New DSLR lenses from Nikon
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Problem solved:
Next: ARGUS - DARPA's All-Seeing Eye
From: Bill Graham on 13 Feb 2010 17:45 "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message news:4b771f5e$0$22474$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... > "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:1OKdnb_9-t7IhOrWnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message >> news:4b77170d$0$21958$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... >>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>> news:6dOdnR7OKchgiOrWnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>> >>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message >>>> news:4b76b7b2$0$18772$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... >>> >>>>> >>>>> We agree on something. Remember Bill votes his for pocketbook, not >>>>> humanity. >>>> >>>> Yes.....I am very uncomfortable when politicians have their hands in my >>>> pockets........Just because Robin Hood gave money to the poor, that >>>> doesn't prevent me from calling him a thief. >>> >>> Are you saying you receive no benefit from being a member of our >>> society? >>> Please clarify. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Peter >> >> Will do. At 10% government, society is great, At 20% government it's >> still not too bad, but a bit less than "great" and at 50% government it >> is oppressive, way to socialistic, and a long, long way from being >> great. - We passed the 50% mark some time ago, and with Obama/Pelosi, we >> are fast heading to 60% and above. > > > So you want the benefits without paying for them. I get it, you should > only pay for the direct benefits you think you need. Not to help society > as a whole. > > Just start with a few common costs. Since you know how much to spend, why > don't you fill in the blanks. > > Military: = ? > Education = ? > Domestic security protection = ? > Road maintenance = ? > Court system = ? > Helping our genuinely indigent to survive = ? > > Come on Billy boy, you have investments. What is the cost of the > government helping to maintain the integrity of your money. > > If you expect the benefits of living in our society without paying for > them, you are a worse thief than Robin Hood. > > -- > Peter Well, the problem (as I see it) seems to be in the definition of, "Benefits" If you live in a padded cell, and the government does (literally) everything for you, then Peter would say life is perfect, and we owe everything to our government. Bill would say we are all slaves to our government and they are of no more use to us that any slave driver is to his property. In the above example, I think the government's use should fall somewhere less than 20% of our gross effort, and you seem to think that it should fall somewhere over 50% of our gross effort. So, the lines are drawn, and all we have to do is argue over where they should be. My argument for my position on the matter is that the more I do for myself, the more freedom I enjoy. You position is the more the government does for us, the easier life will be for the most people. I don't count living in a padded cell as, "life". I want a little more than just breathing. But, to each his own.......
From: Bill Graham on 13 Feb 2010 17:51 "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:998en51h0hgpk7isf3icl3747jojn8bmlp(a)4ax.com... >C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>On 2010-02-11 23:39:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said: > > [replying to C J's posting because Bill has been in my killfile for a > long time. And obviously for very good reasons, see below] > >>> "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> And wouldn't Bill Gates love a sales tax...... > > He happens to be living in Bellevue, WA, USA, which happens to have > about 8% sales tax (plus probably a few percent slapped on by King > County and the city of Bellevue). > >>>He wouldn't spend any >>> more than he does now, but his investments would make billions of >>> dollars every year, and it would all be tax free., Talk about a >>> regressive tax system..... > > ??? > What does income tax have to do with the difference between sales tax > and VAT? Are you tossing red herrings around again? > > jue I am talking about the new "progressive" idea of replacing the income tax with a national sales tax. The super rich would make out like bandits, since they have the bulk of their money invested, and spend only a small fraction of their incomes. But people like me, who are retired, and spend everything we get on our living expenses would be paying for all the costs of the society.
From: Ray Fischer on 13 Feb 2010 18:02 George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >On 2/13/10 1:46 PM, in article 4b7701ae$0$1601$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net, "Ray >Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote: > >> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>>> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>>>>> C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> You know, I don't know where people get this caricature of Bill Gates >>>>>>> being a greedy, selfish moneybags. >>>>>> >>>>>> To some degree nearly every corporate CEO is a greedy, selfish >>>>>> moneybag. It's nearly a job requirement. >>>>> >>>>> You obviously refuse to recognize the responsibility of a CEO, regardless >>>>> of >>>>> the size of the corporation. >>>> >>>> Correct. >>>> >>>>> When you open up in the morning and realize >>>>> that x number of people are looking to you for guidance and depend on your >>>>> skills to prevent starvation, or to promote a reasonable life style, you >>>>> should recognize that you have an awesome responsibility. Sure, some are >>>>> greedy turds, but they are in the minority. >>>> >>>> I have seen far too many CEO's laying off $60,000/yr workers so that >>>> they can continue to take home $20,000,000/yr. To think that a >>>> typical CEO has the interests of employees as a priority is naive. >>>> If they cared about employees or the company then they'd be getting >>>> $1,000,000/yr and using the extra money to keep 200 employees producing >>>> products to sell. >>> >>> Your comments make it obvious that you know absolutely nothing about >>> business. A good CEO holds the interests the company first. >> >> LOL! Is that what they tell you? >> >>> In a public >>> company, he is accountable to the board, who represents the interests of the >>> owners. >> >> ROFL! The board represent the shareholders?!? And you really believe that? >> >> When was the last time a board member got fired by the shareholders? >> When was the last time shareholders picked a board member? Or CEO? >> >You need to quit before you embarrass yourself any further. You never have >even seen a proxy vote form, have you, FishHead Rot?!? The usual kerby stupidity and screeching. No substance. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 13 Feb 2010 18:08 Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >news:4b7701ae$0$1601$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message > > >>>> I have seen far too many CEO's laying off $60,000/yr workers so that >>>> they can continue to take home $20,000,000/yr. To think that a >>>> typical CEO has the interests of employees as a priority is naive. >>>> If they cared about employees or the company then they'd be getting >>>> $1,000,000/yr and using the extra money to keep 200 employees producing >>>> products to sell. > >How about some examples: You are making accusations of clear violations of >rhe SEC Regulations. What regulations? What violation? It's no violation to lay off hundreds of people. It's no violation to get $20,000,000/year. >>>Your comments make it obvious that you know absolutely nothing about >>>business. A good CEO holds the interests the company first. >> >> LOL! Is that what they tell you? > >They? Suggest you get over your bitter pill and learn something about the >reality of business before you open your mouth. Says the rightard who cannot actually refute what I write. >>> In a public >>>company, he is accountable to the board, who represents the interests of >>>the >>>owners. >> >> ROFL! The board represent the shareholders?!? And you really believe >> that? > >And just how do you think a director becomes a director. By being selected by the board. > He/she is elected >by vot of the shareholders. You may be that stupid, or not, but don't assume that I am that stupid. We both know that the vast majority of such elections are decided when the board recommends someone for the position. >> When was the last time a board member got fired by the shareholders? >> When was the last time shareholders picked a board member? Or CEO? >> >Read this and learn. >http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/04/082704.asp You must be pretty stupid. You didn't even notice that that doesn't answer either of my questions. >>> To maintain and grow a healthy company. A good manager recognizes >>>that the workers are the lifeblood of the company. >> >> If any of your beliefs were true then we wouldn't see corporations >> spending so much to hire and train workers only to fire them a few >> years later and then repeat the process again. > >My statements are based upon personal observation and experience. You statements are based on naive worship of corporations. >> Sure, there are some good CEOs, but there aren't many. > >More than you would admit. Less than you would admit. > Wow! You certainly are a fountain of >misinformation. I'm not a part of your cult of stupidity. When the incomes of CEOs explode and the incomes of workers actually fall then it's clear who is scamming whom. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 13 Feb 2010 18:09
Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message >news:4b77170d$0$21958$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... >> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:6dOdnR7OKchgiOrWnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> >>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message >>> news:4b76b7b2$0$18772$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... >> >>>> >>>> We agree on something. Remember Bill votes his for pocketbook, not >>>> humanity. >>> >>> Yes.....I am very uncomfortable when politicians have their hands in my >>> pockets........Just because Robin Hood gave money to the poor, that >>> doesn't prevent me from calling him a thief. >> >> Are you saying you receive no benefit from being a member of our society? >> Please clarify. >> >> >> -- >> Peter > >Will do. At 10% government, society is great, At 20% government it's still >not too bad, but a bit less than "great" and at 50% government it is >oppressive, way to socialistic, and a long, long way from being great. - We >passed the 50% mark some time ago, and with Obama/Pelosi, we are fast >heading to 60% and above. What a stinking hypocrite. Graham feeds at the government trough but doesn't want to pay for it. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |