![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#261
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
So better minds than ours have hashed this issue out long ago, and
come to the conclusion that SSI was a beneficial plan in the '30s, and I don't see how the situation has fundamentally changed from that time. The population distribution has changed, and the number of entitled people has changed. Jose -- Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#262
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 03:06:08 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in et: FDR was wrong. Oh, that completely explains it then. Thanks to your comment, I understand the issue much more fully now. How silly of me to respect the judgment of only U.S. president to have been elected to more than two terms by our nation's people, guided our nation through recovery from the Great Depression, and through World War II. Your opinion clearly trumps FDR's. I forgot how omnipotent ATC controllers are. Sorry. :-( |
#263
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote: The Federal government is not the only possible provider for senior citizens (notice I didn't say the Feds were a solution). The federal government is the only entity that is not subject to Enronization of workers retirement funds. Or do you know of others? 1) Your faith in the federal government is not justified. There is nothing that absolutely guarentees that the Feds won't stop social security (after all, social security is not a constitutional requirement of the federal government). 2) Protection from "Enronization" is a requirement? what would constitute such protection? Do you (Larry) really think that only Social Security prevents the streets from being awash in homeless retirees? I believe that most workers are too shortsighted to provide for their old age themselves. I have no source to support that, but I have lived long enough to understand human behavior a bit. You didn't answer the question. Do you believe that ONLY social security prevent the streets from being awash in homeless retirees? Maybe families should care for each other. nah, that couldn't possibly work. And what do you propose for those without families, or whose families are unable to afford supporting older workers? Charities (which are NOT subject to the bureaucratic nonsense of DC). I, for one, would have more money to give to charities, if my tax burden was lower. Neighbors (haven't you ever seen people helping people?) That's not the way FDR saw it. so what? So better minds than ours have hashed this issue out long ago, and come to the conclusion that SSI was a beneficial plan in the '30s, hmmm, "beneficial" to who? Are you seriously suggesting that everything decided 70 years ago can't be reevaluated in the context of today's needs and abilities? and I don't see how the situation has fundamentally changed from that time. "I don't see how the situation..." no kidding that you don't see it. -- Bob Noel (goodness, please trim replies!!!) |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
How silly of me to respect the judgment of only U.S. president to have
been elected to more than two terms by our nation's people, Bush was wrong too, and he was re-elected by the American People. Jose -- Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:30:29 -0400, Bob Noel wrote in : In article , Larry Dighera wrote: Wouldn't you characterize streets awash in homeless retirees a burden on society? it's not an either-or situation... What is your rationale for that statement? The Federal government is not the only possible provider for senior citizens (notice I didn't say the Feds were a solution). The federal government is the only entity that is not subject to Enronization of workers retirement funds. Or do you know of others? Your right, if people make stupid choices in their selections of retirement funds they can get hurt. Putting all your money into a single company is a bad idea but it's your choice as opposed to SS where your still putting your money into a single company ( US GOV ) but you have to hope it's going to be ok. From what I know, none of the Enron employees lost their retirement money if it was not in Enron stock. Do you (Larry) really think that only Social Security prevents the streets from being awash in homeless retirees? I believe that most workers are too shortsighted to provide for their old age themselves. I have no source to support that, but I have lived long enough to understand human behavior a bit. Maybe families should care for each other. nah, that couldn't possibly work. And what do you propose for those without families, or whose families are unable to afford supporting older workers? That's not the way FDR saw it. so what? So better minds than ours have hashed this issue out long ago, and come to the conclusion that SSI was a beneficial plan in the '30s, and I don't see how the situation has fundamentally changed from that time. |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jose writes:
Bush was wrong too, and he was re-elected by the American People. Unfortunately, in a democracy, there is no requirement that the voters be right. In fact, very often there are no competency requirements at all, although age and (sometimes) gender restrictions are common enough (and ironically these often have nothing to do with competence). -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#267
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:42:54 GMT, Jose
