PDA

View Full Version : Normal lifespan of cats


MaryL
September 19th 10, 04:04 PM
I have seen a number of messages on this NG where people refer to their cats
as "elderly" with little chance of a quality of longer life, with
implications that it would be unkind to prolong the cat's life when the cat
shows signs of illness. In some cases, these "elderly" cats have only been
11 or 12 years old. I would like to ask that people do some research into
normal lifespan of cats. A cat of 12 years old is *not* elderly or at the
end of his/he normal lifespan. It is no longer unusual for a cat to live to
be 20, and some even live into their 30s. There is great variation, of
course. Some of it is beyond our control, but much of it is due to good
nutrition, veterinary care, and other variables. The average lifespan is
much longer for an indoor cat (in the U.S.) than for an outdoor cat, often
due to predators, automobiles, and deliberate actions by malicious people.

My first cat lived to be almost 20. Amber lived to 16-1/2. Holly had her
15th birthday on June 1, and she shows no signs of being a senior citizen.
Duffy is probably about 11 years old, and he is incredibly active. So,
please, stop making decisions based on the outmoded idea that a cat of 12 or
13 "doesn't have much time left."

MaryL

jmc[_2_]
September 19th 10, 05:26 PM
Suddenly, without warning, MaryL exclaimed (9/19/2010 11:04 AM):
> I have seen a number of messages on this NG where people refer to their
> cats as "elderly" with little chance of a quality of longer life, with
> implications that it would be unkind to prolong the cat's life when the
> cat shows signs of illness. In some cases, these "elderly" cats have
> only been 11 or 12 years old. I would like to ask that people do some
> research into normal lifespan of cats. A cat of 12 years old is *not*
> elderly or at the end of his/he normal lifespan. It is no longer unusual
> for a cat to live to be 20, and some even live into their 30s. There is
> great variation, of course. Some of it is beyond our control, but much
> of it is due to good nutrition, veterinary care, and other variables.
> The average lifespan is much longer for an indoor cat (in the U.S.) than
> for an outdoor cat, often due to predators, automobiles, and deliberate
> actions by malicious people.
>
> My first cat lived to be almost 20. Amber lived to 16-1/2. Holly had her
> 15th birthday on June 1, and she shows no signs of being a senior
> citizen. Duffy is probably about 11 years old, and he is incredibly
> active. So, please, stop making decisions based on the outmoded idea
> that a cat of 12 or 13 "doesn't have much time left."
>
> MaryL
>

Actually, it was my vet who started calling Meep "geriatric" at 12.
Like you say, it varies. With the cats in question, they probably *are*
old at 12... some aren't old until 16. People are like that too.
Birthdates are just a number. I know folks who are in their 60s and
aren't "old" yet :)

jmc

MaryL
September 19th 10, 06:18 PM
"jmc" > wrote in message
...
> Suddenly, without warning, MaryL exclaimed (9/19/2010 11:04 AM):
>> I have seen a number of messages on this NG where people refer to their
>> cats as "elderly" with little chance of a quality of longer life, with
>> implications that it would be unkind to prolong the cat's life when the
>> cat shows signs of illness. In some cases, these "elderly" cats have
>> only been 11 or 12 years old. I would like to ask that people do some
>> research into normal lifespan of cats. A cat of 12 years old is *not*
>> elderly or at the end of his/he normal lifespan. It is no longer unusual
>> for a cat to live to be 20, and some even live into their 30s. There is
>> great variation, of course. Some of it is beyond our control, but much
>> of it is due to good nutrition, veterinary care, and other variables.
>> The average lifespan is much longer for an indoor cat (in the U.S.) than
>> for an outdoor cat, often due to predators, automobiles, and deliberate
>> actions by malicious people.
>>
>> My first cat lived to be almost 20. Amber lived to 16-1/2. Holly had her
>> 15th birthday on June 1, and she shows no signs of being a senior
>> citizen. Duffy is probably about 11 years old, and he is incredibly
>> active. So, please, stop making decisions based on the outmoded idea
>> that a cat of 12 or 13 "doesn't have much time left."
>>
>> MaryL
>>
>
> Actually, it was my vet who started calling Meep "geriatric" at 12. Like
> you say, it varies. With the cats in question, they probably *are* old at
> 12... some aren't old until 16. People are like that too. Birthdates are
> just a number. I know folks who are in their 60s and aren't "old" yet :)
>
> jmc

That's good, because otherwise I would be on my deathbed. ;)

MaryL

Photos of Duffy and Holly: >'o'<
Duffy: http://tinyurl.com/cslwf
Holly: http://tinyurl.com/9t68o
Duffy and Holly together: http://tinyurl.com/8b47e

Terry[_2_]
September 19th 10, 08:03 PM
MaryL wrote:
> I have seen a number of messages on this NG where people refer to their
> cats as "elderly" with little chance of a quality of longer life, with
> implications that it would be unkind to prolong the cat's life when the
> cat shows signs of illness. In some cases, these "elderly" cats have
> only been 11 or 12 years old. I would like to ask that people do some
> research into normal lifespan of cats. A cat of 12 years old is *not*
> elderly or at the end of his/he normal lifespan. It is no longer
> unusual for a cat to live to be 20, and some even live into their 30s.
> There is great variation, of course. Some of it is beyond our control,
> but much of it is due to good nutrition, veterinary care, and other
> variables. The average lifespan is much longer for an indoor cat (in
> the U.S.) than for an outdoor cat, often due to predators, automobiles,
> and deliberate actions by malicious people.
>
> My first cat lived to be almost 20. Amber lived to 16-1/2. Holly had
> her 15th birthday on June 1, and she shows no signs of being a senior
> citizen. Duffy is probably about 11 years old, and he is incredibly
> active. So, please, stop making decisions based on the outmoded idea
> that a cat of 12 or 13 "doesn't have much time left."
>
> MaryL
>
My oldest ever kitty just passed Thursday at 18years 3months. Her mother
passed just a couple months past her 18th birthday and probably would
have lived longer if one of our other cats hadn't bit her and it abscessed.
Others we've had pass earlier died from health problems, not age.
My oldest now we've had for 10 years and the vet guessed her age to be
3-5 years when we got her. She's doing just fine. A couple black
whiskers have turned white though.
Terry

Bill Graham
September 19th 10, 10:16 PM
"MaryL" -OUT-THE-LITTER> wrote in message
...
>I have seen a number of messages on this NG where people refer to their
>cats as "elderly" with little chance of a quality of longer life, with
>implications that it would be unkind to prolong the cat's life when the cat
>shows signs of illness. In some cases, these "elderly" cats have only been
>11 or 12 years old. I would like to ask that people do some research into
>normal lifespan of cats. A cat of 12 years old is *not* elderly or at the
>end of his/he normal lifespan. It is no longer unusual for a cat to live
>to be 20, and some even live into their 30s. There is great variation, of
>course. Some of it is beyond our control, but much of it is due to good
>nutrition, veterinary care, and other variables. The average lifespan is
>much longer for an indoor cat (in the U.S.) than for an outdoor cat, often
>due to predators, automobiles, and deliberate actions by malicious people.
>
> My first cat lived to be almost 20. Amber lived to 16-1/2. Holly had her
> 15th birthday on June 1, and she shows no signs of being a senior citizen.
> Duffy is probably about 11 years old, and he is incredibly active. So,
> please, stop making decisions based on the outmoded idea that a cat of 12
> or 13 "doesn't have much time left."
>
> MaryL
>

Well, we have one who tests FIV positive, and has for the last five years or
so....He is about 15, and has a marginal quality of life at best....He is
severely arthritic, and has to climb everywhere, because he can no longer
jump. He has seizures frequently, and he is also allergic to fleas, or
something, because he tears at his skin a lot....My wife loves him very
much, and she will go to no end of trouble to take care of him....She rubs
ointments into his skin and brushes him every day. I worry that he will
infect the other cats, but they have all had their shots, and they tend to
keep away from him generally, so they seem to be managing OK. He was feral
for the first ten years or so of his life, and he had the virus when we
caught him and had him fixed and taken care of by our vet. I wonder when he
will be suffering so much that we should put him down, and just when it
seems we should, he seems to perk up and start enjoying life again, so we
let him continue.....It's very hard to know when we would be doing the right
thing for him by putting him down.....Our vet is amazed every time she comes
to see him.

Bill Graham
September 19th 10, 10:22 PM
"jmc" > wrote in message
...
> Suddenly, without warning, MaryL exclaimed (9/19/2010 11:04 AM):
>> I have seen a number of messages on this NG where people refer to their
>> cats as "elderly" with little chance of a quality of longer life, with
>> implications that it would be unkind to prolong the cat's life when the
>> cat shows signs of illness. In some cases, these "elderly" cats have
>> only been 11 or 12 years old. I would like to ask that people do some
>> research into normal lifespan of cats. A cat of 12 years old is *not*
>> elderly or at the end of his/he normal lifespan. It is no longer unusual
>> for a cat to live to be 20, and some even live into their 30s. There is
>> great variation, of course. Some of it is beyond our control, but much
>> of it is due to good nutrition, veterinary care, and other variables.
>> The average lifespan is much longer for an indoor cat (in the U.S.) than
>> for an outdoor cat, often due to predators, automobiles, and deliberate
>> actions by malicious people.
>>
>> My first cat lived to be almost 20. Amber lived to 16-1/2. Holly had her
>> 15th birthday on June 1, and she shows no signs of being a senior
>> citizen. Duffy is probably about 11 years old, and he is incredibly
>> active. So, please, stop making decisions based on the outmoded idea
>> that a cat of 12 or 13 "doesn't have much time left."
>>
>> MaryL
>>
>
> Actually, it was my vet who started calling Meep "geriatric" at 12. Like
> you say, it varies. With the cats in question, they probably *are* old at
> 12... some aren't old until 16. People are like that too. Birthdates are
> just a number. I know folks who are in their 60s and aren't "old" yet :)
>
> jmc

I am 75, and I play the trumpet in a senior citizens dance band.....There
are couples who dance to our music who are in their 90's. We have one
organist in the band who is 95. We play at 9:00 AM on Friday mornings, and
there are couples who live over 100 miles North of us who get up at 4 in the
morning to drive down here to dance.

jmc[_2_]
September 19th 10, 11:37 PM
Suddenly, without warning, Bill Graham exclaimed (9/19/2010 5:22 PM):
>
> "jmc" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Suddenly, without warning, MaryL exclaimed (9/19/2010 11:04 AM):
>>> I have seen a number of messages on this NG where people refer to their
>>> cats as "elderly" with little chance of a quality of longer life, with
>>> implications that it would be unkind to prolong the cat's life when the
>>> cat shows signs of illness. In some cases, these "elderly" cats have
>>> only been 11 or 12 years old. I would like to ask that people do some
>>> research into normal lifespan of cats. A cat of 12 years old is *not*
>>> elderly or at the end of his/he normal lifespan. It is no longer unusual
>>> for a cat to live to be 20, and some even live into their 30s. There is
>>> great variation, of course. Some of it is beyond our control, but much
>>> of it is due to good nutrition, veterinary care, and other variables.
>>> The average lifespan is much longer for an indoor cat (in the U.S.) than
>>> for an outdoor cat, often due to predators, automobiles, and deliberate
>>> actions by malicious people.
>>>
>>> My first cat lived to be almost 20. Amber lived to 16-1/2. Holly had her
>>> 15th birthday on June 1, and she shows no signs of being a senior
>>> citizen. Duffy is probably about 11 years old, and he is incredibly
>>> active. So, please, stop making decisions based on the outmoded idea
>>> that a cat of 12 or 13 "doesn't have much time left."
>>>
>>> MaryL
>>>
>>
>> Actually, it was my vet who started calling Meep "geriatric" at 12.
>> Like you say, it varies. With the cats in question, they probably
>> *are* old at 12... some aren't old until 16. People are like that too.
>> Birthdates are just a number. I know folks who are in their 60s and
>> aren't "old" yet :)
>>
>> jmc
>
> I am 75, and I play the trumpet in a senior citizens dance
> band.....There are couples who dance to our music who are in their 90's.
> We have one organist in the band who is 95. We play at 9:00 AM on Friday
> mornings, and there are couples who live over 100 miles North of us who
> get up at 4 in the morning to drive down here to dance.


My point exactly. On the other hand, Some are old at 50, sometimes it's
environment, sometimes just genetics. With cats, it's probably mostly
genetics, along with environment. Although Meep was born with some
issues that are making her life more difficult now, perhaps she would
have been healthier at this age if I'd not followed the "wisdom" at the
time, and fed her dry food for the first 7 or so years of her life.

I sure hope when I'm 65, 75, 85 that I'm still out there, riding horses
and enjoying life, but I'm afraid my genetics are against me. We'll
see. Not giving up easily!

jmc

Bill Graham
September 20th 10, 01:06 AM
"jmc" > wrote in message
...
> Suddenly, without warning, Bill Graham exclaimed (9/19/2010 5:22 PM):
>>
>> "jmc" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Suddenly, without warning, MaryL exclaimed (9/19/2010 11:04 AM):
>>>> I have seen a number of messages on this NG where people refer to their
>>>> cats as "elderly" with little chance of a quality of longer life, with
>>>> implications that it would be unkind to prolong the cat's life when the
>>>> cat shows signs of illness. In some cases, these "elderly" cats have
>>>> only been 11 or 12 years old. I would like to ask that people do some
>>>> research into normal lifespan of cats. A cat of 12 years old is *not*
>>>> elderly or at the end of his/he normal lifespan. It is no longer
>>>> unusual
>>>> for a cat to live to be 20, and some even live into their 30s. There is
>>>> great variation, of course. Some of it is beyond our control, but much
>>>> of it is due to good nutrition, veterinary care, and other variables.
>>>> The average lifespan is much longer for an indoor cat (in the U.S.)
>>>> than
>>>> for an outdoor cat, often due to predators, automobiles, and deliberate
>>>> actions by malicious people.
>>>>
>>>> My first cat lived to be almost 20. Amber lived to 16-1/2. Holly had
>>>> her
>>>> 15th birthday on June 1, and she shows no signs of being a senior
>>>> citizen. Duffy is probably about 11 years old, and he is incredibly
>>>> active. So, please, stop making decisions based on the outmoded idea
>>>> that a cat of 12 or 13 "doesn't have much time left."
>>>>
>>>> MaryL
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, it was my vet who started calling Meep "geriatric" at 12.
>>> Like you say, it varies. With the cats in question, they probably
>>> *are* old at 12... some aren't old until 16. People are like that too.
>>> Birthdates are just a number. I know folks who are in their 60s and
>>> aren't "old" yet :)
>>>
>>> jmc
>>
>> I am 75, and I play the trumpet in a senior citizens dance
>> band.....There are couples who dance to our music who are in their 90's.
>> We have one organist in the band who is 95. We play at 9:00 AM on Friday
>> mornings, and there are couples who live over 100 miles North of us who
>> get up at 4 in the morning to drive down here to dance.
>
>
> My point exactly. On the other hand, Some are old at 50, sometimes it's
> environment, sometimes just genetics. With cats, it's probably mostly
> genetics, along with environment. Although Meep was born with some issues
> that are making her life more difficult now, perhaps she would have been
> healthier at this age if I'd not followed the "wisdom" at the time, and
> fed her dry food for the first 7 or so years of her life.
>
> I sure hope when I'm 65, 75, 85 that I'm still out there, riding horses
> and enjoying life, but I'm afraid my genetics are against me. We'll see.
> Not giving up easily!
>
> jmc

Modern medicine might surprise you.....People are already living to near
100, or, at least, it's not uncommon. By the time you're my age, the average
lifespan may be in the middle 80's...Part of the reason for that is the
ability to cure diseases that we can't cure today.....Consider what your
parents died of....Are there new techniques today that extend the lives of
those who are suffering from the same diseases? If so, then you are ahead of
the game already.

Wayne Mitchell
September 20th 10, 05:15 AM
jmc > wrote:

>Although Meep was born with some
>issues that are making her life more difficult now, perhaps she would
>have been healthier at this age if I'd not followed the "wisdom" at the
>time, and fed her dry food for the first 7 or so years of her life.

Why do you think that? There is no scientific evidence that cats who
are fed canned exclusively are healthier or longer-lived than cats who
are fed dry exclusively.
--

Wayne M.

Gandalf[_2_]
September 20th 10, 05:39 AM
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:04:40 -0500, "MaryL"
-OUT-THE-LITTER> wrote:

>I have seen a number of messages on this NG where people refer to their cats
>as "elderly" with little chance of a quality of longer life, with
>implications that it would be unkind to prolong the cat's life when the cat
>shows signs of illness. In some cases, these "elderly" cats have only been
>11 or 12 years old. I would like to ask that people do some research into
>normal lifespan of cats. A cat of 12 years old is *not* elderly or at the
>end of his/he normal lifespan. It is no longer unusual for a cat to live to
>be 20, and some even live into their 30s. There is great variation, of
>course. Some of it is beyond our control, but much of it is due to good
>nutrition, veterinary care, and other variables. The average lifespan is
>much longer for an indoor cat (in the U.S.) than for an outdoor cat, often
>due to predators, automobiles, and deliberate actions by malicious people.
>
>My first cat lived to be almost 20. Amber lived to 16-1/2. Holly had her
>15th birthday on June 1, and she shows no signs of being a senior citizen.
>Duffy is probably about 11 years old, and he is incredibly active. So,
>please, stop making decisions based on the outmoded idea that a cat of 12 or
>13 "doesn't have much time left."
>
>MaryL

The generally accepted 'life span' for an indoor cat with good quality
food, and regular vet care, is 15 years.

Just like people, there is a wide variation.

Some 'slow down' and are fairly sedentary before they are 10 years old.

Others still act like kittens, well into their teens.

Just like with people: some die young, from a variety of causes, while
others live into their twenties.

I believe that 33 or 34 years old is the world 'record'; I'm too lazy to
look it up, right now.

My cat is a little under 15 years old, and has several serious health
problems.

She is not going to be a 'long lived cat', unfortunately :(


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 100919-1, 09/19/2010
Tested on: 9/19/2010 11:39:13 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2010 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

cshenk
September 20th 10, 10:52 PM
"ingold1234[at]yahoo[dot]com (Gandalf)" wrote

> The generally accepted 'life span' for an indoor cat with good quality
> food, and regular vet care, is 15 years.

Agreed. That said most of us who have had many cats have seen the older 20+
but it isnt 'normally expected'. Just like humans don't normally reach 100
years of age. They can, and there are plenty who do, but it's not the norm.

18 isn't that uncommon but past it seems to be from my experience.

jmc[_2_]
September 20th 10, 11:38 PM
Suddenly, without warning, Wayne Mitchell exclaimed (9/20/2010 12:15 AM):
> > wrote:
>
>> Although Meep was born with some
>> issues that are making her life more difficult now, perhaps she would
>> have been healthier at this age if I'd not followed the "wisdom" at the
>> time, and fed her dry food for the first 7 or so years of her life.
>
> Why do you think that? There is no scientific evidence that cats who
> are fed canned exclusively are healthier or longer-lived than cats who
> are fed dry exclusively.

I'm not going to get into this argument again, but for Meep anyway, it
was not a good thing. She's had cystitis since she was 7, and the only
way to keep it under control is to have her on 100% wet diet. If she
was on at least a partial wet diet from the get go, perhaps she'd not
have had cystitis at all.

jmc

Gandalf[_2_]
September 21st 10, 06:19 AM
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:52:41 -0400, "cshenk" > wrote:

>"ingold1234[at]yahoo[dot]com (Gandalf)" wrote
>
>> The generally accepted 'life span' for an indoor cat with good quality
>> food, and regular vet care, is 15 years.
>
>Agreed. That said most of us who have had many cats have seen the older 20+
>but it isnt 'normally expected'. Just like humans don't normally reach 100
>years of age. They can, and there are plenty who do, but it's not the norm.
>
>18 isn't that uncommon but past it seems to be from my experience.

My previous two cats lived to 16 years, and 18 years, with virtually no
health problems at all, until the very end.

