http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10757005/

But we ALL know that business will take care of itself ethically, yes?

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10757005/

But we ALL know that business will take care of itself ethically, yes?

Most will, some won't, that's why we need strong laws and the ability to
enforce them.
Most business people reconize the fact that when they deal fairly and
honestly, it helps them keep old customers and gain new ones.

You said you were in business for yourself, did you regularly cheat or risk
the lives of your employees? Is the only thing that prevented you from
screwing your customers and endangering your empoyees, the fact that the
government would punish you? Or was it because you realize that it is in
yourself interest to provide good working conditions and fair dealings with
both customers and employees?

Of course there is also the need for employees to be aware of their
obligations to themselves and not work where it is not safe. This doesn't
excuse the mine owners from their obligations to maintain safe conditions,
but it does point out that all the regulations did not do anything to save
the lives of the miners. As I said most people deal fairly, not all.

From:
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 19:02:51 GMT

But we ALL know that business will take care of itself ethically, yes?

Most will, some won't, that's why we need strong laws and the ability to
enforce them.

You argue, therefore, for both regulating business and for not
regulating business. Please make up your mind.

Most business people reconize the fact that when they deal fairly and
honestly, it helps them keep old customers and gain new ones.

To quote that insightful movie _Men in Black_: "A person is smart;
people are dumb."

You said you were in business for yourself, did you regularly cheat or risk
the lives of your employees?

Nope.

Is the only thing that prevented you from
screwing your customers and endangering your empoyees, the fact that the
government would punish you?

Nope.

Or was it because you realize that it is in
yourself interest to provide good working conditions and fair dealings with
both customers and employees?

You make an irrelevent comparison. There are huge differences between a
locally-based, small, niche business (like mine) and large
corporations. The concerns, goals, and decision processes of large
corporations are vastly different from those of a smaller business.

You have argued for the value of large corporations. Yopu have argued
that regulation is not neede and that it is counterproductive. It is
clear that many, if not most, large businesses are far more concerned
with quarterly earnings reports than with doing what is right either
for their employees (for example: see how deregulation has created what
will amount to socialized government pensions for hundreds of thousands
of employees, employees who placed their trust in the word of airlines,
automotive companies, and so on. We've just started seeing what I
believe will be a HUGE amount of pension fund defaults due to
underfunded pensions...) or the environment, or almost any other area
of concern (except profits).

Of course there is also the need for employees to be aware of their
obligations to themselves and not work where it is not safe.

Naive and unrealistic thinking (at best). The coal mining areas of West
Virginia are not known for their stellar economic performance. You're
arguing that a father with two kids like you should choose not to work
at what is likely the only game in town because it isn't safe. I could
not willingly starve my kids or choose not to clothe them. Further, if
you have any idea how a market actually works, you'd know that even if
I did make that choice and quit or turned down a job at this mine (for
example), that there would be many people lined up for the spot I
turned down. Now perhaps you would choose to go on welfare (presuming
that it's still available, as you argue against the necessity of it)
and lower your (and your children's) standard of living to bare
subsistence levels. Most reasonable people would choose to work for a
higher wage and better benefits than is available elsewhere for the
good of their families.

The business, knowing that they will have however many people they want
work there, have no incentive to make the repairs or increase safety.
They'll pay the $440 fine and keep doing what they want to.

One of the points this article makes is that Bushie is doing *exactly*
what you're arguing for: he has reduced criminal prosecutions for not
following regulation by 2/3, he has limited lawsuits to enforce
regulations, and so on. Here's one result: 12 dead people. It appears
that the mine will have to pay a small fine as a result.

This doesn't excuse the mine owners from their obligations to maintain safe conditions,
but it does point out that all the regulations did not do anything to save
the lives of the miners. As I said most people deal fairly, not all.

What it points out is that under the republicans the regulations have
lost their teeth. Would the mine company have made the improvements if
the government had shut them down? (Uh-oh! Not in *my* private property
world!) or fined them tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars (Uh-oh!
Keep your thieving hands off *my* money!). What this points out is that
what is needed is *more* regulation, with *more* teeth, not less.

"This pattern has been even more pronounced under the Bush
administration, which came into office with a promise to forge
cooperative ties between regulators and the mining industry. During the
past five years, the number of mines referred to the Justice Department
for criminal prosecution has dropped steadily, from 38 in 2000 to 12
last year."

