On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:41:28 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

What is more important to you? Helping the poor stay afloat, or being
cents wise and dollar foolish when it comes to little environmental
issues?

Dave, what is it with you today? Are you on cold medication or something?
I
said my mechanic finds that 99% of leakers need a washer that costs as
much
as one and a half lottery tickets.

I don't believe that. Every car that I've ever owned or worked on
(which has been many) which leaked, did so through aging seals or
gaskets. I have NEVER had a leaky oil drain plug, and I'd be quite
surprised that they are that big of an issue. Even if there were no
washer on the plug, the amount of oil seepage around the (tight)
threads of the plug would amount to what, a drop or two a week?

Mrs Hall must be feeling frisky this week, because you are obviously not
getting enough sleep. I said "99% of leakers are leaking from the oil plug".
I did NOT say "99% of all cars".

I know that. But taking my own personal experience, which extends to
my own 20-something cars (and boats), plus those of other people which
I've worked on, and I have NEVER seen a leaking oil plug. I HAVE seen
leaks, and they come from other places. So what was that about 99% of
leakers?


Many have no other economical choice.

Cripes...I have to explain everything.

No, you don't.


And I challenge that your example is next to a non-issue.

That's not surprising. You have no interest in your environment. You're
probably the type of monkey who, if camping, burns all the plastic garbage
in the campfire, right?

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I do have experience with cars
and based on that experience, I disagree with your conclusion.

It's statements like yours which get picked up by the marginally
educated. People actually buy into this nonsense, and get the wrong
opinion about pollution and who the biggest offenders really are. It's
not the guy who changes his own oil, or the fisherman with the 9.9 hp
2-stroke outboard.

Actually, many people recommend lowering tire pressure in the snow, as
it can increase traction. 32 Lbs in the tire is generally lowered to
around 25 Lbs. Me, I just take my 4X4 truck to work, if I even decide
to go.

This is fine for people who are systematic about checking it. You're talking
about a conscious decision.

Don't you believe that driving involves a certain amount of
responsibility toward safety? Shouldn't checking your tires be a part
of this responsibility?


Dave

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:58:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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?


I find it interesting because not that long ago, you guys on the left
were lambasting Wal-Mart for paying "slave wages" to its employees,
even though those people were free to leave and look elsewhere. You
have jumped in on the "exploitation" bandwagon, and have dismissed the
principles of the free market concepts of supply and demand setting
the wage scales, and opinione that those wages should be increased to
some level higher. But never once explaining how you were going to
justify this increase to those higher skill levels who would be no
better off than the "new" Wal-Mart wage scale. The comparison of one
example of each end of the skill range, makes this argument sound
somewhat absurd, but the principles are the same.

Socialism attempts to "compress" or limit the range of wages that
exist for the different skill levels. So no, a street sweeper will not
be paid the same as a neurosurgeon. But the difference would ne be
nearly as great as it is now. At some point people will question the
work needed to make that higher wage, and the responsibility that goes
with it, if the reward is not much better.

Now, you are suggesting that you agree with the free market inspired
wage scales as they apply to different skill levels?

Dave

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:09:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.


The differences are not that much. The only difference is where you
pay and how. What's the difference if you and another less skilled
person are both paid $30,000 a year in salary, compared to whether you
are paid $60,000 to his $30,000, but you are taxed 50% of that salary,
while his is only taxed at 10%?



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.

I'm only concerned my retirement income. That's why I'm providing my
own, and not depending on the government to provide it.


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.

I totally understand this, and have no problem accepting it. It's
human nature. That's not to say that I'm automatically a bad person
for playing the system to my advantage.


This is not to say that the exact same people will remain in a
certain class forever (although some will).

They can always strive for training and education and move up the
"class" ladder. It's their own choice.


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.

Personal responsibility dictates that you not have more mouths than
you can afford to feed. Poor planning on your part does not constitute
a financial crisis on mine.



This is not socialism, at least not the
way it's defined by the people who created the concept.

No, THIS is not socialism. But the solution to the problem often times
includes socialist concepts. Anytime you penalize an achiever to prop
up an underachiever, you are redistributing wealth and that is a core
socialist principle.




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

Yes I have.

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


Your disdain for religion and to the family and community bonds that
it provides, speaks volumes as to why you think the way you do. Those
bonds and the networks that form along them took care of those in need
long before the "gimme" generation started looking to the government
to mandate the concept. Government control of course, would open the
door to abuse, and isolates the recipient from the donor, and lessens
the shame which would normally happen if the recipient were "cheating"
the system.


Dave

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:13:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.

Then you'd better give up, because I'm not buying into your example.
Not because, as you might think, I fail to understand it, but because
it's just wrong.



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.

There are few absolutes. And this is not one of them. The government
CAN increase it's income through means other than taxes on hard
working people.


2) The miniscule boost in your income will do little to help the deficit.

One could say that the Bush tax cuts may have played a significant
part in the economic recovery that we're now experiencing.


It serves only one purpose: To get the president reelected by people who don't
think past the current paycheck.

The margin of error for predictions increases exponentially
proportionate to the passage of time.

In other words, it's very tough to predict what will happen in the
future. So enjoy the present.



Dave

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.

Why is that hateful? Especially if there is some truth in it.

We're done.
If that reflects your perspective, nothing you post is worthy of reading or
response.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


And I challenge that your example is next to a non-issue.

Not really, Dave. Here's why:

1) With some exceptions, industry has done a pretty good job of cleaning up
its act. When it comes to eliminating/minimizing effluents (the crap that
comes out of a manufacturing facility), many of the ideas which have become
standard were ideas thought of by people who work at the companies
themselves, and have been adopted as standards due to their effectiveness.

Now...don't respond yet - read this:

2) In most places, the water that runs into street drains is not treated. It
goes directly into a drainage basin or a naturally occurring body of water.
Here, for instance, that would be Lake Ontario. If it goes into a drainage
basin, it ends up in the ground, and the next stop may be the water table
itself.

Wait....don't respond yet.

Almost anywhere in this country, guess who's responsible for most of the
chemical additions to surface water runoff?


That's not surprising. You have no interest in your environment. You're
probably the type of monkey who, if camping, burns all the plastic
garbage
in the campfire, right?

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I do have experience with cars
and based on that experience, I disagree with your conclusion.

It's statements like yours which get picked up by the marginally
educated. People actually buy into this nonsense, and get the wrong
opinion about pollution and who the biggest offenders really are. It's
not the guy who changes his own oil, or the fisherman with the 9.9 hp
2-stroke outboard.

What harm comes from suggesting that mechanics or car owners try to achieve
zero leakage, if they can do it with a washer, or by wiping up the 1/2 quart
that they spill all over the suspension crossmembers and the ground? Some
driver ed teachers take the kids under the hood and teach them a little
about maintenance, so they know how to check their fluids. If the teacher
was anal about leaky oil, and told kids to investigate and fix leaks ASAP
when they saw them, would you consider that an intrusion into "family
values", like unauthorized sex education? :-)



Actually, many people recommend lowering tire pressure in the snow, as
it can increase traction. 32 Lbs in the tire is generally lowered to
around 25 Lbs. Me, I just take my 4X4 truck to work, if I even decide
to go.

This is fine for people who are systematic about checking it. You're
talking
about a conscious decision.

Don't you believe that driving involves a certain amount of
responsibility toward safety? Shouldn't checking your tires be a part
of this responsibility?

I didn't say people shouldn't check it. I said that a huge percentage do
NOT. You can wish for a fairytale world, but it doesn't exist. I told you to
glance at tires in parking lots. Do it.

Your example of lowering your tire pressure is fine, but you made a
conscious decision and experimented with it. This is not the same as the
random situation that many people live with, where their tires are down to
16 or 20 lbs, and they didn't find out until they had a blowout, or
hydroplaned on a wet road, or wore out a set of tires in 18k miles.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


I find it interesting because not that long ago, you guys on the left
were lambasting Wal-Mart for paying "slave wages" to its employees,
even though those people were free to leave and look elsewhere.

I never complained about the wages they pay. You're lumping me into a
category with someone else. Maybe Harry. My beef with Wal Mart goes far
deeper than that, which may be why you've never really understood it.


You
have jumped in on the "exploitation" bandwagon, and have dismissed the
principles of the free market concepts of supply and demand setting
the wage scales, and opinione that those wages should be increased to
some level higher.

No, I didn't. Ease up on the mushrooms, Dave.


Socialism attempts to "compress" or limit the range of wages that
exist for the different skill levels. So no, a street sweeper will not
be paid the same as a neurosurgeon. But the difference would ne be
nearly as great as it is now. At some point people will question the
work needed to make that higher wage, and the responsibility that goes
with it, if the reward is not much better.

Now, you are suggesting that you agree with the free market inspired
wage scales as they apply to different skill levels?

