, "Ray
    >Fischer" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Peter <> wrote:
    >>> "Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    >>>> Peter <> wrote:
    >>>>> "Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> You know, I don't know where people get this caricature of Bill Gates
    >>>>>>> being a greedy, selfish moneybags.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> To some degree nearly every corporate CEO is a greedy, selfish
    >>>>>> moneybag. It's nearly a job requirement.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You obviously refuse to recognize the responsibility of a CEO, regardless
    >>>>> of
    >>>>> the size of the corporation.
    >>>>
    >>>> Correct.
    >>>>
    >>>>> When you open up in the morning and realize
    >>>>> that x number of people are looking to you for guidance and depend on your
    >>>>> skills to prevent starvation, or to promote a reasonable life style, you
    >>>>> should recognize that you have an awesome responsibility. Sure, some are
    >>>>> greedy turds, but they are in the minority.
    >>>>
    >>>> I have seen far too many CEO's laying off $60,000/yr workers so that
    >>>> they can continue to take home $20,000,000/yr. To think that a
    >>>> typical CEO has the interests of employees as a priority is naive.
    >>>> If they cared about employees or the company then they'd be getting
    >>>> $1,000,000/yr and using the extra money to keep 200 employees producing
    >>>> products to sell.
    >>>
    >>> Your comments make it obvious that you know absolutely nothing about
    >>> business. A good CEO holds the interests the company first.

    >>
    >> LOL! Is that what they tell you?
    >>
    >>> In a public
    >>> company, he is accountable to the board, who represents the interests of the
    >>> owners.

    >>
    >> ROFL! The board represent the shareholders?!? And you really believe that?
    >>
    >> When was the last time a board member got fired by the shareholders?
    >> When was the last time shareholders picked a board member? Or CEO?
    >>

    >You need to quit before you embarrass yourself any further. You never have
    >even seen a proxy vote form, have you, FishHead Rot?!?


    The usual kerby stupidity and screeching. No substance.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 13, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bruce

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Peter <> wrote:
    >"Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    >news:4b7701ae$0$1601$...
    >> Peter <> wrote:
    >>>"Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message

    >
    >
    >>>> I have seen far too many CEO's laying off $60,000/yr workers so that
    >>>> they can continue to take home $20,000,000/yr. To think that a
    >>>> typical CEO has the interests of employees as a priority is naive.
    >>>> If they cared about employees or the company then they'd be getting
    >>>> $1,000,000/yr and using the extra money to keep 200 employees producing
    >>>> products to sell.

    >
    >How about some examples: You are making accusations of clear violations of
    >rhe SEC Regulations.


    What regulations? What violation? It's no violation to lay off
    hundreds of people. It's no violation to get $20,000,000/year.

    >>>Your comments make it obvious that you know absolutely nothing about
    >>>business. A good CEO holds the interests the company first.

    >>
    >> LOL! Is that what they tell you?

    >
    >They? Suggest you get over your bitter pill and learn something about the
    >reality of business before you open your mouth.


    Says the rightard who cannot actually refute what I write.

    >>> In a public
    >>>company, he is accountable to the board, who represents the interests of
    >>>the
    >>>owners.

    >>
    >> ROFL! The board represent the shareholders?!? And you really believe
    >> that?

    >
    >And just how do you think a director becomes a director.


    By being selected by the board.

    > He/she is elected
    >by vot of the shareholders.


    You may be that stupid, or not, but don't assume that I am that
    stupid. We both know that the vast majority of such elections
    are decided when the board recommends someone for the position.

    >> When was the last time a board member got fired by the shareholders?
    >> When was the last time shareholders picked a board member? Or CEO?
    >>

    >Read this and learn.
    >http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/04/082704.asp


    You must be pretty stupid. You didn't even notice that that doesn't
    answer either of my questions.

    >>> To maintain and grow a healthy company. A good manager recognizes
    >>>that the workers are the lifeblood of the company.

    >>
    >> If any of your beliefs were true then we wouldn't see corporations
    >> spending so much to hire and train workers only to fire them a few
    >> years later and then repeat the process again.

    >
    >My statements are based upon personal observation and experience.


    You statements are based on naive worship of corporations.

    >> Sure, there are some good CEOs, but there aren't many.

    >
    >More than you would admit.


    Less than you would admit.

    > Wow! You certainly are a fountain of
    >misinformation.


    I'm not a part of your cult of stupidity. When the incomes of CEOs
    explode and the incomes of workers actually fall then it's clear who
    is scamming whom.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 13, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bruce

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Bill Graham <> wrote:
    >
    >"Peter" <> wrote in message
    >news:4b77170d$0$21958$-secrets.com...
    >> "Bill Graham" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>
    >>> "Peter" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:4b76b7b2$0$18772$-secrets.com...

    >>
    >>>>
    >>>> We agree on something. Remember Bill votes his for pocketbook, not
    >>>> humanity.
    >>>
    >>> Yes.....I am very uncomfortable when politicians have their hands in my
    >>> pockets........Just because Robin Hood gave money to the poor, that
    >>> doesn't prevent me from calling him a thief.

    >>
    >> Are you saying you receive no benefit from being a member of our society?
    >> Please clarify.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Peter

    >
    >Will do. At 10% government, society is great, At 20% government it's still
    >not too bad, but a bit less than "great" and at 50% government it is
    >oppressive, way to socialistic, and a long, long way from being great. - We
    >passed the 50% mark some time ago, and with Obama/Pelosi, we are fast
    >heading to 60% and above.


    What a stinking hypocrite. Graham feeds at the government trough but
    doesn't want to pay for it.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 13, 2010
  4. Bruce

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:06:24 -0800, Jürgen Exner
    <> wrote:

    >C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >>On 2010-02-11 23:39:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" <> said:

    >
    >[replying to C J's posting because Bill has been in my killfile for a
    >long time. And obviously for very good reasons, see below]
    >
    >>> "Jürgen Exner" <> wrote in message
    >>>> C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >>> And wouldn't Bill Gates love a sales tax......

