"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:24:01 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

1) You have a short memory. We've discussed this. You are not
permitted
to
use the word "socialism" unless you understand it. You do not
understand
it.
If you disagree with me, please explain socialism and how it applies
to
this
discussion.

I could give you the dictionary definition or the practical one. Which
one do you want? In either case, a system which artificially relocates
wealth from those who work for it to those who don't, is blatantly
unfair to those who work hard. It also promotes a sense of mediocrity,
as it remove incentives to better oneself. If one can make a living
wage as a street sweeper, why take on the additional responsibility
and stress of being a rocket scientist or CEO, if the rewards are not
that much greater?

You are not aware of anyone suggesting that the street sweeper should be
paid like a neurosurgeon. If you THINK you're aware of someone saying
such
things, you have erroneously focused your attention on an idiot.

Then you have no problem with the wages paid to Wal-Mart employees?

Interesting question. (I'm flattering you). Why do you ask? Is your
imaginary friend saying they should be paid the same as neurosurgeons?

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:35:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:46:20 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

If
Dean gets into office he'll tax Grandma right out of her mobile
home!......etc"

Much of the fuel for that fire was supplied by the candidates
themselves. Dean has publicly stated that he intends to roll back all
of our tax cuts. Grandma is part of that group.


Strawman:
Your daughter's all grown up and has her own place to live. You stop by
to
annoy her just as she's taking the mail out of the mailbox. You notice
she's
got 19 credit card bills in the mail. Being the concerned daddy, you say
"Hey...that's not gonna look so good on your credit report, having that
many
credit accounts...even if they're all current". She says "Hey - I was
$8,000.00 in debt last year and now I've got it up to $17,300.00. I
applied
for more cards yesterday, and I'm thinking of finding a job that pays me
less".

Analogies:
"applied for more cards" : Sold more Treasury bonds
"job that pays me less: : Lowered taxes (income)

What do you say to her?

Get a better job.


Dave

I've given you a perfect analogy for what your president is doing: Raising
debt, and lowering income. I've told you your daughter has a plan that's
identical, and that she believes it's sound. Respond to that, assuming she
intends to go ahead with her plan regardless of what you say. Also, factor
in something you don't know yet: You *will* care about her and gently nag
her until the day you die. It's human nature.

I said it before, get a better job. Meaning that this government can
become much more efficient financially. Tax increases are not the
answer to all our woes. Spending less will give us a boost in income.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


As long as you don't ask them if they understand the long term
consequences
of such a tax decision, you're all set. At least in terms of getting
yourself elected, and the aforementioned consequences don't come down
the
chute until your term of office ends and you're back on your ranch.


And just what are those consequences?

An economist can explain that to you.


I'm asking you. I already know.

There's a big difference between:

1) The Soviet Union, where entire lists of professions were lumped into
broad categories which, according to a Kremlin committee, all had the same
income value.
and:
2) Taxing citizens to provide services.


My only concern is our ability to sell
more bonds when interest rates are a complete snooze, as they are now.

I'm solidly into stocks now. I've almost made up for the slump of the
last 2 years.

What you invest in is not connected with the government's abilities to sell
bonds when rates are unattractive.


We can support our lowered tax
structure as long as we roll back much of the left's entitlement
programs

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...........

Yea, same old. But still just as true.

It's a snore because you've said you shop for the best prices. In many
cases, these prices exist because a company keeps expenses low by keeping
salaries and benefits low. So, to have the things YOU want, and the prices
YOU want, you must accept the existence of a lower class of workers
PERMANENTLY. This is not to say that the exact same people will remain in a
certain class forever (although some will). It simply means that a company
will always need a certain number of employees in that income class. It's
necessary because of YOU and everyone else who patronizes that business. The
next logical step is to realize that if you want that class to be available
to service YOU, you must accept that some of them may want to have families.
They may want health insurance. They may need a helping hand when it comes
to affording food for their kids. This is not socialism, at least not the
way it's defined by the people who created the concept.

But, you know that. You've read Marx and Engels.