You just never know :(


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 100920-1, 09/20/2010
Tested on: 9/21/2010 12:19:49 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2010 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Rene
September 21st 10, 02:37 PM
Mary,

All vets' offices I've gone to have classified 8 years as a "senior"
cat, which puzzles me. The latest numbers I heard said that average
age for indoor cats is 14-16, but what is "average?" My parents had a
cat who lived to be 19, but others don't make it past 10. So many
factors come into play for age. Perhaps some cats who have had health
problems during their lives are elderly at 12 or 13, but many aren't.

Our Tucker is now 12 but does not look or act like his age. If he were
to become ill, we would treat him in a heartbeat.

Rene

kraut[_2_]
September 21st 10, 03:52 PM
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 06:37:04 -0700 (PDT), Rene >
wrote:

>Mary,
>
>All vets' offices I've gone to have classified 8 years as a "senior"
>cat, which puzzles me. The latest numbers I heard said that average
>age for indoor cats is 14-16, but what is "average?" My parents had a
>cat who lived to be 19, but others don't make it past 10. So many
>factors come into play for age. Perhaps some cats who have had health
>problems during their lives are elderly at 12 or 13, but many aren't.
>
>Our Tucker is now 12 but does not look or act like his age. If he were
>to become ill, we would treat him in a heartbeat.
>
>Rene


I think a lot has to do with what kind of food and care (vet) they
receive as to how long they will live.

Bill Graham
September 21st 10, 11:57 PM
"ingold1234[at]yahoo[dot]com (Gandalf)" wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:04:40 -0500, "MaryL"
> -OUT-THE-LITTER> wrote:
>
>>I have seen a number of messages on this NG where people refer to their
>>cats
>>as "elderly" with little chance of a quality of longer life, with
>>implications that it would be unkind to prolong the cat's life when the
>>cat
>>shows signs of illness. In some cases, these "elderly" cats have only
>>been
>>11 or 12 years old. I would like to ask that people do some research into
>>normal lifespan of cats. A cat of 12 years old is *not* elderly or at the
>>end of his/he normal lifespan. It is no longer unusual for a cat to live
>>to
>>be 20, and some even live into their 30s. There is great variation, of
>>course. Some of it is beyond our control, but much of it is due to good
>>nutrition, veterinary care, and other variables. The average lifespan is
>>much longer for an indoor cat (in the U.S.) than for an outdoor cat, often
>>due to predators, automobiles, and deliberate actions by malicious people.
>>
>>My first cat lived to be almost 20. Amber lived to 16-1/2. Holly had her
>>15th birthday on June 1, and she shows no signs of being a senior citizen.
>>Duffy is probably about 11 years old, and he is incredibly active. So,
>>please, stop making decisions based on the outmoded idea that a cat of 12
>>or
>>13 "doesn't have much time left."
>>
>>MaryL
>
> The generally accepted 'life span' for an indoor cat with good quality
> food, and regular vet care, is 15 years.
>
> Just like people, there is a wide variation.
>
> Some 'slow down' and are fairly sedentary before they are 10 years old.
>
> Others still act like kittens, well into their teens.
>
> Just like with people: some die young, from a variety of causes, while
> others live into their twenties.
>
> I believe that 33 or 34 years old is the world 'record'; I'm too lazy to
> look it up, right now.
>
> My cat is a little under 15 years old, and has several serious health
> problems.
>
> She is not going to be a 'long lived cat', unfortunately :(
>
With cats, as with people, its not how long they live that's important. Its
the quality of life they have while they have it. That's why I take in
strays and feral cats, and don't trap them in my house.....They have two cat
doors, so they can escape any time they want. My cats were born free, and
they remain so with me. I feed them well, and give them veterinary care as
necessary. I am fortunate that I live in an area that is as safe for outside
cats as any I've seen. But if I didn't, I would rather not have any cats at
all than have to trap them inside my house. Trapped in my house, I would
worry that they may be consumed in a fire or other catastrophe. But I don't
tell other people what to do with their pets, so I appreciate it when others
don't tell me what to do with my cats. There are those who believe that
length of life is of the utmost importance. But I compare our miserable 100
years or less with the 20 or 30 billion years the universe has been here,
and say, "Live for today, and let the devil take tomorrow."

Cheryl[_3_]
September 22nd 10, 01:17 AM
"Bill Graham" > wrote in message
...

>
> Well, we have one who tests FIV positive, and has for the last five years
> or so....He is about 15, and has a marginal quality of life at best....He
> is severely arthritic, and has to climb everywhere, because he can no
> longer jump. He has seizures frequently, and he is also allergic to fleas,
> or something, because he tears at his skin a lot....My wife loves him very
> much, and she will go to no end of trouble to take care of him....She rubs
> ointments into his skin and brushes him every day. I worry that he will
> infect the other cats, but they have all had their shots, and they tend to
> keep away from him generally, so they seem to be managing OK. He was feral
> for the first ten years or so of his life, and he had the virus when we
> caught him and had him fixed and taken care of by our vet. I wonder when
> he will be suffering so much that we should put him down, and just when it
> seems we should, he seems to perk up and start enjoying life again, so we
> let him continue.....It's very hard to know when we would be doing the
> right thing for him by putting him down.....Our vet is amazed every time
> she comes to see him.

It is very hard to know sometimes. When there are already health problems,
I think you and your vet know best. I think Mary was talking in general
about seemingly healthy cats. I also had a FIL+ cat for 2 years after he
was infected. He was 9 at the time (blood transfusion). He also had IBD.
I have a cat now that I thought would be dying young as he has severe
allergies and has shots for them but amazingly, he seems to be outgrowing
the allergy if that's possible. Vet has been amazed at the decreasing
frequency in which he needs a shot. About once a year now.

Good luck. You'll know.

Clara Semps
September 23rd 10, 12:42 AM
In article >, Bill Graham
> wrote:

> Modern medicine might surprise you.....People are already living to near
> 100, or, at least, it's not uncommon.

That's what I'm afraid of. The way things are these days, I'm going to
outlive my money and wind up in a homeless shelter! LOL

dgk
September 23rd 10, 02:34 PM
On 22 Sep 2010 18:42:05 -0500, Clara Semps >
wrote:

>In article >, Bill Graham
> wrote:
>
>> Modern medicine might surprise you.....People are already living to near
>> 100, or, at least, it's not uncommon.
>
>That's what I'm afraid of. The way things are these days, I'm going to
>outlive my money and wind up in a homeless shelter! LOL

That, of course, is the great mystery of life, or rather, death. If I
knew how long I was going to live, I could plan accordingly.

Bill Graham
September 24th 10, 03:21 AM
"Clara Semps" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Bill Graham
> > wrote:
>
>> Modern medicine might surprise you.....People are already living to near
>> 100, or, at least, it's not uncommon.
>
> That's what I'm afraid of. The way things are these days, I'm going to
> outlive my money and wind up in a homeless shelter! LOL

Hey....Tell me about it....When my money gives out, I am going to camp out
on Obama's front porch....:^)

dgk
September 24th 10, 01:47 PM
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 19:21:52 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:

>
>"Clara Semps" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, Bill Graham
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Modern medicine might surprise you.....People are already living to near
>>> 100, or, at least, it's not uncommon.
>>
>> That's what I'm afraid of. The way things are these days, I'm going to
>> outlive my money and wind up in a homeless shelter! LOL
>
>Hey....Tell me about it....When my money gives out, I am going to camp out
>on Obama's front porch....:^)

Blame Obama if you wish but our problems started far earlier than him.
We have a country where the wealthy keep getting wealthier and the
rest of us don't seem to get that trickle-down.

Terry[_2_]
September 24th 10, 09:31 PM
dgk wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 19:21:52 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Clara Semps" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article >, Bill Graham
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Modern medicine might surprise you.....People are already living to near
>>>>100, or, at least, it's not uncommon.
>>>
>>>That's what I'm afraid of. The way things are these days, I'm going to
>>>outlive my money and wind up in a homeless shelter! LOL
>>
>>Hey....Tell me about it....When my money gives out, I am going to camp out
>>on Obama's front porch....:^)
>
>
> Blame Obama if you wish but our problems started far earlier than him.
> We have a country where the wealthy keep getting wealthier and the
> rest of us don't seem to get that trickle-down.
That's Reaganomics trickle down economics for you.
Shame the rich just keep the money for themselves.
Why the poor keep voting republican is beyond me.

Bill Graham
September 25th 10, 02:59 AM
"dgk" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 19:21:52 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Clara Semps" > wrote in message
...
>>> In article >, Bill Graham
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Modern medicine might surprise you.....People are already living to
>>>> near
>>>> 100, or, at least, it's not uncommon.
>>>
>>> That's what I'm afraid of. The way things are these days, I'm going to
>>> outlive my money and wind up in a homeless shelter! LOL
>>
>>Hey....Tell me about it....When my money gives out, I am going to camp out
>>on Obama's front porch....:^)
>
> Blame Obama if you wish but our problems started far earlier than him.


I certainly agree with that.....Liberalism has been here for a long time....

> We have a country where the wealthy keep getting wealthier and the
> rest of us don't seem to get that trickle-down.

Yes, but, "sharing the wealth" isn't the same as, "trickle down". For
example, I moved to a house 6 miles from where I worked back in the late
60's, and I pedaled a bicycle to work for 10 years, and then rode a Honda
trail 90 (110 miles per gallon ) to work for another ten.....So, where's my
$4000 to buy a new car? The idiot down the block who kept a bunch of old
clunkers on his front lawn, (wrecking the property values for the rest of
us) gets 4 grand from Obama for one of his wrecks, while I get a big goose
egg.....And the money he gets is MY TAX DOLLARS!! So you know how I am going
to vote come next November......The way I figure it is as follows. I was not
born rich. I was from an average family, in an average town in the USA. I
went to grammar school along with every body else in my town. Some of the
kids worked hard, and some of them goofed off. The ones who worked hard,
(like me ) went on to college and made something of ourselves, while those
who goofed off became nobody's and never made much money. But we were all
born with the same potential, and had the same opportunities. I went to
college, got a good job, and saved money in a 401K plan all of my life.
While my friends were driving Porsches, I was driving a VW, and buying
health insurance for myself and wife and kids.....So today, how do you think
I feel about my government stealing money from me to give to those
near-do-wells who goofed off all their lives, and who spent every cent they
earned on Porsches and fancy furniture while I scraped and saved so my kids
could go to college, and my wife and I could enjoy a decent retirement? Is
this what you mean by, "trickle down"? If it is, you now know what you can
do with your trickle down......I believe money trickles down to those who
work and save it, and when we do, we deserve to keep it and not have our
government steal it from us to give to those who don't deserve it. I will
show you what I mean next November, when I tear that lever off their voting
machine with every pointer on it pointed toward "Conservative Republican".

Bill Graham
September 25th 10, 03:01 AM
"Terry" > wrote in message
...
> dgk wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 19:21:52 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Clara Semps" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>In article >, Bill Graham
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Modern medicine might surprise you.....People are already living to
>>>>>near
>>>>>100, or, at least, it's not uncommon.
>>>>
>>>>That's what I'm afraid of. The way things are these days, I'm going to
>>>>outlive my money and wind up in a homeless shelter! LOL
>>>
>>>Hey....Tell me about it....When my money gives out, I am going to camp
>>>out on Obama's front porch....:^)
>>
>>
>> Blame Obama if you wish but our problems started far earlier than him.
>> We have a country where the wealthy keep getting wealthier and the
>> rest of us don't seem to get that trickle-down.
> That's Reaganomics trickle down economics for you.
> Shame the rich just keep the money for themselves.
> Why the poor keep voting republican is beyond me.

That's funny.....I sure do know why the poor keep voting Democratic.......

Terry[_2_]
September 25th 10, 12:37 PM
Bill Graham wrote:

> Yes, but, "sharing the wealth" isn't the same as, "trickle down". For
> example, I moved to a house 6 miles from where I worked back in the late
> 60's, and I pedaled a bicycle to work for 10 years, and then rode a
> Honda trail 90 (110 miles per gallon ) to work for another ten.....So,
> where's my $4000 to buy a new car? The idiot down the block who kept a
> bunch of old clunkers on his front lawn, (wrecking the property values
> for the rest of us) gets 4 grand from Obama for one of his wrecks, while
> I get a big goose egg.....And the money he gets is MY TAX DOLLARS!! So
> you know how I am going to vote come next November......
It wasn't for your idiot neighbor to get a new car. You could have
bought some $100 junker and got your $4000 trade in if you were smart
enough to figure that simple plan out.
It was so the officers of car companies could keep their high paying
cushy jobs and not as many worker bee's would loose their jobs.
All that bail out money was just to protect the wealthy from their greed
that was destroying their companies.
Amazing how the rich have no problems with billions in corporate welfare
but don't believe in a single dime for people.
I'm against government sponsored welfare for anyone. That's what
churches and other non-profits are for. They know better who deserves help.
Some how bailing out a bunch of failing companies just seems to go
against the ideals of capitalism.
I guess it's alright when it's some huge conglomerate that give millions
to political campaigns and not some small business that only employs a
couple dozen people.
Small business is supposedly the biggest employer in this country yet in
my town alone, I've seen hundreds of them be allowed to fail. No bail
out bucks for them.
That trillion++++ was your tax dollars too. But all you seem to care
about is your ne'er-do-well neighbor getting $4000 for trading in some
old gas guzzling polluter and not the millionaire investment bankers
that caused this mess getting billions to pay bonuses for doing so.
And remember, Obama's bail out $ was nothing more than the continuation
of George W's (a republican) plan for saving his rich supporters. Or are
you just another republican that can't seem to remember old George
getting on TV and telling everyone if we don't bail out these companies
the economy would fail in as little as two weeks? Immediately after his
little speech is when ALL my business dried up (I was doing alright
until then) and I was forced to close shop. Thank you George W. for
instilling such confidence in our economy.
Ya, your right, it's "sharing the wealth" our tax $ being given to the
rich. Trickle down never did work.

jmc[_2_]
September 25th 10, 01:40 PM
Suddenly, without warning, Bill Graham exclaimed (9/24/2010 9:59 PM):
>
> "dgk" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 19:21:52 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Clara Semps" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In article >, Bill Graham
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Modern medicine might surprise you.....People are already living to
>>>>> near
>>>>> 100, or, at least, it's not uncommon.
>>>>
>>>> That's what I'm afraid of. The way things are these days, I'm going to
>>>> outlive my money and wind up in a homeless shelter! LOL
>>>
>>> Hey....Tell me about it....When my money gives out, I am going to
>>> camp out
>>> on Obama's front porch....:^)
>>
>> Blame Obama if you wish but our problems started far earlier than him.
>
>
> I certainly agree with that.....Liberalism has been here for a long
> time....
>
>> We have a country where the wealthy keep getting wealthier and the
>> rest of us don't seem to get that trickle-down.
>
> Yes, but, "sharing the wealth" isn't the same as, "trickle down". For
> example, I moved to a house 6 miles from where I worked back in the late
> 60's, and I pedaled a bicycle to work for 10 years, and then rode a
> Honda trail 90 (110 miles per gallon ) to work for another ten.....So,
> where's my $4000 to buy a new car? The idiot down the block who kept a
> bunch of old clunkers on his front lawn, (wrecking the property values
> for the rest of us) gets 4 grand from Obama for one of his wrecks, while
> I get a big goose egg.....And the money he gets is MY TAX DOLLARS!! So
> you know how I am going to vote come next November......The way I figure
> it is as follows. I was not born rich. I was from an average family, in
> an average town in the USA. I went to grammar school along with every
> body else in my town. Some of the kids worked hard, and some of them
> goofed off. The ones who worked hard, (like me ) went on to college and
> made something of ourselves, while those who goofed off became nobody's
> and never made much money. But we were all born with the same potential,
> and had the same opportunities. I went to college, got a good job, and
> saved money in a 401K plan all of my life. While my friends were driving
> Porsches, I was driving a VW, and buying health insurance for myself and
> wife and kids.....So today, how do you think I feel about my government
> stealing money from me to give to those near-do-wells who goofed off all
> their lives, and who spent every cent they earned on Porsches and fancy
> furniture while I scraped and saved so my kids could go to college, and
> my wife and I could enjoy a decent retirement? Is this what you mean by,
> "trickle down"? If it is, you now know what you can do with your trickle
> down......I believe money trickles down to those who work and save it,
> and when we do, we deserve to keep it and not have our government steal
> it from us to give to those who don't deserve it. I will show you what I
> mean next November, when I tear that lever off their voting machine with
> every pointer on it pointed toward "Conservative Republican".


What he said. Obama essentially wants to steal from those of us who
worked hard and were fiscally responsible, to give to those who did
nothing. I'm all for charity - if you choose to, please give to a
charity or cause you believe in. I am NOT for being robbed by my own
damn government, which is what "social justice" and "redistributing
wealth" is about.

I came from middle class, but after college I was really, really poor.
One year I barely cleared $3,000 for the entire year. I had no phone,
no car, lived in a tiny poorly furnished apartment. I went on food
stamps for a while because I had only just enough money to pay the
bills, none left over for food. I worked hard at my minimum-wage job
though, and gradually improved my lot. As my finances improved, I
reduced my debt until it was totally gone. I have now been debt free
for almost 20 years now. My husband and I LIVE WTHIN OUR MEANS. We
continue to do so, and I'm even more conservative in my spending, as I
realize the money I've been saving for retirement (on TOP of my
employer's retirement plan) is becoming worth less and less.

Oh, and FWIW, the current disaster started with Bush (and probably
before that). I think the banks and car companies should have been
allowed to fail. Small, fiscally responsible banks and car companies
would have picked up the pieces. Same for the stimulus, fat lot of good
that did to the average person. I firmly believe that had the market
been allowed to work properly, we'd be well on our way to a recovery. A
real one, not the fake one that bought economists are trying to make us
believe.

Essentially, Obamanamics and "redistributing weath" punishes success,
and rewards failure. If it succeeds we will end up a failed, bankrupt
country of (temporarily) well-off slackers. For a time. As Margaret
Thatcher once said, the problem with socialism is that eventually you
run out of other peoples' money.

If you want more money, work harder for it, don't hope the government
will steal it from me!


jmc

Bill Graham
September 26th 10, 12:46 AM
"Terry" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>
>> Yes, but, "sharing the wealth" isn't the same as, "trickle down". For
>> example, I moved to a house 6 miles from where I worked back in the late
>> 60's, and I pedaled a bicycle to work for 10 years, and then rode a Honda
>> trail 90 (110 miles per gallon ) to work for another ten.....So, where's
>> my $4000 to buy a new car? The idiot down the block who kept a bunch of
>> old clunkers on his front lawn, (wrecking the property values for the
>> rest of us) gets 4 grand from Obama for one of his wrecks, while I get a
>> big goose egg.....And the money he gets is MY TAX DOLLARS!! So you know
>> how I am going to vote come next November......


> It wasn't for your idiot neighbor to get a new car. You could have bought
> some $100 junker and got your $4000 trade in if you were smart enough to
> figure that simple plan out.

Sorry.....You had to have already had the junker for a year in order to get
any money for trade in on a new car....They were cleaver enough to make sure
that Bill Graham couldn't benefit from it. It's just like the little signs
that are too small for me to read in the parking spaces down town.....I
don't have to read them, because reguardless of what they say, the bottom
line is what they mean.....They all mean, "Bill Graham can't park here".

> It was so the officers of car companies could keep their high paying cushy
> jobs and not as many worker bee's would loose their jobs.
> All that bail out money was just to protect the wealthy from their greed
> that was destroying their companies.
> Amazing how the rich have no problems with billions in corporate welfare
> but don't believe in a single dime for people.
> I'm against government sponsored welfare for anyone.

So am I. That's not what government is for. I am perfectly able to give my
own money away. Robin Hood was just a thief, and nothing more. He stole from
people, and he didn't know or care where their money came from, or how hard
they worked for it. Just because he gave it to the poor, doesn't make it Ok
for him to steal it.


