Linux-Advocacy Digest #591, Volume #28 Wed, 23 Aug 00 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: GNOME/KDE issues (was: Come on, Jedi, where are you?) (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Microsoft Linux: what if? ("Dan Jacobson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 23 Aug 2000 14:48:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, due to it's late 1950's precepts, you learn a lot
>> of habits which later need to be unlearned.
>
> I'm slightly curious as to what these habits are; I can guess
> some of them, though:
>
> - Global variable namespace. (YUCK!)
Global vars are OK, so long as you only use them for global values. :^)
> - GOTO, which can be useful, but more often than not just
> ties program flows up in knots. [*] It can also bypass
> variable initializations without the BASIC interpreter
> even noticing, leading to some bizarre bugs.
>
> - IF ... THEN line# or IF ... GOTO line#.
Line numbering is bad. Period. I thought it sucked rocks even before
I had learned a proper programming language. Textual labels are
better. Structured programming is *way* better.
> - Double meaning of '='. Admittedly, I'm not sure I like C/C++'s
> '==' (too easy to mistype and overlook in expressions), but at
> least the tokenizer doesn't have to know whether it's assigning a
> variable or within an expression. (Pascal uses ':=' for assignment,
> which might have been better, except that many dialects of BASIC
> use ':' as a statement delimiter.)
In languages I design, I make "==" into a comparison operator and ":="
into an assignment operator. If I allow plain "=" anywhere in the
text of a program (outside strings of course) it is as an entirely
different kind of semantic object, forcing a really loud compiler
complaint at any misuse. So what if you have to type an extra
character some of the time? It's worth it for not having to track
down bizarre "that comparison is really an assignment" errors...
> - The original BASICs didn't have #include. I don't know if VB does.
Mind you, #include has got to be a truly piss-poor way of performing
modular code management, inviting as it does much obfuscation and mad
hackery without providing any kind of solid semantic base for what is
going on. (I'm not too happy with the other alternatives, as
illustrated in Delphi, Java and the Modulas. But C's technique sucks
rocks.)
> - Apple ][ Basic was actually very bright about tokenization.
> Sadly, all subsequent (interpreted) Basics that I know the internal
> format of got extremely stupid; at best, the final character of
> a word had the 8th bit set. For compiled Basics, of course,
> this is less of an issue. (At least Basic is slightly brighter
> than FORTRAN's "DO 10 I = 1.10", which is actually a variable
> assignment because of the '.' instead of the ',' -- a simple typo.)
Some BASICs (notably Spectrum basic prior to the introduction of the
128) had direct entry of tokens; it was actually a very fast way of
programming, or would have been with a nicer keyboard... :^)
A side effect was that the LET keyword was mandatory, though not a
major burden in practise. Which made the meaning of assignments much
clearer from a pedagogic point of view.
[...]
> and they're all very different. (The HP basic, for example, only
> had 26 string variables A$ - Z$, 286 numeric variables A-Z and
> A0-Z9, and 26 arrays. I don't remember whether arrays were
> multidimensional or not - I doubt it. And yes, it had line
> numbers. Apple ][ Basic only had 16-bit integers. Apple ///
> screwed up the tokenization AFAIK, but did support floating-point.
> Visual Basic doesn't (necessarily?) use line numbers. Amiga
> ABasic and Amiga/Microsoft AmigaBasic had lots of hooks for
> Amiga's shared libraries and graphics -- good luck porting those!)
Speccy basic had arbitrary naming for numeric variables (and no
user-visible distinction between integer and floating-point numbers)
but only a$-z$ for strings. Or was that arrays? Or both? I forget,
it was such a long time ago...
> [*] There are proper ways of using GOTO, mostly to get out of a
> deeply-nested inner loop. IMO, of course.
Better to use a labelled continue/break or an exception.
<reminiscing>
Ah, the happy memories I have of my first program. It drew a picture
of an open envelope on the screen, one pixel at a time...
</reminiscing>
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- OK, there is the MFC, but it only makes the chaos object orientated.
-- Thomas Nellessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: GNOME/KDE issues (was: Come on, Jedi, where are you?)
