"The domestic side of the Bush administration’s new budget, released officially Monday, is an acceleration of the campaign to enrich the wealthy at the expense of domestic social needs. The White House proposes further significant cuts in programs for the poor and disadvantaged, while undermining the financial stability of Social Security and Medicare.
The centerpiece of the budget is the staggering rise in military spending, already analyzed by the WSWS [Billions for war and repression: Bush budget for a garrison state]. Over the next five years, according to administration projections, more than $2 trillion will be funneled into the Pentagon.
The other major budget priority is further handouts to the rich, on top of the $1.35 trillion in tax cuts over the next 10 years already enacted in 2001. The plundering of the public treasury to benefit the top 1 percent of the population takes two forms: further tax cuts, and a torrent of interest payments on the federal debt.
The White House proposes an additional $675 billion in tax cuts over 10 years, bringing the total to over $2.1 trillion, with the lion’s share going to the wealthiest layer of the population. More than half of the total cut, $354 billion, comes from extending last year’s cuts an additional two years. Under a budgetary gimmick adopted by the White House and Congress last year, the tax cuts had been scheduled to expire in 2010.
Significantly, the administration did not make any corresponding provision to provide an extension of relief for millions of middle class and upper-middle class taxpayers who would otherwise be pushed by inflation into brackets where they would be obliged to pay the alternative minimum tax. Without changes in tax law, the number of taxpayers required to pay the higher tax, originally targeted only at the very rich, will rise from 1 million in 2005 to 39 million in 2012, costing these families $200 billion.
During the congressional debate last year over Bush’s initial tax cut plan, both the White House and congressional leaders pledged to eliminate this anomaly in the tax code. But instead, the administration has focused its tax-cutting fervor on the most privileged layers of the super-rich, an indication of the extremely narrow social base whose interests it serves. It is not defending the middle class against the undeserving poor, as Republican rhetoric usually suggests, but defending the wealthy elite against every other social layer, including the middle class.
An even greater windfall for the wealthy has been little noted in the media coverage of the budget. The Bush administration has drastically revised the fiscal projections which were the basis of the claims that the federal government would run huge surpluses and pay off the bulk of the national debt in the course of the next decade. The combined impact of the tax cuts, the recession and the Pentagon buildup is that there will be no significant reduction in the debt.
Consequently, the federal government will continue to pay an enormous amount in interest on the debt—payments that go largely to the very wealthy, who have the resources to invest in Treasury bills. By one estimate, this interest bill will total an additional $1 trillion over the next decade, a huge, though well-disguised, form of financial tribute to the upper class.
Social Security and Medicare
The disappearance of the projected surpluses naturally means the end of suggestions that these funds could be used to ensure the continuity of Social Security and Medicare, the two largest federal entitlement programs, which provide pension income and medical care for the elderly and disabled.
The bulk of the surplus accumulating in Social Security accounts over the next decade will be used to finance general government expenses, and therefore will not be there when the huge post-World War II generation begins to retire. In the current fiscal year, $262 billion in surplus Social Security funds is being used to finance government operations. Next year that figure will be $259 billion.
At a Senate Budget Committee hearing, North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad, who chairs the panel, compared the Bush administration’s handling of the Social Security trust fund to Enron’s looting of its 401(k) plan. He told Bush’s budget director, Mitchell Daniels, that if a private corporation treated pensions the way the White House did, “you’d be headed for a federal correctional authority.” Despite such comments, made with an eye to partisan advantage in the coming election, both big business parties are committed to using the Social Security funds to finance the military buildup and tax cuts for the rich.
There are also indications that the Bush administration has deliberately distorted its budget projections to the detriment of Medicare. As the New York Times pointed out February 6, the White House estimate of Medicare spending over the next decade is $300 billion less than that of the Congressional Budget Office. Medicare costs grew by an average of 7.6 percent in the 1990s, but the White House forecasts this falling to an average of 4.6 percent, with no changes in coverage or benefits. If the CBO forecast proves more accurate, Medicare funds will be rapidly exhausted, creating the conditions for drastic benefit cuts.
