OT: Red States to Secede

Charles W. Johson Jr. · Jan 11, 2005

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote in
message news:6m86u01v6l2vij3323p08alih13i5cc73e@4ax.com...

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:31:40 -0700, Dirk Gently <drk_gently@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:16:02 -0700, Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com
wrote:
Other posts remain to be filled

Marion Barry will be the drug czar!

Ted Kennedy in charge of highway safety.

John

Bill Clinton as Attorny General for Womens affairs.

Charles

JeffM · Jan 15, 2005

The Democratic party is now the party of the rich.
John Larkin

Since Reagan killed off the FCC's Fairness Clause,
you have to be rich to mount an effective campaign in the 1st place;
corporate media sure won't give you air time for free
--unless you're Gov. Musclehead.

JeffM · Jan 16, 2005

Since the "Fairness Clause" was never in any way "fair"
Keith Williams

It was better than what we have now.

you have to be rich to mount an effective campaign in the 1st place
JeffM

Clinton wasn't rich. Carter wasn't rich...Bush [isn't rich]

No, but their parties were

--and all other parties were largely locked out of the process.

either.

Shoot. I thought you were using a new word I could learn.

Do you think you're somehow owed something?

As an equal owner of the airwaves (with all other Americans), yes I do.

Any candidate who can demonstrate support above a specified threshold
should get an equal chance to be heard in the market of ideas.
The current number of TeeVee channels or anything else is irrelevant.

gwhite · Jan 17, 2005

Winfield Hill wrote:

Ross Mac wrote...

That's an interesting statement (soviet national anthem) since the "blue
states" believe in a political philosophy that boarders on socialism????

Totally false, and a gratuitous smear on half the country.

It's sometimes difficult to give someone a pointer on where to start, but
perhaps this is as good as any:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0761501657/

There are, without any serious question, socialist roots to much of the left's
political platform. The American left does not embrace the "hot" socialism of
the soviets, but certainly it does embrace "cold" socialism. Hiding socialism
under the guise of the welfare state, hidden taxes, and the regulation of every
affair imaginable does not make a spade anything other than a spade.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." -- someone

Fred Bloggs · Jan 17, 2005

gwhite wrote:

Winfield Hill wrote:

Ross Mac wrote...

That's an interesting statement (soviet national anthem) since the "blue
states" believe in a political philosophy that boarders on socialism????

Totally false, and a gratuitous smear on half the country.

It's sometimes difficult to give someone a pointer on where to start, but
perhaps this is as good as any:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0761501657/

There are, without any serious question, socialist roots to much of the left's
political platform. The American left does not embrace the "hot" socialism of
the soviets, but certainly it does embrace "cold" socialism. Hiding socialism
under the guise of the welfare state, hidden taxes, and the regulation of every
affair imaginable does not make a spade anything other than a spade.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." -- someone

I notice you ignorant jerk offs have no problem with federal economic
subsidies to red state industries which exceed that of the blue states.
And you would be right- that is not socialism- it IS welfare. You
*things* make me sick- try to understand the meaning of rationalization
and then realize you should just shut the hell up.

Paweber02 · Jan 18, 2005

Strange. The 'red' states are net recipients of federal subsidies.

Stranger yet: The 'blue' states are net importers of food, fuel, underwear,
hats, concrete, etc. So: Without your money, we'll eat our wheat, beef, beer,
and Twinkies. You'll eat....superior philosophy? How long do you think that
will last? (Karl Marx discussed this issue at length...and got it exactly
backwards.)

jason · Jan 19, 2005

"gwhite" <gwhite@deadend.com> wrote in message
news:41EC0DE4.52CDD7E2@deadend.com...

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." -- someone

You wanna walk a road in Hell? Go to Iraq.

Ross Mac · Jan 13, 2005

"Ross Mac" <this.is.a.mung@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:zJadnT3mM_6SnHrcRVn-jA@comcast.com...

"Winfield Hill" <hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote in
message news:cs6to002cpm@drn.newsguy.com...
Ross Mac wrote...

That's an interesting statement (soviet national anthem) since the "blue
states" believe in a political philosophy that boarders on socialism????

Totally false, and a gratuitous smear on half the country.

Just an observation not a personal attack....

Right.

--
Thanks,
- Win

Well....explain your comment....all you provided was rhetoric and hey...I
was not trying to troll Paul just was making an observation....
But as they say...don't discuss politics or religion with friends and
family....I guess we could add NG's to that too...Have a great one
Win....Ross

Just one other comment....You said "Half the Country"...well, if that was
the case we would have a different president.....????????

jason · Jan 20, 2005

"John Larkin" <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote in
message news

7mru05nht8buj0jdeh0netpduk5bvpiv6@4ax.com...

