FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-12-2008, 12:19 AM
Mark Allums
 
Default

Paul Johnson wrote:
>>> Health care would be a big one.
>> And taxes are much lower here, and the torte system so different,
>> and people so much more eager to sue.
>
> Depends on the country. In France, they pay less taxes, and with
those taxes they get college and healthcare at no extra charge. We
coulda done that ourselves over the last 8 years if the conservatives
didn't think it to be more productive to flush it down the war...


Don't say conservatives. True conservatives were against the war. Say
"neocons".




Mark Allums


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 04-12-2008, 01:22 AM
Paul Johnson
 
Default

On Friday 11 April 2008 01:40:05 pm Damon L. Chesser wrote:

> The fact that China is sucking up all the oil they can buy on the free
> market has nothing to do with $100/barrel, does it?

You are confusing correlation with causation. China's been industrializing
for the last 20 years now. Oil has been reasonably stable in price over that
period except for the last 7 years. Iraq is one of the major oil producing
nations, and we attacked them about 7 years ago and only now is oil
production there even beginning to climb back towards pre-war levels.
Certainly, China's use is a factor in this, but nowhere to the degree that
the US leading the world in oil consumption and Iraq prior to the war being
something like the second most productive oil producing nation.

> Perhaps if we passed a law stating you can not sell oil for more then
> $50/barrel, everything would be good?

That just violates basic economic principals, setting the price below the
balance of supply and demand, especially given we're talking about an
international commodities market and thus don't have the aboslute authority
to make such a move possible. It can and ought to be solved by taxing the
everlasting crap out of excess profits, though: Petroleum companies have
been posting profits increasing at a rate nearly twice that of the price of
oil. There is precident for taxing excessive profit in the US during World
War II, and the economy was better off for it. Then again, another thing
that was different about WWII, back then it was a felony to make a profit off
the war.

> At some point in time you will know Ron is right

Ron's right when he sticks to Debian, and very rarely any other time from my
experience reading this list.

> and Peace and Love WILL break out (just like it did when The Wall came down
> and our military was no longer needed in the ensuing lack of war and
> destruction)

Comments like that make me wonder if neoconservatives remember history, or if
they're trying to doom us all to repeat it.

You wrongly assume that we did anything like the Marshall Plan at the end of
the Iraq War proper. The current administration deemed anything resembling
the Marshall Plan for Iraq to be "Cut and Run." Instead, we ship contractors
in from outside Iraq to handle everything rather than hire the locals,
leading to 75% unemployment and an utter collapse of the middle class as
roughly 40% of it fled the country, and massive cost overruns for us. If
Truman had decided to continue occupying Germany indefinitely and sent
Americans in to rebuild Germany instead of going with the Marshall Plan, it's
very likely Berlin and Hamburg by 1953 would be a lot like Baghdad and Basra
are today and every major city within a week's drive outside Germany would
have a German enclave.

As for all hell not breaking loose post USSR, that's probably having more to
do with the concept that the Soviets didn't have a cultural need to go
eye-for-an-eye, which is why the Afghans and bin Laden when he was on the US
payroll handed the Soviets their own asses in the 80s. It's too bad we
didn't learn our lesson about what happens when you pay terrible people to do
your bidding: We're repeating it now by paying what's left of the opposition
not to shoot at us in Iraq.

--
Paul Johnson
baloo@ursine.ca
 
Old 04-12-2008, 01:37 AM
"Douglas A. Tutty"
 
Default

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 06:22:10PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:

> That just violates basic economic principals, setting the price below the
> balance of supply and demand, especially given we're talking about an
> international commodities market and thus don't have the aboslute authority
> to make such a move possible. It can and ought to be solved by taxing the
> everlasting crap out of excess profits, though: Petroleum companies have
> been posting profits increasing at a rate nearly twice that of the price of
> oil. There is precident for taxing excessive profit in the US during World
> War II, and the economy was better off for it. Then again, another thing
> that was different about WWII, back then it was a felony to make a profit off
> the war.

