ECONOMY ***BOOMING***!! - 4.9% GDP GROWTH!!

ECONOMY ***BOOMING***!! - 4.9% GDP GROWTH!!
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Computer Forum Forum Index -> radio talk dr-laura

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Jerry Kraus
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:24 pm Post subject: Re: ECONOMY ***BOOMING***!! - 4.9% GDP GROWTH!!

On Dec 21, 7:47 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 1:19 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 12:30 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 12:18 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 11:57Â am, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"theloneranger...@aol.com" wrote:

On Dec 20, 10:45ï¿½pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 20, 10:21 am, "theloneranger...@aol.com"
theloneranger...@aol.com> wrote:
Yup.......Despite all the Democrat and Media Attempts to Talk DOWN the
Economy, it just keeps BOOMING Along..........Heehee.........Ain't It
GRAND?.........

"Q3 GDP Growth Unrevised At 4.9%, In Line With Estimates
12/20/07

(RTTNews) - The Commerce Department released its final report on gross
domestic product in the third quarter on Thursday, showing that the
pace of GDP growth for the quarter was unrevised compared to the
preliminary estimate.

The report showed that GDP increased at an annual rate of 4.9 percent
in the third quarter compared to the 3.8 percent growth seen in the
second quarter. Economists had expected GDP growth to remain unchanged
at 4.9 percent."

Top 1% controls 40% of wealth in the U.S. ï¿½Top 10% controls three-
quarters of wealth. ï¿½Bottom 40% has 1% of wealth. ï¿½Can you spell CLASS
WAR?

But how much "wealth" do the bottom 40% have? If the top people own a
lot of businesses, essentially they are investing, what harm is that to
the other people? Rich people are important to a properly functioning
economy. Someone has to be rich so all the money isn't spent on DVD
players.

Money loses it's meaning when everybody has Lots Of It, Bill..........

A lot related to the size of the economy. Remember when the B Ark folks
decided to use leaves as money but come spring there was an inflation
problem so they burned down all the deciduous trees on three continents?
There are solutions if you are resourceful.

Sometimes solutions require government assistance. Or, government
assistance can make solutions much more readily available. Why rule
out this option? What is the purpose of the government, if not to
help people?

The first purpose is to protect us from external threats. There is some
question whether or not government is the best primary mechanism for
helping people. I think that it isn't. That doesn't mean that government
at various levels, preferably closer to the people, doesn't have some
role.

I think that it's plain that family is the most powerful mechanism we
have for dealing with most of the various problems that are currently
largely being foist off on government. I watch "The Grapes of Wrath",
for example, and I see evil people exploiting the poor, and that is bad,
but I also see good people working together to survive, first at the
family level, and then with friends and neighbours and the like.

Why are recent immigrates from Asia often well off in little more than a
generation? Because they often bring their families and work with them
to build a better future. That's often lost in America where everyone
wants to make it entirely on his own. It should be noted that that sell
made zillionare Bill Gates came from an already rich family.

In that case, you condemn people from poor families to poverty. This
doesn't sound like an efficient use of human capital.

1) The current scheme doesn't seem terribly effectual and yet your only
answer is to increase it.
2) Simply adding up the money that many so-called poor people earn in a
life time suggests that had they saved more of it, they could do what I
was suggesting supra, build better lives for their families. This isn't
a new idea.
3) So the question might be, how to get the poor to invest.

The poor have no money to invest.

But they buy DVD players.

In Denmark and Finland, the poor
have much more ability to move into the middle class, because the
government helps them with jobs and education.

Cite the upward mobility in those two countries against some lack of it
in the US.

The problems with the
American system are:

1. The government spends only a very small proportion of GDP on
helping the poor, compared to other industrialized nations.

Thre is a massive redistribution network in place in the US from those
who create and have to those who don't create and therefore don't have..
You claim it isn't working, so your answer is more of the same.

2. A culture of corruption in the U.S. government, so that social
service agencies focus on enriching themselves and their employees,
rather than on providing social services.

Oh good grief.

The solutions are:

1. Much higher taxes on the wealthy.

Attack those who produce, drive them out of teh country so they can
avoid confiscatory taxes.

2. Use of tax revenues to provide jobs and education, or compulsion
of the rich through tax shelters to provide funds for jobs and
education.

The rich invest, this provides more jobs and the need for more workers..
Taxing too much on the rich defeats that.

You are spouting nonsense, and you know it.

I certainly don't know it.

The American system is
based on theft from the poor, and little else.

Why is there so much redistribution by government of tax money from the
rich to the poor?

As a result the poor
will have to commit violence to take what is rightfully theirs.

What is rightfully theirs? Do you deny the right to own your property,
land, speed boats?

You
will get what you deserve, my friend!

I didn't even know I was your friend.

If you are interested in correcting the problem, here is a detailed
article from Denmark, dealing with the real problems of poverty, in
the real world.

http://www.hha.dk/nat/workshop/Kbj0508.pdf

Try posting a short quote from something instead of just dumping.

--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill, let me know where you live. Then, me and my friends can take
care of you! Got the picture?

Google
Sponsor

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:24 pm Post subject: Advertisement

Jerry Kraus
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:27 pm Post subject: Re: ECONOMY ***BOOMING***!! - 4.9% GDP GROWTH!!