"But agency critics, including several former MSHA officials, say
relatively light sanctions, coupled with the current administration's
more collegial approach to regulation, make it harder for inspectors to
force noncompliant companies to change."

"There was a dramatic shift in MSHA's philosophy in 2001, with a new
emphasis on cooperation by the enforcers," said J. Davitt McAteer, who
headed the agency under the Clinton administration, "and it came at a
cost of less enforcement of the statute."

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From:
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 19:02:51 GMT

But we ALL know that business will take care of itself ethically, yes?

Most will, some won't, that's why we need strong laws and the ability to
enforce them.

You argue, therefore, for both regulating business and for not
regulating business. Please make up your mind.

Stop twisting what I say.
I said we need stong laws and the ability to enforce them, that is not
saying that we need government agencies to control mines, but that it should
be a mater of law that any company that doesn't take reasonable steps to
insure the safety of its employees, ought to be subject to punishment.

Most business people recognize the fact that when they deal fairly and
honestly, it helps them keep old customers and gain new ones.

To quote that insightful movie _Men in Black_: "A person is smart;
people are dumb."

You said you were in business for yourself, did you regularly cheat or
risk
the lives of your employees?

Nope.

Is the only thing that prevented you from
screwing your customers and endangering your empoyees, the fact that the
government would punish you?

Nope.

Or was it because you realize that it is in
yourself interest to provide good working conditions and fair dealings
with
both customers and employees?

You make an irrelevent comparison. There are huge differences between a
locally-based, small, niche business (like mine) and large
corporations. The concerns, goals, and decision processes of large
corporations are vastly different from those of a smaller business.


No they are not. They are identical. They need to deal fairly with their
customers and their employees or they will collapse.

You have argued for the value of large corporations. You have argued
that regulation is not needed and that it is counterproductive. It is
clear that many, if not most, large businesses are far more concerned
with quarterly earnings reports than with doing what is right either
for their employees (for example: see how deregulation has created what
will amount to socialized government pensions for hundreds of thousands
of employees, employees who placed their trust in the word of airlines,
automotive companies, and so on. We've just started seeing what I
believe will be a HUGE amount of pension fund defaults due to
underfunded pensions...) or the environment, or almost any other area
of concern (except profits).

Nowhere will you find me arguing in favor of defaulting on pensions.
Nowhere will you find me arguing in favor of not being able to prosecute
businesses who do so.
What I will argue against, is the need for special regulatory agencies to
deal with any particular business. I would rather have common sense law
that punishes any violation of law, and that the law be sesnible and
reasonable. If a corporation dumps toxic waste, it should be punished,
assuming there is some real damage to people or property.

As you keep pointing out, there are compaines defaluting now and there are
agencies that oversee many big businesses or in the case of mines, they were
fined but there was no enforcement, so the agency was essentially worthless.


Of course there is also the need for employees to be aware of their
obligations to themselves and not work where it is not safe.

Naive and unrealistic thinking (at best). The coal mining areas of West
Virginia are not known for their stellar economic performance. You're
arguing that a father with two kids like you should choose not to work
at what is likely the only game in town because it isn't safe.

I'm arguing that nobody is forced to work anywhere they don't want to. If
you don't think the main employer is providing a safe workplace, tehn it is
time to move.

I could
not willingly starve my kids or choose not to clothe them. Further, if
you have any idea how a market actually works, you'd know that even if
I did make that choice and quit or turned down a job at this mine (for
example), that there would be many people lined up for the spot I
turned down.

Nobody would argue thaty even in the best of conditions mining is a
particularly safe occupation.
That being said, employees still choose to work there or not. There is no
reason for a person to work at a place theydon't find safe.

Now perhaps you would choose to go on welfare (presuming
that it's still available, as you argue against the necessity of it)
and lower your (and your children's) standard of living to bare
subsistence levels. Most reasonable people would choose to work for a
higher wage and better benefits than is available elsewhere for the
good of their families.

As is their right. They should do so with the knowledge of what sort of
place they are working for.


The business, knowing that they will have however many people they want
work there, have no incentive to make the repairs or increase safety.
They'll pay the $440 fine and keep doing what they want to.

If there is going to be regulation, then at the very least it should have
more "teeth" than such a tiny fine.


One of the points this article makes is that Bushie is doing *exactly*
what you're arguing for: he has reduced criminal prosecutions for not
following regulation by 2/3, he has limited lawsuits to enforce
regulations, and so on.

How does "Bushie" do that? Where is such power given to him?

Here's one result: 12 dead people. It appears
that the mine will have to pay a small fine as a result.

This doesn't excuse the mine owners from their obligations to maintain
safe conditions,
but it does point out that all the regulations did not do anything to save
the lives of the miners. As I said most people deal fairly, not all.

What it points out is that under the republicans the regulations have
lost their teeth.

This mine was in compliance under Clinton?
The fines were different then?

Would the mine company have made the improvements if
the government had shut them down? (Uh-oh! Not in *my* private property
world!) or fined them tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars (Uh-oh!
Keep your thieving hands off *my* money!). What this points out is that
what is needed is *more* regulation, with *more* teeth, not less.

Do you suppose that the mining company will not be punished mightily in
whatever civil suits will be brought against it, not to mention the criminal
cases?


"This pattern has been even more pronounced under the Bush
administration, which came into office with a promise to forge
cooperative ties between regulators and the mining industry. During the
past five years, the number of mines referred to the Justice Department
for criminal prosecution has dropped steadily, from 38 in 2000 to 12
last year."

"But agency critics, including several former MSHA officials, say
relatively light sanctions, coupled with the current administration's
more collegial approach to regulation, make it harder for inspectors to
force noncompliant companies to change."

"There was a dramatic shift in MSHA's philosophy in 2001, with a new
emphasis on cooperation by the enforcers," said J. Davitt McAteer, who
headed the agency under the Clinton administration, "and it came at a
cost of less enforcement of the statute."

It would be of interest to know what their specific violations were.

Even if I were to agree that such regulation and the agencies that oversee
them, were a neccessity, the facts very often show that there are examples
of over regulation. That is where the Republicans would be arguing. I
simply want all such agencies abolished. Did I mention I'm not a
Republican?

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:14:28 GMT, wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
roups.com...
From:
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 19:02:51 GMT

But we ALL know that business will take care of itself ethically, yes?

Most will, some won't, that's why we need strong laws and the ability to
enforce them.

You argue, therefore, for both regulating business and for not
regulating business. Please make up your mind.

Stop twisting what I say.
I said we need stong laws and the ability to enforce them, that is not
saying that we need government agencies to control mines

Strong laws, eh? Under the libertarian canon, that's not a good
thing, is it?

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:14:28 GMT, wrote:

Naive and unrealistic thinking (at best). The coal mining areas of West
Virginia are not known for their stellar economic performance. You're
arguing that a father with two kids like you should choose not to work
at what is likely the only game in town because it isn't safe.

I'm arguing that nobody is forced to work anywhere they don't want to. If
you don't think the main employer is providing a safe workplace, tehn it is
time to move.

I guess that those coal miners in West Virginia should go work for
Hewett-Packard.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:14:28 GMT, wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
groups.com...
From:
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 19:02:51 GMT

But we ALL know that business will take care of itself ethically, yes?

Most will, some won't, that's why we need strong laws and the ability to
enforce them.

You argue, therefore, for both regulating business and for not
regulating business. Please make up your mind.

Stop twisting what I say.
I said we need stong laws and the ability to enforce them, that is not
saying that we need government agencies to control mines

Strong laws, eh? Under the libertarian canon, that's not a good
thing, is it?

If the laws are for serious crimes.
You know punishment fitting the crime.
Of course there would be a lot fewer "crimes" to have laws for. No drug
laws being just one example.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:14:28 GMT, wrote:

Naive and unrealistic thinking (at best). The coal mining areas of West
Virginia are not known for their stellar economic performance. You're
arguing that a father with two kids like you should choose not to work
at what is likely the only game in town because it isn't safe.

I'm arguing that nobody is forced to work anywhere they don't want to. If
you don't think the main employer is providing a safe workplace, tehn it
is
time to move.

I guess that those coal miners in West Virginia should go work for
Hewett-Packard.

Assuming they are qualified and HP is hiring. :-)

I reject the notion that people have to work in some place because it's all
there is.

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:29:48 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:14:28 GMT, wrote:

Naive and unrealistic thinking (at best). The coal mining areas of West
Virginia are not known for their stellar economic performance. You're
arguing that a father with two kids like you should choose not to work
at what is likely the only game in town because it isn't safe.

