Climate change will change thing, not for the better

wrote in message
...

On Thursday, May 1, 2014 9:47:54 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2014 04:13:30 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Yeah, I figured any suggestion of a healthy, happy, humane society
where everyone could reach their own potential would cause you to blow
a gasket.

You didn't describe a "healthy, happy, humane society"... you described a
society in which the productive (such as plumbers) are taxed to support the
(willfully) unproductive (such as starving artists.)

The plumber, whose insurance premiums are going up due to 0bamacare, will be
less able to reach HIS potential, ie, maybe he won't be able to afford
flying lessons, or maybe his kids won't be able to take piano lessons.

If a starving artist can't make it by selling his art, then maybe he is in
the wrong profession, or he should pursue art as a hobby in his spare time.
That way, only his OWN time will be wasted, not the plumber's.

================================================== ====
TV was a clever invention, pity it is primarily used for entertainment by
artists. Shouldn't the plumber be teaching his kids to sweat joints in lead
pipes instead of piano playing?
If a starving plumber can't make it by selling his lead pipes, then maybe he
is in the wrong profession, or he should pursue plumbum as a hobby in his
spare time. That way, only his OWN time will be wasted, not the plastic and
copper pipe fitter's.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

On Thursday, May 1, 2014 11:55:57 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2014 08:44:55 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



On Thursday, May 1, 2014 10:57:22 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Thu, 1 May 2014 07:45:14 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:



You didn't describe a "healthy, happy, humane society"... you described a society in which the productive (such as plumbers) are taxed to support the (willfully) unproductive (such as starving artists.)



No, I discussed a society in which everybody could be productive

without having to worry about survival.



You did not.



A starving artist, by definition, is not productive as an artist and might not survive, but he can be productive as a waiter. Prior to 0bamacare he likely would have had a group policy through his "day job," but perhaps not anymore.



No, a starving artist is not, by definition, unproductive. This is

only the case using a very limited definition of productive

Neither is a guy raising cattle for food and letting them eat "government grass." But people living on welfare, generationally, ARE unproductive. A DRAG on society.

On Thu, 1 May 2014 15:21:52 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Neither is a guy raising cattle for food and letting them eat "government grass."

No, that would be a thief.

But people living on welfare, generationally, ARE unproductive. A DRAG on society.

Not necessarily. But then, our welfare system is very poorly designed.
Many of our most productive people are actually dependent upon some
assistance to make ends meet, simply because the work for some of the
richest and most unproductive people. (The very rich are certainly
amongst the least productive.)

On Thursday, May 1, 2014 11:55:57 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2014 08:44:55 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, May 1, 2014 10:57:22 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Thu, 1 May 2014 07:45:14 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

You didn't describe a "healthy, happy, humane society"... you described a society in which the productive (such as plumbers) are taxed to support the (willfully) unproductive (such as starving artists.)

No, I discussed a society in which everybody could be productive
without having to worry about survival.

You did not.

A starving artist, by definition, is not productive as an artist and might not survive, but he can be productive as a waiter. Prior to 0bamacare he likely would have had a group policy through his "day job," but perhaps not anymore.

No, a starving artist is not, by definition, unproductive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starving_artist

This is
only the case using a very limited definition of productive, where
value is measured in money.

But this discussion DOES involve money, ie, taxing of income and payments to insurance carriers from that pool of tax revenue.

Some of the most valuable elements of our society had little monetary
value when developed. There are other metrics of value.

Irrelevant. The discussion is about taxes on monetary income and redistribution of wealth (ie, money.)

On Thursday, May 1, 2014 7:39:28 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2014 15:21:52 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

But people living on welfare, generationally, ARE unproductive. A DRAG on society.

Not necessarily. But then, our welfare system is very poorly designed.

Especially since it theoretically provides net benefits to ~50% of voters.

Many of our most productive people are actually dependent upon some
assistance to make ends meet, simply because the work for some of the
richest and most unproductive people. (The very rich are certainly
amongst the least productive.)

Nine of the top fifteen, seven of the top ten, and three of the top five are democrats:

http://www.businessinsider.com/riche...ll-2012-8?op=1

Can't get much more unproductive, or more to the point, counter-productive, than Congress!

At least no republicans voted for zer0bamacare.

On Thursday, May 1, 2014 1:59:54 PM UTC-4, Lord Androcles wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Thursday, May 1, 2014 9:47:54 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Yeah, I figured any suggestion of a healthy, happy, humane society
where everyone could reach their own potential would cause you to blow
a gasket.

On Thu, 1 May 2014 04:13:30 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

You didn't describe a "healthy, happy, humane society"... you described a
society in which the productive (such as plumbers) are taxed to support the
(willfully) unproductive (such as starving artists.)

wsnell01 wrote:

The plumber, whose insurance premiums are going up due to 0bamacare, will be
less able to reach HIS potential, ie, maybe he won't be able to afford
flying lessons, or maybe his kids won't be able to take piano lessons.

If a starving artist can't make it by selling his art, then maybe he is in
the wrong profession, or he should pursue art as a hobby in his spare time.
That way, only his OWN time will be wasted, not the plumber's.

The dork wrote:
Shouldn't the plumber be teaching his kids to sweat joints in lead
pipes instead of piano playing?

There is no reason the kids can't learn BOTH, unless their parents are being taxed to death.

On Fri, 2 May 2014 06:11:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Especially since it theoretically provides net benefits to ~50% of voters.

Our system provides net benefits to 100% of its residents, with by far
the greatest benefits going to those with the highest income.


Many of our most productive people are actually dependent upon some
assistance to make ends meet, simply because the work for some of the
richest and most unproductive people. (The very rich are certainly
amongst the least productive.)

Nine of the top fifteen, seven of the top ten, and three of the top five are democrats:

Non sequitur.

http://www.businessinsider.com/riche...ll-2012-8?op=1

Can't get much more unproductive, or more to the point, counter-productive, than Congress!

All too true.

At least no republicans voted for zer0bamacare.

I certainly won't vote for anybody who doesn't support it, or have
solid plans for an alternative system that would work better.

On Friday, May 2, 2014 9:39:04 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2014 06:11:15 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Especially since it theoretically provides net benefits to ~50% of voters.

Our system provides net benefits to 100% of its residents, with by far
the greatest benefits going to those with the highest income.

Incorrect. "Net benefits" means that one pays less in taxes than one gets from the Federal govt. Much of the lower and middle classes get no "net benefits" and very few of the upper class get them.

Many of our most productive people are actually dependent upon some
assistance to make ends meet, simply because the work for some of the
richest and most unproductive people. (The very rich are certainly
amongst the least productive.)

Nine of the top fifteen, seven of the top ten, and three of the top five are democrats:

Non sequitur.

Incorrect. If the read the link below you will see from where the numbers above derive. The ":" after the the word "democrat" should have been a clue to you. Clearly your reading comprehension needs work.

http://www.businessinsider.com/riche...ll-2012-8?op=1

Can't get much more unproductive, or more to the point, counter-productive, than Congress!

All too true.

With zer0bamacare, which is totally the fault of the democrats, being a prime and tragic example.

At least no republicans voted for zer0bamacare.

I certainly won't vote for anybody who doesn't support it, or have
solid plans for an alternative system that would work better.

The republicans DID and still do have "solid plans" for an alternative system. Unfortunately those suffer from NIH syndrome among the democrats. That is, they provide you leftists with no political leverage.

wrote in message
...

On Thursday, May 1, 2014 1:59:54 PM UTC-4, Lord Androcles wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Thursday, May 1, 2014 9:47:54 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Yeah, I figured any suggestion of a healthy, happy, humane society
where everyone could reach their own potential would cause you to blow
a gasket.

On Thu, 1 May 2014 04:13:30 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

You didn't describe a "healthy, happy, humane society"... you described
a
society in which the productive (such as plumbers) are taxed to support
the
(willfully) unproductive (such as starving artists.)

wsnell01 wrote:

The plumber, whose insurance premiums are going up due to 0bamacare, will
be
less able to reach HIS potential, ie, maybe he won't be able to afford
flying lessons, or maybe his kids won't be able to take piano lessons.

If a starving artist can't make it by selling his art, then maybe he is
in
the wrong profession, or he should pursue art as a hobby in his spare
time.
That way, only his OWN time will be wasted, not the plumber's.

The dork wrote:
Shouldn't the plumber be teaching his kids to sweat joints in lead
pipes instead of piano playing?
If a starving plumber can't make it by selling his lead pipes, then maybe he
is in the wrong profession, or he should pursue plumbum as a hobby in his
spare time. That way, only his OWN time will be wasted, not the plastic and
copper pipe fitter's.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

The stupid **** wrote :
There is no reason the kids can't learn BOTH, unless their parents are being
taxed to death.
================================================== ===========================
Lord Androcles replies:
What, and give everyone lead poisoning because Pb is cheaper than Cu?

http://michelsplumbing.com/images/Wiped_Lead_Joint.jpg

Obviously water in your country is unfit for human consumption. Are you
still using leaded gasoline too? We don't teach our kids to sweat leaded
pipes with tallow and moleskins in Britain, we have a leftist Health and
Safety Act of Parliament. What am I saying, you've never even heard of
tallow or moleskins, you know nothing about plumbing.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

On Friday, May 2, 2014 7:56:07 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Friday, May 2, 2014 9:39:04 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I certainly won't vote for anybody who doesn't support it, or have
solid plans for an alternative system that would work better.

The republicans DID and still do have "solid plans" for an alternative system.
Unfortunately those suffer from NIH syndrome among the democrats. That is,
they provide you leftists with no political leverage.

An alternative system that would "work better" means, I presume, something like what we have in Canada, or what most Europeans have. Single-payer medicare that goes through the government without involving any private insurance companies.

Hence, the Republicans do not have the sort of plan he would vote for.

John Savard