| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
20 Nov 2005 11:33:52 PM |
| Object: |
How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
Without God
Saturday, August 6, 2005
http://www.courierpostonline.com
Won't it be wonderful when we finally get God out of our culture? For
more than two centuries, we have been frustrated in our desire to do as
we please without any interference. Soon, we will enjoy a whole new set
of rules more to our liking.
Kids can have two mommies or two daddies or more. Teenagers can have
free sex and, thanks to the taxpayers, they won't be burdened with any
responsibility. Nor should they fret about a mistake, because abortion
will bring relief. Parents need not be informed. Coming generations
won't be hamstrung with the old-fashioned ideas our nation was founded
on because no one will be left to teach them.
And narcotics will be available with no concern about shortages because
it will have become such a lucrative business that no effort is made to
stop it. Credit cards will permit anyone to indulge without restraint
in self-gratification. When all credit is exhausted, the loss will
become someone else's problem.
Not to be overlooked will be the absence of sin. With the new system,
nothing will be "wrong." A politically correct society will offer the
opportunity to do as we please with impunity. So life in a nation
without God will be truly wonderful. However, there will be just one
little problem. Since eventually each one of us will die and science
hasn't found a solution to that, what then?
All of a sudden, we will come to the question of what happens after
death. Reaching this point makes a difference that cannot be avoided.
All of the "freedom" of the new system will culminate in an emptiness
for which there will be only one answer. In the final analysis, God's
will will prevail after all. Obedience to God is the only answer. And
the eternal life he offers and makes available to all who believe and
accept Christ, will provide more happiness than this world ever dreamed
of.
RALPH E. REHN Cherry Hill
.
|
|
| User: "€€R.L.Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
30 Nov 2005 07:57:15 AM |
|
|
In article <tchpo11khds35489nvskrtei16p9b5oaer@4ax.com>,
prochoice@here.now <Attila> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:49:18 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> in alt.abortion with message-id
<sqtoo1hgbc2lgif1c8upsv57coi5dc8rdq@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:19:29 -0500, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 17:45:52 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> in alt.abortion with message-id
<k6cmo19rv3m2go02unq52074d0pgvip8q6@4ax.com> wrote:
The economic system established in the Soviet was based on the ideas
of Marx, Engles and Lenin. It was not 100% faithful to any of them,
but, then again, their written opinions are not holy script. As it
turned out the ideals claimed were, to a large degree, corrupted in
the service of, first of all, individual tyrants and, especially at
the end, a self-serving bureaucracy. In my opinion it could not have
worked under any circumstances, but an actual attempt was made to
transform the ideal into reality.
Actually it does work quite well on a very small scale and primitive
level. If a simple culture is involved and only a few people working
together and pooling available resources for the common good can be
very successful.
The American Indians did it, as did Israel with their Kibbutz. It
just will not work for an evolved and complex economy and political
structure.
In other words it will not work.
Not for anything beyond a small and close knit society. Human
psychological factors quickly distort the pure economics. Politics is
thus born.
The problem is in comparing different systems that are described by
the same word. Precisely because of human nature, the economic system
advocated by Marx cannot work
Exactly. And some of the systems described as 'capitalism' will not
work yet some are much more successful than anything else that has
been tried.
*** Indeed. However, with the world population speeding willy-nilly
toward 7-billion, maybe the time has come for a combination of capitalism
and cannibalism?
--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
30 Nov 2005 08:26:41 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 05:57:15 -0800, (€€R.L.Measures) in
alt.abortion with message-id <r_-3011050557150001@192.168.1.101>
wrote:
Exactly. And some of the systems described as 'capitalism' will not
work yet some are much more successful than anything else that has
been tried.
*** Indeed. However, with the world population speeding willy-nilly
toward 7-billion, maybe the time has come for a combination of capitalism
and cannibalism?
Not really. Cannibalism is too medically dangerous.
It is safe to eat beef rare but pork should be completely cooked. Did
you ever wonder why?
There is a large physiological difference between humans and cattle,
but not between humans and pigs. In fact, pigs are used for some
medical research because of that similarity. This means diseases that
live in cattle are generally not that dangerous to humans, so their
meat does not need to be thoroughly cooked to insure no cross species
infection occurs. There are a few exceptions, but only a few.
Many diseases, however, can coexist in both pigs and humans, so pork
should be completely cooked to insure no such contamination occurs.
Since this could be observed in the number of people who ate cattle
and died as well as the number of people who ate pork and died. I
suspect this is the basis for the prohibition of eating pork that is
found in some religions.
It goes without saying that if you eat someone who has a disease there
is a high probability that you will get that same disease. Cannibalism
is simply too risky.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
29 Nov 2005 12:01:13 PM |
|
|
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
thomas p
The American Indians did it, as did Israel with their Kibbutz. It
just will not work for an evolved and complex economy and political
structure.
In other words it will not work.
Not for anything beyond a small and close knit society. Human
psychological factors quickly distort the pure economics. Politics is
thus born.
The problem is in comparing different systems that are described by
the same word. Precisely because of human nature, the economic system
advocated by Marx cannot work
And capitalism has the same problem. Because it concentrates wealth,
capitalism leads to oligarchy. Wealth for a few and abject poverty
for the masses.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
29 Nov 2005 03:20:35 PM |
|
|
On 29 Nov 2005 10:01:13 -0800, (Ray Fischer)
in alt.abortion with message-id <dmi519$6kq$1@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
thomas p
The American Indians did it, as did Israel with their Kibbutz. It
just will not work for an evolved and complex economy and political
structure.
