Re: Bush planning nuke attack on Iran?

Richard Morris wrote:

If you do not understand the connection between government policy and
practice and the economy with respect to how it impacts business and labor,
then perhaps you should take a course in basic economics. It is nice that
you are doing well. Certainly individual initiative is the major factor in
it ... but I think that you may be the exception rather than the rule, and
the Federal deficit is going to create major problems for us in the future.

I have taken advanced courses in economics. And, other than taxation policy (and, perhaps, some forms of regulation), the government has relatively minimal control/impact on an individual's ability to earn a living (or the limitations to their individual opportunities).

And somehow I knew that you would point to us as the "exception to the rule." When, in reality, we are not. We have worked very hard to *earn* what we have achieved.

I must say that I am not clear that everything adds up in your case, however. You bought your first house five years ago and are considering purchasing a second house ... you drive a relatively expensive car ... you pay for your own health insurance plan and invest in your own retirment system. You say you have two incomes ... but it is not clear to me how your wife has managed two maternity leaves in the past six years, with a third pregnancy, and has been recently promoted. You will excuse me if all of this sounds just a bit too good to be true. If it is true, then I would suggest that you are extremely fortunate to be in the income bracket that you are in. A little investigation on your part will show that probably 99 percent plus of working people don't achieve those earnings. And no, don't give me the line about how they just need to work harder, etc. etc. There isn't room for everyone at the top.

So, are you accusing me of lying again? Or do I have to show you our W-2's and bank accounts to prove it? (btw, I never said that I pay for our health insurance....our employers make good contributions towards it.

My wife works very hard, and works for a good company. Funny, if you were her boss and took into account the number of maternity leaves that she has taken in six years when deciding whether or not she had earned a promotion, you would be discriminating against her. Do you manage any people? If so, do you maintain such discriminatory prejudices against the women you manage?

And I really love it how you seem to think that I am so "fortunate" as though we somehow won the lottery of life and we had no impact on the outcome. I guess you've answered the question about whether or not we deserve any of the credit for our success.

And, while I realize that there may not be "room for everyone at the top", I also do not think that I am anywhere near the top. You have made several sweeping generalizations about me in that paragraph above, and you have somehow concluded that I am among the top 1%? Get a grip.

Yes, I do. In fact, I feel safer than I would if Gore or Kerry had won
> either of the most recent Presidential elections.

And can you point to the evidence that shows that you *are* safer, and
that DHS and FEMA are on top of their ***?


Yes. The evidence is in the fact that no other attack has occurred since 9/11. Can you point to evidence that I am *not* safer?

Why is bin Laden still at large?
>
> Because we haven't found him yet [duh]. We have, however, found,
> captured, or killed many of his associates.

I judge the quality of someone's work by the results that they achieve. How
do you judge?

I guess you choose to ignore the "results" I just cited. Was al Qaeda made up of just one man? No. It was/is a "vast network" of terrorists. Therefore, while bin Laden would certainly be a very desirable capture, he is not the only person we've been hunting for.

I really like your use of the word "threaten". You say it as though the
> program's existence were somehow guaranteed to today's young workers.

It is.

> I've got news for you....it's not. It's basically a Ponzi scheme. Social
> Security is even less viable for today's workers *without* the changes
> that Bush (and, prior to 2004, many Democrats) was proposing.

Sorry. That is simply not true. More right wing propoganda.


Oh, so was it "right wing propaganda" when Bob Kerrey, John Breaux, Sam Nunn, Charles Robb, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, *** Gephardt, Barbara Boxer, Charles Stenholm, Allen Boyd, Gene Sperling, and other prominent Democrats indicated that Social Security was in desperate need of reform and could be insolvent by 2032? They're not exactly members of the "Vast Right Wing." What was their slogan in 1996? "Save Social Security first!"

Okay. Let's see what happens when the number of retirees triples in the next twenty years and the ration of workers to employees drops by 30%.

But tell me why so many people can't afford it?

Because they work for companies that either a) do not provide it or b) do not make a substantial contribution towards it. Do you know *why* health insurance has become so expensive in recent years?

I support measures like the one recently passed in Mass. What do you think about it? What do you know about it?

If you want to get into a debate about the problems with health insurance, I say bring it on. My business is helping small business provide cost-effective programs and alternatives to their employees and I talk about it every day. I *guarantee* you that I know much more about it than you ever will.

The research done at the time of the proposed legislation indicated that a significant percentage of bankruptcies were brought about by catastrophic health problems.

Show me the numbers.

Ah, another satisfied Walmart shopper.

Actually, I rarely shop there. Prices of consumer goods have dropped at many stores, not just WalMart. Besides, what does the retail store have to do with the equation? Their margins are not substantial enough to allow them to substantially impact prices overall. So, why bring up WalMart? Let me guess: you don't like them and want to disparage them.

Most young families can't any more. Single people certainly cannot.

That's simply not true. Home ownership is at record levels. And 2002-2005 set records for first time home-buyers.

to see elected representatives sell their votes to protect special
interests and to line their own pockets is the ultimate betrayal of the public trust. On the other hand, you don't seem to think it is
much of a problem.

You're putting words in my mouth. I just do not think it is as prevalant as you seem to. I think it's just a few bad apples. I do not excuse them (whether they be Republican or Democrat), nor do I think that they should escape punishment. But death? I'll be you don't even support the death penalty for convicted *murderers*!


I can go on ...
I'm sure you could. You've got lots to complain about and it seems
everything someone else's fault.

Actually, it is your fault, and people like you.

End of discussion. You're unreasonable.

And the funniest thing about your blaming me, "and people like [me]", is that you deliberately avoided (and even edited out) this statement:

"if you're really "barely managing to hold your own", then perhaps you might consider not wasting time posting to a newsgroup dedicated to a defunct band and get another job (assuming you have one). Life is full of choices. That's the beauty of a free society, isn't it?"

I guess that's my fault, too.....after all, I won life's lottery, right?

I am curious just exactly what brought you to rec.music.gdead.

Just a different point of view. But those are not tolerated here.

I'll keep better lock-step with acceptable points of view in the future.
.