I'm arguing that nobody is forced to work anywhere they don't want to. If
you don't think the main employer is providing a safe workplace, tehn it
is
time to move.

I guess that those coal miners in West Virginia should go work for
Hewett-Packard.

Assuming they are qualified and HP is hiring. :-)

Maybe they could move to SoCal. I'm sure that it's simple for them to
do that.

I reject the notion that people have to work in some place because it's all
there is.

Reject it all you want. However, life isn't as simple as, "Gee, I
think I'd like to get another job".

Especially in rural West Virginia.

wrote in message
ink.net...


Assuming they are qualified and HP is hiring. :-)

I reject the notion that people have to work in some place because it's
all there is.



As jobs have dried up in the auto industry, the population of
Michigan is down about 20% in 20 years.
People migrate to where the jobs are located.
Luckily, your boy Arnie gets a disability retirement.

I remember that about 15 or 20 years ago things were bad down ib Texas, and
Texans migrated to where the jobs were. I saw lots of Texas plates
in the DC area in those several years.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

dave weil said:

I reject the notion that people have to work in some place because it's all
there is.

Reject it all you want. However, life isn't as simple as, "Gee, I
think I'd like to get another job".

You mean not everybody can move to an Aged P's spacious home? I thought
that was an American birthright.

Especially in rural West Virginia.

Mickey thinks relo expenses grow on trees, just like free medical
coverage and no-fault auto insurance.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...




Mickey thinks relo expenses grow on trees, just like free medical
coverage and no-fault auto insurance.


If the governement would put a road through their house,
there would be relocation assistance galore.
Especially if they lived in a hovel to begin with.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Signal" wrote in message
...
"dave weil" emitted :

Naive and unrealistic thinking (at best). The coal mining areas of West
Virginia are not known for their stellar economic performance. You're
arguing that a father with two kids like you should choose not to work
at what is likely the only game in town because it isn't safe.

I'm arguing that nobody is forced to work anywhere they don't want to.
If
you don't think the main employer is providing a safe workplace, tehn it
is
time to move.

I guess that those coal miners in West Virginia should go work for
Hewett-Packard.

Or they could get jobs as astronauts. Why work down the mine when you
can travel into space?


"At least" they can send a rescue team down the mine.
However, neither one has adequate ****ing facilities.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:29:48 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:14:28 GMT, wrote:

Naive and unrealistic thinking (at best). The coal mining areas of
West
Virginia are not known for their stellar economic performance. You're
arguing that a father with two kids like you should choose not to work
at what is likely the only game in town because it isn't safe.

I'm arguing that nobody is forced to work anywhere they don't want to.
If
you don't think the main employer is providing a safe workplace, tehn it
is
time to move.

I guess that those coal miners in West Virginia should go work for
Hewett-Packard.

Assuming they are qualified and HP is hiring. :-)

Maybe they could move to SoCal. I'm sure that it's simple for them to
do that.

I reject the notion that people have to work in some place because it's
all
there is.

Reject it all you want. However, life isn't as simple as, "Gee, I
think I'd like to get another job".

Especially in rural West Virginia.

Then get out.

When Boeing got ****ed on the SST it put 50% of Seattle out of work. While
I wasn't working for Boeing, I was also at that time out of work, so my ex
wife, a freind and myself pooled our money and bought a cheap truck and
loaded everything in the world we owned into that truck.
We decided that California had more job opportunity and less rain, so we
headed down the road. On the way, we stopped to see some friends who had
moved to Oregon and visited for a while. During that stay our truck caught
fire and everything we owned burned. Somehow, without public assistance or
any form of government handout of any kind, we managed to make out way to
California anyway and find employment and prosper.

So if it's harder to get out of a mining town than it was for me to get out
of Seattle and into California, it bloddy difficult, but still not
impossible.

Nobody has to work or live anywhere they don't want to.

"Signal" wrote in message
...
"dave weil" emitted :

Naive and unrealistic thinking (at best). The coal mining areas of West
Virginia are not known for their stellar economic performance. You're
arguing that a father with two kids like you should choose not to work
at what is likely the only game in town because it isn't safe.

I'm arguing that nobody is forced to work anywhere they don't want to.
If
you don't think the main employer is providing a safe workplace, tehn it
is
time to move.

I guess that those coal miners in West Virginia should go work for
Hewett-Packard.

Or they could get jobs as astronauts. Why work down the mine when you
can travel into space?


Why not? You've been in space for years.

The Bug Eater demonstrates the triumph of phreedumb in Amerika.

So if it's harder to get out of a mining town than it was for me to get out
of Seattle and into California, it bloddy difficult, but still not
impossible.

Apparently it was easier than completing junior-high English
classes......

wrote in message
ink.net...



When Boeing got ****ed on the SST it put 50% of Seattle out of work.

Boeing got saved from that potential fiasco.
Waht happened all of a sudden to your devotion to free market economics?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


The Bug Eater demonstrates the triumph of phreedumb in Amerika.

So if it's harder to get out of a mining town than it was for me to get
out
of Seattle and into California, it bloddy difficult, but still not
impossible.

Apparently it was easier than completing junior-high English
classes......


Don't blame Mikey, we all know that the light is really bad down in those
mines.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


The Bug Eater demonstrates the triumph of phreedumb in Amerika.

So if it's harder to get out of a mining town than it was for me to get
out
of Seattle and into California, it bloody difficult, but still not
impossible.

Apparently it was easier than completing junior-high English
classes......


That's all you got?
Pathetic.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...



When Boeing got ****ed on the SST it put 50% of Seattle out of work.

Boeing got saved from that potential fiasco.
Waht happened all of a sudden to your devotion to free market economics?


Nothing, I just excercised my freedom and moved.
I didn't have time enough to wait.

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:58:35 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:29:48 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:14:28 GMT, wrote:

Naive and unrealistic thinking (at best). The coal mining areas of
West
Virginia are not known for their stellar economic performance. You're
arguing that a father with two kids like you should choose not to work
at what is likely the only game in town because it isn't safe.

I'm arguing that nobody is forced to work anywhere they don't want to.
If
you don't think the main employer is providing a safe workplace, tehn it
is
time to move.

I guess that those coal miners in West Virginia should go work for
Hewett-Packard.

Assuming they are qualified and HP is hiring. :-)

Maybe they could move to SoCal. I'm sure that it's simple for them to
do that.

I reject the notion that people have to work in some place because it's
all
there is.

Reject it all you want. However, life isn't as simple as, "Gee, I
think I'd like to get another job".

Especially in rural West Virginia.

Then get out.

When Boeing got ****ed on the SST it put 50% of Seattle out of work. While
I wasn't working for Boeing, I was also at that time out of work, so my ex
wife, a freind and myself pooled our money and bought a cheap truck and
loaded everything in the world we owned into that truck.
We decided that California had more job opportunity and less rain, so we
headed down the road. On the way, we stopped to see some friends who had
moved to Oregon and visited for a while. During that stay our truck caught
fire and everything we owned burned. Somehow, without public assistance or
any form of government handout of any kind, we managed to make out way to
California anyway and find employment and prosper.

Gee, are you comparing working in a coal mine to working in a white
collar job in Seattle? Or were you digging ditches at the time?

Obviously, you had a tidy little nest egg working for you if you could
afford an extended vacation while you were "looking for work".
Apparently you didn't have 4 kids either. Are you also saying that
while you were unemployed before you left for sunnier climes, you
didn't get unemployment assistance at all during that time? Also, how
old were you at the time? Sounds like you were quite young. It's a
little more difficult for a guy who's been doing the same job for 20
years to just "pick up his family and move".

Sure, anyone can do anything at any time. Should I criticize you for
not being as rich as one of your contemporaries? Hell, Bill Gates did
it, why can't you? And he did it in a community in the SAME community
where you couldn't make it.

So if it's harder to get out of a mining town than it was for me to get out
of Seattle and into California, it bloddy difficult, but still not
impossible.

No, it's not "impossible", but some people try to make a living where
their ancestors have established roots. This sense of community is a
glue that is a benefit to this country.

Nobody has to work or live anywhere they don't want to.

If you want to continue to get your energy and your consumer goods,
you should be glad that some live and work in WVa.

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...



When Boeing got ****ed on the SST it put 50% of Seattle out of work.

Boeing got saved from that potential fiasco.
Waht happened all of a sudden to your devotion to free market economics?


Nothing, I just excercised my freedom and moved.
I didn't have time enough to wait.