That's what
> churches and other non-profits are for. They know better who deserves
> help.
> Some how bailing out a bunch of failing companies just seems to go against
> the ideals of capitalism.
> I guess it's alright when it's some huge conglomerate that give millions
> to political campaigns and not some small business that only employs a
> couple dozen people.
> Small business is supposedly the biggest employer in this country yet in
> my town alone, I've seen hundreds of them be allowed to fail. No bail out
> bucks for them.
> That trillion++++ was your tax dollars too. But all you seem to care about
> is your ne'er-do-well neighbor getting $4000 for trading in some old gas
> guzzling polluter and not the millionaire investment bankers that caused
> this mess getting billions to pay bonuses for doing so.

Not so.....I don't like Obama giving my money away to anyone. But I was
addressing just one thing here.....I don't have either the time to write a
whole book, nor do I think my server would let me upload it.


> And remember, Obama's bail out $ was nothing more than the continuation of
> George W's (a republican) plan for saving his rich supporters. Or are you
> just another republican that can't seem to remember old George getting on
> TV and telling everyone if we don't bail out these companies the economy
> would fail in as little as two weeks? Immediately after his little speech
> is when ALL my business dried up (I was doing alright until then) and I
> was forced to close shop. Thank you George W. for instilling such
> confidence in our economy.
> Ya, your right, it's "sharing the wealth" our tax $ being given to the
> rich. Trickle down never did work.

I didn't like my government giving anything away to anybody.....They are not
giving their money away....They are giving MY MONEY AWAY!! I am a
libertarian, and neither Obama or Bush comes anywhere close to that.....But
the worse ones are Pelosi-Frank-Dodd.....They are hell bent on breaking me
and my grandchildren with their give away programs.

Bill Graham
September 26th 10, 12:52 AM
"jmc" > wrote in message
...
> Suddenly, without warning, Bill Graham exclaimed (9/24/2010 9:59 PM):
>>
>> "dgk" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 19:21:52 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Clara Semps" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> In article >, Bill
>>>>> Graham
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Modern medicine might surprise you.....People are already living to
>>>>>> near
>>>>>> 100, or, at least, it's not uncommon.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what I'm afraid of. The way things are these days, I'm going to
>>>>> outlive my money and wind up in a homeless shelter! LOL
>>>>
>>>> Hey....Tell me about it....When my money gives out, I am going to
>>>> camp out
>>>> on Obama's front porch....:^)
>>>
>>> Blame Obama if you wish but our problems started far earlier than him.
>>
>>
>> I certainly agree with that.....Liberalism has been here for a long
>> time....
>>
>>> We have a country where the wealthy keep getting wealthier and the
>>> rest of us don't seem to get that trickle-down.
>>
>> Yes, but, "sharing the wealth" isn't the same as, "trickle down". For
>> example, I moved to a house 6 miles from where I worked back in the late
>> 60's, and I pedaled a bicycle to work for 10 years, and then rode a
>> Honda trail 90 (110 miles per gallon ) to work for another ten.....So,
>> where's my $4000 to buy a new car? The idiot down the block who kept a
>> bunch of old clunkers on his front lawn, (wrecking the property values
>> for the rest of us) gets 4 grand from Obama for one of his wrecks, while
>> I get a big goose egg.....And the money he gets is MY TAX DOLLARS!! So
>> you know how I am going to vote come next November......The way I figure
>> it is as follows. I was not born rich. I was from an average family, in
>> an average town in the USA. I went to grammar school along with every
>> body else in my town. Some of the kids worked hard, and some of them
>> goofed off. The ones who worked hard, (like me ) went on to college and
>> made something of ourselves, while those who goofed off became nobody's
>> and never made much money. But we were all born with the same potential,
>> and had the same opportunities. I went to college, got a good job, and
>> saved money in a 401K plan all of my life. While my friends were driving
>> Porsches, I was driving a VW, and buying health insurance for myself and
>> wife and kids.....So today, how do you think I feel about my government
>> stealing money from me to give to those near-do-wells who goofed off all
>> their lives, and who spent every cent they earned on Porsches and fancy
>> furniture while I scraped and saved so my kids could go to college, and
>> my wife and I could enjoy a decent retirement? Is this what you mean by,
>> "trickle down"? If it is, you now know what you can do with your trickle
>> down......I believe money trickles down to those who work and save it,
>> and when we do, we deserve to keep it and not have our government steal
>> it from us to give to those who don't deserve it. I will show you what I
>> mean next November, when I tear that lever off their voting machine with
>> every pointer on it pointed toward "Conservative Republican".
>
>
> What he said. Obama essentially wants to steal from those of us who
> worked hard and were fiscally responsible, to give to those who did
> nothing. I'm all for charity - if you choose to, please give to a charity
> or cause you believe in. I am NOT for being robbed by my own damn
> government, which is what "social justice" and "redistributing wealth" is
> about.
>
> I came from middle class, but after college I was really, really poor. One
> year I barely cleared $3,000 for the entire year. I had no phone, no car,
> lived in a tiny poorly furnished apartment. I went on food stamps for a
> while because I had only just enough money to pay the bills, none left
> over for food. I worked hard at my minimum-wage job though, and gradually
> improved my lot. As my finances improved, I reduced my debt until it was
> totally gone. I have now been debt free for almost 20 years now. My
> husband and I LIVE WTHIN OUR MEANS. We continue to do so, and I'm even
> more conservative in my spending, as I realize the money I've been saving
> for retirement (on TOP of my employer's retirement plan) is becoming worth
> less and less.
>
> Oh, and FWIW, the current disaster started with Bush (and probably before
> that). I think the banks and car companies should have been allowed to
> fail. Small, fiscally responsible banks and car companies would have
> picked up the pieces. Same for the stimulus, fat lot of good that did to
> the average person. I firmly believe that had the market been allowed to
> work properly, we'd be well on our way to a recovery. A real one, not the
> fake one that bought economists are trying to make us believe.
>
> Essentially, Obamanamics and "redistributing weath" punishes success, and
> rewards failure. If it succeeds we will end up a failed, bankrupt country
> of (temporarily) well-off slackers. For a time. As Margaret Thatcher
> once said, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of
> other peoples' money.
>
> If you want more money, work harder for it, don't hope the government will
> steal it from me!
>
Our government is stealing our money and giving it to those who don't
deserve it. And, if you think you can save yourself by saving, think again.
By printing it, they can make it worth less, just as too many tomatoes makes
them worth less. And, the government is printing it like its going out of
style.....If you listen carefully at night, you will be able to hear the
rumble of those printing presses coming from Washington DC. They mean that
the government is reaching into your bank vault and stealing from you, and
there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

jmc[_2_]
September 26th 10, 02:25 AM
Suddenly, without warning, Bill Graham exclaimed (9/25/2010 7:52 PM):

> Our government is stealing our money and giving it to those who don't
> deserve it. And, if you think you can save yourself by saving, think
> again. By printing it, they can make it worth less, just as too many
> tomatoes makes them worth less. And, the government is printing it like
> its going out of style.....If you listen carefully at night, you will be
> able to hear the rumble of those printing presses coming from Washington
> DC. They mean that the government is reaching into your bank vault and
> stealing from you, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

I said that, didn't I? What I've saved for retirement won't stretch
nearly as far as originally expected, and it's "shrinking" all the time.

Yea, I'm a libertarian too. Some days, I'm a right-wing nutcase, but
usually I'm fairly moderate :)

Still, we are Americans, we are not helpless! I still have *some* faith
in the Constitution and the system of government the Founders set up. I
also have faith that people in power want to get reelected. I vote, I
write to both the government officials I agree with and those I don't.
I even get replies, and not canned ones, showing that they actually do
realize that individual voters do count, 'cause they add up, and one
voter taking the time to write probably = a dozen more that feel the
same way. I also research before I vote. I didn't vote for either of
the bozos chosen for me by the media at the last presidential election.

There are ways of planning for the future that don't necessarily rely on
how much you make, but how self-sufficient you can live. I'm also a
practicing believer in the Second Amendment; sadly, we are starting to
see exactly WHY the Founding Fathers put that in there - not just for
militia, but so we can protect ourselves from our own government, as
they were forced to do back then.

jmc

Bill Graham
September 26th 10, 02:42 AM
"jmc" > wrote in message
...
> Suddenly, without warning, Bill Graham exclaimed (9/25/2010 7:52 PM):
>
>> Our government is stealing our money and giving it to those who don't
>> deserve it. And, if you think you can save yourself by saving, think
>> again. By printing it, they can make it worth less, just as too many
>> tomatoes makes them worth less. And, the government is printing it like
>> its going out of style.....If you listen carefully at night, you will be
>> able to hear the rumble of those printing presses coming from Washington
>> DC. They mean that the government is reaching into your bank vault and
>> stealing from you, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.
>
> I said that, didn't I? What I've saved for retirement won't stretch
> nearly as far as originally expected, and it's "shrinking" all the time.
>
> Yea, I'm a libertarian too. Some days, I'm a right-wing nutcase, but
> usually I'm fairly moderate :)
>
> Still, we are Americans, we are not helpless! I still have *some* faith in
> the Constitution and the system of government the Founders set up. I also
> have faith that people in power want to get reelected. I vote, I write to
> both the government officials I agree with and those I don't. I even get
> replies, and not canned ones, showing that they actually do realize that
> individual voters do count, 'cause they add up, and one voter taking the
> time to write probably = a dozen more that feel the same way. I also
> research before I vote. I didn't vote for either of the bozos chosen for
> me by the media at the last presidential election.
>
> There are ways of planning for the future that don't necessarily rely on
> how much you make, but how self-sufficient you can live. I'm also a
> practicing believer in the Second Amendment; sadly, we are starting to see
> exactly WHY the Founding Fathers put that in there - not just for militia,
> but so we can protect ourselves from our own government, as they were
> forced to do back then.
>
> jmc

Yes. I sent an email a while back to the Supreme Court. I asked them just
what is there about, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed." don't you understand? I got no answer. As a matter of
fact, whenever I email anyone in our government, I get no answer. They don't
have to pay me no never mind.....They are banditos!

Bill Graham
September 26th 10, 02:59 AM
"jmc" > wrote in message
...
> Suddenly, without warning, Bill Graham exclaimed (9/25/2010 7:52 PM):
>
>> Our government is stealing our money and giving it to those who don't
>> deserve it. And, if you think you can save yourself by saving, think
>> again. By printing it, they can make it worth less, just as too many
>> tomatoes makes them worth less. And, the government is printing it like
>> its going out of style.....If you listen carefully at night, you will be
>> able to hear the rumble of those printing presses coming from Washington
>> DC. They mean that the government is reaching into your bank vault and
>> stealing from you, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.
>
> I said that, didn't I? What I've saved for retirement won't stretch
> nearly as far as originally expected, and it's "shrinking" all the time.
>
> Yea, I'm a libertarian too. Some days, I'm a right-wing nutcase, but
> usually I'm fairly moderate :)
>
> Still, we are Americans, we are not helpless! I still have *some* faith in
> the Constitution and the system of government the Founders set up. I also
> have faith that people in power want to get reelected. I vote, I write to
> both the government officials I agree with and those I don't. I even get
> replies, and not canned ones, showing that they actually do realize that
> individual voters do count, 'cause they add up, and one voter taking the
> time to write probably = a dozen more that feel the same way. I also
> research before I vote. I didn't vote for either of the bozos chosen for
> me by the media at the last presidential election.
>
> There are ways of planning for the future that don't necessarily rely on
> how much you make, but how self-sufficient you can live. I'm also a
> practicing believer in the Second Amendment; sadly, we are starting to see
> exactly WHY the Founding Fathers put that in there - not just for militia,
> but so we can protect ourselves from our own government, as they were
> forced to do back then.
>
> jmc

If you want an exercise in futility, try asking your social security
administration why they steal a paycheck from every geezer.....They
advertise that they don't pay you for the month you retire, and they don't
pay you for the month you die. But this implies that they do pay you for
every month in between those two events.....Sadly, this is not the case.
They also don't pay you for the month after you retire. I retired in August,
and they didn't pay me for September of that year, and they will never pay
me for September. I have written many letters about this, and they don't
answer them, or they give me an answer that has absolutely nothing to do
with what I asked. Upon asking all my retired friends, I have found out that
the SS has not paid any of them for the month after they retire either. So
they are stealing one paycheck from every retiree in the country. Now, there
are around 100 million people in the workforce, and they work around 40
years, so 1/40 of them, or about 2.5 million people retire every year. They
get about $1,000 a month each on average, so we are talking 2.5 billion
dollars every year that the government steals from us geezers. Each one of
us lives about 10 years, so there are 25 billion dollars owed to living
retirees outstanding. What a class action law suit this would make! You'd
think some enterprising lawyer would go for a third of 25 billion dollars,
wouldn't you? But I haven't been able to interest any lawyers in it......I
wonder why?

Patok[_2_]
September 26th 10, 09:22 AM
Bill Graham wrote:
> "dgk" > wrote in message
>>
>> Blame Obama if you wish but our problems started far earlier than him.
>
> I certainly agree with that.....Liberalism has been here for a long
> time....

So you'd not mind the less fortunate die of illness or starvation?
You probably hate the very guts of the movie Comet Impact (2007), where
the USA nobly accepts to take the comet strike upon itself, rather than
destroy the rest of the world, but save itself?
The current world problems were started by Raygun and Thatbitch, may
eternal curse be upon them.

--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
--
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.

Bill Graham
September 27th 10, 01:14 AM
"Patok" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> "dgk" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> Blame Obama if you wish but our problems started far earlier than him.
>>
>> I certainly agree with that.....Liberalism has been here for a long
>> time....
>
> So you'd not mind the less fortunate die of illness or starvation? You
> probably hate the very guts of the movie Comet Impact (2007), where the
> USA nobly accepts to take the comet strike upon itself, rather than
> destroy the rest of the world, but save itself?
> The current world problems were started by Raygun and Thatbitch, may
> eternal curse be upon them.
>
I give money to the, "less fortunate" all the time.....I support my
charities with regular automatic contributions that come directly out of my
checking account. But my charities are for those who were born defective,
and not for those who had all the opportunities that I had, but never took
advantage of them. People who (for example) were born with Downs syndrome,
and were abandoned by their families. I try, IOW, to rectify the sins of
God. (In whom, incidentally, I do not believe)

But you idiot liberals steal money from me every April 15th, and give it to
those who don't deserve it.....This really ****es me off!! You give it to
the bums I spent my life watching spend their money on crap when I was
buying myself and my family health insurance and saving for our old age.
Spreading the wealth around, you call it.....I call it Robinhoodism, and I
devote my political life to stopping it.

Patok[_2_]
October 3rd 10, 10:34 PM
Bill Graham wrote:
> "Patok" > wrote in message
>>
>> So you'd not mind the less fortunate die of illness or starvation?
>> You probably hate the very guts of the movie Comet Impact (2007),
>> where the USA nobly accepts to take the comet strike upon itself,
>> rather than destroy the rest of the world, but save itself?
>> The current world problems were started by Raygun and Thatbitch, may
>> eternal curse be upon them.
>>
> I give money to the, "less fortunate" all the time.....I support my
> charities with regular automatic contributions that come directly out of
> my checking account. But my charities are for those who were born
> defective, and not for those who had all the opportunities that I had,
> but never took advantage of them. People who (for example) were born
> with Downs syndrome, and were abandoned by their families. I try, IOW,
> to rectify the sins of God. (In whom, incidentally, I do not believe)

I don't believe either; I think we established that some time ago. But! the
less fortunate should not rely on your (or others') charity. It is a noble idea,
but it doesn't work in practice, because the ones that can contribute the most,
don't. And they don't because it was their selfishness and greed that led them
to accumulate wealth to begin with, and they are not going to change their
nature overnight after they make it big, and start giving. There is no wonder
why you give to charity, but had to struggle all your life to save money for
health and old age - it is the opposite side of the coin, and it doesn't have to
be like that. Wouldn't it have been much better, if your taxes had been higher
(because right now they are low, believe me), but you didn't have to worry about
saving for retirement or health?


> But you idiot liberals steal money from me every April 15th, and give it
> to those who don't deserve it.....This really ****es me off!! You give
> it to the bums I spent my life watching spend their money on crap when I
> was buying myself and my family health insurance and saving for our old
> age. Spreading the wealth around, you call it.....I call it
> Robinhoodism, and I devote my political life to stopping it.

You exhibit the pervasive American misunderstanding of what a social country
can and must be. (It is illustrated by the hilarious fact that some Americans
think that Obama is a socialist.) With a properly organized system, none of the
indignities you write about would have happened.
- The "bums" that spent their money, as you say, would have been taxed heavily
on it (as they apparently had it as disposable income), and you wouldn't have to
be taxed for them now.
- You would have had less disposable income, c/o of the higher taxes, but you
wouldn't have had to save for retirement or health; that would have been taken
care of.

--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
--
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.

Bill Graham
October 4th 10, 02:02 AM
"Patok" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> "Patok" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> So you'd not mind the less fortunate die of illness or starvation? You
>>> probably hate the very guts of the movie Comet Impact (2007), where the
>>> USA nobly accepts to take the comet strike upon itself, rather than
>>> destroy the rest of the world, but save itself?
>>> The current world problems were started by Raygun and Thatbitch, may
>>> eternal curse be upon them.
>>>
>> I give money to the, "less fortunate" all the time.....I support my
>> charities with regular automatic contributions that come directly out of
>> my checking account. But my charities are for those who were born
>> defective, and not for those who had all the opportunities that I had,
>> but never took advantage of them. People who (for example) were born with
>> Downs syndrome, and were abandoned by their families. I try, IOW, to
>> rectify the sins of God. (In whom, incidentally, I do not believe)
>
> I don't believe either; I think we established that some time ago. But!
> the less fortunate should not rely on your (or others') charity. It is a
> noble idea, but it doesn't work in practice, because the ones that can
> contribute the most, don't. And they don't because it was their
> selfishness and greed that led them to accumulate wealth to begin with,
> and they are not going to change their nature overnight after they make it
> big, and start giving. There is no wonder why you give to charity, but had
> to struggle all your life to save money for health and old age - it is the
> opposite side of the coin, and it doesn't have to be like that. Wouldn't
> it have been much better, if your taxes had been higher (because right now
> they are low, believe me), but you didn't have to worry about saving for
> retirement or health?
>
>
>> But you idiot liberals steal money from me every April 15th, and give it
>> to those who don't deserve it.....This really ****es me off!! You give it
>> to the bums I spent my life watching spend their money on crap when I was
>> buying myself and my family health insurance and saving for our old age.
>> Spreading the wealth around, you call it.....I call it Robinhoodism, and
>> I devote my political life to stopping it.
>
> You exhibit the pervasive American misunderstanding of what a social
> country can and must be. (It is illustrated by the hilarious fact that
> some Americans think that Obama is a socialist.) With a properly organized
> system, none of the indignities you write about would have happened.
> - The "bums" that spent their money, as you say, would have been taxed
> heavily on it (as they apparently had it as disposable income), and you
> wouldn't have to be taxed for them now.
> - You would have had less disposable income, c/o of the higher taxes, but
> you wouldn't have had to save for retirement or health; that would have
> been taken care of.

Taken care of by the government? -
Give me a break! I wanted to have the government invest my social security
money in American business......In stead of what they do with it
now.....Spend it.....but the stupid liberals screamed and
bitched.....Apparently they are happy that their government spends
it.....You know, if there were some place to escape to, where I could live
my libertarian life and just be left alone, I would go there in a New York
minute.....But there isn't.....I am trapped here with these liberals, so I
will just limp along until I escape through death.

