Re: Bush planning nuke attack on Iran?

Richard Morris wrote:
"JB" <JayBeeee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
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.

Of course I do but, since unemployment is so low right now, is that due more to the actions of the free market, or due to government spending?

[Remember, supply (workers) is balanced by demand (wages).]

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 love the assumptions you make, and the conclusions you leap to.

First of all, you have no idea how many hours per week I work, how hard I work, or how many jobs I currently hold. And you assume that "many, many people probably work harder than [I]". What an arrogant thing to say, considering how little you know about me. And third, when I extol the virtues and rewards of hard work, you somehow interpret that I am not grateful for what I have, and that I feel a sense of entitlement? Lastly, how am I not "entitled" to what I have earned? "Sense of entitlement" implies that I expect things to be given to me, or that I should not have to put forth much effort. What leads you to that conclusion? You, sir, have a very twisted way of viewing the world, and a profound disposition towards prejudging people based on pretty limited information.

The amusing part of this is that I used to think like you do: that wealthy, successful people either inherited their money, they got easy breaks in life, and that they didn't work as hard as I did (and certainly not as hard as the poor sap who is cleaning their gutters). That all changed when I took responsibility for myself and my family's well being, stopped blaming everyone else for my status in life, and sought ways to improve my condition. But, it didn't end there. It took (and continues to take) a tremendous amount of hard work. Sometimes working more than one job, taking classes at night, going without sleep to balance work, life, and school. Sometimes, we ate Ramen noodles for a few weeks because we had too much month left for our money. And, finally, it's starting to pay off. But, according to you, I am not grateful. How you come to that conclusion is beyond me but, hey, knock yourself out.

Actually, I pity you. It's a shame that you can't simply acknowledge someones' accomplishments but, instead, must make accusations that they don't deserve it, that they feel somehow entitled to it, or that they're not grateful. And you blame other people for your condition and status in life, rather than realizing your role in your life and celebrating the empowerment of personal accomplishment.

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,

Is that supposed to be a more polite way to call me a liar? Well, if so, then given the way you've acted towards me, then I should point out that all the feces that passes by you with each movement must really make you thankful for olfactory fatigue.

then you are doing very well indeed.

You asked how I was better off than I was in 2000, didn't you? I merely answered the question. You then implied that "it didn't add up."

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.

Your implication was that "it wasn't clear to [you] how [my] wife has managed two maternity leaves in the past six years, with a third pregnancy, and has recently been promoted." The interesting things is that her recent promotion is the second one she has received in the past four years, so she is either lucky or she has worked very hard. I'm here to tell you that it was the result of hard work. Do you really think that she would have received those two promotions had she not earned them?

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.

I also love how you *assume* that we "park [our] kids in day care". You have no idea who watches our kids when or where, or how we juggle our schedules to take care of them.

You also assume that "[we] folks are the sort who take the least amount of time allotted". That's rich! Especially since you know practically nothing about what we do for our living, the number of hours we work, the *actual* hours we work (hell, I probably get ~3-4 hours of work done each night after putting my kids to bed), or where we do our work.

But you keep making your assumptions/judgments.

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?

We count our blessings every night when we sit down to eat dinner as a family and before we go to bed. Do you heed your own advice? And, while I consider it to be valuable advice, I am somewhat shocked to see you extolling the virtue of prayer. In fact, I've seen you be pretty harsh towards people who express their faith in this forum, and you seem to have a pretty demeaning attitude towards religion in general, so you don't strike me as the praying type.

Even more amusing is the fact that I specifically mentioned giving to charity as one of the ways that my life has gotten better since 2000, yet you somehow feel the need to remind me that there are people less fortunate than me. Believe me, I am well aware of that and I do what I can to not only "remember" them, but to actually give them some help.

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.

You didn't say 95%, though, did you? You said that I am better off than *99%* of the rest of the population. There are *huge* differences between those income levels, aren't there?

But, you keep making your assumptions/judgments.


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.

Wow. FEMA could have prevented Katrina? Do tell.....


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.

Funny, you ignore the fact that many Democrats have previously asserted the need to make changes to the program and still stick by your claim that it is all "right wing propaganda." And, since Bush never said "let's abolish Social Security", you're also making things up.

