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...

"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

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

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.

"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

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

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

"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 =---

"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 =---

"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.

"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
=---

"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 =---

"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.

"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

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 =---

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

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

"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 =---

"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 =---

"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 =---

"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 =---

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

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

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

"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.

"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 =---

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

"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

"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 =---

"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 =---

"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 =---

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

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

"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 =---

"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 =---

"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

On 25 Feb 2004 12:21:28 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

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.

Which is a good explanation for not using the helicopter.
Plans were made that required a plane and there was little time
to change them and make other arrangements.

Yes, that explains why they had to scedule the trip while the carrier
was further out than the 250 or so miles that would be close to the
maximim range of a Blackhawk. I guess that there was some sort of
suspense involved, right?

Argue all you want, but they *wanted* that jet for publicity purposes,
pure and simple. It had nothing to do with the logistics of helicopter
travel.