Date: 23 Aug 2000 14:58:53 GMT
In article <8nuqor$cob$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good! It is always important to know, Who are you?
I'm me, of course!
> and What do you want?
Right now? Erm... I want to think of a smartass answer to this
question. :^)
I also have a few other things on the back-burner (a load of CS
research, a proposal for a major change to a well-known scripting
language, a neat collaborative game, some work on a cross-platform
non-rectangular window library, etc.)
I suppose what I really want is a way to work 30 hours every day
without collapsing with exhaustion or losing out on non-work time.
Not much, really.
> But be careful how you answer those questions and to whom.
Too right...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- OK, there is the MFC, but it only makes the chaos object orientated.
-- Thomas Nellessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:09:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > > The "losers" under a Bush administration will be just about
> > > everyone. Bush's proposed tax cut eliminates all chance of paying
> > > off the national debt, yet it only gives $43/year back to the
> > > average american family. Where does the rest go? You guessed it:
> > > the top 2% or so of the economic scale.
> >
> > The president doesn't create the budget, he only has the power to
> > approve it in it's entirety or return it to congress, now who has
> > really been creating the budget deficit for the past 20 years? And
> > who in the past four has managed to turn it (the deficit) around?
>
> If the Republicans did all the work to balance the budget, why are they
> trying to damn hard to unbalance it?
They're not.
They believe that revenues and expenditures should match -- as much as
possible.
When revenues exceed expenditures, you either reduce revenues or
increase expenditures. They prefer the former.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:10:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ZnU wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The "losers" under a Bush administration will be just about
> > > > > everyone. Bush's proposed tax cut eliminates all chance of paying
> > > > > off the national debt, yet it only gives $43/year back to the
> > > > > average american family. Where does the rest go? You guessed it:
> > > > > the top 2% or so of the economic scale.
> > > >
> > > > The president doesn't create the budget, he only has the power to
> > > > approve it in it's entirety or return it to congress, now who has
> > > > really been creating the budget deficit for the past 20 years? And
> > > > who in the past four has managed to turn it (the deficit) around?
> > >
> > > If the Republicans did all the work to balance the budget, why are
> > > they
> > > trying to damn hard to unbalance it?
> >
> > Are you, ZnU, smoking large amounts of crack before writing to USENET?
>
> Are you really denying this? In just the last few months the Republicans
> have tried to pass two tax cuts that would eliminate or significantly
> reduce the surplus, and Bush wants to take things even farther.
Actually, they wouldn't have eliminated the surplus. IIRC, the total if
both had passed would have been only about 30-40% of the surplus.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:11:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >A surplus is merely another name for OVER-TAXATION.
>
> Not when you do accounting like a government does, it isn't. Its more
> like "cash reserves", though the whole point is that it isn't cash, and
> it isn't in reserve. Its a *projected* surplus. Now who would be
> stupid enough to "give back" a *projected* surplus, before you've even
> collected it?
And you prove yet again that you don't have any idea what you're talking
about.
The surplus is real. Read the last few months of government reports.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:12:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> > Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > >A surplus is merely another name for OVER-TAXATION.
> >
> > Not when you do accounting like a government does, it isn't. Its more
> > like "cash reserves", though the whole point is that it isn't cash, and
> > it isn't in reserve. Its a *projected* surplus. Now who would be
> > stupid enough to "give back" a *projected* surplus, before you've even
> > collected it? George W. Bush, it seems, and he's willing to put 'and
> > the government shouldn't have any money in reserve, either, so lets give
> > back the money we already collected' on top of it.
> >
> > The question of the "balanced budget" is far more complex than any
> > ingenuous reading of the words as a phrase could allow. It is *not*
> > like any person, or even company, "balancing their budget". Likewise,
> > the term "deficit spending", which relates to the discussion. If the
> > government didn't practice "deficit spending", then there would be no
> > need to balance the budget. There would, indeed, be no way to unbalance
> > the budget, to my understanding. I'm not an economist, but it seems to
> > me that your declaration that "a surplus is over-taxation" is kind of
> > like saying that you owe the finance charges on your credit cards before
> > you even make any purchases.