Wait a minute!
You said Boeing got ****ed.
What Boeing got ****ed out of, was government subsidies to
buiild a commercial SST.
Now, ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.in light of your
free market economic beliefs.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

From: - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:58:35 GMT

So if it's harder to get out of a mining town than it was for me to get out
of Seattle and into California, it bloddy difficult, but still not
impossible.

Gonna tell a little story 'bout a man named 'Nob'
Livin' in Seattle but he couldn't find a job
"Only one thing we can do," thought Nobber's family
So they loaded up their truck and they moved to Beverly
(Hills, that is. Streets of gold. Private property)

The next thing you know old Nob's a millionaire
When it comes to tax-time he is not willing to share
"And keepin' all my money now it really ain't no sin"
"And even though I sound like one I'm no republican."
(Dumb, that is. Lack of brains. Jethro Bodine)

Nob and his mrs. chose to raise a couple young 'uns
Those chips fell right off the block, they're really quite the dumb
ones
"Ain't gonna raise my junior now to be a tree hugger"
"Since science says we can pollute and pump **** in the air"
(Junk science, that is. Propaganda. Crackpots.)

(Cue Flatt and Scruggs banjo music)

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...



When Boeing got ****ed on the SST it put 50% of Seattle out of work.

Boeing got saved from that potential fiasco.
Waht happened all of a sudden to your devotion to free market economics?


Nothing, I just excercised my freedom and moved.
I didn't have time enough to wait.



Wait a minute!
You said Boeing got ****ed.
What Boeing got ****ed out of, was government subsidies to
buiild a commercial SST.
Now, ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.in light of your
free market economic beliefs.


What's to address? I had no control over who the government spends money on
and I'm solidly opposed to it.

I mean they got ****ed because they were promised the money to do the
research, (something I oppose, but a deal is a deal) then it was withdrawn,
not because the project was not going well, but because of the worry about
"noise pollution."
If you're going to stop the subsidies, it ought to be for a rational and
verifiable reason, not a made up one.

I suppose you could also rationalize it by noting that any information that
came from the research funded by those subsidies might be applicable to
military uses, but I don't know, and it still is funding that I oppose.

I could also rationalize further by pointing out many people were being
employed and paying taxes back and once the project was finished (had it
been allowed to) there would be people employed and paying taxes from wages
and from their spending, not to mention the taxes collected on sales of the
aircraft, had they ever gotten built. Still companies ought to do their own
research financed from their own money.

Certainly I don't want government spending money in such a way, the aircraft
companies should do research on their own dime. The system that allowed
them to receive the subsidies was already in place and there was nothing I
could do about, other than oppose it.

No matter how much I oppose it and would not allow it under the system I
advocate, the fact is it was being done and then the funds cut off and the
result was disastrous for the people of Seattle.

They were actually getting aid from their "sister city" Kobe, Japan. It was
like the Depression, only localized.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:58:35 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:29:48 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:14:28 GMT, wrote:

Naive and unrealistic thinking (at best). The coal mining areas of
West
Virginia are not known for their stellar economic performance.
You're
arguing that a father with two kids like you should choose not to
work
at what is likely the only game in town because it isn't safe.

I'm arguing that nobody is forced to work anywhere they don't want to.
If
you don't think the main employer is providing a safe workplace, tehn
it
is
time to move.

I guess that those coal miners in West Virginia should go work for
Hewett-Packard.

Assuming they are qualified and HP is hiring. :-)

Maybe they could move to SoCal. I'm sure that it's simple for them to
do that.

I reject the notion that people have to work in some place because it's
all
there is.

Reject it all you want. However, life isn't as simple as, "Gee, I
think I'd like to get another job".

Especially in rural West Virginia.

Then get out.

When Boeing got ****ed on the SST it put 50% of Seattle out of work.
While
I wasn't working for Boeing, I was also at that time out of work, so my ex
wife, a freind and myself pooled our money and bought a cheap truck and
loaded everything in the world we owned into that truck.
We decided that California had more job opportunity and less rain, so we
headed down the road. On the way, we stopped to see some friends who had
moved to Oregon and visited for a while. During that stay our truck
caught
fire and everything we owned burned. Somehow, without public assistance
or
any form of government handout of any kind, we managed to make out way to
California anyway and find employment and prosper.

Gee, are you comparing working in a coal mine to working in a white
collar job in Seattle? Or were you digging ditches at the time?

There's a whole range of things between white collar and ditch digging.

Obviously, you had a tidy little nest egg working for you if you could
afford an extended vacation while you were "looking for work".

We had about 300 bucks some saved some borrowed.

Apparently you didn't have 4 kids either.

No, but that's a choice people make. If they're going to make it, they
ought to be better able to provide for a family that being a miner if it's
that dangerous.

Are you also saying that
while you were unemployed before you left for sunnier climes, you
didn't get unemployment assistance at all during that time?

That's exactly right.

Also, how
old were you at the time? Sounds like you were quite young. It's a
little more difficult for a guy who's been doing the same job for 20
years to just "pick up his family and move".

But not impossible. I don't know what it pays to be a miner, but I assume
it's decent. The housing costs have to be less. The overall cost of living
I'm confident is less than in Seattle, which aside from the lower property
costs in those days, has always had a pretty high cost of living.

Sure, anyone can do anything at any time.

No, but they can plan. They can make sure they get the educatin and/or
training need for a better life if mine work is not appealing.

Should I criticize you for
not being as rich as one of your contemporaries? Hell, Bill Gates did
it, why can't you? And he did it in a community in the SAME community
where you couldn't make it.

It's probably part of the reasaon he was able to set up in Washington State,
somewhat later.
I never would argue that everybody is equal in ability, or everyone would be
Bill Gates.
That doesn't mean the average person can't plan and build for the future.

So if it's harder to get out of a mining town than it was for me to get
out
of Seattle and into California, it bloddy difficult, but still not
impossible.

No, it's not "impossible", but some people try to make a living where
their ancestors have established roots. This sense of community is a
glue that is a benefit to this country.


An opinion yu get to have. I see anything that people do that holds them
back from providing the best possible life for themselves and their family,
is not a benefit.

Nobody has to work or live anywhere they don't want to.

If you want to continue to get your energy and your consumer goods,
you should be glad that some live and work in WVa.

I'm not sayijng they shouldn't work there, but they should know what they
are doing and what the risks are. That much is expected from anyone who
wants to do more than just survive.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From: - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:58:35 GMT

So if it's harder to get out of a mining town than it was for me to get
out
of Seattle and into California, it bloddy difficult, but still not
impossible.

Gonna tell a little story 'bout a man named 'Nob'
Livin' in Seattle but he couldn't find a job
"Only one thing we can do," thought Nobber's family
So they loaded up their truck and they moved to Beverly
(Hills, that is. Streets of gold. Private property)

The next thing you know old Nob's a millionaire
When it comes to tax-time he is not willing to share
"And keepin' all my money now it really ain't no sin"
"And even though I sound like one I'm no republican."
(Dumb, that is. Lack of brains. Jethro Bodine)

Nob and his mrs. chose to raise a couple young 'uns
Those chips fell right off the block, they're really quite the dumb
ones
"Ain't gonna raise my junior now to be a tree hugger"
"Since science says we can pollute and pump **** in the air"
(Junk science, that is. Propaganda. Crackpots.)

(Cue Flatt and Scruggs banjo music)

At least you're consistent, even when you rhyme, you lie.

wrote in message
ink.net...


Wait a minute!
You said Boeing got ****ed.
What Boeing got ****ed out of, was government subsidies to
buiild a commercial SST.
Now, ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.in light of your
free market economic beliefs.


What's to address? I had no control over who the government spends money
on and I'm solidly opposed to it.

I mean they got ****ed because they were promised the money to do the
research, (something I oppose, but a deal is a deal) then it was
withdrawn, not because the project was not going well, but because of the
worry about "noise pollution."
If you're going to stop the subsidies, it ought to be for a rational and
verifiable reason, not a made up one.


A subsidy that you agree never should have been


I suppose you could also rationalize it by noting that any information
that came from the research funded by those subsidies might be applicable
to military uses, but I don't know, and it still is funding that I oppose.


Yes, that would be quite a rationalization!
backwards applicabiity.



I could also rationalize further by pointing out many people were being
employed and paying taxes back and once the project was finished (had it
been allowed to) there would be people employed and paying taxes from
wages and from their spending, not to mention the taxes collected on sales
of the aircraft, had they ever gotten built. Still companies ought to do
their own research financed from their own money.