I read the Constitution, and it screams Libertarianism in every word of the
text......And yet, the idiots in California actually voted to not allow a
bartender in Palo Alto to put a sign on his door that says, "This is a
smoking bar. If you enter here, you will be subjected to second hand smoke.
If you don't like this, then please go down the block to Mike's place where
there is no smoking and enjoy!" These are the same idiots who voted, back in
the 60's to not allow some guy in Southern California to start a cable TV
business, where he would string a cable to your house (if you wanted him to)
and feed you his TV programs. The poor ******* had to get the California
Supreme Court to throw the dumb law out before he could start his business.
And I have had to live with these idiots for over 40 years......

jmc[_2_]
October 4th 10, 02:57 AM
Suddenly, without warning, Patok exclaimed (10/3/2010 5:34 PM):
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> "Patok" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> So you'd not mind the less fortunate die of illness or starvation?
>>> You probably hate the very guts of the movie Comet Impact (2007),
>>> where the USA nobly accepts to take the comet strike upon itself,
>>> rather than destroy the rest of the world, but save itself?
>>> The current world problems were started by Raygun and Thatbitch, may
>>> eternal curse be upon them.
>>>
>> I give money to the, "less fortunate" all the time.....I support my
>> charities with regular automatic contributions that come directly out
>> of my checking account. But my charities are for those who were born
>> defective, and not for those who had all the opportunities that I had,
>> but never took advantage of them. People who (for example) were born
>> with Downs syndrome, and were abandoned by their families. I try, IOW,
>> to rectify the sins of God. (In whom, incidentally, I do not believe)
>
> I don't believe either; I think we established that some time ago. But!
> the less fortunate should not rely on your (or others') charity. It is a
> noble idea, but it doesn't work in practice, because the ones that can
> contribute the most, don't. And they don't because it was their
> selfishness and greed that led them to accumulate wealth to begin with,
> and they are not going to change their nature overnight after they make
> it big, and start giving. There is no wonder why you give to charity,
> but had to struggle all your life to save money for health and old age -
> it is the opposite side of the coin, and it doesn't have to be like
> that. Wouldn't it have been much better, if your taxes had been higher
> (because right now they are low, believe me), but you didn't have to
> worry about saving for retirement or health?
>
>
>> But you idiot liberals steal money from me every April 15th, and give
>> it to those who don't deserve it.....This really ****es me off!! You
>> give it to the bums I spent my life watching spend their money on crap
>> when I was buying myself and my family health insurance and saving for
>> our old age. Spreading the wealth around, you call it.....I call it
>> Robinhoodism, and I devote my political life to stopping it.
>
> You exhibit the pervasive American misunderstanding of what a social
> country can and must be. (It is illustrated by the hilarious fact that
> some Americans think that Obama is a socialist.) With a properly
> organized system, none of the indignities you write about would have
> happened.
> - The "bums" that spent their money, as you say, would have been taxed
> heavily on it (as they apparently had it as disposable income), and you
> wouldn't have to be taxed for them now.
> - You would have had less disposable income, c/o of the higher taxes,
> but you wouldn't have had to save for retirement or health; that would
> have been taken care of.
>

We are going to have to disagree on the "must".

Everything the government gives you, it can take away. And the gov't
has proved it can't manage money properly, why would I want to pay
higher taxes, for a supposed retirement or health plan that will slowly
be less and less until it is nothing?

I have lived in England. I have used their National Health System. NHS
sucks, it's rationed, and it's also broke.

Take a look around you. Look at Europe. Socialism works for a while,
until, as Margaret Thatcher once said, you run out of other people's
money. Then it falls apart.

If you like socialism, and "social countries", please move to Europe.

Oh, and your contention that the richest don't help anyone but
themselves is bull, too. I'll give just one example: One of the (and
sometimes THE) richest man in the world: Bill Gates. He has donated
MILLIONS of dollars. For more examples, I came upon this random page
which lists 2,270+ celebrities (by definition, they're generally rich)
that give to charity: http://www.looktothestars.org

jmc

dgk
October 4th 10, 09:29 PM
On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 21:57:08 -0400, jmc >
wrote:

>Suddenly, without warning, Patok exclaimed (10/3/2010 5:34 PM):
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>> "Patok" > wrote in message
>>>>
....
>If you like socialism, and "social countries", please move to Europe.
>
>Oh, and your contention that the richest don't help anyone but
>themselves is bull, too. I'll give just one example: One of the (and
>sometimes THE) richest man in the world: Bill Gates. He has donated
>MILLIONS of dollars. For more examples, I came upon this random page
>which lists 2,270+ celebrities (by definition, they're generally rich)
>that give to charity: http://www.looktothestars.org
>
>jmc

That's funny. When I read PatOk's comment about the rich not giving
because they're selfish *******s I thought of Gates as the exception.
He became amazing wealthy because his company is actually very good at
what they do, and he had a lot of stock. He didn't go out and try to
become wealthy; while a great businessman, it pretty much happened
because he wanted his company to succeed. He is actually the exception
that proves the rule. You singled him out for the same reason. He's
giving most of his money away. You can probably thank his wife for
influencing that as well.

Still, we live in a country where the poor and middle class have had
stagnant and even declining wages since Reagan's Presidency. No
coincidence there; that's when the greed generation began. The wealth
of the richest 1% of our society has grown three-fold in that time
period.

Corporations are amoral. They have no reason to care if the US does
well since they're all multi-national now. They don't care if they
fire everyone. All they care about is the bottom line. The media is
controlled by those corporations and we get fed what they want us to
hear, which is that big government is bad (because that's all that can
reign in corporate power).

The founding fathers had a very healthy fear of corporate power, since
essentially they fought a revolution against a corporation. Each state
was given the power to charter corporations, but that charter required
that the corporation act for the benefit of society and under strict
controls. You should take a look at how they got out of that control:

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html

Bill Graham
October 5th 10, 06:07 AM
"jmc" > wrote in message
...
> Suddenly, without warning, Patok exclaimed (10/3/2010 5:34 PM):
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>> "Patok" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> So you'd not mind the less fortunate die of illness or starvation?
>>>> You probably hate the very guts of the movie Comet Impact (2007),
>>>> where the USA nobly accepts to take the comet strike upon itself,
>>>> rather than destroy the rest of the world, but save itself?
>>>> The current world problems were started by Raygun and Thatbitch, may
>>>> eternal curse be upon them.
>>>>
>>> I give money to the, "less fortunate" all the time.....I support my
>>> charities with regular automatic contributions that come directly out
>>> of my checking account. But my charities are for those who were born
>>> defective, and not for those who had all the opportunities that I had,
>>> but never took advantage of them. People who (for example) were born
>>> with Downs syndrome, and were abandoned by their families. I try, IOW,
>>> to rectify the sins of God. (In whom, incidentally, I do not believe)
>>
>> I don't believe either; I think we established that some time ago. But!
>> the less fortunate should not rely on your (or others') charity. It is a
>> noble idea, but it doesn't work in practice, because the ones that can
>> contribute the most, don't. And they don't because it was their
>> selfishness and greed that led them to accumulate wealth to begin with,
>> and they are not going to change their nature overnight after they make
>> it big, and start giving. There is no wonder why you give to charity,
>> but had to struggle all your life to save money for health and old age -
>> it is the opposite side of the coin, and it doesn't have to be like
>> that. Wouldn't it have been much better, if your taxes had been higher
>> (because right now they are low, believe me), but you didn't have to
>> worry about saving for retirement or health?
>>
>>
>>> But you idiot liberals steal money from me every April 15th, and give
>>> it to those who don't deserve it.....This really ****es me off!! You
>>> give it to the bums I spent my life watching spend their money on crap
>>> when I was buying myself and my family health insurance and saving for
>>> our old age. Spreading the wealth around, you call it.....I call it
>>> Robinhoodism, and I devote my political life to stopping it.
>>
>> You exhibit the pervasive American misunderstanding of what a social
>> country can and must be. (It is illustrated by the hilarious fact that
>> some Americans think that Obama is a socialist.) With a properly
>> organized system, none of the indignities you write about would have
>> happened.
>> - The "bums" that spent their money, as you say, would have been taxed
>> heavily on it (as they apparently had it as disposable income), and you
>> wouldn't have to be taxed for them now.
>> - You would have had less disposable income, c/o of the higher taxes,
>> but you wouldn't have had to save for retirement or health; that would
>> have been taken care of.
>>
>
> We are going to have to disagree on the "must".
>
> Everything the government gives you, it can take away. And the gov't has
> proved it can't manage money properly, why would I want to pay higher
> taxes, for a supposed retirement or health plan that will slowly be less
> and less until it is nothing?
>
> I have lived in England. I have used their National Health System. NHS
> sucks, it's rationed, and it's also broke.
>
> Take a look around you. Look at Europe. Socialism works for a while,
> until, as Margaret Thatcher once said, you run out of other people's
> money. Then it falls apart.
>
> If you like socialism, and "social countries", please move to Europe.
>
> Oh, and your contention that the richest don't help anyone but themselves
> is bull, too. I'll give just one example: One of the (and sometimes THE)
> richest man in the world: Bill Gates. He has donated MILLIONS of
> dollars. For more examples, I came upon this random page which lists
> 2,270+ celebrities (by definition, they're generally rich) that give to
> charity: http://www.looktothestars.org
>
> jmc

60 Minutes had a sequence on the Gates foundation, and Melinda Gates last
Sunday.....They don't give away millions.....its Billions, with a big "B".
And they use it mostly to vaccinate children against communicable
diseases.....

Bill Graham
October 5th 10, 06:11 AM
"dgk" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 21:57:08 -0400, jmc >
> wrote:
>
>>Suddenly, without warning, Patok exclaimed (10/3/2010 5:34 PM):
>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>> "Patok" > wrote in message
>>>>>
> ...
>>If you like socialism, and "social countries", please move to Europe.
>>
>>Oh, and your contention that the richest don't help anyone but
>>themselves is bull, too. I'll give just one example: One of the (and
>>sometimes THE) richest man in the world: Bill Gates. He has donated
>>MILLIONS of dollars. For more examples, I came upon this random page
>>which lists 2,270+ celebrities (by definition, they're generally rich)
>>that give to charity: http://www.looktothestars.org
>>
>>jmc
>
> That's funny. When I read PatOk's comment about the rich not giving
> because they're selfish *******s I thought of Gates as the exception.
> He became amazing wealthy because his company is actually very good at
> what they do, and he had a lot of stock. He didn't go out and try to
> become wealthy; while a great businessman, it pretty much happened
> because he wanted his company to succeed. He is actually the exception
> that proves the rule. You singled him out for the same reason. He's
> giving most of his money away. You can probably thank his wife for
> influencing that as well.
>
> Still, we live in a country where the poor and middle class have had
> stagnant and even declining wages since Reagan's Presidency. No
> coincidence there; that's when the greed generation began. The wealth
> of the richest 1% of our society has grown three-fold in that time
> period.
>
> Corporations are amoral. They have no reason to care if the US does
> well since they're all multi-national now. They don't care if they
> fire everyone. All they care about is the bottom line. The media is
> controlled by those corporations and we get fed what they want us to
> hear, which is that big government is bad (because that's all that can
> reign in corporate power).
>
> The founding fathers had a very healthy fear of corporate power, since
> essentially they fought a revolution against a corporation. Each state
> was given the power to charter corporations, but that charter required
> that the corporation act for the benefit of society and under strict
> controls. You should take a look at how they got out of that control:
>
> http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html

If you check out the US Constitution, I think you'll find that the founding
fathers had a much greater fear of government getting out of control than
they did of corporations......

dgk
October 5th 10, 06:36 PM
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 22:11:26 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:

>
>"dgk" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 21:57:08 -0400, jmc >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Suddenly, without warning, Patok exclaimed (10/3/2010 5:34 PM):
>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>> "Patok" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>> ...
>>>If you like socialism, and "social countries", please move to Europe.
>>>
>>>Oh, and your contention that the richest don't help anyone but
>>>themselves is bull, too. I'll give just one example: One of the (and
>>>sometimes THE) richest man in the world: Bill Gates. He has donated
>>>MILLIONS of dollars. For more examples, I came upon this random page
>>>which lists 2,270+ celebrities (by definition, they're generally rich)
>>>that give to charity: http://www.looktothestars.org
>>>
>>>jmc
>>
>> That's funny. When I read PatOk's comment about the rich not giving
>> because they're selfish *******s I thought of Gates as the exception.
>> He became amazing wealthy because his company is actually very good at
>> what they do, and he had a lot of stock. He didn't go out and try to
>> become wealthy; while a great businessman, it pretty much happened
>> because he wanted his company to succeed. He is actually the exception
>> that proves the rule. You singled him out for the same reason. He's
>> giving most of his money away. You can probably thank his wife for
>> influencing that as well.
>>
>> Still, we live in a country where the poor and middle class have had
>> stagnant and even declining wages since Reagan's Presidency. No
>> coincidence there; that's when the greed generation began. The wealth
>> of the richest 1% of our society has grown three-fold in that time
>> period.
>>
>> Corporations are amoral. They have no reason to care if the US does
>> well since they're all multi-national now. They don't care if they
>> fire everyone. All they care about is the bottom line. The media is
>> controlled by those corporations and we get fed what they want us to
>> hear, which is that big government is bad (because that's all that can
>> reign in corporate power).
>>
>> The founding fathers had a very healthy fear of corporate power, since
>> essentially they fought a revolution against a corporation. Each state
>> was given the power to charter corporations, but that charter required
>> that the corporation act for the benefit of society and under strict
>> controls. You should take a look at how they got out of that control:
>>
>> http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html
>
>If you check out the US Constitution, I think you'll find that the founding
>fathers had a much greater fear of government getting out of control than
>they did of corporations......

That may be because they had no idea how much power would end up in
the hands of corporations. I vote for my govenment, I do not vote for
the boards of directors of corporations. If I don't like what my
govenment does, I can vote for someone else.

Bill Graham
October 6th 10, 12:22 AM
"dgk" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 22:11:26 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"dgk" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 21:57:08 -0400, jmc >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Suddenly, without warning, Patok exclaimed (10/3/2010 5:34 PM):
>>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>> "Patok" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>> ...
>>>>If you like socialism, and "social countries", please move to Europe.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, and your contention that the richest don't help anyone but
>>>>themselves is bull, too. I'll give just one example: One of the (and
>>>>sometimes THE) richest man in the world: Bill Gates. He has donated
>>>>MILLIONS of dollars. For more examples, I came upon this random page
>>>>which lists 2,270+ celebrities (by definition, they're generally rich)
>>>>that give to charity: http://www.looktothestars.org
>>>>
>>>>jmc
>>>
>>> That's funny. When I read PatOk's comment about the rich not giving
>>> because they're selfish *******s I thought of Gates as the exception.
>>> He became amazing wealthy because his company is actually very good at
>>> what they do, and he had a lot of stock. He didn't go out and try to
>>> become wealthy; while a great businessman, it pretty much happened
>>> because he wanted his company to succeed. He is actually the exception
>>> that proves the rule. You singled him out for the same reason. He's
>>> giving most of his money away. You can probably thank his wife for
>>> influencing that as well.
>>>
>>> Still, we live in a country where the poor and middle class have had
>>> stagnant and even declining wages since Reagan's Presidency. No
>>> coincidence there; that's when the greed generation began. The wealth
>>> of the richest 1% of our society has grown three-fold in that time
>>> period.
>>>
>>> Corporations are amoral. They have no reason to care if the US does
>>> well since they're all multi-national now. They don't care if they
>>> fire everyone. All they care about is the bottom line. The media is
>>> controlled by those corporations and we get fed what they want us to
>>> hear, which is that big government is bad (because that's all that can
>>> reign in corporate power).
>>>
>>> The founding fathers had a very healthy fear of corporate power, since
>>> essentially they fought a revolution against a corporation. Each state
>>> was given the power to charter corporations, but that charter required
>>> that the corporation act for the benefit of society and under strict
>>> controls. You should take a look at how they got out of that control:
>>>
>>> http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html
>>
>>If you check out the US Constitution, I think you'll find that the
>>founding
>>fathers had a much greater fear of government getting out of control than
>>they did of corporations......
>
> That may be because they had no idea how much power would end up in
> the hands of corporations. I vote for my govenment, I do not vote for
> the boards of directors of corporations. If I don't like what my
> govenment does, I can vote for someone else.

But I do.....Vote for the boards of directors of "my" corporations, that
is......If you are a stockholder of a corporation, you get to vote for the
board of directors, which is at least as much control as you have over your
government.......I have, (for example) absolutely no control over Nancy
Pelosi. Since I am not a Californian, I can't even e-mail her, and have no
voting control over her. She doesn't read or answer anything I try to send
her as House Speaker, either. (You are welcome to try it yourself) And yet
this woman wields much power over my life. Also, if you don't like what any
corporation does, you are free to boycott their products, and/or sue them in
court for redress.....Try that with Nancy Pelosi! She is busy spending
Billions of my tax dollars, and I am helpless to even ask her to stop. And,
the only way I can wield any power over her is to move back to California,
and you can probably guess what I would say about that suggestion.....:^)

dgk
October 6th 10, 01:47 PM
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 16:22:22 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:

>
>"dgk" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 22:11:26 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"dgk" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 21:57:08 -0400, jmc >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Suddenly, without warning, Patok exclaimed (10/3/2010 5:34 PM):
>>>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>>> "Patok" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>>If you like socialism, and "social countries", please move to Europe.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, and your contention that the richest don't help anyone but
>>>>>themselves is bull, too. I'll give just one example: One of the (and
>>>>>sometimes THE) richest man in the world: Bill Gates. He has donated
>>>>>MILLIONS of dollars. For more examples, I came upon this random page
>>>>>which lists 2,270+ celebrities (by definition, they're generally rich)
>>>>>that give to charity: http://www.looktothestars.org
>>>>>
>>>>>jmc
>>>>
>>>> That's funny. When I read PatOk's comment about the rich not giving
>>>> because they're selfish *******s I thought of Gates as the exception.
>>>> He became amazing wealthy because his company is actually very good at
>>>> what they do, and he had a lot of stock. He didn't go out and try to
>>>> become wealthy; while a great businessman, it pretty much happened
>>>> because he wanted his company to succeed. He is actually the exception
>>>> that proves the rule. You singled him out for the same reason. He's
>>>> giving most of his money away. You can probably thank his wife for
>>>> influencing that as well.
>>>>
>>>> Still, we live in a country where the poor and middle class have had
>>>> stagnant and even declining wages since Reagan's Presidency. No
>>>> coincidence there; that's when the greed generation began. The wealth
>>>> of the richest 1% of our society has grown three-fold in that time
>>>> period.
>>>>
>>>> Corporations are amoral. They have no reason to care if the US does
>>>> well since they're all multi-national now. They don't care if they
>>>> fire everyone. All they care about is the bottom line. The media is
>>>> controlled by those corporations and we get fed what they want us to
>>>> hear, which is that big government is bad (because that's all that can
>>>> reign in corporate power).
>>>>
>>>> The founding fathers had a very healthy fear of corporate power, since
>>>> essentially they fought a revolution against a corporation. Each state
>>>> was given the power to charter corporations, but that charter required
>>>> that the corporation act for the benefit of society and under strict
>>>> controls. You should take a look at how they got out of that control:
>>>>
>>>> http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html
>>>
>>>If you check out the US Constitution, I think you'll find that the
>>>founding
>>>fathers had a much greater fear of government getting out of control than
>>>they did of corporations......
>>
>> That may be because they had no idea how much power would end up in
>> the hands of corporations. I vote for my govenment, I do not vote for
>> the boards of directors of corporations. If I don't like what my
>> govenment does, I can vote for someone else.
>
>But I do.....Vote for the boards of directors of "my" corporations, that
>is......If you are a stockholder of a corporation, you get to vote for the
>board of directors, which is at least as much control as you have over your
>government.......I have, (for example) absolutely no control over Nancy
>Pelosi. Since I am not a Californian, I can't even e-mail her, and have no
>voting control over her. She doesn't read or answer anything I try to send
>her as House Speaker, either. (You are welcome to try it yourself) And yet
>this woman wields much power over my life. Also, if you don't like what any
>corporation does, you are free to boycott their products, and/or sue them in
>court for redress.....Try that with Nancy Pelosi! She is busy spending
>Billions of my tax dollars, and I am helpless to even ask her to stop. And,
>the only way I can wield any power over her is to move back to California,
>and you can probably guess what I would say about that suggestion.....:^)


Did it bother you when Republicans were increasing our deficit from
five to ten trillion? And committing us to unnecessary wars? Yes, they
had help from the Dems on the wars.

Bill Graham
October 8th 10, 01:14 AM
"dgk" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 16:22:22 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"dgk" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 22:11:26 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"dgk" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 21:57:08 -0400, jmc >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Suddenly, without warning, Patok exclaimed (10/3/2010 5:34 PM):
>>>>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Patok" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>If you like socialism, and "social countries", please move to Europe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh, and your contention that the richest don't help anyone but
>>>>>>themselves is bull, too. I'll give just one example: One of the (and
>>>>>>sometimes THE) richest man in the world: Bill Gates. He has donated
>>>>>>MILLIONS of dollars. For more examples, I came upon this random page
>>>>>>which lists 2,270+ celebrities (by definition, they're generally rich)
>>>>>>that give to charity: http://www.looktothestars.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>jmc
>>>>>
>>>>> That's funny. When I read PatOk's comment about the rich not giving
>>>>> because they're selfish *******s I thought of Gates as the exception.
>>>>> He became amazing wealthy because his company is actually very good at
>>>>> what they do, and he had a lot of stock. He didn't go out and try to
>>>>> become wealthy; while a great businessman, it pretty much happened
>>>>> because he wanted his company to succeed. He is actually the exception
>>>>> that proves the rule. You singled him out for the same reason. He's
>>>>> giving most of his money away. You can probably thank his wife for
>>>>> influencing that as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still, we live in a country where the poor and middle class have had
>>>>> stagnant and even declining wages since Reagan's Presidency. No
>>>>> coincidence there; that's when the greed generation began. The wealth
>>>>> of the richest 1% of our society has grown three-fold in that time
>>>>> period.
>>>>>
>>>>> Corporations are amoral. They have no reason to care if the US does
>>>>> well since they're all multi-national now. They don't care if they
>>>>> fire everyone. All they care about is the bottom line. The media is
>>>>> controlled by those corporations and we get fed what they want us to
>>>>> hear, which is that big government is bad (because that's all that can
>>>>> reign in corporate power).
>>>>>
>>>>> The founding fathers had a very healthy fear of corporate power, since
>>>>> essentially they fought a revolution against a corporation. Each state
>>>>> was given the power to charter corporations, but that charter required
>>>>> that the corporation act for the benefit of society and under strict
>>>>> controls. You should take a look at how they got out of that control:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html
>>>>
>>>>If you check out the US Constitution, I think you'll find that the
>>>>founding
>>>>fathers had a much greater fear of government getting out of control
>>>>than
>>>>they did of corporations......
>>>
>>> That may be because they had no idea how much power would end up in
>>> the hands of corporations. I vote for my govenment, I do not vote for
>>> the boards of directors of corporations. If I don't like what my
>>> govenment does, I can vote for someone else.
>>
>>But I do.....Vote for the boards of directors of "my" corporations, that
>>is......If you are a stockholder of a corporation, you get to vote for the
>>board of directors, which is at least as much control as you have over
>>your
>>government.......I have, (for example) absolutely no control over Nancy
>>Pelosi. Since I am not a Californian, I can't even e-mail her, and have no
>>voting control over her. She doesn't read or answer anything I try to send
>>her as House Speaker, either. (You are welcome to try it yourself) And yet
>>this woman wields much power over my life. Also, if you don't like what
>>any
>>corporation does, you are free to boycott their products, and/or sue them
>>in
>>court for redress.....Try that with Nancy Pelosi! She is busy spending
>>Billions of my tax dollars, and I am helpless to even ask her to stop.
>>And,
>>the only way I can wield any power over her is to move back to California,
>>and you can probably guess what I would say about that suggestion.....:^)
>
>
> Did it bother you when Republicans were increasing our deficit from
> five to ten trillion? And committing us to unnecessary wars? Yes, they
> had help from the Dems on the wars.

Yes. It bothers me whenever government does anything with my tax dollars
that I don't want or like, whether they are republicans or democrats. I am a
libertarian. Neither party makes me happy. For the last 40 years or more, I
have not voted for anybody I like, but only for the lesser of two (or more)
evils. In general, however, I am also a hawk. I know that the world has
become too small for us to be isolationists, and turn our backs on it. If we
do, pretty soon some little dictator like Kim Jung Ill, or Akmadinijad, will
kill one hell of a lot of us, so I am not too set against wars.....At least,
I am willing to listen when our government wants to attack somebody......I
am one of those who thought G. Patton was right when he wanted to continue
on and take over the world in 1945.....There have been a hell of a lot of
innocent people killed off by maniacs since 1945.....Perhaps we could have
prevented some of that.....Who really knows?

honeybunch
October 8th 10, 10:22 PM
I have to say I have been shocked to read Bill Graham's rant, he who
in the past has always been so admirable ( in my opinion) with his
loving attitude toward cats. If the govenment had never intervened,
we would still have slavery in this country. Its true that many
people seem to take advantage of the government but 70 years ago
before the advent of social security many many widows and abandoned
women had to put their children into orphanages. However, 30 years
ago, 2 friends of mine were both left by their husbands at diferent
times, each with many children. They both were staunch religious
women but it was welfare that enabled both of them to keep their
families together until they wre able to find jobs in the emergency
room of a local hospital. Both went on and got college degrees and
one got a masters in social work and both of them and all their
children are college graduates and productive members of society.
Without the protection of welfare that would not have happened. Also
I thought that the "stimulus" money corporations got from the
government is actually a loan. If its not paid back then we are going
to own a large part of those corporations. Maybe Im wrong. Did
Goldman Sachs get free money or was it a loan?

On Sep 25, 7:37*am, Terry > wrote:
> Bill Graham wrote:
> > Yes, but, "sharing the wealth" isn't the same as, "trickle down". For
> > example, I moved to a house 6 miles from where I worked back in the late
> > 60's, and I pedaled a bicycle to work for 10 years, and then rode a
> > Honda trail 90 (110 miles per gallon ) to work for another ten.....So,
> > where's my $4000 to buy a new car? The idiot down the block who kept a
> > bunch of old clunkers on his front lawn, (wrecking the property values
> > for the rest of us) gets 4 grand from Obama for one of his wrecks, while
> > I get a big goose egg.....And the money he gets is MY TAX DOLLARS!! So
> > you know how I am going to vote come next November......
>
> It wasn't for your idiot neighbor to get a new car. You could have
> bought some $100 junker and got your $4000 trade in if you were smart
> enough to figure that simple plan out.
> It was so the officers of car companies could keep their high paying
> cushy jobs and not as many worker bee's would loose their jobs.
> All that bail out money was just to protect the wealthy from their greed
> that was destroying their companies.
> Amazing how the rich have no problems with billions in corporate welfare
> but don't believe in a single dime for people.
> I'm against government sponsored welfare for anyone. That's what
> churches and other non-profits are for. They know better who deserves help.
> Some how bailing out a bunch of failing companies just seems to go
> against the ideals of capitalism.
> I guess it's alright when it's some huge conglomerate that give millions
> to political campaigns and not some small business that only employs a
> couple dozen people.
> Small business is supposedly the biggest employer in this country yet in
> my town alone, I've seen hundreds of them be allowed to fail. No bail
> out bucks for them.
> That trillion++++ was your tax dollars too. But all you seem to care
> about is your ne'er-do-well neighbor getting $4000 for trading in some
> old gas guzzling polluter and not the millionaire investment bankers
> that caused this mess getting billions to pay bonuses for doing so.
> And remember, Obama's bail out $ was nothing more than the continuation
> of George W's (a republican) plan for saving his rich supporters. Or are
> you just another republican that can't seem to remember old George
> getting on TV and telling everyone if we don't bail out these companies
> the economy would fail in as little as two weeks? Immediately after his
> little speech is when ALL my business dried up (I was doing alright
> until then) and I was forced to close shop. Thank you George W. for
> instilling such confidence in our economy.
> Ya, your right, it's "sharing the wealth" our tax $ being given to the
> rich. Trickle down never did work.

Bill Graham
October 10th 10, 01:59 AM
"honeybunch" > wrote in message
...
I have to say I have been shocked to read Bill Graham's rant, he who
in the past has always been so admirable ( in my opinion) with his
loving attitude toward cats. If the govenment had never intervened,
we would still have slavery in this country. Its true that many
people seem to take advantage of the government but 70 years ago
before the advent of social security many many widows and abandoned
women had to put their children into orphanages. However, 30 years
ago, 2 friends of mine were both left by their husbands at diferent
times, each with many children. They both were staunch religious
women but it was welfare that enabled both of them to keep their
families together until they wre able to find jobs in the emergency
room of a local hospital. Both went on and got college degrees and
one got a masters in social work and both of them and all their
children are college graduates and productive members of society.
Without the protection of welfare that would not have happened. Also
I thought that the "stimulus" money corporations got from the
government is actually a loan. If its not paid back then we are going
to own a large part of those corporations. Maybe Im wrong. Did
Goldman Sachs get free money or was it a loan?

And what does this have to do with the government giving $4000 of our tax
dollars to some guy that has junkers all over his front yard, while I
pedaled a bicycle to work for ten years and didn't burn any gasoline at all?
Look. All I want is for people to do their best to stand on their own two
feet and not work the system for government money. I know a woman down in
California who owns two houses in a nice district that total over a million
dollars....She routinely applies for, and gets, special low interest loans
from the state to remodel her houses.....This means that the taxpayers in
California (of which I was one) are paying the interest on her fix-up money.
No wonder the state is 23 billion dollars in debt. They have little or no
control over their give-away programs. I know. I lived and worked there for
40 years.

When it comes to government give away programs, in general, the people who
really need the money don't get it. Its the ones who know how to fill out
the forms to work the system who get the money. I saw it time and again for
40 years. The government doesn't properly control the money, because it
isn't their money....Its other peoples money, so its easy to throw it away.
As a matter of fact, their jobs depend on them giving the money away, so
they love to see someone come in the door who can work the system properly
and get the checks. As far as the cooperate bailouts are concerned, the
companies who failed should have. They deserved to fail, and their failure
was (or at least should have been) good for the system. Capitalism depends
on survival of the fittest to grow strong just as do animals. When the
government, or anyone else interferes with that, the system becomes weak. I
don't want to invest in a market where the government is going to use my tax
dollars to bail out businesses that fail. I can't trust such a system.
Neither can anyone else, and that's part of the problem the stock mark is
suffering over today. When I buy a stock that looks pretty good, I have to
ask myself does it "look pretty good" because the government made it look
pretty good, or is it because it really is pretty good? And, if I don't know
the answer to that, maybe I'll just keep my money in the bank until I'm sure
of the answer to that question.

dgk
October 12th 10, 03:23 PM
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 17:59:34 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:

>
>"honeybunch" > wrote in message
...
>I have to say I have been shocked to read Bill Graham's rant, he who
>in the past has always been so admirable ( in my opinion) with his
>loving attitude toward cats. If the govenment had never intervened,
>we would still have slavery in this country. Its true that many
>people seem to take advantage of the government but 70 years ago
>before the advent of social security many many widows and abandoned
>women had to put their children into orphanages. However, 30 years
>ago, 2 friends of mine were both left by their husbands at diferent
>times, each with many children. They both were staunch religious
>women but it was welfare that enabled both of them to keep their
>families together until they wre able to find jobs in the emergency
>room of a local hospital. Both went on and got college degrees and
>one got a masters in social work and both of them and all their
>children are college graduates and productive members of society.
>Without the protection of welfare that would not have happened. Also
>I thought that the "stimulus" money corporations got from the
>government is actually a loan. If its not paid back then we are going
>to own a large part of those corporations. Maybe Im wrong. Did
>Goldman Sachs get free money or was it a loan?
>
>And what does this have to do with the government giving $4000 of our tax
>dollars to some guy that has junkers all over his front yard, while I
>pedaled a bicycle to work for ten years and didn't burn any gasoline at all?
>Look. All I want is for people to do their best to stand on their own two
>feet and not work the system for government money. I know a woman down in
>California who owns two houses in a nice district that total over a million
>dollars....She routinely applies for, and gets, special low interest loans
>from the state to remodel her houses.....This means that the taxpayers in
>California (of which I was one) are paying the interest on her fix-up money.
>No wonder the state is 23 billion dollars in debt. They have little or no
>control over their give-away programs. I know. I lived and worked there for
>40 years.
>
>When it comes to government give away programs, in general, the people who
>really need the money don't get it. Its the ones who know how to fill out
>the forms to work the system who get the money. I saw it time and again for
>40 years. The government doesn't properly control the money, because it
>isn't their money....Its other peoples money, so its easy to throw it away.
>As a matter of fact, their jobs depend on them giving the money away, so
>they love to see someone come in the door who can work the system properly
>and get the checks. As far as the cooperate bailouts are concerned, the
>companies who failed should have. They deserved to fail, and their failure
>was (or at least should have been) good for the system. Capitalism depends
>on survival of the fittest to grow strong just as do animals. When the
>government, or anyone else interferes with that, the system becomes weak. I
>don't want to invest in a market where the government is going to use my tax
>dollars to bail out businesses that fail. I can't trust such a system.
>Neither can anyone else, and that's part of the problem the stock mark is
>suffering over today. When I buy a stock that looks pretty good, I have to
>ask myself does it "look pretty good" because the government made it look
>pretty good, or is it because it really is pretty good? And, if I don't know
>the answer to that, maybe I'll just keep my money in the bank until I'm sure
>of the answer to that question.
>

Capitalism doesn't work when corporations get "too big to fail". If we
had let the financial system crumble, it would have ruined a lot more
people than just the ones responsible. We need to stop corporations
from getting that big but no one can because corporations can now fund
elections all they want. Thanks to the Republican Supreme Court.

Remember, Democrats are leased by big corporations but Republicans are
owned outright.

jmc[_2_]
October 12th 10, 11:12 PM
Suddenly, without warning, dgk exclaimed (10/12/2010 10:23 AM):
> On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 17:59:34 -0700, "Bill >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> I have to say I have been shocked to read Bill Graham's rant, he who
>> in the past has always been so admirable ( in my opinion) with his
>> loving attitude toward cats. If the govenment had never intervened,
>> we would still have slavery in this country. Its true that many
>> people seem to take advantage of the government but 70 years ago
>> before the advent of social security many many widows and abandoned
>> women had to put their children into orphanages. However, 30 years
>> ago, 2 friends of mine were both left by their husbands at diferent
>> times, each with many children. They both were staunch religious
>> women but it was welfare that enabled both of them to keep their
>> families together until they wre able to find jobs in the emergency
>> room of a local hospital. Both went on and got college degrees and
>> one got a masters in social work and both of them and all their
>> children are college graduates and productive members of society.
>> Without the protection of welfare that would not have happened. Also
>> I thought that the "stimulus" money corporations got from the
>> government is actually a loan. If its not paid back then we are going
>> to own a large part of those corporations. Maybe Im wrong. Did
>> Goldman Sachs get free money or was it a loan?
>>
>> And what does this have to do with the government giving $4000 of our tax
>> dollars to some guy that has junkers all over his front yard, while I
>> pedaled a bicycle to work for ten years and didn't burn any gasoline at all?
>> Look. All I want is for people to do their best to stand on their own two
>> feet and not work the system for government money. I know a woman down in
>> California who owns two houses in a nice district that total over a million
>> dollars....She routinely applies for, and gets, special low interest loans
>>from the state to remodel her houses.....This means that the taxpayers in
>> California (of which I was one) are paying the interest on her fix-up money.
>> No wonder the state is 23 billion dollars in debt. They have little or no
>> control over their give-away programs. I know. I lived and worked there for
>> 40 years.
>>
>> When it comes to government give away programs, in general, the people who
>> really need the money don't get it. Its the ones who know how to fill out
>> the forms to work the system who get the money. I saw it time and again for
>> 40 years. The government doesn't properly control the money, because it
>> isn't their money....Its other peoples money, so its easy to throw it away.
>> As a matter of fact, their jobs depend on them giving the money away, so
>> they love to see someone come in the door who can work the system properly
>> and get the checks. As far as the cooperate bailouts are concerned, the
>> companies who failed should have. They deserved to fail, and their failure
>> was (or at least should have been) good for the system. Capitalism depends
>> on survival of the fittest to grow strong just as do animals. When the
>> government, or anyone else interferes with that, the system becomes weak. I
>> don't want to invest in a market where the government is going to use my tax
>> dollars to bail out businesses that fail. I can't trust such a system.
>> Neither can anyone else, and that's part of the problem the stock mark is
>> suffering over today. When I buy a stock that looks pretty good, I have to
>> ask myself does it "look pretty good" because the government made it look
>> pretty good, or is it because it really is pretty good? And, if I don't know
>> the answer to that, maybe I'll just keep my money in the bank until I'm sure
>> of the answer to that question.
>>
>
> Capitalism doesn't work when corporations get "too big to fail". If we
> had let the financial system crumble, it would have ruined a lot more
> people than just the ones responsible. We need to stop corporations
> from getting that big but no one can because corporations can now fund
> elections all they want. Thanks to the Republican Supreme Court.
>
> Remember, Democrats are leased by big corporations but Republicans are
> owned outright.

IMHO rewarding the corporations for failing has ruined more people, for
longer, than just letting the market work properly would have.

I cannot remember the original article I read, but found this one in a
similar vein:

http://www.goldsubject.com/meddling-with-recessions-causes-economic-depressions/

I like this bit:

"Bailing out failed companies is like giving handouts to a deadbeat:
they will keep the deadbeat going for a while, but the deadbeat will
never become profitable, and you will never get your money back. When
the handouts are withdrawn, the deadbeat goes back to struggling. Money
was wasted."

jmc

Bill Graham
October 13th 10, 01:05 AM
"dgk" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 17:59:34 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"honeybunch" > wrote in message
...
>>I have to say I have been shocked to read Bill Graham's rant, he who
>>in the past has always been so admirable ( in my opinion) with his
>>loving attitude toward cats. If the govenment had never intervened,
>>we would still have slavery in this country. Its true that many
>>people seem to take advantage of the government but 70 years ago
>>before the advent of social security many many widows and abandoned
>>women had to put their children into orphanages. However, 30 years
>>ago, 2 friends of mine were both left by their husbands at diferent
>>times, each with many children. They both were staunch religious
>>women but it was welfare that enabled both of them to keep their
>>families together until they wre able to find jobs in the emergency
>>room of a local hospital. Both went on and got college degrees and
>>one got a masters in social work and both of them and all their
>>children are college graduates and productive members of society.
>>Without the protection of welfare that would not have happened. Also
>>I thought that the "stimulus" money corporations got from the
>>government is actually a loan. If its not paid back then we are going
>>to own a large part of those corporations. Maybe Im wrong. Did
>>Goldman Sachs get free money or was it a loan?
>>
>>And what does this have to do with the government giving $4000 of our tax
>>dollars to some guy that has junkers all over his front yard, while I
>>pedaled a bicycle to work for ten years and didn't burn any gasoline at
>>all?
>>Look. All I want is for people to do their best to stand on their own two
>>feet and not work the system for government money. I know a woman down in
>>California who owns two houses in a nice district that total over a
>>million
>>dollars....She routinely applies for, and gets, special low interest loans
>>from the state to remodel her houses.....This means that the taxpayers in
>>California (of which I was one) are paying the interest on her fix-up
>>money.
>>No wonder the state is 23 billion dollars in debt. They have little or no
>>control over their give-away programs. I know. I lived and worked there
>>for
>>40 years.
>>
>>When it comes to government give away programs, in general, the people who
>>really need the money don't get it. Its the ones who know how to fill out
>>the forms to work the system who get the money. I saw it time and again
>>for
>>40 years. The government doesn't properly control the money, because it
>>isn't their money....Its other peoples money, so its easy to throw it
>>away.
>>As a matter of fact, their jobs depend on them giving the money away, so
>>they love to see someone come in the door who can work the system properly
>>and get the checks. As far as the cooperate bailouts are concerned, the
>>companies who failed should have. They deserved to fail, and their failure
>>was (or at least should have been) good for the system. Capitalism depends
>>on survival of the fittest to grow strong just as do animals. When the
>>government, or anyone else interferes with that, the system becomes weak.
>>I
>>don't want to invest in a market where the government is going to use my
>>tax
>>dollars to bail out businesses that fail. I can't trust such a system.
>>Neither can anyone else, and that's part of the problem the stock mark is
>>suffering over today. When I buy a stock that looks pretty good, I have to
>>ask myself does it "look pretty good" because the government made it look
>>pretty good, or is it because it really is pretty good? And, if I don't
>>know
>>the answer to that, maybe I'll just keep my money in the bank until I'm
>>sure
>>of the answer to that question.
>>
>
> Capitalism doesn't work when corporations get "too big to fail". If we
> had let the financial system crumble, it would have ruined a lot more
> people than just the ones responsible. We need to stop corporations
> from getting that big but no one can because corporations can now fund
> elections all they want. Thanks to the Republican Supreme Court.
>
> Remember, Democrats are leased by big corporations but Republicans are
> owned outright.

You are discounting the millions of out-of-work people who are suffering
from this recession today.....You think that they don't count because we
can't see them all? In my state alone, fully 12% of the work force doesn't.
I see these people every day, trying to earn a few dollars to pay for their
food by mowing my lawn or doing some chore that I need. Your estimation of
what the government is doing to help the situation is very unrealistic. And,
even in my own case, I retired in 1996 with .93 million dollars in my IRA,
and today it has shrunk to .7 million. I certainly haven't spent the
difference in the past 14 years. I will be lucky if I survive until my death
without having to rent a trailer court home outside Tulsa Oklahoma.....My
father would be rolling over in his grave about now......He's the one who
told me to save 10% of everything I earned for my retirement.....Little did
he know that the socialists would steal most of it, and I should have saved
20%.....I wonder where he would go to escape were he still alive today? For
the life of me, I can't find anyplace.....

Bill Graham
October 13th 10, 01:13 AM
"jmc" > wrote in message
...
> Suddenly, without warning, dgk exclaimed (10/12/2010 10:23 AM):
>> On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 17:59:34 -0700, "Bill >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> I have to say I have been shocked to read Bill Graham's rant, he who
>>> in the past has always been so admirable ( in my opinion) with his
>>> loving attitude toward cats. If the govenment had never intervened,
>>> we would still have slavery in this country. Its true that many
>>> people seem to take advantage of the government but 70 years ago
>>> before the advent of social security many many widows and abandoned
>>> women had to put their children into orphanages. However, 30 years
>>> ago, 2 friends of mine were both left by their husbands at diferent
>>> times, each with many children. They both were staunch religious
>>> women but it was welfare that enabled both of them to keep their
>>> families together until they wre able to find jobs in the emergency
>>> room of a local hospital. Both went on and got college degrees and
>>> one got a masters in social work and both of them and all their
>>> children are college graduates and productive members of society.
>>> Without the protection of welfare that would not have happened. Also
>>> I thought that the "stimulus" money corporations got from the
>>> government is actually a loan. If its not paid back then we are going
>>> to own a large part of those corporations. Maybe Im wrong. Did
>>> Goldman Sachs get free money or was it a loan?
>>>
>>> And what does this have to do with the government giving $4000 of our
>>> tax
>>> dollars to some guy that has junkers all over his front yard, while I
>>> pedaled a bicycle to work for ten years and didn't burn any gasoline at
>>> all?
>>> Look. All I want is for people to do their best to stand on their own
>>> two
>>> feet and not work the system for government money. I know a woman down
>>> in
>>> California who owns two houses in a nice district that total over a
>>> million
>>> dollars....She routinely applies for, and gets, special low interest
>>> loans
>>>from the state to remodel her houses.....This means that the taxpayers in
>>> California (of which I was one) are paying the interest on her fix-up
>>> money.
>>> No wonder the state is 23 billion dollars in debt. They have little or
>>> no
>>> control over their give-away programs. I know. I lived and worked there
>>> for
>>> 40 years.
>>>
>>> When it comes to government give away programs, in general, the people
>>> who
>>> really need the money don't get it. Its the ones who know how to fill
>>> out
>>> the forms to work the system who get the money. I saw it time and again
>>> for
>>> 40 years. The government doesn't properly control the money, because it
>>> isn't their money....Its other peoples money, so its easy to throw it
>>> away.
>>> As a matter of fact, their jobs depend on them giving the money away, so
>>> they love to see someone come in the door who can work the system
>>> properly
>>> and get the checks. As far as the cooperate bailouts are concerned, the
>>> companies who failed should have. They deserved to fail, and their
>>> failure
>>> was (or at least should have been) good for the system. Capitalism
>>> depends
>>> on survival of the fittest to grow strong just as do animals. When the
>>> government, or anyone else interferes with that, the system becomes
>>> weak. I
>>> don't want to invest in a market where the government is going to use my
>>> tax
>>> dollars to bail out businesses that fail. I can't trust such a system.
>>> Neither can anyone else, and that's part of the problem the stock mark
>>> is
>>> suffering over today. When I buy a stock that looks pretty good, I have
>>> to
>>> ask myself does it "look pretty good" because the government made it
>>> look
>>> pretty good, or is it because it really is pretty good? And, if I don't
>>> know
>>> the answer to that, maybe I'll just keep my money in the bank until I'm
>>> sure
>>> of the answer to that question.
>>>
>>
>> Capitalism doesn't work when corporations get "too big to fail". If we
>> had let the financial system crumble, it would have ruined a lot more
>> people than just the ones responsible. We need to stop corporations
>> from getting that big but no one can because corporations can now fund
>> elections all they want. Thanks to the Republican Supreme Court.
>>
>> Remember, Democrats are leased by big corporations but Republicans are
>> owned outright.
>
> IMHO rewarding the corporations for failing has ruined more people, for
> longer, than just letting the market work properly would have.
>
> I cannot remember the original article I read, but found this one in a
> similar vein:
>
> http://www.goldsubject.com/meddling-with-recessions-causes-economic-depressions/
>
> I like this bit:
>
> "Bailing out failed companies is like giving handouts to a deadbeat: they
> will keep the deadbeat going for a while, but the deadbeat will never
> become profitable, and you will never get your money back. When the
> handouts are withdrawn, the deadbeat goes back to struggling. Money was
> wasted."
>
> jmc

Yes. I believe this too. But then, I am a conservative....Libertarian,
actually, and I believe in people learning to stand on their own two feet. I
have seen many small businesses fail in my lifetime, and a few very large
ones.....(Packard Motors, Enron, etc.) I don't think we are doing any of
them favors by lending them money.....It just rewards their executives for
screwing up. You'll notice their executives just take their bonus money and
run for the exits....:^)

jmc[_2_]
October 13th 10, 02:15 AM
Suddenly, without warning, Bill Graham exclaimed (10/12/2010 8:13 PM):
>
> "jmc" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Suddenly, without warning, dgk exclaimed (10/12/2010 10:23 AM):
>>> On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 17:59:34 -0700, "Bill >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> I have to say I have been shocked to read Bill Graham's rant, he who
>>>> in the past has always been so admirable ( in my opinion) with his
>>>> loving attitude toward cats. If the govenment had never intervened,
>>>> we would still have slavery in this country. Its true that many
>>>> people seem to take advantage of the government but 70 years ago
>>>> before the advent of social security many many widows and abandoned
>>>> women had to put their children into orphanages. However, 30 years
>>>> ago, 2 friends of mine were both left by their husbands at diferent
>>>> times, each with many children. They both were staunch religious
>>>> women but it was welfare that enabled both of them to keep their
>>>> families together until they wre able to find jobs in the emergency
>>>> room of a local hospital. Both went on and got college degrees and
>>>> one got a masters in social work and both of them and all their
>>>> children are college graduates and productive members of society.
>>>> Without the protection of welfare that would not have happened. Also
>>>> I thought that the "stimulus" money corporations got from the
>>>> government is actually a loan. If its not paid back then we are going
>>>> to own a large part of those corporations. Maybe Im wrong. Did
>>>> Goldman Sachs get free money or was it a loan?
>>>>
>>>> And what does this have to do with the government giving $4000 of
>>>> our tax
>>>> dollars to some guy that has junkers all over his front yard, while I
>>>> pedaled a bicycle to work for ten years and didn't burn any gasoline
>>>> at all?
>>>> Look. All I want is for people to do their best to stand on their
>>>> own two
>>>> feet and not work the system for government money. I know a woman
>>>> down in
>>>> California who owns two houses in a nice district that total over a
>>>> million
>>>> dollars....She routinely applies for, and gets, special low interest
>>>> loans
>>>> from the state to remodel her houses.....This means that the
>>>> taxpayers in
>>>> California (of which I was one) are paying the interest on her
>>>> fix-up money.
>>>> No wonder the state is 23 billion dollars in debt. They have little
>>>> or no
>>>> control over their give-away programs. I know. I lived and worked
>>>> there for
>>>> 40 years.
>>>>
>>>> When it comes to government give away programs, in general, the
>>>> people who
>>>> really need the money don't get it. Its the ones who know how to
>>>> fill out
>>>> the forms to work the system who get the money. I saw it time and
>>>> again for
>>>> 40 years. The government doesn't properly control the money, because it
>>>> isn't their money....Its other peoples money, so its easy to throw
>>>> it away.
>>>> As a matter of fact, their jobs depend on them giving the money
>>>> away, so
>>>> they love to see someone come in the door who can work the system
>>>> properly
>>>> and get the checks. As far as the cooperate bailouts are concerned, the
>>>> companies who failed should have. They deserved to fail, and their
>>>> failure
>>>> was (or at least should have been) good for the system. Capitalism
>>>> depends
>>>> on survival of the fittest to grow strong just as do animals. When the
>>>> government, or anyone else interferes with that, the system becomes
>>>> weak. I
>>>> don't want to invest in a market where the government is going to
>>>> use my tax
>>>> dollars to bail out businesses that fail. I can't trust such a system.
>>>> Neither can anyone else, and that's part of the problem the stock
>>>> mark is
>>>> suffering over today. When I buy a stock that looks pretty good, I
>>>> have to
>>>> ask myself does it "look pretty good" because the government made it
>>>> look
>>>> pretty good, or is it because it really is pretty good? And, if I
>>>> don't know
>>>> the answer to that, maybe I'll just keep my money in the bank until
>>>> I'm sure
>>>> of the answer to that question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Capitalism doesn't work when corporations get "too big to fail". If we
>>> had let the financial system crumble, it would have ruined a lot more
>>> people than just the ones responsible. We need to stop corporations
>>> from getting that big but no one can because corporations can now fund
>>> elections all they want. Thanks to the Republican Supreme Court.
>>>
>>> Remember, Democrats are leased by big corporations but Republicans are
>>> owned outright.
>>
>> IMHO rewarding the corporations for failing has ruined more people,
>> for longer, than just letting the market work properly would have.
>>
>> I cannot remember the original article I read, but found this one in a
>> similar vein:
>>
>> http://www.goldsubject.com/meddling-with-recessions-causes-economic-depressions/
>>
>>
>> I like this bit:
>>
>> "Bailing out failed companies is like giving handouts to a deadbeat:
>> they will keep the deadbeat going for a while, but the deadbeat will
>> never become profitable, and you will never get your money back. When
>> the handouts are withdrawn, the deadbeat goes back to struggling.
>> Money was wasted."
>>
>> jmc
>
> Yes. I believe this too. But then, I am a conservative....Libertarian,
> actually, and I believe in people learning to stand on their own two
> feet. I have seen many small businesses fail in my lifetime, and a few
> very large ones.....(Packard Motors, Enron, etc.) I don't think we are
> doing any of them favors by lending them money.....It just rewards their
> executives for screwing up. You'll notice their executives just take
> their bonus money and run for the exits....:^)

Yea, I didn't realize it until recently, but apparently I'm a
Libertarian too. Even without any political bendings, since I was young
I had an abhorrence of rewarding failure. If failure is rewarded, if you
know you'll be "taken care of" by the government (I quote that
deliberately and note the double meanings)...why try to do better?

I'm all for helping people TEMPORARILY who need help to get out of a bad
spot. I had to accept food stamps and energy assistance once upon a
time, because although I had a job and was good at it, I was under the
poverty level (I made ~$3,000 TOTAL that year). I've been on
unemployment I didn't much like either of those situations, so I moved
someplace where I could get a better job, which I worked hard at, which
led to an even better job, and now, well, I have a pretty good income
and I have saved for my retirement so I can be comfortable then, too,
even if/when Social Security fails. Still trying to figure out why that,
in some people's minds, is evil.

jmc

Bill Graham
October 13th 10, 05:42 AM
"jmc" > wrote in message
...
> Suddenly, without warning, Bill Graham exclaimed (10/12/2010 8:13 PM):
>>
>> "jmc" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Suddenly, without warning, dgk exclaimed (10/12/2010 10:23 AM):
>>>> On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 17:59:34 -0700, "Bill >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to say I have been shocked to read Bill Graham's rant, he who
>>>>> in the past has always been so admirable ( in my opinion) with his
>>>>> loving attitude toward cats. If the govenment had never intervened,
>>>>> we would still have slavery in this country. Its true that many
>>>>> people seem to take advantage of the government but 70 years ago
>>>>> before the advent of social security many many widows and abandoned
>>>>> women had to put their children into orphanages. However, 30 years
>>>>> ago, 2 friends of mine were both left by their husbands at diferent
>>>>> times, each with many children. They both were staunch religious
>>>>> women but it was welfare that enabled both of them to keep their
>>>>> families together until they wre able to find jobs in the emergency
>>>>> room of a local hospital. Both went on and got college degrees and
>>>>> one got a masters in social work and both of them and all their
>>>>> children are college graduates and productive members of society.
>>>>> Without the protection of welfare that would not have happened. Also
>>>>> I thought that the "stimulus" money corporations got from the
>>>>> government is actually a loan. If its not paid back then we are going
>>>>> to own a large part of those corporations. Maybe Im wrong. Did
>>>>> Goldman Sachs get free money or was it a loan?
>>>>>
>>>>> And what does this have to do with the government giving $4000 of
>>>>> our tax
>>>>> dollars to some guy that has junkers all over his front yard, while I
>>>>> pedaled a bicycle to work for ten years and didn't burn any gasoline
>>>>> at all?
>>>>> Look. All I want is for people to do their best to stand on their
>>>>> own two
>>>>> feet and not work the system for government money. I know a woman
>>>>> down in
>>>>> California who owns two houses in a nice district that total over a
>>>>> million
>>>>> dollars....She routinely applies for, and gets, special low interest
>>>>> loans
>>>>> from the state to remodel her houses.....This means that the
>>>>> taxpayers in
>>>>> California (of which I was one) are paying the interest on her
>>>>> fix-up money.
>>>>> No wonder the state is 23 billion dollars in debt. They have little
>>>>> or no
>>>>> control over their give-away programs. I know. I lived and worked
>>>>> there for
>>>>> 40 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> When it comes to government give away programs, in general, the
>>>>> people who
>>>>> really need the money don't get it. Its the ones who know how to
>>>>> fill out
>>>>> the forms to work the system who get the money. I saw it time and
>>>>> again for
>>>>> 40 years. The government doesn't properly control the money, because
>>>>> it
>>>>> isn't their money....Its other peoples money, so its easy to throw
>>>>> it away.
>>>>> As a matter of fact, their jobs depend on them giving the money
>>>>> away, so
>>>>> they love to see someone come in the door who can work the system
>>>>> properly
>>>>> and get the checks. As far as the cooperate bailouts are concerned,
>>>>> the
>>>>> companies who failed should have. They deserved to fail, and their
>>>>> failure
>>>>> was (or at least should have been) good for the system. Capitalism
>>>>> depends
>>>>> on survival of the fittest to grow strong just as do animals. When the
>>>>> government, or anyone else interferes with that, the system becomes
>>>>> weak. I
>>>>> don't want to invest in a market where the government is going to
>>>>> use my tax
>>>>> dollars to bail out businesses that fail. I can't trust such a system.
>>>>> Neither can anyone else, and that's part of the problem the stock
>>>>> mark is
>>>>> suffering over today. When I buy a stock that looks pretty good, I
>>>>> have to
>>>>> ask myself does it "look pretty good" because the government made it
>>>>> look
>>>>> pretty good, or is it because it really is pretty good? And, if I
>>>>> don't know
>>>>> the answer to that, maybe I'll just keep my money in the bank until
>>>>> I'm sure
>>>>> of the answer to that question.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Capitalism doesn't work when corporations get "too big to fail". If we
>>>> had let the financial system crumble, it would have ruined a lot more
>>>> people than just the ones responsible. We need to stop corporations
>>>> from getting that big but no one can because corporations can now fund
>>>> elections all they want. Thanks to the Republican Supreme Court.
>>>>
>>>> Remember, Democrats are leased by big corporations but Republicans are
>>>> owned outright.
>>>
>>> IMHO rewarding the corporations for failing has ruined more people,
>>> for longer, than just letting the market work properly would have.
>>>
>>> I cannot remember the original article I read, but found this one in a
>>> similar vein:
>>>
>>> http://www.goldsubject.com/meddling-with-recessions-causes-economic-depressions/
>>>
>>>
>>> I like this bit:
>>>
>>> "Bailing out failed companies is like giving handouts to a deadbeat:
>>> they will keep the deadbeat going for a while, but the deadbeat will
>>> never become profitable, and you will never get your money back. When
>>> the handouts are withdrawn, the deadbeat goes back to struggling.
>>> Money was wasted."
>>>
>>> jmc
>>
>> Yes. I believe this too. But then, I am a conservative....Libertarian,
>> actually, and I believe in people learning to stand on their own two
>> feet. I have seen many small businesses fail in my lifetime, and a few
>> very large ones.....(Packard Motors, Enron, etc.) I don't think we are
>> doing any of them favors by lending them money.....It just rewards their
>> executives for screwing up. You'll notice their executives just take
>> their bonus money and run for the exits....:^)
>
> Yea, I didn't realize it until recently, but apparently I'm a Libertarian
> too. Even without any political bendings, since I was young I had an
> abhorrence of rewarding failure. If failure is rewarded, if you know
> you'll be "taken care of" by the government (I quote that deliberately and
> note the double meanings)...why try to do better?
>
> I'm all for helping people TEMPORARILY who need help to get out of a bad
> spot. I had to accept food stamps and energy assistance once upon a time,
> because although I had a job and was good at it, I was under the poverty
> level (I made ~$3,000 TOTAL that year). I've been on unemployment I
> didn't much like either of those situations, so I moved someplace where I
> could get a better job, which I worked hard at, which led to an even
> better job, and now, well, I have a pretty good income and I have saved
> for my retirement so I can be comfortable then, too, even if/when Social
> Security fails. Still trying to figure out why that, in some people's
> minds, is evil.
>
> jmc
>
Right on.....I would love my government to stop giving my money away to
those who have all their fingers and toes and mental capabilities, and
instead, give an average working man's salary to those who are born
defective in some way. these are about 2% of the population. Instead, they
give too little money to millions who should be working, and almost nothing
to the ones who really need it.....Go figure......

dgk
October 13th 10, 02:02 PM
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 21:15:17 -0400, jmc >
wrote:

>Suddenly, without warning, Bill Graham exclaimed (10/12/2010 8:13 PM):
>>

>
>Yea, I didn't realize it until recently, but apparently I'm a
>Libertarian too. Even without any political bendings, since I was young
>I had an abhorrence of rewarding failure. If failure is rewarded, if you
>know you'll be "taken care of" by the government (I quote that
>deliberately and note the double meanings)...why try to do better?
>
>I'm all for helping people TEMPORARILY who need help to get out of a bad
>spot. I had to accept food stamps and energy assistance once upon a
>time, because although I had a job and was good at it, I was under the
>poverty level (I made ~$3,000 TOTAL that year). I've been on
>unemployment I didn't much like either of those situations, so I moved
>someplace where I could get a better job, which I worked hard at, which
>led to an even better job, and now, well, I have a pretty good income
>and I have saved for my retirement so I can be comfortable then, too,
>even if/when Social Security fails. Still trying to figure out why that,
>in some people's minds, is evil.
>
>jmc


Try Somalia then, a total Libertarian paradise. No government to make
you do things that you don't want to do.

