Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 13 Nov 2006 18:37 T Wake wrote: > "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message > news:MPG.1fc11e03f06bbb69989af7(a)news.individual.net... > >>In article <1eWdnc1_CsAzoMvYRVnyvA(a)pipex.net>, >>usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com says... >> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ej4l1b$8ss_033(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>>>In article <4555374F.EF500B95(a)hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>krw wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Raising the minimum wage is stupid and insane. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Why ? >>>>>> >>>>>>Why should the federal government tell anyone what their worth is? >>>>>> >>>>>>>I saw it can be a slow as $5 an hour. >>>>>> >>>>>>The federal minimum wage is $5.15/hr. Some states are higher >>>>>>(Vermont is $7.25 and going up). I'm not sure anyone really works >>>>>>for the minimum (MacD's is advertising $9.00/hr.). >>>>> >>>>>So why the fuss over increasing what would seem to be a notional >>>>>minimum ? >>>>> >>>> >>>>You should notice that Keith is swearing. That is not is usual >>>>style. I guess he's got the same problems I have. AS minimum >>>>wage goes skyhigh, so do property taxes, real estate, food, other >>>>taxes, and other things needed for survival. >>> >>>You both have claimed that "hardly anyone" would work for the minimum >>>wage. >>>If this is the case, it will have no impact at all. >> >>"Hardly anyone" who needed that job to live on. There are others >>that don't "need" a "living wage". > > > True, yet not really relevant. Are you saying someone who lives at home > should be worth less than some one who doesnt? > > A minimum wage sets the baseline, below which work can be considered unfair. > Your objections to it are as mindless as the socialist / communist insults > you throw out. > > >>>As it stands, the evidence in capitalist countries is that increases to >>>the >>>minimum wage does not cause "everything" to become more expensive. The >>>advantage of having more people with disposable income, is that they buy >>>more things. The market is a powerful and resilient beast. >>> >>>We could always go back to pre-black death serfdom. That kept the price >>>of >>>_everything_ low. >> >>Yeah, *that's* a logical argument. > > > Really? Why not? What is different from the pre 14th century English > employment system and what you suggest? > > You state that people who do not need to live on their earning do not need > to earn as much - this was the case in the thirteenth century. There was no > minimum wage and prices were rock bottom. Surely this is your idea of > economic paradise? You totally ignore freemen and artisans who were not bound to an estate. If you took the time to actually read the history and the economic conditions of the period you're flaunting as an example, you'd find there's a lot of dishonesty in the arguments you're propounding. In fact, serfdom was the equivalent form of "minimum wage" of the medieval period. Don't argue until you've substantially read and studied the period.
From: Eeyore on 13 Nov 2006 18:39 Ben Newsam wrote: > On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:37:38 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> > wrote: > >T Wake wrote: > >> See, if you had an NHS then you would realise doctors do indeed take on new > >> patients, even if they have existing conditions. > > > >Is that required, or voluntary? > > It is just the way the system works. Required, if you like. Doctors > have a contract with the health service, and presumably the devil is > in the detail. I imagine they can decline a new patient if their practice is heavily over-subscribed. There seem to be enough doctors to go round though. Graham
From: Ben Newsam on 13 Nov 2006 18:13 On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:18:40 -0600, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 17:49:51 -0600, unsettled ><unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > >>We have a local physician who makes scheduled house >>calls every Thursday. His office is used by a >>visiting podiatrist that day. > >Sounds like something may be afoot over there. Heh.
From: Ben Newsam on 13 Nov 2006 18:04 On Mon, 13 Nov 06 13:16:57 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >Whenever you have a government program that gives money away, >everybody is going to take as much as they can. That isn't usually >considered theivery. When a people begin to believe it is their >"right" to take all the money, the system is corrupt. When laws >are passed to fix these problems require that government bureaucracies >control every step, we have communism. When a few or one person >starts to control disbursements, it is a dictatorship. When >the dictator starts to correct perceived offenses with killing >the people, it is a viscious dictatorship. Heh, it sounds to me that the problem isn't with the system or whatever you call they system, it's with the thieving bastards taking the money. :-)
From: Ben Newsam on 13 Nov 2006 18:24
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:18:07 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Services are reasonable considering, but if the case >is difficult enough to require a specialist then a 90 >mile trip to the big (teaching) hospital is required. Blimey. I can walk to the nearest teaching hospital. There's an internationally famous children's hopital, women's hospital and a dental one too, all within 20 minutes walk of here. When our last child was born (by elective caesarian) we just toddled down by bus. And all free, too! Not the bus, btw. >Rural communities have advantages and disadvantages. > >I moved here to not see my nearest neighbors. Still we >visit on some level or another ~monthly, which is more >than I experienced with most of my immediate neighbors >in suburbia. Ain't that the case? Actually, I do know most of the people in my street, to nod too at least even if I don't know their names. |