    >
    >He happens to be living in Bellevue, WA, USA, which happens to have
    >about 8% sales tax (plus probably a few percent slapped on by King
    >County and the city of Bellevue).
    >
    >>>He wouldn't spend any
    >>> more than he does now, but his investments would make billions of
    >>> dollars every year, and it would all be tax free., Talk about a
    >>> regressive tax system.....

    >
    >???
    >What does income tax have to do with the difference between sales tax
    >and VAT? Are you tossing red herrings around again?
    >

    He's referring to the "FairTax" movement. It replaces the income tax
    with a consumption tax on retail sales (essentially, a "sales tax")
    with a rebate to taxpayers with incomes below a certain level. There
    are some advantages to the proposal, but it stands little chance of
    advancing.

    There's more to it than I've outlined above.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Feb 13, 2010
  5. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Bill Graham" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Peter" <> wrote in message
    > news:4b771f5e$0$22474$-secrets.com...
    >> "Bill Graham" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>
    >>> "Peter" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:4b77170d$0$21958$-secrets.com...
    >>>> "Bill Graham" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Peter" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:4b76b7b2$0$18772$-secrets.com...
    >>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> We agree on something. Remember Bill votes his for pocketbook, not
    >>>>>> humanity.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yes.....I am very uncomfortable when politicians have their hands in
    >>>>> my pockets........Just because Robin Hood gave money to the poor, that
    >>>>> doesn't prevent me from calling him a thief.
    >>>>
    >>>> Are you saying you receive no benefit from being a member of our
    >>>> society?
    >>>> Please clarify.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Peter
    >>>
    >>> Will do. At 10% government, society is great, At 20% government it's
    >>> still not too bad, but a bit less than "great" and at 50% government it
    >>> is oppressive, way to socialistic, and a long, long way from being
    >>> great. - We passed the 50% mark some time ago, and with Obama/Pelosi, we
    >>> are fast heading to 60% and above.

    >>
    >>
    >> So you want the benefits without paying for them. I get it, you should
    >> only pay for the direct benefits you think you need. Not to help society
    >> as a whole.
    >>
    >> Just start with a few common costs. Since you know how much to spend, why
    >> don't you fill in the blanks.
    >>
    >> Military: = ?
    >> Education = ?
    >> Domestic security protection = ?
    >> Road maintenance = ?
    >> Court system = ?
    >> Helping our genuinely indigent to survive = ?
    >>
    >> Come on Billy boy, you have investments. What is the cost of the
    >> government helping to maintain the integrity of your money.
    >>
    >> If you expect the benefits of living in our society without paying for
    >> them, you are a worse thief than Robin Hood.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Peter

    >
    > Well, the problem (as I see it) seems to be in the definition of,
    > "Benefits" If you live in a padded cell, and the government does
    > (literally) everything for you, then Peter would say life is perfect, and
    > we owe everything to our government. Bill would say we are all slaves to
    > our government and they are of no more use to us that any slave driver is
    > to his property.
    >
    > In the above example, I think the government's use should fall somewhere
    > less than 20% of our gross effort, and you seem to think that it should
    > fall somewhere over 50% of our gross effort.
    >
    > So, the lines are drawn, and all we have to do is argue over where they
    > should be.
    >
    > My argument for my position on the matter is that the more I do for
    > myself, the more freedom I enjoy. You position is the more the government
    > does for us, the easier life will be for the most people. I don't count
    > living in a padded cell as, "life". I want a little more than just
    > breathing. But, to each his own.......



    You completely avoided the question. What is the basis for your 20%

    How are you going to ensure that you have the right to do more than just
    breath.

    Try filling in the blanks and tell me what can be eliminated.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 14, 2010
  6. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    news:4b7730d4$0$1608$...
    > Peter <> wrote:
    >>"Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    >>news:4b7701ae$0$1601$...
    >>> Peter <> wrote:
    >>>>"Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message

    >>
    >>
    >>>>> I have seen far too many CEO's laying off $60,000/yr workers so that
    >>>>> they can continue to take home $20,000,000/yr. To think that a
    >>>>> typical CEO has the interests of employees as a priority is naive.
    >>>>> If they cared about employees or the company then they'd be getting
    >>>>> $1,000,000/yr and using the extra money to keep 200 employees
    >>>>> producing
    >>>>> products to sell.

    >>
    >>How about some examples: You are making accusations of clear violations of
    >>rhe SEC Regulations.

    >
    > What regulations? What violation? It's no violation to lay off
    > hundreds of people. It's no violation to get $20,000,000/year.
    >
    >>>>Your comments make it obvious that you know absolutely nothing about
    >>>>business. A good CEO holds the interests the company first.
    >>>
    >>> LOL! Is that what they tell you?

    >>
    >>They? Suggest you get over your bitter pill and learn something about the
    >>reality of business before you open your mouth.

    >
    > Says the rightard who cannot actually refute what I write.
    >
    >>>> In a public
    >>>>company, he is accountable to the board, who represents the interests of
    >>>>the
    >>>>owners.
    >>>
    >>> ROFL! The board represent the shareholders?!? And you really believe
    >>> that?

    >>
    >>And just how do you think a director becomes a director.

    >
    > By being selected by the board.
    >
    >> He/she is elected
    >>by vot of the shareholders.

    >
    > You may be that stupid, or not, but don't assume that I am that
    > stupid. We both know that the vast majority of such elections
    > are decided when the board recommends someone for the position.
    >
    >>> When was the last time a board member got fired by the shareholders?
    >>> When was the last time shareholders picked a board member? Or CEO?
    >>>

    >>Read this and learn.
    >>http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/04/082704.asp

    >
    > You must be pretty stupid. You didn't even notice that that doesn't
    > answer either of my questions.
    >
    >>>> To maintain and grow a healthy company. A good manager recognizes
    >>>>that the workers are the lifeblood of the company.
    >>>
    >>> If any of your beliefs were true then we wouldn't see corporations
    >>> spending so much to hire and train workers only to fire them a few
    >>> years later and then repeat the process again.

    >>
    >>My statements are based upon personal observation and experience.

    >
    > You statements are based on naive worship of corporations.
    >
    >>> Sure, there are some good CEOs, but there aren't many.

    >>
    >>More than you would admit.

    >
    > Less than you would admit.
    >
    >> Wow! You certainly are a fountain of
    >>misinformation.

