OT-Shooting

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


ScratchMonkey wrote:

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in
:


It's worked fairly well for quite a few generations of Americans, now


Ponzi schemes are great for the early adopters. However, the baby boom
generation is about to retire and that will flip the system from lots of
payers at the bottom of the pyramid to lots of payees at the top of an
inverted pyramid. Inverted pyramids are not very stable.

It would help if we had a more enlightened government (like Canada, the
UK, Germany, France....) but so long as the me-first far-right stay in
power here, attitudes like yours are unfortunately not uncommon! (You
needn't bother to reply to this, I have already "plonked" you - I have
better things to do with my time than engage in a battle of wits with an
unarmed man.)


I am sad to say that I fell out - probably permanently - with a USA friend
who expressed exactly those same sentiments. I had tolerated her right wing
mails for some time.
She is a nurse. Yes, a nurse! And when I found out what she thought about
Mexicans and Muslims having babies at her hospital "which I pay for and
they don't" she said, that was it.
Ex friend.

Tweed

ScratchMonkey wrote:

Ponzi schemes are great for the early adopters. However, the baby boom
generation is about to retire and that will flip the system from lots of
payers at the bottom of the pyramid to lots of payees at the top of an
inverted pyramid. Inverted pyramids are not very stable.

Social security is not a ponzi scheme. It's not a pyramid. The number of
investing members doesn't increase exponentially the way it does in a
ponzi scheme, so that it ends up saturating the population, and you run
out of new people to invest in it, leaving the current ones hanging.

Yes, we have an aging baby boom, and that's going to be a problem. But
populations always go though booms and busts, so it's not a permanent
problem and it's not an *inherent* problem. Certainly it's not an
unsolvable problem, if only we planned ahead a little!

Joyce

wrote in news:h_oyd.13863$_3.155979
@typhoon.sonic.net:

Sorry, I believe there are many valid, important uses for our tax
money, and yes, I am quite willing to pay them.

Yep, plenty of things government *claims* it's working for are
worthwhile clauses. Good intentions, and all that.

There are altogether too many people who are *unable* to meet their
own needs, for a variety of valid reasons - and "charity" or the Free
Market is not going to do the job. That's a self-serving fantasy that
only the privileged can afford to indulge in.

Funny, I think of the idea that government can succeed at solving
problems as being more fantastical.

Besides which, I don't want an "everyone for him/herself" kind of
world. I wouldn't want to live among such selfish, antisocial people.
I want to live in a world where people take care of each other.

I'm fine with people taking care of each other. But I don't want someone
to claim to be doing it on my behalf and on my dime, with little
accountability. Note that my issue is not about the desirability of the
job, but the feedback mechanism for ensuring quality and effectiveness.
I work with controls systems, things that require constant feedback,
like moving a robotic arm while outside influences try to disturb it. I
can see that government is a lousy controls system. The feedback path is
extremely long (think 4 year election cycles) and the noise swamps the
useful information. A market, OTOH, is a good (not perfect) controls
system. Prices function as the carrier of feedback information to ensure
that the most productive components have the greatest say in how
resources are allocated, ensuring that the system constantly improves in
output. While this may not be a perfect system, all alternatives
demonstrate worse performance. (BTW, corporations are agents of
government, not the free market, and make a mess of markets.)

Now, getting the government out of our homes, bedrooms, newspapers,
and private lives, that I *can* get behind. But where's the ALP on
those issues? Our civil liberties are under far a greater threat
from this administration than some rich person who wants a way out
of paying for public services.

Once you give someone the power to tax, you give your enemies the power
to use it for their own "noble" purposes. These people think it's their
public service to invade your privacy, and have no problem paying taxes
to accomplish it. Reminds me once again of that paving company that's
working on the bridge where Charon's ferry used to run.

I see quite a bit of material he

http://lp.org/issues/

Here's another good one:

http://drugpolicy.org/

BTW, what do you think of exempting anyone making less than, say,
$40k/year from all taxes? I'd go for that, even though I'm above that
point. Imagine all that money not going through a capitol, with all the
overhead that entails, and instead circulating in local economies.