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:38:04 -0500, "Ross Mac"
this.is.a.mung@example.invalid> wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world,
those who understand binary and those who don't.
I guess this has become a discussion of the difference between what is
called corporate welfare and individual welfare. IMO socialism is tied
much
more toward individual welfare. The intent of corporate welfare is to
improve business which provides jobs and opportunities to the individuals.
I
still think it is a bit of a stretch to claim a political party that is
pro
business is socialist...but, to each their own opinion....Ross my .02

It is pure newspeak to refer to a reduction in taxation or regulation
as "corporate welfare." Welfare is when government transfers net funds
to an entity in exchange for nothing. A reduction in taxation is just
that, a somewhat reduced flow of funds from a productive entity to
government.

If my company gets a tax credit for hiring people or investing in
equipment, that's not welfare; that's just slightly less taxation.

John

"Welfare is when government transfers net funds to an entity in exchange for
nothing."
What a nebulous definition! "In exchange for nothing...."
Welfare for individuals is society's way of supporting people who enter
"tough times." Whether that be through unforeseen tragedies, medical
expenses, bad investments, etc., it is a way for people to get by until they
can get back on their feet. And when children are involved, it seems only
civilized. The New Deal pulled tens of thousands of families out of
poverty - ironically, many of whose ancestors today cry for an end to social
programs which helped their own grandparents survive.

Corporate welfare vs. individual welfare - each has a benefit to society.
Yes, corporate welfare can help a businesss entity stay in business, provide
more jobs through expansion, etc. And yes, individual welfare can help
people get by until they can land a better paying job or pay off extreme
debts.
And yes, both can be abused.
But I submit that it is coporoate welfare that should justify itself - the
benefits to society - just as much as individual welfare must justify it's
benefits to society.
However, I rarely see ANY examples in the media of corporate welfare abuses
or inefficiencies. Representatives just come out and say "it creates jobs,"
and that is the end of that story, with rarely, if any, "empirical evidence"
to support that claim. (Don't conservatives just love that word
"empirical"?)
Unfortunately, families and individuals who need food stamps and other
welfare programs rarely have the means to hire Hill & Knowlton or other
public relations firms to represent them in the media.
That is why people walk down the street thinking welfare mothers are lazy
kid-popping drug addicts and corporate welfare helps create jobs.

Any capitalist society needs corporate welfare - otherwise the economy would
be too unstable.
Any capitalist society needs individual welfare - otherwise there would be
people starving in the streets, and massive public health problems.

It is just a matter of compassion and civilization. I am always amazed how
right-wingers use phrases such as "bleeding-heart liberal" and "johnny
do-gooder," and yet go to church every Sunday, AND LET EVERYBODY KNOW that
they go to church on Sunday.
Wasn't Jesus a bleeding heart liberal? Isn't there an order of the sacred
heart which shows Jesus's heart bleeding?
What is wrong with trying to do good?
And didn't Jesus say to pray alone, in private, that it is uncouth to show
off your piety?

John Larkin · Jan 20, 2005

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 06:16:41 -0600, "jason" <jpop@carrollsweb.com>
wrote:

Any capitalist society needs corporate welfare - otherwise the economy would
be too unstable.

It does not. All it needs is a vigorous free market and
less-then-crushing levels of taxation. Competition will take care of
the rest.

John

Spehro Pefhany · Jan 20, 2005

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 08:52:42 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
<jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:43:07 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:28:00 -0500, Chuck Harris
cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

John, Don't waste your breath. Leftists just can not cope with the
concept that LESS taxes is a GOOD thing. Leftists throw up this
"corporate welfare" BS to confuse the masses... the masses who have NO
CLUE what it really is to PAY massive taxes... the masses who have NO
CLUE that it is THEY who are on welfare.

...Jim Thompson

It is really quite simple: If I pay more taxes, so you can pay less,
I am paying your way, and you are on welfare.

-Chuck

Yup. Just what I said. I'd just like to pay LESS of your way.

I pray for tax reform... but I doubt that it will ever happen... the
leftists won't allow anything that approaches fair taxation.

...Jim Thompson

The only rational taxation is a universal sales tax, with exemptions
for basics.

Screw the exemptions for "basics" (that's the politically easier
route, however). Give people money if they need it. The exemptions
cause a LOT of complexity with a reasonable VAT/GST type system
because of the way input tax credits have to be handled. AFAIK no
country has been able to do that (politically) at a useful tax rate.

That would reduce the huge disadvantage that domestic
manufacturers/employers face.

Income tax is a job-destroying machine.
John

*Replacing* IT with a GST/VAT at a reasonable rate would be nothing
short of revolutionary. Estate taxes should probably be jacked up
(make it easier to make money in this generation rather than
accumulate it over many), but that's another story.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Spehro Pefhany · Jan 20, 2005

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:11:33 +0000, the renowned John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHIS
landPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote (in <rlnvu0lqmbtaoe6n0fftb3kh31mdhkv0de@
4ax.com&gt about 'OT: Red States to Secede', on Thu, 20 Jan 2005:

Even simpler: if I pay taxes, and you don't, and we both receive
benefits, you are on welfare.

