Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#401
|
|||
|
|||
TopGun??? Intelligent??? GW Bush? [was How many months?]
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:58:04 +0100, François Yves Le Gal
wrote: On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:11:46 GMT, "Phil" wrote: Since A-12 or A-11 was design as a surveillance aircraft therefore was not armed. The A11 and A12 (note the nomenclature) weren't *military* aircrafts. Sure they were. The unit that flew those planes was a joint USAF/CIA operation. And they flew military missions during Vietnam. Also, Oxcart was under military control. The one thing I think we can agree on is that they weren't stationed in Bourbon County Kentucky. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and all that... |
#402
|
|||
|
|||
TopGun??? Intelligent??? GW Bush? [was How many months?]
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message om... "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ... You did notice that he changed into regular attire after he landed, no? No, I did not notice that. The TV footage, photos, and press coverage that I saw and read showed and referred to what I thought was the "uniform." If you are now saying that he did in fact change into civvies after he landed, that is indeed the appropriate thing for him to have done. Shall we call that a retraction? If it was true, Mr. McKelvy. As I said, all the coverage I saw and read showed the president in the flightsuit, which was the point I was making. I searched the web yesterday for confirmation of your statement that he changed into civvies, with no success, though I note that "Phil" has now said the same thing. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#403
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:18:35 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote: "Jacob Kramer" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 15:49:43 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: By perepetual, I would include those taking a temporary hiatus now and then.. You seem to have the figures at your fingertips. What percentage of people who receive welfare is this? The povery lines are defined as a percentage of median income. AS the US has ahigher median income, and a higher standard of living, the standard of living for the upper end of those in poverty would be somewhat better in the US. Okay then, here are some numbers: 50 percent of median income: France, 1994, 7.5 % Germany, 1994, 9.4 % UK, 1995, 10.9 % United States, 1995, 17.1 % Like I said, median income in the US is higher, and represents a better standard of living. http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/4person.html median income is $63,278 for a family of 4, in US over past 3 years. 50% is $31,639 for a family of 4 in the US. That is 'your' definition of the poverty line in the US. Not too shabby, for a poverty line. It's not my definition. It's your definition. It's an empirical question whether this higher percentage is an artifact of a higher per capita income. Since this is your standard, tell us what percentage of those countries' populations is under the U.S. threshold? Or for that matter what percentage is under the U.S. official poverty line? I can guarantee you it's lower for the simple reason that the lowest percentage that has ever been below the U.S. poverty line is 11 percent, and that povery line is certain to be far below the median income of France, the U.K., or Germany, all of which have less than that percent below it. Another reference to this: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104688.html Here is a chart showing % of population owning certain appliances: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0193913.html here is my summary, by % of pop. owning such appliance Appliance US UK Ger France Microwave 84 48 36 19 TV 98 98 97 95 Clothes washer 77 88 88 88 Clothes dryer 72 32 17 12 Dishwasher 45 11 34 32 This is interesting, but it ain't poverty. This indicates a highe strandard of living in the US, and fewer households doing without such appliances. I'm sure there are more up-to-date figures but the UN seems to sell their data as publications, and besides I'm not going to put in that much effort to prove what a) I already know and b) you're not going to believe no matter what. Here are infant mortality numbers, 2000-2005, per thousand: France, 5 Germany, 5 United Kingdom, 5 United States, 7 http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/social/health.htm Health care benefits for welfare recipients are expceptionally good. It is the working poor, the middle class, and upper middle class that have worse coverage gaps. Yes they are good for those receiving federal benefits, but the poor who do not qualify for such benefits get zero. Not all the poor are covered. The working poor not on welfare are not covered. Another advantage to being on welfare versus working! The system is sick. And your comments on infant mortality? Keep in mind that for 1 million live births, that 2000 more deaths in the U.S. than in those other countries. -- Jacob Kramer |
#404
|
|||
|
|||
TopGun??? Intelligent??? GW Bush? [was How many months?]
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 18:27:41 +0100, François Yves Le Gal
wrote: On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 10:19:15 -0600, dave weil wrote: The unit that flew those planes was a joint USAF/CIA operation. Nope. The "Black Shield" unit in Kadena AFB (Okinawa) didn't exist, and all of it's members were Lockheed employees. Even if most of them were USAF CO's before resigning their commisions... Nope. Ever hear of the 1129th SAS? That's where the planes came from. And this: "On 17 May 1967, the first Blackbird support components were airlifted to the island. The mission was called "Black Shield"and was formally sanctioned by President Johnson. The first A12 Article #131 arrived at Kadena on May 22 after a 6 hour, 6 minute flight from Groom Lake, Nevada. A second A12 Article #127 arrived on May 24th and the third aircraft, Article #129 arrived on May 27th after a delay due to INS problems at Wake Island. The Oxcart Detachment unit, with 260 personnel and under the command of Colonel Hugh Slater was declared operationally ready on 29 May 1967. The Black Shield team received authorization for it's first Operational Mission the following day". Yes, Oxcart was piloted by CIA pilots. So? Planes were from a joint CIA/USAF unit, flown to a military base, was overseen my military control, and the planes were maintained by the military. In fact, the one photo of the Groom Lake A12s that pop up on the internet seem to show military markings, although the photo is really too small to be definitive. They were miltary planes, pure and simple. The fact that they participated in a CIA operation is virtually irrelevant, especially since they were conducting military combat missions. And eventually, Oxcart was transfered to SAC anyway. Oh, and the A stands for Archangel. |
#405
|
|||
|
|||
TopGun??? Intelligent??? GW Bush? [was How many months?]
"John Atkinson" wrote in message om... "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ... "John Atkinson" wrote in message om... "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ... You did notice that he changed into regular attire after he landed, no? No, I did not notice that. The TV footage, photos, and press coverage that I saw and read showed and referred to what I thought was the "uniform." If you are now saying that he did in fact change into civvies after he landed, that is indeed the appropriate thing for him to have done. Shall we call that a retraction? If it was true, Mr. McKelvy. As I said, all the coverage I saw and read showed the president in the flightsuit, which was the point I was making. I searched the web yesterday for confirmation of your statement that he changed into civvies, with no success, though I note that "Phil" has now said the same thing. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile First, there is no reason to put my name in quotes. My name is Phil and I have always used my true first name. Second. I found an article that shows Bush giving his speech. It wasn't that hard: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86181,00.html Note, to the right there are two pictures of Bush (1) to the right that shows him in his flight suit after he got off the plane and (2) to the left when he is giving his speech in civvies. Another put while running through the articles a found a reference that the aircraft carrier was hundreds of miles off the California coast at the time of Bush's landing not in San Diego's bay. It seems someone has been misinforming you. Phil |
#406
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:18:35 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote: "Jacob Kramer" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 15:49:43 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: By perepetual, I would include those taking a temporary hiatus now and then.. You seem to have the figures at your fingertips. What percentage of people who receive welfare is this? And where's your answer to this? -- Jacob Kramer |
#407
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message ... On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:03:33 -0800, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Nobody should have an expectation that the government is going to subsidize their lack of good judgement. You are defining property too narrowly here. I'm sure I am, for a socialist. Socialists do often have a more sophisticated understanding of property, but the understanding that property means different things in different times and places is not limited to socialists. In fact you can discover this by cracking open any standard history textbook. Try A History of the Modern World by RR Palmer and J Colton. The history of the industrial revolution is in some sense a revolution in the understanding of property, from a feudal conception in which it was laden with innumerable restrictions and entails to unrestricted individual private property, where land could be bought, sold, the trees cut down, the peasants evicted, factories constructed, etc. etc. John Locke was one of the key philosophers of this transformation. This is history 101 stuff. If you want a more sophisticated treatment of this transformation in the United States, read Morton Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law, 1870-1960. For Europe try Thomas Kemp, Industrialization in Nineteenth Century Europe. Or you can just ask Art Sackman. He seems to understand property law. He'll probably tell you the same thing. The distribution of property reflects the political decisions of the state. What the rich have is not necessarily what they deserve to have. According to you. No, _not_ according to me. I know you hate reading books by non-right-wing idealogues, but please do yourself a favor and learn something before you make such wild conclusions about a topic. Property is a legal construction that is created in accordance with the ethical beliefs of the polity. No it is a right from which all other rights flow. This is one way of viewing it, but it is a view that is unhistorical. If the rich are permitted to keep every penny no matter the consequences to the poor, it is not becuase that is simply a recognition of what's theirs, it's because the state believes that's how it should be. No, it's because it is theirs and there is no reason to steal it from them. This is a babyish begging of the question. But Bush, on the other hand, well, he deserves every penny he's got. Did he steal it? Yes, insider trading at Harken Energy. Did he commit fraud? Snip of speculative anti-Republican drivel. These are serious charges that because of the fishing expedition that culminated in the absurd impeachment of Bill Clinton and the cowing of the press after 9/11 never got the attention they deserved. Bush is the dirtiest president since Nixon. |
#408
|
|||
|
|||
TopGun??? Intelligent??? GW Bush? [was How many months?]
"Phil" wrote in message
news:SE3_b.35479$4o.52026@attbi_s52 "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message news:spOZb.32061$4o.48014@attbi_s52 However, since I've seen the A-10 gatling gun in action, I don't think the unarmed, no guns, Viking it handle an A-10. I'm ROTFLMAO Phil, that you think that the Viking is unarmed, just because it lacks guns. The F-4 was clearly a jet fighter, but as designed and initially delivered, it lacked guns. First, I never said the Viking was unarmed because it lack guns that your assumption. No, its a clear reading of what you said Phil. I guess this means that if you actually write a statement that appears to be clear, it still isn't what you meant. Second, it is true the original F-4 had no guns but it did have air to air missiles which the S-3 does not. It is not its role. The F-14 and F-18 fly cover for the S-3s. If a Viking came under attack from an A10, it's best option would be to run, as it has a higher top speed, 506 mph versus 420. You're right, that is what the Viking should do, but your statement was that it could defeat the other aircraft, not run away. Wrong Phil. You presumed that my statement that referenced the A12 actually referenced the A10. Of course you were wrong then and you are still wrong. So much for admitting your errors! But, you have a better argument with the A-12. Since A-12 or A-11 was design as a surveillance aircraft therefore was not armed. Wrong again, Phil. You claimed that we could determine the role of a plane solely by the first letter in its designation. Either that rule is wrong, or the A10 is an aircraft for surveillance. Although it could easily out run a S-3. Phil you've obviously forgotten the conditions that I put on the confrontation. I said: "A Viking could fly circles and loops around an A12 at any speed the Viking could reasonably muster." The A-12 was not consider a fighter, it did not have an air to air role. The A12 was also known as the YF12. We all agree that the Y stood for experimental. Phil, just like Weil you want us to believe that the F meant *anything* but Fighter. Another version designated YF-12 was the fighter and was meant to intercept Russian bombers. There you go. It was a fighter! This version was never produce. This plane in this picture must have been a photoshop project, right? http://www.geocities.com/jassdude/yf12.html However, a variant of the A-12 was produce, this was the SR-71. Note, the SR- designation, not F-, this aircraft was not a fighter. I never said that the SR-71 was a fighter. Heck, it was as a rule totally unarmed. So this is just another "debating trade" straw man argument. Source: http://unrealaircraft.com/content.php?page=g_sr71 You're preaching to the choir on this point, Phil. |
#409
|
|||
|
|||
TopGun??? Intelligent??? GW Bush? [was How many months?]
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 19:06:20 +0100, François Yves Le Gal
wrote: On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:43:35 -0600, dave weil wrote: Nope. Ever hear of the 1129th SAS? That's where the planes came from. Yes, the 1129th SAS at Groom Lake took care of testing and training, but when the A12's were deployed, they came back under Lockheed control, who did supervise the ops for the CIA. Yes, Oxcart was piloted by CIA pilots. So? The A12 weren't military planes. Period. Planes were from a joint CIA/USAF unit Nope. Oxcart was 100% civilian. "The Oxcart Detachment unit, with 260 personnel and under the command of Colonel Hugh Slater was declared operationally ready on 29 May 1967". Colonel Hugh Slater (and see below at the end of the post) flown to a military base, was overseen my military control, and the planes were maintained by the military. Yes, but these planes weren't military. Sure they were. They were being 'borrowed" by the CIA to conduct joint operations with the USAF and hence were still part of the military, even if they fell under the CIA banner at that point. JMHO. In fact, the one photo of the Groom Lake A12s that pop up on the internet seem to show military markings, although the photo is really too small to be definitive. It does show standard USAF markings, because it was operated at that time by the 1129th SAS of the USAF. Check http://www.wvi.com/~lelandh/cia-10a12w.jpg for a picture of all the Groom Lake unit in the early '60s showing USAF markings (but no "special" paint yet). They were miltary planes, pure and simple. Nope. No military markings, no military pilots, no military references (A12 is a *civilian* reference, A-12 would designate a military *attack* plane, not a recon aircraft, which would be an SR-xx): the US government didn't want the military to be officially involved in case of a problem while flying above North Korea, China or other countries. Get it, now? Except that Oxcart was photographing North Vietnamese targets as well: "On 31 May 1967, Mel Vojvodich (CIA) flew A12 #937 out of Kadena on the First Operational Black Shield Mission. Over North Vietnam and the DMZ, the A12 photographed 70 of the known 190 SAM missile sites. The flight lasted 3 hours and 39 minutes and was flown at Mach 3.1 and an altitude of 80,000 feet". This is a military mission, pure and simple. The fact that they participated in a CIA operation is virtually irrelevant, especially since they were conducting military combat missions. Nope. The A12's were conducting *civilian* recon -er, make it spying - missions. I just showed you that this is incorrect. The fact that it was CIA doesn't keep it from being a military mission. The CIA, as I'm sure you know, has always been active in military operations. But yes, they *also* conducted "civilian" spying missions as well. And eventually, Oxcart was transfered to SAC anyway. Nope. Oxcart was dissolved in June '68, as a number of military units began deploying the SR-71, including OL-8 at Kadena. The 15 remaining A12's were flown back to Palmdale (CA) and put in storage before being given to various museums a decade later. You are correct here. I was wrong about Oxcart falling under SAC. It was only proposed not finally implemented. I was wrong about that. One final note: "(S) In a ceremony at the Nevada base on 26 June 1968, Vice Admiral Rufus L. Taylor, Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, presented the CIA Intelligence Star for valor to pilots Kenneth S. Collins, Ronald L. Layton, Francis J. Murray, Dennis B. Sullivan, and Mele Vojvodich for participation in the BLACK SHIELD operation. The posthumous award to pilot Jack W. Weeks was accepted by his widow. The United States Air Force Legion of Merit was presented to Colonel Slater and his Deputy, Colonel Maynard N. Amundson. The Air Force Outstanding Unit Award was presented to the members of the OXCART Detachment (1129th Special Activities Squadron, Detachment 1) and the USAF supporting units." Oxcart, while obviously a CIA operation, was basically a military operation as well. I think that it's easy to say that both of us are correct. |
#410
|
|||
|
|||
TopGun??? Intelligent??? GW Bush? [was How many months?]
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:26:27 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: The A12 was also known as the YF12. We all agree that the Y stood for experimental. Phil, just like Weil you want us to believe that the F meant *anything* but Fighter. Nope. Wrong conclusion. I maintained that it never entered actual service as a fighter. It never got out of the testing phase, because it turned out that the highly specified mission that it was going to be used for was unfeasable. It seems that you have a very flexible definiton of a fighter jet. Under your guidelines, a B-52 could be a called a fighter jet because it can engage air targets if necessary. Then you claim that planes that only engage ground targets are *also* fighter jets. Weird. |
#411
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message ... On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:18:35 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: "Jacob Kramer" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 15:49:43 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: By perepetual, I would include those taking a temporary hiatus now and then.. You seem to have the figures at your fingertips. What percentage of people who receive welfare is this? The povery lines are defined as a percentage of median income. AS the US has ahigher median income, and a higher standard of living, the standard of living for the upper end of those in poverty would be somewhat better in the US. Okay then, here are some numbers: 50 percent of median income: France, 1994, 7.5 % Germany, 1994, 9.4 % UK, 1995, 10.9 % United States, 1995, 17.1 % Like I said, median income in the US is higher, and represents a better standard of living. http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/4person.html median income is $63,278 for a family of 4, in US over past 3 years. 50% is $31,639 for a family of 4 in the US. That is 'your' definition of the poverty line in the US. Not too shabby, for a poverty line. It's not my definition. It's your definition. WHAT??? I got it from you, you just stated it above. 50% of median income. It's an empirical question whether this higher percentage is an artifact of a higher per capita income. Since this is your standard, tell us what percentage of those countries' populations is under the U.S. threshold? Or for that matter what percentage is under the U.S. official poverty line? I can guarantee you it's lower for the simple reason that the lowest percentage that has ever been below the U.S. poverty line is 11 percent, and that povery line is certain to be far below the median income of France, the U.K., or Germany, all of which have less than that percent below it. I found it pretty difficult to get stats on the European countries. And again, as far as your claim, we are comparing % of households below 50% of median income for different countries, each of which have differeing median incomes and differing standards of living that those median incomes would indicate. So what if the US % below 50% of the median income is higher! Our median icome is higher! Another reference to this: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104688.html Here is a chart showing % of population owning certain appliances: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0193913.html here is my summary, by % of pop. owning such appliance Appliance US UK Ger France Microwave 84 48 36 19 TV 98 98 97 95 Clothes washer 77 88 88 88 Clothes dryer 72 32 17 12 Dishwasher 45 11 34 32 This is interesting, but it ain't poverty. It is an indication of a superior comparative standard of living, and makes the point that the standard of living for poor people in the US is higher than the standard of living for poor people elsewhere. This indicates a highe strandard of living in the US, and fewer households doing without such appliances. I'm sure there are more up-to-date figures but the UN seems to sell their data as publications, and besides I'm not going to put in that much effort to prove what a) I already know and b) you're not going to believe no matter what. Here are infant mortality numbers, 2000-2005, per thousand: France, 5 Germany, 5 United Kingdom, 5 United States, 7 http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/social/health.htm Health care benefits for welfare recipients are expceptionally good. It is the working poor, the middle class, and upper middle class that have worse coverage gaps. Yes they are good for those receiving federal benefits, but the poor who do not qualify for such benefits get zero. Not all the poor are covered. The working poor not on welfare are not covered. Another advantage to being on welfare versus working! The system is sick. And your comments on infant mortality? Keep in mind that for 1 million live births, that 2000 more deaths in the U.S. than in those other countries. Show me those stats, and the links to the references. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#412
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message ... On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:18:35 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: "Jacob Kramer" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 15:49:43 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: By perepetual, I would include those taking a temporary hiatus now and then.. You seem to have the figures at your fingertips. What percentage of people who receive welfare is this? And where's your answer to this? After working in the system a number of years, and see the same faces, off and on, and the kids, and read the history in the files, you will see it. Unless you wish to remain blind. you keep seeing the same people. There are some you might see for a few months, and never see them again, but not too many. That went for AFDC, the primary program. I worked a lot in emergency assistance for evictions, foreclosures and utility cut offs. That program had a lot of temporary situational recipients (that is why I enjoyed working that program, I actually felt it was helping people who were basically productive, but had temporary misfortunes) but also alot of regular welfare recipients looking for a 'thirteenth' check each and every year. assistance, which had a combination of working ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#413
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
"ScottW" wrote in message news:8ADZb.24757$tM5.24611@fed1read04... "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ... "Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message news Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote: "Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message ink.net... Michael McKelvy wrote: His economic policies are working. Nice unemployment we're having. I'm sure the fact that according to the latest figures out last week showing 500,000 job losses in high tech areas due to shipping the jobs overseas and work visas in the last 3 years somehow qualifies as "working". The unemployment rate is down. The unemployment rate is a little lower than the average rate for the 90's. Yo have to look at the overal data - higher paying jobs are down and lower paying ones are up - which isn't a good thing. We're shipping a lot of good high-paying jobs overseas. But of course, that doesn't bother you as there are more than enough jobs at Wal Mart and Pizza Hut to compensate. The engine of the world economy is still the USA. The jobs going overseas are mostly jobs that are better to suited to the people in the countries where they are going to. In the end you see it as a net benefit to this country as well as the places they are goingto. I know a guy who has a company with a product that he can sell but not if it is produced in the U.S. so he's moving his manufacturing operation to Thailand. he can get the same product produced for $150.00 a month in labor costs, per person. He still lives here and does the design here. He will make a much better profit for his product and in turn invest in his own company's growth, better his lot in life and those of all his employees, plus have money to save, which will then be invested by the banks. And on it goes. This does not mean we shouldn't be leaning on places like Mexico to get their act together so their people stop coming here in droves and using up our social services. We are creating a big hole between the low skilled workers class and the professionals with no semi-skilled or skilled labor jobs in between. It creates a class differential that incites the uneducated lower class to clamor for the government to make up their deficiency in standard of living. Since they are more numerous, they will get their way. Savage says we are the next great nation to go communist. I don't agree but we are definitely on a socialist track. ScottW Have been since the 40's. There is evidence that much of the reason for stats not reflecting bigger gains in reducing unemployment, is because many people are becoming self employed and don't show up in the stats. I think that U.S. economy is changing and there are going to be less jobs for semi-skilled labor, at least in the interim. This however is going to fuel gains elsewhere at higher levels of education. Those who choose not to get the proper education to deal with the trends are going to be distressed. |
#414
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ... "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ... "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ... "dave weil" wrote in message news On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:18:05 -0800, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: BTW, I spent seven years working with the wekfare system as a caseworker and social worker. That experience alone was enough to dampen my former enthusiasm for liberalism. No doubt a lot of the recipients are unmotivated or just plain lazy. That's a good reason to jettison the entire system. The reason to jettison the system is it doesn't work, it doesn't do more than allow people to eat. Wellll, we can't have that - especially 8 year olds. Try to understand, the reason I'm against the government being involved in this is because tehy can't do it without the use of force. I have no problem with people voluntarily spending their money to help those in need. Duh... the government can't collect any tax money without the use of force, therefore it can't do anything without the use of force. Why bother having a government at all? To respond to the use of force. Now we get to the nut of it. You believe that the only two legitimate functions of government are national defense and criminal justice. I've said as much before. The only reason to have government is to protect the rights of INDIVIDUALS. The rights of which individuals? All of them. The ones who want to practice their religion in public schools, or the ones who want to receive a public education wuthout having to undergo religious indoctrination? It's not so easy. I never said it was easy. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#415
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message om... "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ... "Jacob Kramer" wrote in message ... On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:03:33 -0800, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Nobody should have an expectation that the government is going to subsidize their lack of good judgement. You are defining property too narrowly here. I'm sure I am, for a socialist. Socialists do often have a more sophisticated understanding of property, but the understanding that property means different things in different times and places is not limited to socialists. In fact you can discover this by cracking open any standard history textbook. Try A History of the Modern World by RR Palmer and J Colton. The history of the industrial revolution is in some sense a revolution in the understanding of property, from a feudal conception in which it was laden with innumerable restrictions and entails to unrestricted individual private property, where land could be bought, sold, the trees cut down, the peasants evicted, factories constructed, etc. etc. John Locke was one of the key philosophers of this transformation. This is history 101 stuff. If you want a more sophisticated treatment of this transformation in the United States, read Morton Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law, 1870-1960. For Europe try Thomas Kemp, Industrialization in Nineteenth Century Europe. Or you can just ask Art Sackman. He seems to understand property law. He'll probably tell you the same thing. At the present time, rights to private real property are subject to many governmental restrictions: escheat, police power (regulation) and eminent domain. Private contracts such as easements, leases, covenants, mortgages, and rights of way can also restrict ownership rights in real property. This was all true, even during the laissez faire phase of economic thinking. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#416
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message om... "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ... "Jacob Kramer" wrote in message ... On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:03:33 -0800, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Nobody should have an expectation that the government is going to subsidize their lack of good judgement. You are defining property too narrowly here. I'm sure I am, for a socialist. Socialists do often have a more sophisticated understanding of property, but the understanding that property means different things in different times and places is not limited to socialists. In fact you can discover this by cracking open any standard history textbook. Try A History of the Modern World by RR Palmer and J Colton. The history of the industrial revolution is in some sense a revolution in the understanding of property, from a feudal conception in which it was laden with innumerable restrictions and entails to unrestricted individual private property, where land could be bought, sold, the trees cut down, the peasants evicted, factories constructed, etc. etc. John Locke was one of the key philosophers of this transformation. This is history 101 stuff. If you want a more sophisticated treatment of this transformation in the United States, read Morton Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law, 1870-1960. For Europe try Thomas Kemp, Industrialization in Nineteenth Century Europe. Or you can just ask Art Sackman. He seems to understand property law. He'll probably tell you the same thing. The distribution of property reflects the political decisions of the state. What the rich have is not necessarily what they deserve to have. According to you. No, _not_ according to me. I know you hate reading books by non-right-wing idealogues, but please do yourself a favor and learn something before you make such wild conclusions about a topic. Assumes facts not in evidence. Property is a legal construction that is created in accordance with the ethical beliefs of the polity. No it is a right from which all other rights flow. This is one way of viewing it, but it is a view that is unhistorical. I'm not all that concerned with how history views it. I beleive the rights that men shouold have are determined by his nature. Can you describe any rights that men ought to have that don't require property, starting with man's life? If the rich are permitted to keep every penny no matter the consequences to the poor, it is not becuase that is simply a recognition of what's theirs, it's because the state believes that's how it should be. No, it's because it is theirs and there is no reason to steal it from them. This is a babyish begging of the question. No, stealing from people what is theirs is babyish and criminal. There is no obligation to provide for people merely because they have a need. But Bush, on the other hand, well, he deserves every penny he's got. Did he steal it? Yes, insider trading at Harken Energy. Did he commit fraud? Snip of speculative anti-Republican drivel. These are serious charges that because of the fishing expedition that culminated in the absurd impeachment of Bill Clinton and the cowing of the press after 9/11 never got the attention they deserved. Bush is the dirtiest president since Nixon. Sorry, you must mean Clinton. |
#417
|
|||
|
|||
TopGun??? Intelligent??? GW Bush? [was How many months?]
"John Atkinson" wrote in message om... "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ... "John Atkinson" wrote in message om... "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ... You did notice that he changed into regular attire after he landed, no? No, I did not notice that. The TV footage, photos, and press coverage that I saw and read showed and referred to what I thought was the "uniform." If you are now saying that he did in fact change into civvies after he landed, that is indeed the appropriate thing for him to have done. Shall we call that a retraction? If it was true, Mr. McKelvy. As I said, all the coverage I saw and read showed the president in the flightsuit, which was the point I was making. I searched the web yesterday for confirmation of your statement that he changed into civvies, with no success, though I note that "Phil" has now said the same thing. Maybe if you did some decent research, you could be better informed. I know that facts are like Kryptonite to liberals, but they are useful nonetheless. The sopeech he gave on the aircraft carrier were carried by every news channel in the country. If youdidn't see them, you could have spent some time looking before making your conclusions. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#418
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
Fragrant ****flaps; "The" wrote in message news:atei305oig8o3cs2v737ugagi121iq9955@rdmzrnewst xt.nz... On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:08:34 -0800, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Can you describe any rights that men ought to have that don't require property, starting with man's life? Oh, God. No, stealing from people what is theirs is babyish and criminal. There is no obligation to provide for people merely because they have a need. So you hate paying your share. Established. Now, remind us how you don't use libraries (obvious, really), roads (obvious, really--you build your own), education (obvious, really), the police (obvious, really--you just shoot everyone), the fire service (obvious, really--you just **** all over everything), garbage collection (obvious, really--if it weren't for garbage, you'd have no home). Why don't you accept that being in a country that provides basic securities and services for living has a certain cost? In return for those basic amenities--for which *everyone* must contribute something--you the citizen are given a clean and, within the margins of common sense, totally clean slate, upon which you can draft whatever captures your imagination? I am a liberal--but I do not at all identify with the twisted and demented caricatures offered by people like Limbaugh and (someone fetch my puke bag) Savage. Or Weiner, to his 'friends'. Liberalism is, at its heart, about *minimal* government interference in people's day-to-day lives. So we socialise the fundamentals of civilised living. Whoopee-****ing-do. The taxation necessary to fund basic and fundamental provisions for humane living is your price of admittance to an economy that permits you to fly as highly as you desire. What is *wrong* with that? There is simply no excuse for *anyone* in a wealthy, economically vibrant country to be denied those provisions, or to receive a diluted outgrowth of them because they survive on a diminutive income. If you didn't already know, your health service is regarded as an abandonments to the rest of the civilities world. A decent synopsis of the traditional liberalsim I still hold to. Fine, as long as we can expect those that are able to work to either be working or in some kind of training or educutioanl opportunity. Income maintenance should be a last resort, opportunity is a more advantageous commodity. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#419
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:43:28 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote: "Jacob Kramer" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:18:35 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: The povery lines are defined as a percentage of median income. AS the US has ahigher median income, and a higher standard of living, the standard of living for the upper end of those in poverty would be somewhat better in the US. It's not my definition. It's your definition. WHAT??? I got it from you, you just stated it above. 50% of median income. You claimed on this basis that 10 percent of the population of Western Europe was poor. What income level is that? Here are infant mortality numbers, 2000-2005, per thousand: France, 5 Germany, 5 United Kingdom, 5 United States, 7 And your comments on infant mortality? Keep in mind that for 1 million live births, that 2000 more deaths in the U.S. than in those other countries. Show me those stats, and the links to the references. Two per thousand is 2000 per million. The links were in the original citation. -- Jacob Kramer |
#420
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:54:00 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote: "Jacob Kramer" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:18:35 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: "Jacob Kramer" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 15:49:43 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: By perepetual, I would include those taking a temporary hiatus now and then.. You seem to have the figures at your fingertips. What percentage of people who receive welfare is this? And where's your answer to this? After working in the system a number of years, and see the same faces, off and on, and the kids, and read the history in the files, you will see it. Unless you wish to remain blind. you keep seeing the same people. There are some you might see for a few months, and never see them again, but not too many. That went for AFDC, the primary program. I worked a lot in emergency assistance for evictions, foreclosures and utility cut offs. That program had a lot of temporary situational recipients (that is why I enjoyed working that program, I actually felt it was helping people who were basically productive, but had temporary misfortunes) but also alot of regular welfare recipients looking for a 'thirteenth' check each and every year. assistance, which had a combination of working In other words it's an anecdotal impression and you don't know the percentage, although you have suggested that it is generally true. -- Jacob Kramer |
#421
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Socky prated: Fine, as long as we can expect those that are able to work to either be working or in some kind of training or educutioanl opportunity. Income maintenance should be a last resort, opportunity is a more advantageous commodity. I believe we should pay mommies to be full-time caregivers for young children. I think that's an important job and should be recognized in the same way as in certain enlightened countries. As long as they can be fired, if they are incompetent. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#422
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:43:28 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: "Jacob Kramer" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:18:35 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: The povery lines are defined as a percentage of median income. AS the US has ahigher median income, and a higher standard of living, the standard of living for the upper end of those in poverty would be somewhat better in the US. It's not my definition. It's your definition. WHAT??? I got it from you, you just stated it above. 50% of median income. You claimed on this basis that 10 percent of the population of Western Europe was poor. What income level is that? If you hadn't snipped it, I could check on that. Here are infant mortality numbers, 2000-2005, per thousand: France, 5 Germany, 5 United Kingdom, 5 United States, 7 And your comments on infant mortality? Keep in mind that for 1 million live births, that 2000 more deaths in the U.S. than in those other countries. Show me those stats, and the links to the references. Two per thousand is 2000 per million. The links were in the original citation. It's snipped, and the original is hiding somewhere in the 26,631 RAO messages on my news server. I organize my newsreading chronologically rather than by thread. So, please show me the links. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#423
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:54:00 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: "Jacob Kramer" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:18:35 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: "Jacob Kramer" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 15:49:43 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: By perepetual, I would include those taking a temporary hiatus now and then.. You seem to have the figures at your fingertips. What percentage of people who receive welfare is this? And where's your answer to this? After working in the system a number of years, and see the same faces, off and on, and the kids, and read the history in the files, you will see it. Unless you wish to remain blind. you keep seeing the same people. There are some you might see for a few months, and never see them again, but not too many. That went for AFDC, the primary program. I worked a lot in emergency assistance for evictions, foreclosures and utility cut offs. That program had a lot of temporary situational recipients (that is why I enjoyed working that program, I actually felt it was helping people who were basically productive, but had temporary misfortunes) but also alot of regular welfare recipients looking for a 'thirteenth' check each and every year. assistance, which had a combination of working In other words it's an anecdotal impression and you don't know the percentage, although you have suggested that it is generally true. Yes Your citation refers to lifelong welfare dependency vs less than a lifelong dependancy. Now, such temporary dependancy could be a once in a lifetime short term dependency, it could be a short term dependancy of several months every year or two, or it could be a lifetime of interrupted dependancey, whereby someone is dependent more often than they are not. One would probably find a number of cases representing each of those basic classifications. There are plenty of them that would be occassionally interrupted lifetime dependancies, knowing how the eligibility system actually works. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#424
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Simon LeSockpuppet roared: I believe we should pay mommies to be full-time caregivers for young children. I think that's an important job and should be recognized in the same way as in certain enlightened countries. As long as they can be fired, if they are incompetent. So you agree, subject to your fascistic caveat? If you insist on paying mommies who neglect their children that sounds fine to me. It s a wonderful social policy. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#425
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:18:39 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote: "Jacob Kramer" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:43:28 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: "Jacob Kramer" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:18:35 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: The povery lines are defined as a percentage of median income. AS the US has ahigher median income, and a higher standard of living, the standard of living for the upper end of those in poverty would be somewhat better in the US. It's not my definition. It's your definition. WHAT??? I got it from you, you just stated it above. 50% of median income. You claimed on this basis that 10 percent of the population of Western Europe was poor. What income level is that? If you hadn't snipped it, I could check on that. **********begin quoted message******* From: "Sockpuppet Yustabe" Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion Subject: How many months? Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:13:14 -0500 "Jacob Kramer" wrote in message ... Increasing productivity does not mean decreasing inequality. Millions of people work at minimum wage, and the only thing keeping their wage there is the law. The only countries that have no poverty are those that have a generous welfare state--i.e. Western Europe. Another lie. http://www.cpag.org.uk/ http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sdrc/pages/index/index.html http://spiu.gcal.ac.uk/home.html http://www.who.dk/mediacentre/PR/2002/20020916_1 which states: In western Europe, about 10% of the total population are estimated to live below the poverty line. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/pov-f04.shtml which states: A report issued by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) suggests that poverty in Western Europe and North America is far wider than previously calculated. The report, Poverty Dynamics in Six OECD Countries, surveyed Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. ************end quoted message************ Here are infant mortality numbers, 2000-2005, per thousand: France, 5 Germany, 5 United Kingdom, 5 United States, 7 And your comments on infant mortality? Keep in mind that for 1 million live births, that 2000 more deaths in the U.S. than in those other countries. Show me those stats, and the links to the references. Two per thousand is 2000 per million. The links were in the original citation. It's snipped, and the original is hiding somewhere in the 26,631 RAO messages on my news server. I organize my newsreading chronologically rather than by thread. So, please show me the links. 50 percent of median income: France, 1994, 7.5 % Germany, 1994, 9.4 % UK, 1995, 10.9 % United States, 1995, 17.1 % http://www.olis.oecd.org/OLIS/2000DOC.NSF/4f7adc214b91a685c12569fa005d0ee7/c125692700623b74c125693800385206/$FILE/00081595.PDF I'm sure there are more up-to-date figures but the UN seems to sell their data as publications, and besides I'm not going to put in that much effort to prove what a) I already know and b) you're not going to believe no matter what. Here are infant mortality numbers, 2000-2005, per thousand: France, 5 Germany, 5 United Kingdom, 5 United States, 7 http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/social/health.htm I'm being much more patient than you deserve here. You should learn to navigate in your browser. -- Jacob Kramer |
#426
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:18:39 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote: WHAT??? I got it from you, you just stated it above. 50% of median income. You claimed on this basis that 10 percent of the population of Western Europe was poor. What income level is that? If you hadn't snipped it, I could check on that. And here's where you stated it: From: "Sockpuppet Yustabe" Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion Subject: How many months? Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 15:49:43 -0500 "Jacob Kramer" wrote in message ... This is a very different thing from a lie. It is a fact that Western Europe has the lowest poverty rates in the world, and certainly lower than in the U.S., which is a disgrace according to every poverty measure among industrialized counties, specifically for the reason that it has the most retarded welfare state. This too I have no doubt you are aware of, but just don't care. The povery lines are defined as a percentage of median income. AS the US has ahigher median income, and a higher standard of living, the standard of living for the upper end of those in poverty would be somewhat better in the US. http://www.cpag.org.uk/ http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sdrc/pages/index/index.html http://spiu.gcal.ac.uk/home.html http://www.who.dk/mediacentre/PR/2002/20020916_1 which states: In western Europe, about 10% of the total population are estimated to live below the poverty line. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/pov-f04.shtml which states: A report issued by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) suggests that poverty in Western Europe and North America is far wider than previously calculated. The report, Poverty Dynamics in Six OECD Countries, surveyed Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. -- Jacob Kramer |
#427
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:30:32 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote: In other words it's an anecdotal impression and you don't know the percentage, although you have suggested that it is generally true. Yes Your citation refers to lifelong welfare dependency vs less than a lifelong dependancy. Now, such temporary dependancy could be a once in a lifetime short term dependency, it could be a short term dependancy of several months every year or two, or it could be a lifetime of interrupted dependancey, whereby someone is dependent more often than they are not. One would probably find a number of cases representing each of those basic classifications. There are plenty of them that would be occassionally interrupted lifetime dependancies, knowing how the eligibility system actually works. It's a stereotype. Read an academic article about welfare. Try Robert Moffitt, "Incentive Effects of the U.S. Welfare System: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature 30, no. 1 (1992), 1-61. Available he http://econpapers.hhs.se/article/aeajeclit/v_3A30_3Ay_3A1992_3Ai_3A1_3Ap_3A1-61.htm -- Jacob Kramer |
#428
|
|||
|
|||
TopGun??? Intelligent??? GW Bush? [was How many months?]
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om As I said, all the coverage I saw and read showed the president in the flightsuit, which was the point I was making. Which is apparently that people in flight suits scare the heck out of John Atkinson, due to the fact that he can't tell the difference between a flight suit and a military uniform. Note the implication that anybody in a military uniform scares the heck out of John Atkinson. I searched the web yesterday for confirmation of your statement that he changed into civvies, with no success, though I note that "Phil" has now said the same thing. Shows how completely incompetent of a source of information you are, Atkinson. Took me less than 30 seconds to come up with a picture of George Bush on the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, giving his speech, wearing a regular business suit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2989459.stm Ironically, it's on a BBC web site! Even your own countrymen were acutely aware of this fact, Atkinson. Fact is, you're not really all that stupid, just horrifically biased and mentally disabled by acute disabling anxiety over a nit. |
#429
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:18:39 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: "Jacob Kramer" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:43:28 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: "Jacob Kramer" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:18:35 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: The povery lines are defined as a percentage of median income. AS the US has ahigher median income, and a higher standard of living, the standard of living for the upper end of those in poverty would be somewhat better in the US. It's not my definition. It's your definition. WHAT??? I got it from you, you just stated it above. 50% of median income. You claimed on this basis that 10 percent of the population of Western Europe was poor. What income level is that? If you hadn't snipped it, I could check on that. **********begin quoted message******* From: "Sockpuppet Yustabe" Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion Subject: How many months? Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:13:14 -0500 "Jacob Kramer" wrote in message ... Increasing productivity does not mean decreasing inequality. Millions of people work at minimum wage, and the only thing keeping their wage there is the law. The only countries that have no poverty are those that have a generous welfare state--i.e. Western Europe. Another lie. http://www.cpag.org.uk/ http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sdrc/pages/index/index.html http://spiu.gcal.ac.uk/home.html http://www.who.dk/mediacentre/PR/2002/20020916_1 which states: In western Europe, about 10% of the total population are estimated to live below the poverty line. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/pov-f04.shtml which states: A report issued by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) suggests that poverty in Western Europe and North America is far wider than previously calculated. The report, Poverty Dynamics in Six OECD Countries, surveyed Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. ************end quoted message************ Here are infant mortality numbers, 2000-2005, per thousand: France, 5 Germany, 5 United Kingdom, 5 United States, 7 And your comments on infant mortality? Keep in mind that for 1 million live births, that 2000 more deaths in the U.S. than in those other countries. Show me those stats, and the links to the references. Two per thousand is 2000 per million. The links were in the original citation. It's snipped, and the original is hiding somewhere in the 26,631 RAO messages on my news server. I organize my newsreading chronologically rather than by thread. So, please show me the links. 50 percent of median income: France, 1994, 7.5 % Germany, 1994, 9.4 % UK, 1995, 10.9 % United States, 1995, 17.1 % http://www.olis.oecd.org/OLIS/2000DO...569fa005d0ee7/ c125692700623b74c125693800385206/$FILE/00081595.PDF You are talking about the statisitcs of distribution of income, basically, how the 'pie' of each nation is divided. There is NO objective definition of poverty that is consisitent to each of the nations in question. yes, the US has less equal distribution of income, but it is also wealthier than the comparative countries. The statistics you offer could just as easily reflect that in the US, the wealthy are wealthier. Remember, the median income of the US is higher, so being at the 50% line of the mdeian income is still being better off than being at the 50% line of the median income in the other nations. In the US, that is about $33,000 for a family of 4. That is the definition of poverty in the US, 2002, that is used in your cited report. I'm sure there are more up-to-date figures but the UN seems to sell their data as publications, and besides I'm not going to put in that much effort to prove what a) I already know and b) you're not going to believe no matter what. Here are infant mortality numbers, 2000-2005, per thousand: France, 5 Germany, 5 United Kingdom, 5 United States, 7 http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/social/health.htm I'm being much more patient than you deserve here. You should learn to navigate in your browser. -- Jacob Kramer ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#430
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 08:07:26 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote: You are talking about the statisitcs of distribution of income, basically, how the 'pie' of each nation is divided. There is NO objective definition of poverty that is consisitent to each of the nations in question. yes, the US has less equal distribution of income, but it is also wealthier than the comparative countries. The statistics you offer could just as easily reflect that in the US, the wealthy are wealthier. Remember, the median income of the US is higher, so being at the 50% line of the mdeian income is still being better off than being at the 50% line of the median income in the other nations. In the US, that is about $33,000 for a family of 4. That is the definition of poverty in the US, 2002, that is used in your cited report. Median income was the measure you used to say 10 percent of the population of Western Europe was poor. Why don't you tell us what income level that implies? And how does it compare to the U.S. poverty line? It is your assertion, you prove it. -- Jacob Kramer |
#431
|
|||
|
|||
TopGun??? Intelligent??? GW Bush? [was How many months?]
"Phil" wrote in message
news:H%5_b.376087$xy6.1941669@attbi_s02... "John Atkinson" wrote in message om... all the coverage I saw and read showed the president in the flightsuit, which was the point I was making. I searched the web yesterday for confirmation of your statement that he changed into civvies, with no success, though I note that "Phil" has now said the same thing. First, there is no reason to put my name in quotes. My name is Phil and I have always used my true first name. My apologies Phil. I used quotes merely because I don't actually know who you are, not because I suspect you of being a sockpuppet. Second. I found an article that shows Bush giving his speech. It wasn't that hard: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86181,00.html Thank you. Mike McKelvy has also supplied a link to a BBC story that shows Mr. Bush wearing a suit to give his speech. However, I do note that the Fox story quotes Sneator Byrd echoing my sentiment. Another put while running through the articles a found a reference that the aircraft carrier was hundreds of miles off the California coast at the time of Bush's landing not in San Diego's bay. It seems someone has been misinforming you. I don't think so. The Fox story you reference does mention the "hundred miles off the California coast," but only in the context of stating that that was the carrier's original intended position. The story goes on to state that "The ship was near San Diego on its return from action in the Persian Gulf," which is not at odds with the other stories I found that quoted the ship's position as 39 miles from San Diego. I only mentioned this position in response to statements that the ship was too far off shore for a helicopter to be used, hence the use of the S-3B Viking. However, I have been quite unable to find any reference to the president's S-3B being involved in dogfights with either an A-10 "Warthog" or an A-12/SR-71 "Blackbird" on its way to the rendezvous with the carrier. :-) John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#432
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:18:39 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: WHAT??? I got it from you, you just stated it above. 50% of median income. You claimed on this basis that 10 percent of the population of Western Europe was poor. What income level is that? The information on the site did not specify. I was specifically looking for such type of information, and I did not find it. I wanted to know what the median income was for the European countries. There was much more data about the US than there was for Europe, and of course, some of that was in German or French! If you hadn't snipped it, I could check on that. And here's where you stated it: From: "Sockpuppet Yustabe" Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion Subject: How many months? Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 15:49:43 -0500 "Jacob Kramer" wrote in message ... This is a very different thing from a lie. It is a fact that Western Europe has the lowest poverty rates in the world, and certainly lower than in the U.S., which is a disgrace according to every poverty measure among industrialized counties, specifically for the reason that it has the most retarded welfare state. This too I have no doubt you are aware of, but just don't care. The povery lines are defined as a percentage of median income. AS the US has ahigher median income, and a higher standard of living, the standard of living for the upper end of those in poverty would be somewhat better in the US. http://www.cpag.org.uk/ http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sdrc/pages/index/index.html http://spiu.gcal.ac.uk/home.html http://www.who.dk/mediacentre/PR/2002/20020916_1 which states: In western Europe, about 10% of the total population are estimated to live below the poverty line. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/pov-f04.shtml which states: A report issued by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) suggests that poverty in Western Europe and North America is far wider than previously calculated. The report, Poverty Dynamics in Six OECD Countries, surveyed Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. -- Jacob Kramer ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#433
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:30:32 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: In other words it's an anecdotal impression and you don't know the percentage, although you have suggested that it is generally true. Yes Your citation refers to lifelong welfare dependency vs less than a lifelong dependancy. Now, such temporary dependancy could be a once in a lifetime short term dependency, it could be a short term dependancy of several months every year or two, or it could be a lifetime of interrupted dependancey, whereby someone is dependent more often than they are not. One would probably find a number of cases representing each of those basic classifications. There are plenty of them that would be occassionally interrupted lifetime dependancies, knowing how the eligibility system actually works. It's a stereotype. Read an academic article about welfare. Try Robert Moffitt, "Incentive Effects of the U.S. Welfare System: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature 30, no. 1 (1992), 1-61. Available he http://econpapers.hhs.se/article/aea...3Ai_3A1_3Ap_3A 1-61.htm Alas, it is not available to the general public. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#434
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 08:07:26 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: You are talking about the statisitcs of distribution of income, basically, how the 'pie' of each nation is divided. There is NO objective definition of poverty that is consisitent to each of the nations in question. yes, the US has less equal distribution of income, but it is also wealthier than the comparative countries. The statistics you offer could just as easily reflect that in the US, the wealthy are wealthier. Remember, the median income of the US is higher, so being at the 50% line of the mdeian income is still being better off than being at the 50% line of the median income in the other nations. In the US, that is about $33,000 for a family of 4. That is the definition of poverty in the US, 2002, that is used in your cited report. Median income was the measure you used to say 10 percent of the population of Western Europe was poor. Why don't you tell us what income level that implies? And how does it compare to the U.S. poverty line? It is your assertion, you prove it. I offered an article that said it. The article did not give the information on median income I wanted to know that info, so I looked elsewhere for it, and I could not find it. Are you asserting that the median income is less for the US than for France, Germany and the UK? Are you asserting is is sustantive ly the same? Or do you accept my assertion that US median income is higher for the US than for France Germany and the UK? Or do you have no opinion at all? ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#435
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:59:17 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote: "Jacob Kramer" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 08:07:26 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: You are talking about the statisitcs of distribution of income, basically, how the 'pie' of each nation is divided. There is NO objective definition of poverty that is consisitent to each of the nations in question. yes, the US has less equal distribution of income, but it is also wealthier than the comparative countries. The statistics you offer could just as easily reflect that in the US, the wealthy are wealthier. Remember, the median income of the US is higher, so being at the 50% line of the mdeian income is still being better off than being at the 50% line of the median income in the other nations. In the US, that is about $33,000 for a family of 4. That is the definition of poverty in the US, 2002, that is used in your cited report. Median income was the measure you used to say 10 percent of the population of Western Europe was poor. Why don't you tell us what income level that implies? And how does it compare to the U.S. poverty line? It is your assertion, you prove it. I offered an article that said it. The article did not give the information on median income I wanted to know that info, so I looked elsewhere for it, and I could not find it. You can't find median income for France, Germany and the UK? Come off it. Are you asserting that the median income is less for the US than for France, Germany and the UK? Are you asserting is is sustantive ly the same? Or do you accept my assertion that US median income is higher for the US than for France Germany and the UK? Or do you have no opinion at all? I don't want to make an assertion about it without knowing. But I would rather compare apples to apples. If you want to say that the measure is invalid for the U.S. because the number is too high, but valid for Western Europe, then I think you have to show that the number is significantly lower. How much lower do you think France's median income is than the U.S.'s? Or Germany's? Or Britain's? -- Jacob Kramer |
#436
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:17:07 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote: It's a stereotype. Read an academic article about welfare. Try Robert Moffitt, "Incentive Effects of the U.S. Welfare System: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature 30, no. 1 (1992), 1-61. Available he http://econpapers.hhs.se/article/aea...3Ai_3A1_3Ap_3A 1-61.htm Alas, it is not available to the general public. Oh please. Go to the library, or pay for the article. -- Jacob Kramer |
#437
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:59:17 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: "Jacob Kramer" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 08:07:26 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: You are talking about the statisitcs of distribution of income, basically, how the 'pie' of each nation is divided. There is NO objective definition of poverty that is consisitent to each of the nations in question. yes, the US has less equal distribution of income, but it is also wealthier than the comparative countries. The statistics you offer could just as easily reflect that in the US, the wealthy are wealthier. Remember, the median income of the US is higher, so being at the 50% line of the mdeian income is still being better off than being at the 50% line of the median income in the other nations. In the US, that is about $33,000 for a family of 4. That is the definition of poverty in the US, 2002, that is used in your cited report. Median income was the measure you used to say 10 percent of the population of Western Europe was poor. Why don't you tell us what income level that implies? And how does it compare to the U.S. poverty line? It is your assertion, you prove it. I offered an article that said it. The article did not give the information on median income I wanted to know that info, so I looked elsewhere for it, and I could not find it. You can't find median income for France, Germany and the UK? Come off it. Are you asserting that the median income is less for the US than for France, Germany and the UK? Are you asserting is is sustantive ly the same? Or do you accept my assertion that US median income is higher for the US than for France Germany and the UK? Or do you have no opinion at all? I don't want to make an assertion about it without knowing. But I would rather compare apples to apples. If you want to say that the measure is invalid for the U.S. because the number is too high, but valid for Western Europe, then I think you have to show that the number is significantly lower. How much lower do you think France's median income is than the U.S.'s? Or Germany's? Or Britain's? When you answer my question about what you think, I will answer your question about what I think ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#438
|
|||
|
|||
How many months?
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:17:07 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: It's a stereotype. Read an academic article about welfare. Try Robert Moffitt, "Incentive Effects of the U.S. Welfare System: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature 30, no. 1 (1992), 1-61. Available he http://econpapers.hhs.se/article/aea..._3Ai_3A1_3Ap_3 A 1-61.htm Alas, it is not available to the general public. Oh please. Go to the library, or pay for the article. Oh pullease. You provided the reference, I should not have to pay to read it. Note: you pulled a Krueger on me. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#439
|
|||
|
|||
TopGun??? Intelligent??? GW Bush? [was How many months?]
"John Atkinson" wrote in message m... "Phil" wrote in message news:H%5_b.376087$xy6.1941669@attbi_s02... "John Atkinson" wrote in message om... all the coverage I saw and read showed the president in the flightsuit, which was the point I was making. I searched the web yesterday for confirmation of your statement that he changed into civvies, with no success, though I note that "Phil" has now said the same thing. First, there is no reason to put my name in quotes. My name is Phil and I have always used my true first name. My apologies Phil. I used quotes merely because I don't actually know who you are, not because I suspect you of being a sockpuppet. Second. I found an article that shows Bush giving his speech. It wasn't that hard: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86181,00.html Thank you. Mike McKelvy has also supplied a link to a BBC story that shows Mr. Bush wearing a suit to give his speech. However, I do note that the Fox story quotes Sneator Byrd echoing my sentiment. Senator Byrd is not the best person to echo your sentiments. Byrd is a rancid partisan. He will say anything to get the goat of the opposition. He known for rambling nonsensical speeches and add to the fact he is the only Senator that was a member of the KKK in good standing. Another put while running through the articles a found a reference that the aircraft carrier was hundreds of miles off the California coast at the time of Bush's landing not in San Diego's bay. It seems someone has been misinforming you. I don't think so. The Fox story you reference does mention the "hundred miles off the California coast," but only in the context of stating that that was the carrier's original intended position. The story goes on to state that "The ship was near San Diego on its return from action in the Persian Gulf," which is not at odds with the other stories I found that quoted the ship's position as 39 miles from San Diego. I only mentioned this position in response to statements that the ship was too far off shore for a helicopter to be used, hence the use of the S-3B Viking. However, I have been quite unable to find any reference to the president's S-3B being involved in dogfights with either an A-10 "Warthog" or an A-12/SR-71 "Blackbird" on its way to the rendezvous with the carrier. :-) John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Correction on my part, the article where I saw the few hundred miles off the coast was the original plan, not what actually happen. My understanding is the S-3B flight was delayed a few hours so the arrival was when the aircraft carrier was 39 miles off the coast by the way not in San Diego bay however. Phil |
#440
|
|||
|
|||
TopGun??? Intelligent??? GW Bush? [was How many months?]
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
This is INCREDIBLE!! | Car Audio | |||
vertigo online. EXPOSED AS SCAMMERS BY US OVER SIX MONTHS AGO! | Audio Opinions | |||
Chickenhawks on Parade | Audio Opinions | |||
The system I'm assembling | Audio Opinions |