There's a problem there.  You don't need to have a revolution to feed your
children.  You need to have motivation.  Anyone can make money and advance
themselves with the proper mindset.

Matt, as a marine did anyone help you get through boot?  No you had to go it
yourself.

I can only go back to my own experience.  High School Drop out.  I worked
multiple jobs and read and did community service (free) development to get
my resume to a place where I could get a developers job.  Even then I worked
multiple jobs to get myself the income I wanted.  Now I have the time
invested and the resume to do well in the industry.

You are what you make yourself.  Is everyone equal?  No, we know that not
everyone is equally smart or able.  But someone needs to pump gas, and mow
the lawn right?  Should they make what I do?  Should they expect the
lifestyle I have?  No.

Tim
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Matthew Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 2:38 PM
  To: CF-Community
  Subject: Re: Bush resume

  The theory is good, but with all good theories, there are extremes that
render it unworkable.

  I love capitalism, it's working for us on some scale, but incredibly huge
companies are starting to take over the world, making policy in governments
and trying to confine wealth to a few places.  What you're suggesting is
that a monopoly is fine - if they make the money, then they get to keep it
all.  The problem is that it relagates all people to working under the
umbrella of a corporate office - a monarchy of sorts.

  The other end of the spectrum is communism.  We know that doesn't work as
well because of people's inherent greed.

  The best policy is to stake a middle ground - let people keep most of the
money they make, contribute large to society because they can, and feed
those who need to be fed. This keeps the public from needing to have a
revolution in order to feed their children - think French Revolution.

  - Matt Small
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Tim Heald
    To: CF-Community
    Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 2:17 PM
    Subject: RE: Bush resume

    Andy,

    That is the problem.  These people think that wealth is not something
that
    is created.  They think they can just "redistribute" it and that they
won't
    run out of it.  I mean how dare we try and let the people that invest in
    business and build wealth keep their money.  Why we should give it to
those
    that cannot do for themselves :)
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Andy Ousterhout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
      Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 1:22 PM
      To: CF-Community
      Subject: RE: Bush resume

      I wonder if this paragraph isn't the real issue.

      Lastly, the redistributive aspects of the package are extremely
worrisome.
    It
      seeks to redistribute wealth in the wrong direction, in a very big
way, to
    the
      very wealthiest end of the spectrum. The people who least need a tax
cut
    in
      the U.S. economy are those whose major source of income is taxable
    dividends.
      The average tax dividend dollar will go to people who are already
indeed
    quite
      rich. In terms of redistribution of income, this is probably one of
the
    worst
      possible places to give money.

      And the rest is just cover.

      Andy
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Howie Hamlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
        Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:56 AM
        To: CF-Community
        Subject: Re: Bush resume

        I guess that article was a bit mild - try these instead:

        http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/02/12_akerlof.shtml

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/02/nyt_economists.pdf
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Andy Ousterhout
          To: CF-Community
          Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 12:11 PM
          Subject: RE: Bush resume

          And that is news to who?

          Presidents need to think big.  Short term fixes create a pendulum
    effect,
      long
          term changes have long term impacts.
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Howie Hamlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
            Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:49 AM
            To: CF-Community
            Subject: Re: Bush resume

            Nobel winners attack Bush economics

            "Regardless of how one views the specifics of the Bush plan,
there
    is
      wide
          agreement that its purpose is a permanent change in the tax
structure
    and
      not
          the creation of jobs and growth in the near term," the economists
said
    in
      a
          statement published by the Economic Policy Institute.

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2735269.stm


[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]

Reply via email to