As it did last year, the Bush administration has declared itself in favor of adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare while proposing a level of funding—$190 billion over 10 years—well below the $300 billion most analysts believe the benefit would actually cost. The shortfall would likely require significant cuts either in Medicare itself or other social programs. Even if enacted, which appears doubtful, the benefit would constitute a direct subsidy to the pharmaceutical industry, one of the most profitable sectors of the US economy.
A litany of budget cuts
The cuts in discretionary spending on a variety of social needs will be the largest since the onslaught of the Reagan years. While overall spending is projected to rise 6 percent, nearly all of the increase goes to the Pentagon and to domestic policing in one form or another. Domestic social spending will rise by only 1 percent, less than the rate of inflation, and many programs will suffer severe slashes. Six of the fourteen cabinet departments will see actual spending reductions.
The biggest impact will be on infrastructure programs, with $9 billion cut from highway construction (California alone will lose $600 million), and a 10-15 percent reduction in the Army Corps of Engineers, which is responsible for flood control, navigation and environmental projects on US rivers and harbors.
Job training programs will be gutted, with grants to 36 cities for youth job training cut from $225 million to only $45 million. Another $620 million will be cut from grants to states, a reduction that dwarfs the better-publicized increase of $73 million for the Job Corps.
The Education Department’s budget would rise by $1.8 billion, or 3.7 percent, to $50.3 billion, a far cry from the substantial increase contained in last year’s budget. A boost in spending for special education and for aid to schools in poor neighborhoods will be largely offset by cuts in other programs, including vocational and adult education.
There is a sizeable increase in spending by the Treasury, the Justice Department, the State Department, the Transportation Department and the Energy Department, all of it related to tightening security at airports, nuclear power plants, government offices and US embassies and other facilities overseas.
Other specifics include:
* $286 million to be cut from the Environmental Protection Agency, including a freeze on hiring to fill vacancies in the division which enforces pollution laws;
* a cut of $9 billion through changes in accounting procedures for Medicaid, which pays for medical care for the poorest of the poor;
* $300 million cut from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program;
* a $9 million cut in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and a $29 million cut in the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health;
* a 30 percent cut, or $85 million, from a program that trains doctors at children’s hospitals;
* $382 million to be cut from public housing, largely through cuts in the capital fund that pays for repairs;
* a reduction of $268 million in Community Development Block Grants for blighted inner-city areas;
* $175 million to be cut from the Forest Service budget, targeted to reduce the agency’s ability to bring lawsuits against excess or illegal logging by timber interests;
* a $4 billion reduction in projected unemployment benefits, despite largely gloomy economic forecasts for the level of unemployment.
posted on February 12, 2002 11:54:36 AM new
*COMPLAINT* "The Rich pay a lot more taxes than everyone else does!"
Reply: "Given a choice to earn what I do and pay my taxes at the rate that I currently do; or, I could have an annual income of a Billion Dollars, but would be forced to pay $300,000.00 in taxes -- which one would I chose? Get real!"
*COMPLAINT* "Hey! It's THEIR MONEY!"
Reply: "No, its not! Don't be absurd. That money was only made possible by underpaying other people who did work for that rich person. If the workers were paid what they were worth, the rich person would never be rich! Therefore, the Rich person whose income derives from the sweating backs of others can rightly be forced to give a goodly share of it back to those workers from whom they have benfitted from. It's not communism -- it's FAIR!"
As far as those whose incomes are a Billion Dollars a year and they get it through investment schemes, I can tell you that they never lifted a finger once to earn it. Sorry, my heart doesn't bleed for them the way it does for those who REALLY toil in the ground (miners), on the soil (rednecks), on the road (truckers), and in millions of unsung, but nasty ways to make your living on a day-by-day basis.
There! I've said it all BEFORE anyone else could bring it up!
Borillar
"Friends don't let friends vote republican"
posted on February 19, 2002 10:53:27 PM new Pssst, Borillar... do me a favor... post anything-you-please in any-thread-you-choose at this chatboard: http://pub49.ezboard.com/bnewtswurld
posted on February 20, 2002 12:21:40 AM new
Borillar
A new high in insipid posts.
