Re: Undecided
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Here's a bit of David Sedaris from this week's New Yorker... as he often does, he made me laugh out loud. To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked. Or to wonder how much poison is in the chicken. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Undecided
On 10/26/2008 8:39:29 AM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Here's a bit of David Sedaris from this week's New Yorker... as he often does, he made me laugh out loud. To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked. Or to wonder how much poison is in the chicken. Pft.. All chicken is poisoned. xponent Way Of The World Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Undecided
Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 10/26/2008 8:39:29 AM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Or to wonder how much poison is in the chicken. All chicken is poisoned. Hence how much?. Other questions include: Is it just enough poison to enhance the flavor but to make me sick to my stomach later? Or is my hair going to fall out and impotence soon follow? Perhaps it is actually methylenedioxymethamphetamine and the rape is coming a little later? Or is it a slow-acting poison that will gradually build up in my body to kill me long after the chicken is gone? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 'Heroes': Five Ways to Fix a Series In Crisis
William T Goodall wrote: On 25 Oct 2008, at 00:45, Charlie Bell wrote: And the UK - forget it, 'cause if you don't have satellite TV or cable, and many don't, it takes a year or more to appear on terrestrial tv. The BBC is showing Heroes about a week after it airs in the USA. SKY is showing Prison Break the day after it airs in the USA. Probably a reaction to P2P. Realism Maru No realism here in Sweden. I was talking to my sister about Heroes the other week and realized that she was in the middle of season 2 now. I gave up on TV a long time ago because of this. If the shows come here at all, they are at least one season behind. /c ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Undecided
- Original Message - From: John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 10:25 AM Subject: Re: Undecided Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 10/26/2008 8:39:29 AM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Or to wonder how much poison is in the chicken. All chicken is poisoned. Hence how much?. Other questions include: Is it just enough poison to enhance the flavor but to make me sick to my stomach later? Or is my hair going to fall out and impotence soon follow? Perhaps it is actually methylenedioxymethamphetamine and the rape is coming a little later? Or is it a slow-acting poison that will gradually build up in my body to kill me long after the chicken is gone? The chicken contains just enough poison that no one gets everything they want. The taste is just good enough to remain edible to most people. xponent Spit Roasted Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Undecided
From: xponentrob [EMAIL PROTECTED] The chicken contains just enough poison that no one gets everything they want. The taste is just good enough to remain edible to most people. Until avian influenza strikes. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Undecided
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, John Williams wrote: From: xponentrob [EMAIL PROTECTED] The chicken contains just enough poison that no one gets everything they want. The taste is just good enough to remain edible to most people. Until avian influenza strikes. That's spread in the market, if the chicken is cooked, it's probably OK to eat. Unless the cook was the one who dressed it, and then sneezed all over everything as it was coming out. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Redistribute the wealth
Anecdote seen on the internet: Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need -- the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Trust Us!
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/10/trust-us.html#more Few experts in our society could pull off saying: 'Emergency!!! We will suffer terribly if you don't spend a trillion dollars right now overpaying for stuff from our friends! No, you don't have time to study the problem, nor will we present an analysis for your review. No, other experts in our field cannot actually see this problem, and there will never be data showing the problem really existed. You just have to trust us and give us the trillion right now!!' US military experts said something similar on Iraq weapons of mass destruction, but at least they admitted we'd eventually be able to see if they were wrong (as they were). Medical experts implicitly say something similar about the health value of the second half of medical spending that costs a trillion dollars a year, even when our best data show little value, but this is a steady problem not a sudden new problem. Global warming experts have been trying, so far without much success, to get us to spend similar amounts on their problem, even though other experts can supposedly verify it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 10/26/2008 12:39:28 PM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Anecdote seen on the internet: Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need -- the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application. http://www.sltrib.com/Opinion/ci_10815189 John McCain has been working Joe the Plumber overtime, calling on Joe to fix the broken pipes that are flooding his campaign. Using Joe as a springboard, McCain is now labeling Obama's purposed tax cuts as welfare for the 40 percent of working-class Americans who pay no federal income taxes at all. As a guy who doesn't need to read his pay stub, McCain might be excused this ignorance of take-home pay reality; as a presidential candidate, I don't think so. The truth? If you are legally employed in this country you pay federal income taxes, at a rate of around 15 percent of your gross pay, before your income taxes are ever calculated. I say around 15 percent because this bite is kept shrouded in tax code doublespeak, and it's a little hard to nail down. As a master carpenter, self-employed for decades and now part owner of a small construction business, I know a bit about nailing. The self-employed can tell McCain about that first 15 percent. They confront it on form SE of their federal return, right after gross receipts and just before deductions. But for the majority of workers who receive a paycheck, it's more cleverly disguised. This first 15 percent is called the payroll tax, and as the Bard once asked, What's in a name? It's entered on form 1040, just below the income tax box. You add the two figures, make a check out for the total, and send it to the IRS. Now I'm probably missing some subtle distinction here, but when I write a check on my income to the IRS, I call it income tax. If you are a payroll employee you have already paid this tax in payroll deductions. The IRS suggests that your employer contributed half of the total. Don't believe it. Let me put on my small-businessman hat. We don't contribute a dime to pay our employees' payroll taxes, at least we try not to. We have no lottery winnings or stock dividends to dip into when we pay our quarterly taxes. Like every other viable business, we charge the full cost of employment for our crews, including the taxes they incur. And our guys earn every dime of this cost. If they didn't, we wouldn't last a quarter. The chunk that FICA saws off of their checks doesn't end their liabilities. For example, we must pay 11 percent of payroll for workers' compensation insurance, a figure that never shows up on a carpenter's pay stub. Some nit-picking accounting type will probably point out that this fee isn't an income tax either (though it is mandatory in every state). But when Joe rips open his pay envelope he is interested in the bottom line, not the semantics. As with payroll taxes, we have no magic pot of money to pay this mandate. Either our employees earn it or they are out of a job. The truth is that our Joes are taxed out of more than 25 percent of their income before they even look at their income taxes. As Warren Buffet has pointed out, they pay a higher tax rate than he pays as one of the world's richest men. And we working stiffs can probably handle the taxes that keep our parents in their own homes and give them medical care that the marketplace would never offer, and that might cushion our retirements when our hands and backs finally give out. But I'll be damned if we want some soft-handed suit calling us welfare queens. I'm speaking here of the consultant types who probably wrote these lines for McCain. I doubt that he would repeat them if he had ever paid a quarterly tax or filled out a form SE. And if Uncle Sam kicks back to our guys a portion of the quarterly checks that we cut, I'm here to tell him, those checks were paid for with blood, sweat, creativity and the occasional tear.
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Rceeberger wrote: http://www.sltrib.com/Opinion/ci_10815189 [snip] * JOHN GRIZ THE CARPENTER GRISWOLD works in Salt Lake City. (Which BTW is in about the Reddest state there is.) And that's from a paper that's endorsing Obama. http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10761520 Mighty interesting things happening Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 10/26/2008 1:47:29 PM, Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Rceeberger wrote: http://www.sltrib.com/Opinion/ci_10815189 [snip] * JOHN GRIZ THE CARPENTER GRISWOLD works in Salt Lake City. (Which BTW is in about the Reddest state there is.) And that's from a paper that's endorsing Obama. http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10761520 Mighty interesting things happening Even the Anchorage paper endorses Obama. YeahI'd call that interestingG xponent Social Movement Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Redistribute the wealth
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application. not so, the public seems to have swallowed the latest redistribution of wealth upwards... jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Even the Anchorage paper endorses Obama. YeahI'd call that interesting I'd call it scary. The housing market is down, the stock market is down, and the Fed chairman and Treasury Secretary have been fear mongering for weeks now. We need someone to ride in and save us from disaster! Obama will save us! Of course, after Obama spends trillions of our money and our children's future, and things go on pretty much as they would have if the money had not been spent, maybe Obama won't look like such a savior. But he'll be long gone by then. Not that McCain would spend any less if he had the opportunity, but Obama will have more of an opportunity with a Democratic congress. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] not so, the public seems to have swallowed the latest redistribution of wealth upwards... More like the politicians stuffed it down our throats. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Redistribute the wealth
not so, the public seems to have swallowed the latest redistribution of wealth upwards. More like the politicians stuffed it down our throats. and the sheep accept it, like they accepted the bush/cheny agenda, like they believe that real threat to america was terrorism, and now socialism... jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: not so, the public seems to have swallowed the latest redistribution of wealth upwards. More like the politicians stuffed it down our throats. and the sheep accept it, like they accepted the bush/cheny agenda, like they believe that real threat to america was terrorism, and now socialism... I'd like to be able to vomit up chunks of it. Julia p.s. if I need to refrain from using bodily functions in my analogies in the future for someone else's comfort, let me know ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Redistribute the wealth
I'd call it scary. The housing market is down, the stock market is down, and the Fed chairman and Treasury Secretary have been fear mongering for weeks now. We do need need someone to ride in and save us from disaster! Obama is not responsible for this collapse. It was the war and corporate greed. Obama is not spending our future, so things go on pretty much as they have been. A Democratic congress will tax the wealthy and redistribute the wealth to the poor and middle class. If McCain wins he will continue GOP policies of subsidizing the corporate state and cutting social programs. Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the sheep accept it, like they accepted the bush/cheny agenda, like they believe that real threat to america was terrorism, and now socialism... You wrote about the public and the sheep. I wrote to and called my Congress representatives, before the bailout vote, to explain my opposition to the bailouts. I know a lot of other people who did as well. And the numbers I've seen indicate that a majority were against it. Considering that it is corporate welfare, it is odd that a larger percentage of Democratic Congresspeople voted for the bailout than Republicans. But there is so little difference these days, both parties seem to want to spend our money and act like our parents, protecting us and doing things for our own good even if we don't like it. The choice isn't between shit and chicken. Everything tastes like chicken. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Let's just put an end to ALL redistribution of wealth. Let's start with the public schools and hospitals and keep going with the hatchet until nobody gets *anything* that they didn't pay for. Toll booths on every road and park! Go put a dollar in the streetlight, honey, I think the kids will be home soon. Don't bother dialing 911 unless you have your credit card handy. And remember, the military only protects you to the extent that you're paying their bill. Pay no taxes and the terrorists are welcome to have you. I think I might be channeling Heinlein, come to think of it. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 12:50 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I wrote to and called my Congress representatives, before the bailout vote, to explain my opposition to the bailouts. I know a lot of other people who did as well. And the numbers I've seen indicate that a majority were against it. Considering that it is corporate welfare, it is odd that a larger percentage of Democratic Congresspeople voted for the bailout than Republicans. That's because it is corporate socialism, not welfare. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] We do need need someone to ride in and save us from disaster! God will save us, if we have faith. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, John Williams wrote: Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] We do need need someone to ride in and save us from disaster! God will save us, if we have faith. And what if we don't? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Nick said: Let's start with the public schools and hospitals and keep going with the hatchet until nobody gets *anything* that they didn't pay for. Toll booths on every road and park! You damn socialists and your free air and sunshine! Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Richard Baker wrote: Nick said: Let's start with the public schools and hospitals and keep going with the hatchet until nobody gets *anything* that they didn't pay for. Toll booths on every road and park! You damn socialists and your free air and sunshine! Free as in beer, or free as in freedom? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Let's just put an end to ALL redistribution of wealth. Forced redistribution of wealth, for the sake of redistributing wealth, definitely let's put an end to it. If government spending is for a public good, or to provide food and shelter for those who have none, then that is a different story. By the way, are you familiar with the charitable contributions of Obama/Biden vs McCain/Palin? It looks to me like it comes a lot easier to some to redistribute other people's wealth than their own. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 10/26/2008 2:50:36 PM, Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Let's just put an end to ALL redistribution of wealth. Let's start with the public schools and hospitals and keep going with the hatchet until nobody gets *anything* that they didn't pay for. Toll booths on every road and park! Go put a dollar in the streetlight, honey, I think the kids will be home soon. Don't bother dialing 911 unless you have your credit card handy. And remember, the military only protects you to the extent that you're paying their bill. Pay no taxes and the terrorists are welcome to have you. I think I might be channeling Heinlein, come to think of it. Nopedefinitely L Neil Smith! xponent Pennies A Punt Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, John Williams wrote: God will save us, if we have faith. And what if we don't? Then we could take responsibility and save ourselves. Nah, too hard. Let's hope God or Obama saves us! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 1:39 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Anecdote seen on the internet: Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need -- the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application. The analogy is full of crap: 1) Obama's proposal raises the top two marginal tax rates and capital gains rate by a few percentage points, back to the Clinton-era level. At best, this is not taking the waiter's entire $10 - it'd be more like maybe $.50, and even then, only if the waiter was in the top few percent of the richest people in the country, and that money for the homeless person also went to pay for things like his town's police force, fire dept, hospital and schools. 2) Our current tax system under Bush, which McCain supports, is ALREADY a progressive tax system. The wealthy CURRENTLY pay more in taxes. Redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation is already going on and has been going on for probably at least 40-50 years. The argument here is about how much is appropriate, a debate about a few percentage points. And yet the republican reaction is like this: Top marginal tax rate of 35% on the richest 2% of Americans? Hell yeah, all god-loving America supporters stand behind this! Top marginal tax rate of 39.6% on the richest 2% of Americans? It's socialism! The freedom-hating commies are coming to take our livelihoods away! You can make an honest case that these tax higher rates are bad for the economy (though I'd disagree); there's certainly room for discussion and debate there. But these straw-man attacks like your anecdote and those calling Obama a socialist make reasoned debate impossible and frankly make it seem that those making the attacks are afraid they don't have a legitimate argument and have to resort to these tactics instead. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 1:00 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Let's just put an end to ALL redistribution of wealth. Forced redistribution of wealth, for the sake of redistributing wealth, definitely let's put an end to it. If government spending is for a public good, or to provide food and shelter for those who have none, then that is a different story. Surely you don't think Obama, in mentioning redistribution of wealth, was advocating it for its own sake? Here's the context: It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too, Obama responded. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody. I think the political disagreement is whether or not it is good for everybody to use government policy to spread the wealth around or to use it to concentrate wealth in the hands of the wealthy. Mind you, I'm not arguing that the answer is one that is easy to determine. But it sure seems to be that there's a lot of evidence that we've gone too far in the latter direction. By the way, are you familiar with the charitable contributions of Obama/Biden vs McCain/Palin? It looks to me like it comes a lot easier to some to redistribute other people's wealth than their own. No. I am familiar with their cash contributions, but I don't know what else they might contribute in terms of time and talents... nor do I think it is particularly my business. I do know that the main beneficiaries of the McCain's gifts are their childrens' schools and other areas where they have a personal interest. Must be nice to have millions and millions -- you can give away a lot and still have so many houses you lose track. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Redistribute the wealth
and the sheep accept it, like they accepted the bush/cheny agenda, and swallow that the real threat to america was terrorism, and now is socialism... You wrote about the public and the sheep. I wrote to and called my Congress representatives, before the bailout vote, to explain my opposition to the bailouts. I know a lot of other people who did as well. And the numbers I've seen indicate that a majority were against it. Considering that it is corporate welfare, it is odd that a larger percentage of Democratic Congresspeople voted for the bailout than Republicans. But there is so little difference these days, both parties seem to want to spend our money and act like our parents, protecting us and doing things for our own good even if we don't like it. The choice isn't between shit and chicken. Everything tastes like chicken. a lot of people called congress,against the bailout, but the people who didn't are the sheep and they are largely those who buy into the war and straw man attacks against obama. you can't equate the two parties even if they both passed it. the final version was worse than the first, and the result was corporate welfare. the extremes on the left were against it for completely different reason than the right wing nuts who got their way in the end. all this talk about socialism is chicken shit. even european style socialist democracies buy into the globalism FREE trade scam. what is needed is FAIR trade and an international socialist agenda. These straw-man attacks like your anecdote and those calling Obama a socialist make reasoned debate impossible and frankly make it seem that those making the attacks are afraid they don't have a legitimate argument and have to resort to these tactics instead. I think the political disagreement is whether or not it is good for everybody to use government policy to spread the wealth around or to use it to concentrate wealth in the hands of the wealthy. If government spending is for a public good, or to provide food and shelter for those who have none, then that is a different story. i have no problem paying any kind of taxes for the common good; i do have a problem paying for bureaucratic waste, idiotic wars and bailing out crooked brokers, who commit insurance, mortgage and financial fraud! jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] this is not taking the waiter's entire $10 - it'd be more like maybe $.50, Ah, I see. Taking people's money to give to others is okay if you don't take too much. is about how much is appropriate, a debate about a few percentage points. Right, a few trillion here, a few trillion there, not much difference. But these straw-man attacks like your anecdote and those calling Obama a socialist make reasoned debate impossible Wow, just because you make a straw-man attack and call Obama a socialist does not mean that I consider discussion with you impossible. it seem that those making the attacks are afraid they don't have a legitimate argument and have to resort to these tactics instead. Don't worry, I don't think you are afraid or have no legitimate argument. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Surely you don't think Obama, in mentioning redistribution of wealth, was advocating it for its own sake? Surely you don't believe everything politicians say? Must be nice to have millions and millions -- you can give away a lot and still have so many houses you lose track. Or you can be like the Obama's and give virtually none of your millions of dollars to the less fortunate. Better to give other people's money instead! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] you can't equate the two parties even if they both passed it. Indeed I don't. More Democrats voted for it than Republicans. Definitely not equal. even european style socialist democracies buy into the globalism FREE trade scam. What a bunch of wingnuts! How could they be so naive? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Redistribute the wealth
Ah, I see. Taking people's money to give to others is okay if you don't take too much. depends on who you take it from and who you give it to (robin hood!~) Right, a few trillion here, a few trillion there, not much difference. depends on if you waste those trillions on idiotic wars and bailing out corporate crooks, OR you spend it on developing alternate energy, jobs to rebuild america, education, saving people's homes, etc. jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Redistribute the wealth
you can't equate the two parties even if they both passed it. Indeed I don't. More Democrats voted for it than Republicans. Definitely not equal. what does that say about the republicans that did not vote for it? they wanted even more corporate welfare? at least those democrats who had the integrity to vote against the bailout did so for the right reasons. even european style socialist democracies buy into the globalism FREE trade scam. What a bunch of wingnuts! How could they be so naive? always with the sarcasm, the last refuge... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
My two rules of politics
For what it is worth, I have two simple rules for deciding which candidates get my vote: 1) Never vote for the incumbent 2) Of the remaining candidates, predict which two are most likely to win. Vote for the one who is likely to spend less. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, John Williams wrote: Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] you can't equate the two parties even if they both passed it. Indeed I don't. More Democrats voted for it than Republicans. Definitely not equal. What proportion of each party voted for it? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: My two rules of politics
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, John Williams wrote: For what it is worth, I have two simple rules for deciding which candidates get my vote: 1) Never vote for the incumbent 2) Of the remaining candidates, predict which two are most likely to win. Vote for the one who is likely to spend less. Vote Libertarian much? (I had more Libertarians on my ballot than Democrats. More Republicans than Libertarians. 4 Republican judges running unopposed will do that) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] what does that say about the republicans that did not vote for it? Hmmm, I guess it says there were more of them than Democrats. at least those democrats who had the integrity to vote against the bailout did so for the right reasons. To get re-elected! always with the sarcasm, the last refuge... Don't worry, I have plenty of refuges. Do you need any? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: My two rules of politics
Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vote Libertarian much? No, they are rarely in the top two. Probably because libertarians do much less pandering to special interests. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
My two rules of politics
1) Never vote for the incumbent 2) Of the remaining candidates, predict which two are most likely to win. Vote for the one who is likely to spend less. How does that work, John? Something tells me you didn't vote for Gore or Kerry... Incumbent are usually likely to win, or can steal an election. Seems to me that the GOP has been doing the most spending.., Clinton went out with a surplus. Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: My two rules of politics
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, John Williams wrote: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vote Libertarian much? No, they are rarely in the top two. Probably because libertarians do much less pandering to special interests. Well, on my ballot, if I were to not vote for the incumbent in a lot of the state local races, that left me with a choice between a Democrat and a Libertarian in all of the cases where I was left with a choice of 2 non-incumbents. The Democrats would be more likely to spend more. Which is why I came to the conclusion I did. I guess your ballots are somewhat different from mine, then, in terms of how heavily any given party is represented, and how likely a candidate from a particular party is to beat one from another particular party. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] What proportion of each party voted for it? 74.6% of Democrats in the House and Senate who cast a vote, voted aye for HR-1424. 50.4% of voting Republicans voted aye. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/2/votes/681/ http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/2/votes/213/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: My two rules of politics
Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, on my ballot, if I were to not vote for the incumbent in a lot of the state local races, that left me with a choice between a Democrat and a Libertarian in all of the cases where I was left with a choice of 2 non-incumbents. The Democrats would be more likely to spend more. Which is why I came to the conclusion I did. I guess your ballots are somewhat different from mine, then, in terms of how heavily any given party is represented, and how likely a candidate from a particular party is to beat one from another particular party. I wish there were as many libertarians in the top 3 on my ballots as there were on yours! You must live in a libertarian-friendly area. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] 50.4% of voting Republicans voted aye. Or yea. I get those quaint words confused sometimes :-) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, John Williams wrote: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] What proportion of each party voted for it? 74.6% of Democrats in the House and Senate who cast a vote, voted aye for HR-1424. 50.4% of voting Republicans voted aye. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/2/votes/681/ http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/2/votes/213/ Thank you for the information. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: My two rules of politics
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, John Williams wrote: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, on my ballot, if I were to not vote for the incumbent in a lot of the state local races, that left me with a choice between a Democrat and a Libertarian in all of the cases where I was left with a choice of 2 non-incumbents. The Democrats would be more likely to spend more. Which is why I came to the conclusion I did. I guess your ballots are somewhat different from mine, then, in terms of how heavily any given party is represented, and how likely a candidate from a particular party is to beat one from another particular party. I wish there were as many libertarians in the top 3 on my ballots as there were on yours! You must live in a libertarian-friendly area. North of Austin, TX. Texas is somewhat interesting that way in some places Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 2:26 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Or you can be like the Obama's and give virtually none of your millions of dollars to the less fortunate. Better to give other people's money instead! May I have virtually none of your money, since you apparently think almost a quarter of a million dollars is virtually none? Sheesh. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: My two rules of politics
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Seems to me that the GOP has been doing the most spending.., Clinton went out with a surplus. 1) I am a fan of gridlock. I think if Obama wins, with a Democrat dominated Congress, there will be a lot of new spending. I'm convinced Clinton would have spent more if the Republicans didn't dominate Congress during most of his 8 years. 2) A surplus does not equal less spending. Clinton balanced the budget by raising taxes and and keeping the rate of spending growth in control. He was lucky to have a period of rapidly growing GDP and tax revenues, and a Republican Congress for most of his years made it more difficult to pass new spending bills. Not that a balanced budget is bad, but I'd rather see the budget balanced by cutting spending rather than raising taxes. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] May I have virtually none of your money, since you apparently think almost a quarter of a million dollars is virtually none? And how does that compare to McCain and Palin? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: My two rules of politics
On 10/26/2008 5:16:57 PM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, on my ballot, if I were to not vote for the incumbent in a lot of the state local races, that left me with a choice between a Democrat and a Libertarian in all of the cases where I was left with a choice of 2 non-incumbents. The Democrats would be more likely to spend more. Which is why I came to the conclusion I did. I guess your ballots are somewhat different from mine, then, in terms of how heavily any given party is represented, and how likely a candidate from a particular party is to beat one from another particular party. I wish there were as many libertarians in the top 3 on my ballots as there were on yours! You must live in a libertarian-friendly area. I'm a couple of hundred miles from Julia. There are always Libertarians on the ballot here and I vote for them frequently. Why? Because I trust their conservatism more than I trust Republican conservatism and I want them promoted. No, I don't support Ron Paul. (My high school economics teacher was his father-in-law) He is not much for pragmatism and seems to prefer polemics, but that makes his followers happy it seems. Heh! There are videos of me on the net talking to Paulies at a Republican convention. (If you find them keep it quiet so I won't be namefagged.) xponent Most Famous For Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 5:24 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] this is not taking the waiter's entire $10 - it'd be more like maybe $.50, Ah, I see. Taking people's money to give to others is okay if you don't take too much. I'm not sure what your perspective is, here - are you against all forms of taxes? Because essentially this is what ANY sort of tax does, no? I dislike paying taxes, but I think government performs necessary functions that cost money, and an ala carte government is infeasible. So yes, I think taxes are unfortunately necessary and thus okay if they don't take too much. Do you have a better alternative? Is the current Bush/McCain taxation schedule also unacceptable to you, or are you only against Obama's tax plan? You anecdote, perfectly suited for something linked with a Heh on Instapundit, made me think the latter. But maybe you are a no-taxer or a flat taxer? is about how much is appropriate, a debate about a few percentage points. Right, a few trillion here, a few trillion there, not much difference. If it's a few trillions here or there in extra taxes collected, it's gotta be on hundred(s) of trillions in income, ie: it's still just a few percentage points - for the people reaping the pinnacle of benefit from our society. So I think they can spare it - the economy did quite fine with the same rates in the Clinton era, and I don't see a strong argument that Bush's cuts have somehow made things better. But these straw-man attacks like your anecdote and those calling Obama a socialist make reasoned debate impossible Wow, just because you make a straw-man attack and call Obama a socialist does not mean that I consider discussion with you impossible. I didn't make any straw man attacks or call Obama a socialist, so I'm not sure why you use the you above. As for making reasoned debate impossible, I meant in terms of broad public debate rather than personal discussion, but in any case, very difficult would probably be fairer to say than impossible. it seem that those making the attacks are afraid they don't have a legitimate argument and have to resort to these tactics instead. Don't worry, I don't think you are afraid or have no legitimate argument. Again, I haven't made any straw man attacks or called Obama a socialist, so I don't understand why you're turning this on me. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] are you against all forms of taxes? No. Do you have a better alternative? Reduce spending. So I think they can spare it I think you can spare a lot more of your own money before you start sparing mine. Or are you living in a trailer park with 4 roommates and accessing the internet through a library computer so that you can devote the maximum amount of your wealth to helping others? I didn't make any straw man attacks or call Obama a socialist, so I'm not sure why you use the you above. Wow, we have something in common then. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
At 04:14 PM Sunday 10/26/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: and the sheep accept it, like they accepted the bush/cheny agenda, and swallow that the real threat to america was terrorism, and now is socialism... You wrote about the public and the sheep. I wrote to and called my Congress representatives, before the bailout vote, to explain my opposition to the bailouts. I know a lot of other people who did as well. And the numbers I've seen indicate that a majority were against it. Considering that it is corporate welfare, it is odd that a larger percentage of Democratic Congresspeople voted for the bailout than Republicans. But there is so little difference these days, both parties seem to want to spend our money and act like our parents, protecting us and doing things for our own good even if we don't like it. The choice isn't between shit and chicken. Everything tastes like chicken. a lot of people called congress,against the bailout, but the people who didn't are the sheep and they are largely those who buy into the war and straw man attacks against obama. Many people who voted twice for GWB opposed it. Most of them also knew even before they or others called their Congressional representatives that they were going to end up getting some version of it stuffed down their throats in any case. . . . ronn! :) Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. Mark Twain, a Biography ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 26 Oct 2008, at 23:30, John Williams wrote: I think you can spare a lot more of your own money before you start sparing mine. Or are you living in a trailer park with 4 roommates and accessing the internet through a library computer so that you can devote the maximum amount of your wealth to helping others? Living like that I can see why you might come across as a bit irritable sometimes. Do any of your three trailer-mates snore? Are you eating OK? You might find you can make more wealth to help others if you treat yourself a bit better first. Charity begins at home Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 7:30 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] are you against all forms of taxes? No. So to quote you from your last response: Ah, I see. Taking people's money to give to others is okay if you don't take too much. Since that's what taxes do, you think it's OK, also? Do you have a better alternative? Reduce spending. Good idea. But do you think McCain would be any better at that? Bush certainly wasn't a cost-cutter (vast understatement). And McCain's health care plan added new taxes on people's health care benefits in order to provide benefits to others. I.e.: taking peoples money to give to others. Why is McCain not deserving of the same over-the-top anecdote you posted? So I think they can spare it I think you can spare a lot more of your own money before you start sparing mine. So you rank among the very wealthiest people in America? Congratulations! No wonder you think a quarter million dollars is virtually none. :-) I didn't make any straw man attacks or call Obama a socialist, so I'm not sure why you use the you above. Wow, we have something in common then. The anecdote you posted depicts Obama as wanting to take ALL the money from the haves to give to the have-nots - i.e.: that he's a socialist. This is grossly and provably untrue and thus is a straw man. Then it knocks down the straw man by showing how upset his supporters would be if straw-man plan was applied to them. Ergo, I say the anecdote is a straw man attack on Obama. I never said you called Obama a socialist, but that's what the anecdote you posted essentially does. And that's generally the meme that accompanies these types of anecdotes. But my comments about ...resort to these tactics weren't intended to be directed at you personally, but at the campaigners and the originators/writers of this stuff - again I was thinking in terms of the broad public debate, and not your particular posting of this to the list. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Jon Louis Mann wrote: A Democratic congress will tax the wealthy and redistribute the wealth to the poor and middle class. If McCain wins he will continue GOP policies of subsidizing the corporate state and cutting social programs. Jon This is something I don't understand. If Obama is the anti-corporation candidate, how he gets 2-3x more money for the campaing than McPalin? Alberto Monteiro PS: former terrorist, bank-robber, kidnapper, communist, quasi-nudist and marijuana apologist Gabeira lost the Rio election with 48.5% of the valid votes _for him_. That's a pity, he had some really interesting ideas. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] Since that's what taxes do, you think it's OK, also? Government spending is a necessary evil that should be kept to the absolute minimum. But do you think McCain would be any better at that? I think it is highly likely that a McCain with a Democrat dominated Congress will spend less than a Obama with a Democrat dominated Congress. So you rank among the very wealthiest people in America? Congratulations! No wonder you think a quarter million dollars is virtually none. :-) That is irrelevant. I pay taxes. Anyone who says they want to take my tax money to give to someone else, beyond the bare minimum required, should first demonstrate their willingness to give away all of their money beyond the bare minimum required for subsistence. The anecdote you posted depicts Obama as wanting to take ALL the money from the haves to give to the have-nots - i.e.: that he's a socialist. Wow, there you go again with the straw-man arguments and calling Obama a socialist. But don't worry, I won't hold it against you. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do any of your three trailer-mates snore? Are you eating OK? You might find you can make more wealth to help others if you treat yourself a bit better first. The difference being, I'm not advocating forcibly taking other people's money and redistributing it when I have not first exhausted every dollar of my own money to support my agenda. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 27 Oct 2008, at 01:16, John Williams wrote: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do any of your three trailer-mates snore? Are you eating OK? You might find you can make more wealth to help others if you treat yourself a bit better first. The difference being, I'm not advocating forcibly taking other people's money and redistributing it when I have not first exhausted every dollar of my own money to support my agenda. So people who believe having an army, navy and air force to defend the country should make up the shortfall in funding when the pacifists decide they'd rather not pay for that? And unless that makes them completely broke they shouldn't expect the pacifists to contribute anything? Necessities Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 6:12 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] Since that's what taxes do, you think it's OK, also? Government spending is a necessary evil that should be kept to the absolute minimum. I have never understood this attitude. Why assume that government is inevitably the worst way to accomplish anything? Seems like there are many things that government can do better than private industry. Financial regulation, for example. Health care... I'd rather trust government, which ultimately answers to the citizenry, than private industry, which ultimately answers to stockholders. It's not that I think government does everything well. It's the knee-jerk reaction that any alternative is better that I don't get. It doesn't seem logical. Seems to me we should intelligently assess what things government is best at (which varies depending on the level of government -- cities v. counties v. states v. federal; toss in special districts for extra flavor). Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro said the following on 10/26/2008 8:44 PM: This is something I don't understand. If Obama is the anti-corporation candidate, how he gets 2-3x more money for the campaing than McPalin? About 90% of Obama's fund raising comes from individuals. After withdrawing from Federal campaign financing, he announced he would not accept any donations from political action committees and has not done so to date. Details available at http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N9638 He isn't beholden to particular PACs or corporations because he's not taken their money. --[Lance] -- GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9 CACert.org Assurer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: My contribution to the bail-out
After selling my house and resettling, I'm finally back to the point where I can finish answers to old posts that the list (sorta) returned too. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Williams Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 4:05 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: My contribution to the bail-out Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] As had been mentioned here before, they are both very highly leveraged. My memory is that Barclay's leveraged 30 to 1 and Deutsche Bank is leveraged about 50 to 1. That means a modest run on ether bank will result in them becoming unable to give people who request the money they put in the bank that money. You persist in oversimplifying, and in ignoring creditors and bondholders. I wonder if you have ever studied the balance sheet of a bank? I have mentioned before, and even given a link to a nice explanation, that for the large US investment banks, if they are declared insolvent and put into receivership, that there is enough debt to cover the bad assets without costing the customers and countparties a dime. First, it isn't that simple, as the cascade of events following LB's bankruptcy illustrated very nicely. Second, I looked at a number of your posts, and the link I found was to a Hoover Institute guy (I hope you can see how I find this ironically apropos) who argued for a market based solution based on 1) Allowing a return to the accounting rules under which the SL collapse occurred. 2) Eliminating (or drastically reducing reserve requirements. I was in Houston when it was the epicenter of the SL mess (which also came after a spell of regulators looking the other way because government regulation was bad.another of many coincidences, I suppose). What happened was simple to understand. The oil market had collapsed around '87. US rig count had fallen to around 750 IIRC. There were massive layoffs (in the 50% range) of good paying jobs. As a result, the Houston housing market had a collapse of epic proportions. Maybe the Nevada collapse matched it in absolute terms, but there were new 2200 sq. ft. homes in nice new neighborhoods going for $30,000. Granted, there's been inflation since then, but that's about $60k in today's money. But, banks hid their exposure to this by keeping the homes listed at the old values, not the new market values. On paper, they had no problem. Homes that couldn't be sold for 50k were being listed at 100k. This accounting fiction lasted only for a while, during which things continued to get worse. Finally, the Feds were caught paying a bundle. The second part of the proposal would allow banks to play it closer to the edge. But, if you noticed the folks who got in trouble first were the highest leveraged folks.and that the banks with 10% M1 reserves were a more manageable problem. I cannot imagine why 2% margins or 0.2% margins would make everything all right. I haven't looked at the balance sheets of Barclay's or Deutsche Bank, but I would guess that they are in the same situation. There are two things worth noting. The balance sheets in question changed daily, aye, hourly. Since the SL crisis, mark to market was demanded. So, the best guess of the market value had to be used as the value in the accounting. So, yes, I've looked at a number of balance sheets, including those which involved smoke and mirrors. I did look at the 2007 Barkley's and Deutsche Bank, and it was clear to me that the short term debt overwhelmed any ability of short term assets and subordinate bonds (which I think are the ones you are referring tothose folks who don't have accounts with the bank but own bonds issued by the bank like Ford issues bonds to raise money. They were clearly held up by the long term value of their loan packages, and were in no position to handle a run on the bank by those folks who had the right to ask for their money NOW. There are 40 _trillion_ of credit default swaps out there. Financial institutions have made such complicated deals, and, with the leverage they have, they can wake up on Wednesday with a +10 billion balance sheet and go to bed below water. Let's look If you disagree, then perhaps you can take a look at their balance sheets and tell us what you find? I hope you think I covered that fairly well above. The data shows that if there was a run on short term liabilities (savings, checking, short term paper) for either of these banks, then the banks didn't have the assets (even assuming all of the bondholders assets were included) to cover those assets. Even with the intervention, I can personally see the effects of credit tightening. Checks from in-state banks which always cleared overnight took eight days to clear. When we closed on our house, the buyers had to reconfirm that they had the loan the day of the closinga new standard procedureeven though they had 20%
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 27 Oct 2008, at 02:25, Lance A. Brown wrote: Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro said the following on 10/26/2008 8:44 PM: This is something I don't understand. If Obama is the anti- corporation candidate, how he gets 2-3x more money for the campaing than McPalin? About 90% of Obama's fund raising comes from individuals. After withdrawing from Federal campaign financing, he announced he would not accept any donations from political action committees and has not done so to date. Details available at http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N9638 He isn't beholden to particular PACs or corporations because he's not taken their money. The internet candidate. McCain doesn't know how to use a computer. The Future Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance - Steve Ballmer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
William T Goodall said the following on 10/26/2008 10:38 PM: The internet candidate. McCain doesn't know how to use a computer. The Future Maru Pigs Flying Maru! We agree on something, William. :-) --[Lance] -- GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9 CACert.org Assurer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 10/26/2008 8:12:54 PM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: That is irrelevant. I pay taxes. Anyone who says they want to take my tax money to give to someone else, beyond the bare minimum required, should first demonstrate their willingness to give away all of their money beyond the bare minimum required for subsistence. LOL Las Vegas! xponent Da Moneez Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] So people who believe having an army, navy and air force to defend the country should make up the shortfall in funding when the pacifists decide they'd rather not pay for that? Defending the country is a public good, not redistributing wealth. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why assume that government is inevitably the worst way to accomplish anything? Why assume that you or anyone can determine how other people's money should be spent? Seems like there are many things that government can do better than private industry. Financial regulation, for example. I can't stop laughing long enough to formulate a rational reply to that. Health care... I'd rather trust government, which ultimately answers to the citizenry, than private industry, which ultimately answers to stockholders. I'd rather trust myself to spend my health care dollars as I see fit. It doesn't seem logical. Seems to me we should intelligently assess what things government is best at I think government is best at taking other people's money and spending it less desirably than those who earned it. Most people agree with me, judging by the tiny number of people who voluntarily pay more taxes. But believing you know better than others how to best spend their money is apparently quite seductive to many people. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: My contribution to the bail-out
Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] First, it isn't that simple, Yes, you do tend to oversimplify. the SL mess (which also came after a spell of regulators looking the other way because government regulation was bad.another of many coincidences, I suppose). Actually, a large contributor to the SL failures was poor government regulations. When inflation shot up, the SL's were prohibited by regulation Q from paying high enough interest on deposits to attract enough money. Furthermore, SL's were required to make mortgage loans mostly to customers within a small radius of the SL. With little ability to attract new deposits, and almost no geographical diversification, it is no surprise that they made a lot of desperate, bad investments that ultimately led to many SL failures. the short term debt overwhelmed any ability of short term assets and subordinate bonds (which I think are the ones you are referring tothose folks who don't have accounts with the bank but own bonds issued by the bank like Ford issues bonds to raise money. No, I was referring to all debt, subordinate to senior. The data shows that if there was a run on short term liabilities (savings, checking, short term paper) for either of these banks, then the banks didn't have the assets (even assuming all of the bondholders assets were included) to cover those assets. If you only include short term assets, I think that is probably true. That is not what I was referring to. If a bank is insolvent, then it does not have enough total assets to pay all of its liabilities. There is a complicated set of rules that determines who gets paid and who doesn't, but generally customers (depositors) get paid first and equity holders last. Usually it goes something like customers, creditors, senior debt, subordinated debt, preferred shareholders, common shareholders. As you say, it is likely that the short term assets are not enough to cover a run on the bank. But in every balance sheet I am familiar with, the senior debt on down is more than enough to cover the depositors and creditors. It would just take some time to get them their money (or to arrange a takeover of the viable portions of the bank). Checks from in-state banks which always cleared overnight took eight days to clear. When we closed on our house, the buyers had to reconfirm that they had the loan the day of the closing Oh, the horrors! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
