Re: Bush planning nuke attack on Iran?


"JB" <JayBeeee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:xfadneTVebg9TKLZnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
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).

Heh. Let's see ... the Federal Reserve ... control of the money supply ...
government spending ... these things have great impact on the economy, and
that, in turn, has impact on employment statistics, wages, and expansion of
the economy. You should know that.

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 have not questioned whether or not you have earned anything. You can earn
what you have, and still be very fortunate to have it. Sounds to me like
you have some kind of sense of entitlement. There are many, many people who
probably work harder than you who are not doing as well. So don't be afraid
to be grateful for what you have, rather than carry the attitude that it is
somehow owed to you.

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.

I am not interested in your personal data. I am simply saying that if your
life scenario is as you state it ... and I have no particular reason to
assume that you are truthful given the way you act around here, then you are
doing very well indeed.

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?

It is not the number of maternity leaves ... it is simply that if you are
not at work, it is hard to produce the kind of output necessary for
promotion. But then it sounds like you folks are the sort who take the very
least amount of time allotted, and then park your kids in day care so that
you can go out and chase down the American dream, as you perceive it.

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.

Since you talk about going to church, let me put it in a vocabulary that
(perhaps) you will understand: Never forget to be grateful for what God has
done for you. Count your blessings. And remember there are those out there
who are less fortunate than you are. You folks discuss those concepts in
your church?

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.

Top 5% is 130K or higher. To be able to afford two homes, probably two cars
(at least one of them pricey) and have time for the wife to be off work with
the kids tells me you are likely doing better than that. At least that
would be the case out here, where houses go for $300K.


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?

Katrina. Increases in acts of terrorism world wide following the invasion
of Iraq. Studies of port safety.

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!"

Do you not see a difference between "save" and "abolish" Bush's slogan is,
"let's abolish social security in favor of individual savings accounts".
For the record, I don't qualify for social security and never will, so it is
not a personal issue with me--just a matter of honesty in motive.

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%.

It is rather simple ... you don't "borrow" from the fund ... payback what
has been taken from it ... and adjust either the pay in or the pay out. A
person with your education in economics ought to be able to work that out on
your own.

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?

That is called, "begging the question".


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

Why doesn't your hero in Washington exercise some leadership with regard to
the health care issue, then?

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.

Now we understand your support for mandatory programs. It aint about
compassion, and the sense that health services should be available to all
.... it is about your pocketbook.

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.

I thought you were the big expert in all of this stuff. Okay, here you go
....

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1

"In 2001, 1.458 million American families filed for bankruptcy. To
investigate medical contributors to bankruptcy, we surveyed 1,771 personal
bankruptcy filers in five federal courts and subsequently completed in-depth
interviews with 931 of them. About half cited medical causes, which
indicates that 1.9-2.2 million Americans (filers plus dependents)
experienced medical bankruptcy. Among those whose illnesses led to
bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness;
75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness. Medical debtors were 42
percent more likely than other debtors to experience lapses in coverage.
Even middle-class insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe
when sick."

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.

Once again, begs the question. Are those record home owners young families?
Single people?

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.

Yes ... like the (former) leadership of the House of Representatives.

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*!

That is called, "circumlocution".

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.

Sorry that you think so.

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 spoke collectively ... but of course you edited that to change it slightly
to imply that it was about me. Most people are just kind of hanging in
there ... actually, in my case my income was down by about $3,500 over the
previous year last year. Still, Mr. Success In Life, despite the fact that
the annual income of my wife and I is probably higher than yours, I have
great concern for my retired parents, and the parents of others, who worked
their asses off all their lives but who now need to be subsidized by their
children in order to be comfortable. They are one serious illness away from
insolvency. I have great concern for my children, and the children of
others, who are starting out in life. One of mine works very hard at what
he does, but currently cannot afford a home. I have great concern for
students who are graduating from college already in debt. The average
college debt is now $17,000. I was able to work my way through college. My
daughter will graduate debt free in June, because her parents were fortunate
to be able to come up with the $110,000 needed to help her get a degree. How
many people can do that?

See, Mr. I Earned It All by Myself ... I will match you paychecks and
assets. And you can take your sense of entitlement and stick it up your
ass. Go to the dictionary and look up, "empathy". See if you can find a
little. Your religion asks it of you.

And by the way, how I choose to spend my leisure time is, quite frankly,
none of your fucking business.

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

If you did, it was the "who can be incredibly self-centered and egocentric"
lottery.

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

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

Yeah? Well I come here because I like the music.

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

I doubt it. Do what you want to do ... just don't whine to me when karma
exacts it toll.

No need to respond unless you want to. I am done with this "conversation".
R.


.