From: Neil Harrington on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4bf3be36$0$27708$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
> news:Bt6dnV4NTLktxG7WnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:4bf31eb3$0$27703$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>>> news:dKCdnb-H4sVoAG_WnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> If you try to measure survival and evolutionary success in dollars you
>>>>> are
>>>>> sadly mistaken.
>>>>
>>>> Fine. Now go explain that to Obama, carefully pointing out to him that
>>>> his central goal of "spreading the wealth around" (i.e., taking it away
>>>> from those who have worked, saved and invested to gain it and
>>>> distributing it to those who prefer to sit on their asses, watch TV and
>>>> wait for the welfare check) really is not going to bring "success" to
>>>> the recipients after all.
>>>>
>>> Learn from the banana republics. Learn from the communist revolution.
>>> When society has two classes, haves and have nots, those of us who have
>>> money tend to get more and more. Eventually the poor will rebel and we
>>> will have chaos. Henry Ford has the right ides. He paid his workers
>>> sufficient wages so they could afford to buy his cars.
>>
>> And they went on strike anyway.
>>
>>> Likewise, for industry to be successful in the long term, people have to
>>> have enough money to afford the products, both essential and
>>> non=essential.
>>
>> Yes. The idea, though, is for people to be productive enough to earn that
>> money -- not just have it handed to them. The principle of the Little Red
>> Hen applies here.
>>
>
>
> Yup! "Earn" being the operative word. There is something morally wrong
> when we pay people in menial jobs more than teachers.

Teachers do pretty well for themselves. I wouldn't worry about the teachers.
Many of them obviously are overpaid now, considering the students they are
turning out. When community colleges have to screen new high school
graduates to see which ones require courses in remedial English, you know
something is seriously broken in our education system.

> But in real life there are people who come upon hard times, through no
> fault of their own.

There are indeed, but I daresay they make up a very, very small portion of
the jobless.

> Do we let them starve on the streets, or provide a safety net to help them
> get back.
> The problem is that a few will play the system.

Much more than "a few," I'm afraid.

> It may very well cost more to root them out, than it is worth.

How can it? The taxpayer is carrying them on his back now, as he has been
all along. Anything that gets them off the taxpayer's back is worthwhile.



From: Chris Malcolm on
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Neil Harrington <never(a)home.com> wrote:
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message

>> Yup! "Earn" being the operative word. There is something morally wrong
>> when we pay people in menial jobs more than teachers.

> Teachers do pretty well for themselves. I wouldn't worry about the teachers.
> Many of them obviously are overpaid now, considering the students they are
> turning out. When community colleges have to screen new high school
> graduates to see which ones require courses in remedial English, you know
> something is seriously broken in our education system.

It's the pupils. Too many of them these days are too badly behaved for
class teaching to work as well as it used to.

--
Chris Malcolm
From: Peter on
"Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
news:7pmdnQH4y-ChlGnWnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> When I went to school (which was a long, long time ago) it wasn't "set up
> to churn out mindless workers." If that's really what it's become, then
> that too is surely the direct fault of the education community.
>


Nape! It's the fault of the parents who allow a lousy curriculum.


--
Peter

From: Mark L on
On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:15:57 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net>
wrote:

>Oh!
>I was not aware that the Republicans have been in charge for fifty years.

The republican political party hasn't been in charge for fifty years, nor
have the democrats. CEOs have been in charge for 50+ years. They're the
ones that decide which politicians you get to vote for in any party.
Carefully groomed to do the CEOs' bidding, not yours, no matter what party
you vote for. It hasn't been "a government by the people and for the
people" for a very long time. It's been "a government by the CEOs and for
the CEOs". Capitalism has completely destroyed democracy a long time ago.
You're just too stupid to realize it. The majority of the CEOs, however,
being republicans with their wonderful "trickle-down theory" that ended
with 95% of the wealth of the world remaining in their own bank accounts.
That was no "theory". It was a carefully calculated manipulation tactic to
make themselves even wealthier. Idiots like you then bought it--hook, line,
and sinker.

You're not very bright. I'll mark you down in the "won't survive" column.

From: Peter on
"Mark L" <markl071616(a)yaspamhoo.com> wrote in message
news:eg3bv598eq3ivrgt8r7o5vp03c7v9i70l9(a)4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:15:57 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Oh!
>>I was not aware that the Republicans have been in charge for fifty years.
>
> The republican political party hasn't been in charge for fifty years, nor
> have the democrats. CEOs have been in charge for 50+ years. They're the
> ones that decide which politicians you get to vote for in any party.
> Carefully groomed to do the CEOs' bidding, not yours, no matter what party
> you vote for. It hasn't been "a government by the people and for the
> people" for a very long time. It's been "a government by the CEOs and for
> the CEOs". Capitalism has completely destroyed democracy a long time ago.
> You're just too stupid to realize it. The majority of the CEOs, however,
> being republicans with their wonderful "trickle-down theory" that ended
> with 95% of the wealth of the world remaining in their own bank accounts.
> That was no "theory". It was a carefully calculated manipulation tactic to
> make themselves even wealthier. Idiots like you then bought it--hook,
> line,
> and sinker.
>
> You're not very bright. I'll mark you down in the "won't survive" column.
>

You're right I am pretty dumb. I'll not again make the mistake of trying to
explain reality & capitalism to you.

Bye

--
Peter