Escape from Elba
Exiles of the New York Times
May 27, 2018, 03:45:40 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: As you may have noticed, this is a very old backup, I'm still working through restoring the site.  Don't be surprised if you post and it all goes missing....
 
  Home Help Search Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 501 502 [503] 504 505 ... 512
7531  National / Education / Re: Education on: May 08, 2007, 09:51:09 AM

I await arguments for your point of view that are detailed and sensible, rational and reasonable, and not rooted merely in your subjective disregard for what others may have in their bank accounts.

We're sorry, Mr. Utley, but you cannot have more than 10 million dollars.

Return with an argument based in reason and not in emotion, inky!
7532  National / Education / Re: Education on: May 08, 2007, 06:53:46 AM
First of all, just exactly what is wrong with the government setting limits on what individuals may accumulate?
As Scripture tells us, "The love of money is the root of all evil."

Second, even accepting the above as true, I have no problem with some fat cats accumulating and spending whatever they can accumulate during their lifetimes.

My problem is with giving more than $10M to undeserving heirs who had no hand in its accumulation.

I prefer the examples of Carnegie and Gates, both of whom gave or are giving away vast percentages of their wealth for the betterment of society.

The Trumps, Lays, Nacchios, and Kozlowskis of this world sicken decent Americans.

Since you have no problem with some American enjoying the unearned, unmerited benefit of inherited wealth, how do you feel about other Americans having the equally unearned, unmerited benefit of racial preference?

Oh, yes, and BTW, my family have been US citizens for 3 centuries now.


A: What's wrong with the government setting limits on accumulation is that it goes against the Constitituion, which is what Americans  agree to live by.
 
B: "the Scripture" is not the law for all Americans.

C: The phrases, "unearned, unmerited benefit of inherited wealth" is your spin, and not my words.

D: Your "problem" with inherited wealth is that you presume that others deserve it more than the family members of the private citizens who earned it. You have done nothing to show that that is the case.

E: Race has nothing to do with this conversation, so don't introduce it.

F:  You cannot cluster all rich people under the same banner as Trump, et alia. To do so reflects prejudice and discriminates merely on the basis of income.

Gee,  that's wonderful that your family has been here for so long, but you haven't explained what that has to do with this subject. It does remind me of the American Indian at a cocktail party, who when told by an attendee, "My famliy came over on the Mayflower", remarked: "Don't worry. We can't all be born here."

I await arguments for your point of view that are detailed and sensible, rational and reasonable, and not rooted merely in your subjective disregard for what others may have in their bank accounts.
7533  National / Education / Re: Education on: May 07, 2007, 11:09:36 PM
 
That's quite a leg up in a country which promotes legal equality.

The equality that is promoted is about being treated equally under the law, not promoting that everyone gets an equal slice of the economic pie.

Do you live in America? Because it doesn't sound like it, when I read your posts.

 
7534  National / Education / Re: Education on: May 07, 2007, 11:05:09 PM
garrick,
Equity and fairness to me isn't when everything gets the same thing, but when everyone gets what they deserve. If the wealth was created for the family, the family gets to enjoy the wealth. It is not encumbent upon them to make up for the situations of other families.

Now there's a page out of the Gordon Gecko songbook.  I have mine, sucker, YOYO.
Under that theory, John Harvard would have never donated his library, Smithson his fortune, or King his life.
I weep for our country when I think of what the hateful Ronald RAYgun did to it.
Whatever happened to, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask instead what you can do for your country."

That has nothing to do with estate redistribution. Don't distort the pithy argument you are attempting to make. Really what you are attempting to do is to have the government set limits on what individuals can accumulate.

Whatever happened to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? You are attempting to mandate altruism. If you know anything about human nature, it can't be done.
7535  National / Bush Administration / Re: Bush Administration on: May 07, 2007, 08:17:40 PM
Why do you suppose so few other countries are supportive of Israel?

Because they hate Jews.

Got any harder questions?

7536  National / Education / Re: Education on: May 07, 2007, 08:01:15 PM
I went to a lecture on personal finance a number of years ago. The lecturer said, "If you want to be rich, study poor people. Then, don't do what they do."

Of course, it's an oversimplification, but it makes a point.

This country has a lot of resources, and many people do need a hand up. But some folks are only looking for a hand out. The trouble is trying to distinguish one from the other.

As an example, whenever someone dies tragically in the city, the usual things happen. Some shake their heads and say how bad it all is, and what a sweet kind person it was who just was killed. Others immediately say, "The mayor should have done something to prevent this" or "The City don't care about us poor folk".

That turns me off. People that feel helpless are helpless.

And don't lecture me on poor people. I've been poor, I've been hungry, I've had times when I was unemployed. And I've worked with poor people my whole life. Some work hard to improve their lot and do their best to see that their children can do better than they did. Others simply don't care, or they just want to know what your going to do for them.

7537  National / National Security / Re: National Security on: May 07, 2007, 07:52:49 PM
I hate terrorists and i hate defending them.  But i have to bring to light our own hypocrisy.


There IS no defense of them---that IS the point. The hypocrisy IS yours, and you are showing it in every post you make. Comparing unintended collateral damage deaths to the outright intentional murders by terrorists IS just plain silly.

I'm not convinced that all "collateral damage" (ie, killing innocent people) is unintended. I think it's possibly a real part of the program, especially when you advertise military action as "shock and awe".

Call it the Madison Avenue approach to war. We don't really want to kill innocent people, but we can only be so precise with our "surgical strikes". If a few extra people go, well, who's to say they didn't hate America, anyway?
7538  National / Bush Administration / Re: Bush Administration on: May 07, 2007, 07:46:08 PM
And Israel has rejected every UN Resolution since.

Just the ones in which the goal is  to weaken Israel. I can't think of any other country that would act out of self-interest, can you?

You mean, like Iraq?

I mean any country. But since you brought it up, don't try to spin it differently, now.
The Israelis are a template for patriotism for any country that is interested in preserving its people under extreme duress. Does this make them perfect? No.

But few countries have to operate under the same set of stressors as this one does. A most admirable country, in my opinion.

 I think the Bush Administration has at times used the US-Israel relations as a shield in order to pursue aggression in the region for other than stated purposes, and I don't think that has helped Israel. Israel is not in a position to be to disingenuous to the USA, though, given the very few number of countries around the world that support the maintenance of a Jewish state.
 
7539  National / National Security / Re: National Security on: May 07, 2007, 05:19:45 PM
I mean a government dictating how a private company should act?

There IS a lot of federal regulation in this country---yes.


Actually, I think it is closer to the truth to say that private companies are dictating how the government should act. Especially with respect to Iran, our energy policy-making, our pharmaceutical industry, the auto-making industry...I could go on, but you get the point.

That is the Reagan- Bush and Bush-Cheney neo-con way. And the Clinton-Gore way, too, I might add.

7540  National / Bush Administration / Re: Bush Administration on: May 07, 2007, 05:10:24 PM
And Israel has rejected every UN Resolution since.

Just the ones in which the goal is  to weaken Israel. I can't think of any other country that would act out of self-interest, can you?
7541  National / Education / Re: Education on: May 07, 2007, 05:07:34 PM
It's not about rich or poor, for me. If you want to just take things away from people because they happen to have more than you, that's not about equity. It's about jealousy.

Equity and fairness to me isn't when everything gets the same thing, but when everyone gets what they deserve. If the wealth was created for the family, the family gets to enjoy the wealth. It is not encumbent upon them to make up for the situations of other families.

I would prefer we create incentives for the well-to-do to give their assets to others, rather than take them forcibly and redistribute them, as has been put forth.
7542  National / Education / Re: Education on: May 07, 2007, 01:55:40 PM
So, casket flags folded neatly by Marines don't make a nice Mother's Day gift.

I'll keep it in mind.
7543  National / Education / Re: Education on: May 07, 2007, 01:32:20 PM
OK, you favor the unearned, unmerited advantage of inherited wealth, and I favor the equally unearned, unmerited advantage of race.

So mush for all the folks from Thomas Jeffferson to Ward Connerly.

I suppose that makes us equal partners in affirmative action.

BTW, after you die, it's no longer YOUR money.  If you doubt that, try spending some!


The law is usually pretty clear as to how one's property may be distributed after one's death, and one has a right to determine that for oneself. Having children of my own, and being a person of fair means, and having brought my children into the world and raised them to be good and proper citizens, I am not willing to give up my right to continue to give freely to them and promote their welfare through whatever means are at my disposal at the time of my death. Why would you oppose such a situation? Should you choose to leave your wealth to the state at the end of your time on earth, and not to your children, that is your choice to make, but don't attempt to limit my choices.

By virtue of your statement that you favor the "advantage of race", in many people's minds that would make you a racist.

7544  Sports / Baseball / Re: AL East on: May 07, 2007, 01:23:31 PM
As some might recall, at the very end of last season the Los Angeles Times reported that Jason Grimsley gave an affidavit to federal investigators in which he said that his source for performance enhancing drugs was Clemens's (and Andy Pettitte's) trainer. Clemens and Pettitte responded with odd nondenial denials. Clemens, for instance, turned back questions about human growth hormone by noting that he'd never failed a drug test. There is no test for hGH.
Senator Mitchell's inquiry into drug use in baseball is going to make its report later this year. The feds have flipped a former Mets clubhouse boy turned drug peddler, who apparently named 85 names currently playing in the majors as clients. Barry Bonds is going to break Hank Aaron's career home runs record sooner than anyone thought. Drugs are going to be a bigger story this summer than they ever have been before.
With all that, it's an open question whether the biggest story around Clemens is going to be his dramatic return to baseball's biggest stage at the time of the Yankees' greatest peril, or whether it's going to be the rumors and accusations that have bubbled up in various investigations. I say this not in the spirit of accusation, but of caution. There will be operatic drama to spare regarding the prodigal legend in the next few months. I'm far from certain that all, or even most, of it is going to focus on what he does on the mound.


http://www.nysun.com/article/53958?page_no=2
7545  National / National Security / Re: National Security on: May 07, 2007, 12:59:03 PM
Will the oil companies be posting even bigger profits this year than last?

I wonder what gasoline prices would be if the US population was the owner of all non-renewable natural resources? And not an individual or a very small cadre of people? I proposed a solution and you went ballistics. True?

I wonder what they would be if we had an energy policy that imposed the same CAFE standards on SUVs, and light trucks, as it does on cars?

 
Pages: 1 ... 501 502 [503] 504 505 ... 512
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!