Seriously, I go along with the social parts. I think drug use should
be legal and that the government has no business telling adults what
kind of families than can have. But what about antibiotics?
Indiscriminate use of those ruins the effectiveness for everyone else.
I guess we need something to govern their use. How about driving after
doing cocaine? Hmm, better make that illegal as well.

How about zoning? Can everyone do whatever they want with THEIR land?
Can they decide to build a big stinking factory next to my little
house, thus ruining my life? Maybe we'd better have zoning. How about
parks? I once was discussing this with a Libertarian who said that we
should sell of Central Park and the buyer can charge admission if you
want to go there. Huh?

One of my relatives has been unable to work his whole life. There is
something wrong with his brain. I knew as a child that there was
something weird about him and now that I'm virtually the only family
member left in NYC I sort of inherited him. He's been on Social
Security his whole life, and that's all the money he gets. I got him
on food stamps.

Bill is right about folks who need social benefits not being able to
get them. I can barely comprehend the forms and crap that he has to
deal with. If he could deal with them he'd be capable of getting a
job. He's actually pretty smart but he just doesn't process
information correctly. It's really weird. Should he just be put out
on the street and left to fend for himself? No, Social Security is an
insurance policy we all pay into and it takes care of him somewhat. It
will also take care of me a bit later.

dgk
October 13th 10, 02:09 PM
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:05:22 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:


>> Capitalism doesn't work when corporations get "too big to fail". If we
>> had let the financial system crumble, it would have ruined a lot more
>> people than just the ones responsible. We need to stop corporations
>> from getting that big but no one can because corporations can now fund
>> elections all they want. Thanks to the Republican Supreme Court.
>>
>> Remember, Democrats are leased by big corporations but Republicans are
>> owned outright.
>
>You are discounting the millions of out-of-work people who are suffering
>from this recession today.....You think that they don't count because we
>can't see them all? In my state alone, fully 12% of the work force doesn't.
>I see these people every day, trying to earn a few dollars to pay for their
>food by mowing my lawn or doing some chore that I need. Your estimation of
>what the government is doing to help the situation is very unrealistic. And,
>even in my own case, I retired in 1996 with .93 million dollars in my IRA,
>and today it has shrunk to .7 million. I certainly haven't spent the
>difference in the past 14 years. I will be lucky if I survive until my death
>without having to rent a trailer court home outside Tulsa Oklahoma.....My
>father would be rolling over in his grave about now......He's the one who
>told me to save 10% of everything I earned for my retirement.....Little did
>he know that the socialists would steal most of it, and I should have saved
>20%.....I wonder where he would go to escape were he still alive today? For
>the life of me, I can't find anyplace.....

The socialists stole it? I'm a socialist and I don't have any of it.
No, your money has gone to increase the wealth of the already
fabulously wealthy. I haven't seen any of it.

See, I'm a socialist like those guys who used to get together and
raise a barn for their neighbor. We all get together and try to make
our little village better. I'm the president of our civic association.
I'm the guy trying to spay and neuter the local feral population, and
build them little winter homes. No sir, capitalist pigs stole your
retirement money, not us good socialists.

Bill Graham
October 14th 10, 12:12 AM
"dgk" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 21:15:17 -0400, jmc >
> wrote:
>
>>Suddenly, without warning, Bill Graham exclaimed (10/12/2010 8:13 PM):
>>>
>
>>
>>Yea, I didn't realize it until recently, but apparently I'm a
>>Libertarian too. Even without any political bendings, since I was young
>>I had an abhorrence of rewarding failure. If failure is rewarded, if you
>>know you'll be "taken care of" by the government (I quote that
>>deliberately and note the double meanings)...why try to do better?
>>
>>I'm all for helping people TEMPORARILY who need help to get out of a bad
>>spot. I had to accept food stamps and energy assistance once upon a
>>time, because although I had a job and was good at it, I was under the
>>poverty level (I made ~$3,000 TOTAL that year). I've been on
>>unemployment I didn't much like either of those situations, so I moved
>>someplace where I could get a better job, which I worked hard at, which
>>led to an even better job, and now, well, I have a pretty good income
>>and I have saved for my retirement so I can be comfortable then, too,
>>even if/when Social Security fails. Still trying to figure out why that,
>>in some people's minds, is evil.
>>
>>jmc
>
>
> Try Somalia then, a total Libertarian paradise. No government to make
> you do things that you don't want to do.
>
> Seriously, I go along with the social parts. I think drug use should
> be legal and that the government has no business telling adults what
> kind of families than can have. But what about antibiotics?
> Indiscriminate use of those ruins the effectiveness for everyone else.
> I guess we need something to govern their use. How about driving after
> doing cocaine? Hmm, better make that illegal as well.
>
> How about zoning? Can everyone do whatever they want with THEIR land?
> Can they decide to build a big stinking factory next to my little
> house, thus ruining my life? Maybe we'd better have zoning. How about
> parks? I once was discussing this with a Libertarian who said that we
> should sell of Central Park and the buyer can charge admission if you
> want to go there. Huh?
>
> One of my relatives has been unable to work his whole life. There is
> something wrong with his brain. I knew as a child that there was
> something weird about him and now that I'm virtually the only family
> member left in NYC I sort of inherited him. He's been on Social
> Security his whole life, and that's all the money he gets. I got him
> on food stamps.
>
> Bill is right about folks who need social benefits not being able to
> get them. I can barely comprehend the forms and crap that he has to
> deal with. If he could deal with them he'd be capable of getting a
> job. He's actually pretty smart but he just doesn't process
> information correctly. It's really weird. Should he just be put out
> on the street and left to fend for himself? No, Social Security is an
> insurance policy we all pay into and it takes care of him somewhat. It
> will also take care of me a bit later.
>
>
>
Yes, and just because I am a libertarian, that doesn't mean that I am for no
laws at all. That's an anarchist, and not a libertarian. If you read the US
Constitution, you will see that it is basically a libertarian
document.....Inherent in all of its paragraphs is the idea that everything
should be legal unless it infringes on the rights of others. If, for example
the indiscriminant use of anti biotics reduces their effectiveness, then its
Ok to make laws restricting their indiscriminant use. But, in general, I
believe people should be allowed to buy all the other drugs and OD on them
as much as they please. I do not believe that some MD should have the right
to legally prevent me from trying the drug of my choice......Such people
should be advisors, and nothing more.

What it comes down to is this: Are the people smarter than their government,
and should they be allowed to control their own lives? If so, then
libertarianism will work. If the people are stupid, then it will not work. I
believe they are, or at least should be smart enough to make it work. If you
are a liberal, you will probably disagree with me, and think that the
average citizen is too stupid, and needs the smarter, more protective
government to "take care of them and guide them through life."

Bill Graham
October 14th 10, 12:18 AM
"dgk" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:05:22 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>> Capitalism doesn't work when corporations get "too big to fail". If we
>>> had let the financial system crumble, it would have ruined a lot more
>>> people than just the ones responsible. We need to stop corporations
>>> from getting that big but no one can because corporations can now fund
>>> elections all they want. Thanks to the Republican Supreme Court.
>>>
>>> Remember, Democrats are leased by big corporations but Republicans are
>>> owned outright.
>>
>>You are discounting the millions of out-of-work people who are suffering
>>from this recession today.....You think that they don't count because we
>>can't see them all? In my state alone, fully 12% of the work force
>>doesn't.
>>I see these people every day, trying to earn a few dollars to pay for
>>their
>>food by mowing my lawn or doing some chore that I need. Your estimation of
>>what the government is doing to help the situation is very unrealistic.
>>And,
>>even in my own case, I retired in 1996 with .93 million dollars in my IRA,
>>and today it has shrunk to .7 million. I certainly haven't spent the
>>difference in the past 14 years. I will be lucky if I survive until my
>>death
>>without having to rent a trailer court home outside Tulsa Oklahoma.....My
>>father would be rolling over in his grave about now......He's the one who
>>told me to save 10% of everything I earned for my retirement.....Little
>>did
>>he know that the socialists would steal most of it, and I should have
>>saved
>>20%.....I wonder where he would go to escape were he still alive today?
>>For
>>the life of me, I can't find anyplace.....
>
> The socialists stole it? I'm a socialist and I don't have any of it.
> No, your money has gone to increase the wealth of the already
> fabulously wealthy. I haven't seen any of it.
>
> See, I'm a socialist like those guys who used to get together and
> raise a barn for their neighbor. We all get together and try to make
> our little village better. I'm the president of our civic association.
> I'm the guy trying to spay and neuter the local feral population, and
> build them little winter homes. No sir, capitalist pigs stole your
> retirement money, not us good socialists.

It isn't us capitalists who are printing money at the mint in Washington DC,
and borrowing trillions from China either. In a pure capitalist world, we
would be in competition with one another for the consumers money.....What it
comes down to is this: (in my experience) when a businessman bribes a
government official or senator to get him to vote in laws that restrict
trade, then who is more at fault? If you think that its the businessman,
then you are a liberal socialist. If you think its the government official,
then you are likely to be, (like me) a libertarian.

jmc[_2_]
October 14th 10, 02:19 AM
Suddenly, without warning, Bill Graham exclaimed (10/13/2010 7:12 PM):
>
> "dgk" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 21:15:17 -0400, jmc >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Suddenly, without warning, Bill Graham exclaimed (10/12/2010 8:13 PM):
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Yea, I didn't realize it until recently, but apparently I'm a
>>> Libertarian too. Even without any political bendings, since I was young
>>> I had an abhorrence of rewarding failure. If failure is rewarded, if you
>>> know you'll be "taken care of" by the government (I quote that
>>> deliberately and note the double meanings)...why try to do better?
>>>
>>> I'm all for helping people TEMPORARILY who need help to get out of a bad
>>> spot. I had to accept food stamps and energy assistance once upon a
>>> time, because although I had a job and was good at it, I was under the
>>> poverty level (I made ~$3,000 TOTAL that year). I've been on
>>> unemployment I didn't much like either of those situations, so I moved
>>> someplace where I could get a better job, which I worked hard at, which
>>> led to an even better job, and now, well, I have a pretty good income
>>> and I have saved for my retirement so I can be comfortable then, too,
>>> even if/when Social Security fails. Still trying to figure out why that,
>>> in some people's minds, is evil.
>>>
>>> jmc
>>
>>
>> Try Somalia then, a total Libertarian paradise. No government to make
>> you do things that you don't want to do.
>>
>> Seriously, I go along with the social parts. I think drug use should
>> be legal and that the government has no business telling adults what
>> kind of families than can have. But what about antibiotics?
>> Indiscriminate use of those ruins the effectiveness for everyone else.
>> I guess we need something to govern their use. How about driving after
>> doing cocaine? Hmm, better make that illegal as well.
>>
>> How about zoning? Can everyone do whatever they want with THEIR land?
>> Can they decide to build a big stinking factory next to my little
>> house, thus ruining my life? Maybe we'd better have zoning. How about
>> parks? I once was discussing this with a Libertarian who said that we
>> should sell of Central Park and the buyer can charge admission if you
>> want to go there. Huh?
>>
>> One of my relatives has been unable to work his whole life. There is
>> something wrong with his brain. I knew as a child that there was
>> something weird about him and now that I'm virtually the only family
>> member left in NYC I sort of inherited him. He's been on Social
>> Security his whole life, and that's all the money he gets. I got him
>> on food stamps.
>>
>> Bill is right about folks who need social benefits not being able to
>> get them. I can barely comprehend the forms and crap that he has to
>> deal with. If he could deal with them he'd be capable of getting a
>> job. He's actually pretty smart but he just doesn't process
>> information correctly. It's really weird. Should he just be put out
>> on the street and left to fend for himself? No, Social Security is an
>> insurance policy we all pay into and it takes care of him somewhat. It
>> will also take care of me a bit later.
>>
>>
>>
> Yes, and just because I am a libertarian, that doesn't mean that I am
> for no laws at all. That's an anarchist, and not a libertarian. If you
> read the US Constitution, you will see that it is basically a
> libertarian document.....Inherent in all of its paragraphs is the idea
> that everything should be legal unless it infringes on the rights of
> others. If, for example the indiscriminant use of anti biotics reduces
> their effectiveness, then its Ok to make laws restricting their
> indiscriminant use. But, in general, I believe people should be allowed
> to buy all the other drugs and OD on them as much as they please. I do
> not believe that some MD should have the right to legally prevent me
> from trying the drug of my choice......Such people should be advisors,
> and nothing more.
>
> What it comes down to is this: Are the people smarter than their
> government, and should they be allowed to control their own lives? If
> so, then libertarianism will work. If the people are stupid, then it
> will not work. I believe they are, or at least should be smart enough to
> make it work. If you are a liberal, you will probably disagree with me,
> and think that the average citizen is too stupid, and needs the smarter,
> more protective government to "take care of them and guide them through
> life."


Problem is, the government isn't any smarter than the average American.

As for the antibiotics, no need to make laws. Educate. And doctors
didn't need any laws to see what was happening, good doctors don't give
antibiotics any more unless they are truly needed.

I was about to reply with anarchy <> libertarianism.

http://www.lp.org/platform

"We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion
over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they
choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right
of others to live in whatever manner they choose."

That's all I ask, all I want. When I was young and wasn't planning for
my own future, I did not expect the government to reward me for my
stupidity. When I got fired from a job, I did not expect the government
to reward me for laziness - while I was on unemployment I worked every
day to find a job, and took a low paying one just to be working. If I
"can't find" a job because I'm "too good" to work at McDonalds or Taco
Bell, I don't expect the gov't to reward me for that either.

Personal responsibility. That's the key. Take responsibility for your
own damn actions, good AND bad, and don't expect the government to bail
you out when you make bad choices. Suck it up, fix what's broke, and
improve yourself.

jmc

jmc[_2_]
October 14th 10, 02:52 AM
Suddenly, without warning, dgk exclaimed (10/13/2010 9:09 AM):
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:05:22 -0700, "Bill >
> wrote:
>
>
>>> Capitalism doesn't work when corporations get "too big to fail". If we
>>> had let the financial system crumble, it would have ruined a lot more
>>> people than just the ones responsible. We need to stop corporations
>>> from getting that big but no one can because corporations can now fund
>>> elections all they want. Thanks to the Republican Supreme Court.
>>>
>>> Remember, Democrats are leased by big corporations but Republicans are
>>> owned outright.
>>
>> You are discounting the millions of out-of-work people who are suffering
>>from this recession today.....You think that they don't count because we
>> can't see them all? In my state alone, fully 12% of the work force doesn't.
>> I see these people every day, trying to earn a few dollars to pay for their
>> food by mowing my lawn or doing some chore that I need. Your estimation of
>> what the government is doing to help the situation is very unrealistic. And,
>> even in my own case, I retired in 1996 with .93 million dollars in my IRA,
>> and today it has shrunk to .7 million. I certainly haven't spent the
>> difference in the past 14 years. I will be lucky if I survive until my death
>> without having to rent a trailer court home outside Tulsa Oklahoma.....My
>> father would be rolling over in his grave about now......He's the one who
>> told me to save 10% of everything I earned for my retirement.....Little did
>> he know that the socialists would steal most of it, and I should have saved
>> 20%.....I wonder where he would go to escape were he still alive today? For
>> the life of me, I can't find anyplace.....
>
> The socialists stole it? I'm a socialist and I don't have any of it.
> No, your money has gone to increase the wealth of the already
> fabulously wealthy. I haven't seen any of it.
>
> See, I'm a socialist like those guys who used to get together and
> raise a barn for their neighbor. We all get together and try to make
> our little village better. I'm the president of our civic association.
> I'm the guy trying to spay and neuter the local feral population, and
> build them little winter homes. No sir, capitalist pigs stole your
> retirement money, not us good socialists.


I'm not a socialist and I think barn-raising is great. Why would you
think libertarians won't help their neighbors? I donate my time and
money to charities all the time. So do many of those so called
"capitalist pigs" you so love to denigrate. I noticed you completely
failed to notice that I provided a link where thousands of "filthy rich"
give millions (billions, in the case of Bill Gates) to charity. Here's
another example: Remember Tony Curtis, who recently died? Him and his
wife spent a good bit of time and money rescuing horses, rehabilitating
them, and helping them find new homes. He didn't have to do that, but
he chose to.

Sure, there are people who have a lot of money that don't donate a dime
to charity. That's their choice, it's their time and money. There are
plenty of people in all walks of life, rich AND poor, who wouldn't lift
a finger to save a dying puppy on the side of the road. It's not the
amount of money a person has that makes them that way, it's their own
personality.

If charity is forced, it is not charity. It is theft. Plain and
simple. If you take my hard earned money away from me, to give to those
who haven't worked for it, then you've robbed me. I'm willing to pay
taxes to support roads and other public works, but not to pay
able-bodied people to sit around on their fat asses, watch TV and call
me evil, while coveting the money I've earned by my own hard work.

One thing I've noticed about socialists though - it's always someone
else's money. Never their own. It's always That Evil Capitalist that
needs to have their money taken away, not Me The Good Socialist, even if
the Good Socialist makes the same amount of money. Margaret Thatcher
(you remember her, used to be Prime Minister of England, a socialist
country?) once said, "the problem with socialism is eventually you run
out of other people's money".

This is getting kind of old though. None of us are going to change each
other's minds. Since you love Socialism, please move to England. I've
lived over a half decade there, so I know what it's like to live under a
socialist government. You can have it.

America is not, and should not become, another socialist country. That
perverts the very tenents our country is based on.

jmc

Patok[_2_]
October 14th 10, 02:56 AM
Bill Graham wrote:
>
> It isn't us capitalists who are printing money at the mint in Washington
> DC, and borrowing trillions from China either. In a pure capitalist
> world, we would be in competition with one another for the consumers
> money.....What it comes down to is this: (in my experience) when a
> businessman bribes a government official or senator to get him to vote
> in laws that restrict trade, then who is more at fault? If you think
> that its the businessman, then you are a liberal socialist. If you think
> its the government official, then you are likely to be, (like me) a
> libertarian.

I think that both are equally at fault. What am I? :)

--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
--
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.

dgk
October 14th 10, 01:59 PM
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:56:46 -0400, Patok >
wrote:

>Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>> It isn't us capitalists who are printing money at the mint in Washington
>> DC, and borrowing trillions from China either. In a pure capitalist
>> world, we would be in competition with one another for the consumers
>> money.....What it comes down to is this: (in my experience) when a
>> businessman bribes a government official or senator to get him to vote
>> in laws that restrict trade, then who is more at fault? If you think
>> that its the businessman, then you are a liberal socialist. If you think
>> its the government official, then you are likely to be, (like me) a
>> libertarian.
>
> I think that both are equally at fault. What am I? :)
>
>--
>You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.


The problem is that it costs millions of dollars to run for office. If
someone takes money in order to run for office, of course they are
going to vote the way the donor wants. If people really want to fix
the way things are, then get the money out of politics. Right now, the
Supreme Court has unleashed corporations to spend massive amounts of
money to buy their chosen republicans the House and Senate. It's
working. I can't turn on a radio or tv without hearing an attack ad by
some unknown sourced group attacking the democrats.

Let's work for a system where it is illegal to bribe (ie, donate money
to) a politician. Oh, but the Supreme Court says that donating money
is free speech! Well, we'd best find a way around that quickly unless
we want a fascist country. (facism, the marriage of corporate and
state power). Geting there quickly and I expect the Tea Party members
will be receiving their brown shirts soon.

Bill Graham
October 15th 10, 02:40 AM
"jmc" > wrote in message
...
> Suddenly, without warning, Bill Graham exclaimed (10/13/2010 7:12 PM):
>>
>> "dgk" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 21:15:17 -0400, jmc >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Suddenly, without warning, Bill Graham exclaimed (10/12/2010 8:13 PM):
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yea, I didn't realize it until recently, but apparently I'm a
>>>> Libertarian too. Even without any political bendings, since I was young
>>>> I had an abhorrence of rewarding failure. If failure is rewarded, if
>>>> you
>>>> know you'll be "taken care of" by the government (I quote that
>>>> deliberately and note the double meanings)...why try to do better?
>>>>
>>>> I'm all for helping people TEMPORARILY who need help to get out of a
>>>> bad
>>>> spot. I had to accept food stamps and energy assistance once upon a
>>>> time, because although I had a job and was good at it, I was under the
>>>> poverty level (I made ~$3,000 TOTAL that year). I've been on
>>>> unemployment I didn't much like either of those situations, so I moved
>>>> someplace where I could get a better job, which I worked hard at, which
>>>> led to an even better job, and now, well, I have a pretty good income
>>>> and I have saved for my retirement so I can be comfortable then, too,
>>>> even if/when Social Security fails. Still trying to figure out why
>>>> that,
>>>> in some people's minds, is evil.
>>>>
>>>> jmc
>>>
>>>
>>> Try Somalia then, a total Libertarian paradise. No government to make
>>> you do things that you don't want to do.
>>>
>>> Seriously, I go along with the social parts. I think drug use should
>>> be legal and that the government has no business telling adults what
>>> kind of families than can have. But what about antibiotics?
>>> Indiscriminate use of those ruins the effectiveness for everyone else.
>>> I guess we need something to govern their use. How about driving after
>>> doing cocaine? Hmm, better make that illegal as well.
>>>
>>> How about zoning? Can everyone do whatever they want with THEIR land?
>>> Can they decide to build a big stinking factory next to my little
>>> house, thus ruining my life? Maybe we'd better have zoning. How about
>>> parks? I once was discussing this with a Libertarian who said that we
>>> should sell of Central Park and the buyer can charge admission if you
>>> want to go there. Huh?
>>>
>>> One of my relatives has been unable to work his whole life. There is
>>> something wrong with his brain. I knew as a child that there was
>>> something weird about him and now that I'm virtually the only family
>>> member left in NYC I sort of inherited him. He's been on Social
>>> Security his whole life, and that's all the money he gets. I got him
>>> on food stamps.
>>>
>>> Bill is right about folks who need social benefits not being able to
>>> get them. I can barely comprehend the forms and crap that he has to
>>> deal with. If he could deal with them he'd be capable of getting a
>>> job. He's actually pretty smart but he just doesn't process
>>> information correctly. It's really weird. Should he just be put out
>>> on the street and left to fend for himself? No, Social Security is an
>>> insurance policy we all pay into and it takes care of him somewhat. It
>>> will also take care of me a bit later.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, and just because I am a libertarian, that doesn't mean that I am
>> for no laws at all. That's an anarchist, and not a libertarian. If you
>> read the US Constitution, you will see that it is basically a
>> libertarian document.....Inherent in all of its paragraphs is the idea
>> that everything should be legal unless it infringes on the rights of
>> others. If, for example the indiscriminant use of anti biotics reduces
>> their effectiveness, then its Ok to make laws restricting their
>> indiscriminant use. But, in general, I believe people should be allowed
>> to buy all the other drugs and OD on them as much as they please. I do
>> not believe that some MD should have the right to legally prevent me
>> from trying the drug of my choice......Such people should be advisors,
>> and nothing more.
>>
>> What it comes down to is this: Are the people smarter than their
>> government, and should they be allowed to control their own lives? If
>> so, then libertarianism will work. If the people are stupid, then it
>> will not work. I believe they are, or at least should be smart enough to
>> make it work. If you are a liberal, you will probably disagree with me,
>> and think that the average citizen is too stupid, and needs the smarter,
>> more protective government to "take care of them and guide them through
>> life."
>
>
> Problem is, the government isn't any smarter than the average American.
>
> As for the antibiotics, no need to make laws. Educate. And doctors
> didn't need any laws to see what was happening, good doctors don't give
> antibiotics any more unless they are truly needed.
>
> I was about to reply with anarchy <> libertarianism.
>
> http://www.lp.org/platform
>
> "We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion
> over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they
> choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of
> others to live in whatever manner they choose."
>
> That's all I ask, all I want. When I was young and wasn't planning for my
> own future, I did not expect the government to reward me for my stupidity.
> When I got fired from a job, I did not expect the government to reward me
> for laziness - while I was on unemployment I worked every day to find a
> job, and took a low paying one just to be working. If I "can't find" a
> job because I'm "too good" to work at McDonalds or Taco Bell, I don't
> expect the gov't to reward me for that either.
>
> Personal responsibility. That's the key. Take responsibility for your
> own damn actions, good AND bad, and don't expect the government to bail
> you out when you make bad choices. Suck it up, fix what's broke, and
> improve yourself.
>
> jmc
>
When I was in Japan, back in the late 50's, I noticed that the drug stores
there had over the counter penicillin crèmes. You couldn't buy it here in
the US. So, the laws designed to protect us from over using the stuff and
getting the microbes immune to it were just hurting us, because the Japanese
were using it like crazy.....

Bill Graham
October 15th 10, 02:43 AM
"jmc" > wrote in message
...
> Suddenly, without warning, dgk exclaimed (10/13/2010 9:09 AM):
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:05:22 -0700, "Bill >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Capitalism doesn't work when corporations get "too big to fail". If we
>>>> had let the financial system crumble, it would have ruined a lot more
>>>> people than just the ones responsible. We need to stop corporations
>>>> from getting that big but no one can because corporations can now fund
>>>> elections all they want. Thanks to the Republican Supreme Court.
>>>>
>>>> Remember, Democrats are leased by big corporations but Republicans are
>>>> owned outright.
>>>
>>> You are discounting the millions of out-of-work people who are suffering
>>>from this recession today.....You think that they don't count because we
>>> can't see them all? In my state alone, fully 12% of the work force
>>> doesn't.
>>> I see these people every day, trying to earn a few dollars to pay for
>>> their
>>> food by mowing my lawn or doing some chore that I need. Your estimation
>>> of
>>> what the government is doing to help the situation is very unrealistic.
>>> And,
>>> even in my own case, I retired in 1996 with .93 million dollars in my
>>> IRA,
>>> and today it has shrunk to .7 million. I certainly haven't spent the
>>> difference in the past 14 years. I will be lucky if I survive until my
>>> death
>>> without having to rent a trailer court home outside Tulsa
>>> Oklahoma.....My
>>> father would be rolling over in his grave about now......He's the one
>>> who
>>> told me to save 10% of everything I earned for my retirement.....Little
>>> did
>>> he know that the socialists would steal most of it, and I should have
>>> saved
>>> 20%.....I wonder where he would go to escape were he still alive today?
>>> For
>>> the life of me, I can't find anyplace.....
>>
>> The socialists stole it? I'm a socialist and I don't have any of it.
>> No, your money has gone to increase the wealth of the already
>> fabulously wealthy. I haven't seen any of it.
>>
>> See, I'm a socialist like those guys who used to get together and
>> raise a barn for their neighbor. We all get together and try to make
>> our little village better. I'm the president of our civic association.
>> I'm the guy trying to spay and neuter the local feral population, and
>> build them little winter homes. No sir, capitalist pigs stole your
>> retirement money, not us good socialists.
>
>
> I'm not a socialist and I think barn-raising is great. Why would you
> think libertarians won't help their neighbors? I donate my time and money
> to charities all the time. So do many of those so called "capitalist
> pigs" you so love to denigrate. I noticed you completely failed to notice
> that I provided a link where thousands of "filthy rich" give millions
> (billions, in the case of Bill Gates) to charity. Here's another example:
> Remember Tony Curtis, who recently died? Him and his wife spent a good
> bit of time and money rescuing horses, rehabilitating them, and helping
> them find new homes. He didn't have to do that, but he chose to.
>
> Sure, there are people who have a lot of money that don't donate a dime to
> charity. That's their choice, it's their time and money. There are
> plenty of people in all walks of life, rich AND poor, who wouldn't lift a
> finger to save a dying puppy on the side of the road. It's not the amount
> of money a person has that makes them that way, it's their own
> personality.
>
> If charity is forced, it is not charity. It is theft. Plain and simple.
> If you take my hard earned money away from me, to give to those who
> haven't worked for it, then you've robbed me. I'm willing to pay taxes to
> support roads and other public works, but not to pay able-bodied people to
> sit around on their fat asses, watch TV and call me evil, while coveting
> the money I've earned by my own hard work.
>
> One thing I've noticed about socialists though - it's always someone
> else's money. Never their own. It's always That Evil Capitalist that
> needs to have their money taken away, not Me The Good Socialist, even if
> the Good Socialist makes the same amount of money. Margaret Thatcher (you
> remember her, used to be Prime Minister of England, a socialist country?)
> once said, "the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other
> people's money".
>
> This is getting kind of old though. None of us are going to change each
> other's minds. Since you love Socialism, please move to England. I've
> lived over a half decade there, so I know what it's like to live under a
> socialist government. You can have it.
>
> America is not, and should not become, another socialist country. That
> perverts the very tenents our country is based on.
>
> jmc
>
>
>
Robin Hood was, sadly, nothing but a thief. A thief neither knows nor cares
where the person he steals from got his money. He just assumes that he stole
it from the poor and will use it for himself.

Bill Graham
October 15th 10, 02:52 AM
"dgk" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:56:46 -0400, Patok >
> wrote:
>
>>Bill Graham wrote:
>>>
>>> It isn't us capitalists who are printing money at the mint in Washington
>>> DC, and borrowing trillions from China either. In a pure capitalist
>>> world, we would be in competition with one another for the consumers
>>> money.....What it comes down to is this: (in my experience) when a
>>> businessman bribes a government official or senator to get him to vote
>>> in laws that restrict trade, then who is more at fault? If you think
>>> that its the businessman, then you are a liberal socialist. If you think
>>> its the government official, then you are likely to be, (like me) a
>>> libertarian.
>>
>> I think that both are equally at fault. What am I? :)
>>
>>--
>>You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
>
>
> The problem is that it costs millions of dollars to run for office. If
> someone takes money in order to run for office, of course they are
> going to vote the way the donor wants. If people really want to fix
> the way things are, then get the money out of politics. Right now, the
> Supreme Court has unleashed corporations to spend massive amounts of
> money to buy their chosen republicans the House and Senate. It's
> working. I can't turn on a radio or tv without hearing an attack ad by
> some unknown sourced group attacking the democrats.
>
> Let's work for a system where it is illegal to bribe (ie, donate money
> to) a politician. Oh, but the Supreme Court says that donating money
> is free speech! Well, we'd best find a way around that quickly unless
> we want a fascist country. (facism, the marriage of corporate and
> state power). Geting there quickly and I expect the Tea Party members
> will be receiving their brown shirts soon.

I agree with this, which brings up my ideal government. I would eliminate
voting, and have a computer pick several hundred people out of the voting
population to be our congressmen and run the country.....Perhaps 200 every
other year for 6 years, and then retire the oldest two hundred and replace
them with the 200 freshmen they just picked.....So no one would serve more
than 6 years.......IOW, chose our leaders out of the general population.
That way, there wouldn't be any more lawyers or rich people than there were
farmers, store clerks, seamstresses, nurses, or any other profession or
workers.......Truly a government "of the people".....

dgk
October 15th 10, 01:53 PM
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:52:19 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:

>
>"dgk" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:56:46 -0400, Patok >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It isn't us capitalists who are printing money at the mint in Washington
>>>> DC, and borrowing trillions from China either. In a pure capitalist
>>>> world, we would be in competition with one another for the consumers
>>>> money.....What it comes down to is this: (in my experience) when a
>>>> businessman bribes a government official or senator to get him to vote
>>>> in laws that restrict trade, then who is more at fault? If you think
>>>> that its the businessman, then you are a liberal socialist. If you think
>>>> its the government official, then you are likely to be, (like me) a
>>>> libertarian.
>>>
>>> I think that both are equally at fault. What am I? :)
>>>
>>>--
>>>You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
>>
>>
>> The problem is that it costs millions of dollars to run for office. If
>> someone takes money in order to run for office, of course they are
>> going to vote the way the donor wants. If people really want to fix
>> the way things are, then get the money out of politics. Right now, the
>> Supreme Court has unleashed corporations to spend massive amounts of
>> money to buy their chosen republicans the House and Senate. It's
>> working. I can't turn on a radio or tv without hearing an attack ad by
>> some unknown sourced group attacking the democrats.
>>
>> Let's work for a system where it is illegal to bribe (ie, donate money
>> to) a politician. Oh, but the Supreme Court says that donating money
>> is free speech! Well, we'd best find a way around that quickly unless
>> we want a fascist country. (facism, the marriage of corporate and
>> state power). Geting there quickly and I expect the Tea Party members
>> will be receiving their brown shirts soon.
>
>I agree with this, which brings up my ideal government. I would eliminate
>voting, and have a computer pick several hundred people out of the voting
>population to be our congressmen and run the country.....Perhaps 200 every
>other year for 6 years, and then retire the oldest two hundred and replace
>them with the 200 freshmen they just picked.....So no one would serve more
>than 6 years.......IOW, chose our leaders out of the general population.
>That way, there wouldn't be any more lawyers or rich people than there were
>farmers, store clerks, seamstresses, nurses, or any other profession or
>workers.......Truly a government "of the people".....

Yea, the problem is that there are real issues and it takes a while to
get up to speed, while the vested interests know all the ins and outs
and deals and such. Corporations have huge staffs that push through
bills and loopholes that they want and they do not turn over every six
years.

dgk
October 15th 10, 02:01 PM
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:43:53 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:


>> America is not, and should not become, another socialist country. That
>> perverts the very tenents our country is based on.
>>
>> jmc
>>
>>
>>
>Robin Hood was, sadly, nothing but a thief. A thief neither knows nor cares
>where the person he steals from got his money. He just assumes that he stole
>it from the poor and will use it for himself.

What we have in this country is a very bad way of distributing wealth.
Too many people work hard all their lives and have nothing to show for
it. I have neighbors, good hard-working people, who barely scrape by.
And we have people with so much wealth that they couldn't spend it in
a thousand lifetimes.

Yes, each person theoretically has a chance to become wealthy, like
Bill Gates did, but most of the money goes from generation to
generation. Such great wealth has really stacked the deck against
working people and towards the enormously wealthy so that it isn't
really fair anymore. The more money you have the easier it is to get
more.

Did you know that the top bracket was once 90%? Now getting them up to
30% is too much to ask. The original income tax was only on the
wealthy, under the assumption that America had been good to them so
they should have a big stake in making it stronger. Now we're supposed
to let them keep all their wealth and they'll invest it and get us
jobs. Yes, jobs in Thailand.

Bill Graham
October 16th 10, 01:06 AM
"dgk" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:52:19 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"dgk" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:56:46 -0400, Patok >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't us capitalists who are printing money at the mint in
>>>>> Washington
>>>>> DC, and borrowing trillions from China either. In a pure capitalist
>>>>> world, we would be in competition with one another for the consumers
>>>>> money.....What it comes down to is this: (in my experience) when a
>>>>> businessman bribes a government official or senator to get him to vote
>>>>> in laws that restrict trade, then who is more at fault? If you think
>>>>> that its the businessman, then you are a liberal socialist. If you
>>>>> think
>>>>> its the government official, then you are likely to be, (like me) a
>>>>> libertarian.
>>>>
>>>> I think that both are equally at fault. What am I? :)
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is that it costs millions of dollars to run for office. If
>>> someone takes money in order to run for office, of course they are
>>> going to vote the way the donor wants. If people really want to fix
>>> the way things are, then get the money out of politics. Right now, the
>>> Supreme Court has unleashed corporations to spend massive amounts of
>>> money to buy their chosen republicans the House and Senate. It's
>>> working. I can't turn on a radio or tv without hearing an attack ad by
>>> some unknown sourced group attacking the democrats.
>>>
>>> Let's work for a system where it is illegal to bribe (ie, donate money
>>> to) a politician. Oh, but the Supreme Court says that donating money
>>> is free speech! Well, we'd best find a way around that quickly unless
>>> we want a fascist country. (facism, the marriage of corporate and
>>> state power). Geting there quickly and I expect the Tea Party members
>>> will be receiving their brown shirts soon.
>>
>>I agree with this, which brings up my ideal government. I would eliminate
>>voting, and have a computer pick several hundred people out of the voting
>>population to be our congressmen and run the country.....Perhaps 200 every
>>other year for 6 years, and then retire the oldest two hundred and replace
>>them with the 200 freshmen they just picked.....So no one would serve more
>>than 6 years.......IOW, chose our leaders out of the general population.
>>That way, there wouldn't be any more lawyers or rich people than there
>>were
>>farmers, store clerks, seamstresses, nurses, or any other profession or
>>workers.......Truly a government "of the people".....
>
> Yea, the problem is that there are real issues and it takes a while to
> get up to speed, while the vested interests know all the ins and outs
> and deals and such. Corporations have huge staffs that push through
> bills and loopholes that they want and they do not turn over every six
> years.

So I would have to make a few other rules.....Like, nobody should be able to
talk to a senator in private....All such discussions should be monitored by
the press....(for example) and/or all such discussions would have to be
monitored by a bi-partisan committee. (all parties represented)

Bill Graham
October 16th 10, 01:26 AM
"dgk" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:43:53 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>> America is not, and should not become, another socialist country. That
>>> perverts the very tenents our country is based on.
>>>
>>> jmc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Robin Hood was, sadly, nothing but a thief. A thief neither knows nor
>>cares
>>where the person he steals from got his money. He just assumes that he
>>stole
>>it from the poor and will use it for himself.
>
> What we have in this country is a very bad way of distributing wealth.
> Too many people work hard all their lives and have nothing to show for
> it. I have neighbors, good hard-working people, who barely scrape by.
> And we have people with so much wealth that they couldn't spend it in
> a thousand lifetimes.
>
> Yes, each person theoretically has a chance to become wealthy, like
> Bill Gates did, but most of the money goes from generation to
> generation. Such great wealth has really stacked the deck against
> working people and towards the enormously wealthy so that it isn't
> really fair anymore. The more money you have the easier it is to get
> more.
>
> Did you know that the top bracket was once 90%? Now getting them up to
> 30% is too much to ask. The original income tax was only on the
> wealthy, under the assumption that America had been good to them so
> they should have a big stake in making it stronger. Now we're supposed
> to let them keep all their wealth and they'll invest it and get us
> jobs. Yes, jobs in Thailand.

Hey! Nobody is madder than I am at Bill Gates.....I use his name in vain
whenever I try to do anything on my computer....:^) It is true that wealth
breeds more wealth. Fortunately, most wealthy people start and run
businesses that hire others and generally contribute to the wealth of the
entire nation....We only hear about people like Brittney Spears and Michael
Jackson, and never hear about the others. You are right about that, but I
don't believe across the board taxation at like 90% is the answer. Or, if
you do have a larger sliding scale tax rate, then you should allow
exemptions for those who start businesses that hire others.....IOW, there
are ways to be sensible other than just ripping off everyone who has made
money. I am against the capitol gains taxes because they represent double
taxation. As a stockholder, I am a business owner, and my businesses pay a
corporate income tax....Then, when the corporation tries to give me my
(after tax) profit, I get to pay taxes on it again! (income tax) For the
same basic reason, I am against sales taxes.....First I get paid. Then I pay
federal income tax on that pay. Then I pay state income tax on that
pay.....Then, when I try to go to the store and spend what little I have
left over after those taxes, I should have to pay sales taxes too? This it
triple taxation, even not counting my property taxes and automobile
registration fees. (which are really property taxes in most states) This
country is tax crazy......They collect money from us every chance they get,
and right now they are sitting around in some smoke filled room trying to
figure out how to get more of it from us. They are talking about putting men
on Mars now.....I wonder how much that's going to cost. Do you really think
we need men on mars? I think a nice robot crew could do the job a hell of a
lot cheaper, and I am a technical person with an engineering education that
worked in the sciences all of my life. I love the satellite program, and the
GPS stuff for navigation, and the space exploration program in general, but
men on Mars? Give me a break! I think the government is drunk on spending
other people's money....(Yours and mine)