In other words it will not work.
Not for anything beyond a small and close knit society. Human
psychological factors quickly distort the pure economics. Politics is
thus born.
The problem is in comparing different systems that are described by
the same word. Precisely because of human nature, the economic system
advocated by Marx cannot work
And capitalism has the same problem. Because it concentrates wealth,
capitalism leads to oligarchy. Wealth for a few and abject poverty
for the masses.
There is no economic requirement anywhere for income or wealth
redistribution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
29 Nov 2005 11:25:08 PM |
|
|
Attila <Attila> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 10:01:13 -0800, (Ray Fischer)
in alt.abortion with message-id <dmi519$6kq$1@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
thomas p
The American Indians did it, as did Israel with their Kibbutz. It
just will not work for an evolved and complex economy and political
structure.
In other words it will not work.
Not for anything beyond a small and close knit society. Human
psychological factors quickly distort the pure economics. Politics is
thus born.
The problem is in comparing different systems that are described by
the same word. Precisely because of human nature, the economic system
advocated by Marx cannot work
And capitalism has the same problem. Because it concentrates wealth,
capitalism leads to oligarchy. Wealth for a few and abject poverty
for the masses.
There is no economic requirement anywhere for income or wealth
redistribution.
Nor is there any economic requirement that the majority live in
poverty to benefit the extremely wealthy few.
But if you want to live in poverty so that a few can be insanely rich,
feel free to give all you money to the corporate CEO of your choice.
I'm not that stupid.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
30 Nov 2005 08:08:12 AM |
|
|
On 29 Nov 2005 21:25:08 -0800, (Ray Fischer)
in alt.abortion with message-id <dmjd3k$8qs$1@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 10:01:13 -0800, (Ray Fischer)
in alt.abortion with message-id <dmi519$6kq$1@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
thomas p
The American Indians did it, as did Israel with their Kibbutz. It
just will not work for an evolved and complex economy and political
structure.
In other words it will not work.
Not for anything beyond a small and close knit society. Human
psychological factors quickly distort the pure economics. Politics is
thus born.
The problem is in comparing different systems that are described by
the same word. Precisely because of human nature, the economic system
advocated by Marx cannot work
And capitalism has the same problem. Because it concentrates wealth,
capitalism leads to oligarchy. Wealth for a few and abject poverty
for the masses.
There is no economic requirement anywhere for income or wealth
redistribution.
Nor is there any economic requirement that the majority live in
poverty to benefit the extremely wealthy few.
Requirement, no. This does not result from a proactive policy or
attempt to reach this particular result. Your comment also assumes
those who live in poverty do so in order to benefit those who do not
live in poverty when this simply is not so.
Income redistribution, however, is in fact a proactive and deliberate
policy of taking from those who have assets and giving them to those
who do not have the same level of assets.
I oppose this in both concept and practice.
But if you want to live in poverty so that a few can be insanely rich,
feel free to give all you money to the corporate CEO of your choice.
I'm not that stupid.
Support your position that somehow the rich benefit from some people
living in poverty. Exactly how does poverty contribute to the income
level of the rich?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
01 Dec 2005 12:03:46 AM |
|
|
Attila <Attila> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Attila <Attila> wrote:
There is no economic requirement anywhere for income or wealth
redistribution.
Nor is there any economic requirement that the majority live in
poverty to benefit the extremely wealthy few.
Requirement, no. This does not result from a proactive policy or
attempt to reach this particular result.
Of course it does.
Income redistribution, however,
Is a standard right-wing code-phrase referring to any requirement that
the wealthy pay their share of society's costs.
But if you want to live in poverty so that a few can be insanely rich,
feel free to give all you money to the corporate CEO of your choice.
I'm not that stupid.
Support your position that somehow the rich benefit from some people
living in poverty.
Trivial. Rich people get the money poor people earn.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
01 Dec 2005 08:37:15 AM |
|
|
On 30 Nov 2005 22:03:46 -0800, (Ray Fischer)
in alt.abortion with message-id <dmm3o2$31f$1@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
(Ray Fischer)
Attila <Attila> wrote:
There is no economic requirement anywhere for income or wealth
redistribution.
Nor is there any economic requirement that the majority live in
poverty to benefit the extremely wealthy few.
Requirement, no. This does not result from a proactive policy or
attempt to reach this particular result.
Of course it does.
I disagree. I do not think there is any formal or informal policy to
deliberately force the majority to live in poverty in order to
increase the wealth of a few.
Income redistribution, however,
Is a standard right-wing code-phrase referring to any requirement that
the wealthy pay their share of society's costs.
No, it is a term used to take money from those who have it in order to
give it to those who do not have it in order to more equalize the
standard of living of each. It is social engineering and I am totally
and unalterably opposed to it in any form.
But if you want to live in poverty so that a few can be insanely rich,
feel free to give all you money to the corporate CEO of your choice.
I'm not that stupid.
Support your position that somehow the rich benefit from some people
living in poverty.
Trivial. Rich people get the money poor people earn.
No. The rich simply earn more. I doubt you personally consider
investments as 'earning' but it in fact is earning no matter how the
tax code defines it.
We have been through this before. Unlike you I do not feel I have a
right to the wealth held by someone else simply because they have more
than I have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
01 Dec 2005 11:38:51 AM |
|
|
Attila <Attila> wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 22:03:46 -0800, (Ray Fischer)
in alt.abortion with message-id <dmm3o2$31f$1@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
(Ray Fischer)
Attila <Attila> wrote:
There is no economic requirement anywhere for income or wealth
redistribution.
Nor is there any economic requirement that the majority live in
poverty to benefit the extremely wealthy few.
Requirement, no. This does not result from a proactive policy or
attempt to reach this particular result.
Of course it does.
I disagree.
If you start with the premise that you deserve anything that you want
then of course you will disagree.
I do not think there is any formal or informal policy to
deliberately force the majority to live in poverty in order to
increase the wealth of a few.
Except that laws supporting monopolistic practices drive down wages
and benefit wealthy shareholders.
Income redistribution, however,
Is a standard right-wing code-phrase referring to any requirement that
the wealthy pay their share of society's costs.
No,
Yes.
it is a term used to take money from those who have it in order to
give it to those who do not have it in order to more equalize the
standard of living of each.
And it doesn't actually exist in that form. It really refers to any
attempt to make the wealthy pay their fair share of society's costs.
But if you want to live in poverty so that a few can be insanely rich,
feel free to give all you money to the corporate CEO of your choice.
I'm not that stupid.
Support your position that somehow the rich benefit from some people
living in poverty.
Trivial. Rich people get the money poor people earn.
No.
Don't start lying to me.
The rich simply earn more.
No, the rich GET more. Your opinion that somebody "earns" $5 million
for driving a company into bankruptcy is lunatic *****.
We have been through this before.
And you're still insane.
Unlike you I do not feel I have a
right to the wealth held by someone else simply because they have more
than I have.
You feel you have a right to the wealth held by somebody else because
they have LESS than you have.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
02 Dec 2005 03:43:52 AM |
|
|
On 1 Dec 2005 09:38:51 -0800, (Ray Fischer) in
alt.abortion with message-id <dmncfb$4vj$1@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 22:03:46 -0800, (Ray Fischer)
in alt.abortion with message-id <dmm3o2$31f$1@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
(Ray Fischer)
Attila <Attila> wrote:
There is no economic requirement anywhere for income or wealth
redistribution.
Nor is there any economic requirement that the majority live in
poverty to benefit the extremely wealthy few.
Requirement, no. This does not result from a proactive policy or
attempt to reach this particular result.
Of course it does.
I disagree.
If you start with the premise that you deserve anything that you want
then of course you will disagree.
Wanting something does not mean you will get it. Deserving is
irrelevant. I do not think there is an active attempt to insure some
live in poverty, with that as an objective.
I do not think there is any formal or informal policy to
deliberately force the majority to live in poverty in order to
increase the wealth of a few.
Except that laws supporting monopolistic practices drive down wages
and benefit wealthy shareholders.
Few such laws exist.
Income redistribution, however,
Is a standard right-wing code-phrase referring to any requirement that
the wealthy pay their share of society's costs.
No,
Yes.
Nonsense. It is a clear economic term with a specific meaning.
it is a term used to take money from those who have it in order to
give it to those who do not have it in order to more equalize the
standard of living of each.
And it doesn't actually exist in that form. It really refers to any
attempt to make the wealthy pay their fair share of society's costs.
Exactly what is that "fair share"? An amount which brings their level
of wealth down to equal your's?
But if you want to live in poverty so that a few can be insanely rich,
feel free to give all you money to the corporate CEO of your choice.
I'm not that stupid.
Support your position that somehow the rich benefit from some people
living in poverty.
Trivial. Rich people get the money poor people earn.
No.
Don't start lying to me.
I am not. As I have told you many times in the past you really should
learn some economics. Then you might have a start toward knowing what
you are talking about. At the moment you don't have a clue.
You sound like Fishbreath expounding on what is or is not in the
Constitution.
The rich simply earn more.
No, the rich GET more. Your opinion that somebody "earns" $5 million
for driving a company into bankruptcy is lunatic *****.
As far as you are concerned. The amount someone earns is equal to the
amount someone gets for doing something. Whether or not you agree is
irrelevant - if they have someone who is willing to pay them that
amount then that is what they earned.
We have been through this before.
And you're still insane.
You are still ignorant, especially about rudimentary economics.
Unlike you I do not feel I have a
right to the wealth held by someone else simply because they have more
than I have.
You feel you have a right to the wealth held by somebody else because
they have LESS than you have.
Not at all. I have no right to anything held by someone else. If we
reach a meeting of the minds and that someone else gives me wealth in
return for goods or services that is a fair exchange. If we do not
agree to the price, the goods, or the services there is no
transaction.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
03 Dec 2005 12:42:57 AM |
|
|
Attila <Attila> wrote:
On 1 Dec 2005 09:38:51 -0800, (Ray Fischer) in
alt.abortion with message-id <dmncfb$4vj$1@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 22:03:46 -0800, (Ray Fischer)
in alt.abortion with message-id <dmm3o2$31f$1@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
(Ray Fischer)
Attila <Attila> wrote:
There is no economic requirement anywhere for income or wealth
redistribution.
Nor is there any economic requirement that the majority live in
poverty to benefit the extremely wealthy few.
Requirement, no. This does not result from a proactive policy or
attempt to reach this particular result.
Of course it does.
I disagree.
If you start with the premise that you deserve anything that you want
then of course you will disagree.
Wanting something does not mean you will get it.
Non sequitur.
Deserving is
irrelevant.
And yet your entire premise is that you "deserve" everything that you
get, and that all the money that anybody aquires is "earned".
I do not think there is an active attempt to insure some
live in poverty, with that as an objective.
It's really about stealing from everybody and not giving a ***** who
dies in poverty as a result. It's the ideology of callous, coldhearted
greed.
Income redistribution, however,
Is a standard right-wing code-phrase referring to any requirement that
the wealthy pay their share of society's costs.
No,
Yes.
Nonsense. It is a clear economic term with a specific meaning.
Don't start lying to me, *****.
it is a term used to take money from those who have it in order to
give it to those who do not have it in order to more equalize the
standard of living of each.
And it doesn't actually exist in that form. It really refers to any
attempt to make the wealthy pay their fair share of society's costs.
Exactly what is that "fair share"?
Ah! Now you may have stumbled upon a clue!
There isn't such a thing. It's all made up. Every time you claim
that the rich shouldn't have to pay as much in taxes because it's not
"fair" you're resorting to the very same ***** that I just
demonstrated for you.
But if you want to live in poverty so that a few can be insanely rich,
feel free to give all you money to the corporate CEO of your choice.
I'm not that stupid.
Support your position that somehow the rich benefit from some people
living in poverty.
Trivial. Rich people get the money poor people earn.
No.
Don't start lying to me.
I am not. As I have told you many times in the past you really should
learn some economics.
Done that. You haven't.
The rich simply earn more.
No, the rich GET more. Your opinion that somebody "earns" $5 million
for driving a company into bankruptcy is lunatic *****.
As far as you are concerned. The amount someone earns is equal to the
amount someone gets for doing something.
So somebody who steals $100,000,000 has earned it.
Obviously you're just going to resort to such transparent lies in order
to justify your callous greed.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
03 Dec 2005 04:04:44 AM |
|
|
On 2 Dec 2005 22:42:57 -0800, (Ray Fischer) in
alt.abortion with message-id <dmreph$ght$1@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
On 1 Dec 2005 09:38:51 -0800, (Ray Fischer) in
alt.abortion with message-id <dmncfb$4vj$1@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 22:03:46 -0800, (Ray Fischer)
in alt.abortion with message-id <dmm3o2$31f$1@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
(Ray Fischer)
Attila <Attila> wrote:
There is no economic requirement anywhere for income or wealth
redistribution.
Nor is there any economic requirement that the majority live in
poverty to benefit the extremely wealthy few.
Requirement, no. This does not result from a proactive policy or
attempt to reach this particular result.
Of course it does.
I disagree.
If you start with the premise that you deserve anything that you want
then of course you will disagree.
Wanting something does not mean you will get it.
Non sequitur.
Which describes your 'premise'.
Deserving is
irrelevant.
And yet your entire premise is that you "deserve" everything that you
get, and that all the money that anybody aquires is "earned".
I have never mentioned 'deserved' but since you bring it up what is
wrong with everyone getting all they can? And a return on a
successful investment is earned by choosing the proper investment.
I do not think there is an active attempt to insure some
live in poverty, with that as an objective.
It's really about stealing from everybody
Exactly how?
and not giving a ***** who
dies in poverty as a result. It's the ideology of callous, coldhearted
greed.
Whether that is correct or not it is not the proper venue of any law.
It is strictly opinion.
Income redistribution, however,
Is a standard right-wing code-phrase referring to any requirement that
the wealthy pay their share of society's costs.
No,
Yes.
Nonsense. It is a clear economic term with a specific meaning.
Don't start lying to me, *****.
One of your more common retorts that you use when you are out of
facts.
it is a term used to take money from those who have it in order to
give it to those who do not have it in order to more equalize the
standard of living of each.
And it doesn't actually exist in that form. It really refers to any
attempt to make the wealthy pay their fair share of society's costs.
Exactly what is that "fair share"?
Ah! Now you may have stumbled upon a clue!
There isn't such a thing. It's all made up. Every time you claim
that the rich shouldn't have to pay as much in taxes because it's not
"fair" you're resorting to the very same ***** that I just
demonstrated for you.
Aren't you saying exactly that about yourself whenever you want the
'rich' to pay more?
But if you want to live in poverty so that a few can be insanely rich,
feel free to give all you money to the corporate CEO of your choice.
I'm not that stupid.
Support your position that somehow the rich benefit from some people
living in poverty.
Trivial. Rich people get the money poor people earn.
No.
Don't start lying to me.
I am not. As I have told you many times in the past you really should
learn some economics.
Done that. You haven't.
Several college professors might disagree.
The rich simply earn more.
No, the rich GET more. Your opinion that somebody "earns" $5 million
for driving a company into bankruptcy is lunatic *****.
As far as you are concerned. The amount someone earns is equal to the
amount someone gets for doing something.
So somebody who steals $100,000,000 has earned it.
The term 'steals' clearly indicates illegal methods were used. That,
of course, is not permitted.
Not everyone with a large income is stealing it.
Obviously you're just going to resort to such transparent lies in order
to justify your callous greed.
That is hardly the case since I am not in that income range. And
probably never will be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
03 Dec 2005 11:02:57 AM |
|
|
Attila <Attila> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) in
Attila <Attila> wrote:
Deserving is
irrelevant.
And yet your entire premise is that you "deserve" everything that you
get, and that all the money that anybody aquires is "earned".
I have never mentioned 'deserved' but since you bring it up what is
wrong with everyone getting all they can?
Stealing is a crime.
And a return on a
successful investment is earned by choosing the proper investment.
A compnay by the name of Calpine is in the news these days because
they're just about to go into bankruptcy. Four years ago the stock
was trading around $59. Today it's at $0.40.
During that same period the (former) CEO "earned" about $50,000,000.
Because he screwed the company, its stockholders, and its employees he
was just fired. As a parting gift he will "earn" another $5,000,000.
I do not think there is an active attempt to insure some
live in poverty, with that as an objective.
It's really about stealing from everybody
Exactly how?
See above.
and not giving a ***** who
dies in poverty as a result. It's the ideology of callous, coldhearted
greed.
Whether that is correct or not it is not the proper venue of any law.
The law is what the people want it to be. Insisting that the majority
be poor so that they very few be insanely rich is bizarre stupidity.
If the majority want tax rates for the rich to be more than tax rates
for the poor then the majority has every right to insist that it be
so.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
30 Nov 2005 01:13:06 AM |
|
|
On 29 Nov 2005 10:01:13 -0800, (Ray Fischer)
wrote:
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
thomas p
The American Indians did it, as did Israel with their Kibbutz. It
just will not work for an evolved and complex economy and political
structure.
In other words it will not work.
Not for anything beyond a small and close knit society. Human
psychological factors quickly distort the pure economics. Politics is
thus born.
The problem is in comparing different systems that are described by
the same word. Precisely because of human nature, the economic system
advocated by Marx cannot work
And capitalism has the same problem. Because it concentrates wealth,
capitalism leads to oligarchy. Wealth for a few and abject poverty
for the masses.
No system is perfect, but, despite the drawbacks, capitalism has, in
fact, worked now for centuries. Capitalism is very good at producing
wealth. It fails when it comes to distrubuting that wealth fairly.
Whether that problem can be solved or not is an unanswered question.
No other system, however, has been found that can produce wealth so
effectively, and it has to be produced before it can be distributed.
It seems that pure capitalism or pure socialism are recipes for
disaster.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
30 Nov 2005 08:14:47 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:13:06 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> in alt.abortion with message-id
<isjqo1pveit8hibq2n9v4clc4gv8o1a711@4ax.com> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 10:01:13 -0800, (Ray Fischer)
wrote:
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
thomas p
The American Indians did it, as did Israel with their Kibbutz. It
just will not work for an evolved and complex economy and political
structure.
In other words it will not work.
Not for anything beyond a small and close knit society. Human
psychological factors quickly distort the pure economics. Politics is
thus born.
The problem is in comparing different systems that are described by
the same word. Precisely because of human nature, the economic system
advocated by Marx cannot work
And capitalism has the same problem. Because it concentrates wealth,
capitalism leads to oligarchy. Wealth for a few and abject poverty
for the masses.
No system is perfect, but, despite the drawbacks, capitalism has, in
fact, worked now for centuries. Capitalism is very good at producing
wealth. It fails when it comes to distrubuting that wealth fairly.
Generally those who complain about the wealth distribution are
overlooking the fact that a structured wealth hierarchy is inherent in
a capitalistic system, and while those on the bottom do not live as
well as those on the top they live better than under any other
economic system.
It is not possible for everyone to have the same standard of living.
That simply will not happen.
Whether that problem can be solved or not is an unanswered question.
It is not a problem - it is part of the system. The 'solution' is to
raise the overall standard of living. Create more wealth.
No other system, however, has been found that can produce wealth so
effectively, and it has to be produced before it can be distributed.
It seems that pure capitalism or pure socialism are recipes for
disaster.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
30 Nov 2005 02:50:22 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:14:47 -0500, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:13:06 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> in alt.abortion with message-id
<isjqo1pveit8hibq2n9v4clc4gv8o1a711@4ax.com> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 10:01:13 -0800, (Ray Fischer)
wrote:
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
thomas p
The American Indians did it, as did Israel with their Kibbutz. It
just will not work for an evolved and complex economy and political
structure.
In other words it will not work.
Not for anything beyond a small and close knit society. Human
psychological factors quickly distort the pure economics. Politics is
thus born.
The problem is in comparing different systems that are described by
the same word. Precisely because of human nature, the economic system
advocated by Marx cannot work
And capitalism has the same problem. Because it concentrates wealth,
capitalism leads to oligarchy. Wealth for a few and abject poverty
for the masses.
No system is perfect, but, despite the drawbacks, capitalism has, in
fact, worked now for centuries. Capitalism is very good at producing
wealth. It fails when it comes to distrubuting that wealth fairly.
Generally those who complain about the wealth distribution are
overlooking the fact that a structured wealth hierarchy is inherent in
a capitalistic system, and while those on the bottom do not live as
well as those on the top they live better than under any other
economic system.
It is not possible for everyone to have the same standard of living.
That simply will not happen.
Whether that problem can be solved or not is an unanswered question.
It is not a problem - it is part of the system. The 'solution' is to
raise the overall standard of living. Create more wealth.
Which, unless one solves the problem, will mean more of the same.
Furthermore it is a problem both for those in poverty and, eventually,
for the entire society in the form of social unrest, crime etc.
Producing more wealth alone will not help, otherwise there would be
fewer poor people today not more.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
30 Nov 2005 04:45:50 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:50:22 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> in alt.abortion with message-id
<2d3so1d61nn7m81882dhnoj2jan8rhapar@4ax.com> wrote:
It is not possible for everyone to have the same standard of living.
That simply will not happen.
Whether that problem can be solved or not is an unanswered question.
It is not a problem - it is part of the system. The 'solution' is to
raise the overall standard of living. Create more wealth.
Which, unless one solves the problem, will mean more of the same.
Furthermore it is a problem both for those in poverty and, eventually,
for the entire society in the form of social unrest, crime etc.
Producing more wealth alone will not help, otherwise there would be
fewer poor people today not more.
There are fewer, when compared to the standards of the past.
That is my point - the poor will always be with us in a varying
percentage. The solution is not to take all the wealth, pool it, and
share it equally. The solution is to increase the total wealth and
raise the overall standard of living, thus raising the standard for
everyone.
Personally I would rather live as one of the 'poor' today that as one
of the middle class or even the wealthy a few generations ago.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
01 Dec 2005 07:10:31 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:45:50 -0500, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:50:22 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> in alt.abortion with message-id
<2d3so1d61nn7m81882dhnoj2jan8rhapar@4ax.com> wrote:
It is not possible for everyone to have the same standard of living.
That simply will not happen.
Whether that problem can be solved or not is an unanswered question.
It is not a problem - it is part of the system. The 'solution' is to
raise the overall standard of living. Create more wealth.
Which, unless one solves the problem, will mean more of the same.
Furthermore it is a problem both for those in poverty and, eventually,
for the entire society in the form of social unrest, crime etc.
Producing more wealth alone will not help, otherwise there would be
fewer poor people today not more.
There are fewer, when compared to the standards of the past.
Obviously I am not talking about going back 100 years. Less than a
generation will do.
That is my point - the poor will always be with us in a varying
percentage. The solution is not to take all the wealth, pool it, and
share it equally.
Nor have I suggested such a thing.
The solution is to increase the total wealth and
raise the overall standard of living, thus raising the standard for
everyone.
Once again, merely raising the amount of wealth will not solve it.
Personally I would rather live as one of the 'poor' today that as one
of the middle class or even the wealthy a few generations ago.
That is your choice.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
01 Dec 2005 08:41:54 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 14:10:31 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> in alt.abortion with message-id
<g3pto1hq3699f4183udjp1q1ko2sk34266@4ax.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:45:50 -0500, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:50:22 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> in alt.abortion with message-id
<2d3so1d61nn7m81882dhnoj2jan8rhapar@4ax.com> wrote:
It is not possible for everyone to have the same standard of living.
That simply will not happen.
Whether that problem can be solved or not is an unanswered question.
It is not a problem - it is part of the system. The 'solution' is to
raise the overall standard of living. Create more wealth.
Which, unless one solves the problem, will mean more of the same.
Furthermore it is a problem both for those in poverty and, eventually,
for the entire society in the form of social unrest, crime etc.
Producing more wealth alone will not help, otherwise there would be
fewer poor people today not more.
There are fewer, when compared to the standards of the past.
Obviously I am not talking about going back 100 years. Less than a
generation will do.
OK. Some of the things now considered basic necessities such as an
automobile and TV were considered luxuries a generation ago.
That is my point - the poor will always be with us in a varying
percentage. The solution is not to take all the wealth, pool it, and
share it equally.
Nor have I suggested such a thing.
But many have. And do.
The solution is to increase the total wealth and
raise the overall standard of living, thus raising the standard for
everyone.
Once again, merely raising the amount of wealth will not solve it.
That depends on how you define 'solve'.
Solve does not mean artificially reduce the wealth spread among
different income levels.
Personally I would rather live as one of the 'poor' today that as one
of the middle class or even the wealthy a few generations ago.
That is your choice.
Yes, it is. A comparison of what is considered a 'necessity' today
and what was considered a 'necessity' 50 years ago would lead almost
anyone to the same conclusion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
01 Dec 2005 05:39:17 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:41:54 -0500, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 14:10:31 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> in alt.abortion with message-id
<g3pto1hq3699f4183udjp1q1ko2sk34266@4ax.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:45:50 -0500, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:50:22 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> in alt.abortion with message-id
<2d3so1d61nn7m81882dhnoj2jan8rhapar@4ax.com> wrote:
It is not possible for everyone to have the same standard of living.
That simply will not happen.
Whether that problem can be solved or not is an unanswered question.
It is not a problem - it is part of the system. The 'solution' is to
raise the overall standard of living. Create more wealth.
Which, unless one solves the problem, will mean more of the same.
Furthermore it is a problem both for those in poverty and, eventually,
for the entire society in the form of social unrest, crime etc.
Producing more wealth alone will not help, otherwise there would be
fewer poor people today not more.
There are fewer, when compared to the standards of the past.
Obviously I am not talking about going back 100 years. Less than a
generation will do.
OK. Some of the things now considered basic necessities such as an
automobile and TV were considered luxuries a generation ago.
Is that what you think the problems of poverty consist of? How nice
that would be if it were true.
That is my point - the poor will always be with us in a varying
percentage. The solution is not to take all the wealth, pool it, and
share it equally.
Nor have I suggested such a thing.
But many have. And do.
But you were (supposedly) responding to me.
The solution is to increase the total wealth and
raise the overall standard of living, thus raising the standard for
everyone.
Once again, merely raising the amount of wealth will not solve it.
That depends on how you define 'solve'.
Solve does not mean artificially reduce the wealth spread among
different income levels.
Or to artificially increase it.
Personally I would rather live as one of the 'poor' today that as one
of the middle class or even the wealthy a few generations ago.
That is your choice.
Yes, it is. A comparison of what is considered a 'necessity' today
and what was considered a 'necessity' 50 years ago would lead almost
anyone to the same conclusion.
A roof over one's head, adequate heating, adequate clothing, adequate
food, adequate medical attention, a decent education were necessary100
years ago. Many are without one or more today because of poverty.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
02 Dec 2005 03:48:58 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 00:39:17 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> in alt.abortion with message-id
<lp1vo1hojb5b62iiru2fkaqntnie4851ca@4ax.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:41:54 -0500, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 14:10:31 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> in alt.abortion with message-id
<g3pto1hq3699f4183udjp1q1ko2sk34266@4ax.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:45:50 -0500, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:50:22 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> in alt.abortion with message-id
<2d3so1d61nn7m81882dhnoj2jan8rhapar@4ax.com> wrote:
It is not possible for everyone to have the same standard of living.
That simply will not happen.
Whether that problem can be solved or not is an unanswered question.
It is not a problem - it is part of the system. The 'solution' is to
raise the overall standard of living. Create more wealth.
Which, unless one solves the problem, will mean more of the same.
Furthermore it is a problem both for those in poverty and, eventually,
for the entire society in the form of social unrest, crime etc.
Producing more wealth alone will not help, otherwise there would be
fewer poor people today not more.
There are fewer, when compared to the standards of the past.
Obviously I am not talking about going back 100 years. Less than a
generation will do.
OK. Some of the things now considered basic necessities such as an
automobile and TV were considered luxuries a generation ago.
Is that what you think the problems of poverty consist of? How nice
that would be if it were true.
Of course not. I am pointing out the standards of poverty today are
not on the same level and do not have the same content as the
standards of poverty a generation or two ago.
That is my point - the poor will always be with us in a varying
percentage. The solution is not to take all the wealth, pool it, and
share it equally.
Nor have I suggested such a thing.
But many have. And do.
But you were (supposedly) responding to me.
I was not aware the discussion was so narrowly focused as to only
pertain to the points already raised. My apologies.
The solution is to increase the total wealth and
raise the overall standard of living, thus raising the standard for
everyone.
Once again, merely raising the amount of wealth will not solve it.
That depends on how you define 'solve'.
Solve does not mean artificially reduce the wealth spread among
different income levels.
Or to artificially increase it.
No one is trying to increase it. Individuals are simply trying to
maximize their income. As does everyone.
Personally I would rather live as one of the 'poor' today that as one
of the middle class or even the wealthy a few generations ago.
That is your choice.
Yes, it is. A comparison of what is considered a 'necessity' today
and what was considered a 'necessity' 50 years ago would lead almost
anyone to the same conclusion.
A roof over one's head, adequate heating, adequate clothing, adequate
food, adequate medical attention, a decent education were necessary100
years ago. Many are without one or more today because of poverty.
The definition of what is adequate has certainly changed.
As someone much smarter than me said:
"The poor will always be with us."
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
03 Dec 2005 09:08:44 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 04:48:58 -0500, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 00:39:17 +0100, thomas p
snip
There are fewer, when compared to the standards of the past.
Obviously I am not talking about going back 100 years. Less than a
generation will do.
OK. Some of the things now considered basic necessities such as an
automobile and TV were considered luxuries a generation ago.
Is that what you think the problems of poverty consist of? How nice
that would be if it were true.
Of course not. I am pointing out the standards of poverty today are
not on the same level and do not have the same content as the
standards of poverty a generation or two ago.
That is my point - the poor will always be with us in a varying
percentage. The solution is not to take all the wealth, pool it, and
share it equally.
Nor have I suggested such a thing.
But many have. And do.
But you were (supposedly) responding to me.
I was not aware the discussion was so narrowly focused as to only
pertain to the points already raised. My apologies.
The solution is to increase the total wealth and
raise the overall standard of living, thus raising the standard for
everyone.
Once again, merely raising the amount of wealth will not solve it.
That depends on how you define 'solve'.
Solve does not mean artificially reduce the wealth spread among
different income levels.
Or to artificially increase it.
No one is trying to increase it. Individuals are simply trying to
maximize their income. As does everyone.
The policies of some governments, including the one in the US today,
have increased poverty, for example massive tax cuts for the very
wealthy; which naturally puts a great burden on everybody below that
level. The intention is not to increase poverty, but that is the
inevitable result.
Personally I would rather live as one of the 'poor' today that as one
of the middle class or even the wealthy a few generations ago.
That is your choice.
Yes, it is. A comparison of what is considered a 'necessity' today
and what was considered a 'necessity' 50 years ago would lead almost
anyone to the same conclusion.
A roof over one's head, adequate heating, adequate clothing, adequate
food, adequate medical attention, a decent education were necessary100
years ago. Many are without one or more today because of poverty.
The definition of what is adequate has certainly changed.
If you say so.
As someone much smarter than me said:
"The poor will always be with us."
So will disease, we still do our best to prevent it and cure it. We
can do a great deal to alleviate the suffering of poverty, which makes
very good sense for everybody. Poverty is an evil that affects all of
society in one way or another. From a purely practical point of view
it makes very good sense to eliminate as much of it as possible.
Nobody is free from the negative effects of poverty in a society.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
03 Dec 2005 02:17:57 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:08:44 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> in alt.abortion with message-id
<o4v0p15h4n8hnapc49iqdvmpqelc60sc24@4ax.com> wrote:
The policies of some governments, including the one in the US today,
have increased poverty, for example massive tax cuts for the very
wealthy; which naturally puts a great burden on everybody below that
level. The intention is not to increase poverty, but that is the
inevitable result.
What tax cuts? The cuts have been across the board, with a higher
percentage for lower level incomes.
Personally I would rather live as one of the 'poor' today that as one
of the middle class or even the wealthy a few generations ago.
That is your choice.
Yes, it is. A comparison of what is considered a 'necessity' today
and what was considered a 'necessity' 50 years ago would lead almost
anyone to the same conclusion.