Considering that the proponents of the war are Oil men, and that the
price of oil goes up every time doubYa farts, he has a vested interest
in keeping the middle-east unstable.


Personally, I don't have a problem with a high pump-price. Look at the
nice efficient cars and great public transit they have in Europe.
However, I'd rather that happen through taxes that get targeted back at
environmental improvement (the way tobacco tax both discourages use and
helps fund health care).

If only Canada had a nice place to dump spent nuclear fuel the way China
has Tibet... Canada should annex Texas!

Then there's the oil sands: thousands of square miles of boreal forest
dug up for an open-pit mine.

Doug.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 04-12-2008, 01:40 AM
Paul Johnson
 
Default

On Friday 11 April 2008 02:01:43 pm Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 04/11/08 15:19, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Friday 11 April 2008 08:17:56 am Ron Johnson wrote:
> >> On 04/11/08 10:03, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >>> Depends on the country. In France, they pay less taxes, and with those
> >>> taxes they get college and healthcare at no extra charge.
> >>
> >> And labor unions so stifling they create 25% unemployment among
> >> young people.
> >
> > The labor movement is not a bad thing. Once you do get a job, you get
> > paid a family living wage with decent benefits. We once had the same
> > thing in the US, and the American middle class was far and away better
> > off then, than we are now.
>
> Sure, back in the generation following WW2 when the US economy
> dominated the world.
>
> The big reason why so much manufacturing has fled the US is because
> unions and liberals are just as short-sighted and selfish as
> business owners.

Tell that to the labor union-dominated EU and Canada, they're kicking ass at
our expense, and they're not cheaper than us...

> > > We coulda done
> > > that
> >>>
> >>> ourselves
> >>
> >> Sure, and pigs could fly out my arse if I pushed hard enough. Got
> >> any more fantasies?
> >
> > We're talking about $12 billion every month. That's a shit-ton of money
> > by any standard, and it's not like it's going to productive use the way
> > it's currently being spent.
>
> The money's not being taken out back and tossed in the incinerator.
> Someone's getting the money.

Right, and they're not spending it back out. Trickle-down economics fail to
take into account the rich spend only a small fraction of their money. We
ought to repeal all the tax cuts going back to Reagan (so you pay SSI on
every dollar you make, not just the first $91,000 per year, and the highest
income tax bracket, affecting the top 2% of income earners, is set at 71%
like it was for decades prior to Reagan) so we can cover the cost of this
occupation, which is estimated to double the existing national deficiet by
the time it's over if we don't do something about it now. Eliminating all
corporate tax breaks would be a good idea, as well: After World War II,
corporations accounted for nearly 40% of US tax revenue, today it's less than
5%.

> >>> over the last 8 years if the conservatives didn't think it to
> >>> be more productive to flush it down the war...
> >>
> >> Clinton didn't do it, so what makes you think that Gore or JFK would
> >> have done it?
> >
> > Probably because FDR did it last time we were this fucked.
>
> FDR implemented universal health care?

No, but the British did at that time, and the British were far and away much
worse off economically after world war II than we have ever been. The
British didn't even have basic infrastructure left, and one of the first
things they did after the war was give everybody healthcare.

And Bush implemented universal healthcare, so he's clearly hypocritical on the
subject: America's idea of national healthcare is that every man, woman and
child in Iraq's borders gets healthcare on our dime. If we're so generous
that we can provide healthcare for everybody in some other country that
doesn't pay us any taxes, why can't we be so generous as to do the same for
ourselves as a country? As it stands now, only about half of Americans can
afford health insurance, and playing the law of averages even those who do
have health insurance will discover they're turned down and forced into
financial ruin over medical expenses if they ever claim anything more severe
than an afternoon in the ER or routine checkup. Remember, the operating
principal behind any insurance provider is to collect the premium and find
any way you can to weasel your way out of ever paying anything out.

Just because
> > he's dead now doesn't mean he didn't have good ideas that worked wonders,
> > contrary to what Rush thinks.
>
> Why do we care what an aging art-rock band thinks?

Wrong Rush. I'm talking about the hypocritical blowhard on EIB, who by his
own admission should be lynched.

--
Paul Johnson
baloo@ursine.ca
 
Old 04-12-2008, 02:01 AM
Paul Johnson
 
Default

On Friday 11 April 2008 01:33:00 pm Damon L. Chesser wrote:

> It does? News to me. Again, study your history, longest un-interrupted
> economic growth in the history of the US.

Reagan was still starring in movies or acting as the president of the labor
union he was a member of during much of the boom of which you speak
(1945-1975). Looking at all the GDP data for the US I could find poking
around BEA's website, GDP grew slower post 1981. Total US exports levelled
off entirely during the Reagan years while imports continued to grow.
Private domestic investments declined while personal consumption expenditures
continued to grow. The Dollar is now managing to hit record lows against
foreign currencies, breaking the lows we set in the Reagan years. This is
all public record over at bea.gov.

So if you're going to pin the longest uninterrupted period of economic growth
in American history on Ronald Reagan, you should attribute it to him as Host
of General Electric Theater, not to him as President of the USA.

--
Paul Johnson
baloo@ursine.ca
 
Old 04-12-2008, 02:12 AM
Paul Johnson
 
Default

On Friday 11 April 2008 05:19:08 pm Mark Allums wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
> >>> Health care would be a big one.
> >>
> >> And taxes are much lower here, and the torte system so different,
> >> and people so much more eager to sue.
> >
> > Depends on the country. In France, they pay less taxes, and with
> > those taxes they get college and healthcare at no extra charge. We
> > coulda done that ourselves over the last 8 years if the conservatives
> > didn't think it to be more productive to flush it down the war...
>
> Don't say conservatives. True conservatives were against the war. Say
> "neocons".

Oh, we're both totally in agreement with that. However, I'm not sure the
difference between conservatives and neoconservatives is one with much
distinction ever since the McCarthy backlash took the wind out of it's sails.
Following that, the conservatives did what was left of themselves in by
towing the line with the Neoconservatives when they started taking over
starting with Nixon, and especially with Reagan. Lincoln certainly wouldn't
recognize his own party in this day and age.

--
Paul Johnson
baloo@ursine.ca
 
Old 04-12-2008, 02:17 AM
Ron Johnson
 
Default

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 04/11/08 21:01, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Friday 11 April 2008 01:33:00 pm Damon L. Chesser wrote:
>
>> It does? News to me. Again, study your history, longest un-interrupted
>> economic growth in the history of the US.
>
> Reagan was still starring in movies or acting as the president of the labor
> union he was a member of during much of the boom of which you speak
> (1945-1975). Looking at all the GDP data for the US I could find poking
> around BEA's website, GDP grew slower post 1981. Total US exports levelled

Growth would have slowed no matter who was President, since it took
a generation for Europe and Asia to recover, and for the US to get
fat and complacent with our post-war economic dominance.

> off entirely during the Reagan years while imports continued to grow.
> Private domestic investments declined while personal consumption expenditures
> continued to grow. The Dollar is now managing to hit record lows against
> foreign currencies, breaking the lows we set in the Reagan years. This is
> all public record over at bea.gov.
>
> So if you're going to pin the longest uninterrupted period of economic growth
> in American history on Ronald Reagan, you should attribute it to him as Host
> of General Electric Theater, not to him as President of the USA.
>


- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA

We want... a Shrubbery!!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIABuvS9HxQb37XmcRApnlAJ9ir0YG4EDF4YcWaRT9dC vuY/vwawCfXkUa
FHQjtodjWLUGvVvuh6htsJI=
=Gy94
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 04-12-2008, 02:20 AM
Ron Johnson
 