> >
> > A lot like treasury bonds, isn't it? So the money we're supposed to
> > give back is the interest we are then going to need to pay? Again, I'm
> > sure its not that simplistic, but that's the only thing, I think, we can
> > be sure of. That, and whether Reagan/Bush was the cause of the bad
> > economy of the 80s or the effect, and whether Clinton was the cause or
> > the effect of the business boom which continued that trend. In both
> > bust and boom, 80% of the increased income accrued to the richest 20% of
> > the populace. (There's no telling how many below the line got pushed
> > above the line by the remaining 20%, but it was fewer than those who got
> > pushed deeper down at the same time.)
> >
> > I recall an interesting comment by Arthur C. Clarke concerning the
> > prospects of a flat tax. Through one of his characters, Clarke said
> > that a flat tax is a recipe for revolution. It may be tolerated for a
> > short time, but eventually it leads to the masses rebelling against the
> > inherent oppression of the luxurious few.
> >
> > I'll bet you're a real big fan of the flat tax, aren't you, Aaron?
>
> No...
>
> A flat tax is like this:
>
> One guy earning $10,000 / year goes into the grocery store, and
> pays $1.70/pound for hamburger.
>
> Another guy comes in, and he earns $1050,00/year, so they charge
> him $17.00/pound.
>
> FUCK THAT!
>
> the only MORALE tax is a head tax.
I think you mean "moral".
Actually, I don't even mind a reasonable flat tax. Exempt the first $30
K of income and tax everything else at a flat rate (Forbes claimed that
17% would have matched current revenues, but I can't say if that's right
or not).
------------------------------
From: "Dan Jacobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Microsoft Linux: what if?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 20:12:38 +0800
I was just reading in
http://www.gnulinux.com/interviews/stallman_part1.shtml where it says
Stallman: Well, I have concerns in that certain things could happen, which
we must avoid. Having companies interested is, not in itself, a bad thing.
There's a potential for them to contribute. There's also a potential for
them to exploit the community and lead it in the wrong direction. Which
one will happen will be determined ultimately by the values of the users.
This got me thinking what if (Psst, nobody tell BillG) Microsoft were to
release and promote their
own distribution of Linux, in an effort to do the usual
drag-it-down-the-path-of-locking-you-in-to-the-Microsoft-world thing...
Anyways, it seems they could easily come up with Microsoft Linux,
Microsoft Linux Extensions, Microsoft Linux Plus, Microsoft Linux Plus,
Microsoft Linux II,
Microsoft Linux 2002, Microsoft Linux Applications Kit, Microsoft Linux
Explorer, MS Linux Express, etc. etc., indeed they could just take the
guts [for free], paste some glitz on it, box it, sell and be the new
"trendsetter"... Anyway, have some more names:
Microsoft Linux Home, Microsoft Linux Office, Microsoft Linux Pro,
Microsoft Linux Junior, Microsot Linux Family...
Indeed, they could just paste a windows directory explorer front end on
it, not worry about maintaining the guts... let their proprietary
'extensions' creep in and see if they can lock in some users...
--
www.geocities.com/jidanni ... fix e-mail address to reply; �n����
Tel:+886-4-5854780; starting in year 2001: +886-4-25854780
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:17:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> [...]
> >> I recall an interesting comment by Arthur C. Clarke concerning the
> >> prospects of a flat tax. Through one of his characters, Clarke said
> >> that a flat tax is a recipe for revolution. It may be tolerated for a
> >> short time, but eventually it leads to the masses rebelling against the
> >> inherent oppression of the luxurious few.
> >>
> >> I'll bet you're a real big fan of the flat tax, aren't you, Aaron?
> >
> >No...
> >A flat tax is like this:
> >One guy earning $10,000 / year goes into the grocery store, and
> >pays $1.70/pound for hamburger.
> >Another guy comes in, and he earns $1050,00/year, so they charge
> >him $17.00/pound.
> >
> >FUCK THAT!
> >
> >the only MORALE tax is a head tax.
>
>
> A) You are not "buying" anything when you pay taxes.
> B) A head tax is a non-tax within the context of these discussions.
