Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Digital Archaeology » Computer Arcana » Computer Folklore » Search Google, 1960:s-style
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29246 is a reply to message #29188] Tue, 18 December 2012 09:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jmfbahciv is currently offline  jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Peter Flass wrote:
> On 12/17/2012 10:09 AM, kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:

>> In article <kalijh$o00$1@dont-email.me>, Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com (Peter

>> Flass) wrote:

>>

>>> The Romans managed it for 130 years, then family loyalty trumped

>>> public welfare.

>>

>> I am not sure where you got that from.

>

> Bad calculation :-( Supposed to be the accession of Nerva (96AD) to the

> death of Marcus Aurelius (180AD), so 85 years.

>

Can't hex one and use tertiary on the other to get a decimal answer.

/BAH
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29247 is a reply to message #29168] Tue, 18 December 2012 09:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jmfbahciv is currently offline  jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Dan Espen wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>

>> Dan Espen wrote:

>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>>

>>>> He's trying to get a power which isn't rein checked by Congress.

>>> ^^^^?

>>

>> Rein as in horse reins; some bridles have a rein check which keeps the head

>> of the horse in front of you.

>

> Interesting. Google is coming up empty on the usage "rein check".


Does it really?!!!! It's been a common term all my life. How odd.

>

>>>> Small businesses are screwed; that seems to be the target of the Dem.

>>>> leadership.

>>>

>>> Wow, you sound like such an idiot with this stuff!

>>>

>>> Why, in your mind, do you think the Democrats want to screw small

>>> business?

>>>

>> BEcause they want to tax the shit out of small business owners.

>> Before you reply to this, go read Schedule C of the IRS' tax

>> forms/directions.

>

> Interesting definition of "tax the shit out of".

> Completely a fantasy.


If a small business owner's bank account has a $300K or more balance at
any time of the year, there is a surtax charged. Note that this is
half a house if you're a builder. Small farms will fall into that
$250K category. Service businesses such as plumbing and electrical
could get that much income during the year. Brick and mortar
businesess and restaurants will also be affected. Destroy small
business and you'll end up with a fascist or communistic economy where
decisions are made by politicians and not by the people who deal with
the prlbems.

>

> And that still leaves you short about explaining _why_ the Democratic

> leadership sees advantage in destroying small business.



To increase the population's dependency on the Fed. government; note
that this does not include States' government.

>

> They want to raise revenue.

>

That's just plain BS. If they want to revenue, they leave the
businesses alone. Those are the entities which cut paychecks
which produces revenue. If the Dems were only trying to raise
revenue, I might consider their proposal but they're also
increasing spending by an amount far greater than the suppoed
revenue from incrasing taxes. They also seem to be avoiding
saying anything about death taxes which makes me suspect that
they're going to go back to the one million $ threshold.
And that will definitely take out a lot small business.

/BAH
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29249 is a reply to message #29134] Tue, 18 December 2012 09:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jmfbahciv is currently offline  jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Rod Speed wrote:
>

>

> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message

> news:PM0004D10DD91EEFE5@ac812cc2.ipt.aol.com...

>> Dan Espen wrote:

>>> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:

>>>

>>>> On 12/16/2012 12:31 PM, Dan Espen wrote:

>>>> > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>>> >

>>>> >> He's trying to get a power which isn't rein checked by Congress.

>>>> > ^^^^?

>>>> >> Small businesses are screwed; that seems to be the target of the Dem.

>>>> >> leadership.

>>>> >

>>>> > Wow, you sound like such an idiot with this stuff!

>>>> >

>>>> > Why, in your mind, do you think the Democrats want to screw small

>>>> > business?

>>>> >

>>>>

>>>> Because they're successful and not dependent on the government for

>> handouts.

>>>

>>> So, you think that answers "why"?

>>>

>>> It doesn't.

>>>

>>> And it's stupid.

>>>

>>> Sorry to be insulting, but having voted Democrat a few times,

>>> and not wanting to destroy any business big or small, I take exception.

>>>

>> Then you are able to think. I did write Democrat _leadership_. They've

>> gone completely nuts.

>

> Corse nothing like that has ever happened with your leadership, eh ?


Which is? If you are trying to imply that I like Republicans, I've
told before that you are very wrong.

/BAH
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29250 is a reply to message #29207] Tue, 18 December 2012 09:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jmfbahciv is currently offline  jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <PM0004D10DB0CDEE1A@ac812cc2.ipt.aol.com>, on 12/17/2012

> at 03:34 PM, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> said:

>

>> Do you remember when the USSR sent its soldiers out to harvest

>> potatoes?

>

> How does that conflict with their system being state capitalism?

>

>> The books I read talked about the collectives not working a long

>> day;

>

> Are you talking about a real collective, owned by the workers,


Kibbutz (I couldn't remember the word yesterday).

> or a

> state run farm where the workers are coolies? Where and what year.


The books were about Israel and its history.

> Are

> you comparing them to single family farms in the same location and

> year?


Yes.

> Or are you saying, e.g., that there is a longer work day on a

> moshave than on a nearby kibbutz?


No, I'm saying that an owner has more incentive to work longer hours
than those who work under a collective org. A collective would have
to post work details and hours. The first thing you hear is someone
complaining about someone else not having to do the messiest work.
An owner just does the labor until the job is done. There are no
hours scheduled by a manager nor days off nor obligatory coffee
breaks.

>

> If you're talking about soviet "collective" farms, the operative

> expression is "they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work."

>


That's an organization which has completely self-destructed. If
those people owned their own pieces of that farming area, they
would have more self-interest in success. For those people
who didn't care about doing the work, they would sell the land
to someone who did have an interest.

Bottom line is that the land is productive and not lying fallow
or worse.

/BAH
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29251 is a reply to message #29162] Tue, 18 December 2012 09:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jmfbahciv is currently offline  jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Dan Espen wrote:
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

>

>> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:

>>> On 12/16/2012 6:42 PM, Dan Espen wrote:

>>>> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:

>>>>

>>>> > On 12/16/2012 12:31 PM, Dan Espen wrote:

>>>> >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>>> >>

>>>> >>> He's trying to get a power which isn't rein checked by Congress.

>>>> >> ^^^^?

>>>> >>> Small businesses are screwed; that seems to be the target of the Dem.

>>>> >>> leadership.

>>>> >>

>>>> >> Wow, you sound like such an idiot with this stuff!

>>>> >>

>>>> >> Why, in your mind, do you think the Democrats want to screw small

>>>> >> business?

>>>> >>

>>>> >

>>>> > Because they're successful and not dependent on the government for

handouts.
>>>>

>>>> So, you think that answers "why"?

>>>>

>>>> It doesn't.

>>>>

>>>> And it's stupid.

>>>>

>>>> Sorry to be insulting, but having voted Democrat a few times,

>>>> and not wanting to destroy any business big or small, I take exception.

>>>>

>>>

>>> When we say "The Democrats" want something or think something, we're

>>> talking about the 'leadership'. You can think and feel whatever you

>>> want, but it's their opinions that count.

>>

>> What "we" kimosabe. The proper pronoun for you is "I".

>>

>> And nobody but a few loonies think that "democrats want to ban guns[*]"

>> or "democrats want to destroy small business" or on the other side that

>> "republicans want to eat babies" or "republicans hate homosexuals".

>>

>> And only an idiot thinks that an extra $3k/year in taxes for a small

business
>> clearing $250000 in profit per year will "destroy small business".

>

> If the business clears 250K, their taxes remain the same.


How do you figure?

> To get to 3k extra, they have to net something like 330K.

>

What figures are you using?

/BAH
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29252 is a reply to message #29179] Tue, 18 December 2012 09:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jmfbahciv is currently offline  jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:54:03 -0000, Charlie Gibbs

> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

>

>> In article <ka9tn1$9of$1@dont-email.me>, Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com

>> (Peter Flass) writes:

>>

>>> On 12/11/2012 8:38 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>>>

>>>> One thing that hasn't changed: Articles on political troubles read

>>>> exactly as they do now, only the names are different.

>>>

>>> Sad but true.

>>

>> But... but... they told us we were entering a new era.

>> Or was that a "new error"?

>>

> ON ERROR RESUME

>

>

PUNCH ANY KEY.