Default

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 04/11/08 21:12, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Friday 11 April 2008 05:19:08 pm Mark Allums wrote:
>> Paul Johnson wrote:
>> >>> Health care would be a big one.
>> >>
>> >> And taxes are much lower here, and the torte system so different,
>> >> and people so much more eager to sue.
>> >
>> > Depends on the country. In France, they pay less taxes, and with
>> > those taxes they get college and healthcare at no extra charge. We
>> > coulda done that ourselves over the last 8 years if the conservatives
>> > didn't think it to be more productive to flush it down the war...
>>
>> Don't say conservatives. True conservatives were against the war. Say
>> "neocons".
>
> Oh, we're both totally in agreement with that. However, I'm not sure the
> difference between conservatives and neoconservatives is one with much
> distinction ever since the McCarthy backlash took the wind out of it's sails.
> Following that, the conservatives did what was left of themselves in by
> towing the line with the Neoconservatives when they started taking over
> starting with Nixon, and especially with Reagan. Lincoln certainly wouldn't
> recognize his own party in this day and age.

If you take /Neoconservative/ to mean "disillusioned anti-Communist
semi-Socialists", then you're correct, that's when they started
taking over the party.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA

We want... a Shrubbery!!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIABxgS9HxQb37XmcRAjfDAKCELAlG4faW15OPYZzRsu J5u6uYJQCgogyW
eCsfav2+TF1oojif5e/+TRw=
=g7wG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 04-12-2008, 02:25 AM
Ron Johnson
 
Default

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 04/11/08 20:37, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 06:22:10PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>> That just violates basic economic principals, setting the price below the
>> balance of supply and demand, especially given we're talking about an
>> international commodities market and thus don't have the aboslute authority
>> to make such a move possible. It can and ought to be solved by taxing the
>> everlasting crap out of excess profits, though: Petroleum companies have
>> been posting profits increasing at a rate nearly twice that of the price of
>> oil. There is precident for taxing excessive profit in the US during World
>> War II, and the economy was better off for it. Then again, another thing
>> that was different about WWII, back then it was a felony to make a profit off
>> the war.
>
> Considering that the proponents of the war are Oil men, and that the
> price of oil goes up every time doubYa farts, he has a vested interest
> in keeping the middle-east unstable.
>
>
> Personally, I don't have a problem with a high pump-price. Look at the
> nice efficient cars and great public transit they have in Europe.
> However, I'd rather that happen through taxes that get targeted back at
> environmental improvement (the way tobacco tax both discourages use and
> helps fund health care).
>
> If only Canada had a nice place to dump spent nuclear fuel the way China

France doesn't have problems with spent nuclear fuel, because they
use breeder reactors. We should, too.

> has Tibet... Canada should annex Texas!
>
> Then there's the oil sands: thousands of square miles of boreal forest
> dug up for an open-pit mine.


- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA

We want... a Shrubbery!!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIAB2dS9HxQb37XmcRAkkdAKCiCFLBRgZgoErjiWbaWi C1octirQCgrkfd
ppModVaSZWytLfbow1p789Y=
=+2Ms
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 04-12-2008, 02:30 AM
Paul Johnson
 
Default

On Friday 11 April 2008 07:17:19 pm Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 04/11/08 21:01, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Friday 11 April 2008 01:33:00 pm Damon L. Chesser wrote:
> >> It does? News to me. Again, study your history, longest un-interrupted
> >> economic growth in the history of the US.
> >
> > Reagan was still starring in movies or acting as the president of the
> > labor union he was a member of during much of the boom of which you speak
> > (1945-1975). Looking at all the GDP data for the US I could find poking
> > around BEA's website, GDP grew slower post 1981. Total US exports
> > levelled
>
> Growth would have slowed no matter who was President, since it took
> a generation for Europe and Asia to recover, and for the US to get
> fat and complacent with our post-war economic dominance.

That's very probably true. I was just stunned by the ignorance of the claim
that the Reagan years were the best years this country ever had. Sadly, this
isn't the first time I've heard this claim, as it appears to be the
justification of current Republican economic policy...

--
Paul Johnson
baloo@ursine.ca
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:55 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org