wrote in : How silly of me to respect the judgment of the only U.S. president to have been elected to more than two terms by our nation's people, Bush was wrong too, and he was re-elected by the American People. Bush wasn't wrong; he was deceitful. Bush administration former CIA director George Tenet claims, that: http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60mi...main3415.shtml In the midst of the al Qaeda threat, Tenet says he was astonished and mystified when the White House turned its aim to Iraq. The truth of Iraq begins, according to Tenet, the day after the attack of Sept. 11, when he ran into Pentagon advisor Richard Perle at the White House. "He said to me, 'Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday, they bear responsibility.' It’s September the 12th. I’ve got the manifest with me that tell me al Qaeda did this. Nothing in my head that says there is any Iraqi involvement in this in any way shape or form and I remember thinking to myself, as I'm about to go brief the president, 'What the hell is he talking about?'" Tenet remembers. "You said Iraq made no sense to you in that moment. Does it make any sense to you today?" Pelley asks. "In terms of complicity with 9/11, absolutely none," Tenet says. "It never made any sense. We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America. Period." "The president, in October of 2002, quote: 'We need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work.' Is that what you're telling the president?" Pelley asks. "Well, we didn't believe al Qaeda was gonna do Saddam Hussein's dirty work," Tenet says. "January '03, the president again, [said] quote: 'Imagine those 19 hijackers this time armed by Saddam Hussein.' Is that what you're telling the president?" Pelley asks. "No," Tenet says. The vice president upped the ante, claiming Saddam had nuclear weapons, when the CIA was saying he didn’t. "What's happening here?" Pelley asks. "Well, I don't know what's happening here," Tenet says. "The intelligence community's judgment is 'He will not have a nuclear weapon until the year 2007, 2009.'" "That's not what the vice president's saying," Pelley remarks. "Well, I can't explain it," Tenet says. Tenet says he sometimes warned the White House its statements were false, but he admits that he missed a big one in the 2003 State of the Union address, when the president said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Further, Bush was not re-elected; he was declared the winner of the election by the Judicial branch of government. Bush is the only US president that wasn't elected. (A few months before the election, his brother, the governor of Florida, employed a private firm to expunge that state's voter rolls of felons. When asked to provide evidence to support the selection of those expunged voters, that firm didn't, and it subsequently came to light that less than 5% of those voters removed from Bush's brothers state voting rolls had actually committed any crime, but they were 95% registered Democrats. At least that's what was purported in the video Orwell Rolls In His Grave available he http://www.freespeech.org/fscm2/contentviewer.php?content_id=1166) Unfortunately, Bush was able to mask his lies from the American electorate until after being declared president. FDR served four consecutive four-year terms. If he'd been caught lying, that wouldn't have occurred. To compare that duplicitous recovering alcoholic from Midland, Texas with FDR is an affront to thinking people everywhere. Brash humorist Bill Maher had this to say about our Commander And Chief on the February 27, 2007 Tonight Show hosted by Jay Leno: This man. I mean, come on. Let's get real... The science is in on this question... The people who were defending him were saying he was just inarticulate, but 'inarticulate' doesn't explain foreign policy. I mean, it's not that complicated. The man is a rube. He is a dolt. He is a yokel on the world stage, a Gilligan who cannot find his ass with two hands. He is a vain halfwit, who interrupts one incoherent sentence with another incoherent sentence. I hope I'm not piling on... I'm just saying... Here's George Bush, the 'decider, deciding all on his own, that this is a good idea. This was not a recommendation from our commanders on the ground. This was not a recommendation from the Iraq Study Group, as you know. It's not supported by the American people. It's not supported by the Iraqi people. It's just President Charles-in-Charge, spitballin', thinkin' outside the bun, and saying to himself, "Everybody else is wrong. I alone know what the right answer is. I got everybody else's recommendations. I, you know, I talk to the Big Guy, so I know..." And even the Pope said he was wrong... This recovering alcoholic from Midland, Texas, he cannot be wrong, at any point. Bush is so bad, that: http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,...613120,00.html Friday, Apr. 20, 2007 Vermont Senate: Impeach Bush By AP/ ROSS SNEYD (MONTPELIER, Vt.) — Vermont senators voted Friday to call for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, saying their actions have raised "serious questions of constitutionality." The non-binding resolution was approved 16-9 without debate — all six Republicans in the chamber at the time and three Democrats voted against it. The resolution says Bush and Cheney's actions in the U.S. and abroad, including in Iraq, "raise serious questions of constitutionality, statutory legality, and abuse of the public trust." "I think it's going to have a tremendous political effect, a tremendous political effect on public discourse about what to do about this president," said James Leas, a vocal advocate of withdrawing troops from Iraq and impeaching Bush and Cheney. ... More than three dozen towns voted in favor of similar nonbinding impeachment resolutions at their annual town meetings in March. State lawmakers in Wisconsin and Washington have pushed for similar resolutions. And it's gathering momentum. Ohio Congressman Rep. Dennis Kucinich filed articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday April 24, 2007. |
#268
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... Jose writes: Bush was wrong too, and he was re-elected by the American People. Unfortunately, in a democracy, there is no requirement that the voters be right. In fact, very often there are no competency requirements at all, although age and (sometimes) gender restrictions are common enough (and ironically these often have nothing to do with competence). Typical Mx conclusion. If someone doesn't agree with you, their incompetent. |
#269
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:06:06 GMT, Jose