/BAH
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29253 is a reply to message #29192] Tue, 18 December 2012 09:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jmfbahciv is currently offline  jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Peter Flass wrote:
> On 12/17/2012 10:34 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:

>> Dan Espen wrote:

>>> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:

>>>

>>>> On 12/16/2012 12:31 PM, Dan Espen wrote:

>>>> > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>>> >

>>>> >> He's trying to get a power which isn't rein checked by Congress.

>>>> > ^^^^?

>>>> >> Small businesses are screwed; that seems to be the target of the Dem.

>>>> >> leadership.

>>>> >

>>>> > Wow, you sound like such an idiot with this stuff!

>>>> >

>>>> > Why, in your mind, do you think the Democrats want to screw small

>>>> > business?

>>>> >

>>>>

>>>> Because they're successful and not dependent on the government for

>> handouts.

>>>

>>> So, you think that answers "why"?

>>>

>>> It doesn't.

>>>

>>> And it's stupid.

>>>

>>> Sorry to be insulting, but having voted Democrat a few times,

>>> and not wanting to destroy any business big or small, I take exception.

>>>

>> Then you are able to think. I did write Democrat _leadership_. They've

>> gone completely nuts.

>>

>

> We'll have to see what happens with the fiscal cliff. Boehner has

> apparently indicated he;s willing to accept $1T in increased revenue,

> apparently including a 6% increase on people making over $1M, in return

> for $1T in cuts to entitlement programs. The last time we had something

> like this, the democrats refused to cut anything and the deal collapsed.

>

And the Democrats will be seen to "win" which is their goal. They're
already campaigning for 2014. This misnamed financial cliff of Jan 1st
is exactly what the Dems want. Huge increase in revenue and really
pissed off income tax payers. They can take care of the so-called
spending cuts with later legislation or regualtions out of FDA,
OSHA and other non-elected agencies. The Dems can blame the
Repulbicans and everyone will the believe them (this is what truly
amazes me).

/BAH
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29254 is a reply to message #29164] Tue, 18 December 2012 09:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jmfbahciv is currently offline  jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
greymausg@mail.com wrote:
> On 2012-12-17, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:

>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:

>>

>> Do you remember when the USSR sent its soldiers out to harvest potatoes?

>

> I remember the Army here (.ie) helping with the harvest, 47,48. Well,

> remember not that well, but I remember the uniforms. It's standard

> procedure.


Sure, when there isn't anyone else to do that work. In the USSR's case,
the farming people stopped working. Shmuel wrote a quote that describes
the attitude.

>

>>

>>>

>>>> Even in Israel, the collectives don't work as hard as the farmers

>>>> who own their own farm and products.

>>>

>>> Actually, they do. The significant variable is not individual versus

>>> collective ownership, but how much of a surplus is available. Also

>>> note that an employee doesn't have the same incentives as an owner,

>>> whether that owner be an individual or a collective.

>>>

>> The books I read talked about the collectives not working a long day;

>> OTOH the farmer who owned his own property, would work 12-15 or more

>> hours a day. The difference was personal ownership. I don't

>> remember the books' titles and they're still packed in boxes. Just

>> knowing human nature would give you a hint.

>>

>> /BAH

>

> In the Soviet Union, the land was 'collectivised', organized into large

> estates, owned by the `Soviets'. `Soviet' was an old Russian word for the

> peasant groups that organized the work on the Noble-owned estates. So, the

> large amount of land was worked in `common', and the workers had `gardens'.

> quite amazingly, these seemed to produce almost as much as the open land :)


Exactly. The piece that was their personal area was more productive because
the owner had more self-interest in his stuff than the collectives'. The
outdoor market I saw when I was in Leningrad showed how the "illegal"
bartering systems was working. Quality and stuff were better and more
available than in the legal state-owned stores.

>

> the tragedy was that after the 1917 Revolution, the structure of land

> ownership was developing to a genuinely modern form, before the Communists

> imposed their system, largely by force. Incidentally, since 1989,

> foreigners have been operating these estates, AFAIK, real ownership is not

> allowed.


It's still the same.

>

> A German group are operating a large estate near Kalach, scene of one of

> the decisive battles of the war, its on the net somewhere, very impressive.

> Makes you think. One of the Tolstoy family visited the old family estate,

> with a view of revitalizing it. While he was there, evryone he met was

> drunk, even in the morning, lots of the men dead from alcohol poisoning

> by 40-50.


Boredom and political corruption make an explosive combination. not
much has changed.

/BAH
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29255 is a reply to message #29206] Tue, 18 December 2012 09:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jmfbahciv is currently offline  jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <PM0004D10DD5F2729B@ac812cc2.ipt.aol.com>, on 12/17/2012

> at 03:34 PM, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> said:

>

>> And gaining control of that employment will help further their agenda

>> of socialism.

>

> You're nuts; the leadership of the Democratic party is wealthy and the

> last thing they would want is socialism.

>

You need to listen and read more. The only way to have everyone "equal"
is to implement some form of socialism. Massachusetts' attempt for
"equal" used a fascist technique. It's very common now for middle
class types to demand "the government has to do something" rather
than take the responsibility themselves. If the government, and thus,
politicians, have the responsibility for all living conditions, then
the only way to administer and control it is with the techniques
used by communism and/or fascism.

/BAH
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29258 is a reply to message #29208] Tue, 18 December 2012 09:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charles Richmond is currently offline  Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in
message news:50cf7401$30$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...
> In <20121217130932@news.eternal-september.org>, on 12/17/2012

> at 01:14 PM, Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> said:

>

>> Last time I checked this was not the case in the House of

>> Representatives. However, the useless, spineless Republicans do

>> seem to lack the will to stand up to the Communis..., I mean, the

>> "Democrats."

>

> Did you use to work for Pravda? You write like it.

>


I understand that "Pravda" means "truth" in Russian.... a sort of 1984 type
of name. I guess the Russians have a lot of trouble with the concept.

--

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29259 is a reply to message #29231] Tue, 18 December 2012 09:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
GreyMaus is currently offline  GreyMaus
Messages: 422
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2012-12-18, Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 12/17/2012 2:50 PM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:

>> In <PM0004D10DD5F2729B@ac812cc2.ipt.aol.com>, on 12/17/2012

>> at 03:34 PM, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> said:

>>

>>> And gaining control of that employment will help further their agenda

>>> of socialism.

>>

>> You're nuts; the leadership of the Democratic party is wealthy and the

>> last thing they would want is socialism.

>>

>

> Advocates of big government want to remove any possible roadblocks. Big

> business is hand-in-glove with big government ("military-industrial

> complex"). Small business is largely independent and mostly wants to be

> left alone without burdensome taxes or regulations. Government schools

> are fine, but Democrats are fighting tooth-and-nail to roadblock

> independent schools. With Obamacare the government is making an attempt

> to "tame" churches. Not to bring up a certain German political party of

> the '30s, but what they want is "gleichschaltung" - everyone going along

> with the government line.

>


or the Italian line, used extensively here, "Una Duce, una Voce"


--
maus
.
.
....
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29264 is a reply to message #29247] Tue, 18 December 2012 10:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

> Dan Espen wrote:

>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>

>>> Dan Espen wrote:

>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>>>

>>>> > He's trying to get a power which isn't rein checked by Congress.

>>>> ^^^^?

>>>

>>> Rein as in horse reins; some bridles have a rein check which keeps the head

>>> of the horse in front of you.

>>

>> Interesting. Google is coming up empty on the usage "rein check".

>

> Does it really?!!!! It's been a common term all my life. How odd.


The term "rain check" is very common. Sounds the same.

>>>> > Small businesses are screwed; that seems to be the target of the Dem.

>>>> > leadership.

>>>>

>>>> Wow, you sound like such an idiot with this stuff!

>>>>

>>>> Why, in your mind, do you think the Democrats want to screw small

>>>> business?

>>>>

>>> BEcause they want to tax the shit out of small business owners.

>>> Before you reply to this, go read Schedule C of the IRS' tax

>>> forms/directions.

>>

>> Interesting definition of "tax the shit out of".

>> Completely a fantasy.

>

> If a small business owner's bank account has a $300K or more balance at

> any time of the year, there is a surtax charged. Note that this is


No it isn't. There has never been a tax on assets and there never will be.

> half a house if you're a builder. Small farms will fall into that

> $250K category. Service businesses such as plumbing and electrical

> could get that much income during the year. Brick and mortar


A bank account balance is not income.
As I said before, if a business earns 250K there is no tax increase.
If a business earns 300K the additional tax is tiny.

> businesess and restaurants will also be affected. Destroy small

> business and you'll end up with a fascist or communistic economy where

> decisions are made by politicians and not by the people who deal with

> the prlbems.


Again, explain why any one, or any politician would want to destroy
small business. How would that get someone elected?

>> And that still leaves you short about explaining _why_ the Democratic

>> leadership sees advantage in destroying small business.

>

> To increase the population's dependency on the Fed. government; note

> that this does not include States' government.


No one wants anyone to be dependent on the government.
It doesn't help anyone, especially politicians.

>> They want to raise revenue.

>>

> That's just plain BS. If they want to revenue, they leave the

> businesses alone. Those are the entities which cut paychecks

> which produces revenue. If the Dems were only trying to raise

> revenue, I might consider their proposal but they're also

> increasing spending by an amount far greater than the suppoed

> revenue from incrasing taxes. They also seem to be avoiding

> saying anything about death taxes which makes me suspect that

> they're going to go back to the one million $ threshold.

> And that will definitely take out a lot small business.


So you can _increase_ revenue by not raising taxes.
How do you think that works?
How is it working now?
How well has it worked for the last 12 years?
How many small businesses were destroyed during the Clinton era?

--
Dan Espen
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29265 is a reply to message #29255] Tue, 18 December 2012 10:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:

>> In <PM0004D10DD5F2729B@ac812cc2.ipt.aol.com>, on 12/17/2012

>> at 03:34 PM, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> said:

>>

>>> And gaining control of that employment will help further their agenda

>>> of socialism.

>>

>> You're nuts; the leadership of the Democratic party is wealthy and the

>> last thing they would want is socialism.

>>

> You need to listen and read more. The only way to have everyone "equal"

> is to implement some form of socialism. Massachusetts' attempt for

> "equal" used a fascist technique. It's very common now for middle

> class types to demand "the government has to do something" rather

> than take the responsibility themselves. If the government, and thus,

> politicians, have the responsibility for all living conditions, then

> the only way to administer and control it is with the techniques

> used by communism and/or fascism.


I need to listen and read more?

That's funny.

All these rich politicians want everyone to be "equal".
That's funny too.

Really, this stuff is crazy.
Paranoid crazy.

--
Dan Espen
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29266 is a reply to message #29251] Tue, 18 December 2012 10:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

> Dan Espen wrote:

>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

>>

>>> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:

>>>> On 12/16/2012 6:42 PM, Dan Espen wrote:

>>>> > Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:

>>>> >

>>>> >> On 12/16/2012 12:31 PM, Dan Espen wrote:

>>>> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>>> He's trying to get a power which isn't rein checked by Congress.

>>>> >>> ^^^^?

>>>> >>>> Small businesses are screwed; that seems to be the target of the Dem.

>>>> >>>> leadership.

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>> Wow, you sound like such an idiot with this stuff!

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>> Why, in your mind, do you think the Democrats want to screw small

>>>> >>> business?

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>

>>>> >> Because they're successful and not dependent on the government for

> handouts.

>>>> >

>>>> > So, you think that answers "why"?

>>>> >

>>>> > It doesn't.

>>>> >

>>>> > And it's stupid.

>>>> >

>>>> > Sorry to be insulting, but having voted Democrat a few times,

>>>> > and not wanting to destroy any business big or small, I take exception.

>>>> >

>>>>

>>>> When we say "The Democrats" want something or think something, we're

>>>> talking about the 'leadership'. You can think and feel whatever you

>>>> want, but it's their opinions that count.

>>>

>>> What "we" kimosabe. The proper pronoun for you is "I".

>>>

>>> And nobody but a few loonies think that "democrats want to ban guns[*]"

>>> or "democrats want to destroy small business" or on the other side that

>>> "republicans want to eat babies" or "republicans hate homosexuals".

>>>

>>> And only an idiot thinks that an extra $3k/year in taxes for a small

> business

>>> clearing $250000 in profit per year will "destroy small business".

>>

>> If the business clears 250K, their taxes remain the same.

>

> How do you figure?


Simple, the proposed tax is to increase taxes on income over
250K. That's TAXABLE income by the way.

Anyone making 250K or less, gets the Bush tax cut.
Anyone making 250K or more only pays the Clinton Era tax on
taxable income over 250K. They still get the Bush tax cut
on the first 250K.

>> To get to 3k extra, they have to net something like 330K.

>>

> What figures are you using?


The proposed increase is 4% on income over 250K.
You need 80K of income to see 3K in taxes.

80,000 x .04 = 3.2K.

250K plus 80K = 330K.

--
Dan Espen
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29267 is a reply to message #29254] Tue, 18 December 2012 10:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
GreyMaus is currently offline  GreyMaus
Messages: 422
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2012-12-18, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> greymausg@mail.com wrote:

>> On 2012-12-17, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:

>> quite amazingly, these seemed to produce almost as much as the open land :)

>

> Exactly. The piece that was their personal area was more productive because

> the owner had more self-interest in his stuff than the collectives'. The

> outdoor market I saw when I was in Leningrad showed how the "illegal"

> bartering systems was working. Quality and stuff were better and more

> available than in the legal state-owned stores.


Ehhh, you have been away from farming longer than I, and have a more
charitable view of a `peasants' methods than I. I meant that a great
deal of the collectives produce was processed through the workers
plots and sold as product of the plots, as in fertilizer going to
vegetables, or corn being fed to the peasants pigs (or, indeed,
distilled into vodka)

>

>>

>> the tragedy was that after the 1917 Revolution, the structure of land

>> ownership was developing to a genuinely modern form, before the Communists

>> imposed their system, largely by force. Incidentally, since 1989,

>> foreigners have been operating these estates, AFAIK, real ownership is not

>> allowed.

>

> It's still the same.


I meant real ownership is not allowed to foreigners. (This was the situation
around 2000, may have changed by now.)

>

>>

>> A German group are operating a large estate near Kalach, scene of one of

>> the decisive battles of the war, its on the net somewhere, very impressive.

>> Makes you think. One of the Tolstoy family visited the old family estate,

>> with a view of revitalizing it. While he was there, evryone he met was

>> drunk, even in the morning, lots of the men dead from alcohol poisoning

>> by 40-50.

>

> Boredom and political corruption make an explosive combination. not

> much has changed.

>

> /BAH



--
maus
.
.
....
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29268 is a reply to message #29255] Tue, 18 December 2012 10:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Ibmekon

On 18 Dec 2012 14:39:41 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:

> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:

>> In <PM0004D10DD5F2729B@ac812cc2.ipt.aol.com>, on 12/17/2012

>> at 03:34 PM, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> said:

>>

>>> And gaining control of that employment will help further their agenda

>>> of socialism.

>>

>> You're nuts; the leadership of the Democratic party is wealthy and the

>> last thing they would want is socialism.

>>

> You need to listen and read more. The only way to have everyone "equal"


May read better as "everyone else".

Carl Goldsworthy


> is to implement some form of socialism. Massachusetts' attempt for

> "equal" used a fascist technique. It's very common now for middle

> class types to demand "the government has to do something" rather

> than take the responsibility themselves. If the government, and thus,

> politicians, have the responsibility for all living conditions, then

> the only way to administer and control it is with the techniques

> used by communism and/or fascism.

>

> /BAH
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29271 is a reply to message #29198] Tue, 18 December 2012 11:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Stan Barr is currently offline  Stan Barr
Messages: 598
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:31:42 -0500, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:

>

>> On 12/17/2012 10:34 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:

>>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:

>>>> In <kakhn6$65l$1@dont-email.me>, on 12/16/2012

>>>> at 08:25 AM, Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> said:

>>>>

>>>> > Is it just me, or does this slop get worse every release?

>>>>

>>>> I don't know; I don't do windoze.

>>>

>>> I went to the brick/mortar store to take a look. I didn't

>>> have much energy so I only played with the interface for a

>>> couple of minutes. I still haven't decided if it's worse

>>> than an one-balled mouse or not. I'll have to play a little

>>> bit more. I certainly could not find much of anything

>>> to play with even though there were a couple dozen icons

>>> or WTH they call them these days. The delay of movement

>>> was perceptible and annoying.