Why don't you qualify for Social Security? Don't you work? Don't you pay the taxes? Do you enjoy the benefits of a private trust fund? I don't want to make any assumptions/judgments, but I'm curious.


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.

In other words, you think that we need to either raise the Social Security tax or cut benefits. At least you're being forthright and you don't think that the system can continue without modifications. However, it's very telling that you recommend an increase in a tax that you must not paying (since anyone who pays FICA taxes for at least 40 non-consecutive quarters is qualified), and cuts to benefits you will never receive. Interesting, indeed.

I just favor a different alternative. Simple as that.


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".

And that is called "being evasive" and "not answering 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?

He has. How much/little do you know about Health Savings Accounts?

Do tell. Because I think it's the most innovative solution to date, and it solves many of the long term problems with the current system.


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.

Bzzzt. Wrong. I do not sell insurance, nor do I make a dime from premiums increasing. I earn my living by helping companies offer their employees more cost effective solutions (among many other things). I actually work to help companies find creative solutions to these problems. And, whether a program is mandatory or not has nothing to do with my earnings.

But yet another nice assumption/judgment.


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."

Bad math/extrapolation. 1.45 million families filed for bankruptcy, yet they assert that over 2 million people experienced medical bankruptcy (despite the fact that barely half of their .1% sample group claims to have been impacted by medical issues). Remember, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. The fact that 931 people claim to have had a certain experience does not necessarily mean that 2.2 million people did.

And, besides, do you know how HSA's can help people avoid this?


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?

Who is demonstrating a "sense of entitlement" here???


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 was never a big fan of DeLay's (nor do I hate him). If he's guilty, fry him (not literally, just figuratively).


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".

Demonstrate how it could have been said in more simple terms.


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.

Well, yes, I do.


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.

When I speak of "us", I usually make sure that I fall into the class of people I profess to be in a position to speaking for. For example, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to defend the rights of immigrants by saying "us" or "we". So, when I read your statement that said "the rest of us barely manage to hold our own" then it seemed to me that you were claiming that status as well. I did not edit a thing. Check your post.

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,

Another assumption/judgment. And, yet, I assume that you work very hard for your income, that you care about how your tax dollars are spent, and that you are thankful for everything you have.

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.

When did I claim not to be concerned about people? What gives you the monopoly on compassion and concern? What an egotistical point of view.

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.

That sounds like a sense of entitlement to me. Why does your son deserve to own a home when he has not yet saved enough to purchase one?

If you taught your children that they should expect everything to be handed to them on a silver platter, that they did not have to work hard and save to get what they wanted, then I can understand why you would be concerned about them.

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.

So did I. I waited tables and cleaned up after people for many years. But what can I possibly know about hard work, long hours, and working towards goals that seemed so far out of reach, that they seemed impossible? After all, I think we're all "entitled" to a everything we want, when we want it, don't I? It seems that's what your son thinks.

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?

That's great. Congratulations! That is, indeed, an accomplishment. You should be very proud of yourself, and of your daughter. I hope that I will be able to do the same for each of my children someday.

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.

More assumptions/judgments from Mr. I Know More About You Than You Do.

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

I know it's not. I was only offering a little friendly advice. However, since it appears you lied when you claimed to be among the people who was "barely holding their own", I guess you don't need it.

Mr. "I Can Speak For The Little Man (As Long As You Ignore The Fact That The Annual Income Of My Wife And I Is Higher Than Yours) Because I Have More Compassion And Concern For The Future Than You Do ."


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.

Now we're getting back to attacks? Well, I guess it is to be expected.
And what is more self-centered and egocentric than a statement like this: "despite the fact that the annual income of my wife and I is probably higher than yours, I have great concern...."

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.

So do I! Why else would I be here?? I've been a Deadhead 20+ years (just over half my life)!

However, I sometimes forget that many of the regular posters here generally demonstrate little more than distaste and disgust for people who maintain conservative viewpoints.

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.

You would probably prefer it if either a) I always agreed with you, or b) if I simply left. After all, that is usually the preference of people who cannot tolerate opinions that challenge, or are different than, theirs.

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

Likewise. Your holier than thou attitude makes me sick.
.