Linux-Advocacy Digest #316, Volume #29 Tue, 26 Sep 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this just
a little scary? ("Stuart Fox")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Joe R.")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Joe R.")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("JS/PL")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("JS/PL")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 26 Sep 2000 16:18:40 GMT
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:22:24 -0400, JS/PL wrote:
>
>"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 06:53:20 -0400, JS/PL wrote:
>> >
>> You don't say anything about how much more money someone who makes a
>million
>> each year would get. My bet is that it's more than any of those other guys
>> would get.
>
>It never ceases to amaze me how people believe that by not taking money away
>from people that those people are GETTING money.
You are being evasive. Why don't you just be honest and admit that the
people who have the most to gain from Bush's policies are the top 1% of
income earners ?
>anything, it's taking less. In the case of the poor, Bushs' plan is to not
>take any federal taxes from the poor.
How does he plan to fund the tax cuts ? Will it adversely impact any of
the services that the poor use ?
>No - you snipped the part where poor people get a 100% tax cut. Reposted
>below.
But in terms of dollar amounts, George Bush is redistributing more to
the wealthy. The dollar amounts increase as the income levels increase.
>Tax Relief for Families of Four
>A family of four making $35,000 will receive a $1,500 tax cut, a 100 percent
>reduction.
>A family of four making $50,000 will receive a $2,000 tax cut, a 50 percent
>reduction.
>A family of four making $75,000 will receive a $2,500 tax cut, a 25 percent
>reduction.
>Tax Relief for Single Parents
>A single mother with one child making $22,000 will receive a $1,000 tax cut,
>a 100 percent reduction.
>A single mother with two children making $32,000 will receive a $1,500 tax
>cut, a 95 percent reduction.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 26 Sep 2000 16:26:09 GMT
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 15:15:11 GMT, Joe R. wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>Why shouldn't the people who are paying the taxes get to keep more of
>their money?
How will the average American benefit from massive tax cuts to the
top 1% of income earners, and how will those tax cuts be funded ?
> Especially when the Bush plan helps those at the lower end
>by a greater percentage?
Nonsense. Tax cuts do not exist in a vacuum. If you want to cut
taxes, you have to cut spending. The people at the lower end are more
likely to be hit hard by spending cuts.
>BTW, how does your comment address the key issue? Someone stated that
>the Bush plan was a handout to the aristocracy and didn't do a thing for
>those at the lower end of the scale. Clearly, the figures you snipped
>show that those at the lower end of the scale _do_ benefit immensely.
Tax cuts do not exist in a vacuum. For example, if I have a family of
four kids, and I get a $1000- tax cut, but $1000 less is spent on the
education of each of my children, then I'm not a net winner.
BTW, while we're discussing the key issue -- would anyone care
to post the amount of tax relief someone earning a million a year
would get under Bush's policy ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds
this just a little scary?
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 17:31:39 +0100
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8qog5v$bvs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tony Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : I'm not arguing whether various apps are bloated and buggy, some are.
I'm
> : not arguing about the politics around Microsoft, MS does act like a
bully at
> : times. I merely argue that WinNT itself is not a crappy OS. Feel free to
> : offer some reasons why WinNT is crappy in your opinion, something other
than
> : it's not Unix please.
>
> But the things that suck about it ARE side-effects of the fact that
> it's not UNIX. You can't really separate the two - gui is not remotable
> without third-party add-ons
Free third party addons... VNC springs to mind.
>, does not let you use devices like a
> sequential file,
Try this - http://www.sysinternals.com/tips.htm#Kmem
Sure, the abstraction is a layer greater than in Unix - it's hidden under
the WinNT API, but it is there.
>COMMAND.EXE is bad for both scripting and interactive
> use, etc.
Minor point - cmd.exe. Command.exe doesn't exist. If you're not happy with
batch files (who is really?), try WSH (which has VBScript, JScript, Perl
Script plugins and others). If you want Perl, get perl. If you want bash,
get cygwin. The tools are there if you're willing to look.
> It's not fair to say, "Tell me what's wrong with this OS,
> but you aren't allowed to compare it to the OS you like better." Without
> comparing to some other proven method, complaining about the way an OS
> does something is nothing more than baseless whining.
If the only difference is that it doesn't do that because it's implemented
differently in Windows, then it is baseless whining.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 26 Sep 2000 16:35:41 GMT
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 15:34:33 GMT, Joe R. wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That's why the relative numbers are the important part -- not the
>dollars.
>
>I'd venture that the $1500 means more to a $35 K family of 4 than $2500
>means to the average $75 K family of 4.
Spending cuts also "mean more" to the $35 k family of 4. BTW, that's about
$7- a week per family member. Enough for them all to buy a Coke a day.
The fact remains that the net effect of Bush's policy ( compared to the
status quo ) is a redistribution of resources to the wealthy.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:40:48 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El lun, 25 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
> >Gee, if *I* need financial support that tends to imply
> >that I'm not in a position to give it, does it not?
>
> Ever heard of venture capital?
I'd rather slit my own wrists.
Ever heard of the immorality of rents on software?
> >I didn't ask for help and I never expected any. Moral support
> >would've been nice and I got some. Mostly, I came to confirm
> >my knowledge of Linuxers as infantile and for a while there
> >I was pleasantly surprised.
>
> If you don't need the help, don't whine about not having help.
I didn't say I didn't nead it you stupid fuck, I said that I
never expected it from this newsgroup.
> >As for acting "like an even remotely nice guy", I suppose
> >I should do this because COLA is so widely renowned for
> >being a pleasant and friendly group, especially to advocates
> >of OSes not Unix, right?
>
> No, you should do it because it's the right thing to do.
> If you don't think it's the right thing to do, don't whine if others are not
> nice.
I have no moral duty to be "nice" to others. And for the reasons
that I explained above, I certainly don't have any ethical duty
to do so.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:42:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 15:15:11 GMT, Joe R. wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >(Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>
> >Why shouldn't the people who are paying the taxes get to keep more of
> >their money?
>
> How will the average American benefit from massive tax cuts to the
> top 1% of income earners, and how will those tax cuts be funded ?
That's already been shown. A family of 4 earning $35 K gets a 100%
reduction in their federal taxes. A family of 4 earning $50 K gets a 50%
reduction.
Seems like a pretty substantial benefit.
>
> > Especially when the Bush plan helps those at the lower end
> >by a greater percentage?
>
> Nonsense. Tax cuts do not exist in a vacuum. If you want to cut
> taxes, you have to cut spending. The people at the lower end are more
> likely to be hit hard by spending cuts.
What spending cuts? The Bush plan has a _higher_ expenditure than the
current budget.
Have you read the plan?
Of course, perhaps you're one of those who considers a budget which
increases by only 5% insted of 10% to have been cut.
>
> >BTW, how does your comment address the key issue? Someone stated that
> >the Bush plan was a handout to the aristocracy and didn't do a thing for
> >those at the lower end of the scale. Clearly, the figures you snipped
> >show that those at the lower end of the scale _do_ benefit immensely.
>
> Tax cuts do not exist in a vacuum. For example, if I have a family of
> four kids, and I get a $1000- tax cut, but $1000 less is spent on the
> education of each of my children, then I'm not a net winner.
Of course, that's not what Bush is proposing, so it's irrelevant.
Nice try, but perhaps you'd do better if you stick to facts rather than
left wing fantasies.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:44:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 15:34:33 GMT, Joe R. wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >That's why the relative numbers are the important part -- not the
> >dollars.
> >
> >I'd venture that the $1500 means more to a $35 K family of 4 than $2500
> >means to the average $75 K family of 4.
>
> Spending cuts also "mean more" to the $35 k family of 4. BTW, that's about
> $7- a week per family member. Enough for them all to buy a Coke a day.
So we shouldn't give them anything?
>
> The fact remains that the net effect of Bush's policy ( compared to the
> status quo ) is a redistribution of resources to the wealthy.
Considering that you keep making things up (such as education spending
being reduced), you're hardly a reliable source.
How about some evidence?
And how do you call it a redistribution to the wealthy when the lower
middle class families will be paying 50-100% less than they currently
are paying, while the cut for the wealthy is a much smaller percentage?
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:59:15 -0400
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> You are being evasive. Why don't you just be honest and admit that the
> people who have the most to gain from Bush's policies are the top 1% of
> income earners ?
Because it isn't true. The people who have the most to gain are the low
income families who would pay NO tax because of Bush's plan.
The people with the least to gain are (for example) the guy now paying
$150,000 + in fed taxes and getting it reduced by $1500
>
> >anything, it's taking less. In the case of the poor, Bushs' plan is to
not
> >take any federal taxes from the poor.
>
> How does he plan to fund the tax cuts ? Will it adversely impact any of
> the services that the poor use ?
You don't know? But your assuming it must be being funded by taking
something away from the poor ?
He plans to fund the tax cuts by returning 25% of the budget surplus to the
taxpayers. Not by cutting any current programs.
> But in terms of dollar amounts, George Bush is redistributing more to
> the wealthy. The dollar amounts increase as the income levels increase.
That is only because your tax bill increases as your income increases. A
family of four making 75,000 who now only has to pay $10,000 in income taxes
isn't as good as someone making 35k now paying NO tax, I wouldn;'t classify
that as giving money to the rich. The percentage still decreases as income
increases.
How much of a Federal tax cut past 100% do you want for poor and lower
middle class?
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 14:08:49 -0300
El mar, 26 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El lun, 25 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>> >Gee, if *I* need financial support that tends to imply
>> >that I'm not in a position to give it, does it not?
>>
>> Ever heard of venture capital?
>
>I'd rather slit my own wrists.
Go ahead.
>Ever heard of the immorality of rents on software?
No.
>> >I didn't ask for help and I never expected any. Moral support
>> >would've been nice and I got some. Mostly, I came to confirm
>> >my knowledge of Linuxers as infantile and for a while there
>> >I was pleasantly surprised.
>>
>> If you don't need the help, don't whine about not having help.
>
>I didn't say I didn't nead it you stupid fuck, I said that I
>never expected it from this newsgroup.
Oh, so now we are at the "stupid fuck" level of discussion?
Allow me o remind you: "it's not that I [Richard] am slow, it's
that I don't have a full lab [helping]".
If you don't need the full lab, the lack of the full lab is not an excuse.
Thus your venting your frustration here is just hot air.
>> >As for acting "like an even remotely nice guy", I suppose
>> >I should do this because COLA is so widely renowned for
>> >being a pleasant and friendly group, especially to advocates
>> >of OSes not Unix, right?
>>
>> No, you should do it because it's the right thing to do.
>> If you don't think it's the right thing to do, don't whine if others are not
>> nice.
>
>I have no moral duty to be "nice" to others.
Are you a sociopath?
> And for the reasons
>that I explained above, I certainly don't have any ethical duty
>to do so.
Cool, then be a mensch and take any unniceness thrown at you
without whining.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 17:25:17 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El mar, 26 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
> >I'd rather slit my own wrists.
>
> Go ahead.
Do the world a favour and die.
> >I didn't say I didn't nead it you stupid fuck, I said that I
> >never expected it from this newsgroup.
>
> Oh, so now we are at the "stupid fuck" level of discussion?
This discussion is already dying as it is (I'd determined this
several posts ago in fact) and I have no interest in trying to
resurrect it or slow down the inevitable in any way.
> Allow me o remind you: "it's not that I [Richard] am slow, it's
> that I don't have a full lab [helping]".
>
> If you don't need the full lab, the lack of the full lab is not an excuse.
> Thus your venting your frustration here is just hot air.
Well, you *are* slow so let me clarify; my OS project is no more
delayed than any comparable project would be with the same lack
of funding and resources. This is in fact the ONLY sane inter-
pretation one can put on my original statement.
> >I have no moral duty to be "nice" to others.
>
> Are you a sociopath?
As it happens, most sociopaths *are* "nice" (which I have
always understood to mean superficial charm) to others (until
they rape or murder them). Lack of social polish does not a
psychopath make. But then, this level of ignorance is to be
expected from someone who demonstrates the blatant idiocy
necessary to ask why brain damage would be relevant to the
universality of the human perception of beauty.
Learn what they mean before you start using technical terms.
> Cool, then be a mensch and take any unniceness thrown at you
> without whining.
I have. I don't take stupididy on top of it though.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 14:49:18 -0300
El mar, 26 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El mar, 26 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>> >I'd rather slit my own wrists.
>>
>> Go ahead.
>
>Do the world a favour and die.
No thanks.
>> >I didn't say I didn't nead it you stupid fuck, I said that I
>> >never expected it from this newsgroup.
>>
>> Oh, so now we are at the "stupid fuck" level of discussion?
>
>This discussion is already dying as it is (I'd determined this
>several posts ago in fact) and I have no interest in trying to
>resurrect it or slow down the inevitable in any way.
Cool.
>> Allow me to remind you: "it's not that I [Richard] am slow, it's
>> that I don't have a full lab [helping]".
>>
>> If you don't need the full lab, the lack of the full lab is not an excuse.
>> Thus your venting your frustration here is just hot air.
>
>Well, you *are* slow so let me clarify;
Slow in motion, but that's because of old sport injuries.
> my OS project is no more
>delayed than any comparable project would be with the same lack
>of funding and resources. This is in fact the ONLY sane inter-
>pretation one can put on my original statement.
Ok, then get the funding and resources. Who's stopping you?
You vent here because you are frustrated because your proyect
is going to take years. Well, you would rather die than getting the
support, and you are not here asking for support, so, why are you
here again? Just venting without a purpose? How lame.
>> >I have no moral duty to be "nice" to others.
>>
>> Are you a sociopath?
>
>As it happens, most sociopaths *are* "nice" (which I have
>always understood to mean superficial charm) to others (until
>they rape or murder them).
That doesn't answer the question, does it?
[snip]
>Learn what they mean before you start using technical terms.
Which one?
>> Cool, then be a mensch and take any unniceness thrown at you
>> without whining.
>
>I have. I don't take stupididy on top of it though.
How un-menschy. Of course seing your abundant provision
of idiocy, I can understand your lack of interest in stupidity.
The mix is too much.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 26 Sep 2000 17:50:37 GMT
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:42:53 GMT, Joe R. wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>
>> How will the average American benefit from massive tax cuts to the
>> top 1% of income earners, and how will those tax cuts be funded ?
>
>That's already been shown. A family of 4 earning $35 K gets a 100%
>reduction in their federal taxes. A family of 4 earning $50 K gets a 50%
>reduction.
>
>Seems like a pretty substantial benefit.
Games with numbers again. We already discussed this. The dollar amount
going to the rich is higher than the dollar amount going to the poor.
IOW, more of the extra money that is supposedly available is going to
the rich than the poor.
>> > Especially when the Bush plan helps those at the lower end
>> >by a greater percentage?
>>
>> Nonsense. Tax cuts do not exist in a vacuum. If you want to cut
>> taxes, you have to cut spending. The people at the lower end are more
>> likely to be hit hard by spending cuts.
>
>What spending cuts? The Bush plan has a _higher_ expenditure than the
>current budget.
Yes, of course, the other alternative to spending cuts is simply reduce
taxes but spend the same. But ultimately, you're still dealing with a
limited pool of resources, and Bush's policy directs the lions share of
available resources to those least in need.
>Of course, perhaps you're one of those who considers a budget which
>increases by only 5% insted of 10% to have been cut.
Not at all. I like a balanced budget. But when money is available, I
think that spending it on millionaires so that they can buy new BMWs
is not exactly a priority.
>> Tax cuts do not exist in a vacuum. For example, if I have a family of
>> four kids, and I get a $1000- tax cut, but $1000 less is spent on the
>> education of each of my children, then I'm not a net winner.
>
>Of course, that's not what Bush is proposing, so it's irrelevant.
Bush is proposing a plan to spend more of the available funds on the
aristocracy than everyone else. I still don't see how the poor would
benefit from this. If he's spending budget surplus, I'd argue that
there are ways that would be of greater benefit to low income earners.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 26 Sep 2000 17:57:44 GMT
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:44:23 GMT, Joe R. wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>
>> Spending cuts also "mean more" to the $35 k family of 4. BTW, that's about
>> $7- a week per family member. Enough for them all to buy a Coke a day.
>
>So we shouldn't give them anything?
I'm simply pointing out that Bush's policy does not offer them very much.
Sure, given a choice between a Coke a day and no Coke a day, I'd probably
take it. But I'd hardly act like I'd won the lottery because of it.
>> The fact remains that the net effect of Bush's policy ( compared to the
>> status quo ) is a redistribution of resources to the wealthy.
>
>Considering that you keep making things up (such as education spending
>being reduced), you're hardly a reliable source.
Complete and utter nonsense. You are the one making things up now. My
example was a hypothetical to demonstrate that the tax cuts do not take
place in a vacuum. Tax cuts obviously mean less revenue ( than would be
available without tax cuts ) which means less spending ( than would
be possible without tax cuts )
>How about some evidence?
I think it's for Bush to come up with the evidence that his policy has
something to offer ordinary Americans. I haven't seen any such evidence.
Until Bush offers something of substance, there really isn't anything
to debunk.
>And how do you call it a redistribution to the wealthy when the lower
>middle class families will be paying 50-100% less than they currently
>are paying, while the cut for the wealthy is a much smaller percentage?
The dollar amount that goes to the wealthy is greater. Suppose I am wealthy
and you are not. George Bush's plan allocates more to me than it does
to you.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 18:02:32 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>Ok, then get the funding and resources. Who's stopping you?
*What* is stopping me? Unix dominance.
> You vent here because you are frustrated because your proyect
> is going to take years.
Wrong. I'm frustrated because even long after I finish my project,
Unix will *still* dominate.
> Well, you would rather die than getting the
> support, and you are not here asking for support, so, why are you
> here again? Just venting without a purpose? How lame.
Works for me.
> >> >I have no moral duty to be "nice" to others.
> >>
> >> Are you a sociopath?
> >
> >As it happens, most sociopaths *are* "nice" (which I have
> >always understood to mean superficial charm) to others (until
> >they rape or murder them).
>
> That doesn't answer the question, does it?
On the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised I score around 6 out of 40.
The cut-off to be diagnosed a psychopath is 30, so /no/ I am not a
psychopath. I have no doubt that most of the venture capitalists you
suggested I get in touch with score > 20 and that many of them can
be diagnosed as psychopaths. Which is exactly why I'd rather slit
my own wrists than be indebted to one. And it does suggest who
*you* like to hang around with; probably "merely" out of crushing
idiocy.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 13:59:42 -0400
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Bush is proposing a plan to spend more of the available funds on the
> aristocracy than everyone else. I still don't see how the poor would
> benefit from this. If he's spending budget surplus, I'd argue that
> there are ways that would be of greater benefit to low income earners.
Wrong again. The child credit he's proposing goes to EVERY family raising
children equally, it does not discriminate on income. But the benefit to the
poor is huge.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 26 Sep 2000 18:07:04 GMT
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:59:15 -0400, JS/PL wrote:
>
>"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> You are being evasive. Why don't you just be honest and admit that the
>> people who have the most to gain from Bush's policies are the top 1% of
>> income earners ?
>
>Because it isn't true. The people who have the most to gain are the low
>income families who would pay NO tax because of Bush's plan.
A coke a week, according to your own numbers.
>You don't know? But your assuming it must be being funded by taking
>something away from the poor ?
>
>He plans to fund the tax cuts by returning 25% of the budget surplus to the
>taxpayers. Not by cutting any current programs.
IOW spending a lot of money, with the lions share of the dollars going
to the wealthy. OK I take that back, he's spending money on the wealthy
that could be spent on other things.
>That is only because your tax bill increases as your income increases. A
>family of four making 75,000 who now only has to pay $10,000 in income taxes
>isn't as good as someone making 35k now paying NO tax, I wouldn;'t classify
>that as giving money to the rich. The percentage still decreases as income
>increases.
Yes, Bush's tax plan still uses an accelerated income tax. However, the
people who benefit the most from tax cuts will be the high income earners.
The fact that income taxes are accelerated means that tax cuts tend
to benefit those at the top end ( unless they're "targeted" in which case
they typically benefit the middle-upper bracket ). Someone who's earning
10k doesn't benefit greatly from tax cuts.
>How much of a Federal tax cut past 100% do you want for poor and lower
>middle class?
Well that's kind of my point. That a vision that consists only of tax cuts
is not something that will srike a chord among these groups.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