On Dec 21, 9:06 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 2:21 pm, David Hartung <dhart...@quixnetnone.net> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:
On Dec 21, 1:43 pm, David Hartung <dhart...@quixnetnone.net> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:
The bottom 40% have no wealth.
Why is this?

What do you mean, "why is this"? I assume you're reply would be
"because it's what they deserve". Perhaps. Perhaps not. But, they
will fight, because they have nothing to lose. Watch.

When you can understand why the bottom 40% have no wealth, you will have gone a
long way toward developing a solution.

By the way, are you aware that that the Poor and destitute in the USA are better
off than most people in the world today?

They're better off than most people in the world David. But they're
worse off than most poor people in the industrialized world. And they
know it. Because the rich in the U.S. exploit the poor. And they
know it. Which is why, my freind, you are in for a fight!

Do you really think that the poor in America are ready to rebel and burn
cars in the streets? I doubt it, mots of them own cars and don't want
theirs torched. They also have cable TV, video games, DVD players, cell
phones and other things that people who poor in other countries wouldn't
dream they could own.

The solution is simple, as I have said. Jobs and education through
properly regulated government programs. Anything else is propaganda
for the rich.

You want make work jobs and "education"? What do you think that K
through 12 and college/uni is? That first part is free to any American,
so if you didn't learn anything, who should we blame?

--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh sure. You can make big money with K through 12 edcuation! Bill,
you are a complacent asshole, and you will get what you deserve.

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject: Re: ECONOMY ***BOOMING***!! - 4.9% GDP GROWTH!!

Mitchell Holman wrote:

Quote:

"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:476CA39A.DD286553@yahoo.co.uk:

Mitchell Holman wrote:

"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:476C6CA9.C893873C@yahoo.co.uk:

Why is there so much redistribution by government of tax money from the
rich to the poor?

Because the US is a civilized country, unlike the
third world hellholes you admire.

I don't admire any third world hellholes.

Why not? They are free of the regulations/tax burden
environmentalism/feminism/liberal-media you abhor.

I don't know what you are talking about.

--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:58 pm Post subject: Re: ECONOMY ***BOOMING***!! - 4.9% GDP GROWTH!!

Jerry Kraus wrote:

Quote:

On Dec 21, 7:47 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 1:19 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 12:30 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 12:18 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 11:57Â am, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"theloneranger...@aol.com" wrote:

On Dec 20, 10:45ï¿½pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 20, 10:21 am, "theloneranger...@aol.com"
theloneranger...@aol.com> wrote:
Yup.......Despite all the Democrat and Media Attempts to Talk DOWN the
Economy, it just keeps BOOMING Along..........Heehee.........Ain't It
GRAND?.........

"Q3 GDP Growth Unrevised At 4.9%, In Line With Estimates
12/20/07

(RTTNews) - The Commerce Department released its final report on gross
domestic product in the third quarter on Thursday, showing that the
pace of GDP growth for the quarter was unrevised compared to the
preliminary estimate.

The report showed that GDP increased at an annual rate of 4.9 percent
in the third quarter compared to the 3.8 percent growth seen in the
second quarter. Economists had expected GDP growth to remain unchanged
at 4.9 percent."

Top 1% controls 40% of wealth in the U.S. ï¿½Top 10% controls three-
quarters of wealth. ï¿½Bottom 40% has 1% of wealth. ï¿½Can you spell CLASS
WAR?

But how much "wealth" do the bottom 40% have? If the top people own a
lot of businesses, essentially they are investing, what harm is that to
the other people? Rich people are important to a properly functioning
economy. Someone has to be rich so all the money isn't spent on DVD
players.

Money loses it's meaning when everybody has Lots Of It, Bill..........

A lot related to the size of the economy. Remember when the B Ark folks
decided to use leaves as money but come spring there was an inflation
problem so they burned down all the deciduous trees on three continents?
There are solutions if you are resourceful.

Sometimes solutions require government assistance. Or, government
assistance can make solutions much more readily available. Why rule
out this option? What is the purpose of the government, if not to
help people?

The first purpose is to protect us from external threats. There is some
question whether or not government is the best primary mechanism for
helping people. I think that it isn't. That doesn't mean that government
at various levels, preferably closer to the people, doesn't have some
role.

I think that it's plain that family is the most powerful mechanism we
have for dealing with most of the various problems that are currently
largely being foist off on government. I watch "The Grapes of Wrath",
for example, and I see evil people exploiting the poor, and that is bad,
but I also see good people working together to survive, first at the
family level, and then with friends and neighbours and the like.

Why are recent immigrates from Asia often well off in little more than a
generation? Because they often bring their families and work with them
to build a better future. That's often lost in America where everyone
wants to make it entirely on his own. It should be noted that that sell
made zillionare Bill Gates came from an already rich family.

In that case, you condemn people from poor families to poverty. This
doesn't sound like an efficient use of human capital.

1) The current scheme doesn't seem terribly effectual and yet your only
answer is to increase it.
2) Simply adding up the money that many so-called poor people earn in a
life time suggests that had they saved more of it, they could do what I
was suggesting supra, build better lives for their families. This isn't
a new idea.
3) So the question might be, how to get the poor to invest.

The poor have no money to invest.

But they buy DVD players.

In Denmark and Finland, the poor
have much more ability to move into the middle class, because the
government helps them with jobs and education.

Cite the upward mobility in those two countries against some lack of it
in the US.

The problems with the
American system are:

1. The government spends only a very small proportion of GDP on
helping the poor, compared to other industrialized nations.

Thre is a massive redistribution network in place in the US from those
who create and have to those who don't create and therefore don't have.
You claim it isn't working, so your answer is more of the same.

2. A culture of corruption in the U.S. government, so that social
service agencies focus on enriching themselves and their employees,
rather than on providing social services.

Oh good grief.

The solutions are:

1. Much higher taxes on the wealthy.

Attack those who produce, drive them out of teh country so they can
avoid confiscatory taxes.

2. Use of tax revenues to provide jobs and education, or compulsion
of the rich through tax shelters to provide funds for jobs and
education.

The rich invest, this provides more jobs and the need for more workers.
Taxing too much on the rich defeats that.

You are spouting nonsense, and you know it.

I certainly don't know it.

The American system is
based on theft from the poor, and little else.

Why is there so much redistribution by government of tax money from the
rich to the poor?

As a result the poor
will have to commit violence to take what is rightfully theirs.

What is rightfully theirs? Do you deny the right to own your property,
land, speed boats?

You
will get what you deserve, my friend!

I didn't even know I was your friend.

If you are interested in correcting the problem, here is a detailed
article from Denmark, dealing with the real problems of poverty, in
the real world.

http://www.hha.dk/nat/workshop/Kbj0508.pdf

Try posting a short quote from something instead of just dumping.

Bill, let me know where you live. Then, me and my friends can take
care of you! Got the picture?

Is that a threat?

--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:59 pm Post subject: Re: ECONOMY ***BOOMING***!! - 4.9% GDP GROWTH!!

Jerry Kraus wrote:

Quote:

On Dec 21, 9:06 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 2:21 pm, David Hartung <dhart...@quixnetnone.net> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:
On Dec 21, 1:43 pm, David Hartung <dhart...@quixnetnone.net> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:
The bottom 40% have no wealth.
Why is this?

What do you mean, "why is this"? I assume you're reply would be
"because it's what they deserve". Perhaps. Perhaps not. But, they
will fight, because they have nothing to lose. Watch.

When you can understand why the bottom 40% have no wealth, you will have gone a
long way toward developing a solution.

By the way, are you aware that that the Poor and destitute in the USA are better
off than most people in the world today?

They're better off than most people in the world David. But they're
worse off than most poor people in the industrialized world. And they
know it. Because the rich in the U.S. exploit the poor. And they
know it. Which is why, my freind, you are in for a fight!

Do you really think that the poor in America are ready to rebel and burn
cars in the streets? I doubt it, mots of them own cars and don't want
theirs torched. They also have cable TV, video games, DVD players, cell
phones and other things that people who poor in other countries wouldn't
dream they could own.

The solution is simple, as I have said. Jobs and education through
properly regulated government programs. Anything else is propaganda
for the rich.

You want make work jobs and "education"? What do you think that K
through 12 and college/uni is? That first part is free to any American,
so if you didn't learn anything, who should we blame?

Oh sure. You can make big money with K through 12 edcuation! Bill,
you are a complacent asshole, and you will get what you deserve.

I'm trying to figure out why you think that K through 12 isn't an

education but then going to college/uni is even though good grades in K
through 12 will get you scholarships and other assistance such that you
surely can go to college/uni. So that's what I'm going on about. Do you
know?

--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

Jerry Kraus
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:01 pm Post subject: Re: ECONOMY ***BOOMING***!! - 4.9% GDP GROWTH!!

On Dec 22, 11:58 am, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 7:47 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 1:19 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 12:30 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 12:18 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 11:57Â am, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"theloneranger...@aol.com" wrote:

On Dec 20, 10:45ï¿½pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 20, 10:21 am, "theloneranger...@aol.com"
theloneranger...@aol.com> wrote:
Yup.......Despite all the Democrat and Media Attempts to Talk DOWN the
Economy, it just keeps BOOMING Along..........Heehee.........Ain't It
GRAND?.........

"Q3 GDP Growth Unrevised At 4.9%, In Line With Estimates
12/20/07

(RTTNews) - The Commerce Department released its final report on gross
domestic product in the third quarter on Thursday, showing that the
pace of GDP growth for the quarter was unrevised compared to the
preliminary estimate.

The report showed that GDP increased at an annual rate of 4.9 percent
in the third quarter compared to the 3.8 percent growth seen in the
second quarter. Economists had expected GDP growth to remain unchanged
at 4.9 percent."

Top 1% controls 40% of wealth in the U.S. ï¿½Top 10% controls three-
quarters of wealth. ï¿½Bottom 40% has 1% of wealth. ï¿½Can you spell CLASS
WAR?

But how much "wealth" do the bottom 40% have? If the top people own a
lot of businesses, essentially they are investing, what harm is that to
the other people? Rich people are important to a properly functioning
economy. Someone has to be rich so all the money isn't spent on DVD
players.

Money loses it's meaning when everybody has Lots Of It, Bill..........

A lot related to the size of the economy. Remember when the B Ark folks
decided to use leaves as money but come spring there was an inflation
problem so they burned down all the deciduous trees on three continents?
There are solutions if you are resourceful.

Sometimes solutions require government assistance. Or, government
assistance can make solutions much more readily available. Why rule
out this option? What is the purpose of the government, if not to
help people?

The first purpose is to protect us from external threats. There is some
question whether or not government is the best primary mechanism for
helping people. I think that it isn't. That doesn't mean that government
at various levels, preferably closer to the people, doesn't have some
role.

I think that it's plain that family is the most powerful mechanism we
have for dealing with most of the various problems that are currently
largely being foist off on government. I watch "The Grapes of Wrath",
for example, and I see evil people exploiting the poor, and that is bad,
but I also see good people working together to survive, first at the
family level, and then with friends and neighbours and the like.

Why are recent immigrates from Asia often well off in little more than a
generation? Because they often bring their families and work with them
to build a better future. That's often lost in America where everyone
wants to make it entirely on his own. It should be noted that that sell
made zillionare Bill Gates came from an already rich family.

In that case, you condemn people from poor families to poverty. This
doesn't sound like an efficient use of human capital.

1) The current scheme doesn't seem terribly effectual and yet your only
answer is to increase it.
2) Simply adding up the money that many so-called poor people earn in a
life time suggests that had they saved more of it, they could do what I
was suggesting supra, build better lives for their families. This isn't
a new idea.
3) So the question might be, how to get the poor to invest.

The poor have no money to invest.

But they buy DVD players.

In Denmark and Finland, the poor
have much more ability to move into the middle class, because the
government helps them with jobs and education.

Cite the upward mobility in those two countries against some lack of it
in the US.

The problems with the
American system are:

1. The government spends only a very small proportion of GDP on
helping the poor, compared to other industrialized nations.

Thre is a massive redistribution network in place in the US from those
who create and have to those who don't create and therefore don't have.
You claim it isn't working, so your answer is more of the same.

2. A culture of corruption in the U.S. government, so that social
service agencies focus on enriching themselves and their employees,
rather than on providing social services.

Oh good grief.

The solutions are:

1. Much higher taxes on the wealthy.

Attack those who produce, drive them out of teh country so they can
avoid confiscatory taxes.

2. Use of tax revenues to provide jobs and education, or compulsion
of the rich through tax shelters to provide funds for jobs and
education.

The rich invest, this provides more jobs and the need for more workers.
Taxing too much on the rich defeats that.

You are spouting nonsense, and you know it.

I certainly don't know it.

The American system is
based on theft from the poor, and little else.

Why is there so much redistribution by government of tax money from the
rich to the poor?

As a result the poor
will have to commit violence to take what is rightfully theirs.

What is rightfully theirs? Do you deny the right to own your property,
land, speed boats?

You
will get what you deserve, my friend!

I didn't even know I was your friend.

If you are interested in correcting the problem, here is a detailed
article from Denmark, dealing with the real problems of poverty, in
the real world.

http://www.hha.dk/nat/workshop/Kbj0508.pdf

Try posting a short quote from something instead of just dumping.

Bill, let me know where you live. Then, me and my friends can take
care of you! Got the picture?

Is that a threat?

--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What do you think, moron?

Jerry Kraus
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:02 pm Post subject: Re: ECONOMY ***BOOMING***!! - 4.9% GDP GROWTH!!

On Dec 22, 11:59 am, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 9:06 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 2:21 pm, David Hartung <dhart...@quixnetnone.net> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:
On Dec 21, 1:43 pm, David Hartung <dhart...@quixnetnone.net> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:
The bottom 40% have no wealth.
Why is this?

What do you mean, "why is this"? I assume you're reply would be
"because it's what they deserve". Perhaps. Perhaps not. But, they
will fight, because they have nothing to lose. Watch.

When you can understand why the bottom 40% have no wealth, you will have gone a
long way toward developing a solution.

By the way, are you aware that that the Poor and destitute in the USA are better
off than most people in the world today?

They're better off than most people in the world David. But they're
worse off than most poor people in the industrialized world. And they
know it. Because the rich in the U.S. exploit the poor. And they
know it. Which is why, my freind, you are in for a fight!

Do you really think that the poor in America are ready to rebel and burn
cars in the streets? I doubt it, mots of them own cars and don't want
theirs torched. They also have cable TV, video games, DVD players, cell
phones and other things that people who poor in other countries wouldn't
dream they could own.

The solution is simple, as I have said. Jobs and education through
properly regulated government programs. Anything else is propaganda
for the rich.

You want make work jobs and "education"? What do you think that K
through 12 and college/uni is? That first part is free to any American,
so if you didn't learn anything, who should we blame?

Oh sure. You can make big money with K through 12 edcuation! Bill,
you are a complacent asshole, and you will get what you deserve.

I'm trying to figure out why you think that K through 12 isn't an
education but then going to college/uni is even though good grades in K
through 12 will get you scholarships and other assistance such that you
surely can go to college/uni. So that's what I'm going on about. Do you
know?

--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill, get a brain, or go away. There are problems in this country
that need to be dealt with. Make sure you're not one of them.

Jerry Kraus
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:08 pm Post subject: Re: ECONOMY ***BOOMING***!! - 4.9% GDP GROWTH!!

On Dec 22, 11:58 am, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

What are you frightened of, moron? I thought everyone in the U.S. was
so happy and contented?

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:16 pm Post subject: Re: ECONOMY ***BOOMING***!! - 4.9% GDP GROWTH!!

Jerry Kraus wrote:

Quote:

On Dec 22, 11:58 am, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 7:47 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 1:19 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 12:30 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 12:18 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 11:57Â am, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"theloneranger...@aol.com" wrote:

On Dec 20, 10:45ï¿½pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 20, 10:21 am, "theloneranger...@aol.com"
theloneranger...@aol.com> wrote:
Yup.......Despite all the Democrat and Media Attempts to Talk DOWN the
Economy, it just keeps BOOMING Along..........Heehee.........Ain't It
GRAND?.........

"Q3 GDP Growth Unrevised At 4.9%, In Line With Estimates
12/20/07

(RTTNews) - The Commerce Department released its final report on gross
domestic product in the third quarter on Thursday, showing that the
pace of GDP growth for the quarter was unrevised compared to the
preliminary estimate.

The report showed that GDP increased at an annual rate of 4.9 percent
in the third quarter compared to the 3.8 percent growth seen in the
second quarter. Economists had expected GDP growth to remain unchanged
at 4.9 percent."

Top 1% controls 40% of wealth in the U.S. ï¿½Top 10% controls three-
quarters of wealth. ï¿½Bottom 40% has 1% of wealth. ï¿½Can you spell CLASS
WAR?

But how much "wealth" do the bottom 40% have? If the top people own a
lot of businesses, essentially they are investing, what harm is that to
the other people? Rich people are important to a properly functioning
economy. Someone has to be rich so all the money isn't spent on DVD
players.

Money loses it's meaning when everybody has Lots Of It, Bill..........

A lot related to the size of the economy. Remember when the B Ark folks
decided to use leaves as money but come spring there was an inflation
problem so they burned down all the deciduous trees on three continents?
There are solutions if you are resourceful.

Sometimes solutions require government assistance. Or, government
assistance can make solutions much more readily available. Why rule
out this option? What is the purpose of the government, if not to
help people?

The first purpose is to protect us from external threats. There is some
question whether or not government is the best primary mechanism for
helping people. I think that it isn't. That doesn't mean that government
at various levels, preferably closer to the people, doesn't have some
role.

I think that it's plain that family is the most powerful mechanism we
have for dealing with most of the various problems that are currently
largely being foist off on government. I watch "The Grapes of Wrath",
for example, and I see evil people exploiting the poor, and that is bad,
but I also see good people working together to survive, first at the
family level, and then with friends and neighbours and the like.

Why are recent immigrates from Asia often well off in little more than a
generation? Because they often bring their families and work with them
to build a better future. That's often lost in America where everyone
wants to make it entirely on his own. It should be noted that that sell
made zillionare Bill Gates came from an already rich family.

In that case, you condemn people from poor families to poverty. This
doesn't sound like an efficient use of human capital.

1) The current scheme doesn't seem terribly effectual and yet your only
answer is to increase it.
2) Simply adding up the money that many so-called poor people earn in a
life time suggests that had they saved more of it, they could do what I
was suggesting supra, build better lives for their families. This isn't
a new idea.
3) So the question might be, how to get the poor to invest.

The poor have no money to invest.

But they buy DVD players.

In Denmark and Finland, the poor
have much more ability to move into the middle class, because the
government helps them with jobs and education.

Cite the upward mobility in those two countries against some lack of it
in the US.

The problems with the
American system are:

1. The government spends only a very small proportion of GDP on
helping the poor, compared to other industrialized nations.

Thre is a massive redistribution network in place in the US from those
who create and have to those who don't create and therefore don't have.
You claim it isn't working, so your answer is more of the same.

2. A culture of corruption in the U.S. government, so that social
service agencies focus on enriching themselves and their employees,
rather than on providing social services.

Oh good grief.

The solutions are:

1. Much higher taxes on the wealthy.

Attack those who produce, drive them out of teh country so they can
avoid confiscatory taxes.

2. Use of tax revenues to provide jobs and education, or compulsion
of the rich through tax shelters to provide funds for jobs and
education.

The rich invest, this provides more jobs and the need for more workers.
Taxing too much on the rich defeats that.

You are spouting nonsense, and you know it.

I certainly don't know it.

The American system is
based on theft from the poor, and little else.

Why is there so much redistribution by government of tax money from the
rich to the poor?

As a result the poor
will have to commit violence to take what is rightfully theirs.

What is rightfully theirs? Do you deny the right to own your property,
land, speed boats?

You
will get what you deserve, my friend!

I didn't even know I was your friend.

If you are interested in correcting the problem, here is a detailed
article from Denmark, dealing with the real problems of poverty, in
the real world.

http://www.hha.dk/nat/workshop/Kbj0508.pdf

Try posting a short quote from something instead of just dumping.

Bill, let me know where you live. Then, me and my friends can take
care of you! Got the picture?

Is that a threat?

What do you think, moron?

I wasn't sure so I asked.

--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:17 pm Post subject: Re: ECONOMY ***BOOMING***!! - 4.9% GDP GROWTH!!

Jerry Kraus wrote:

Quote:

--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:19 pm Post subject: Re: ECONOMY ***BOOMING***!! - 4.9% GDP GROWTH!!

Jerry Kraus wrote:

Quote:

On Dec 22, 11:59 am, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 9:06 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 2:21 pm, David Hartung <dhart...@quixnetnone.net> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:
On Dec 21, 1:43 pm, David Hartung <dhart...@quixnetnone.net> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:
The bottom 40% have no wealth.
Why is this?

What do you mean, "why is this"? I assume you're reply would be
"because it's what they deserve". Perhaps. Perhaps not. But, they
will fight, because they have nothing to lose. Watch.

When you can understand why the bottom 40% have no wealth, you will have gone a
long way toward developing a solution.

By the way, are you aware that that the Poor and destitute in the USA are better
off than most people in the world today?

They're better off than most people in the world David. But they're
worse off than most poor people in the industrialized world. And they
know it. Because the rich in the U.S. exploit the poor. And they
know it. Which is why, my freind, you are in for a fight!

Do you really think that the poor in America are ready to rebel and burn
cars in the streets? I doubt it, mots of them own cars and don't want
theirs torched. They also have cable TV, video games, DVD players, cell
phones and other things that people who poor in other countries wouldn't
dream they could own.

The solution is simple, as I have said. Jobs and education through
properly regulated government programs. Anything else is propaganda
for the rich.

You want make work jobs and "education"? What do you think that K
through 12 and college/uni is? That first part is free to any American,
so if you didn't learn anything, who should we blame?

Oh sure. You can make big money with K through 12 edcuation! Bill,
you are a complacent asshole, and you will get what you deserve.

I'm trying to figure out why you think that K through 12 isn't an
education but then going to college/uni is even though good grades in K
through 12 will get you scholarships and other assistance such that you
surely can go to college/uni. So that's what I'm going on about. Do you
know?

Bill, get a brain, or go away. There are problems in this country
that need to be dealt with. Make sure you're not one of them.

Of course there are problems in [the United States]. I didn't claim

otherwise. I also didn't claim they didn't need to be dealt with. I
would not, however, advocate violence to that end. Violence is what the
people of Haiti seem to regularly resort to and that hasn't stood them
well.

--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

Jerry Kraus
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject: Re: ECONOMY ***BOOMING***!! - 4.9% GDP GROWTH!!

On Dec 22, 12:16 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 22, 11:58 am, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 7:47 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 1:19 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 12:30 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 12:18 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 21, 11:57Â am, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"theloneranger...@aol.com" wrote:

On Dec 20, 10:45ï¿½pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

On Dec 20, 10:21 am, "theloneranger...@aol.com"
theloneranger...@aol.com> wrote:
Yup.......Despite all the Democrat and Media Attempts to Talk DOWN the
Economy, it just keeps BOOMING Along...........Heehee.........Ain't It
GRAND?.........

"Q3 GDP Growth Unrevised At 4.9%, In Line With Estimates
12/20/07

(RTTNews) - The Commerce Department released its final report on gross
domestic product in the third quarter on Thursday, showing that the
pace of GDP growth for the quarter was unrevised compared to the
preliminary estimate.

The report showed that GDP increased at an annual rate of 4.9 percent
in the third quarter compared to the 3.8 percent growth seen in the
second quarter. Economists had expected GDP growth to remain unchanged
at 4.9 percent."

Top 1% controls 40% of wealth in the U.S. ï¿½Top 10% controls three-
quarters of wealth. ï¿½Bottom 40% has 1% of wealth. ï¿½Can you spell CLASS
WAR?

But how much "wealth" do the bottom 40% have? If the top people own a
lot of businesses, essentially they are investing, what harm is that to
the other people? Rich people are important to a properly functioning
economy. Someone has to be rich so all the money isn't spent on DVD
players.

Money loses it's meaning when everybody has Lots Of It, Bill..........

A lot related to the size of the economy. Remember when the B Ark folks
decided to use leaves as money but come spring there was an inflation
problem so they burned down all the deciduous trees on three continents?
There are solutions if you are resourceful.

Sometimes solutions require government assistance. Or, government
assistance can make solutions much more readily available. Why rule
out this option? What is the purpose of the government, if not to
help people?

The first purpose is to protect us from external threats. There is some
question whether or not government is the best primary mechanism for
helping people. I think that it isn't. That doesn't mean that government
at various levels, preferably closer to the people, doesn't have some
role.

I think that it's plain that family is the most powerful mechanism we
have for dealing with most of the various problems that are currently
largely being foist off on government. I watch "The Grapes of Wrath",
for example, and I see evil people exploiting the poor, and that is bad,
but I also see good people working together to survive, first at the
family level, and then with friends and neighbours and the like.

Why are recent immigrates from Asia often well off in little more than a
generation? Because they often bring their families and work with them
to build a better future. That's often lost in America where everyone
wants to make it entirely on his own. It should be noted that that sell
made zillionare Bill Gates came from an already rich family.

In that case, you condemn people from poor families to poverty. This
doesn't sound like an efficient use of human capital.

1) The current scheme doesn't seem terribly effectual and yet your only
answer is to increase it.
2) Simply adding up the money that many so-called poor people earn in a
life time suggests that had they saved more of it, they could do what I
was suggesting supra, build better lives for their families. This isn't
a new idea.
3) So the question might be, how to get the poor to invest..

The poor have no money to invest.

But they buy DVD players.

In Denmark and Finland, the poor
have much more ability to move into the middle class, because the
government helps them with jobs and education.

Cite the upward mobility in those two countries against some lack of it
in the US.

The problems with the
American system are:

1. The government spends only a very small proportion of GDP on
helping the poor, compared to other industrialized nations.

Thre is a massive redistribution network in place in the US from those
who create and have to those who don't create and therefore don't have.
You claim it isn't working, so your answer is more of the same..

2. A culture of corruption in the U.S. government, so that social
service agencies focus on enriching themselves and their employees,
rather than on providing social services.

Oh good grief.

The solutions are:

1. Much higher taxes on the wealthy.

Attack those who produce, drive them out of teh country so they can
avoid confiscatory taxes.

2. Use of tax revenues to provide jobs and education, or compulsion
of the rich through tax shelters to provide funds for jobs and
education.

The rich invest, this provides more jobs and the need for more workers.
Taxing too much on the rich defeats that.

You are spouting nonsense, and you know it.

I certainly don't know it.

The American system is
based on theft from the poor, and little else.

Why is there so much redistribution by government of tax money from the
rich to the poor?

As a result the poor
will have to commit violence to take what is rightfully theirs.

What is rightfully theirs? Do you deny the right to own your property,
land, speed boats?

You
will get what you deserve, my friend!

I didn't even know I was your friend.

If you are interested in correcting the problem, here is a detailed
article from Denmark, dealing with the real problems of poverty, in
the real world.

http://www.hha.dk/nat/workshop/Kbj0508.pdf

Try posting a short quote from something instead of just dumping.

Bill, let me know where you live. Then, me and my friends can take
care of you! Got the picture?

Is that a threat?

What do you think, moron?

I wasn't sure so I asked.

--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill, obviously you're confused. Fair enough. But, really, things
aren't so very complicated. Most of the people in the U.S. have
nothing, or next to nothing. The top 1% control 40% of the nation's
wealth. This is not good for the country, or the people. These
people must be compelled to share their wealth, for the benefit of
everyone. Very simple. Everything else is propaganda and nonsense.
Understand?

My suspicion is that you are not wealthy. You don't sound bright
enough to be wealthy. You are in the category of those people who
can't understand why anything should ever change, or isn't perfect the
way it is.

Change can be a good thing. At the present time it is necessary.
And, it is coming. Probably soon. The excessive concentration of
wealth is slowing the economy and hurting the dollar to the point that
foreign countries have to prop up our largest banks.

So, relatively poor people like you and me will get some resources to
work with. Maybe do something useful. What, exactly, is wrong with
that?

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 9:24 pm Post subject: Re: ECONOMY ***BOOMING***!! - 4.9% GDP GROWTH!!

Jerry Kraus wrote:

Quote:

investing their riches. If you spread all the money around evenly,
assuming you can do that without just taking it from people who already
owned it, does that encourage investment or just more spending?

Quote:

This is not good for the country, or the people. These

There's a difference between "wealth" and "lifestyle". "Lifestyle" might

be similar for people of very different amounts of "wealth".

Quote:

people must be compelled to share their wealth, for the benefit of
everyone. Very simple. Everything else is propaganda and nonsense.
Understand?

It sounds like Communism to me.

Quote:

My suspicion is that you are not wealthy. You don't sound bright
enough to be wealthy.

So smart people are wealthy, you say? That would suggest that they are

getting money because they have something valuable to contribute not
because they are doing something wrong.

Quote:

You are in the category of those people who
can't understand why anything should ever change, or isn't perfect the
way it is.

If you've read what I've written, I advocate change often. I supported

the effort in Iraq because, for example, I wanted to see democracy there
to address the hopelessness of the region which is ultimately what
brought about 9/11. So I'm not a status quoist at all. I'm not sure I
can support taking wealth and giving it away. That's not your money,
after all. I tend to support private rights of property.

Quote:

Change can be a good thing. At the present time it is necessary.
And, it is coming. Probably soon. The excessive concentration of
wealth is slowing the economy and hurting the dollar to the point that
foreign countries have to prop up our largest banks.

Actually, I don't see it. If you give the poor more money, they will

just spend it buying crap imported from China. How does that help the
dollar?

Quote:

So, relatively poor people like you and me will get some resources to
work with. Maybe do something useful. What, exactly, is wrong with
that?

I can't support taking from those who earned their money to give it to

those who didn't. That makes wealth pointless because what's the point
of earning something if it's just taken away?

--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

Jerry Kraus
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 9:51 pm Post subject: Re: ECONOMY ***BOOMING***!! - 4.9% GDP GROWTH!!

On Dec 22, 3:24 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

Jerry Kraus wrote:

Bill, obviously you're confused. Fair enough. But, really, things
aren't so very complicated. Most of the people in the U.S. have
nothing, or next to nothing. The top 1% control 40% of the nation's
wealth.

I'm not seeing why it's a problem to have some people who are rich
investing their riches. If you spread all the money around evenly,
assuming you can do that without just taking it from people who already
owned it, does that encourage investment or just more spending?

This is not good for the country, or the people. These

There's a difference between "wealth" and "lifestyle". "Lifestyle" might
be similar for people of very different amounts of "wealth".

people must be compelled to share their wealth, for the benefit of
everyone. Very simple. Everything else is propaganda and nonsense.
Understand?

It sounds like Communism to me.

My suspicion is that you are not wealthy. You don't sound bright
enough to be wealthy.

So smart people are wealthy, you say? That would suggest that they are
getting money because they have something valuable to contribute not
because they are doing something wrong.

You are in the category of those people who
can't understand why anything should ever change, or isn't perfect the
way it is.

If you've read what I've written, I advocate change often. I supported
the effort in Iraq because, for example, I wanted to see democracy there
to address the hopelessness of the region which is ultimately what
brought about 9/11. So I'm not a status quoist at all. I'm not sure I
can support taking wealth and giving it away. That's not your money,
after all. I tend to support private rights of property.

Change can be a good thing. At the present time it is necessary.
And, it is coming. Probably soon. The excessive concentration of
wealth is slowing the economy and hurting the dollar to the point that
foreign countries have to prop up our largest banks.

Actually, I don't see it. If you give the poor more money, they will
just spend it buying crap imported from China. How does that help the
dollar?

So, relatively poor people like you and me will get some resources to
work with. Maybe do something useful. What, exactly, is wrong with
that?

I can't support taking from those who earned their money to give it to
those who didn't. That makes wealth pointless because what's the point
of earning something if it's just taken away?

--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

Okay. I think I see what the problem you have is here, Bill. It's a
common one in the U.S. The assumption is that somehow, if someone has
something, they must have "earned it". And if the government says
that they might have a better idea of what to do with anything you
"have" than you do, then that is bad.

Suppose you inherited 100 million dollars. Did you earn that? The
people who willed it to you got it somehow or other. Did they get it
honestly? How can you tell? Drug dealers make a lot of money. The
Kennedy family made all their money in bootleg liquor. You are
familiar with Joseph Kennedy's observation "all businessmen are sons
of bitches!". He wasn't just talking about himself. Lawyers make
money lying in court to manipulate judges and juries. Is that a good
thing?

The fact that someone has money doesn't mean that they got it in a way
that is good for people, or for society. Maybe, maybe not.

In any case, if someone has NO money, as is the case with most people
in the US these days, their options are severely limited. They can't
train to become useful things like nurses and doctors. They may end
up on the streets and get hurt or have to steal to survive. What
social advantage is there to allowing a very small group of people to
have all the money?

Your answer is government involvement is "communism". Only in extreme
cases. And communist governments like Cuba probably do a better job
for their people than corrupt commuist ones like Mexico. You don't
hear about Cubans wanting to "flee to Mexico" do you? They come to
the U.S. not for the system, but for the money. They'd probably
prefer Finland or Denmark, if they were closer!

People can still keep their money, if they invest in job creating
programs, technololgy, culture and the arts etc. Otherwise, they are
hurting people. In any case, it is just the very richest who will
have to pay the highest income tax rates. And they'll still have
plenty of money!

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Guest

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:52 am Post subject: Re: ECONOMY ***BOOMING***!! - 4.9% GDP GROWTH!!

Jerry Kraus wrote:

Quote:

On Dec 22, 3:24 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"

I can't support taking from those who earned their money to give it to
those who didn't. That makes wealth pointless because what's the point
of earning something if it's just taken away?

Okay. I think I see what the problem you have is here, Bill. It's a
common one in the U.S. The assumption is that somehow, if someone has
something, they must have "earned it".

They might have inherited it which means it was more the "luck of the

draw". That's not important.

Quote:

And if the government says
that they might have a better idea of what to do with anything you
"have" than you do, then that is bad.

Generally the government isn't very good at allocating resources.

Quote:

Suppose you inherited 100 million dollars. Did you earn that?

You are attempting a classic strawman. If we walk down this path, you've

also got CEOs who make millions while their companies are tanking,
athletes who use drugs but still get paid piles of cash, movie stars who
blame the Jews for all the wars but are still rich. If we are going to
set up a commission to make sure everyone with money earned it, it is
going to be a big job. Why not just assume they all didn't and take all
the money away?

Quote:

The
people who willed it to you got it somehow or other. Did they get it
honestly? How can you tell? Drug dealers make a lot of money. The
Kennedy family made all their money in bootleg liquor. You are
familiar with Joseph Kennedy's observation "all businessmen are sons
of bitches!". He wasn't just talking about himself. Lawyers make
money lying in court to manipulate judges and juries. Is that a good
thing?

Probably not a good thing but then I didn't advocate that either. I'm

sure that there are lawyers who make their money doing the right things.
Do you suggest higher taxes on those who aren't doing what you think is
the right thing?

Quote:

The fact that someone has money doesn't mean that they got it in a way
that is good for people, or for society. Maybe, maybe not.

People got money by some market means, unless they just stole it by

robbing a bank. Even that inheritance is part of the wider market. And
it's important that some people have so much that they *invest*. Rich
people matter even if some happen to be personally worthless.

Quote:

In any case, if someone has NO money, as is the case with most people
in the US these days,

Most Americans have money, that is income of some sort. I think you are

confused. If you mean by "having money", having lots of money, that's
going to depend on what "lots" means.

Quote:

their options are severely limited. They can't
train to become useful things like nurses and doctors. They may end
up on the streets and get hurt or have to steal to survive. What

They can't go to the uni on government credits? Show me some Americans

who want to go to college but can't because they can't fund it in any
way, even by getting a job and earning some money to do it.

Quote:

social advantage is there to allowing a very small group of people to
have all the money?

You mean the rich? But the rich are vital to the economy because they

don't spend their wealth, by definition. If the poor had it, they would
spend it and there would be no investment. YOu need the rich, they
matter, even if they are fundamentally unlikeable to you.

Quote:

Your answer is g