 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / November 2009Slate: Ambulances for the Ample
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/humannature/archive/2009/10/23/ambulances- for-the-ample.aspx Ambulances for the Ample Posted Friday, October 23, 2009 8:59 AM | By William Saletan Everywhere you look, fat people are being charged extra. More for plane seats. More for health insurance. More, in the form of reduced incentive payouts, under proposals for Medicare and Medicaid. Now, more for ambulance service. We've talked about ambulances before. Along with toilets and coffins, they're part of a global size upgrade for bigger bodies. And it's expensive. Heather Hollingsworth of the Associated Press does the math: Transporting extremely heavy people costs about 2 1/2 times as much as normal-weight patients. It takes more time to move them and requires three to four times more crew members, who often must use expensive specialty equipment. ... [One] unit in Topeka recently spent about $10,000 to retrofit an ambulance with equipment that accommodates patients weighing up to 1,600 pounds. Ambulance services with helicopters also are creating larger patient compartments and adding stronger gurneys. Sales of specialized lift systems nationwide are expected to reach $193 million by 2012, up from $75 million in 2004, according to EMS Insider, an industry newsletter. The sale of specialized stretchers is expected to nearly double to $50 million in 2012. Now there's a movement to pass on the costs. Hollingsworth reports: Ambulance companies say it's time for insurance providers, Medicaid and Medicare, or patients themselves to begin paying the added costs, which are cutting into their razor-thin profit margins. In the past, ambulance companies often absorbed the extra expense of serving the obese. Now they are adding charges similar to those already imposed on intensive-care patients, people requiring multiple medications and patients on ventilators. The surcharge is significant. In several cities, ambulance services are billing nearly double for anyone over 500 pounds. In raw numbers, that's around $500 to $700. Fat-rights activists say the extra fees are discriminatory. The president of one group tells Hollingsworth, "Ambulance services are a critical public service and should accommodate the needs of all of those who require them at a fair cost." I don't have a quick answer to this problem, but maybe we can start to think it through. First, we need to decide whether privately operated ambulances are, as the fat-rights spokesman says, a public service. It seems pretty clear, for example, that private airlines can make you pay double if you don't fit in a seat. Do ambulances have to play by nicer rules because medical services are inherently public? If so, shouldn't the public reimburse them? Second, to the extent that fat is an issue of personal responsibility, does that really apply to ambulance service? Nobody's going to lose weight so they can save $700 on their next ambulance trip. To the extent that motivation can overcome obesity, the reason people are going to lose weight is to stay out of the hospital altogether. Third, if you think fat people should bear the extra cost of transporting them, what does that say about your overall views on insurance for preexisting conditions? The health-care reforms being debated in Congress would bar insurers from excluding people with pre-existing conditions. The argument is that people aren't responsible for such conditions and shouldn't be priced out of the insurance market on account of them. Therefore, we would socialize their extra cost. Is that OK with you? If so, to the extent that obesity is genetically or environmentally induced, shouldn't we treat it the same way? I worked on an ambulance for a couple of years, and I have two fat people stories. One, where we got a call of a lady in distress. She was located in a second-story apartment. She was screaming and thrashing about because she was passing a kidney stone. We loaded her on the gurnery and tried to take her down the stairs. The gurney wouldn't make the turn, so I went back and got an ambu-chair. It is a cross between a chair and a gurney. So my partner and I are struggeling to get this 400 pound bag of cheeseburgers down the stairs and she's flailing about. I yell at her to stop moving because we are in danger of dropping her. Finally we get her to the bottom of the stairs, and we start to transfer her back to the gurney. The neighbors are all out to see what the commotion is and they are all laughing at her predictiment. She stands up and runs in to the back of the ambulance. My partner and I look at each other, pissed we had to struggel to get her heftyness down the stairs, yet at the same time happy we don't have to lift her big butt into the cab. The whole time she is yelling at the top of her lungs in pain. When we get to the ER, everybody is looking at her, until an ER doc blurts out, "Beached whale. Thar she bows!" Everyone turned away to laugh. Another time we had a very large man who was having a heart attack. My partner and I tried to get him on the gurney, but we weren't strong enough. So we called in another ambulance team. All for of us couldn't hardly budge the guy. So we called the fire department. They came, we padded a long ladder, put him on it and with the strenght of ten men we were able to slide him on the ladder in to the back of the ambulance. We had to bungie cord the back door closed because the ladder stuck out, and I had to sit in the back with my feet on the bench because this hunk of humanity took up the entire floor. The ambulance springs didn't take this weight lightly, because we now looked like some kind of low rider with the front up and the back bottoming out. We drove code three (siren and lights) to the hospital. We couldn't safely get faster then 50 mph on the freeway, and people were pulling up to the back of the moving ambulance to see what they could. Upon arrival at the hospital, a team of workers looked at the patient, surveyed the situation and announced they did not have the resources to handle such a hugh patient. After some phone calls, we were able to locate a hospital that could handle this guy, a hundred miles away. So with the sirens on and lights a flashing we were off down the freeway at 50mph. More than two hours later we arrived at the hospital. The local fire department was waiting to assist and maintance had welded together some enormous bed. Later I found out the man wieghed more than 900 pounds! Imagine having to turn either of these patients every two hours. No wonder back injury is the number one career ender for nurses. > I worked on an ambulance for a couple of years, and I have two fat > people stories. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > doc blurts out, "Beached whale. Thar she bows!" Everyone turned away > to laugh. 400lbs or more and she ran into the back of the ambulance???? Bullshit. “You lie”. Lol. I also highly doubt an ER doctor would say something like that before he or she knew what kind of medical emergency they were dealing with. Either he was the mose unprofessional clown on the planet or again “you lie” lol. > Another time we had a very large man who was having a heart attack. My > partner and I tried to get him on the gurney, but we weren't strong [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Imagine having to turn either of these patients every two hours. No > wonder back injury is the number one career ender for nurses. That’s unusual, Heart attack patient (sirens on???) A knowledgeable EMS worker knows in a case like that its lights ONLY. Sirens add to the victim’s anxiety and when dealing with a heart attack even a clueless dork like you knows this. Also ten men to move him on a makeshift ladder thing? Springs in the vehicle crushed under his weight and various hospitals without the resources to handle him and you had no clue he weighed upwards of 900? Are you blind as well as dumb? W. >http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/humannature/archive/2009/10/23/ambulances- >for-the-ample.aspx [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >they're part of a global size upgrade for bigger bodies. And it's >expensive. Heather Hollingsworth of the Associated Press does the math: There is nothing wrong with wanting larger items to make life more comfortable. Additional monies for these services and products is acceptable provided it is not added on to fleece the consumer. Larger items require more material. >Transporting extremely heavy people costs about 2 1/2 times as much as >normal-weight patients. It takes more time to move them and requires three >to four times more crew members, who often must use expensive specialty >equipment. ... [One] unit in Topeka recently spent about $10,000 to >retrofit an ambulance with equipment that accommodates patients weighing up >to 1,600 pounds. How many patients have their transported that weighed 1,600 pounds? Fat people do not need to sponsor OVERKILL. > Ambulance services with helicopters also are creating >larger patient compartments and adding stronger gurneys. Sales of >specialized lift systems nationwide are expected to reach $193 million by >2012, up from $75 million in 2004, according to EMS Insider, an industry >newsletter. The sale of specialized stretchers is expected to nearly double >to $50 million in 2012. There is nothing wrong with that. A prudent business person meets the needs of a market and makes money. However paying for is overkill is not acceptable. >Now there's a movement to pass on the costs. Hollingsworth reports: As long as the costs are prudent and are not OVERKILL. Paying for a specialized ambulances that can carry the weight of the average patient is OK but 1,600 pounds?? That doesn't even include the crew, does it? >Ambulance companies say it's time for insurance providers, Medicaid and >Medicare, or patients themselves to begin paying the added costs, which are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >patients, people