"Nazis Run Our Space Program" -- Peace Activist Bruce Gag-Me

Pat Flannery ) wrote:


: Eric Chomko wrote:

:
: You counldn't hit the broad side of a barn much less a fish in a barrel,
: literally and figuratively!
:
:

: I still like the part where he's net-nannying your replies to my posts.

Yes, I think that that has gotten him a little meaner and nastier that
usual. "Cover your nuts!"

: Bourgeoisie? Nope, this guy wants the whole kit and kaboodle.
: Think an "R" monogram would look as good as an "N" one on the back of a
: throne?
: I guess that would depend on if the throne were made of porcelain. ;-)

And this whole ego thing. Overnurtured as a youth or simply a mama's boy?

Eric

: Pat

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Ami Silberman" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Ami Silberman" wrote:
:
: :They don't pay income taxes. They do pay social security (6.2%) and
Medicare
: 2.9%), and there are usually state taxes as well.
:
: All of which they more than recover as 'earned income credit' or some
: such euphemism.
:
:Single with no children, income of $7,500 per year, EIC is $303. For
married
:and no children, it is $380. For some reason you get a lot more back if
you
:have kids. In fact, for a married couple with two children, they get
$1000
:back with a taxable income as high as $30,700. The bonus "child refund"
eaks at $2600 for one child for a single parent with income of up to
:$12,500, which is about $1000 above the level at which EIC goes away for
:non-parents. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p596.pdf has all the gory
:details.
:
:In the case of single person making $7,500 per year, the "lucky ducky"
gets
:$303 back from the government, which is about 4% of their income, or less
:than half of what they pay in social security and Medicare.

You have the numbers wrong. You've incorrectly doubled the Medicare
rate.

Now add in everything else they get at that income level.

OK, so maybe I made a mistake with the Medicare (or the source I looked up
on the web did.) I will not dispute the fact that people with (very) low
income receive more in monetary support from the government than they put
in. I thought you were refering only to the EIC, not to the EIC and all
other payments.

And so what if they get back more than they put in. Should we say that a
person should only get back as much, or less, from the government in goods
and services than they put in? Ok, so that means that when I was a graduate
student, I shouldn't have been given a tuition waver, should have been
prohibited from driving on public highways, and should have had to pay much
more than a middle class person for museum admission.

Oh, how do we figure the indirect benefits of government (such as the
promotion of stability, market regulation etc.) which disproportionately
benefit the rich. One of the side effects of the modern wellfare state is
that we haven't had a peasant uprising in centuries.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:57:25 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Ami
Silberman" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


Oh, how do we figure the indirect benefits of government (such as the
promotion of stability, market regulation etc.) which disproportionately
benefit the rich. One of the side effects of the modern wellfare state is
that we haven't had a peasant uprising in centuries.

No, instead we've had taxpayer uprisings.
Which usually don't result in burned manor houses, murdered nobility and
clergy, and violent suppression by the government. We also, so far, haven't
had democracy seriously subverted by mob rule (or mobs of disenfranchised
led on by ambitious men) as in the late Roman Republic. I think of the
welfare state as a price we pay for civil stability. This is not to say that
there aren't flaws, or reasons to reform, but publicly supplied bread and
circuses accomplishes the following:
1. The "masses" are overall more contented and less prone to rebel.
2. Since the bread and circuses are supplied by the government, as
opposed to individuals, it is harder to manipulate the masses by means of
the bread and circuses.
It's a pretty cynical view, but I think that, overall a rational one.

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:47:15 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : : What leverage is needed? If the employee doesn't get paid what was
: : : stipulated at the time of hire, the employer is in breach of the
: : : contract, and he can quit, just as he can be fired if he doesn't do
: : : the job. That's why it's a mutually-agreed employment contract.
: :
: : The contract is nothing but a piece of paper without a fair justice
: : system.
:
: : Who's opposed to a fair justice system? Can't you stay on topic for a
: : single post?
:
: I'm doing just fine. Why do you think that I felt you were opposed to a
: fair justice system? I simply made a comment.

: Why did you make the comment? What were you responding to? Do you
: just type whatever pops into your head that instant, regardless of its
: relevance to anything?

: Never mind, we all know the answer to that one.

Dementia appears to be your schtick not mine.

Eric

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:44:55 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: : On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:01:08 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: : (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
: : : : You didn't answer my question. What kind of uniform were you forced
: : : : to wear?
: : :
: : : I was speaking about parading as a spectator sport.
: :
: : : That's not what Pat was talking about, so your response to him (like
: : : many of your responses to many people) was a total idiotic
: : : non-sequitur.
: :
: : This has nothing to do with Pat.
:
: : So you're admitting that even though your response to Pat was that we
: : were already doing what he wrote (which we aren't), you were actually
: : just babbling about something that had nothing to do with what he
: : wrote. Typical.
:
: Why did you eliminate this?
:
: All I was saying that I have notice an
: increase in militray presence in our society lately and used the
: prsentation of the colors as an example. No, I have not been doing any
: parading myself!

: Because it was completely irrelevant to anything that was under
: discussion, until you idiotically misunderstood Pat's comment.

I understood Pat's comment perfectly, and it has nothing to do with the
military and as everything to do with how you view yourself.

: This part that you removed clarified everything, yet you left it out and
: went on about the first sentence out of context.
:
: THAT is intellectual dishonesty! Your diatribe about Pat is what doesn't
: follow. And as an aside from that YOU decided to quote out context.
:
: What does this post and the topic of increased military in civilian life
: have to do with any post from Pat?

: Nothing. That's the point. Yet you diverted the thread here in
: response to his post.

No the diversion was that you're still sore at being the butt of Pat's
joke. There that should be enough fodder to get you back into trouble.

Eric

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:57:25 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Ami
: Silberman" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: such a way as to indicate that:


: Oh, how do we figure the indirect benefits of government (such as the
: promotion of stability, market regulation etc.) which disproportionately
: benefit the rich. One of the side effects of the modern wellfare state is
: that we haven't had a peasant uprising in centuries.

: No, instead we've had taxpayer uprisings.

Is that what the Revolution was against England back in 1776-83?

Eric

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:33:55 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : So, the govt. stepping in with minimum wage was a lousy idea, right?
:
: : Yes.
:
: You obviously think you'd be on the side of the bourgeoisie rather than
: the proletariat, inherently. I think we are sort of getting to the root of
: your personality with this. You think you have more class than you do!

: I'm not a Marxist, Eric. Class warfare is so nineteenth century.

Perhaps, but you do hold yourself in a position of higher class which is
really un-American. And I have no idea why you do that.

And I have no idea why you fantasize I do that.

: : We now have welfare for those who can't earn enough in the free
: : market.
:
: Which isn't the same as minimum wage. I'd rather see someone making
: minimum wage rather than be on welfare.

: Minimum wage is a form of welfare, where the money is taken from
: employers rather than taxpayers. Except most employers refuse to pay
: it, instead simply automating and letting jobs go undone. And people
: go unemployed.

And the basis of that comment is? Do you have a reference that employers
refuse to pay minimum wage and let jobs go undone?

laughing

: : Everything! The point is that a third party or arbitrator is neseccary for
: : labor.
:
: : That has nothing to do whether or not to have a minimum wage.
:
: Sure it does! Minimum wage keeps a lot of crap out of court.

: Like what? How does it do that?

If an employer doesn't pay minimum wage, then he is guilty by default. No
argument. MW is a standard that every employer MUST pay an employee. If
they pay more than MW, then an employee can't sue as they are getting MW.
If they go under, then the employee has a case. Having the MW standard
eliminates underpaid employees flocking to courts.

Flocking to courts for what?

On 2005-03-17, Eric Chomko wrote:
Andrew Gray ) wrote:

: Other organisations, if memory serves, are GCHQ - the signals-intercept
: people - and the Defence Intelligence Staff, which is pretty much what
: it sounds like it is. There's also the various police forces' Special
: Branches (most famously that of the Metropolitan Police), which have a
: quasi-intelligence role in some contexts.

: There, that ought to thoroughly confuse you...

Actually, no. Thanks for the overview, it cleared up my confusion. The
bigger then number the further away (external = 6).

Yeah, but there's no actual logic to that - originally there was a
breakdown simply by geographic area, where MI2 was "northern Europe" (or
something), that sort of thing.

(This had echoes in the US, again - for a long time the FBI, if memory
serves, held jurisdiction over anything to do with Latin America.)

MI6 got the name because one of the SIS's branches was given the title
during the war, and it later became attatched to the organisation
generally. There was a lot of internecine squabbling after the War; when
the dust settled, we had the two agencies and some miscellaneous bits
and pieces.

I guess a rough US equivalent is:

MI5 = FBI
MI6 = CIA.

At least their domains, though the FBI is both domestic and abroad where
the CIA (so we are told anyway) is strictly foriegn.

Broadly. MI5 probably has overseas operations, but its remit is domestic
- to protect the institutions, rather than to carry out their
activities, if you see the difference.

As I understand it, though, the FBI was originally a federal criminal
investigation body - closer to the UK's CID than anything else - which
later acquired intelligence duties; the role of MI5 might be better
compared to a more wide-ranging Secret Service without the VIP
protection role.

--
-Andrew Gray

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:47:15 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : What leverage is needed? If the employee doesn't get paid what was
: : stipulated at the time of hire, the employer is in breach of the
: : contract, and he can quit, just as he can be fired if he doesn't do
: : the job. That's why it's a mutually-agreed employment contract.
:
: The contract is nothing but a piece of paper without a fair justice
: system.

: Who's opposed to a fair justice system? Can't you stay on topic for a
: single post?

I'm doing just fine. Why do you think that I felt you were opposed to a
fair justice system? I simply made a comment.

Why did you make the comment? What were you responding to? Do you
just type whatever pops into your head that instant, regardless of its
relevance to anything?

Never mind, we all know the answer to that one.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:44:55 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:01:08 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : : You didn't answer my question. What kind of uniform were you forced
: : : to wear?
: :
: : I was speaking about parading as a spectator sport.
:
: : That's not what Pat was talking about, so your response to him (like
: : many of your responses to many people) was a total idiotic
: : non-sequitur.
:
: This has nothing to do with Pat.

: So you're admitting that even though your response to Pat was that we
: were already doing what he wrote (which we aren't), you were actually
: just babbling about something that had nothing to do with what he
: wrote. Typical.

Why did you eliminate this?

All I was saying that I have notice an
increase in militray presence in our society lately and used the
prsentation of the colors as an example. No, I have not been doing any
parading myself!

Because it was completely irrelevant to anything that was under
discussion, until you idiotically misunderstood Pat's comment.

This part that you removed clarified everything, yet you left it out and
went on about the first sentence out of context.

THAT is intellectual dishonesty! Your diatribe about Pat is what doesn't
follow. And as an aside from that YOU decided to quote out context.

What does this post and the topic of increased military in civilian life
have to do with any post from Pat?

Nothing. That's the point. Yet you diverted the thread here in
response to his post.