wrote in : That is my point. Today's Capitalism demands that producers meet the lowest price in the marketplace, or face insolvency. That means that if one producer is willing to reduce the cost of production through unethical or immoral means, all the other producers are FORCED to do the same or go broke. The cost-cutting efficiency of Capitalism is commendable, but Capitalism's continual dive to the bottom begins to cause problems after a certain point. That issue should be addressed. Surely, even you can see the truth in what I'm saying. Hmmm. In light of a prevous post about arbitrary groupings, I find what you say interesting. Groupings? Are you referring to the report about living organisms' innate discrimination against members of groups other than their own? What is the difference between outsourcing from California to Nevada, and outsourcing from California to Korea? I would assume that there is a difference in labor pay rates between those that prevail in California and Korea, as well as a difference in working conditions and benefits. There is likely a difference in the environmental standards between the US and second or third world countries also. Due to these differences a producer might reduce his production costs (at the expense of the other factors I mentioned, and US jobs), and that might enable him to undersell his competition (for awhile until they start doing the same). At that point, there is little ethical means available to reduce production costs further, so if a producer desires to do so he must pursue even less attractive (from the standpoint of exploitation and environmental impact) labor, or compete on the basis of something other than price, or resort to unethical practices. But during the period that his prices in the marketplace are below his competition's, he has the potential to reap significant revenue. It is this desperate drive to the bottom that unrestrained capitalism imposes to which I object. Fair completion based on innovation and creativity is far preferable to exploitation, and it is that which should be rewarded instead of rewarding the exporting US jobs to foreign countries, IMO. I for one, would be willing to pay a little more for goods produced in the USA, wouldn't you? No. I'd pay more for higher quality (where quality matters). And I believe your attitude is representative of the majority of consumers. But things are changing, and hopefully a future, more patriotic, humane, and environmentally conscience class of consumers can find products on the market that meet their expectations in other areas beside price. Higher quality is often foreign. It depends on the product. Who is currently making a better product than Boeing? The problem with US goods is that they are more often than not assembled from foreign made goods, so it's difficult to assess the true quality of US goods. Higher quality per dollar is also often foreign. That is probably true, but it is also probably because the working conditions, worker skill level and wage, and environmental impact are significantly different from those in the US. |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:00:46 +0200, Martin Hotze
wrote in : On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:10:07 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote: That is my point. Today's Capitalism demands that producers meet the lowest price in the marketplace, or face insolvency. And that, my friend, is exactly how it is supposed to work. MArxism see things totally differently... the way you do in fact. Unfortunately, you seem to be unable to understand my point of view at all. I don't know how to make it any clearer for you. Larry, what you try to explain is a system that some countries in Middle Europe tried and still try. It is called something like social free-market economy (it might got lost in translation). Thank you for your input. Unfortunately, I seem to not have made myself clear at all. I'm describing the shortcomings of pure capitalism. I'm not advocating any particular system or remedy. I'm just interested in discovering how those shortcomings a of capitalistic system I mentioned might be mitigated, so that ALL benefit, producers and consumers alike. After all, producers are victims of ever decreasing prices just as consumers are victims of the loss of US jobs. As it is, the producer who is able to offer a product at the lowest prices in the marketplace, regardless of the consequences to society and the environment as a result of the methods used to achieve that price reduction, effectively dictates the quality and ethics for ALL producers of that product if they want to remain solvent. Free market and capitalism at every price is not always the best way to go. I have no problem with free-market capitalism if it doesn't drive better and more responsibly produced products from the marketplace and export US jobs to other countries. As you stated, in some cases it might make sense to buy local (for different reasons: to save jobs and generate money locally, to cut transportation, to cut down emission on transport, ...). Some people go directly to the farmer and buy their products off the farm at higher prices than the 'same' product would cost in the supermarket. There are different reasons for doing so. Yes. Recently consumers have begun so have the choice of buying the at the lowest price, or buying the best or most responsibly produced product. I would like to find a way to reward those producers who want to produce quality, responsibly produced goods made with US labor, so that impact of their reduced market share is mitigated. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA: pilot and globe trotter with a story to tell? | wcmoore | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | February 16th 05 10:53 PM |
Story from an older pilot 74 | Hankal | Owning | 17 | November 4th 04 04:26 AM |
Story of an older pilot 74 | Hankal | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | November 3rd 04 03:52 AM |
Start of the Decline of Al Qaeda?? | Denyav | Military Aviation | 5 | May 8th 04 06:45 PM |
Soaring's decline SSA club poll | Craig Freeman | Soaring | 4 | May 4th 04 01:07 PM |