>
> I honestly didn't figure you were that stupid, Aaron. You wouldn't even
> get the short waiting period before they'd kill all the rich people with
> your system.
>
> The only *ethical* income tax structure is when the wealthy pay a larger
Depends on your definition of "ethical".
What you mean is that in your opinion, that's the right thing to do.
> percentage of their income (for the privilege of enjoying the
> civilization which gave them wealth) than the poor people (who may,
I don't think very many people argue that.
Even Forbes (one of the most outspoken advocates of the rights of people
who make lots of money) advocated a plan where the first $30 K of income
was tax free--which means that people earning less than that didn't pay
any tax and those above that paid a lower percentage the lower their
income.
> additionally, require assistance to support the civilization which the
> rich people benefit from). The only two question are:
>
> 1) How much greater a proportion should the wealthy pay?
A lot less than today.
You have to make something like $20 to 30 K before you pay any taxes.
Meanwhile, I'm paying 50% of my income in taxes (all taxes combined).
That's an absurd difference.
> 2) How can we avoid making the assistance to the poor assistance to
> poverty?
Probably by getting rid of it, in general.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:18:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >> A) You are not "buying" anything when you pay taxes.
> >
> >Fine. Shut down the government then.
>
> Boy, if there's a world record for distance in missing the point, ...
>
> >> B) A head tax is a non-tax within the context of these discussions.
> >
> >that's like declaring multiplication to be non-mathematical with the
> >context of these discussions.
>
> Ummm... no.
>
> >> I honestly didn't figure you were that stupid, Aaron. You wouldn't
> >> even
> >> get the short waiting period before they'd kill all the rich people
> >> with
> >> your system.
> >
> >Progressive income taxes are immoral
> >flat-rate income taxes are immoral
> >
> >Wealth Redistribution is slavery of the workers.
>
> Oh, so you're a *Marxist*.
You seem to have a penchant for making statements that are 100% wrong.
Marxism advocates wealth redistribution. Aaron does not. Ergo, Aaron is
actually an _anti_ Marxist.
But that won't stop you from throwing around terms you don't understand,
I guess.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:21:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ZnU wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > ZnU wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The "losers" under a Bush administration will be just about
> > > > > > > everyone. Bush's proposed tax cut eliminates all chance of
> > > > > > > paying
> > > > > > > off the national debt, yet it only gives $43/year back to the
> > > > > > > average american family. Where does the rest go? You guessed
> > > > > > > it:
> > > > > > > the top 2% or so of the economic scale.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The president doesn't create the budget, he only has the power
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > approve it in it's entirety or return it to congress, now who
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > really been creating the budget deficit for the past 20 years?
> > > > > > And
> > > > > > who in the past four has managed to turn it (the deficit)
> > > > > > around?
> > > > >
> > > > > If the Republicans did all the work to balance the budget, why
> > > > > are
> > > > > they
> > > > > trying to damn hard to unbalance it?
> > > >
> > > > Are you, ZnU, smoking large amounts of crack before writing to
> > > > USENET?
> > >
> > > Are you really denying this? In just the last few months the
> > > Republicans
> > > have tried to pass two tax cuts that would eliminate or significantly
> > > reduce the surplus, and Bush wants to take things even farther.
> >
> > A surplus is merely another name for OVER-TAXATION.
>
>
> Then is a deficit merely another name for under-taxation?
Actually, it's very, very simple when you ignore political biases.
A surplus is either overtaxation or under spending.
A deficit is either undertaxation or overspending.
The trick is figuring out which. ;-)
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 01:34:45 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >> Whether or not the competition would have or could have trounced them
> >> is a different discussion. Anticompetitive behavior is illegal,
> >> particularly for a company in Microsoft's position.
> >
> >*sigh*. You're missing the point.
>
> I know it will do no good to point out to Christopher Smith that, no, it
> is he that is missing that point. The point is *not* whether there have
> been any compelling alternatives to Windows. In fact, the point is that
> there have *not* been any compelling alternatives, or even available
> alternatives, to Windows.
There haven't been any particularly compelling alternatives. There have
been numerous alternatives.
> I know he will refuse to accept that
> Microsoft's intentional strengthening of the application barrier to
> prevent alternatives from being viable is illegal. I know he will
> pretend that there is nothing wrong with anti-competitive practices.
They are illegal. I don't believe I've ever argued they aren't.
Evidently I've been far too subtly in making the point that I disagree with
the process and in some cases the principle, of anti-trust law.
However, having said that, reading of previous postings you have made on
other topics is enough to justify dismissing out of hand anything you claim
to know about the law.
> I
> know he will pretend, in his outrageous intellectually dishonest way,
> that since any one fact of evidence against Microsoft *can* be
> questioned, all facts of evidence against Microsoft should be ignored.
I have never pretended, nor suggested, any such thing.
> I have learned from experience, and have grown sick of feeding this
> particular troll.
Does this mean you'll stop posting your arrogant, ignorant, tripe ?
> I'm sorry that people such as yourself, who demand
> that their ignorance is superior to other's knowledge, exist, but
> there's nothing I can do about it, so I'll have to be satisfied with
> ignoring you, for now.
Fantastic. Does this mean you might take a page out of your own book and
actually become educated in topics you post about (instead of the usual
postings from ignorance) before leaping into discussions about them ?
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:26:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > ZnU wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > You're setting up strawmen again. I haven't said a word about
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > timeframe to pay off the national debt.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Upon maturity of the outstanding Treasury bills, you idiot.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why do you keep repeating that when it has nothing to do with
> > > > > anything
> > > > > I've said?
> > > >
> > > > It does---you're merely to ignorant to see the connection.
> > >
> > > It doesn't. Please explain how Bush intends to pay off the national
> > > debt
> > > while deficit spending. You seem to be arguing that he can. If you're
> > > not arguing that he can, then you're not arguing with anything I've
> > > said.
> >
> > What makes you so sure he will be deficit spending? (At least, that
> > his
> > will be any worse than Gore's.) Yes, he is cutting more taxes than
> > Gore, but he is also spending less than Gore on programs like health
> > care.
>
> And spending more than Gore on things like (broken) missile defense.
>
> The fact is, I don't _know_ he'll be deficit spending. He's so vague on
> the issues that it's hard to tell anything at all. But he'll either be
> deficit spending or he'll be cutting killing rather important social
> programs, and neither is worth it just to give the average american
Important to whom?
I think the important thing is that the government should take the
minimum amount of money and use it wisely.
Let's take one of your important social programs--welfare. The number of
people on the welfare rolls is down by about 75% over the past 5 years.
Yet the total dollars being spent has hardly declined at all.
The government is a black hole. They'll take as much money as they can
get away with and never try to spend it wisely.
> family a $43/year tax break. And there's certainly no chance of him
> paying down the debt.
Actually, his plan does include some debt reduction.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:29:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > The president doesn't create the budget, he only has the power to
> > > > > approve it in it's entirety or return it to congress, now who has
> > > > > really been creating the budget deficit for the past 20 years?
> > > > > And
> > > > > who in the past four has managed to turn it (the deficit) around?
> > > >
> > > > If the Republicans did all the work to balance the budget, why are
> > > > they
> > > > trying to damn hard to unbalance it?
> > >
> > > Are you, ZnU, smoking large amounts of crack before writing to
> > > USENET?
> >
> > Are you really denying this? In just the last few months the
> > Republicans
> > have tried to pass two tax cuts that would eliminate or significantly
> > reduce the surplus, and Bush wants to take things even farther.
>
> And I suppose the Democrats are just going to let that surplus sit there
> reducing the debt, rather than spending it on bigger government health
> care and *ahem* Gore's own $500 billion in proposed tax cuts?
I think the funny part is the hyocrisy of the Democrats.
While they run around claiming that Bush will make the rich richer and
the poor poorer, why don't they look at the income disparity that has
occurred over the past 8 years. The Democrats are guilty of doing it,
yet they accuse the Republicans of planning it.
One might note that the income disparity during the Reagan and Bush
administrations was much, much lower than it is today. Perhaps there
_is_ something to trickle down.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