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in
:

so long as the me-first far-right stay in power here, attitudes like
yours are unfortunately not uncommon!

Ah, so my "attitude" is a result of "me-first far-right's" in power. If
they weren't in power, I guess I'd somehow come to my senses? So there's
some kind of mind control at work? Or will people "like me" be heading for
some kind of psychological correction facility once those evil far-right
people get ousted?

"Christina Websell" wrote in
:

She is a nurse. Yes, a nurse! And when I found out what she thought
about Mexicans and Muslims having babies at her hospital "which I pay
for and they don't" she said, that was it.
Ex friend.

I missed something: Which of those sentiments did I appear to express? I
musta really screwed up my communication skills if I gave the impression I
thought that.

ScratchMonkey wrote:

I see quite a bit of material he
http://lp.org/issues/

LP: Conservatives in fake-progressive clothing.

BTW, what do you think of exempting anyone making less than, say,
$40k/year from all taxes?

Sure, if the over $100K could be taxed enough to make up for it.

Joyce

ScratchMonkey wrote:

Ah, so my "attitude" is a result of "me-first far-right's" in power.

No, it's the other way around. The me-firsts with the "I don't care
about anyone else's problems as long as I get to make as much money as
I want" put them in power.

Or will people "like me" be heading for some kind of psychological
correction facility once those evil far-right people get ousted?

The far-rights are more likely to put you into a correction facility.
Look at what they've got going already.

If you're a true libertarian, the right wing can't be anymore palatable
to you than the left, albeit for different reasons. If that's not the
case, then it's like I said befo conservative in fake-progressive
clothing.

Joyce

"ScratchMonkey" wrote in message
. ..
"Christina Websell" wrote in
:

She is a nurse. Yes, a nurse! And when I found out what she thought
about Mexicans and Muslims having babies at her hospital "which I pay
for and they don't" she said, that was it.
Ex friend.

I missed something: Which of those sentiments did I appear to express? I
musta really screwed up my communication skills if I gave the impression I
thought that.

You seemed to be expressing right wing views before. Correct me if I'm
wrong (and I won't take offence honestly). Explain what you meant.

Tweed
..

wrote in news:InLyd.14124$_3.157963
@typhoon.sonic.net:

LP: Conservatives in fake-progressive clothing.

More ad-hominems. Very enlightened. It's like Christians who think there
are no real atheists or homosexuals, just misguided heterosexual sinners.
"You CAN'T exist, therefore I can ignore your positions and concerns."
That's the kind of thinking that led to the Bush marriage amendment
proposal.

"Christina Websell" wrote in
:

You seemed to be expressing right wing views before. Correct me if I'm
wrong (and I won't take offence honestly). Explain what you meant.

No offense taken. I'm a patient guy.

"Right wing" has virtually no meaning anymore. It's a mish-mash of
ideologies, spawned by the bizarre coalition-forming nature of the US 2-
party duopoly. To call someone "right wing" is not painting them with a
wide brush so much as it is with an industrial paint sprayer.

Prior to the 1920's, the "left wing" was the libertarian Jeffersonian
Democrat group sitting on the left side of the aisle in Congress. But
around then the Socialists managed to totally usurp the Democratic Party
platform. Like Nader and the Greens now, the Socialists then threatened
to draw votes away from the older parties and in defense the Dems adopted
all the positions of the upstart. (This is why one shouldn't ignore new
parties, and why they have more power than their votes might suggest.
Consider this week's Washington State governorship decision as a case in
point.)

The two "wings" now share a common desire for massive intrusive
government, intervening in every aspect of our lives. There's some minor
variation in what aspect they want to intervene in first.

I, OTOH, favor minimal government established to protect individual
"negative" rights (those that don't impose any obligation on others
except "leave them alone"). That includes eliminating special government-
granted protections on corporations so that their owners are once again
on an even playing field with individuals. I also favor local government
over global (because it's more accountable), with "higher" levels of
government granted only the power to protect individuals from predatory
local and foreign government. (This was originally the sole mission of
the Federal Government.) I suppose you could say I'm an ant in a world of
grasshoppers.