    >
    > I'm not a part of your cult of stupidity. When the incomes of CEOs
    > explode and the incomes of workers actually fall then it's clear who
    > is scamming whom.
    >



    You show the shallowness of your position by resorting to personal attacks.
    It is clear that you have no business experience.

    Bye

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 14, 2010
  7. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:06:24 -0800, Jürgen Exner
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >>>On 2010-02-11 23:39:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" <> said:

    >>
    >>[replying to C J's posting because Bill has been in my killfile for a
    >>long time. And obviously for very good reasons, see below]
    >>
    >>>> "Jürgen Exner" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >>>> And wouldn't Bill Gates love a sales tax......

    >>
    >>He happens to be living in Bellevue, WA, USA, which happens to have
    >>about 8% sales tax (plus probably a few percent slapped on by King
    >>County and the city of Bellevue).
    >>
    >>>>He wouldn't spend any
    >>>> more than he does now, but his investments would make billions of
    >>>> dollars every year, and it would all be tax free., Talk about a
    >>>> regressive tax system.....

    >>
    >>???
    >>What does income tax have to do with the difference between sales tax
    >>and VAT? Are you tossing red herrings around again?
    >>

    > He's referring to the "FairTax" movement. It replaces the income tax
    > with a consumption tax on retail sales (essentially, a "sales tax")
    > with a rebate to taxpayers with incomes below a certain level. There
    > are some advantages to the proposal, but it stands little chance of
    > advancing.
    >
    > There's more to it than I've outlined above.
    >



    Yup! Lots more. there are a lot of advantages, but it cannot sell
    politically.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 14, 2010
  8. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2010021316481660903-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > On 2010-02-13 14:45:15 -0800, "Bill Graham" <> said:
    >
    >>
    >> "Peter" <> wrote in message
    >> news:4b771f5e$0$22474$-secrets.com...
    >>> "Bill Graham" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>>
    >>>> "Peter" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:4b77170d$0$21958$-secrets.com...
    >>>>> "Bill Graham" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Peter" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:4b76b7b2$0$18772$-secrets.com...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> We agree on something. Remember Bill votes his for pocketbook, not
    >>>>>>> humanity.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Yes.....I am very uncomfortable when politicians have their hands in
    >>>>>> my pockets........Just because Robin Hood gave money to the poor,
    >>>>>> that doesn't prevent me from calling him a thief.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Are you saying you receive no benefit from being a member of our
    >>>>> society?
    >>>>> Please clarify.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> Peter
    >>>>
    >>>> Will do. At 10% government, society is great, At 20% government it's
    >>>> still not too bad, but a bit less than "great" and at 50% government it
    >>>> is oppressive, way to socialistic, and a long, long way from being
    >>>> great. - We passed the 50% mark some time ago, and with Obama/Pelosi,
    >>>> we are fast heading to 60% and above.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> So you want the benefits without paying for them. I get it, you should
    >>> only pay for the direct benefits you think you need. Not to help society
    >>> as a whole.
    >>>
    >>> Just start with a few common costs. Since you know how much to spend,
    >>> why don't you fill in the blanks.
    >>>
    >>> Military: = ?
    >>> Education = ?
    >>> Domestic security protection = ?
    >>> Road maintenance = ?
    >>> Court system = ?
    >>> Helping our genuinely indigent to survive = ?
    >>>
    >>> Come on Billy boy, you have investments. What is the cost of the
    >>> government helping to maintain the integrity of your money.
    >>>
    >>> If you expect the benefits of living in our society without paying for
    >>> them, you are a worse thief than Robin Hood.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Peter

    >>
    >> Well, the problem (as I see it) seems to be in the definition of,
    >> "Benefits" If you live in a padded cell, and the government does
    >> (literally) everything for you, then Peter would say life is perfect, and
    >> we owe everything to our government. Bill would say we are all slaves to
    >> our government and they are of no more use to us that any slave driver is
    >> to his property.
    >>
    >> In the above example, I think the government's use should fall somewhere
    >> less than 20% of our gross effort, and you seem to think that it should
    >> fall somewhere over 50% of our gross effort.
    >>
    >> So, the lines are drawn, and all we have to do is argue over where they
    >> should be.
    >>
    >> My argument for my position on the matter is that the more I do for
    >> myself, the more freedom I enjoy. You position is the more the government
    >> does for us, the easier life will be for the most people. I don't count
    >> living in a padded cell as, "life". I want a little more than just
    >> breathing. But, to each his own.......

    >
    > Bill,
    > The time has come for you to come out of retirement and join the Palin
    > team. Who knows, you might make a fine Palin Party, Secretary of The
    > Treasury, or Vice President?
    > If you remember to bring a Sharpie you could be one of her speech writers.
    >
    > ...and I am sure she will have all your health needs covered.



    If the government spending was at the level he claims to want, he will be
    very busy: Digging holes to safeguard his money; target practice; worrying
    whether his doctor really had a medical license; whether his grandchildren's
    teachers were competent to teach; growing his own food because of worry
    about adulterating substances; etc.


    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 14, 2010
  9. C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >On 2010-02-13 14:51:05 -0800, "Bill Graham" <> said:
    >
    >>
    >> "Jürgen Exner" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >>>> On 2010-02-11 23:39:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" <> said:
    >>>
    >>> [replying to C J's posting because Bill has been in my killfile for a
    >>> long time. And obviously for very good reasons, see below]
    >>>
    >>>>> "Jürgen Exner" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >>>>> And wouldn't Bill Gates love a sales tax......
    >>>
    >>> He happens to be living in Bellevue, WA, USA, which happens to have
    >>> about 8% sales tax (plus probably a few percent slapped on by King
    >>> County and the city of Bellevue).
    >>>
    >>>>> He wouldn't spend any
    >>>>> more than he does now, but his investments would make billions of
    >>>>> dollars every year, and it would all be tax free., Talk about a
    >>>>> regressive tax system.....
    >>>
    >>> ???
    >>> What does income tax have to do with the difference between sales tax
    >>> and VAT? Are you tossing red herrings around again?
    >>>
    >>> jue

    >>
    >> I am talking about the new "progressive" idea of replacing the income
    >> tax with a national sales tax.