Let's play with this! First, let's pick a job that actually relates to YOU.
A service which, if it weren't performed, would really **** you off. Two, as
a matter of fact: Hotel maids and office janitors. If you checked into a
hotel and along with your room key, they handed you a bucket of cleaning
supplies, you'd walk out the door and go home. And, since every office has
some asshole who ****es all over the toilet or stands two feet from the
urinal and soaks the floor, things would get really disgusting after a week
without the janitor. Your place of business would begin to resemble a sports
bar on Superbowl Sunday.

So, you agree that these two cleaning people are absolutely necessary.

Next: Since they're necessary, it means that as a group, they must exist
forever. There will always be cleaning people. They are not paid very well
now, and they never will be.

Next: We live in a country where if you add up the salaries of two such
people, it's next to impossible to buy a nice little house, maybe a used
car, and have a kid or two.

You're going to say that they can better themselves if they'd like. True.
But, they'll have to be replaced, right? But, some people actually like
cleaning. They're good at it, more efficient than other people. And they may
prefer quiet work where they don't have to be dragged down by the failures
of other people. So, if through some outside mechanism, perhaps legislation,
their income was raised to $20k a year from $14k a year, would that be such
a bad thing? That's still a far cry from $200k - $2 million per year that
many medical specialists make, don't you think?

Or, do you think people should be penalized for sticking with work that they
like?

On 13 Jan 2004 14:50:16 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

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.

Why is that hateful? Especially if there is some truth in it.

We're done.
If that reflects your perspective, nothing you post is worthy of reading or
response.


That's a cop out answer Chuck. You still failed to point out how the
expressing of an opinion is somehow hateful, especially if there is
some truth in it. Do you categorically deny that they are some on the
left who fit the mold that was cast for them?

Chuck, you are usually a reasonable person, who at least gives the
appearance of being able to rationalize concepts. But your inability
to see beyond your bias, is hampering your objectivity in this case.

Dave

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:12:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


And I challenge that your example is next to a non-issue.

Not really, Dave. Here's why:

1) With some exceptions, industry has done a pretty good job of cleaning up
its act. When it comes to eliminating/minimizing effluents (the crap that
comes out of a manufacturing facility), many of the ideas which have become
standard were ideas thought of by people who work at the companies
themselves, and have been adopted as standards due to their effectiveness.

Now...don't respond yet - read this:

2) In most places, the water that runs into street drains is not treated. It
goes directly into a drainage basin or a naturally occurring body of water.
Here, for instance, that would be Lake Ontario. If it goes into a drainage
basin, it ends up in the ground, and the next stop may be the water table
itself.

Wait....don't respond yet.

Almost anywhere in this country, guess who's responsible for most of the
chemical additions to surface water runoff?

Agricultural runoff. At least according to the reports that I've read
concerning lake pollution. This runoff comprises of both artificial
fertilizers, and the byproducts of animal waste.




That's not surprising. You have no interest in your environment. You're
probably the type of monkey who, if camping, burns all the plastic
garbage
in the campfire, right?

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I do have experience with cars
and based on that experience, I disagree with your conclusion.

It's statements like yours which get picked up by the marginally
educated. People actually buy into this nonsense, and get the wrong
opinion about pollution and who the biggest offenders really are. It's
not the guy who changes his own oil, or the fisherman with the 9.9 hp
2-stroke outboard.

What harm comes from suggesting that mechanics or car owners try to achieve
zero leakage, if they can do it with a washer, or by wiping up the 1/2 quart
that they spill all over the suspension crossmembers and the ground?

No harm. But don't attempt to suggest that by not performing this
simple task it will result in significant amounts of pollution,
because it just isn't so. My own personal experience will back me up
on this.



Some
driver ed teachers take the kids under the hood and teach them a little
about maintenance, so they know how to check their fluids. If the teacher
was anal about leaky oil, and told kids to investigate and fix leaks ASAP
when they saw them, would you consider that an intrusion into "family
values", like unauthorized sex education? :-)

Ha ha! You really need to squelch that nasty habit of comparing
dissimilar concepts and judging them by the same rules.

On that subject, I plan to give my daughter the "Car maintenance 101"
course, when she is old enough to need it. She will learn how to
change a tire, oil, and check all fluids. Too many people these days
know next to nothing about the things that goon under the hood of
their car.





Actually, many people recommend lowering tire pressure in the snow, as
it can increase traction. 32 Lbs in the tire is generally lowered to
around 25 Lbs. Me, I just take my 4X4 truck to work, if I even decide
to go.

This is fine for people who are systematic about checking it. You're
talking
about a conscious decision.

Don't you believe that driving involves a certain amount of
responsibility toward safety? Shouldn't checking your tires be a part
of this responsibility?

I didn't say people shouldn't check it. I said that a huge percentage do
NOT. You can wish for a fairytale world, but it doesn't exist. I told you to
glance at tires in parking lots. Do it.

I don't live in a fairytale world, I'm not a liberal. I do know that a
large percentage of people do not check their tires regularly. That
only tells me that a large segment of the population does not
understand the concept of personal responsibility.



Your example of lowering your tire pressure is fine, but you made a
conscious decision and experimented with it. This is not the same as the
random situation that many people live with, where their tires are down to
16 or 20 lbs, and they didn't find out until they had a blowout, or
hydroplaned on a wet road, or wore out a set of tires in 18k miles.

So what do yo want to do about it? Are you suggesting that we
"educate" those people about the aspects of proper tire inflation, so
that they can ignore it along with the rest of the responsibilities
that they should be taking care of?


Dave

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:30:58 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


I find it interesting because not that long ago, you guys on the left
were lambasting Wal-Mart for paying "slave wages" to its employees,
even though those people were free to leave and look elsewhere.

I never complained about the wages they pay. You're lumping me into a
category with someone else. Maybe Harry. My beef with Wal Mart goes far
deeper than that, which may be why you've never really understood it.

It would help if you elaborated.


You
have jumped in on the "exploitation" bandwagon, and have dismissed the
principles of the free market concepts of supply and demand setting
the wage scales, and opinione that those wages should be increased to
some level higher.

No, I didn't. Ease up on the mushrooms, Dave.

Really? I was sure you were among those who wanted the salaries of
those unskilled workers (Including McDonalds and Wal-Mart) to be
raised to a level where they could be reasonably expected to live a
"comfortable" life.

Socialism attempts to "compress" or limit the range of wages that
exist for the different skill levels. So no, a street sweeper will not
be paid the same as a neurosurgeon. But the difference would ne be
nearly as great as it is now. At some point people will question the
work needed to make that higher wage, and the responsibility that goes
with it, if the reward is not much better.

Now, you are suggesting that you agree with the free market inspired
wage scales as they apply to different skill levels?

Let's play with this! First, let's pick a job that actually relates to YOU.
A service which, if it weren't performed, would really **** you off. Two, as
a matter of fact: Hotel maids and office janitors. If you checked into a
hotel and along with your room key, they handed you a bucket of cleaning
supplies, you'd walk out the door and go home. And, since every office has
some asshole who ****es all over the toilet or stands two feet from the
urinal and soaks the floor, things would get really disgusting after a week
without the janitor. Your place of business would begin to resemble a sports
bar on Superbowl Sunday.

Yea, so?


So, you agree that these two cleaning people are absolutely necessary.

Yea so?


Next: Since they're necessary, it means that as a group, they must exist
forever. There will always be cleaning people. They are not paid very well
now, and they never will be.

Not as long as the pool of people qualified to do the work, exceeds
the demand for the skillset. That's free market 101.


Next: We live in a country where if you add up the salaries of two such
people, it's next to impossible to buy a nice little house, maybe a used
car, and have a kid or two.

Yea so?


You're going to say that they can better themselves if they'd like. True.
But, they'll have to be replaced, right?

And there is always someone to replace them. That's why the wages are
so low. Haven't you figured this out yet?


But, some people actually like
cleaning. They're good at it, more efficient than other people.

I really like boating. Maybe someone should pay me a wage for doing
what I like instead of what makes the most money.


And they may
prefer quiet work where they don't have to be dragged down by the failures
of other people.


And the compensation for that is a low wage. What, do you think that
dealing with the pressures of a high income responsibility should not
be rewarded? The risks and the pressure are some of the things that
command the higher salary. If you want to work in a happy-go-lucky
job, then you get paid accordingly.




So, if through some outside mechanism, perhaps legislation,
their income was raised to $20k a year from $14k a year, would that be such
a bad thing?

It would be for the person who was already earning $20K, and who now
has to wonder why this unskilled person is now making what they are.
That former $20K person now wants a raise, and points to the former
$14K person's raise and commensurate skillset as a justification.
Surely you can realize where this will lead?



That's still a far cry from $200k - $2 million per year that
many medical specialists make, don't you think?

But those people have a LOT more responsibility.


Or, do you think people should be penalized for sticking with work that they
like?

See above. We all can't do what we like, and expect to get paid well
for it (unless, of course, you like rocket science, or happen to be
good at professional sports or entertainment). What determines a
particular salary is the relative worth to society, that a particular
skillset has, weighed against the number of people qualified to
perform the job.

Dave