That is exactly the same rationalization used by the developmemt
authority condemnin Kelo.


Certainly I don't want government spending money in such a way, the
aircraft companies should do research on their own dime. The system that
allowed them to receive the subsidies was already in place and there was
nothing I could do about, other than oppose it.

No matter how much I oppose it and would not allow it under the system I
advocate, the fact is it was being done and then the funds cut off and the
result was disastrous for the people of Seattle.


You are advocating a corporate and civic welfare subsidy.





--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

From:
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 21:08:00 GMT

At least you're consistent, even when you rhyme, you lie.

Nob, I hold absolutely no illusions that you are a millionaire. You
aren't capable of grasping even simple concepts. Without exception, the
many millionaires that I know well or have met can. My guess would be
that you're someone in the hourly-wage manual labor field.

I also would not believe that you live in Beverly Hills. See above.

Those weren't lies. Those were taking artistic license.

The rest is undeniably true.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

Gonna tell a little story 'bout a man named 'Nob'
Livin' in Seattle but he couldn't find a job
"Only one thing we can do," thought Nobber's family
So they loaded up their truck and they moved to Beverly
(Hills, that is. Streets of gold. Private property)

The next thing you know old Nob's a millionaire
When it comes to tax-time he is not willing to share
"And keepin' all my money now it really ain't no sin"
"And even though I sound like one I'm no republican."
(Dumb, that is. Lack of brains. Jethro Bodine)

Nob and his mrs. chose to raise a couple young 'uns
Those chips fell right off the block, they're really quite the dumb
ones
"Ain't gonna raise my junior now to be a tree hugger"
"Since science says we can pollute and pump **** in the air"
(Junk science, that is. Propaganda. Crackpots.)

(Cue Flatt and Scruggs banjo music)

Clap clap clap 8)

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:58:35 GMT, wrote:


When Boeing got ****ed on the SST it put 50% of Seattle out of work. While
I wasn't working for Boeing, I was also at that time out of work, so my ex
wife, a freind and myself pooled our money and bought a cheap truck and
loaded everything in the world we owned into that truck.
We decided that California had more job opportunity and less rain, so we
headed down the road. On the way, we stopped to see some friends who had
moved to Oregon and visited for a while. During that stay our truck caught
fire and everything we owned burned. Somehow, without public assistance or
any form of government handout of any kind, we managed to make out way to
California anyway and find employment and prosper.

Try any Grapes Of Wrath on the way? They're quite good, I hear. :-)

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...


Wait a minute!
You said Boeing got ****ed.
What Boeing got ****ed out of, was government subsidies to
buiild a commercial SST.
Now, ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.in light of your
free market economic beliefs.


What's to address? I had no control over who the government spends money
on and I'm solidly opposed to it.

I mean they got ****ed because they were promised the money to do the
research, (something I oppose, but a deal is a deal) then it was
withdrawn, not because the project was not going well, but because of the
worry about "noise pollution."
If you're going to stop the subsidies, it ought to be for a rational and
verifiable reason, not a made up one.


A subsidy that you agree never should have been


I suppose you could also rationalize it by noting that any information
that came from the research funded by those subsidies might be applicable
to military uses, but I don't know, and it still is funding that I
oppose.


Yes, that would be quite a rationalization!
backwards applicabiity.



I could also rationalize further by pointing out many people were being
employed and paying taxes back and once the project was finished (had it
been allowed to) there would be people employed and paying taxes from
wages and from their spending, not to mention the taxes collected on
sales of the aircraft, had they ever gotten built. Still companies ought
to do their own research financed from their own money.


That is exactly the same rationalization used by the developmemt
authority condemnin Kelo.


Certainly I don't want government spending money in such a way, the
aircraft companies should do research on their own dime. The system that
allowed them to receive the subsidies was already in place and there was
nothing I could do about, other than oppose it.

No matter how much I oppose it and would not allow it under the system I
advocate, the fact is it was being done and then the funds cut off and
the result was disastrous for the people of Seattle.


You are advocating a corporate and civic welfare subsidy.




I'm ADVOCATING nothing of the sort. I stated many times that I am opposed
to government funding of anything other than the areas involved in
protecting individual rights.

I explained that those are some of the rationizations that could be used by
people wanting to justify the subsidy, but that I am and have been opposed
for years.