    And what on earth does that have to do with the claim that VAT is more
    regressive than sales tax as was discussed in this branch of the thread?

    I'm done with the NG. In the past at least you get catch a good advice
    once in a while but the signal-to-noise ratio has gotten so low that
    it's absolutely worthless to keep trying.

    I am sure you won't miss me.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Feb 14, 2010
  10. Bruce

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Peter <> wrote:
    >"Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    >news:4b7730d4$0$1608$...
    >> Peter <> wrote:
    >>>"Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:4b7701ae$0$1601$...
    >>>> Peter <> wrote:
    >>>>>"Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>> I have seen far too many CEO's laying off $60,000/yr workers so that
    >>>>>> they can continue to take home $20,000,000/yr. To think that a
    >>>>>> typical CEO has the interests of employees as a priority is naive.
    >>>>>> If they cared about employees or the company then they'd be getting
    >>>>>> $1,000,000/yr and using the extra money to keep 200 employees
    >>>>>> producing
    >>>>>> products to sell.
    >>>
    >>>How about some examples: You are making accusations of clear violations of
    >>>rhe SEC Regulations.

    >>
    >> What regulations? What violation? It's no violation to lay off
    >> hundreds of people. It's no violation to get $20,000,000/year.
    >>
    >>>>>Your comments make it obvious that you know absolutely nothing about
    >>>>>business. A good CEO holds the interests the company first.
    >>>>
    >>>> LOL! Is that what they tell you?
    >>>
    >>>They? Suggest you get over your bitter pill and learn something about the
    >>>reality of business before you open your mouth.

    >>
    >> Says the rightard who cannot actually refute what I write.
    >>
    >>>>> In a public
    >>>>>company, he is accountable to the board, who represents the interests of
    >>>>>the
    >>>>>owners.
    >>>>
    >>>> ROFL! The board represent the shareholders?!? And you really believe
    >>>> that?
    >>>
    >>>And just how do you think a director becomes a director.

    >>
    >> By being selected by the board.
    >>
    >>> He/she is elected
    >>>by vot of the shareholders.

    >>
    >> You may be that stupid, or not, but don't assume that I am that
    >> stupid. We both know that the vast majority of such elections
    >> are decided when the board recommends someone for the position.
    >>
    >>>> When was the last time a board member got fired by the shareholders?
    >>>> When was the last time shareholders picked a board member? Or CEO?
    >>>>
    >>>Read this and learn.
    >>>http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/04/082704.asp

    >>
    >> You must be pretty stupid. You didn't even notice that that doesn't
    >> answer either of my questions.
    >>
    >>>>> To maintain and grow a healthy company. A good manager recognizes
    >>>>>that the workers are the lifeblood of the company.
    >>>>
    >>>> If any of your beliefs were true then we wouldn't see corporations
    >>>> spending so much to hire and train workers only to fire them a few
    >>>> years later and then repeat the process again.
    >>>
    >>>My statements are based upon personal observation and experience.

    >>
    >> You statements are based on naive worship of corporations.
    >>
    >>>> Sure, there are some good CEOs, but there aren't many.
    >>>
    >>>More than you would admit.

    >>
    >> Less than you would admit.
    >>
    >>> Wow! You certainly are a fountain of
    >>>misinformation.

    >>
    >> I'm not a part of your cult of stupidity. When the incomes of CEOs
    >> explode and the incomes of workers actually fall then it's clear who
    >> is scamming whom.

    >
    >You show the shallowness of your position by resorting to personal attacks.


    You show your dishonesty and cowardice by running away from all of my
    rebuttals above.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 14, 2010
  11. Bruce

    Ray Fischer Guest

    C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >On 2010-02-13 11:46:54 -0800, (Ray Fischer) said:
    >
    >> Peter <> wrote:
    >>> "Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    >>>> Peter <> wrote:
    >>>>> "Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> You know, I don't know where people get this caricature of Bill Gates
    >>>>>>> being a greedy, selfish moneybags.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> To some degree nearly every corporate CEO is a greedy, selfish
    >>>>>> moneybag. It's nearly a job requirement.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You obviously refuse to recognize the responsibility of a CEO, regardless
    >>>>> of
    >>>>> the size of the corporation.
    >>>>
    >>>> Correct.
    >>>>
    >>>>> When you open up in the morning and realize
    >>>>> that x number of people are looking to you for guidance and depend on your
    >>>>> skills to prevent starvation, or to promote a reasonable life style, you
    >>>>> should recognize that you have an awesome responsibility. Sure, some are
    >>>>> greedy turds, but they are in the minority.
    >>>>
    >>>> I have seen far too many CEO's laying off $60,000/yr workers so that
    >>>> they can continue to take home $20,000,000/yr. To think that a
    >>>> typical CEO has the interests of employees as a priority is naive.
    >>>> If they cared about employees or the company then they'd be getting
    >>>> $1,000,000/yr and using the extra money to keep 200 employees producing
    >>>> products to sell.
    >>>
    >>> Your comments make it obvious that you know absolutely nothing about
    >>> business. A good CEO holds the interests the company first.

    >>
    >> LOL! Is that what they tell you?
    >>
    >>> In a public
    >>> company, he is accountable to the board, who represents the interests of the
    >>> owners.

    >>
    >> ROFL! The board represent the shareholders?!? And you really believe that?
    >>
    >> When was the last time a board member got fired by the shareholders?
    >> When was the last time shareholders picked a board member? Or CEO?

    >
    >What are you talking about? Happens all the time. Or do you read the
    >financial pages?


    Then you should be able to provide plenty of examples....

    >>> To maintain and grow a healthy company. A good manager recognizes
    >>> that the workers are the lifeblood of the company.

    >>
    >> If any of your beliefs were true then we wouldn't see corporations
    >> spending so much to hire and train workers only to fire them a few
    >> years later and then repeat the process again.
    >>
    >> Sure, there are some good CEOs, but there aren't many.

    >
    >Sez you.


    Over the past three decades executive income has exploded. The income
    of workers? Nearly stagnant and, in the past decade, the average has
    actually gone down.

    But you're a gullible idiot. You say "thank you" when you're getting
    screwed.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 14, 2010
  12. Bruce

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:12:34 -0800, C J Campbell
    <> wrote:

    >Why do I get the feeling you do not know the difference between a
    >progressive and a regressive tax? These are distinct economic terms
    >that have nothing to do with whether a tax is "good" or "bad;" they
    >just describe the manner of taxation. "Progressive" taxes collect a
    >higher percentage of income as income goes up. "Regressive" taxes
    >collect a higher percentage of income as income goes down. "Neutral"
    >taxes collect the same percentage of income from everybody.


    That last sentence doesn't describe a "neutral tax". It's called a
    "flat tax". (A neutral tax is a tax that doesn't affect decisions in
    expenditures) Flat taxes are regressive unless thresholds or
    exemptions are manipulated like the proposals for the "FairTax" claim
    to do.

    There are only two brackets: regressive or progressive. There's
    nothing in between because, like a perpetual motion machine, no one
    has discovered a taxation system that isn't either regressive or
    progressive.

    >From what I can see here, most of the people arguing about this subject
    >have probably never taken a basic course in economics


    I have. And more.

    >in their entire
    >lives. Either that, or they forgot everything they ever learned.


    I sometimes forget where I put my keys, or why I came into the room,
    but not everything they pushed at me in those oh-so-dry economic
    lectures in undergrad and grad school.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Feb 14, 2010
  13. Bruce

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:13:02 -0800, C J Campbell
    <> wrote:

    >> Well, regardless of what you call it, can you see that replacing the
    >> income tax with a sales tax would be a boon to those of us who invest
    >> most of our incomes, and a blow to those of us who have to spend
    >> everything we make in order to live?

    >
    >I think that is, in essence, what I said.


    But it really isn't a fair assessment of what would happen if the
    "FairTax" was to be implemented. (Which, in my opinion, it never will
    be) The proposal isn't just to switch from the present income tax
    system to a consumption tax. There are other bells and whistles
    involved that do level the playing field.

    To understand it, maybe you should both read the book this gentleman
    is holding:

    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/787863894_7MeCq-XL.jpg

    It just so happens that I went to a Tea Party "Hob Nob and Straw Poll"
    rally today here in Orlando where I took this photo. I went there
    only because I thought it would be a good opportunity to take some
    candid photographs. Since I am not a Conservative, a Republican*, or
    remotely interested in the politics of this group, I spent a lot of
    time shooing away people who wanted me to sign petitions or sport
    their campaign buttons.

    *Technically, I am a Republican. I registered as a Republican in 1959
    and have never changed my registration status. I vote cross-ticket in
    local and state elections and usually on the Democrat side for
    national elections. Being a registered Republican, though, allows me
    to vote in the Republican primary and for the opponent of anyone
    backed by the Christian Coalition or that shows signs of being in the
    Religious Right.

    Gee whiz...photography is actually part of this thread now.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Feb 14, 2010
  14. Bruce

    Ray Fischer Guest

    C J Campbell <> wrote:
    > (Ray Fischer) said:
    >> C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >>> On 2010-02-13 11:46:54 -0800, (Ray Fischer) said:
    >>>>>> I have seen far too many CEO's laying off $60,000/yr workers so that
    >>>>>> they can continue to take home $20,000,000/yr. To think that a
    >>>>>> typical CEO has the interests of employees as a priority is naive.
    >>>>>> If they cared about employees or the company then they'd be getting
    >>>>>> $1,000,000/yr and using the extra money to keep 200 employees producing
    >>>>>> products to sell.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Your comments make it obvious that you know absolutely nothing about
    >>>>> business. A good CEO holds the interests the company first.
    >>>>
    >>>> LOL! Is that what they tell you?
    >>>>
    >>>>> In a public
    >>>>> company, he is accountable to the board, who represents the interests of the
    >>>>> owners.
    >>>>
    >>>> ROFL! The board represent the shareholders?!? And you really believe that?
    >>>>
    >>>> When was the last time a board member got fired by the shareholders?
    >>>> When was the last time shareholders picked a board member? Or CEO?
    >>>
    >>> What are you talking about? Happens all the time. Or do you read the
    >>> financial pages?

    >>
    >> Then you should be able to provide plenty of examples....

    >
    >Probably a little above your head, but try this article about a study
    >of what happens to boards of directors after they fire a CEO.
    >
    >http://knowledge.emory.edu/article.cfm?articleid=347


    It must be far beyond your understaning since not only are there no
    examples of what you claim happens often, it even states that:

    "Typically, shareholders have no direct disciplinary mechanism
    over the board's actions beyond the election of directors,
    which in practice merely implies ratification of an existing slate
    of directors proposed by management or by the board itself through
    a nominating committee of independent directors."

    >Notice that the study examined 144 corporations, of whom 48 had fired CEOs.


    And if you were smart you'd have remembered that you were supposed to
    provide evidence for your claim that board members are fired "all the
    time".

    >Not that I expect any number of examples to change your mind.


    So far you have failed to provide even one example and you cited an
    article which actually supports my claims.

    As I stated before - you're a gullible idiot.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 14, 2010
  15. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Bill Graham" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Peter" <> wrote in message
    > news:4b774ccb$0$18835$-secrets.com...
    >> "Bill Graham" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>
    >>> "Peter" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:4b771f5e$0$22474$-secrets.com...
    >>>> "Bill Graham" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Peter" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:4b77170d$0$21958$-secrets.com...
    >>>>>> "Bill Graham" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Peter" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:4b76b7b2$0$18772$-secrets.com...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> We agree on something. Remember Bill votes his for pocketbook, not
    >>>>>>>> humanity.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Yes.....I am very uncomfortable when politicians have their hands in
    >>>>>>> my pockets........Just because Robin Hood gave money to the poor,
    >>>>>>> that doesn't prevent me from calling him a thief.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Are you saying you receive no benefit from being a member of our
    >>>>>> society?
    >>>>>> Please clarify.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> --
    >>>>>> Peter
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Will do. At 10% government, society is great, At 20% government it's
    >>>>> still not too bad, but a bit less than "great" and at 50% government
    >>>>> it is oppressive, way to socialistic, and a long, long way from being
    >>>>> great. - We passed the 50% mark some time ago, and with Obama/Pelosi,
    >>>>> we are fast heading to 60% and above.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> So you want the benefits without paying for them. I get it, you should
    >>>> only pay for the direct benefits you think you need. Not to help
    >>>> society as a whole.
    >>>>
    >>>> Just start with a few common costs. Since you know how much to spend,
    >>>> why don't you fill in the blanks.
    >>>>
    >>>> Military: = ?
    >>>> Education = ?
    >>>> Domestic security protection = ?
    >>>> Road maintenance = ?
    >>>> Court system = ?
    >>>> Helping our genuinely indigent to survive = ?
    >>>>
    >>>> Come on Billy boy, you have investments. What is the cost of the
    >>>> government helping to maintain the integrity of your money.
    >>>>
    >>>> If you expect the benefits of living in our society without paying for
    >>>> them, you are a worse thief than Robin Hood.
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Peter
    >>>
    >>> Well, the problem (as I see it) seems to be in the definition of,
    >>> "Benefits" If you live in a padded cell, and the government does
    >>> (literally) everything for you, then Peter would say life is perfect,
    >>> and we owe everything to our government. Bill would say we are all
    >>> slaves to our government and they are of no more use to us that any
    >>> slave driver is to his property.
    >>>
    >>> In the above example, I think the government's use should fall somewhere
    >>> less than 20% of our gross effort, and you seem to think that it should
    >>> fall somewhere over 50% of our gross effort.
    >>>
    >>> So, the lines are drawn, and all we have to do is argue over where they
    >>> should be.
    >>>
    >>> My argument for my position on the matter is that the more I do for
    >>> myself, the more freedom I enjoy. You position is the more the
    >>> government does for us, the easier life will be for the most people. I
    >>> don't count living in a padded cell as, "life". I want a little more
    >>> than just breathing. But, to each his own.......

    >>
    >>
    >> You completely avoided the question. What is the basis for your 20%
    >>
    >> How are you going to ensure that you have the right to do more than just
    >> breath.
    >>
    >> Try filling in the blanks and tell me what can be eliminated.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Peter

    > In my estimation almost all of your crap can be eliminated. I can, and do
    > pay for everything but the military that I use. and even that could be
    > privately funded. It costs about 25 cents to make a gallon of
    > gasoline....All the rest is taxes. the $3.00 a gallon I pay is more than
    > enough to keep up the roads. I don't understand why you can't see what is
    > obvious to me....The government is stealing us blind. Why do you think
    > that they can't do what they need to do with 20% of our total work output?
    > Less than 1% of the people on the public dole are too sick or infirm to
    > work. they are 99% hangers on. We live in a welfare state, and it's
    > getting worse every day. Have you read where our money goes? All the
    > useless government funded programs? I can remember Jim Eason reading the
    > list to me over the radio a number of years ago.Where were you? $50,000 to
    > study some frog in the Amazon jungle. (for example) The list was as long
    > as my arm in fine print. It totaled into the Billions. I never voted for
    > any of it....Did you? - Of course not, but it's all OK with you, isn't it?
    > Whatever Nancy Pelosi wants is OK with you. That's because you think that
    > anything our government does has to be "A" OK. I, at least, know when I am
    > being stolen from.
    > The problem between us is a matter of basic beliefs. I am inherently
    > distrustful of other people handling my money, and you are not. I want to
    > do it myself, and you want the government to do it for you. I buy my own
    > food and other goodies, and you are comfortable handing that
    > responsibility over to others. If I wake up broke, it will be my own
    > fault, but you won't have the slightest who did it.
    >
    > Well, we are both going to wake up broke, buddy. Mark my words.......



    Answer my question. I'll get you started. If the State gasoline tax in WA is
    54.4 cents per gallon, how does the transportation infrastructure get paid
    for?

    You say that your medical expenses are covered, how does the hospital to
    which you will go stay in business until you need it. What assurance is
    there that your doctor is properly qualified?

    There must be a magic wand that ensures all these things just happen.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 14, 2010
  16. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Bill Graham" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Peter" <> wrote in message
    > news:4b774ccb$3$18835$-secrets.com...


    >> If the government spending was at the level he claims to want, he will be
    >> very busy: Digging holes to safeguard his money; target practice;
    >> worrying whether his doctor really had a medical license; whether his
    >> grandchildren's teachers were competent to teach; growing his own food
    >> because of worry about adulterating substances; etc.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Peter

    > Funny......I am worried about all of these things right now, in spite of
    > the fact that we are paying over 50% of our incomes in taxes. That's
    > because the government just steals our money and gives us nothing for it.
    > Have you checked out the basket weavers they are graduating from college
    > nowadays? And when was the last time there was a scare about foreign
    > canned goods, or unsafe toys? How many illegal aliens are we supporting
    > nowadays? 20 million? 25 million? good God, man, there are only about 100
    > million heads of households in this country. What, exactly is your
    > government doing with your tax dollars? And they are borrowing trillions
    > from China to cover their expenditures.....Doesn't this bother you at all?
    > Why don't you wake up?


    You don't want to pay for proper inspection, yet you claim to worry about
    them.
    If you are really worried about those things, you would not be against
    government. You would be working towards proper channeling of government
    spending.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 14, 2010
  17. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Bill Graham" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "C J Campbell" <> wrote in
    > message
    > news:2010021317123450073-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
    >> On 2010-02-13 14:51:05 -0800, "Bill Graham" <> said:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Jürgen Exner" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >>>>> On 2010-02-11 23:39:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" <> said:
    >>>>
    >>>> [replying to C J's posting because Bill has been in my killfile for a
    >>>> long time. And obviously for very good reasons, see below]
    >>>>
    >>>>>> "Jürgen Exner" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >>>>>> And wouldn't Bill Gates love a sales tax......
    >>>>
    >>>> He happens to be living in Bellevue, WA, USA, which happens to have
    >>>> about 8% sales tax (plus probably a few percent slapped on by King
    >>>> County and the city of Bellevue).
    >>>>
    >>>>>> He wouldn't spend any
    >>>>>> more than he does now, but his investments would make billions of
    >>>>>> dollars every year, and it would all be tax free., Talk about a
    >>>>>> regressive tax system.....
    >>>>
    >>>> ???
    >>>> What does income tax have to do with the difference between sales tax
    >>>> and VAT? Are you tossing red herrings around again?
    >>>>
    >>>> jue
    >>>
    >>> I am talking about the new "progressive" idea of replacing the income
    >>> tax with a national sales tax. The super rich would make out like
    >>> bandits, since they have the bulk of their money invested, and spend
    >>> only a small fraction of their incomes. But people like me, who are
    >>> retired, and spend everything we get on our living expenses would be
    >>> paying for all the costs of the society.