requiring multiple medications and patients on >ventilators. Oh yes, let's include fat people, drug addicts, people who injure themselves in sports, fang bangers, people who get shot, smoking, driving and assorted other hazardous activities. >The surcharge is significant. In several cities, ambulance services are >billing nearly double for anyone over 500 pounds. That is OK as long as they bill ALL 500 pound patients. >In raw numbers, that's >around $500 to $700. Fat-rights activists say the extra fees are >discriminatory. They are if fat people are being seen as sources of income rather than patients who deserve the same good care than their thinner counterparts get. > The president of one group tells Hollingsworth, "Ambulance >services are a critical public service and should accommodate the needs of >all of those who require them at a fair cost." They are right-they should. >I don't have a quick answer to this problem, but maybe we can start to >think it through. First, we need to decide whether privately operated [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >rules because medical services are inherently public? If so, shouldn't the >public reimburse them? Posting anonymously to a fat acceptance group and diet groups at the same is trolling. It will not garner you any sympathy for your cause except from zealots that think fat people have no right to exist. >Second, to the extent that fat is an issue of personal responsibility, does >that really apply to ambulance service? You mean like smoking, participating in extreme sports and jaywalking? > Nobody's going to lose weight so >they can save $700 on their next ambulance trip. To the extent that >motivation can overcome obesity, the reason people are going to lose weight >is to stay out of the hospital altogether. The obese are-simply put as that. Seeing it as a moral shortcoming say more about you and your posting habits. >Third, if you think fat people should bear the extra cost of transporting >them, what does that say about your overall views on insurance for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >to the extent that obesity is genetically or environmentally induced, >shouldn't we treat it the same way? Where does it stop? I am not Aryan or perfect and I like it that way. LV "I rode a tank and held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank." ---Sympathy for the Devil-The Rolling Stones -------------------------------------------- "We are all born ignorant, but we must work hard to remain stupid. ---Benjamin Franklin ---------------------------------------------- "Some people are only alive because it is illegal to kill them." ---Anonymous ---------------------------------------------- "Only the weak are cruel. Gentleness can only be expected from the strong." ----Leo Buscaglia --------------------------------------------- Are you being harassed on Usenet and want to fight back instead of leaving the net? Are you willing to stand up to Internet bullies and stalkers? Join my group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/antiCHU ---------------------------------------------- "I am mad as hell and I will not take it anymore!" ---Network >> The surcharge is significant. In several cities, ambulance services are >> billing nearly double for anyone over 500 pounds. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > patients who deserve the same good care than their thinner > counterparts get. What if someone doesn't weigh 500 lbs, what if they only weign 490. They might as well be 500, but they don't reach that magic number. I doubt if the lack of the extra 10 lbs really makes much of a difference to the crew, but it makes a sh.t load of difference on the bill. What if they charged like a moving company? A flat rate to show up, then a per box fee... Only in this case, a per pound fee... Now, fat people aren't discriminated against, because ALL people are treated the same, as dehumanized slabs of meat. All people are screwed equally. >> I don't have a quick answer to this problem, but maybe we can start to >> think it through. First, we need to decide whether privately operated [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > same is trolling. It will not garner you any sympathy for your cause > except from zealots that think fat people have no right to exist. If you don't fit in an airline seat, they charge you double because you can take up two seats... If you don't fit in one ambulance... What, they going to send you to the hospital in two of them? Like to see how they pull that one off... . . . . . .. > >> The surcharge is significant. In several cities, ambulance services are > >> billing nearly double for anyone over 500 pounds. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > . > .. This just be my Pollyanna side but, whatever happened to "one for all and all for one"?  Signature"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm >> If you don't fit in an airline seat, they charge you double because you >> can take up two seats... If you don't fit in one ambulance... What, they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > This just be my Pollyanna side but, whatever happened to "one for all > and all for one"? That's a line used by the "have nots" to force/trick the "haves" to share. . . . . . . . . . > >> If you don't fit in an airline seat, they charge you double because you > >> can take up two seats... If you don't fit in one ambulance... What, they [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > That's a line used by the "have nots" to force/trick the "haves" to share. You mean like us and them? You mean "We". There are many requirements that the "have nots" and the "haves" have in common ,some are mentioned below where us, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Seems that under general welfare "We" could include clean water and air, freedom from pollutants in our food, honest politicians, and health care. If "We" need fire departments to keep fires from spreading from our neighbors house to ours, then "We" need medical care to keep sickness from spreading from house to house. Once upon a time, the "We" were Americans, and the "them" were the Brits. Then there was a "We" that only included land owners and the "them" was those who worked for their living. Then there was a "We" that only meant "white" men. Then there was a "we" that only meant "men". Then there was a "We" that only meant Protestant. The top one percent of households received 21.8 percent of all pre-tax income in 2005, and only pay 15% income tax (capital gains). You think that this happened by accident? http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm "The richest 1 percent have more financial wealth than the bottom 95 percent combined." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/01/michael-mo ore/moore-says-top-1-percent-owns-more-financial-wealt/ "Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth." -Lucy Parsons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Parsons If this Keptocracy has become a "if you snooze, you lose" kinda ranch, where "We" are the sheep that are raised just to be sheared by the "haves", maybe "We" ought to reconsider who "We" are. Signature"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm >>> This just be my Pollyanna side but, whatever happened to "one for all >>> and all for one"? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this > Constitution for the United States of America." "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" > Seems that under general welfare "We" could include clean water and air, > freedom from pollutants in our food, honest politicians, and health care. It is also clear that while we are born equal, there exists no promise of equal outcome. That you have the right to the pursuit of happiness, but not the right to actually get happy. The right to clean air and water is one thing, the right to a job and a house are quite another. No one has the right to property they do not own, only the right to protect that which they do. Arguments like the "greater good" or the "collective good" or other phrases to represent the whole of society, in order to bring about universal change, are dangerous. Arguments for clean water and air can be made at the individual level, and people will agree with it universally. However, arguments for wealth redistribution are normally accepted by those that would gain while being rejected by those that would pay. That is why such arguments MUST be made concerning the collective, it would never be accepted otherwise. > If "We" need fire departments to keep fires from spreading from our > neighbors house to ours, then "We" need medical care to keep sickness > from spreading from house to house. First off, you are talking to a minarchist. Fire protection, as well as police protection, should be ran as a capitalistic business that charges per use. If you don't need the police, you should not be forced to pay for their continued existance. When you need the service, however, you should pay fair market value for that service. Likewise, you should pay fair market value for medical procedures. As harsh as it sounds, you do not have the right to health care or insurance. If you believe you have the "right" to fire protection, do you also believe we have the right to fire insurance that is paid for from the common treasury? > The top one percent of households received 21.8 percent of all pre-tax > income in 2005, and only pay 15% income tax (capital gains). You think > that this happened by accident? Do you believe I think that is a bad thing? The top 1% of households earned that much money because they were successful capitalists, offering goods and services that the other 99% of the population needed or wanted. Income taxes punish those that earn money, punish those that directly drive the economy. I support the Fair Tax proposal, a nation wide sales tax that would REPLACE national income tax. Remember, the existance of money does the rich man no good. It is when that money is used to purchase goods and services, that a benefit is gained. That transaction directly creates the life style, and as such the need for services. Therefore, that transaction is how taxes should be generated. Taxing income, generated by the selling of goods and services, is nothing short of double taxation. > "The richest 1 percent have more financial wealth than the bottom 95 > percent combined." I would imagine you would read the above, and become quite angry at the rich. How dare they rob you of your wealth, right? I read the above, and become quite angry at the government. How dare they get in my way, I want to be rich too! > "When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask > why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." > -Archbishop Helder Camara When you want to teach the poor how to grow or otherwise make their own food, so they are no longer dependent upon the saints, the communists call you evil. *** George Bush left horse sh.t on the floor of the barn. Barack Obama is "cleaning up the mess" by smearing more horse sh.t all over the rest of the barn, so the floor will no longer seems messy. S.top O.bama's S.ocialism Your neo-liberal attitudes are so much simple minded trash. They have never worked and only serve as justification for the World Bank to separate the citizens of the Third World from their money. Under your system, how would an accident victim have a chance to get pre-approve ambulance service? If the police are for hire, do you negotiate with them while you're being mugged? Can you pay, not to be profiled? What if the crooks want to hire the police (or Blackwater). Do you only get the justice you can afford? Children only get educated, if their parents have the money? You would save the rights of the individual at the cost of society. We presently have the greatest concentration of wealth since the Great Depression. A coincidence? Mr. Got-Rocks pays 15% on his capital gains income. I pay 30% on for my wages, earned with sweat. Franklin Roosevelt had a different take on the situation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights Roosevelt's "The Economic Bill of Rights" Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union[1]: It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people--whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth--is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure. This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights--among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty. As our nation has grown in size and stature, however--as our industrial economy expanded--these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness. We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all--regardless of station, race, or creed. Among these are: The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education. All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being. America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. - Franklin D. Roosevelt I can see that you are a dilettante of philosophies and master of none. The problem lies here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY > >>> This just be my Pollyanna side but, whatever happened to "one for all > >>> and all for one"? [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > O.bama's > S.ocialism Signature"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm > The top 1% of households earned that much money because they were > successful capitalists, offering goods and services that the other 99% of > the population needed or wanted. Income taxes punish those that earn > money, punish those that directly drive the economy. I support the Fair > Tax proposal, a nation wide sales tax that would REPLACE national income > tax. The top 1% pays 15% income on their capital gains, we pay, roughly, 30% on our income. The richest 1% of America nearly tripled their after-tax percentage of our nation's income, while the bottom 90% dropped over 20%. The bottom 20% basically have zero wealth. They either have no assets, or their debt equals or exceeds their assets. Productivity has gone up, wages haven't. Money buys access to government, which writes the spending and tax laws. It seems like we live in two separate worlds. Most of the goods and services that are sold are shoddy. Sex sells cars. Cute guy stuff sells beer. Nutrient deprived junk food is sold in the name of the latest nutritional "buzz words", cholesterol free. Deodorants are sold because commercials tell you that you stink. Is this stuff obvious? No, advertisers spend billions of dollars to get you to buy their product, and advertising works. Presently, we have two elective wars, that do nothing for freedom but make arms manufactures rich. Sales tax is a regressive tax, that falls mainly on the poor. Why not have a tax that reflects the profits that one has made from our economy? Signature"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm >> The top 1% of households earned that much money because they were >> successful capitalists, offering goods and services that the other 99% of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The top 1% pays 15% income on their capital gains, we pay, roughly, 30% > on our income. Do you honestly believe that as a percentage of income a rich man uses just as much services, or even more so, then you do? Money, as it's own device, does the rich man no good at all. In it's own right, it offers no benefit. He cannot eat it, he cannot wear it, he cannot live in it. He cannot drive in it, take a vacation on it, or watch football on it. Rather, what benefit the rich man obtains through the collection of money is what that man does with it. It is the food he buys, the clothes he buys, the house he buys. It is the car he drives, the hotel room he gets, or the HD TV that he owns. It is therefore by that measure, the goods and services that the man collects, that he should be taxed. Not only is that the source of his benefit, but also the measure by which he needs services like police and fire. Likewise, the middle class man needs governmental services in direct relationship to the goods and services he or she purchases. The rich man may need police protection more then you or I do. However, his need of that service is in direct relationship to the property he owns, just like it is with me. Taxing sales and not income would greatly encourage savings, an act that today is punished since income gained from the risk is taxed. > The richest 1% of America nearly tripled their after-tax percentage of > our nation's income, GOOD! They worked hard and deserved it! > while the bottom 90% dropped over 20%. Perhaps that bottom 90% needs to work harder. > The bottom 20% basically have zero wealth. And therefore suck up many times more services then they pay for. Under the fair tax, people are given a refund for the taxes paid at the poverty level income, allowing these people to remain tax free. > They either have no assets, > or their debt equals or exceeds their assets. Then they stupid as hell, hu? Perhaps they should be more responsible with their money, rather then demand socialism paid by the rich person paying most of the taxes as it is now. > Productivity has gone up, wages haven't. My wage has... The people who's wage hasn't gone up are unskilled labor, jobs that are not intended to be live long careers. No one should work at McDonalds as a burger flipper for 40 years. > Money buys access to government, which writes the spending and tax laws. > It seems like we live in two separate worlds. Those that pay the bills, and those that bitch about how they don't get enough stuff paid for by those that pay the bills. > Sales tax is a regressive tax, that falls mainly on the poor. And progressive income tax should be considered a violation of the 13th amendment. However, I would also be ok with a flat income tax. Everyone pays a specific rate, no deductions and no exceptions. That way, as a percentage of income, rich or poor, we all pay the same. How would you feel about that? > Why not have a tax that reflects the profits that one has made from our > economy? I'd rather a tax that reflects what services are obtained from society. On Nov 5, 4:10 pm, The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote: > Do you honestly believe that as a percentage of income a rich man uses > just as much services, or even more so, then you do? Yes I do. The rich require the infrastructure to accumulate wealth and preserve it. The rich require the police and military to protect their wealth. The rich have more write-offs, tax breaks, incentives, and subsidies. The rich benifit from an educated work force. They benifit from a system of non-corruption.. The poor on the other hand are poor if the system in democratic, socialised or under a dictator. Upheavel allows the chance to rise above their station. And I don't want to hear about America's upward mobility; it may have been true when the top income tax rate was above 80%, but today there is a downward sinking of the average Americans' class -- fewer middle class and greater numbers in poverty. >> Do you honestly believe that as a percentage of income a rich man uses >> just as much services, or even more so, then you do? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The rich require the infrastructure to accumulate wealth and preserve > it. So does everyone else. I said AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME... A rich man, who earns 30X my income every single year, does NOT need the infrastructure 30X more then I do. You can argue that he needs it more, and I won't fight back. But all 30X more? Come on, you can't seriously believe that... Do you? > The rich require the police and military to protect their wealth. The rich needs police and fire to protect their property, not wealth. As for the military, all free men need it to protect their freedom, no matter how much wealth or property they may have. > The rich have more write-offs, tax breaks, incentives, and subsidies. > The rich benifit from an educated work force. They benifit from a > system of non-corruption.. And that is 100% fair! Progressive taxes punish the rich. Even with the "tax breaks" that they get, they still pay for far more governmental services then they use. It is by their labor, by their work and investment, that social services are provided for the poor, by robing the rich of their money. > >> Do you honestly believe that as a percentage of income a rich man uses > >> just as much services, or even more so, then you do? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > for the military, all free men need it to protect their freedom, no matter > how much wealth or property they may have. Again, tell it to United Fruit and the Dulles gang. Or to the weapons manufactures who would be out of business, if it was for an active military. > > The rich have more write-offs, tax breaks, incentives, and subsidies. > > The rich benifit from an educated work force. They benifit from a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > investment, that social services are provided for the poor, by robing the > rich of their money. Signature"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm > The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote >> Do you honestly believe that as a percentage of income a rich >> man uses just as much services, or even more so, then you do? > Yes I do. More fool you. > The rich require the infrastructure to accumulate wealth and preserve it. Nope, they can afford to pay for their own protection and usually do that too. > The rich require the police and military to protect their wealth. Like hell they do. They can afford to employ their own goons to protect their wealth and the military isnt involved in protecting their wealth at all. > The rich have more write-offs, tax breaks, incentives, and subsidies. Yes, but they end up paying a hell of a lot more tax than say the individuals in the bottom 20% of society too. > The rich benifit from an educated work force. That depends entirely on where their wealth comes from. In some areas they benefit from having stupid uneducated consumers to buy the sh.t they flog, most obviously with the Waltons. They dont even need an educated work force, just being able to read and write is about all they need from most of their apes and they can afford to pay for the education of those that need better than that too. > They benifit from a system of non-corruption.. Many of them benefit even more from corruption. > The poor on the other hand are poor if the system in democratic, socialised or under a dictator. Mindlessly silly. > Upheavel allows the chance to rise above their station. That chance is available in any modern first world country even without upheavel now. > And I don't want to hear about America's upward mobility; Its a fact anyway. > it may have been true when the top income tax rate was above 80%, And still is today. Look at what so many immigrants manage even today. > but today there is a downward sinking of the average Americans' class Like hell there is. > -- fewer middle class and greater numbers in poverty. Another pig ignorant lie. The only ones 'in poverty' today are those who are entirely dependant on welfare who are too stupid to live frugally, and 'the homeless', most of whom are quite literally barking mad, just not kept in locked wards anymore. The middle class isnt shrinking at all, it keeps increasing in numbers every single year. > >> Do you honestly believe that as a percentage of income a rich > >> man uses just as much services, or even more so, then you do? [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > The middle class isnt shrinking at all, it keeps increasing in numbers every single year. You have to see modern America. We have people who are hungry. We have obese people because they are corn fed junk, everything has high fructose corn syrup in it. That is why we have so many obese people, they crave nutrition, so they eat. Instead of nutrition, they get empty calories. The corn farmer is highly subsidized, the family farm is gone and all they is remaining are food factories that turn out corn, corn fed animals and corn by-products. The poor in this country are fat because the non-nutrious foods are subsidized and so the cheapest. The education system is geared to producing consumers. Everyone knows the lyrics to the latest boy-band song, but few can balance a check book, let alone understand compounding intrest. We have entire families living in cars, under bridges, and in the basements of relatives. Predators prey on our children, marriage is a temporary thing, government wants the man out before they will help, strip dancing is considered a valid career choice, higher education means years of debt. Bankruptcy is no longer an option for the middle class. Living wage jobs are outsourced overseas. Military service is one of the few opportunities for the poor. Today the average CEO makes more than 400 times the wage of an average worker. The unemployment rate is given to be 10% but may be in reality above 25%. Those who work are only a paycheck or two from being homeless. America used to be the land of opportunity. After WWII, the idea was that by hard work, frugal living, innovation and a little luck, one could buy a house, raise a family, send the children to college and retire in comfort. Today, it is investors who take the lion's share of the wealth. Credit card companies take a percentage of nearly every purchase. Laborers are expendable, education is useless when the job you train for is out sourced or over run with 'guest' workers. Money is made by having money and the worker is tolerated only until he can be replaced. Upward mobilty is not a fact of life in America anymore. Interesting reading here: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/Hertz_MobilityAnalysis.pdf > You have to see modern America. We have people who are hungry. Get a job... Then they can buy their own food. > We have > obese people because they are corn fed junk, everything has high > fructose corn syrup in it. Get a better job... Then they can buy better food. Assuming ofcourse that they want to. Carls Jr is f.cking GOOD!!!! MMMMmmmm... > That is why we have so many obese people, > they crave nutrition, so they eat. Instead of nutrition, they get > empty calories. Sounds like the fault of the consumer... > The corn farmer is highly subsidized, and by no means rich > the family farm > is gone and all they is remaining are food factories that turn out > corn, corn fed animals and corn by-products. The poor in this country > are fat because the non-nutrious foods are subsidized and so the > cheapest. I'm no fan of welfare, be it in the form of food stamps for some woman with 3 children each a different color, or a farmer who is subsidized. In both cases, it is a misuse of tax dollars. > We have entire families living in cars, under bridges, and in the > basements of relatives. Get a job, they can afford a house... > Today the average CEO makes more than 400 times the wage of an > average worker. The unemployment rate is given to be 10% but may be in > reality above 25%. Those who work are only a paycheck or two from > being homeless. Then perhaps we need a tax code that ENCOURAGES the rich to create jobs and invest in industry! Why would a rich man want to risk his money in an investment, if any gain would be taxed at an inane amount? It's not even worth it then! > America used to be the land of opportunity. After WWII, the idea was > that by hard work, frugal living, innovation and a little luck, one > could buy a house, raise a family, send the children to college and > retire in comfort. Today, it is investors who take the lion's share of > the wealth. Bullshit! Today, it is welfare collecting scum that suckon the government tit. The poor today depend on programs that were not created by FDR, but LBJ and his "great society". These people demand more and more and more, every year. And the liberals bend over backward to provide it. > Credit card companies... Offer a service that customers are more then willing to pay for. > purchase. Laborers are expendable, education is useless when the job > you train for is out sourced or over run with 'guest' workers. Money > is made by having money and the worker is tolerated only until he can > be replaced. UNSKILLED workers can be replaced, and rightly so! Minimum wage jobs are NOT a legitimate career path, they are instead intended for highschool students entering the work force. > > You have to see modern America. We have people who are hungry. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Get a better job... Then they can buy better food. Assuming ofcourse > that they want to. Carls Jr is f.cking GOOD!!!! MMMMmmmm... If you like junk food. > > That is why we have so many obese people, > > they crave nutrition, so they eat. Instead of nutrition, they get [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > NOT a legitimate career path, they are instead intended for highschool > students entering the work force. Signature"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >>> The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote >>>> Do you honestly believe that as a percentage of income a rich >>>> man uses just as much services, or even more so, then you do? >>> Yes I do. >> More fool you. >>> The rich require the infrastructure to accumulate wealth and preserve it. >> Nope, they can afford to pay for their own protection and usually do that too. >>> The rich require the police and military to protect their wealth. >> Like hell they do. They can afford to employ their own goons to protect >> their wealth and the military isnt involved in protecting their wealth at all. >>> The rich have more write-offs, tax breaks, incentives, and subsidies. >> Yes, but they end up paying a hell of a lot more tax than >> say the individuals in the bottom 20% of society too. >>> The rich benifit from an educated work force. >> That depends entirely on where their wealth comes from. >> In some areas they benefit from having stupid uneducated consumers >> to buy the sh.t they flog, most obviously with the Waltons. They dont >> even need an educated work force, just being able to read and write >> is about all they need from most of their apes and they can afford to >> pay for the education of those that need better than that too. >>> They benifit from a system of non-corruption.. >> Many of them benefit even more from corruption. >>> The poor on the other hand are poor if the system in democratic, >>> socialised or under a dictator. >> Mindlessly silly. >>> Upheavel allows the chance to rise above their station. >> That chance is available in any modern first world country even without upheavel now. >>> And I don't want to hear about America's upward mobility; >> Its a fact anyway. >>> it may have been true when the top income tax rate was above 80%, >> And still is today. Look at what so many immigrants manage even today. >>> but today there is a downward sinking of the average Americans' class >> Like hell there is. >>> -- fewer middle class and greater numbers in poverty. >> Another pig ignorant lie. >> The only ones 'in poverty' today are those who are entirely dependant on >> welfare who are too stupid to live frugally, and 'the homeless', most of >> whom are quite literally barking mad, just not kept in locked wards anymore. >> The middle class isnt shrinking at all, it keeps increasing in numbers every single year. > You have to see modern America. Nope, I know what its like. > We have people who are hungry. The only hungry in modern america are those on diets and anorexics etc. > We have obese people because they are corn fed > junk, everything has high fructose corn syrup in it. Nope, obesity is due to shovelling more calories into your mouth than you burn. > That is why we have so many obese people, they crave nutrition, so they eat. That is just plain wrong. > Instead of nutrition, they get empty calories. Plenty of the obese shovel more full calories into their mouths than they burn. > The corn farmer is highly subsidized, the family farm is gone Like hell it is. > and all they is remaining are food factories that turn > out corn, corn fed animals and corn by-products. Another pig ignorant lie. > The poor in this country are fat because the non-nutrious foods are subsidized Like hell they are. > and so the cheapest. Another lie. A diet of rice and very little meat at all is still the cheapest and isnt subsidised at all. It just doesnt appeal to the american 'poor' > The education system is geared to producing consumers. Another lie. > Everyone knows the lyrics to the latest boy-band song, but few can > balance a check book, let alone understand compounding intrest. That has always been true, nothing to do with the education system, everything to do with what most have between their ears. > We have entire families living in cars, under > bridges, and in the basements of relatives. Yep, some f.ck up financially. > Predators prey on our children, Nope, FAR more children are abused by their familys and those known to their familys. > marriage is a temporary thing, A viable marraige always was for hordes. > government wants the man out before they will help, Another lie. > strip dancing is considered a valid career choice, Always was. > higher education means years of debt. Nope, it doesnt have to. > Bankruptcy is no longer an option for the middle class. Another lie. > Living wage jobs are outsourced overseas. Hordes of them arent. > Military service is one of the few opportunities for the poor. Another lie. They're free to get a decent education and a decent job which cant be outsourced. > Today the average CEO makes more than 400 times the wage of an average worker. The average worker lives much better than the average worker did say 100 years ago. > The unemployment rate is given to be 10% but may be in reality above 25%. Another lie. > Those who work are only a paycheck or two from being homeless. Another lie. > America used to be the land of opportunity. Still is, which is why there is an immense legal and illegal immigration rate. > After WWII, the idea was that by hard work, frugal living, innovation and a little luck, > one could buy a house, raise a family, send the children to college and retire in comfort. Still can. > Today, it is investors who take the lion's share of the wealth. Another lie. > Credit card companies take a percentage of nearly every purchase. Another lie. The majority pay off their cards in full every month. > Laborers are expendable, They always were. Which is why it makes sense to get qualified for better than that. > education is useless when the job you train for is out sourced Which is why it makes sense to train for a job that cant be. > or over run with 'guest' workers. Which is why it makes sense to train for a job that cant be. > Money is made by having money Thats just one way of making money. > and the worker is tolerated only until he can be replaced. And most of them never can be. > Upward mobilty is not a fact of life in America anymore. Another lie. Have a look at what the immigrant do every day. > Interesting reading here: > http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/Hertz_MobilityAnalysis.pdf Nope, just a complete pack of lies. > > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote > >>> The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote [quoted text clipped - 227 lines] > > Nope, just a complete pack of lies. Another Republican pimp. Just get rid of all regulations and see how good it will be, he will promise you. Who needs to keep commercial and investment banks separate, anyway? Apparently, 99% of us did. Wasn't it interesting that bankruptcy laws were changed just before home loans went belly up. It's almost like some one knew 18 months in advance, what was happening and did nothing to stop it. Vote the bastards out and vote third party. Signature³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.² -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote [quoted text clipped - 234 lines] >> >> Nope, just a complete pack of lies. > Another Republican pimp. You wouldnt know what a real republican pimp was if it bit you on your lard arse. > Just get rid of all regulations and see how good it will be, he will promise you. Having fun thrashing that straw man ? > Who needs to keep commercial and investment banks separate, anyway? Canada and Australia didnt, and not one of their retail banks imploded spectacularly or even needed to be bailed out by govt. They had adequate regulation that avoided that. > Apparently, 99% of us did. Did what ? > Wasn't it interesting that bankruptcy laws were > changed just before home loans went belly up. You can still go bankrupt if your home loan has gone belly up, but with the stupid US non recourse system, you dont need to bother, you just hand back the keys and walk out. > It's almost like some one knew 18 months in advance, > what was happening and did nothing to stop it. Yeah, yeah, its those damned jews conspiring in smoke filled rooms to shaft us all, again. > Vote the bastards out They just did, stupid. > and vote third party. They aint that stupid. > >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote > >>>>> The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote [quoted text clipped - 268 lines] > Yeah, yeah, its those damned jews conspiring in smoke filled rooms to shaft > us all, again. OMG, a full bubble. See you around Adolph. > > Vote the bastards out > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > They aint that stupid. Signature³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.² -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm In article <wldbilly-31167D.19170110112009@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>, > Wasn't it interesting that bankruptcy laws were changed just before home > loans went belly up. It's almost like some one knew 18 months in > advance, what was happening and did nothing to stop it. They got the new bankruptcy laws passed. That is doing something about the fiscal crises. SignatureA computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard. > > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote > >>> The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >> their wealth and the military isnt involved in protecting their wealth at > >> all. Tell that to United Fruit and the Dulles brothers. > >>> The rich have more write-offs, tax breaks, incentives, and subsidies. They pay 10% to 15% capital gains on their income. The rest of us pay about 30% > >> Yes, but they end up paying a hell of a lot more tax than > >> say the individuals in the bottom 20% of society too. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >>> The poor on the other hand are poor if the system in democratic, > >>> socialised or under a dictator. Which country has a democracy (perhaps Bolivia). Which country has socialism? No, most countries are oligarchies where politicians are the window dressing of supposed respectability. > >> Mindlessly silly. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > >>> And I don't want to hear about America's upward mobility; That's good. Most of us are downwardly mobile. > >> Its a fact anyway. > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > The only hungry in modern america are those on diets and anorexics etc. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051029093925.htm ScienceDaily (Oct. 29, 2005) ‹ Hunger in American households has risen by 43 percent over the last five years, according to an analysis of US Department of Agriculture (USDA) data released today. > > We have obese people because they are corn fed > > junk, everything has high fructose corn syrup in it. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Like hell it is. Watch the movie "King Corn". Subsidized corn, wheat, soy beans, and cotton ( and they aree all GMOs as well) are driving farm workers out of Mexico where they can't compete against subsidized American crops. http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-dangers-of-genetic ally-modified-food-confirmed/ > > and all they is remaining are food factories that turn > > out corn, corn fed animals and corn by-products. > > Another pig ignorant lie. Americans eat more corn than Mexicans because of all the products that are derived from corn. Michael Pollan, Omnivore's Dilemma > > The poor in this country are fat because the non-nutrious foods are > > subsidized > > Like hell they are. Most junk food is corn syrup, bleached white wheat flour, and soy oil, all subsidized. > > and so the cheapest. > > Another lie. A diet of rice and very little meat at > all is still the cheapest and isnt subsidised at all. In 2004, rice was subsidized to the tune of $1.13 billion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_States > It just doesnt appeal to the american 'poor' > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Yep, some f.ck up financially. Or are veterans, or get sick, or these days, lose their jobs because the vultures (CEOs) have taken the money that should have gone to share holders as dividends , and the company goes belly up. > > Predators prey on our children, > [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > > Nope, just a complete pack of lies. Speedy, you are so devoid of information, it is difficult to tell where to start your education. One thing you can do is to stop watching Fox News. The only program you can miss and be smarter for it. You probably think that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, don't you? Turn it off, Speedy. Signature³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.² -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote >>>>>> Do you honestly believe that as a percentage of income a rich >>>>>> man uses just as much services, or even more so, then you do? >>>>> Yes I do. >>>> More fool you. >>>>> The rich require the infrastructure to accumulate wealth and preserve it. >>>> Nope, they can afford to pay for their own protection and usually do that too. >>>>> The rich require the police and military to protect their wealth. >>>> Like hell they do. They can afford to employ their own goons to >>>> protect their wealth and the military isnt involved in protecting >>>> their wealth at all. > Tell that to United Fruit and the Dulles brothers. Neither were the military protecting their wealth. >>>>> The rich have more write-offs, tax breaks, incentives, and subsidies. > They pay 10% to 15% capital gains on their income. The rest of us pay about 30% What I said in different words. >>>> Yes, but they end up paying a hell of a lot more tax than >>>> say the individuals in the bottom 20% of society too. >>>>> The rich benifit from an educated work force. >>>> That depends entirely on where their wealth comes from. >>>> In some areas they benefit from having stupid uneducated consumers >>>> to buy the sh.t they flog, most obviously with the Waltons. They dont >>>> even need an educated work force, just being able to read and write >>>> is about all they need from most of their apes and they can afford >>>> to pay for the education of those that need better than that too. >>>>> They benifit from a system of non-corruption.. >>>> Many of them benefit even more from corruption. >>>>> The poor on the other hand are poor if the system in democratic, >>>>> socialised or under a dictator. > Which country has a democracy (perhaps Bolivia). Which country has socialism? Every single one. Even HongKong before it was handed back to China did. > No, most countries are oligarchies where politicians > are the window dressing of supposed respectability. The great democracys aint. >>>> Mindlessly silly. >>>>> Upheavel allows the chance to rise above their station. >>>> That chance is available in any modern first world country even without upheavel now. >>>>> And I don't want to hear about America's upward mobility; > That's good. Most of us are downwardly mobile. Only the incompetant fools. >>>> Its a fact anyway. >>>>> it may have been true when the top income tax rate was above 80%, >>>> And still is today. Look at what so many immigrants manage even today. >>>>> but today there is a downward sinking of the average Americans' class >>>> Like hell there is. >>>>> -- fewer middle class and greater numbers in poverty. >>>> Another pig ignorant lie. >>>> The only ones 'in poverty' today are those who are entirely >>>> dependant on welfare who are too stupid to live frugally, >>>> and 'the homeless', most of whom are quite literally >>>> barking mad, just not kept in locked wards anymore. >>>> The middle class isnt shrinking at all, it keeps increasing in >>>> numbers every single year. >>> You have to see modern America. >> Nope, I know what its like. >>> We have people who are hungry. >> The only hungry in modern america are those on diets and anorexics etc. > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051029093925.htm > ScienceDaily (Oct. 29, 2005) ‹ Hunger in American households has > risen by 43 percent over the last five years, according to an analysis > of US Department of Agriculture (USDA) data released today. Just because some fool claims something, doesnt make it gospel. >>> We have obese people because they are corn fed >>> junk, everything has high fructose corn syrup in it. >> Nope, obesity is due to shovelling more calories into your mouth than you burn. >>> That is why we have so many obese people, they crave nutrition, so they eat. >> That is just plain wrong. >>> Instead of nutrition, they get empty calories. >> Plenty of the obese shovel more full calories into their mouths than they burn. >>> The corn farmer is highly subsidized, the family farm is gone >> Like hell it is. > Watch the movie "King Corn". That was a comment on the last claim, 'the family farm is gone' > Subsidized corn, wheat, soy beans, and cotton ( and they are > all GMOs as well) are driving farm workers out of Mexico > where they can't compete against subsidized American crops. > http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-dangers-of-genetically-mo dified-food-confirmed/ Irrelevant to that stupid claim that 'the family farm is gone' >>> and all they is remaining are food factories that turn >>> out corn, corn fed animals and corn by-products. >> Another pig ignorant lie. > Americans eat more corn than Mexicans because of all the products that are derived from corn. Irrelevant to that stupid 'all they is remaining' claim. > Michael Pollan, Omnivore's Dilemma Just because some fool claims something, doesnt make it gospel. >>> The poor in this country are fat because the non-nutrious foods are subsidized >> Like hell they are. > Most junk food is corn syrup, bleached white wheat flour, and soy oil, all subsidized. Most nutritious foods are subsidised too, fool. >>> and so the cheapest. >> Another lie. A diet of rice and very little meat at >> all is still the cheapest and isnt subsidised at all. > In 2004, rice was subsidized to the tune of $1.13 billion. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_States Thats was a comment on the stupid pig ignorant CHEAPEST claim. Rice with very little meat is still the cheapest even where it isnt subsidised at all. >> It just doesnt appeal to the american 'poor' >>> The education system is geared to producing consumers. >> Another lie. >>> Everyone knows the lyrics to the latest boy-band song, but few can >>> balance a check book, let alone understand compounding intrest. >> That has always been true, nothing to do with the education system, >> everything to do with what most have between their ears. >>> We have entire families living in cars, under >>> bridges, and in the basements of relatives. >> Yep, some f.ck up financially. > Or are veterans, or get sick, or these days, lose their jobs because > the vultures (CEOs) have taken the money that should have gone to > share holders as dividends , and the company goes belly up. Anyone with even half a clue can avoid 'living' under a bridge when they lose their job. >>> Predators prey on our children, >> Nope, FAR more children are abused by their familys and those known to their familys. >>> marriage is a temporary thing, >> A viable marraige always was for hordes. >>> government wants the man out before they will help, >> Another lie. >>> strip dancing is considered a valid career choice, >> Always was. >>> higher education means years of debt. >> Nope, it doesnt have to. >>> Bankruptcy is no longer an option for the middle class. >> Another lie. >>> Living wage jobs are outsourced overseas. >> Hordes of them arent. >>> Military service is one of the few opportunities for the poor. >> Another lie. They're free to get a decent education >> and a decent job which cant be outsourced. >>> Today the average CEO makes more than 400 times the wage of an average worker. >> The average worker lives much better than the average worker did say 100 years ago. >>> The unemployment rate is given to be 10% but may be in reality above 25%. >> Another lie. >>> Those who work are only a paycheck or two from being homeless. >> Another lie. >>> America used to be the land of opportunity. >> Still is, which is why there is an immense legal and illegal immigration rate. >>> After WWII, the idea was that by hard work, frugal living, innovation and a little luck, >>> one could buy a house, raise a family, send the children to college and retire in comfort. >> Still can. >>> Today, it is investors who take the lion's share of the wealth. >> Another lie. >>> Credit card companies take a percentage of nearly every purchase. >> Another lie. The majority pay off their cards in full every month. >>> Laborers are expendable, >> They always were. Which is why it makes sense to get qualified for better than that. >>> education is useless when the job you train for is out sourced >> Which is why it makes sense to train for a job that cant be. >>> or over run with 'guest' workers. >> Which is why it makes sense to train for a job that cant be. >>> Money is made by having money >> Thats just one way of making money. >>> and the worker is tolerated only until he can be replaced. >> And most of them never can be. >>> Upward mobilty is not a fact of life in America anymore. >> Another lie. Have a look at what the immigrants do every day. >>> Interesting reading here: >>> http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/Hertz_MobilityAnalysis.pdf >> Nope, just a complete pack of lies. > Speedy, you are so devoid of information, it is difficult to tell where to start your education. You never ever could bullshit and lie your way out of a wet paper bag. > One thing you can do is to stop watching Fox News. Not even possible given that I dont watch it in the first place, fool. > The only program you can miss and be smarter for it. > You probably think that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, don't you? Nope, and even someone as stupid as you should be able to use groups.google and see that I never ever did either. > Turn it off, Speedy. Go and f.ck yourself, gutless. Ain't Keptocracy grand? The only difference between Obama and Bush is style. Bush didn't have any, but the politics remain the same. In article <3200bf15-04aa-4d63-9ed9-6daad6f7a6b4@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > >> Do you honestly believe that as a percentage of income a rich > > >> man uses just as much services, or even more so, then you do? [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > reading here: > http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/Hertz_MobilityAnalysis.pdf Signature³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.² -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm > Ain't Keptocracy grand? The only difference between Obama and > Bush is style. Bush didn't have any, but the politics remain the same. Like hell they do. He wouldnt have been stupid enough to invade Iraq, fool. > In article > <3200bf15-04aa-4d63-9ed9-6daad6f7a6b4@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 116 lines] >> reading here: >> http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/Hertz_MobilityAnalysis.pdf > > Ain't Keptocracy grand? The only difference between Obama and > > Bush is style. Bush didn't have any, but the politics remain the same. > > Like hell they do. He wouldnt have been stupid enough to invade Iraq, fool. Do you ever have any facts or do you just get this stuff outta your back-side? MAYBE Obama wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but now he is complicit in Bush's policies, i.e. hold prisoners without habeas corpus, allowing torture to continue, extra-judicial killing with their attendant collateral damage (as Timothy McVeigh would say), continued spying on all Americans, and the continued sacking and pillaging of the public coffers, all of which makes him just as guilty as "The Worst President Ever". > > In article > > <3200bf15-04aa-4d63-9ed9-6daad6f7a6b4@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 116 lines] > >> reading here: > >> http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/Hertz_MobilityAnalysis.pdf Signature³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.² -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Ain't Keptocracy grand? The only difference between Obama and >>> Bush is style. Bush didn't have any, but the politics remain the same. >> Like hell they do. He wouldnt have been stupid enough to invade Iraq, fool. > Do you ever have any facts Yep, he said all along that the invasion of Iraq made no sense. > or do you just get this stuff outta your back-side? I leave that to fools like you. > MAYBE Obama wouldn't have invaded Iraq, No maybe about it. > but now he is complicit in Bush's policies, i.e. hold prisoners > without habeas corpus, allowing torture to continue, extra-judicial > killing with their attendant collateral damage (as Timothy McVeigh > would say), continued spying on all Americans, and the continued > sacking and pillaging of the public coffers, all of which makes him > just as guilty as "The Worst President Ever". Irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claim that NOTHING has changed, fool. >>> In article >>> <3200bf15-04aa-4d63-9ed9-6daad6f7a6b4@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 117 lines] >>>> Interesting reading here: >>>> http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/Hertz_MobilityAnalysis.pdf > > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claim that NOTHING has changed, fool. You sure post a lot for someone with a limited vocabulary. Anyway, my literate challenged, and syllable shy, little pest is that the messanger has changed, as I noted above. "The only difference between Obama and Bush is style. Bush didn't have any, but the politics remain the same." > >>> In article > >>> <3200bf15-04aa-4d63-9ed9-6daad6f7a6b4@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 118 lines] > >>>> http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/Hertz_MobilityAnalysis.pdf > >>>> Signature³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.² -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind Wildbilly desperately attempted to bullshit and lie its way out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always. > Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind > Wildbilly desperately attempted to bullshit and lie its way out > of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always. The foul-mouthed, mentally challenged, speedy, speaks. What do you disagree with, speedy? Citation please. Signature³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.² -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind Wildbilly desperately attempted to bullshit and lie its way out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always. > > The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > The middle class isnt shrinking at all, it keeps increasing in numbers every > single year. Sure are a lot of Republican pimps around these days, not that the DNC is any better but they sometimes play the liberal card. The Republicans just want to kill any government that tries to impose regulations, like those that would have kept us out of the financial mess, that the bottom 99% are in now. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4320/is_8_42/ai_n29459670/?tag=co ntent;col1 And the rich get richer According to the June 18 "Snapshot" by Lawrence Mischel, of the Economic Policy Institute, pay inequality in the U.S. continues to worsen. Huge gains at the top of the income scale have been fueled by, among other things, a surging inequality in wages. The ratio of the wage income of the top one percent of earners to that of the bottom 90 percent more than doubled between 1979 and 2006, increasing from a ratio of 9.4:1 to 19.9:1. In contrast there was relatively little change in the earnings disparity from 1947 to 1979, when wages at all levels of the economy grew apace. When it comes to the wage income of the highest of the high earners, the gap has become a chasm. In 2004, the upper one-tenth of one percent earned 70.4 times as much as the average person in the bottom 90 percent of the income scale. Just 25 years earlier in 1979, the ratio was only 21:1. In 1979 it took the highest-paid earners 12.4 days to make what most other earners did in a year; by 2004 that was accomplished in 3.7 days. Signature³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.² -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote >>>> Do you honestly believe that as a percentage of income a rich >>>> man uses just as much services, or even more so, then you do? >>> Yes I do. >> More fool you. >>> The rich require the infrastructure to accumulate wealth and preserve it. >> Nope, they can afford to pay for their own protection and usually do that too. >>> The rich require the police and military to protect their wealth. >> Like hell they do. They can afford to employ their own goons to protect >> their wealth and the military isnt involved in protecting their wealth at all. >>> The rich have more write-offs, tax breaks, incentives, and subsidies. >> Yes, but they end up paying a hell of a lot more tax than >> say the individuals in the bottom 20% of society too. [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >> The middle class isnt shrinking at all, it keeps increasing in >> numbers every single year. > Sure are a lot of Republican pimps around these days, You wouldnt know what a real replublican pimp was if one bit you on your lard arse. > not that the DNC is any better but they sometimes play the liberal card. > The Republicans just want to kill any government that tries > to impose regulations, like those that would have kept us > out of the financial mess, that the bottom 99% are in now. They are completely irrelevant now that they have just completely imploded the entire world financial system, again. No one will be stupid enough to elect enough of them to matter federally for a long time now. > http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4320/is_8_42/ai_n29459670/?tag=content;col1 > And the rich get richer Irrelevant to that pig ignorant sh.t above. > > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote > >>> The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > You wouldnt know what a real replublican pimp was if one bit you on your lard > arse. Sure I would. It would be a neo-liberal wack-job, like yourself. > > not that the DNC is any better but they sometimes play the liberal card. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Irrelevant to that pig ignorant sh.t above. How is it that you know so much about pigs? You a farm boy? Signature³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.² -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote >>>>>> Do you honestly believe that as a percentage of income a rich >>>>>> man uses just as much services, or even more so, then you do? >>>>> Yes I do. >>>> More fool you. >>>>> The rich require the infrastructure to accumulate wealth and preserve it. >>>> Nope, they can afford to pay for their own protection and usually do that too. >>>>> The rich require the police and military to protect their wealth. >>>> Like hell they do. They can afford to employ their own goons to >>>> protect their wealth and the military isnt involved in protecting >>>> their wealth at all. >>>>> The rich have more write-offs, tax breaks, incentives, and subsidies. >>>> Yes, but they end up paying a hell of a lot more tax than >>>> say the individuals in the bottom 20% of society too. >>>>> The rich benifit from an educated work force. >>>> That depends entirely on where their wealth comes from. >>>> In some areas they benefit from having stupid uneducated consumers to buy the sh.t >>>> they flog, most obviously with the Waltons. They dont even need an educated work >>>> force, just being able to read and write is about all they need from most of their apes >>>> and they can afford to pay for the education of those that need better than that too. >>>>> They benifit from a system of non-corruption.. >>>> Many of them benefit even more from corruption. >>>>> The poor on the other hand are poor if the system in democratic, >>>>> socialised or under a dictator. >>>> Mindlessly silly. >>>>> Upheavel allows the chance to rise above their station. >>>> That chance is available in any modern first world country even without upheavel now. >>>>> And I don't want to hear about America's upward mobility; >>>> Its a fact anyway. >>>>> it may have been true when the top income tax rate was above 80%, >>>> And still is today. Look at what so many immigrants manage even today. >>>>> but today there is a downward sinking of the average Americans' class >>>> Like hell there is. >>>>> -- fewer middle class and greater numbers in poverty. >>>> Another pig ignorant lie. >>>> The only ones 'in poverty' today are those who are entirely >>>> dependant on welfare who are too stupid to live frugally, and 'the >>>> homeless', most of whom are quite literally barking mad, just not >>>> kept in locked wards anymore. >>>> The middle class isnt shrinking at all, it keeps increasing in numbers every single year. >>> Sure are a lot of Republican pimps around these days, >> You wouldnt know what a real replublican pimp was if one bit you on your lard arse. > Sure I would. It would be a neo-liberal wack-job, like yourself. You wouldnt know what a real neo-liberal wack-job was if one bit you on your lard arse either. >>> not that the DNC is any better but they sometimes play the liberal card. >>> The Republicans just want to kill any government that tries >>> to impose regulations, like those that would have kept us >>> out of the financial mess, that the bottom 99% are in now. >> They are completely irrelevant now that they have just >> completely imploded the entire world financial system, again. >> No one will be stupid enough to elect enough of them to matter federally for a long time now. >>> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4320/is_8_42/ai_n29459670/?tag=content;col1 >>> And the rich get richer >> Irrelevant to your pig ignorant sh.t above. > How is it that you know so much about pigs? There so many of you around. > >> The top 1% of households earned that much money because they were > >> successful capitalists, offering goods and services that the other 99% of [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > I'd rather a tax that reflects what services are obtained from society. Perfect, the service that society provides is a market where the rich can sell their products. The more money you make from society, the more money you should pay, after all, as you say,"Money, as it's own device, does the rich man no good at all.", so let it do society some good. There hasn't been this much wealth disparity since the "Great Depression", but that is probably just a coincidence, yeah, sure, right. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4320/is_8_42/ai_n29459670/?tag=co ntent;col1 And the rich get richer According to the June 18 "Snapshot" by Lawrence Mischel, of the Economic Policy Institute, pay inequality in the U.S. continues to worsen. Huge gains at the top of the income scale have been fueled by, among other things, a surging inequality in wages. The ratio of the wage income of the top one percent of earners to that of the bottom 90 percent more than doubled between 1979 and 2006, increasing from a ratio of 9.4:1 to 19.9:1. In contrast there was relatively little change in the earnings disparity from 1947 to 1979, when wages at all levels of the economy grew apace. When it comes to the wage income of the highest of the high earners, the gap has become a chasm. In 2004, the upper one-tenth of one percent earned 70.4 times as much as the average person in the bottom 90 percent of the income scale. Just 25 years earlier in 1979, the ratio was only 21:1. In 1979 it took the highest-paid earners 12.4 days to make what most other earners did in a year; by 2004 that was accomplished in 3.7 days. Signature"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm In article <wldbilly-8499A5.11052827102009@c-61-68-245- 199.per.connect.net.au>, wldbilly@without_a.net says... > There are many requirements that the "have nots" and the "haves" have in > common ,some are mentioned below where us, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > neighbors house to ours, then "We" need medical care to keep sickness > from spreading from house to house. That depends on what the "sickness" is. If my neighbour is obese, there is zero danger of transmission to me. Therefore, using my tax dollars to treat her, has nothing to do with common interest or "general welfare." SignatureGet Credit Where Credit Is Due http://www.cardreport.com/ Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum > In article <wldbilly-8499A5.11052827102009@c-61-68-245- > 199.per.connect.net.au>, wldbilly@without_a.net says... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > using my tax dollars to treat her, has nothing to do with common > interest or "general welfare." What a narrow and simple mind you have. Maybe it is the lady who watches the homes in her area when residents are on vacation, or grows the beautiful flowers that brightens your day, or lets you barrow her car, when yours is kaput. There is a lot of your kind of cost/benefit analysis going around these days. The kind that tells you that a person is only worth the 97¢ it would take to buy the minerals that compose them. 97¢ for your mom, Einstein, Beethoven, or the nice fat lady. It must be boring to see the world in black and white. Signature³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.² -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm > In article <wldbilly-8499A5.11052827102009@c-61-68-245- > 199.per.connect.net.au>, wldbilly@without_a.net says... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > using my tax dollars to treat her, has nothing to do with common > interest or "general welfare." You are right. Her health problems may not touch you, but does she take in kids whose parents who are late, grow flowers for everyone to see, loan you her car when yours is kaput? It seems that should come under the heading of general welfare. Who knows, maybe the fat lady has some humanity that might rub off on you. Or are you one of those cost/benefit freaks, who would tell us, that we are only worth the 97¢ that it would cost to buy the minerals in us? "A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing." - -- Oscar Wilde 97¢ for Einstein, Beethoven, Mother Teresa, your mom? Signature³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.² -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm On Oct 27, 7:46 am, The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote: > >> If you don't fit in an airline seat, they charge you double because you > >> can take up two seats... If you don't fit in one ambulance... What, they [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > . > . And then all the have nots got together and TOOK what they wanted. Problems arise when you have too many have nots. >>> This just be my Pollyanna side but, whatever happened to "one for all >>> and all for one"? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And then all the have nots got together and TOOK what they wanted. > Problems arise when you have too many have nots. That's why the second amendment is so critical... Shoot the f.ckers. . . . . . . . . >> >> The surcharge is significant. In several cities, ambulance services are >> >> billing nearly double for anyone over 500 pounds. [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >This just be my Pollyanna side but, whatever happened to "one for all >and all for one"? It went the way of fair play and honest politicians. LV "I rode a tank and held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank." ---Sympathy for the Devil-The Rolling Stones -------------------------------------------- "We are all born ignorant, but we must work hard to remain stupid. ---Benjamin Franklin ---------------------------------------------- "Some people are only alive because it is illegal to kill them." ---Anonymous ---------------------------------------------- "Only the weak are cruel. Gentleness can only be expected from the strong." ----Leo Buscaglia --------------------------------------------- Are you being harassed on Usenet and want to fight back instead of leaving the net? Are you willing to stand up to Internet bullies and stalkers? Join my group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/antiCHU ---------------------------------------------- "I am mad as hell and I will not take it anymore!" ---Network > >This just be my Pollyanna side but, whatever happened to "one for all > >and all for one"? > > It went the way of fair play and honest politicians. > > LV Sad but true. > "I rode a tank and held a general's rank > When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank." [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > ---Network Signature"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." -Archbishop Helder Camara http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.