Who needs knowledge when you
have Cheetos, the Simpsons, and that third thing - the opiate of the
masses?
You understand that last reference, I'm sure, because you have knowledge.

Opiates imply illicit drugs. But you could be using the term
metaphorically, to refer to such carnal activities such as sex.

I was hoping you were already familiar with the comment and its author,
because for me to mention it will send you off on a tangent. "Religion is
the opiate of the masses" - Karl Marx

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

I've given you a perfect analogy for what your president is doing:
Raising
debt, and lowering income. I've told you your daughter has a plan that's
identical, and that she believes it's sound. Respond to that, assuming
she
intends to go ahead with her plan regardless of what you say. Also,
factor
in something you don't know yet: You *will* care about her and gently nag
her until the day you die. It's human nature.

I said it before, get a better job. Meaning that this government can
become much more efficient financially. Tax increases are not the
answer to all our woes. Spending less will give us a boost in income.

Dave



Let's try this, and if you don't get it, I give up.

1) Your president has said that no matter what ANYONE says, no matter how
the arithmetic works out, he's not going to get a better job.

2) The miniscule boost in your income will do little to help the deficit. It
serves only one purpose: To get the president reelected by people who don't
think past the current paycheck.

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 22:44:42 +1100, K Smith
wrote:

Do you have some sort of acute mental problem that causes your posts
to be over 850 lines?

Especially when they have nothing relevant to do with boating?

If you must post 850+ lines to try to **** off another poster, I
suggest you email all of that verbiage directly to them.

I miss the point about why we must be punished, too.

Easy, Gene. She's got substance abuse problems. She's lucky she can even
manage a chair without falling off.

On 09 Jan 2004 16:39:34 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

So it's your assertion then that people who agree with a certain
position, are somehow "hateful"?

Dave

You already know the answer, Dave.

It depends on the position.

Agreeing with: "I think the war in Iraq makes good strategic sense for the
United States because it will allow us to establish a base in the mid east and
improve the reliability of our oil supply" is conservative, but not hateful.

Agreeing with: "The liberals in this country wake up every morning hoping that
thousands of innocent Americans will be killed in a terrorist strike just to
make the Bush administration look bad" is hateful and divisive.

Surely you can see the difference. Can't you?

Chuck, I would not make such a statement about most of the liberals on
the NG. However, there is one who fits the second statement, and we
know who he is.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Chuck, I would not make such a statement about most of the liberals on
the NG.

Then you would not be guilty of that example of hate speech. (Lifted almost
word for word from a recent radio broadcast heard by who knows how many
hundreds of thousands or millions of people)

However, there is one who fits the second statement, and we
know who he is.

One must be totally consumed by evil to
want, watch, or allow thousands of people to die merely to advance a political
agenda. There are such people in the world, but not (realistically) in
rec.boats.

It's good to see that the Doug and Dave show is back on.

Bert

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


I guess you've never lived near rivers that were capable or catching
fire,
or bodies of water with glistening rainbows from a constant oil slick.
Is
that what you want for your kids?

Nope, but I'm not cents wise and dollar foolish when it comes to the
environment. I'm not an alarmist who wants to redefine every power
enthusiast's lifestyle by claiming that these things are more
responsible for pollution than agricultural or industrial sources.

I'm not in favor of rules which unnecessarily burden those who can
least afford it. And I don't think the government (And by extension
the taxpayers) should be forced to "fix" that problem by subsidizing
the poor.

Dave



You're spewing again, Dave. Because you said that you read so many
different
information sources, surely you know that vast amounts of contamination
can
be eliminated by people like us, for a buck or two a year. Or, by simply
doing something differently, something that costs absolutely zip.

You're smart. You read all sorts of stuff. You know these things.

A highly profitable and successful business. Did you ever wonder why
liberal talk radio went over like a fart in a space suit (and they

vs conservative talk radio?
Same reason that the National Enquirer outsells the Harvard Review.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
It's good to see that the Doug and Dave show is back on.

Bert

Welcome back, my friends, to the show that never ends.

If I didn't have a 14 year old son, I'd never have learned enough patience
to tutor poor Dave.