>>>

>>

>> Microsloth is going crazy trying to move the cr@p. They're not only

>> advertising the heck out of windoze 8, they've done product placement

>> to get the "surface" on just about every show on TV.

>

> I've seen those ads.

>

> Is it me or does the product look like crap?

>


Not had a *good* look at it yet, but it was most unimpressive...
Poor and slow take-up here in the UK, almost no-one upgrading with
people only using it because it came with their new laptop.

Over here desktops are dead and laptops are dying, tablets are the big
thing. Even *I've* got one :-)
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr plan.b .at. dsl .dot. pipex .dot. com

The future was never like this!
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29280 is a reply to message #29231] Tue, 18 December 2012 11:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
> On 12/17/2012 2:50 PM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:

>> In <PM0004D10DD5F2729B@ac812cc2.ipt.aol.com>, on 12/17/2012

>> at 03:34 PM, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> said:

>>

>>> And gaining control of that employment will help further their agenda

>>> of socialism.

>>

>> You're nuts; the leadership of the Democratic party is wealthy and the

>> last thing they would want is socialism.

>>

>

> Advocates of big government want to remove any possible roadblocks. Big

> business is hand-in-glove with big government ("military-industrial

> complex"). Small business is largely independent and mostly wants to be

> left alone without burdensome taxes or regulations


> Government schools

> are fine, but Democrats are fighting tooth-and-nail to roadblock

> independent schools.'


Where do you get this crap? Democrats are huge supporters of education
in all forms, including charter schools. They don't particularly want to
fund religions so they generally disfavor vouchers. Government (read: my) money
shouldn't be provided to any one (or any or all) religious organization(s).


> With Obamacare the government is making an attempt

> to "tame" churches.


Churches should have _zero_ role in government or public policy. If they
want to continue to be exempt from taxes, then they need to follow the
rules. All of them. Including letting their employees determine for themselves if
birth control is a suitable alternative (particularly if their employees
aren't part of the same 'faith').

Period.

scott
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29281 is a reply to message #29243] Tue, 18 December 2012 11:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
GreyMaus is currently offline  GreyMaus
Messages: 422
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2012-12-18, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> greymausg@mail.com wrote:

>> On 2012-12-17, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:

>>>> > Which tends to ignore the land purchased in the 50s and 60s and

>>>> > the areas gained becuase they won the wars.

>>>> >

>>>> > /BAH

>>>>

>>>> Israeli Jews have legal title to about 5% of the land of even pre-1961

>>>> Israel.. Palestinian sources.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>> You use today's defintion of legal title after a democratic process

>>> of ownership has been put into place. I really doon't wnat

>>> to get into another discussion about this with you.

>>>

>>> /BAH

>>

>> Agreed!.

>

> Oh, thank you! :-)

>

> /BAH


Actually to veer somewhat, the Falklands War was caused by a variant of this situation.
The Argentinians claim prior ownership, some have told me of Spanish-speaking settlers
of the Islands being forcibly removed to Argentina. Checking Wikipedia just now, the
situation is a lot more complex than that.

More recently than that, the natives on Diego Suarez in the Indian Ocean
claim that they were rounded up by the British and dumped, in Mauritious,
with no compensation, the Island being developed as a bomber base for the
Iraqi and Afganistan Wars. Wikipedia seems to have no refence to that,
but a court case is being persued.


--
maus
.
.
....
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29282 is a reply to message #29258] Tue, 18 December 2012 11:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
GreyMaus is currently offline  GreyMaus
Messages: 422
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2012-12-18, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in

> message news:50cf7401$30$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...

>> In <20121217130932@news.eternal-september.org>, on 12/17/2012

>> at 01:14 PM, Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> said:

>>

>>> Last time I checked this was not the case in the House of

>>> Representatives. However, the useless, spineless Republicans do

>>> seem to lack the will to stand up to the Communis..., I mean, the

>>> "Democrats."

>>

>> Did you use to work for Pravda? You write like it.

>>

>

> I understand that "Pravda" means "truth" in Russian.... a sort of 1984 type

> of name. I guess the Russians have a lot of trouble with the concept.

>


There was a joke once, that there was no truth in Pravda and no News in
Novosti (sp?). Actually, since 2000 roughly, both have had more
independent news than the US equivelent.



--
maus
.
.
....
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29283 is a reply to message #29253] Tue, 18 December 2012 12:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
> Peter Flass wrote:


>> We'll have to see what happens with the fiscal cliff. Boehner has

>> apparently indicated he;s willing to accept $1T in increased revenue,

>> apparently including a 6% increase on people making over $1M, in return

>> for $1T in cuts to entitlement programs. The last time we had something

>> like this, the democrats refused to cut anything and the deal collapsed.

>>

> And the Democrats will be seen to "win" which is their goal.


The democrats are still working out of the mess that the bush tax cuts, financial dereg,
and two unnecessary wars have left the country in. Their goal is to
rein in the budget deficit without causing futher irreparable harm. It
is clear to anyone who looks at the US Budget that cuts in spending alone
cannot accomplish this[*]. It's clear to anyone who looks that the tax rates
that are being proposed are significantly less than at any time prior to
2002 - and the US hummed along just fine then, including small businesses,
family farms and all the other bugaboos the radical right like Barb keep
bitching about.


[*] Defense, over one trillion a year[**], needs to drop by 50%, but the
republican ideologues and lobby would throw a fit. Do we really need
1500 new F-35's, or are new-build/upgraded F-16's/F-15's (at 10-50% the cost) sufficient
for any conceivable threat (in conjunction with the small number of F-22s
already built). There's no reason that a carrier cannot float for 75 years
instead of 50, so the carrier new-build program can slow down substantially
(even assuming we need a dozen CBGs floating around).

[**] 1.030-1.415 Trillion - almost half of this is interest on debt incurred in past wars!
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_S tates#Budget_breakdown_for_2012>

Drop defense spending by 50% and fix medicare spending (address the cost structure[***])
and the annual deficit will be eliminated with minor revenue increases.


[***] Rein in costs for prescription drugs, medical fraud, waste etc.

> They're

> already campaigning for 2014. This misnamed financial cliff of Jan 1st

> is exactly what the Dems want.


Hell, the republicans should want to go over the cliff, after which they
can vote for some rationally modified subset the former tax cuts and
tell their constituents that they never voted for a tax increase.

> Huge increase in revenue


Thus reducing the deficit.

> and really

> pissed off income tax payers.


Pure speculation on your part. _You_ may be pissed off (but you always
seem to be, about pretty much everything from computers to politics), but
the vast majority of the country obviously doesn't think like you. You
may want to consider that you're the outlier here.
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29288 is a reply to message #29168] Tue, 18 December 2012 12:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <ic7gog33jn.fsf@home.home>, despen@verizon.net (Dan Espen)
writes:

> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>

>> Dan Espen wrote:

>>

>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>>

>>>> He's trying to get a power which isn't rein checked by Congress.

>>

>> Rein as in horse reins; some bridles have a rein check which keeps

>> the head of the horse in front of you.

>

> Interesting. Google is coming up empty on the usage "rein check".


Try "check rein", which is the more common term.

--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29289 is a reply to message #29198] Tue, 18 December 2012 12:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <icpq2819qp.fsf@home.home>, despen@verizon.net (Dan Espen)
writes:

> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:

>

>> Microsloth is going crazy trying to move the cr@p. They're not

>> only advertising the heck out of windoze 8, they've done product

>> placement to get the "surface" on just about every show on TV.

>

> I've seen those ads.


And they're not just on TV - they're also part of the pre-movie ads
that you sit through at the local cinema.

> Is it me or does the product look like crap?


It's a continuation of the Fisher-Price look that started with XP.

--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29291 is a reply to message #29238] Tue, 18 December 2012 12:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rod Speed is currently offline  Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> Walter Banks ?walter@bytecraft.com? wrote


>>> Real debate on productivity needs to happen. If private industry

>>> is so good how come a product can be made at a profit in China

>>> and shipped to the US for less than it can be manufactured in the US.


>> The answer is obvious to anyone with even half a clue, wages.


>>> Wages are often cited as the problem


>> Compare the minimum wage in both countrys sometime.


>>> but is it possible that the current expectations of GMROI a

>>> far higher number is a bigger problem for sustained growth.


> Rod, do the math,


Don't need to. The difference in the minimum wage between the
two countrys is all you need to explain your para now at the top.

> "What is the wage needed in the US to compete

> with a product manufactured in China?"


Basically something like the minimum wage
in china, which isnt even legal in the US.

> then really read what I posted.


Already read it thanks.
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29295 is a reply to message #29255] Tue, 18 December 2012 12:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rod Speed is currently offline  Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote

>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote


>>> And gaining control of that employment

>>> will help further their agenda of socialism.


>> You're nuts; the leadership of the Democratic party is

>> wealthy and the last thing they would want is socialism.


> You need to listen and read more.


You need to stop mindlessly respewing Limbaugh's lies.

> The only way to have everyone "equal"


Hadn't noticed that Obama actually wants to be "equal" income wise to you.

> is to implement some form of socialism.


You wouldn’t know what real socialism was if it bit you on your lard arse.

YOU benefit from LOTS of socialism yourself, most obviously
with public librarys which even you should have noticed are
govt operations, to schools, the cops, the national highway
system, which was even done by one of yours.

> Massachusetts' attempt for "equal"


Another Limbaugh lie mindlessly respewed.

There was never ever anything of the sort.

> used a fascist technique.


You wouldn't know what real fascism was if it bit you on your lard arse.

> It's very common now for middle class types

> to demand "the government has to do something"

> rather than take the responsibility themselves.


Didn’t notice you out there personally building any
part of the national highway system so you could use it.

> If the government, and thus, politicians, have

> the responsibility for all living conditions,


They never ever do in a place like the US.

> then the only way to administer and control it is with

> the techniques used by communism and/or fascism.


More utterly mindless silly stuff.
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29298 is a reply to message #29247] Tue, 18 December 2012 12:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rod Speed is currently offline  Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004D120BABD2E92@ac813e5e.ipt.aol.com...
> Dan Espen wrote:

>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>

>>> Dan Espen wrote:

>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>>>

>>>> > He's trying to get a power which isn't rein checked by Congress.

>>>> ^^^^?

>>>

>>> Rein as in horse reins; some bridles have a rein check which keeps the

>>> head

>>> of the horse in front of you.

>>

>> Interesting. Google is coming up empty on the usage "rein check".

>

> Does it really?!!!! It's been a common term all my life. How odd.

>

>>

>>>> > Small businesses are screwed; that seems to be the target of the Dem.

>>>> > leadership.

>>>>

>>>> Wow, you sound like such an idiot with this stuff!

>>>>

>>>> Why, in your mind, do you think the Democrats want to screw small

>>>> business?

>>>>

>>> BEcause they want to tax the shit out of small business owners.

>>> Before you reply to this, go read Schedule C of the IRS' tax

>>> forms/directions.

>>

>> Interesting definition of "tax the shit out of".

>> Completely a fantasy.


> If a small business owner's bank account has a $300K or more

> balance at any time of the year, there is a surtax charged.


That’s not 'taxing the shit out of' anything.

> Note that this is half a house if you're a builder.


And the value of the surtax isn't.

> Small farms will fall into that $250K category.


And at that level THERE IS NO INCREASE IN TAX PAID
WHATEVER, so no one has taxed the shit out of any of those.

> Service businesses such as plumbing and electrical

> could get that much income during the year.


And at that level THERE IS NO INCREASE IN TAX PAID
WHATEVER, so no one has taxed the shit out of any of those.

> Brick and mortar businesess and restaurants will also be affected.


And at that level THERE IS NO INCREASE IN TAX PAID
WHATEVER, so no one has taxed the shit out of any of those.

> Destroy small business


No one is destroying anyone when THERE
IS NO INCREASE IN TAX PAID WHATEVER.

> and you'll end up with a fascist or communistic economy


Even sillier.

> where decisions are made by politicians and

> not by the people who deal with the prlbems.


Completely off with the fucking fairys, as always.

>> And that still leaves you short about explaining _why_ the Democratic

>> leadership sees advantage in destroying small business.


> To increase the population's dependency on the Fed. government;


Just another Limbaugh lie mindlessly respewed.

> note that this does not include States' government.


>> They want to raise revenue.


> That's just plain BS.


Nope, yours is, and mindless Limbaugh lies respewed.

> If they want to revenue, they leave the businesses alone.


Mindlessly silly. Even your clowns don’t even propose that
no business ever pays any tax at all, and even you should
be able to grasp that that would produce ZERO revenue
from those.

> Those are the entities which cut

> paychecks which produces revenue.


Like hell it does when the BOTTOM HALF
of the US pays no net federal income tax.

> If the Dems were only trying to raise revenue,

> I might consider their proposal but they're also

> increasing spending by an amount far greater

> than the suppoed revenue from incrasing taxes.


Another Limbaugh lie mindlessly respewed.

> They also seem to be avoiding saying anything

> about death taxes which makes me suspect that

> they're going to go back to the one million $ threshold.

> And that will definitely take out a lot small business.


Another Limbaugh lie mindlessly respewed.

Even when that was around, it did NOT
'take out' a lot of small business.
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29299 is a reply to message #29264] Tue, 18 December 2012 12:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Patrick Scheible is currently offline  Patrick Scheible
Messages: 768
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:

> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>

>> Dan Espen wrote:

>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>>

>>>> Dan Espen wrote:

>>>> > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>>> >

>>>> >> He's trying to get a power which isn't rein checked by Congress.

>>>> > ^^^^?

>>>>

>>>> Rein as in horse reins; some bridles have a rein check which keeps the head

>>>> of the horse in front of you.

>>>

>>> Interesting. Google is coming up empty on the usage "rein check".

>>

>> Does it really?!!!! It's been a common term all my life. How odd.

>

> The term "rain check" is very common. Sounds the same.

>

>>>> >> Small businesses are screwed; that seems to be the target of the Dem.

>>>> >> leadership.

>>>> >

>>>> > Wow, you sound like such an idiot with this stuff!

>>>> >

>>>> > Why, in your mind, do you think the Democrats want to screw small

>>>> > business?

>>>> >

>>>> BEcause they want to tax the shit out of small business owners.

>>>> Before you reply to this, go read Schedule C of the IRS' tax

>>>> forms/directions.

>>>

>>> Interesting definition of "tax the shit out of".

>>> Completely a fantasy.

>>

>> If a small business owner's bank account has a $300K or more balance at

>> any time of the year, there is a surtax charged. Note that this is

>

> No it isn't. There has never been a tax on assets and there never will be.

>

>> half a house if you're a builder. Small farms will fall into that

>> $250K category. Service businesses such as plumbing and electrical

>> could get that much income during the year. Brick and mortar

>

> A bank account balance is not income.

> As I said before, if a business earns 250K there is no tax increase.

> If a business earns 300K the additional tax is tiny.

>

>> businesess and restaurants will also be affected. Destroy small

>> business and you'll end up with a fascist or communistic economy where

>> decisions are made by politicians and not by the people who deal with

>> the prlbems.

>

> Again, explain why any one, or any politician would want to destroy

> small business. How would that get someone elected?

>

>>> And that still leaves you short about explaining _why_ the Democratic

>>> leadership sees advantage in destroying small business.

>>

>> To increase the population's dependency on the Fed. government; note

>> that this does not include States' government.

>

> No one wants anyone to be dependent on the government.

> It doesn't help anyone, especially politicians.

>

>>> They want to raise revenue.

>>>

>> That's just plain BS. If they want to revenue, they leave the

>> businesses alone. Those are the entities which cut paychecks

>> which produces revenue. If the Dems were only trying to raise

>> revenue, I might consider their proposal but they're also

>> increasing spending by an amount far greater than the suppoed

>> revenue from incrasing taxes. They also seem to be avoiding

>> saying anything about death taxes which makes me suspect that

>> they're going to go back to the one million $ threshold.

>> And that will definitely take out a lot small business.

>

> So you can _increase_ revenue by not raising taxes.

> How do you think that works?

> How is it working now?

> How well has it worked for the last 12 years?

> How many small businesses were destroyed during the Clinton era?


Why limit to the past 12 years? It hasn't worked particularly well
since the Reagan administration.

-- Patrick
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29300 is a reply to message #29254] Tue, 18 December 2012 13:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rod Speed is currently offline  Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote
> greymausg@mail.com wrote

>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote

>>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote


>>> Do you remember when the USSR sent its soldiers out to harvest potatoes?


>> I remember the Army here (.ie) helping with the harvest, 47,48.

>> Well, remember not that well, but I remember the uniforms.

>> It's standard procedure.


> Sure, when there isn't anyone else to do that work. In

> the USSR's case, the farming people stopped working.


Like hell they did.

> Shmuel wrote a quote that describes the attitude.


Just because some fool claims something doesn’t make it gospel.

>>>> > Even in Israel, the collectives don't work as hard as

>>>> > the farmers who own their own farm and products.


>>>> Actually, they do. The significant variable is not individual versus

>>>> collective ownership, but how much of a surplus is available. Also

>>>> note that an employee doesn't have the same incentives as an owner,

>>>> whether that owner be an individual or a collective.


>>> The books I read talked about the collectives not working a long day;

>>> OTOH the farmer who owned his own property, would work 12-15 or more

>>> hours a day. The difference was personal ownership. I don't

>>> remember the books' titles and they're still packed in boxes. Just

>>> knowing human nature would give you a hint.


>> In the Soviet Union, the land was 'collectivised', organized into large

>> estates, owned by the `Soviets'. `Soviet' was an old Russian word for the

>> peasant groups that organized the work on the Noble-owned estates. So,

>> the

>> large amount of land was worked in `common', and the workers had

>> `gardens'.

>> quite amazingly, these seemed to produce almost as much as the open land

>> :)


> Exactly. The piece that was their personal area was more productive

> because

> the owner had more self-interest in his stuff than the collectives'. The

> outdoor market I saw when I was in Leningrad showed how the "illegal"

> bartering systems was working. Quality and stuff were better and more

> available than in the legal state-owned stores.


Just as true in the west.

>> the tragedy was that after the 1917 Revolution, the structure of land

>> ownership was developing to a genuinely modern form, before the

>> Communists imposed their system, largely by force. Incidentally,

>> since 1989, foreigners have been operating these estates, AFAIK,

>> real ownership is not allowed.


> It's still the same.


Like hell it is.

>> A German group are operating a large estate near Kalach, scene of one of

>> the decisive battles of the war, its on the net somewhere, very

>> impressive.

>> Makes you think. One of the Tolstoy family visited the old family estate,

>> with a view of revitalizing it. While he was there, evryone he met was

>> drunk, even in the morning, lots of the men dead from alcohol poisoning

>> by 40-50.


> Boredom and political corruption make an explosive combination.


Corse nothing like that ever happens in the US, eh ?

> not much has changed.


Another mindlessly silly pig ignorant lie.
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29302 is a reply to message #29288] Tue, 18 December 2012 13:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:

> In article <ic7gog33jn.fsf@home.home>, despen@verizon.net (Dan Espen)

> writes:

>

>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>

>>> Dan Espen wrote:

>>>

>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>>>

>>>> > He's trying to get a power which isn't rein checked by Congress.

>>>

>>> Rein as in horse reins; some bridles have a rein check which keeps

>>> the head of the horse in front of you.

>>

>> Interesting. Google is coming up empty on the usage "rein check".

>

> Try "check rein", which is the more common term.


One word:

Definition of CHECKREIN

1: a short rein looped over a hook on the
saddle of a harness to prevent a horse from lowering its head

2: a branch rein connecting the driving rein of one horse of a pair with
the bit of the other


Doesn't fit the usage.

Otherwise, nada.

--
Dan Espen
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29303 is a reply to message #29250] Tue, 18 December 2012 13:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rod Speed is currently offline  Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004D120FF2DD9FE@ac813e5e.ipt.aol.com...
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:

>> In <PM0004D10DB0CDEE1A@ac812cc2.ipt.aol.com>, on 12/17/2012

>> at 03:34 PM, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> said:

>>

>>> Do you remember when the USSR sent its soldiers out to harvest

>>> potatoes?

>>

>> How does that conflict with their system being state capitalism?

>>

>>> The books I read talked about the collectives not working a long

>>> day;

>>

>> Are you talking about a real collective, owned by the workers,

>

> Kibbutz (I couldn't remember the word yesterday).

>

>> or a

>> state run farm where the workers are coolies? Where and what year.

>

> The books were about Israel and its history.

>

>> Are

>> you comparing them to single family farms in the same location and

>> year?

>

> Yes.

>

>> Or are you saying, e.g., that there is a longer work day on a

>> moshave than on a nearby kibbutz?

>

> No, I'm saying that an owner has more incentive to work longer hours

> than those who work under a collective org. A collective would have

> to post work details and hours.


Not all of them do it like that.

> The first thing you hear is someone complaining

> about someone else not having to do the messiest work.


Corse that never ever happens with non collectives, eh ?

> An owner just does the labor until the job is done.


That doesn’t happen with the worst of them.

> There are no hours scheduled by a manager

> nor days off nor obligatory coffee breaks.


There arent with plenty of the hippy communes either.

>> If you're talking about soviet "collective" farms, the operative

>> expression is "they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work."


> That's an organization which has completely self-destructed. If

> those people owned their own pieces of that farming area, they

> would have more self-interest in success. For those people

> who didn't care about doing the work, they would sell the land

> to someone who did have an interest.


Plenty of them don’t do that.

> Bottom line is that the land is productive and not lying fallow

> or worse.


There is plenty of land that lies fallow or worse in the west.

We are even stupid enough to pay people to do that at times.
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29305 is a reply to message #29245] Tue, 18 December 2012 13:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rod Speed is currently offline  Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004D120DC1C02AF@ac813e5e.ipt.aol.com...
> Dan Espen wrote:

>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>

>>> Dan Espen wrote:

>>>> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:

>>>>

>>>> > On 12/16/2012 6:42 PM, Dan Espen wrote:

>>>> >> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:

>>>> >>

>>>> >>> On 12/16/2012 12:31 PM, Dan Espen wrote:

>>>> >>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>>> >>>>

>>>> >>>>> He's trying to get a power which isn't rein checked by Congress.

>>>> >>>> ^^^^?

>>>> >>>>> Small businesses are screwed; that seems to be the target of the

>>>> >>>>> Dem.

>>>> >>>>> leadership.

>>>> >>>>

>>>> >>>> Wow, you sound like such an idiot with this stuff!

>>>> >>>>

>>>> >>>> Why, in your mind, do you think the Democrats want to screw small

>>>> >>>> business?

>>>> >>>>

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>> Because they're successful and not dependent on the government for

>>> handouts.

>>>> >>

>>>> >> So, you think that answers "why"?

>>>> >>

>>>> >> It doesn't.

>>>> >>

>>>> >> And it's stupid.

>>>> >>

>>>> >> Sorry to be insulting, but having voted Democrat a few times,

>>>> >> and not wanting to destroy any business big or small, I take

>>>> >> exception.

>>>> >>

>>>> >

>>>> > When we say "The Democrats" want something or think something, we're

>>>> > talking about the 'leadership'. You can think and feel whatever you

>>>> > want, but it's their opinions that count.

>>>>

>>>> Sorry, but when we say Democrat it does not mean just the leaders.

>>>

>>> And when I write "Democrat leadership", I do mean the leaders.

>>

>> And so you did. Sorry.

>

> OK. I was getting worried. ;-)

>

>>

>> So that still leaves the insult about the 50% of America that votes for

>> people that want to destroy small business. I guess you just think

>> we're clueless.

>

> No. I think people want to believe their political leaders aren't nuts

> especially having voted for them. I'd much rather have some sane

> Democrats in power than those Reps whose agenda is to put women back

> into their chattal roles. The D.C. Dems seem to have gotten stuck

> in opening the gates to the barbarians rather than consider working

> with a Republican. I find, even among regular people, that the most

> avid Democrats don't have a desire or ability to manage their own money.

> Oddly, this especially includes old people, too.

>

>>

>> Of course, no one in America wants to destroy small business.

>> As nefarious as politicians are, there's just no future in destroying

>> small business.

>

> But the D.C. politicians, who are mostly city slickers, don't understand

> that. Obama hasn't had a single hour's exposure to that kind of work.

> The people he's hired to run the government are even worse.


He's mostly hired those your clowns had.

> Some of EPA and OSHA edicts coming out of that

> city w.r.t. farms are ridiculous. I'm very worried.


More fool you. Its just more Limbaugh lies that you
are too stupid to even scrutinise like the mindlessly
silly lie that anyone wants to destroy all small business.
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29306 is a reply to message #29289] Tue, 18 December 2012 13:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:

> In article <icpq2819qp.fsf@home.home>, despen@verizon.net (Dan Espen)

> writes:

>

>> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:

>>

>>> Microsloth is going crazy trying to move the cr@p. They're not

>>> only advertising the heck out of windoze 8, they've done product

>>> placement to get the "surface" on just about every show on TV.

>>

>> I've seen those ads.

>

> And they're not just on TV - they're also part of the pre-movie ads

> that you sit through at the local cinema.

>

>> Is it me or does the product look like crap?

>

> It's a continuation of the Fisher-Price look that started with XP.


They lost the rounding and although I like the blue, the juxtaposition
of blue, purple, orange, and green is just ugly.

A screen full of mono-color squares with no background image,
they've lost their minds.

The Fisher-Price look always bothered me too.

--
Dan Espen
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29307 is a reply to message #29253] Tue, 18 December 2012 13:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rod Speed is currently offline  Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004D1215503BAE1@ac813e5e.ipt.aol.com...
> Peter Flass wrote:

>> On 12/17/2012 10:34 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:

>>> Dan Espen wrote:

>>>> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:

>>>>

>>>> > On 12/16/2012 12:31 PM, Dan Espen wrote:

>>>> >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>>> >>

>>>> >>> He's trying to get a power which isn't rein checked by Congress.

>>>> >> ^^^^?

>>>> >>> Small businesses are screwed; that seems to be the target of the

>>>> >>> Dem.

>>>> >>> leadership.

>>>> >>

>>>> >> Wow, you sound like such an idiot with this stuff!

>>>> >>

>>>> >> Why, in your mind, do you think the Democrats want to screw small

>>>> >> business?

>>>> >>

>>>> >

>>>> > Because they're successful and not dependent on the government for

>>> handouts.

>>>>

>>>> So, you think that answers "why"?

>>>>

>>>> It doesn't.

>>>>

>>>> And it's stupid.

>>>>

>>>> Sorry to be insulting, but having voted Democrat a few times,

>>>> and not wanting to destroy any business big or small, I take exception.

>>>>

>>> Then you are able to think. I did write Democrat _leadership_. They've

>>> gone completely nuts.

>>>

>>

>> We'll have to see what happens with the fiscal cliff. Boehner has

>> apparently indicated he;s willing to accept $1T in increased revenue,

>> apparently including a 6% increase on people making over $1M, in return

>> for $1T in cuts to entitlement programs. The last time we had something

>> like this, the democrats refused to cut anything and the deal collapsed.


> And the Democrats will be seen to "win" which is

> their goal. They're already campaigning for 2014.


Corse your clowns never ever do anything like that, eh ?

> This misnamed financial cliff of Jan 1st is exactly

> what the Dems want. Huge increase in revenue

> and really pissed off income tax payers.


It would STILL see the BOTTOM HALF pay no net federal income tax.

> They can take care of the so-called spending cuts with later legislation


Just how do you propose that they will get that thru the Congress ?

> or regualtions out of FDA, OSHA and other non-elected agencies.


Another Limbaugh lie mindlessly respewed.
That’s not even possible with spending cuts.

> The Dems can blame the Repulbicans and everyone

> will the believe them (this is what truly amazes me).


It shouldn’t, you do precisely the same thing yourself
with the Dems.
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29308 is a reply to message #29249] Tue, 18 December 2012 13:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rod Speed is currently offline  Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004D1214631949A@ac813e5e.ipt.aol.com...
> Rod Speed wrote:

>>

>>

>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message

>> news:PM0004D10DD91EEFE5@ac812cc2.ipt.aol.com...

>>> Dan Espen wrote:

>>>> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:

>>>>

>>>> > On 12/16/2012 12:31 PM, Dan Espen wrote:

>>>> >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>>> >>

>>>> >>> He's trying to get a power which isn't rein checked by Congress.

>>>> >> ^^^^?

>>>> >>> Small businesses are screwed; that seems to be the target of the

>>>> >>> Dem.

>>>> >>> leadership.

>>>> >>

>>>> >> Wow, you sound like such an idiot with this stuff!

>>>> >>

>>>> >> Why, in your mind, do you think the Democrats want to screw small

>>>> >> business?

>>>> >>

>>>> >

>>>> > Because they're successful and not dependent on the government for

>>> handouts.

>>>>

>>>> So, you think that answers "why"?

>>>>

>>>> It doesn't.

>>>>

>>>> And it's stupid.

>>>>

>>>> Sorry to be insulting, but having voted Democrat a few times,

>>>> and not wanting to destroy any business big or small, I take exception.

>>>>

>>> Then you are able to think. I did write Democrat _leadership_. They've

>>> gone completely nuts.

>>

>> Corse nothing like that has ever happened with your leadership, eh ?


> Which is? If you are trying to imply that I like Republicans,

> I've told before that you are very wrong.


You clearly mindlessly respew their lies.
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29309 is a reply to message #29291] Tue, 18 December 2012 13:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Walter Banks is currently offline  Walter Banks
Messages: 1000
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Rod Speed wrote:

> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote

>> Rod Speed wrote

>>> Walter Banks ?walter@bytecraft.com? wrote

>

>>>> Real debate on productivity needs to happen. If private industry

>>>> is so good how come a product can be made at a profit in China

>>>> and shipped to the US for less than it can be manufactured in the US.

>

>>> The answer is obvious to anyone with even half a clue, wages.

>

>>>> Wages are often cited as the problem

>

>>> Compare the minimum wage in both countrys sometime.

>

>>>> but is it possible that the current expectations of GMROI a

>>>> far higher number is a bigger problem for sustained growth.

>

>> Rod, do the math,

>

> Don't need to. The difference in the minimum wage between the

> two countrys is all you need to explain your para now at the top.

>

>> "What is the wage needed in the US to compete

>> with a product manufactured in China?"

>

> Basically something like the minimum wage

> in china, which isnt even legal in the US.


Rod, do the math. There is a lot more than wage differences
in product costs. The product manufactured in China has 3000
miles of ocean, two borders and land shipping to destinations
in the US not to mention differences in personal productivity.

It really isn't all about wages.

w..
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29310 is a reply to message #29299] Tue, 18 December 2012 13:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> writes:

> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:

>

>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>

>>> Dan Espen wrote:

>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>>>

>>>> > Dan Espen wrote:

>>>> >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>>> >>

>>>> >>> He's trying to get a power which isn't rein checked by Congress.

>>>> >> ^^^^?

>>>> >

>>>> > Rein as in horse reins; some bridles have a rein check which keeps the head

>>>> > of the horse in front of you.

>>>>

>>>> Interesting. Google is coming up empty on the usage "rein check".

>>>

>>> Does it really?!!!! It's been a common term all my life. How odd.

>>

>> The term "rain check" is very common. Sounds the same.

>>

>>>> >>> Small businesses are screwed; that seems to be the target of the Dem.

>>>> >>> leadership.

>>>> >>

>>>> >> Wow, you sound like such an idiot with this stuff!

>>>> >>

>>>> >> Why, in your mind, do you think the Democrats want to screw small

>>>> >> business?

>>>> >>

>>>> > BEcause they want to tax the shit out of small business owners.

>>>> > Before you reply to this, go read Schedule C of the IRS' tax

>>>> > forms/directions.

>>>>

>>>> Interesting definition of "tax the shit out of".

>>>> Completely a fantasy.

>>>

>>> If a small business owner's bank account has a $300K or more balance at

>>> any time of the year, there is a surtax charged. Note that this is

>>

>> No it isn't. There has never been a tax on assets and there never will be.

>>

>>> half a house if you're a builder. Small farms will fall into that

>>> $250K category. Service businesses such as plumbing and electrical

>>> could get that much income during the year. Brick and mortar

>>

>> A bank account balance is not income.

>> As I said before, if a business earns 250K there is no tax increase.

>> If a business earns 300K the additional tax is tiny.

>>

>>> businesess and restaurants will also be affected. Destroy small

>>> business and you'll end up with a fascist or communistic economy where

>>> decisions are made by politicians and not by the people who deal with

>>> the prlbems.

>>

>> Again, explain why any one, or any politician would want to destroy

>> small business. How would that get someone elected?

>>

>>>> And that still leaves you short about explaining _why_ the Democratic

>>>> leadership sees advantage in destroying small business.

>>>

>>> To increase the population's dependency on the Fed. government; note

>>> that this does not include States' government.

>>

>> No one wants anyone to be dependent on the government.

>> It doesn't help anyone, especially politicians.

>>

>>>> They want to raise revenue.

>>>>

>>> That's just plain BS. If they want to revenue, they leave the

>>> businesses alone. Those are the entities which cut paychecks

>>> which produces revenue. If the Dems were only trying to raise

>>> revenue, I might consider their proposal but they're also

>>> increasing spending by an amount far greater than the suppoed

>>> revenue from incrasing taxes. They also seem to be avoiding

>>> saying anything about death taxes which makes me suspect that

>>> they're going to go back to the one million $ threshold.

>>> And that will definitely take out a lot small business.

>>

>> So you can _increase_ revenue by not raising taxes.

>> How do you think that works?

>> How is it working now?

>> How well has it worked for the last 12 years?

>> How many small businesses were destroyed during the Clinton era?

>

> Why limit to the past 12 years? It hasn't worked particularly well

> since the Reagan administration.


Here we have the TEA Party (Taxed Enough Already), when taxes are
lower than ever (a lot more than 20 years).
Ask any right winger and they'll deny, deny, deny.

They must all be smokers paying cigarette tax.

The studies all confirmed, taxing the wealthy does not cause an
economic slow down, and can reduce deficits.

So we have the right wing predicting Communism and Nazism for a
historically minor tax adjustment. How can something be Communist
and Nazi at the same time? It doesn't matter. Just get as paranoid
as possible and spew.

With all the talk about mental illness on TV, seeing what should be
normal people talking so paranoid is concerning. Maybe there's
something in the environment. Beck and Rush can't be the only reason.

--
Dan Espen
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29311 is a reply to message #29283] Tue, 18 December 2012 13:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anne &amp; Lynn Wheel is currently offline  Anne &amp; Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> [*] Defense, over one trillion a year[**], needs to drop by 50%, but the

> republican ideologues and lobby would throw a fit. Do we really need

> 1500 new F-35's, or are new-build/upgraded F-16's/F-15's (at 10-50% the cost) sufficient

> for any conceivable threat (in conjunction with the small number of F-22s

> already built). There's no reason that a carrier cannot float for 75 years

> instead of 50, so the carrier new-build program can slow down substantially

> (even assuming we need a dozen CBGs floating around).


re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012p.html#30 Search Google, 1960:s-style

for the fun of it ... web site that goes into more detail. Last year I
was exchanging messages with somebody in vancouver BC and happened to
quote several references on this website ... they then said they wanted
to forward to somebody in Canadian gov. turn out it was the prime
minister. more recently there are claims canada is backing out of
F35.
http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com/

their f35 reading list:
http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com/p/f-35-reading-list.html

and recent: Canada still confused about acquisition costs for F-35
http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com/2012/12/canada-still-conf used-about-acquisition.html

winslow wheeler (and before you ask, we aren't related)
http://nation.time.com/2012/12/03/if-more-money-buys-a-small er-fleet-what-will-less-money-buy/
http://nation.time.com/2012/12/04/more-than-the-navys-number s-could-be-sinking/
http://nation.time.com/2012/12/05/is-the-fleet-steaming-forw ardor-backward/

one of the recent things to come out is that naval war games dating back
to the 80s ... our carriers being regularly sunk by diesel/electric
submarines ... results that were surpressed in summaries/reports.
assumption is that the carriers will pretty much have to be kept far
away from any serious threat ... and the range of the carrier f35 is
limited ... so that, in turn, makes them pretty much useless.

--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29313 is a reply to message #29250] Tue, 18 December 2012 14:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 12/18/2012 9:39 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:

>> In <PM0004D10DB0CDEE1A@ac812cc2.ipt.aol.com>, on 12/17/2012

>> at 03:34 PM, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> said:

>>

>>> Do you remember when the USSR sent its soldiers out to harvest

>>> potatoes?

>>

>> How does that conflict with their system being state capitalism?

>>

>>> The books I read talked about the collectives not working a long

>>> day;

>>

>> Are you talking about a real collective, owned by the workers,

>

> Kibbutz (I couldn't remember the word yesterday).

>

>> or a

>> state run farm where the workers are coolies? Where and what year.

>

> The books were about Israel and its history.

>

>> Are

>> you comparing them to single family farms in the same location and

>> year?

>

> Yes.

>

>> Or are you saying, e.g., that there is a longer work day on a

>> moshave than on a nearby kibbutz?

>

> No, I'm saying that an owner has more incentive to work longer hours

> than those who work under a collective org. A collective would have

> to post work details and hours. The first thing you hear is someone

> complaining about someone else not having to do the messiest work.

> An owner just does the labor until the job is done. There are no

> hours scheduled by a manager nor days off nor obligatory coffee

> breaks.

>

>>

>> If you're talking about soviet "collective" farms, the operative

>> expression is "they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work."

>>

>

> That's an organization which has completely self-destructed. If

> those people owned their own pieces of that farming area, they

> would have more self-interest in success. For those people

> who didn't care about doing the work, they would sell the land

> to someone who did have an interest.

>

> Bottom line is that the land is productive and not lying fallow

> or worse.

>


In his soul every Russian is a farmer, or something like that. National
Geographic recently had an article about a dacha community - vacation
homes of city people - north of Moscow. In the photos you could see
that the "back yards" were almost all vegetable plots. A few grew
flowers and no one had a lawn.


--
Pete
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29315 is a reply to message #29264] Tue, 18 December 2012 14:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 12/18/2012 10:42 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
>

> So you can _increase_ revenue by not raising taxes.

> How do you think that works?

> How is it working now?

> How well has it worked for the last 12 years?

> How many small businesses were destroyed during the Clinton era?


Revenue is up this year, I think 10%, but taxes are not. We don't have
a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.


--
Pete
Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29316 is a reply to message #29280] Tue, 18 December 2012 14:22 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 12/18/2012 11:44 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:

>> On 12/17/2012 2:50 PM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:

>>> In <PM0004D10DD5F2729B@ac812cc2.ipt.aol.com>, on 12/17/2012

>>> at 03:34 PM, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> said:

>>>

>>>> And gaining control of that employment will help further their agenda

>>>> of socialism.

>>>

>>> You're nuts; the leadership of the Democratic party is wealthy and the

>>> last thing they would want is socialism.

>>>

>>

>> Advocates of big government want to remove any possible roadblocks. Big

>> business is hand-in-glove with big government ("military-industrial

>> complex"). Small business is largely independent and mostly wants to be

>> left alone without burdensome taxes or regulations

>

>> Government schools

>> are fine, but Democrats are fighting tooth-and-nail to roadblock

>> independent schools.'

>

> Where do you get this crap? Democrats are huge supporters of education

> in all forms, including charter schools. They don't particularly want to

> fund religions so they generally disfavor vouchers. Government (read: my) money

> shouldn't be provided to any one (or any or all) religious organization(s).

>


Vouchers aren't a subsidy to a religious group. They go to the parents.
Where they choose to send their kids is there business. Most parents
aren't stupid and will send their kids wherever they can get the best
education.

>

>> With Obamacare the government is making an attempt

>> to "tame" churches.

>

> Churches should have _zero_ role in government or public policy. If they

> want to continue to be exempt from taxes, then they need to follow the

> rules. All of them. Including letting their employees determine for themselves if

> birth control is a suitable alternative (particularly if their employees

> aren't part of the same 'faith').


Like I said.


--
Pete
Pages (20): [ «    3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18    »]  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: Re: Looking for info on DG Eclipse MV computers
Next Topic: "A motherboard walks into a bar..." -- Teaching Computers to be Funny
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Fri Mar 29 04:24:37 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 1.20473 seconds