Workers generally ARE paid what they're worth, it's called supply and demand. Oh, and those truckers and miners are quite well paid thank you.
And despite your pining for a Swedish welfare state, it IS their money. If you remember your high school economics, there is such a thing as diminishing returns. The top 5% in income already pay 35-40% of income taxes, almost a 40% increase over the past 10 yrs.
PS: What exactly is an investment "scheme"?? Is that like you buying something for $1 and selling it on ebay for $2?? A true servant of the people would offer it at $.75.
posted on February 20, 2002 06:11:34 AM new
somebody swallowed propaganda, workers paid what they are worth ? yeah right, thats why they formed unions because they liked to meet in smoke filled halls right could not possibly have been that the conditions for a worker in New york were nightmarish,, with children in sweatshops. Are you nuts ? I'll bet you think your educated. this talk of the Swedish welfare state is the Big Lie all over again. Exxon has not paid their court ordered settlement over what they pulled in Alaska they now have some pimping fifi of a federl judge crawling out of his hole in the barrio association to reduce the award. Look Republican goofball the workers in your politicalparties most favored nation Red China are not paid according to the law of supply and demand. There seem to be 2 types of republicans out there lately, those sell out corporate parasites who are killing this country with theu greed and true conservatives like Pat buchanon, Pat can have a vote, but the el republicano family can bite me.
posted on February 20, 2002 01:36:10 PM new
Really, Helen, I'm VERY surprised that you would advertise another chatboard and provide and url to it in your post early this morning. I know that you're a member of Newts but R-E-A-L-L-Y!
Let's see: Swedish system of Welfare ... hmmm ... that never occurred to me. Rather, I am for public schools to stop only teaching students how to be good little McDonald's employees at the cash register and instead, include equal curriculum for them to learn everything that they need to know about how to be in business for themselves in this post-industrial age. That way, when an employer pisses off a worker, the worker can say "To Hell with you and yours - I've already got a going concern and I QUIT in order to go support myself!" MMMMMmmmmm. Imagine IBM without employees and millions of new competitors. Imagine General Motors and no one to operate their assembly lines. What a difference it would make. And the idea is soooo Republican too! Surprised?
Borillar
"Friends don't let friends vote republican"
UBBE
[ edited by Borillar on Feb 21, 2002 10:44 AM ]
posted on February 21, 2002 10:48:07 AM newPLSMITH: Thank you for your kind offer, but I don't do chat rooms. It's much more fun to be here to make Republicans suffer -- as they should for their blind loyalty to their Supreme Master.
Borillar
"Friends don't let friends vote republican"
posted on February 21, 2002 11:01:01 AM new"Workers generally ARE paid what they're worth, it's called supply and demand."
DeSquirrel, I gotta jump on this one too.
The truth of the matter is that workers trade off a large part of their potential income to reduce the risk of a fluctuating income. The employer, who is taking most of the risks, gets to under-pay the workers because they get a steady paycheck, no matter how good or bad business is unless they get laid off. Even then they are guaranteed a steady paycheck for a minimal amount of time. That too is made possible by a tax on merchants.
Back to the subject: workers are a force of economics as you claim: they are bought Low in wages and sold High in the work that they do. That I consider a miner's or redneck's efforts more valuable than some CEO who sits around getting waited upon hand and foot while he or she decides whom to lay off this week is my clearly my opinion. And when workers are underpaid as the often are, they work just hard enough to not get fired, because the employer pays them just enough to not quit their jobs.
Economics? Oh, sure! The corporations love it when there is a recession. That means that there is constantly a large enough pool of the unemployed in order to get away with totally underpaying all of their employees. I mean, who's going to go quit their job in the time of this Depression when they may not get another one for a year? Yes, Recessions and Depressions are the delight of Republicans everywhere, because it helps them to bleed off workers the most! Haven't you figured out why the first thing to go in any Republican administration is the economy?
Borillar
"Friends don't let friends vote republican"
posted on February 21, 2002 02:36:59 PM new
Borillar,
You seem to work on the "gotta get" principle as opposed to "what it's worth". In other words the guy at 7-11 who stocks the slurpy machine and has 17 kids has to get $60,000/yr. Well, too bad, because the going rate for slurpy machine stocking is $15,000/yr. The world is changing just as it did at the start of the industrial revolution. If you make buggy whips, you better start looking for a new vocation. Conversely, good people in my disciplines can virtually write their own ticket.
I know you think that if you spend $2 billion and 2 kids learn to read, then if you spend $4 billion you at least have 4 kids that can read. More money goes down a rat hole in the guise of "education" than perhaps any other place. The importance of education is also dependent on your culture. Ever notice how a significant portion of professional people are Jewish??? That's because from birth Jewish culture stresses education and grooming of young people to get a good job.
People are not "taught", people "learn". You can spend unlimited funds and not make a single change if the mommy and daddy do not see to it that little Johnny puts the nose to the grindstone.
In my schooling (public), we never had any courses in McDonalds, but I did quite well nonetheless. Now, from your posts, I doubt I would have seen you in any of my classes, but friends in liberal arts programs all can read and write fine and are all upstanding citizens.
I see you think a "Bush" "bad economy" has replaced that "Clinton" "good economy". Again, domestic policy is the province of Congress, not the President, and an economy is a cyclic animal.
We're no where near a welfare state yet, but my $5900 bonus check sure became $2500 fast. I must be one of those "rich" people, waiting for my next tax increase.
posted on February 21, 2002 03:44:45 PM new" In other words the guy at 7-11 who stocks the slurpy machine and has 17 kids has to get $60,000/yr. Well, too bad, because the going rate for slurpy machine stocking is $15,000/yr."
Precisely why my heart goes out to them, rather than with people with a billion dollar a year incomes that are greedily crying about paying 30% of it in taxes.
"I know you think that if you spend $2 billion and 2 kids learn to read, then if you spend $4 billion you at least have 4 kids that can read."
You're wrong on that assumption. I believe that that first, public schools have to be brought up to standard both in buildings, classroom sizes, and materials. I suppose you think that penalizing a school that has leaking roofs in the classrooms and the students have to bring plastic sheets to cover their work with to keep it dry is the fault of a system that does not give enough "incentives"; such as school vouchers, if they fail to learn properly. Or that kids can easily squeeze into a classroom of 32 or more students and get all of the proper attention from a teacher that they require to excel in their studies? I could go on.
" see you think a "Bush" "bad economy" has replaced that "Clinton" "good economy". Again, domestic policy is the province of Congress, not the President ..."
Declaring a State of War is also the province of Congress, yet this President is doing a good job at it, even though he has no legal right to do so (MAXIMUM abuse of power!) So what's yer point?
"I must be one of those "rich" people, waiting for my next tax increase."
Funny, rationally, and according to written historical records, since the start of the Eisenhower Administration, every Republican administration has raised taxes more than Democratic ones, has made government larger than any Democratic one, and constantly blames the other, more fiscally conservative party of their bad deeds -- all of which their brainless voters swallow whole. Know anyone like that?
Borillar
"Friends don't let friends vote republican"
posted on February 21, 2002 04:10:14 PM new
I don't see things quite as black and white as the rest of you seem to.
Socialism ultimately fails, but so does Darwinistic supply and demand models.
I think advanced, complex, and otherwise successful economies have "communitarian" operations as the basic underpinnings.
Even if we could cleanly separate the people of "capital" from the "workers", we still find complimentary elements of both in each.
Do others have a claim on Bill Gates wealth ? The simple answer is yes, just as Bill Gates and MS have a claim against the rest of us to uphold their copyrights and patents and use our common resources such as the justice system to help uphold Gates' claims, as well as fair and honest business practices.
But the exchange here has even more mileage than just tit for tat. This system also motivates Gates and others to pursue endeavors that ultimtely help all those within the economy. It stimulates all players to uphold their ends of the bargain. That's right, it is a bargain, and it has been there in all successful societies.
When one side or the other gains too much leverage within the bargain, or doesn't hold up their end of the bargain, everyone suffers.
These "sufferings" are played out in the political sphere, at least it does in an enlightened democracy.
How much should the "wealthy" pay in taxes? What rules should apply to collective bargaining or minimum wage laws ?
An economist may point out trouble spots in these issues, but it is people voting that ultimately shift the policy leanings into one court or the other. There is no exactly "right" point of equallibrium between any of the conflicts.
Taxing the rich until they are poor has never worked, nor has treating workers purely as a supply and demand commodity worked either. Both extremes end up with a lousy economy.
However, all sides of the equation realizing that their prosperity depends upon the economic health of the other leads towards a more sound economic system. Proceeding from this realization and its intendent basic communitarian operations is why our economy is able to grow into the richest in history- and by richest, I don't mean the most accumulated wealth, but rather a systen that creates wealth all up and down the economic ladder.
An old saying seems to sum it up- "Wealth is like horse manure, piled in one place it just smells the place up, but spread it around, and things begin to grow."
posted on February 21, 2002 04:10:34 PM new
desquirrel I have found your posts to be challenging, let me give you a few things to think about first off There are those of us who contend that no honest labor should be looked down upon, I dare you to find one worker at a 7 11 or similar establishmnet with 17kids this is the big lie pushed by the republicans when they want the White racist vote. If you guys want the White racially aware vote someone had better get el republicano there an English interpeter. The facts is is that your party is not deserving of these votes. I remember winning an election in which it was 3 way split, my Black opponent dropped out and the corp hack thought he had it in the bag, I picked up all opposition votes because the Blacks knew that I was fair and Honest and that I would fight for my people first, but not do anything wrong to others to get there. I would suggest that if there is such a person that the Republicans have that person working as a human relations specialist or the democrats have them working as a congressman or woman. The wages that society demands the free market pay an employee have more to do with the benefit to the society as a whole than as a concept entirely based upon the needs of an emloyer. with out something to do the employer also has no income, The reason American became great was among many other things the fact that many of the employers or at least more of then than not. were decent people paying a decent wage for a hard dys work. the move to the cities gave rise to the privilaged parasite class. Yes I said Class ! the excesses of the rich whites and a handful of rich jews resulted in Marxism, National socialism, and 2 world wars, ,ema while innocent people of all races and faithe paid the price because of the supply and demand politics of 1933. I will bet you defend Bushes Idea of Investing Social security in the stock market, Get a Book Get a life, Do Not Get a great depression. as far as the Buggy remark I will have you know that the price of a carriage has risen steadily in the last few years and many amish and mennonites make their living off us the english buy fixing buggies. You did not bother to say what you do what ? used cars, Laywer, pimp , government employee ? That guy or Girl making those slurpies does not get a college defermnet when there is a draft. they dont get their rights read to them or followed in white blazers when they are accused, yet that person is supposed to rush forth with zeal when somone knocks down buildings filled with stockbrokers. Pat Buchanon called washington dc Israeli occupied territory maybe those teachings had someething to do with that. (and yes I know many Jewish people who just live their lives bothering no one, I personally can think of at least one who had all these benefits and it did no6t help him at all.)
At this point I am going to agree with the second half of your letter I have seen lots of parents smoking pot who thought that they were the mother and father of the year. or the drinkers who just dump the kids off on a school system. and By the way I worked at Macs as a kid and My Co workers were jewish
and there was nothing wrong with this as an ntry level job. The problem is that el republicano and the dinkocrats both think that this is an entery level job when it's obvious its not, its also obvious that a little more of the profits can go to employees than is going before the 50trillionrg burger ios served on the backs of underpaid adults. You can probably use that 5,000 to buy a college deferment for your kids the next time there is a draft.
posted on February 21, 2002 07:16:36 PM new
Auroranorth
1) I have no political affiliation
2) I do not look down on 7-11 workers. I merely state that a person's personal circumstances have no bearing on what they are paid.
3) Considering that in all of history no LONG-TERM investment has anywhere near the return of stock, it would probably be a great idea to invest SS funds there.
4) I am a network administrator
5) There are no more "college" deferments.
6) Why would a company (besides retirement plans, benefits, bonuses, etc, etc) pay you anymore for a given job when it has a successful product than you would say volunteer a 20% salary cut when a product fails??? OR anymore than you should tip the postal clerk half of that killing you made selling that last widget on ebay????
This is a free country whose greatness is DIRECTLY due to free enterprise, which means if you get an idea, throw the dice, take a risk and hit big, you are entitled to the reward even if it's more than you can spend.
This creeping socialism that is pounded away here constantly is the stepfather of stagnation. Like I'm really going to risk an endeavour which will see the fruit of my work given to finance inner city petting zoos. Or more correctly, a study of where to put the petting zoo, followed by the convention in Las Vegas to discuss the implementation of the petting zoos, followed by funding of the petting zoo aquisition committee, until at last they aquire 2 gerbils. I might do it, but instead I think I'll stay home and collect, the gummit can take care of me and take the wholwe load off my mind.
posted on February 21, 2002 09:10:08 PM new
Creeping Socialism? You still remember Ronald Reagan coining that phrase? It was a Republican political lie then and it's a Republican political lie now. That phrase has been so discredited over the years that only those that vaguely recall it might use it.
They used to call it "Creeping Communism" after WW-II and before the McCarty Era of Paranoia & Panic. Before this so-called Creeping Communism/Socialism idea came about, the Tycoons and Industry Barons crushed people daily under their so-called "wheels of progress". That so many suffered and died from horrible conditions brought about purely and solely by the greed of the industrialist gave rise to America's form of socialism. That anything the government has ever done to help out the lot of human misery has been chastised by the wealthy as "Communism/Socialism, while at the same time, they have always been sweeping out the tax coffers by the armful into their private pockets and then have the nerve to turn around and complain about taxes.
Borillar
"Real friends don't let friends vote republican"
posted on February 21, 2002 09:17:06 PM new
"This is a free country whose greatness is DIRECTLY due to free enterprise, which means if you get an idea, throw the dice, take a risk and hit big, you are entitled to the reward even if it's more than you can spend."
There is not now nor has there ever been "free enterprise". All economies are and have been regulated. Those that accumulate large amounts of wealth have found ways to legally exploit the values and resources of that society. Hard work has never had anything to do with it or underground hardrock coal miners would own everything.
A truely free market/emterprise system would be chaos.
Market regulations are always geared towards societal values.
We value education, so we commit resources towards it.
We value law and order, so we commit resources toward it.
We value a progressive tax system, so we tax according to the ability to pay.
We value robust interstate and international commerce, so we commit resources towards that goal.
This myth of the free enterprise "individual" is so much nonsense. There is an underpinning in ecomonies that was built by all the members of that society without which it would be impossible to create wealth, much less accumulate it.
Show me an "individual" that "creates" wealth, and I'll show you a plethora of economic resources commited by that society without which that "individual" could not have accomplished what he/she did.
Your very own job as sysop is due to all of us tax payers building the internet through the DOD. Not to mention all of the computing advances that came from all tax payers supporting govt research.
Hell, most of us are here because of tax payers supporting research for childhood vacinations and other medicines. All the "free enterprise" system has given us in the realm of medicine is procedures and medicines that few can afford.
Socialism ? No. But a system that allows for the rewards for wealth, but you still pay your fair share to promote the values of the society.
If you want to see a truely free enterprise system in action, go to Uganda, or Sub-Sahara Africa. These regions have an unregulated, untaxed, free economy. But I don't see any entrepreneurs flocking there.
For some reason everyone rich or poor who gets a chance comes to our regulated and taxed "socialist" system. How could that be ?
They come here because of the values that our society expresses through its economy. The "freedom" they speak of includes a school system that accepts everyone, a transportation system that allows us all to use it, the chance to accumulate wealth without regard to race, religion, or creed. The wealth accumulation is the least important because few will ever accumulate wealth of any significance.
Pure Socialism will wreck an economy. However lacking shared values and an unwillingness to share burdens by "individuals" will wreck it quicker.
posted on February 22, 2002 10:15:13 PM new
>CLAP!< >CLAP!< >CLAP!<
Very well written, REAMOND!
I'll have to go back and re-read that post to think it over. An interesting view so eloquently expressed. You know, that USED to be the Republican viewpoint, years ago before this Fascist-Christian faction took it over. Now that very same message is corrupted and the voters greedily lap it up without so much as a passing thought. Sad.
Borillar
"Real friends don't let friends vote republican"
posted on February 22, 2002 11:46:03 PM new
It's interesting that you equate the term "free enterprise" with a lack of community cohesiveness and an absence of common responsibility.
Oh, and I am not a "sysop" and the Arpanet was a tool used by educators and engineers. It had little to do with the mass penetration of the personal computer in the business world. PCs were the province of the tinkerer until the first "killer ap" (VisiCalc) was created, and then overnight the world was a different place.
And for some reason there is the equating here of a job's "worth" based on how much physical labor the worker does. The "worth" of a job is based on the demand for the service vs the number of people capable of suppling that service. It wouldn't matter if those miners worked TWICE as hard. I'll bet the guys that created the boring machines they use and the people that maintain them probably earn more.
posted on February 23, 2002 10:14:06 AM new
DeSquirrel, your last comments are so far out there in Fantasy Land that it isn't worth the effort to educate you. Keep to your ludicrious notions, nonsensical logic, and palp that slops from the Republican Blather Machine for your own opinions. If you decide in the future to stick to researched facts and some common sense, I'll be happy to debate the issues with you. I'm not saying that you are purposely misleading people, but that you've been purposely mislead by other misguided people.
Borillar
"Real friends don't let friends vote republican"
posted on February 23, 2002 11:37:02 AM new
You set your self up for this , desquirel here it comes, the guys who invented the boring machine were paid more than the coal miners ?
What planet do you live on ?
Research is usually done today at American universities where the undergrads get nothing nor do the taxpayers for their investions, while the main people profiting HAVE NOT INVENTED ANYTHING, right here is the crux of the republicano Lie. The rich have become (with the assistance of crooked political scumbags) parasitic. they produce nothing. We would be better off without them.
at any rate the guys making the boring machine got paid more ? historically when checking the many inventions we take for granted this is not true either, did tesla die rich ? Did George washington Carver ?
Did the guy who invented strawberry jam, One thing i do know id that when the inventor of handcuffs asked the rich parasite to be paid they used the handcuffs on him. I full well recognize that hard work and inventive genius go hand in hand, However we live in a society that rewards the fools of the scientific community, that is some jack ass who would suggest that nuclear power is just peachy. while denying funding to a genius like Goffman. and I personally dont care if he is a leftist had his heart research been funded we might not lose loved ones in their forties after they have worked in factories with toxic filth to make rich parasites richer. from the tone of my post one would think I hate rich people nothing could be further from the truth. I don care how much money someone has if they got it fair and square, your argument borders on saying that the lives of coal miners or similar farmers or laborers are not worth what some rich parasites life is worth, I guess that would be a good reason for gun control. I would agree that inventive genius should be rewarded, and hard work or heroism should be rewarded, I do not think some 3pc suited parasite with a battalion of lawyers deserves anything. I think members of the bar association have stolen far more than every street thug since this country began. If it means Living on a farm and growing my own food so some corp type cant put filth into it or haveing the future lies we get promised. i'll get my hands dirty on the farm and be proud of each and every person who leads an honest life working for their dailey bread.
posted on February 23, 2002 12:40:46 PM new
I think the 2 of you are "confused". You seem to equate the worth of a job with the person holding it. It doesn't make a tinker's damn of a difference if the ditch digger I hire could put Mother Theresa to shame, it's still worth only $xx/hr to dig a ditch.
Borillar - Do not equate any of your quaint notions with facts in any way. You could never allow those 2 to collide. As I've said before, you start with a pre-conceived notion and then attempt to "prove" it by using a series of absurd linkages.
Tell me, is that French "scientist" who invented the perpetual motion machine still being kept down by the evil corporations????
That one little gem alone would cause me to dismiss even a weather report if you were the source.
auroranorth
I wouldn't try that growing your own food stuff, you'd probably starve in a month. I'll pass your nuclear power theories on to some of my engineering and physicist friends from college, expect a call.
In truth the world has experimented with your theories of getting rid of the parasites. You know the managers, scientists, doctors, etc ad infinitum. The Cambodians didn't do too well and I'm not sure if the Cubans are still importing sugar.
Oh, and BTW, I'll wager that the research budgets of American fortune 500 companies is many times the funding of college curriculums.
posted on February 23, 2002 01:29:01 PM new
Auroranorth, I'd like to see DeSquirrel go into a coal mine and work for a single day! Then we'd see him change his tune! In fact, if he ever did such a thing, I'll bet he's the squeemish type and woudn't last more than a minute or two breathing in all that coal dust and constant rumblings in the ground and the creaking of the timbers.
As far as growing your own food goes, it's a great idea! In the days before refrigeration, every home in the small to large towns across the nation had extra land on each lot. One-half of the lot was to live on, the other was to grow your own food. The quality of garden/small farm food fresh from ripening in the ground can never be beat by anything that your grocery store will sell. And at least you'll know that your veggies haven't been sprayed without outlawed DDT and other cancer-causing pesticides that is used like crazy south of the border. That a few seeds, sunshine and water and little know-how can make you the best well-fed resident in town!
Auroranorth, I suspect DeSquirrel is trying to yank our chains. I mean, anyone who writes so well can't possibly believe in the notions that he/she puts forth here in the RT. That's why I just called DeSquirrel's bluff: if DeSquirrel wants to seriously debate the issues: I'm all for it. But I will not be baited into explaining myself just so DeSquirrel can sit there and giggle about having yanked our chains. Think about it. Would any educated person REALLY spew out that nonsense as if they actually believed it?
Borillar
"Real friends don't let friends vote republican"
sp.
[ edited by Borillar on Feb 23, 2002 01:31 PM ]
posted on February 23, 2002 05:27:43 PM new
well then first off I did not like the government of Cambodia they are reds were reds dead reds are good reds. nor do I like the pimp down in cuba. The only perpetual omtion machine I have ever found is that of the local republicans mouth which when spreading anti worker anti white nonsense seems to be the only recycling they approve of.
Your ignorance of farming is showing. Most crops are thought of as grown in a season. Very few come up in a month. unless you want to live on radishes.
And I have proved in the past several times to others that I could live off what was available with no outside help and still maintain an effective force.
If you have friends in the nuclear power industry. ask them why the USA Taxpayer has to insure them and not an insurance company like any legitimate business. Yes we have seem what engineers can do at three mile island and chernoble (interestingly enough Chernoble is Russian for Wormwood Like in the bible)
Last that french scientist is probably working for Enron.
By the way Nels Bor used to come up here to learn genetics from Bob Pavek sr. so when one of your college boys feels like he might know more about nuclear power then sources like this bring them on. Because of pencil necked fools who would do anything in the pursuit of money and power every female mammal on earth now has strontium 90 in the milk she gives life to her offspring with.
How dare you people talk about Hitler when you have damaged the gene pool of every living female of every species. Maybe it's is time for some new war crimes trials, This would come under crimes against Humanity.
Savages can exist in either the past the ghetto or the corporate board room the defining factor is how they treat their fellow man.
posted on February 23, 2002 09:37:12 PM new
Auroranorth
Glad to hear your opinion of the results of the last 2 implementations of your economic theories. Many posters here say left-wing death squads are bad, but right-wing death squads are real, real bad.
Don't blame me about the French guy and his perpetual motion machine, that's a Borillar hero from another post. I dismissed him instantly.
So Niels Bohr boned up on genetics with Pavek, so college students should go there to learn Physics.
???????
What is that??? Are you trying to use Borillar's logic? You can't transfer it, it just doesn't work.
This is 2002, you don't need seasons to grow things.
I'm sure you CAN take care of yourself, and that is laudable. Too many people run around this world expecting somebody else to solve their present or future problems.
What does Strontium 90 have to do with nuclear power?? Strontium 90 was spread over our planet by nuclear weapons testing in the 1940's and 1950's. Strontium 90 is a radioactive fission product produced by above ground detonation of nuclear weapons. Nuclear power is here to stay and many countries have crash programs in place.