    >>
    >> Why do I get the feeling you do not know the difference between a
    >> progressive and a regressive tax? These are distinct economic terms that
    >> have nothing to do with whether a tax is "good" or "bad;" they just
    >> describe the manner of taxation. "Progressive" taxes collect a higher
    >> percentage of income as income goes up. "Regressive" taxes collect a
    >> higher percentage of income as income goes down. "Neutral" taxes collect
    >> the same percentage of income from everybody.
    >>
    >> Sales and VAT taxes are called regressive because people with lower
    >> incomes tend to spend a greater percentage of their income than people
    >> with higher incomes who tend to save and invest. Sales and VAT taxes are
    >> ultimately dependent on sales. The poor spend a higher percentage of
    >> their income on sales and VAT taxes than do the rich. For this reason it
    >> is common (but by no means universal) to mitigate the adverse effects of
    >> these taxes on the poor by exempting certain necessities, such as food
    >> and drugs.
    >>
    >> Income taxes are supposed to be either neutral or progressive -- the poor
    >> pay a lower rate than the rich. In practice, however, you cannot make
    >> income taxes too high or the rich will take steps to shield their incomes
    >> from taxation -- as in the extreme example of Sweden. Another extreme
    >> example is the United States, which has one of the highest corporate
    >> income tax rates in the world, resulting in many US corporations to move
    >> as much of their operations as possible to friendlier tax climes. Thus
    >> the rich can afford to escape taxation, leaving the poor to pay taxes. A
    >> nominally progressive tax system turns into a regressive one.
    >>
    >> From what I can see here, most of the people arguing about this subject
    >> have probably never taken a basic course in economics in their entire
    >> lives. Either that, or they forgot everything they ever learned.
    >>

    > Well, regardless of what you call it, can you see that replacing the
    > income tax with a sales tax would be a boon to those of us who invest most
    > of our incomes, and a blow to those of us who have to spend everything we
    > make in order to live?



    So how do you stand on the issue?

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 14, 2010
  18. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:201002132334336853-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > On 2010-02-13 22:51:35 -0800, tony cooper <>
    > said:
    >
    >> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:13:02 -0800, C J Campbell
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Well, regardless of what you call it, can you see that replacing the
    >>>> income tax with a sales tax would be a boon to those of us who invest
    >>>> most of our incomes, and a blow to those of us who have to spend
    >>>> everything we make in order to live?
    >>>
    >>> I think that is, in essence, what I said.

    >>
    >> But it really isn't a fair assessment of what would happen if the
    >> "FairTax" was to be implemented. (Which, in my opinion, it never will
    >> be) The proposal isn't just to switch from the present income tax
    >> system to a consumption tax. There are other bells and whistles
    >> involved that do level the playing field.
    >>
    >> To understand it, maybe you should both read the book this gentleman
    >> is holding:
    >>
    >> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/787863894_7MeCq-XL.jpg
    >>
    >> It just so happens that I went to a Tea Party "Hob Nob and Straw Poll"
    >> rally today here in Orlando where I took this photo. I went there
    >> only because I thought it would be a good opportunity to take some
    >> candid photographs. Since I am not a Conservative, a Republican*, or
    >> remotely interested in the politics of this group, I spent a lot of
    >> time shooing away people who wanted me to sign petitions or sport
    >> their campaign buttons.
    >>
    >> *Technically, I am a Republican. I registered as a Republican in 1959
    >> and have never changed my registration status. I vote cross-ticket in
    >> local and state elections and usually on the Democrat side for
    >> national elections. Being a registered Republican, though, allows me
    >> to vote in the Republican primary and for the opponent of anyone
    >> backed by the Christian Coalition or that shows signs of being in the
    >> Religious Right.
    >>
    >> Gee whiz...photography is actually part of this thread now.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > It seems that book reached its target market.
    >
    >



    Her pocketbook.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 14, 2010
  19. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Walter Banks" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > Bill Graham wrote:
    >
    >> Will do. At 10% government, society is great, At 20% government it's
    >> still
    >> not too bad, but a bit less than "great" and at 50% government it is
    >> oppressive, way to socialistic, and a long, long way from being great. -
    >> We
    >> passed the 50% mark some time ago, and with Obama/Pelosi, we are fast
    >> heading to 60% and above.

    >
    > The current US government spends about 20% of GDP. By your account
    > not too bad, but a bit less than "great" .
    >
    > http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb/financial/reports/citizens_guide.pdf
    >



    I was gong to say you spoiled my fun, but then realized that report is 3
    years old. Before the Bush off budget expenditures were recorded.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 14, 2010
  20. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Bill Graham" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Peter" <> wrote in message
    > news:4b7843d2$0$20538$-secrets.com...
    >> "Bill Graham" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>
    >>> "Peter" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:4b774ccb$0$18835$-secrets.com...
    >>>> "Bill Graham" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Peter" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:4b771f5e$0$22474$-secrets.com...
    >>>>>> "Bill Graham" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Peter" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:4b77170d$0$21958$-secrets.com...
    >>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> "Peter" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>> news:4b76b7b2$0$18772$-secrets.com...
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> We agree on something. Remember Bill votes his for pocketbook,
    >>>>>>>>>> not humanity.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Yes.....I am very uncomfortable when politicians have their hands
    >>>>>>>>> in my pockets........Just because Robin Hood gave money to the
    >>>>>>>>> poor, that doesn't prevent me from calling him a thief.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Are you saying you receive no benefit from being a member of our
    >>>>>>>> society?
    >>>>>>>> Please clarify.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> --
    >>>>>>>> Peter
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Will do. At 10% government, society is great, At 20% government it's
    >>>>>>> still not too bad, but a bit less than "great" and at 50% government
    >>>>>>> it is oppressive, way to socialistic, and a long, long way from
    >>>>>>> being great. - We passed the 50% mark some time ago, and with
    >>>>>>> Obama/Pelosi, we are fast heading to 60% and above.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> So you want the benefits without paying for them. I get it, you
    >>>>>> should only pay for the direct benefits you think you need. Not to
    >>>>>> help society as a whole.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Just start with a few common costs. Since you know how much to spend,
    >>>>>> why don't you fill in the blanks.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Military: = ?
    >>>>>> Education = ?
    >>>>>> Domestic security protection = ?
    >>>>>> Road maintenance = ?
    >>>>>> Court system = ?
    >>>>>> Helping our genuinely indigent to survive = ?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Come on Billy boy, you have investments. What is the cost of the
    >>>>>> government helping to maintain the integrity of your money.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> If you expect the benefits of living in our society without paying
    >>>>>> for them, you are a worse thief than Robin Hood.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> --
    >>>>>> Peter
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Well, the problem (as I see it) seems to be in the definition of,
    >>>>> "Benefits" If you live in a padded cell, and the government does
    >>>>> (literally) everything for you, then Peter would say life is perfect,
    >>>>> and we owe everything to our government. Bill would say we are all
    >>>>> slaves to our government and they are of no more use to us that any
    >>>>> slave driver is to his property.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> In the above example, I think the government's use should fall
    >>>>> somewhere less than 20% of our gross effort, and you seem to think
    >>>>> that it should fall somewhere over 50% of our gross effort.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So, the lines are drawn, and all we have to do is argue over where
    >>>>> they should be.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> My argument for my position on the matter is that the more I do for
    >>>>> myself, the more freedom I enjoy. You position is the more the
    >>>>> government does for us, the easier life will be for the most people. I
    >>>>> don't count living in a padded cell as, "life". I want a little more
    >>>>> than just breathing. But, to each his own.......
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> You completely avoided the question. What is the basis for your 20%
    >>>>
    >>>> How are you going to ensure that you have the right to do more than
    >>>> just breath.
    >>>>
    >>>> Try filling in the blanks and tell me what can be eliminated.
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Peter
    >>> In my estimation almost all of your crap can be eliminated. I can, and
    >>> do pay for everything but the military that I use. and even that could
    >>> be privately funded. It costs about 25 cents to make a gallon of
    >>> gasoline....All the rest is taxes. the $3.00 a gallon I pay is more than
    >>> enough to keep up the roads. I don't understand why you can't see what
    >>> is obvious to me....The government is stealing us blind. Why do you
    >>> think that they can't do what they need to do with 20% of our total work
    >>> output? Less than 1% of the people on the public dole are too sick or
    >>> infirm to work. they are 99% hangers on. We live in a welfare state, and
    >>> it's getting worse every day. Have you read where our money goes? All
    >>> the useless government funded programs? I can remember Jim Eason reading
    >>> the list to me over the radio a number of years ago.Where were you?
    >>> $50,000 to study some frog in the Amazon jungle. (for example) The list
    >>> was as long as my arm in fine print. It totaled into the Billions. I
    >>> never voted for any of it....Did you? - Of course not, but it's all OK
    >>> with you, isn't it? Whatever Nancy Pelosi wants is OK with you. That's
    >>> because you think that anything our government does has to be "A" OK. I,
    >>> at least, know when I am being stolen from.
    >>> The problem between us is a matter of basic beliefs. I am inherently
    >>> distrustful of other people handling my money, and you are not. I want
    >>> to do it myself, and you want the government to do it for you. I buy my
    >>> own food and other goodies, and you are comfortable handing that
    >>> responsibility over to others. If I wake up broke, it will be my own
    >>> fault, but you won't have the slightest who did it.
    >>>
    >>> Well, we are both going to wake up broke, buddy. Mark my words.......

    >>
    >>
    >> Answer my question. I'll get you started. If the State gasoline tax in WA
    >> is 54.4 cents per gallon, how does the transportation infrastructure get
    >> paid for?
    >>
    >> You say that your medical expenses are covered, how does the hospital to
    >> which you will go stay in business until you need it. What assurance is
    >> there that your doctor is properly qualified?
    >>
    >> There must be a magic wand that ensures all these things just happen.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Peter

    >
    > Have you been in a hospital recently? - Well, I have. The waiting room was
    > jammed with people. Why? not because they were sick, but because the
    > government was paying their way, so it was free. I was paying my own way,
    > and I was actually sick, or I wouldn't have been there. They tried to keep
    > me there indefinitely, but I refused any more treatment after about a
    > week, and got dressed and left.


    So all the people in the hospital waiting room were there for pleasure. It
    certainly is a liberal left wing thing to play in the ER. You know for a
    fact they were not sick. Yep. How about they were there because they needed
    some type of treatment, but couldn't afford a private doctor visit.

    >
    > I'm not sure just where the money comes from that pays for our roads and
    > bridges....I know the feds pay us for some of it, and the rest probably
    > comes out of a general fund somewhere. I would like to think that the
    > gasoline taxes pay for it, but that would be asking way too much. (to
    > think that the government actually keeps the funds separate and uses the
    > right source money to pay for the right things) After all, the government
    > doesn't even invest our retirement money, but actually puts it in a
    > general fund and spends it, and Ponsi's the money they pay us when we
    > retire...... Bush wanted them to invest it in American business, but he
    > was soundly shouted down by the Democrats......


    That's the most accurate statement you have made. You really don't know.
    Since you really don't know, your continued pontifications = bluster or
    agenda.

    I am not sure you really don't know. I wonder if you are just trying to find
    an excuse not to pay services you use.


    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 14, 2010
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. wayne
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,041
    wayne
    Jan 25, 2006
  2. Bruce
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    599
    Böwser
    Sep 23, 2008
  3. Bruce
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,293
    Böwser
    Sep 23, 2008
  4. Guest
    Replies:
    51
    Views:
    1,367
    David J Taylor
    Mar 10, 2005
  5. Rob
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    336
    MInister of Information
    Sep 26, 2006
Loading...