A roof over one's head, adequate heating, adequate clothing, adequate
food, adequate medical attention, a decent education were necessary100
years ago. Many are without one or more today because of poverty.
The definition of what is adequate has certainly changed.
If you say so.
It is obvious.
As someone much smarter than me said:
"The poor will always be with us."
So will disease, we still do our best to prevent it and cure it.
But it's still here.
We
can do a great deal to alleviate the suffering of poverty, which makes
very good sense for everybody.
People no longer starve in the streets.
Poverty is an evil that affects all of
society in one way or another.
Poverty is simply a term used to describe the lower level of social
and economic status. It does not take into account that the lowest
level today is higher than the highest level of a couple of hundred
years ago.
From a purely practical point of view
it makes very good sense to eliminate as much of it as possible.
Nobody is free from the negative effects of poverty in a society.
But by definition it will never happen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
03 Dec 2005 08:53:58 PM |
|
|
Attila <Attila> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:08:44 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> in alt.abortion with message-id
<o4v0p15h4n8hnapc49iqdvmpqelc60sc24@4ax.com> wrote:
The policies of some governments, including the one in the US today,
have increased poverty, for example massive tax cuts for the very
wealthy; which naturally puts a great burden on everybody below that
level. The intention is not to increase poverty, but that is the
inevitable result.
What tax cuts? The cuts have been across the board, with a higher
percentage for lower level incomes.
And the fact that the rich have benefitted far more than everybody
else doesn't seem to interest you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
04 Dec 2005 03:53:39 AM |
|
|
On 3 Dec 2005 18:53:58 -0800, (Ray Fischer) in
alt.abortion with message-id <dmtlo6$v9p$1@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:08:44 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> in alt.abortion with message-id
<o4v0p15h4n8hnapc49iqdvmpqelc60sc24@4ax.com> wrote:
The policies of some governments, including the one in the US today,
have increased poverty, for example massive tax cuts for the very
wealthy; which naturally puts a great burden on everybody below that
level. The intention is not to increase poverty, but that is the
inevitable result.
What tax cuts? The cuts have been across the board, with a higher
percentage for lower level incomes.
And the fact that the rich have benefitted far more than everybody
else doesn't seem to interest you.
There is always someone who benefits from something more than anyone
else. That is simply a fact of life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
04 Dec 2005 03:07:57 PM |
|
|
Attila <Attila> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) in
Attila <Attila> wrote:
thomas p
The policies of some governments, including the one in the US today,
have increased poverty, for example massive tax cuts for the very
wealthy; which naturally puts a great burden on everybody below that
level. The intention is not to increase poverty, but that is the
inevitable result.
What tax cuts? The cuts have been across the board, with a higher
percentage for lower level incomes.
And the fact that the rich have benefitted far more than everybody
else doesn't seem to interest you.
There is always someone who benefits from something more than anyone
else. That is simply a fact of life.
A typically chickenshit evasion.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny Asia poki_pongo at yahoo.com" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
04 Dec 2005 07:24:53 PM |
|
|
Here's what a nation with god looks like:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Trading-Spouses1.wmv
+
Johnny Asia, Hippie Guitarist
http://johnnyasia.info
"I say play your own way. Don't play what the public wants. You play what
you want and let the public pick up on what you're doing even if it does take
them fifteen, twenty years." - Thelonious Monk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
04 Dec 2005 05:47:33 PM |
|
|
On 4 Dec 2005 13:07:57 -0800, (Ray Fischer) in
alt.abortion with message-id <dmvlrd$343$1@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) in
Attila <Attila> wrote:
thomas p
The policies of some governments, including the one in the US today,
have increased poverty, for example massive tax cuts for the very
wealthy; which naturally puts a great burden on everybody below that
level. The intention is not to increase poverty, but that is the
inevitable result.
What tax cuts? The cuts have been across the board, with a higher
percentage for lower level incomes.
And the fact that the rich have benefitted far more than everybody
else doesn't seem to interest you.
There is always someone who benefits from something more than anyone
else. That is simply a fact of life.
A typically chickenshit evasion.
A typical nonfactual response.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
04 Dec 2005 08:50:36 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:17:57 -0500, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:08:44 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> in alt.abortion with message-id
<o4v0p15h4n8hnapc49iqdvmpqelc60sc24@4ax.com> wrote:
The policies of some governments, including the one in the US today,
have increased poverty, for example massive tax cuts for the very
wealthy; which naturally puts a great burden on everybody below that
level. The intention is not to increase poverty, but that is the
inevitable result.
What tax cuts? The cuts have been across the board, with a higher
percentage for lower level incomes.
No need to continue. The above speaks for itself. Bye.
snip
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: How Would Nation Without God Look Like ? |
04 Dec 2005 05:49:02 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 15:50:36 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> in alt.abortion with message-id
<ghu5p15au4vneoj7li2qkilhf0hm27jd6d@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:17:57 -0500, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:08:44 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> in alt.abortion with message-id
<o4v0p15h4n8hnapc49iqdvmpqelc60sc24@4ax.com> wrote:
The policies of some governments, including the one in the US today,
have increased poverty, for example massive tax cuts for the very
wealthy; which naturally puts a great burden on everybody below that
level. The intention is not to increase poverty, but that is the
inevitable result.
What tax cuts? The cuts have been across the board, with a higher
percentage for lower level incomes.
No need to continue. The above speaks for itself. Bye.
Do you disagree? There are many more tax breaks for lower income than
higher income and the tax cuts went down as a percentage as the income
level covered went up.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
