My turn to be really, really pixxed off about things mostly unrelated to your e-mail, but no-one else handy to voice my various dissatisfactions to. But, in a roundabout way, those things dovetailed with your comments and that was close enough. Got that off my chest. Aren't you the lucky one ? Slightly less unhappy now after writing that e-mail. I'll look around for someone else to express my gripes to. Billy -------------------------------------------------------------- 1/1/2012 9:38:51 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
You sure do manage to get a lot of things I'm NOT saying out of what I DID say. I damn near don't know where to start. HOW DOES HE DO THAT???? Signed, Perplexed in Texas _ “A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom.”—Fredrich August von Hayek On 1/1/2012 9:38 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: Why is it that I cannot work up even a teeny bit of sympathy for lawyers earning $ 249,000 ? There must be some reason. I just can't figure it out. Hell, if a lawyer was "only" earning a measly $ 100,000 I still would be unable to work up any sympathy. The median income in the United States is somewhere between $ 40,000 and $ 50,000. The bottom 20% live at or below the poverty level. The upper 7 % of households earn about 33 % of all income. About 2 % earn over $ 250,000. To argue that this income distribution is exactly how God wants it, that all people who earn $ 250,000 deserve every dime strikes me as utterly ludicrous ; they simply work at occupations that the market over-values. The counterpart concerns the lower levels of income. Let's say half of all people on welfare don't merit what they get. This half consists of bums and ne'er do wells and idiots, etc. About half seems roughly correct. So no matter how you slice it, there's a lot of injustice / unfairness in the system. This DOES NOT say that central planning is better, in most ways it decidedly is NOT. It just says that we don't live in anything like Utopia ; we live in a good country but one with a lot of problems. Abolish the government as a solution to the problem ? Hell, why not abolish the mega-banks and financial institutions ? Their execs deserves every penny of million dollar bonuses we all pay for each time we write a check or buy something on credit ? Yeah ? O really ? Billy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- 1/1/2012 7:16:08 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) writes: As Lady Thatcher once said: "Eventually you run out of other people's money." When Obama was campaigning on taxing the rich making over $250,000 per couple (they're millionaires you know, despite not earning that million per year that I thought was required), there were some lawyers in the blogging world who decided to stop working for the year when they had earned that amount. Why? They figured that they could sacrifice the extra income and not give it to the wasteful government. Due to the fact that your employer deducts it before you see it, the only way to stop paying is to stop earning. If I ever reach those lofty heights, that would be a point to consider. David _ “A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom.”—Fredrich August von Hayek On 12/31/2011 8:22 AM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: There is only so much even the most well endowed religious charity can accomplish. Basically they can help a small class of people extensively, like unwed mothers or orphans, but when it comes to large classes of people, like the unemployed in times of economic crisis, all that really is possible are food boxes and maybe spare clothing or bus fare. The problem is the "I've got mine and screw everyone else" effect which self-reliance theories promote even as they also promote self reliance. This effect works directly against religious values and if the self-reliance philosophy is strong enough it over-rides religion. The problem is made worse when many people ( not a majority, but too many ) take advantage of the system and won't work even when they can, or like some women, have babies as a source of welfare income --which everyone else pays for. The Left is generous with the money of the working class, the Right is unable to comprehend that its bromides for dealing with large scale social needs are ridiculously inadequate. This is the dilemma. Billy ------------------------------------------------------------- 12/31/2011 2:00:24 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) writes: P.S. The actual development of catholic charities make a topical question of the relationship between private and government charity programs. On 31 dec, 09:38, cornucopianow _<[email protected]>_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: > Hello David, > > Just like you I would prefer charity by private organisations. > Of course the charities do a good job. But the position of the > churches in the 1800's was another one as it is today as well was > that of the goverment. Or would you prefer to return to the 1800's? > Nowadays the churches may not be ale to embetter the situation of the > poor as much as would be desirable and in my opinion there is a task > for the government here also. But I realize that the postion of the > churches in the Netherlands may be another on than that in the United > States. > > Have a nice day, > > Walther > > On 28 dec, 21:29, "David R. Block" _<[email protected]>_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: > > > > > Hello Walther, > > > Good to have a name other than Mr or Ms Anonymous. :-) > > > Communism lite refers to what it sounded like to me. I can always change > > my mind. > > > The quote from Von Hayek appears on all of my e-mail, until I decide to > > change it. Other alternatives are available from Neal Boortz, Gerald > > Ford, Winston Churchill, Benjamin Franklin, Barry Goldwater, Robert A. > > Heinlein, Thomas Jefferson, P. J. O'Rourke, Ronald Reagan, Ringo Starr, > > Mark Twain, and Will Rogers. And von Hayek's family moved to the US > > because of the Nazis, not the Communists, although "escaping Tyranny" > > would fit either one. > > > They are for entertainment purposes, mostly. Although one is slipping in > > here below because it seems appropriate. > > > More below. > > > David > > > “A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of > > his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the > > dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom.--Fredrich > > August von Hayek* > > > On 12/28/2011 9:09 AM, cornucopianow wrote: > > > > Dear Mr. Block, > > > > "Communism lite" refers to a non-existent society. It is certainly not > > > a society which the Civil Manifesto advocates. > > > > The quote of von Hayek presumably refers to Soviet Russia. It does > > > not apply to a society based on the Civil Manifesto > > > > - "Their existence is not my responsibility". Mr. Block would you like > > > to live on a society in which thousands of children have no > > > satistactory food as is the case in the Netherlands and certainly is > > > the case in Great Britain? I would rather not. > > > DRB: I give to my church for a food program for the homeless. It may not > > (definitely not) make it to the UK or The Netherlands, but surely > > someone in the UK or The Netherlands can give to their local charities. > > No? I don't think that the government needs to be operating charities. > > This used to be done by churches in the 1800s, and i don't really > > consider it "progress" to move it to the government. Doing that runs > > square into a problem noted by P. J. O'Rourke: > > > "There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no > > virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" > > and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable > > programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other > > people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in > > supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own > > money -- if a gun is held to his head."*--P. J. O'Rourke* > > > DRB: Charity, under pain of IRS Audit, really isn't that charitable. > > > > -The idea is not a mandatory retirement but to guarantee a decent > > > period of retirement for everybody. Of course many people ccan deliver > > > their contributions until old age. > > > > -Unemployment should be as short as possible. The employment benefits > > > should not hinder returning to the workforce. > > > > -I have to study the savings and loan debacle to see what actually > > > happened. Meant is a maximum mortgage of 400.000 dollars. > > > DRB: There was a lot of non-existent property on the books of many > > Savings and Loans. Undeveloped developments (Clinton's Whitewater) were > > carried on the books as having been developed, bogus oil rigs were on > > the books in Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Texas, and general shenanigans > > prevailed pretty much nationwide. $400,000 is a fantastic amount for a > > mortgage in Dallas, TX, but kind of low for Hollywood. > > > > -I think that affordable health care for everybody is possible without > > > a giant government department. > > > DRB: I think that a giant government department is what we are going to > > wind up with. And with the corruption evidenced by the US government at > > this time, that's not a good thing. > > > > -I am very sorry for your daughter. It must be a very demotivating > > > experience for her. It would take more space to analyse the situation > > > in which this happens. The factors which are responsible for this > > > outcome should be removed. > > > DRB: That would be "advisers" at the Universities that she attended, who > > obviously have some bias towards encouraging continued enrollment-even > > if the student cannot afford it-THEY need the money, coupled with an > > economy in the dumper. Kind of hard to remove that last factor. I'm not > > exactly in favor of encouraging a college degree just for the sake of > > encouraging a college degree. Same thing with a Master's degree, which > > is where the debt was incurred. Somebody is really "dumbing down" the > > bachelor's degrees if everything requires a Master's. > > > > -The exploration of mineral energy seems to have a lot of > > > disadvantages. The fostering of green energy is a good idea. > > > -You are welcome! The idea of the Civil Manifesto is not to specify > > > the diet of whoever may be. The idea is that shifting the balance from > > > meat to plant is advantageous for the wellbeing of society. > > > DRB: As long as they are not about to go bankrupt (Solyndra), I would > > like to support it. Sadly, most of the green initiatives that the > > current administration has chosen to promote seem to be chosen based > > more upon their campaign contributions than their financial stability or > > even the marketability of their products and ideas. > > > > Thank you for your comments. You are the first one who reacts to the > > > Civil Manifesto. I whish your daughter may soon find an occupation > > > which matches her education. > > > DRB: Well, I would hope so, too. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Walther Micke- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - -- -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