It sounds OK initially, but then what to make of these big corporations
that pay minute amounts in tax? How do they fit in?

Like the farm that pays some tax, but receives massive subsidies on
its products.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

John Woodgate · Jan 20, 2005

I read in sci.electronics.design that Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlog
DOTyou.knowwhat> wrote (in <njuvu0phnsidrgrmtuo6ioq17q47oc7gl9@4ax.com&gt

about 'OT: Red States to Secede', on Thu, 20 Jan 2005:

That's the kind of logic that has governments subsidizing "dead man
walking" corporations just to keep the employment going. Even if they
just break even or perhaps lose a bit (there are other businesses in the
area affected etc. etc. ad nauseam. Bad economics.

Yes. In UK, we regard that as associated with 'Old Labour' - keeping
lame ducks going to appease the trade-union bank-rollers.

Recently, there seems to have been a 'sub rosa' intervention policy, to
lean on large but ailing companies with a view to avoiding ultimate
collapse by pre-crisis intervention. Naturally, no-one will admit it: it
wouldn't be 'cricket' for a civil servant to mention to a prominent
board member that the CEO was regarded in the corridors of power as a
wally.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

Jim Thompson · Jan 20, 2005

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:11:33 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHIS
landPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote (in <rlnvu0lqmbtaoe6n0fftb3kh31mdhkv0de@
4ax.com&gt about 'OT: Red States to Secede', on Thu, 20 Jan 2005:

Even simpler: if I pay taxes, and you don't, and we both receive
benefits, you are on welfare.

It sounds OK initially, but then what to make of these big corporations
that pay minute amounts in tax? How do they fit in?

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

gwhite · Jan 20, 2005

jason wrote:

The New Deal pulled tens of thousands of families out of
poverty -

Completely ridiculous. The New Deal is the Raw Deal.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0761501657/

Of course, Hoover gave FDR a nice running start with all his idiotic actions.

I don't know why the left hates Bush. Like FDR, he gave them war and more
socialist programs like the prescription drug benefit. He drove up the deficit,
just like FDR.

If Bush would just raise taxes and drive up unemployment we'd have another FDR
hero on our hands. I almost forgot that FDR cozied up to Stalin, but Bush
knocked down a dictator instead. So much justified hate for Bush. Given the
left's hero FDR, I can't understand the measure of hate for Bush when the two
are compared. LOL (Hey dumbasses: I didn't vote for Bush.)

John Larkin · Jan 20, 2005

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:39:25 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:27:07 -0800, the renowned Charles Edmondson
edmondson@ieee.org> wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:11:33 +0000, the renowned John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHIS
landPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote (in <rlnvu0lqmbtaoe6n0fftb3kh31mdhkv0de@
4ax.com&gt about 'OT: Red States to Secede', on Thu, 20 Jan 2005:

Even simpler: if I pay taxes, and you don't, and we both receive
benefits, you are on welfare.

It sounds OK initially, but then what to make of these big corporations
that pay minute amounts in tax? How do they fit in?

Like the farm that pays some tax, but receives massive subsidies on
its products.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
Because that corporation employs thousands of persons whoe EACH pay taxes...

and issues dividends to stockholders who EACH pay taxes...

They get their cut, eventually!
Charlie

That's the kind of logic that has governments subsidizing "dead man
walking" corporations just to keep the employment going. Even if they
just break even or perhaps lose a bit (there are other businesses in
the area affected etc. etc. ad nauseam. Bad economics.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Simple fix: neither subsidize nor tax corporations.

John

Spehro Pefhany · Jan 20, 2005

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:50:07 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

Simple fix: neither subsidize nor tax corporations.
John

Works for me! But who would contribute to election campaigns if there
were no money to fight over?

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

OT: Red States to Secede

Charles W. Johson Jr.

Guest

JeffM

Guest

JeffM

Guest

gwhite

Guest

Fred Bloggs

Guest

Paweber02

Guest

jason

Guest

Ross Mac

Guest

jason

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Spehro Pefhany

Guest

Spehro Pefhany

Guest

John Woodgate

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

gwhite

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Spehro Pefhany

Guest

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Online statistics

Forum statistics

OT: Red States to Secede

Charles W. Johson Jr.

Guest

JeffM

Guest

JeffM

Guest

gwhite

Guest

Fred Bloggs

Guest

Paweber02

Guest

jason

Guest

Ross Mac

Guest

jason

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Spehro Pefhany

Guest

Spehro Pefhany

Guest

John Woodgate

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

gwhite

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Spehro Pefhany

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor