NASA scuttling more space missions so it can spend more on global warming

On Thursday, May 1, 2014 11:53:19 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Thursday, May 1, 2014 5:45:11 AM UTC-5, wrote:

On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 7:04:20 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

In 1962 when I entered college, I was working part-time weekend days in a grocery store and washing dishes evenings in a large restaurant. My pay in both places was $1.85 per hour.

The minimum wage in 1962 was.... $1.15 NOT $1.85.

In view of that fact you might wish to recalibrate your numbers and/or make up some new ones.

I have, mercifully, deleted the remainder of your rant.

Yes, FEDERAL min wage was, but in my state the min wage was higher, as it is in many states today. I was working for $1.85, I was in a union job,

Then you are comparing apples with oranges. Unions are often formed by skilled workers who are less of a fungible commodity than unskilled workers.

It is also possible that wages can be higher than minimum when the local cost of living is higher than average.

On Thursday, May 1, 2014 11:56:43 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Thursday, May 1, 2014 6:27:21 AM UTC-5, wrote:

On Thursday, May 1, 2014 7:00:24 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

On 01/05/2014 11:38, wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 12:51:51 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

I'm tired of subsidizing oil wars

Name one that the US started.

Iraq II (the Bush grudge match). It also went momentously pear shaped.

There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq despite all the lies.

Then perhaps Hussein should not have interfered with UN weapons inspections. It might have saved him a hangin' for gassing the Kurds (along with his many other atrocities.)

So the man named one, and you deftly sidestepped it, right? It's called a ****slide,

A little civility goes a long way, didn't you say?

So, are you saying Iraq was not an oil war?

What is an "oil war?"

Iraqi oil was supposed to pay for that war.

Says who?

What happened to that wet dream?

Let's see... YOU say that GWII was an "oil war" and then complain that the US didn't get any oil out of the deal...

Here's a clue for you: The oil market is -global-.

Maybe the simpler explanation is that it was a war to find WMDs and remove from power someone with a history of using such weapons, and a possible willingness to use them again, or to sell them to those who might use them against us.

Maybe the simpler explanation is that it was a war to find WMDs and
remove from power someone with a history of using such weapons, and
a possible willingness to use them again, or to sell them to those
who might use them against us.

Maybe the simpler explanation is that it was a war to keep Iraq on the
petrodollar.

On 4/29/2014 11:59 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 2:56:46 PM UTC-6, sp wrote:

Ethically they do.

The rich are not responsible for the poor. It may be meritorious for
them to provide for the poor when they can, but it is entirely
possible for the rich to be so few that nothing they can do will make
a dent in poverty in the present, while having a few people rich
enough to be exempt from constant backbreaking toil will allow
technology to be advanced so that someday something can be done.

But who is responsible for the fact that so many people find
themselves born into poverty with no escape from it?

Yes, the Libertarians and the right-wingers are wrong; somebody does
owe you a living. But it's not the government or the rich. It's your
parents.

John Savard


You brought the poor into this conversation.

The statement was, "They (the ultra wealthy) don't owe _you or anyone_ a
living."

The fact is that no one gets rich without the labor of others. So, not
only do they owe others a living ethically, they quite literally owe
their wealth to others.

No one is suggesting that the wealthy _give_ their money away. What
ethically we are speaking of, is the owners and operators of businesses
distributing a higher amount of their profits back to the company in the
form of wages (at the expense of exorbitant executive and shareholder
compensation), so that wage earners are not eligible for welfare.

By eliminating the eligibility for welfare through fair wages (raise the
minimum wage), the onus is then back on the wage earner to not live
beyond their means, or suffer the consequences of their OWN choices.

No one should be punished by the private sector for working, or rewarded
by the public sector for not.

-SP

On Thursday, May 1, 2014 3:18:19 PM UTC-5, lal_truckee wrote:
On 5/1/14 8:53 AM, Uncarollo2 wrote:



In fact, the grocery store in my neighborhood today has union employees, whoda thunk such a thing was still possible in this day and age?



The grocery store in my neighborhood today is owned by the employees.

Actually we have one of those too.

UncaDoodles

On Friday, May 2, 2014 8:37:45 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, May 1, 2014 11:56:43 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

On Thursday, May 1, 2014 6:27:21 AM UTC-5, wrote:



On Thursday, May 1, 2014 7:00:24 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:



On 01/05/2014 11:38, wsnell01 wrote:



On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 12:51:51 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:



I'm tired of subsidizing oil wars



Name one that the US started.



Iraq II (the Bush grudge match). It also went momentously pear shaped.



There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq despite all the lies.



Then perhaps Hussein should not have interfered with UN weapons inspections. It might have saved him a hangin' for gassing the Kurds (along with his many other atrocities.)



So the man named one, and you deftly sidestepped it, right? It's called a ****slide,



A little civility goes a long way, didn't you say?



So, are you saying Iraq was not an oil war?



What is an "oil war?"



Iraqi oil was supposed to pay for that war.



Says who?



What happened to that wet dream?



Let's see... YOU say that GWII was an "oil war" and then complain that the US didn't get any oil out of the deal...



Here's a clue for you: The oil market is -global-.



Maybe the simpler explanation is that it was a war to find WMDs and remove from power someone with a history of using such weapons, and a possible willingness to use them again, or to sell them to those who might use them against us.

I say that the first Gulf war was an oil war, to keep Saddam from controlling Kuwaiti oil. The second Gulf war was certainly an oil war, with the expectation that the US would control Iraqi oil. Didn't work out so well. Didn't go according to plan. You can disagree all you want. It's a free country.

On Friday, May 2, 2014 1:59:25 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Friday, May 2, 2014 8:37:45 AM UTC-5, wrote:

Here's a clue for you: The oil market is -global-.

Maybe the simpler explanation is that it was a war to find WMDs and remove from power someone with a history of using such weapons, and a possible willingness to use them again, or to sell them to those who might use them against us.

I say that the first Gulf war was an oil war, to keep Saddam from controlling Kuwaiti oil.

I say that yours is a simplistic viewpoint.

The second Gulf war was certainly an oil war, with the expectation that the US would control Iraqi oil. Didn't work out so well. Didn't go according to plan. You can disagree all you want. It's a free country.

The goal of the US was NOT and NEVER WAS to "control" Iraqi oil. If the US had wanted to do so it would have. That is a viewpoint with which you can not disagree.

Now, if you find "oil wars" (whatever those are) distasteful, then you must refrain from using oil in any form and for any purpose. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite.

On Friday, May 2, 2014 12:55:12 PM UTC-4, sp wrote:

No one should be punished by the private sector for working,

And yet income taxes do just that.

or rewarded by the public sector for not.

And yet the welfare state does just that.

On Friday, May 2, 2014 12:55:12 PM UTC-4, sp wrote:

The fact is that no one gets rich without the labor of others.

You need to define "rich."

So, not
only do they owe others a living ethically, they quite literally owe
their wealth to others.

The "rich" owe only what is agreed upon WRT wages and benefits. A worker could for example agree to work for free in return for a portion of profits (if any) should a "rich" employer offer such a deal.

On Friday, May 2, 2014 12:55:12 PM UTC-4, sp wrote:

No one is suggesting that the wealthy _give_ their money away.

No, you wish the govt to take it by force.

What
ethically we are speaking of, is the owners and operators of businesses
distributing a higher amount

You need to define "higher amount."

of their profits back to the company in the
form of wages

Employees are not entitled to "profits" unless they have an agreement for a share of profits.

(at the expense of exorbitant executive and shareholder
compensation),

The shareholders are entitled to profits since they are risking capital, whereas employees (usually) have no stake in the company. Executive salaries (an executive is an -employee- since you didn't know) are determined by the owners/board/stockholders.

so that wage earners are not eligible for welfare.

If there were no "welfare" to begin with then companies would have to offer competitive wages and benefits in order to retain good help.