NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future

"USENET READER" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> If you take your head up out of the sand, you would see that many of the
> things predicted in that book are not too far away from coming true.
>
> Companies are merging and buying each other out left and right - aren't
> you paying attention to who owns the major media companies?
>
> Companies are hiring mercenaries (non-governmenta armies) to protect their
> property around the world.
>
> And Bush got elected to push forward an radical agenda to transfer wealth
> from the many to the few - remember his crack about "some call you the
> power elite - I call you my base!"
>
> The smirking chimp was trying to be funny, but "...out of the mouths of
> (intellectual) babes..."
>
> You know that Cheney and Rumsfield say to Bush when they walk into the
> Oval Office? "Georgie boy, the adults want to talk serious now - go look
> under the couch and behind the drapes for WMDs!"

They just don't get it Usenet..................just like the guy in Germany
who wrote about :

" They came for the unionists and I didn't speak up........"
It ends up with :

"And then they came for ME...and there was no one left to speak up"

Michael




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 11/24/2004

---

› See More: NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future

John Navas wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 24 Dec 2004
> 02:10:59 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Dec 2004
>>>02:32:08 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Suicide - even economic suicide - isn't a Christian principle. Where do
>>>>you get off saying that cutting your nose off to feed some poor starving
>>>>cannibal is being a good Christian?
>>>
>>>I don't say that.

You didn't say it directly, but if people followed your advice, that is
what would end up happning.
>>
>>actually you edited your earlier comments out, so people can't see that
>>what you were advocating was economic suicide for everyone but the US
>>investment class.
>
>
> That's your opinion, not something I said. My opinion is that what I advocate
> leads to prosperity for the many, not just the few.

No - actually in our country today - there is a growing gap in income
between the rich and the poor, and the income for middle class families
is going down. So what you advocate does not lead to prosperity for the
many - it only results in prosperity for the few.

Or can you cite specific evidence for your claim that more people are
prospering from the policies you advocate?
>
>
>>You say buy from China and send your money over there
>
>
> I do indeed buy from China if that's the best product at the best price.

It's not the best product at the best price - often it's the only
product you can buy. You have no other choice. And it's from policies
like dumping (selling for below cost), and the fact that they use slave
labor in prisons to make lots of the stuff made in China. Does it make
you fel god to exploit slave labor like that?
>
>
>>even if it results in Americans losing their jobs and having a lower
>>standard of living.
>
>
> That's the consequence of their choices, not my choice.

No dingleberry - when you buy products made in China, your choice to do
that does contribute to American workers losing their jobs. How can you
be so blind?
>
>
>>You say help the Chinese at our own expense - and
>>that is economic suicide!
>
>
> I don't say "help" China, and it's good economic sense, not suicide.

NO - helping China in this way is god economic sense.
>
>
>
>>But you advocate making us more competitive with countries that don't
>>have laws or regulations that protect the environment, workplace health
>>and safety or wage and hour protection by eliminating the very
>>regulations that give us the clean water and air and the rest of it.
>
>
> Nope. I advocate eliminating regulations that do more harm than good.

What specific rgulations do more harm then good? Do you mean just to
you, or to America on the whole?

Why don't we get rid of all regulations that cost us more than if the
products were made overseas? Why don't we mint or print our money
overseas? Surely some slave labor factory in China could print our
money and stamp out coins cheaper than we can do here - correct?

Or do you realize as I do that would open up this country for massive
counterfitting and undermine our economy? Guess what - outsourcing is
dong the same thing to our economy, but I guess you don't care because
you probably have a vested interest in seeing things continue - as long
as you keep your job and have plenty of money to spend. The downward
pressure must keep you quit happy counting your money like a miser.
>
>
>>Or
>>do you have some other magic way to be more competitive without doing
>>that that makes any sense at all, and is actually workable?
>
>
> As I've now said several times: investment. It's the only thing that really
> works.

NO one is gonna invest in the US if they can make more of a return on
their investment overseas. Stop cutting out this part of my post and
answr the ****ing question you gutless piece of ****. Why would any rich
puke invest in the USA when they can get a greater return on their
investment overseas?

The answer to that is to hit them with higher taxes when they try and
bring their profits back into the USA. And if they don't like it - let
them get the **** out of the USA - and I don't mean just rent a PO bx in
teh Camans - I mean get the **** out and take your chances living in
some 3rd world country.
>
>
>>>>Yes they are - where do you think they are getting the money to build
>>>>their nuclear subs and ICBMs? Where do you think they got the money to
>>>>buy arms from France, Germany and Russia?
>>>
>>>From their own productivity.

Noo - the CHinese citizens didn't vote for their leaders to buy that
weaponry - they are slaves. It's the corrupt ChiCom generals that took
the spoils and bought arms with them. They aren't productive because
they aren't doing the work - the slaves are doing all the work.
>>
>>That is like saying the glass is half full. The money to pay for those
>>weapons comes from us every time we buy crap from Wal-Mart or anything
>>else made in China.
>
>
> Nope -- it comes from their productivity. If you want us to beat them, then
> we need to become more productive, not less.

Dingleberry - US workers are the most productive in the world. It's
just that US investors (like I presume you are one) can get a higher
rate of return overseas than they can here. They are selfish jerks who
take take take and don't feel they have any responsibilies at home.
>
>
>>>It's counterproductive to engage in protectionism -- it simply doesn't work.
>>>The solution is to make us more (not less) productive, which takes investment
>>>and efficiency, not regulation.
>>
>>That is simply not true.
>
>
> You're badly misinformed.

And you offer no proof that what you say is true. And I have cited that
many US investors invest overseas because they can get a higher rate of
return and yet you continue to parrot the line that we need to invest
more. Are you some kind of broken record?

>
>
>>There are all sorts of protectionist measures
>>and some work - some don't.
>
>
> Actually none work.

Then why don't we print our money overseas? Why don't we outsource the
armed forces? Some protectionist measures are needed because there is
more of a downside to outsourcing that you are willing to admit.
>
>
>>US workers aready lead the rest of the world in producing more
>>efficiently than anyplace else in the world.
>
>
> That's not true, but the problem in any event is not that we're inefficient,
> it's that we're not efficient enough to justify the wage differential we want.
>
>
>>But company mangers don't
>>care, because what they are selling to investors is not a good company -
>>it's an investment opportunity.
>
>
> That's as it should be.

NO it is not - they fail to also sell the fact that keeping a
manufacturing base in the USA means that we have more conomic security
here.

Why don't you just admit that you like the fact that your money and your
economic security doesnt' have any nationality or any patriotic loyalty
now. You probably support the so called War on Terror in Iraq, don't
you? You ask lower middle class Americans to risk their lives for you
and yours, and then you take your money and run to wherever you can get
a higher rate of return.
>
>
>>With the situation the way it is now, no
>>US investor wants to invest in the US when they can get a better return
>>investing overseas. No matter what we did - if we lowered the minimum
>>wages, got rid of all the workplace health and safety and environmenta
>>regs, we still couldn't compete with slave labor in China with respect
>>to the return on investment.
>
>
> Nonsense. It's simply a matter of relative productivity.

What the **** are you talking about? It's a matter of many other
things, including US economic security - not just what rate of return
you get on your money you selfish prick!
>
>
>>If the WHO won't let us place tariffs on products from other countries,
>
>
> Tariffs don'e work -- everyone suffers.

No - how would we suffer with tarriffs? Right now - we don't have true
tarriffs, because we have the WTO for other countries to run to and
complain if we have tarriffs. Of course, the US never runs to the WTO
and complains against other countries unfair trade policies because
pricks like you like to take advantage of those unfair trade policies to
make a greater return on your investment. Which is why taxing those
overseas profits would work better - there is no WTO rules against it.


>
>
>>then we should tax profits made overseas higher than we do profits from
>>US based companies that manufacture here in the USA.
>
>
> That doesn't work either, as I've already explained.

No you haven't explained that - why don't you say why that wouldn't
work. Why wouldn't people invest their money in the USA if the net rate
of return was higher after taxes than if they invested in China?
>
>
>>If these taxpayers want to continue living in the USA, they will have to
>>face paying higer taxes on money made overseas. If they don't like it,
>>they can get the **** out and take their chances living in China, or
>>Thaiand or some other ****ing banana republic or dictatorship.
>
>
> The British tried that and it failed miserably.

Nope - sorry - not applicable. They have a totally different taListen
dumbass - you can't be in business for yourself as a sole proprietor and
then incorporate yourself for hte sole purpose of lessening your tax
liability. Likewise, any attempt on our part to tax foreign profits
would also have to include going after people who move out of the
country for the sole purpose of lessening their tax bills.

N
>
>
>>Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society.
>
>
> Taxes should be no more than what's required for essential government
> services. Social engineering doesn't work.

Who determines what services are essential - you personally? Or do We,
the People decide?
>
>
>>Rich pukes gotta stop
>>thinking that they can get away with enjoying the civilized society and
>>not pay for it. With all the rich pukes not wanting to pay for the
>>society that they enjoy, one day that bill is gonna be more than us
>>little people can or want to pay - and that is the day you rich pukes
>>are going up against the wall.
>
>
> What do you think this is? Russia of the early 1900s? You really want to
> walk that failed path?

Who says you have to hav Russia after a revolution? Our own country was
the result of a revoution - why wouldn't it work here again? The
American revolution was the result of our people being exploited for the
gain of very few rich people who owned stock in the trading companies
that were given a royal monopoly on trade between the Colonies and Great
Britain. Remember "no taxation without rpresentation"?
>
>
>>>>Yes it is! Can you back up your claims that it is not? Bush stole two
>>>>eections, and owes his stolen office to the rich pukes who fixed it for
>>>>him and they are running the government - remember what Mussolini said
>>>>about fascism being caled corporatism instead - and why?
>>>
>>>Nonsense not worthy of further comment.
>>
>>Already been proven that the 2000 election was stolen ...
>
>
> Nonsense.

Sorry - get your head out of the sand - when corporations control the
means to cast and count votes as well as who is on the voter
registration rolls, then we live in a corporatist state.
>
>
>>By definition, corporate rule of government is the key characteristic of
>>fascism. ...
>
>
>>That’s what happened in Italy in the 20's and Germany during the 30's.
>>...

And it's happening here now.
>
>
> I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. You thereby lose the debate.

Sorry dickhead - nice try. I invoke Quirk's Exception: Intentional
invocation of "Godwin's Law" the so-called "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.

You can cry and moan that fascism only existed in Nazi Germany and
Fascist Italy in the 1st half of the 20th century, but you can't be
serious and say that there is no fascism today in the world anywhere.
Most modern economists say that Red China is less communist than
fascist today.

>
>
>>>You're badly misinformed.
>
>
>>Nope - other than stating your opinions, you don't offer up any type of
>>factual basis for your opinions, ...
>
>
> Actually I have -- it's called modern Economics.

No mubn-nuts - you offer opinion with no facts or cites, and call it
economics. Can you cite definitions of things you talk about? no you
can't. Remember when I cited definations of "underemployment" from a
pro-business information source after you and some other fascist said
there is no such thing as underemployment? Notice that you or any of
your other fascist/libertarian assholes shut up and haven't said
anything about that.


>

John Navas wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 24 Dec 2004
> 01:04:10 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Dec 2004
>>>02:17:00 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>... The government doesn't even
>>>>study whether the new jobs that are being created pay the same or have
>>>>the same benefits as the old jobs that were lost.
>>>
>>>Actually it does.
>>
>>no it doesn't - they sure don't spill that data do they?
>
>
> Actually they do.

Actually no they don't - can you find any such data and post a source
for it? I already cited an article that says that the government
doesn't study the old vs. new jobs, so how can they post that data?
>
>
>>>>Certainly, when you
>>>>lose a good-paying manufacturing job with benefits, and replace it with
>>>>a job at Wal-Mart, you are underemployed.
>>>
>>>No, you're simply employed. You're "unqualified" (not "underemployed") when
>>>you aren't qualified for higher-paying jobs that are available
>>
>>No dumb ass - when you lose your job at a factory that paid you $16-20
>>an hour and there are no jobs that pay as high that are stil around and
>>you have to work at $8 an hour, you are underemployed.
>
>
> No -- what I wrote above is correct.
>
>
>>Are you gonna
>>argue with a solid economc theory just because it doesn't jibe with your
>>own personal political and economic views?
>
>
> No - I'm gonna argue with your mumbo jumbo. ( Feel free to prove me wrong
> with an authoritative citation, but forgive me if I don't hold my breath.
>
>
>>>>Yu don't know what the **** you are talking about -
>>>
>>>I'm afraid you have that backwards.
>>
>>No you have it backwards - from
>>http://www.investorwords.com/5835/underemployment.html
>>
>>underemployment is: A situation in which a worker is employed, but not
>>in the desired capacity, whether in terms of compensation, hours, or
>>level of skill and experience. While not technically unemployed, the
>>underemployed are often competing for available jobs.
>
>
> According to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary:
> underemployed adj.
> employed at a job that does not fully use one's skills or abilities.
>
> Thus you misuse the term "underemployed" when you try to apply it to low skill
> manufacturing workers put out of work by automation or outsourcing. These
> people aren't "underemployed" because lower paying jobs are now all their low
> skills qualify them for.
>

Is Webster's the definative source for economic theory?
>
>>And by the way dumbass - there are plenty of IT people who worked at
>>hi-tech jobs who are working blue-collar or service jobs because there
>>are no jobs they are trained for that they can do. The jobs are being
>>sent overseas, and the employers who claim there are no qualified people
>>to do them are not telling the truth - that they can't find anyone in
>>the USA to do them for ten cents on the dollar!
>
>
> In other words, they can do them, but they choose not to. I find it curious
> that someone would choose to (say) work at Walmart for $8/hr rather than (say)
> work at IT for $25/hr instead of the $50/hr they feel entitled to. If they
> want better money, then they need better skills -- routine IT is no longer
> high skill by world standards, and there are better high-skill jobs available.

You sem to be forgetting that there aren't any skills that anyone in the
US can acquire that can't be acquired overseaas for a lot less money.
And there is no way that someone in the USA can work at an IT job in the
locations they are usually offered in for the wages that are paid in
India, Vietnam or China.

No on in China or India get paid $25 an hour for IT work. Top salaries
over there are around 25 grand a year - not 25 an hour. Most of the IT
workers overseas make less than our minimum wage workers do. But the
cost of living is less over there - at least for the time being.
American IT workers could not live on what IT workers are paid overseas.

Were in America where there is a sizable IT industry can an American
worker rent an apartment, drive a car, pay for health insurance, afford
kids, college for the kids, or retirement savings on what foreign IT
workers are paid? Can you tell me where that is?
>
>
>>And from http://news.com.com/2100-1017-832553.html
>>
>>According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate in
>>the United States was 5.6 percent in January--relatively low for a
>>recession, which typically generates unemployment rates of 8 percent or
>>more in the United States.f
>>
>>But hidden behind the not-so-grim unemployment rate is a harsher
>>reality: Many workers are waiting out the downturn in jobs that are far
>>below their previous salaries or professional aspirations.
>
>
> 1. Beats the hell out of starving.

OK dumbass - how low a salary could you do your job for? Would you be
able to do it for minimum wage if that was your only choice other than
starving? Would yu be able to live on that salary anywhere near where
the job was offered?
>
> 2. Stupid to wait for something that may well never return -- better to
> upgrade their skills.

You can't upgrade skills for jobs that US CEOs are hell-bent on sending
overseas so they can get as big a return on stockholder investments as
they can get, thereby justifying their criminally-high compensation
packages.
>
>
>>Reliable statistics on underemployment are difficult to find, in part
>>because the government doesn't discriminate between people who have jobs
>>and those who have jobs below their skill set. But underemployment seems
>>to be a particular problem for technology workers.
>>[SNIP]
>
>
> If you want to understand what's really going on, then you're going to have to
> look beyond the popular press. ;-) Jobs are readily available for high-skill
> workers.

When companies like IBM, Microslut, Honeywell, etc, are hell-bent on
sending over as many jobs as they can, you can't say that jobs are
readilly available for high-skill workers. Pay attention to sources
like th CWA website that show how few jobs are really available at
living wages.
>
>
>>>While you at it, ask them why they didn't upgrade their skills.
>>
>>Dickhead - there aren't neccessarilly any jobs even with the new skills
>
>
> Of course there are.

Nt really, or they pay a much lower salary.
>
>
>>- they can be outsourced too simply to make more profit for greedy
>>investors. 5% to 10% wasn't enough for American investors - they wanted
>>more and when the tinpot dictators in third world countries opened their
>>doors and enabled their people to be exploited for a higher return on
>>their investment, the capital jumped ship.
>
>
> More silly mumbo jumbo.

No - that is what is happening - read "The Cheating of America: How Tax
Avoidance and Evasion by the Super Rich Are Costing the Country
Billions!" by the Center for Publc Integrity. Chapter 6 starts out with
how Seagate did just that. Not mumbo jumbo - this is the facts!
>
>
>>>>the one thing they can't do is
>>>>work for 10 cents on the dollar or worse like the slave labor in China does.
>>>
>>>Of course they can.

Show me a city in America where you can live on what people are paid in
China. Show me how you can have a roof over your head, a way to get to
and from work, a way you can afford to eat, and how you can pay for
health care if you get sick on what you get paid in China.

Getting paid and living on what you get paid are two different things
entirely. If you can't afford a place to live on what you make when you
work, then you can't really continue to work the job unless you go on
the dole. Some of our richest companies get and stay that way by paying
less and less to their employees and expect the government to pick up
the tab for what the companies don't want to pay.
>>
>>You are not only a dick but a selfish and heartless prick besides.
>
>
> What I actually am is a realist.

Call it what you will - you are still a selfish and heartless prick.
And you can't call yourself a realist if you say people are better off
getting paid anything more than not getting paid at all if they can't
afford to live on
>
>
>>Could you live on 10% of what you make now, or on what the slave labor
>>wages in China are?
>
>
> Beats the heck out of zero.

If you can't afford a place to live, what difference does it make if you
get paid at all?
>
>
>>Can you imagine the economic impact on the entire
>>country if that continues to happen?
>
>
> There will only be adverse economic impact if we fail to invest in ourselves.
> The path to a brighter future is thus more investment, not more regulation.
> The dark cloud is our low rate of savings and investment.

You seem to keep ignoring the fact that American investors are not
investing in America. Why do that when they get 40% return on their
investment in China and not here?
>
>
>>>>If there are no good jobs - how can people support themselves when they
>>>>lose a job?
>>>
>>>There are good jobs.
>>
>>No there are not.
>
>
> Of course there are. Check the want ads.

According to the conference board - the people who measure want ads, the
number of jobs are way down. Look at the thickness of the want ads in
your paper.
>
>
>>Not in manufacturing,
>
>
> There are good high-skill jobs in manufacturing. Good low skill job is now an
> oxymoron.

No - sorry - not everyone is cut out to be or wants to be a rocket
scientist. And if everyone had those high skills you claim they should
get, the supply of them would be so high that the demand would fall and
the salaries would be lower. Or don't you believe in supply and demand?
>
>
>>and fewer and fewer jobs in IT
>>that are here.
>
>
> There are still lots of high-skill jobs in IT. Good low skill job is now an
> oxymoron.
>
>
>>Haven't you heard of "outsourcing" in the IT industry?
>
>
> Of course. As an issue it's way overblown, and only the low end is really
> affected.

Nope- talk to IT workers - they are always worried about their jobs. I
have friends who were making over 100 grand working in IT - would you
call that hi end or low end? No one in IT is secure as long as the CEOs
are hellbent on outsourcing as many jobs as they can - except their own
of course.
>
>
>>>Move to a place with better opportunities.
>>
>>There are not neccearily any places with better ops.
>
>
> Of course there are.

Where? If you are an unemployed IT worker and you lived near the
location of many IT jobs - lets say either Silicon Valley in CA, the 128
Corridor near Boston, RTP in NC, or in any IT job in the metro NYC area,
can you afford to live there and work for China or India wages? if thre
enough affordable housing for all those low-wage IT workers in those
areas? People who work in min wages jobs in those communities either
live hours away and drive to work in beater cars (and all that stands
betwen them and unemployment is one breakdown). Get real!
>
>
>>And what happens
>>when you use up your money to move for another job and that job vanishes
>>in a few months? ...
>
>
> Choose carefully.

**** you - you can't be sure that the choice you make will pan out - you
can get a new skill and all of a sudden the CEO announces that all the
jobs that use your skills are now going to India - how are you supposed
to choose carefully if you are't privy to the decisions those CEOs will
make before they make them?
>
>
>>>How absurd -- as you noted in another post, poor people are doing whatever
>>>they can to get here because we have some of the best opportunities in the
>>>world. The ones getting pissed off are middle class people that haven't
>>>justified their life style.
>>
>>No - these peope who come here ilegally are not coming here for the best
>>opportunities - they are not coming here to become computer programmers.
>> They are coming here because there are people here who will break the
>>law and hire illegals to exploit them economically at the expense of
>>screwing their fellow citizens.
>
>
> Total nonsense.

Show some examples dickhead. Can you show me an example of some mexican
who is coming here to go to HS, get into college and study to be the
next Bill Gates?
>
>
>>It isn't just people in the middle class who are pissed because they are
>>losing out on jobs - it's working class people with blue collar jobs in
>>the lower/lower middle/middle classes, and the people who work at
>>supervisory/managerial jobs in the lower middle and middle classes and
>>the people who work in the IT jobs in the middle and upper middle
>>classes
>
>
> In other words, as I wrote, the ones getting pissed off are middle class
> people that haven't justified their life style.

Can you justify your lifestyle? What the **** do you do for a living?
>
>
>>people who make salaries up to the 100K level (like a very
>>talented friend in IT who was current in all his skills and learned new
>>ones who was out of work for 13 months).
>
>
> The fundamental problem is the expectation of 100K salary.

What do you mean the expectation of that salary? When that salary is
offered, and someone takes it for that job, then don't they have a
reason to expect that salary for that work? Can you justify the
mutil-milion dollar comp packages for the CEOs who are running companies
into the ground, or who are stealing from their companies and stockholders?

>
>
>>There just wern't any jobs -
>>no one was hiring - at least not people who were citizens. They did
>>hire people on the H1B visas who would work for cheap, claiming that
>>there weren't enough qualified people who could do the work in the USA.
>> The employers lied - they just didn't want to share the wealth.
>
>
> Nonsense -- employers were hiring people willing to do that work for 50K
> rather than the unrealistic 100K.


>
>
>>>Basic regulation has its place, but not the kind of regulation you advocate,
>>>which would only make things worse.
>>
>>Not really - we won't know until we put those regs in place.
>
>
> Been there; done that. Failed miserably.

Nope - sorry - we haven't done the things that I suggest - like tax the
overseas profits of the rich - teach them to keep their money at home if
they like living here. There are too many rich people in the world for
them all to move to the Caymans - some will have to stay here and lump
it. With anti-american feelings at an all-time high and the threat of
terroism so high (or so Bush says), I doubt the rich will want to leave
the USA - but it's time they start paying their fair share.
>

John Navas wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Dec 2004
> 21:32:07 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Scott Stephenson wrote:
>
>
>>>That is not a product of regulation- it is a product of taxation. I thought
>>>you said you understood this stuff?
>>
>>No actually dip**** - the ability to tax comes from laws which are
>>passed which give an agency the ability to write regulations which
>>govern how they do their job. You ever hear of the Code of Federal
>>Regulations? Regulations control each and every single thing that the
>>government does - from collecting Social Security to telling industry
>>what they can and cannot do to pollute air or water.
>
>
> That's utter nonsense.
>
>
>>>I'm sorry- where did I ever mention Bush, partisan politics or an allegiance
>>>to anyone? Did I vote for Bush? Hmmm....
>>
>>Anyone with such blind faith in the market has to be a Republican,
>>because we Dems have much better critical thinking skills and don't
>>place blind faith in much of anything.
>
>
> That must be why you Dems are in such serious decline.

Why are we in decline? Because we refuse to place blind faith in failed
doctrines of the past like Reaganomics? Because we don't believe the
lies that Bush and Co got you dumb ****s to believe? Do you think that
being on the winning side is that important, even if the people you
support are lying pieces of **** who have you completely fooled? Are
you really that dumb?
>

"USENET READER" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

You are a moron, and a whining, apparently unskilled whiner at that.

One thing you fail to realize and admit- no modern economy survives without
the buying power of the American economy. Not the Chinese, French, German
or any other. And with the LARGEST GDP in the world, among the lowest
unemployment and highest standard of living, the statistics show you to be
nothing but another Chicken Little ("The sky is falling"). You have yet to
provide anything but personal opinion or partisan pablum to show proof of
anything you have said.

"USENET READER" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
>
> John Navas wrote:
>
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Dec
>> 2004
>> 21:32:07 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Scott Stephenson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>That is not a product of regulation- it is a product of taxation. I
>>>>thought
>>>>you said you understood this stuff?
>>>
>>>No actually dip**** - the ability to tax comes from laws which are passed
>>>which give an agency the ability to write regulations which govern how
>>>they do their job. You ever hear of the Code of Federal Regulations?
>>>Regulations control each and every single thing that the government
>>>does - from collecting Social Security to telling industry what they can
>>>and cannot do to pollute air or water.
>>
>>
>> That's utter nonsense.
>>
>>
>>>>I'm sorry- where did I ever mention Bush, partisan politics or an
>>>>allegiance
>>>>to anyone? Did I vote for Bush? Hmmm....
>>>
>>>Anyone with such blind faith in the market has to be a Republican,
>>>because we Dems have much better critical thinking skills and don't place
>>>blind faith in much of anything.
>>
>>
>> That must be why you Dems are in such serious decline.
>
> Why are we in decline? Because we refuse to place blind faith in failed
> doctrines of the past like Reaganomics? Because we don't believe the lies
> that Bush and Co got you dumb ****s to believe? Do you think that being
> on the winning side is that important, even if the people you support are
> lying pieces of **** who have you completely fooled? Are you really that
> dumb?

Four more years!! <giggle>

>>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 29 Dec 2004
00:51:04 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:

>... I already cited an article that says that the government
>doesn't study the old vs. new jobs, ...

Not true.

>Is Webster's the definative source for economic theory?

No. Do you have a better one?

>You sem to be forgetting that there aren't any skills that anyone in the
>US can acquire that can't be acquired overseaas for a lot less money.

Nonsense.

>And there is no way that someone in the USA can work at an IT job in the
>locations they are usually offered in for the wages that are paid in
>India, Vietnam or China.

Nonsense. High skill IT jobs still pay well in the USA. It's just some low
skill jobs that have gone overseas.

>OK dumbass - how low a salary could you do your job for?

I don't have to worry about that because (1) I have a better vocabulary than
you and (2) I sufficiently invest in myself that I don't have to worry about
that.

>You can't upgrade skills for jobs that US CEOs are hell-bent on sending
>overseas

They'd be delighted to have them done here, but can't find qualified workers
willing to take such low skill jobs for the wages they deserve.

>so they can get as big a return on stockholder investments as

That's their job.

>they can get, thereby justifying their criminally-high compensation
>packages.

They get what the market says they are worth. Sounds like you are jealous.
If the salary is that good, and they are that incompetent, then you should
have no trouble getting such a job -- right?

>
>No - that is what is happening - read "The Cheating of America: How Tax
>Avoidance and Evasion by the Super Rich Are Costing the Country
>Billions!" by the Center for Publc Integrity.

I have better things to do with my time.

>Chapter 6 starts out with
>how Seagate did just that. Not mumbo jumbo - this is the facts!

It's actually the worst kind of yellow journalism. I know Al Shugart (founder
of Seagate) personally, and I was there when all this happened. And you?

>Show me a city in America where you can live on what people are paid in
>China.

Irrelevant. Show me that you're actually worth more money. I don't give a
damn what you think you ought to be paid.

>Call it what you will - you are still a selfish and heartless prick.

Ad hominem -- sure sign that you have nothing meaningful to say.

>If you can't afford a place to live, what difference does it make if you
>get paid at all?

A lot, actually.

>You seem to keep ignoring the fact that American investors are not
>investing in America....

I proved that to be false in a prior response. Can't you do better than that?

>According to the conference board - the people who measure want ads, the
>number of jobs are way down. Look at the thickness of the want ads in
>your paper.

Really? Citation? Or more hot air?

>No - sorry - not everyone is cut out to be or wants to be a rocket
>scientist.

Then they should get realistic about a lower standard of living.

>And if everyone had those high skills you claim they should
>get, the supply of them would be so high that the demand would fall and
>the salaries would be lower. Or don't you believe in supply and demand?

Oh I do, but I also know that demand for high skill far outstrips supply.

>Nope- talk to IT workers - they are always worried about their jobs.

Because their skills are low, and they fail to invest in upgrading them.

>I
>have friends who were making over 100 grand working in IT - would you
>call that hi end or low end?

I would call that unrealistic.

>No one in IT is secure as long as the CEOs
>are hellbent on outsourcing as many jobs as they can - except their own
>of course.

No one in IT is secure as long as they aren't more qualified than someone
overseas willing to work for a lot less.

>Where? If you are an unemployed IT worker and you lived near the
>location of many IT jobs - lets say either Silicon Valley in CA, the 128
>Corridor near Boston, RTP in NC, or in any IT job in the metro NYC area,
>can you afford to live there and work for China or India wages?

Don't have to -- just upgrade your skills.

>**** you -

Ad hominem -- sure sign that you have nothing meaningful to say.

>you can't be sure that the choice you make will pan out - you
>can get a new skill and all of a sudden the CEO announces that all the
>jobs that use your skills are now going to India - how are you supposed
>to choose carefully if you are't privy to the decisions those CEOs will
>make before they make them?

By paying attention.

>Show some examples dickhead. Can you show me an example of some mexican
>who is coming here to go to HS, get into college and study to be the
>next Bill Gates?

I personally know of several. They are now doing better work at less money
than the US workers they replaced.

>Can you justify your lifestyle?

Yes. And you?

>What the **** do you do for a living?

Consulting. And you?

>What do you mean the expectation of that [100K] salary? When that salary is
>offered, and someone takes it for that job, then don't they have a
>reason to expect that salary for that work?

They don't have a reason to expect it to go on forever when they sit on their
ass.

>Can you justify the
>mutil-milion dollar comp packages for the CEOs who are running companies
>into the ground, or who are stealing from their companies and stockholders?

I can, because that's how the market values them. Jealous?

>Nope - sorry - we haven't done the things that I suggest - like tax the
>overseas profits of the rich - teach them to keep their money at home if
>they like living here.

We have, other countries have, and it just doesn't work.

>There are too many rich people in the world for
>them all to move to the Caymans - some will have to stay here and lump
>it. With anti-american feelings at an all-time high and the threat of
>terroism so high (or so Bush says), I doubt the rich will want to leave
>the USA - but it's time they start paying their fair share.

Nonsense.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 29 Dec 2004
00:53:41 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:

>> That must be why you Dems are in such serious decline.
>
>Why are we in decline?

Because your policies have failed.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 29 Dec 2004
00:05:19 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:

>You didn't say it directly, but if people followed your advice, that is
>what would end up happning.

It's actually your prescription that's suicide, as history has proven.

>Or can you cite specific evidence for your claim that more people are
>prospering from the policies you advocate?

The actual problem is that we've failed to invest sufficiently in ourselves,
as I've pointed out in prior posts (citing Alan Greenspan) -- we now actually
have a *negative* savings rate.

>It's not the best product at the best price -

Actually it is.

>often it's the only
>product you can buy. You have no other choice.

Rubbish.

>And it's from policies
>like dumping (selling for below cost), and the fact that they use slave
>labor in prisons to make lots of the stuff made in China. Does it make
>you fel god to exploit slave labor like that?

More rubbish.

>No dingleberry - when you buy products made in China, your choice to do
>that does contribute to American workers losing their jobs. How can you
>be so blind?

Nonsense. They lose their jobs because they're not competitive.

>What specific rgulations do more harm then good?

Many. For example, it will take two years just to pass regulations on a
revised design for the Bay Bridge here in the SF Bay Area, even though it's
already been regulated to death. As a result, costs will spiral ever higher,
and commuters will be more exposed to disaster. The point? There isn't any!

>Do you mean just to
>you, or to America on the whole?

America on the whole.

>Or do you realize as I do that would open up this country for massive
>counterfitting and undermine our economy? Guess what - outsourcing is
>dong the same thing to our economy,

Nonsense.

>NO one is gonna invest in the US if they can make more of a return on
>their investment overseas.

They don't, which is how we finance our huge trade deficit.

>Stop cutting out this part of my post and
>answr the ****ing question you gutless piece of ****. Why would any rich
>puke invest in the USA when they can get a greater return on their
>investment overseas?

They can't.

>Dingleberry - US workers are the most productive in the world.

If they were, then jobs wouldn't be outsourced. Cheaper is cheaper.

>It's
>just that US investors (like I presume you are one) can get a higher
>rate of return overseas than they can here. ...

Nope. I've already disproved that.

>And you offer no proof that what you say is true.

I've actually posted authoritative citations.

>And I have cited that
>many US investors invest overseas because they can get a higher rate of
>return ...

Nope.

>Then why don't we print our money overseas?

That might happen.

>Why don't we outsource the
>armed forces?

We do. Civilian contractors do a huge part of the work in Iraq, and for our
military elsewhere. Are you living in a cave?

>Some protectionist measures are needed because there is
>more of a downside to outsourcing that you are willing to admit.

History proves that protectionism never works.

>NO it is not - they fail to also sell the fact that keeping a
>manufacturing base in the USA means that we have more conomic security
>here.

Only if it's competitive.

>Why don't you just admit that you like the fact that your money and your
>economic security doesnt' have any nationality or any patriotic loyalty
>now.

Done. This country sinks or swims on how well it competes.

>You probably support the so called War on Terror in Iraq, don't
>you?

Nope. Try again.

>What the **** are you talking about?

Relative productivity.

>It's a matter of many other
>things, including US economic security - not just what rate of return
>you get on your money you selfish prick!

Nope.

>No - how would we suffer with tarriffs?

Lower economic growth. Higher inflation.

>... Of course, the US never runs to the WTO
>and complains against other countries unfair trade policies ...

Actually we do. Case in point:
<http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english...ent_316125.htm>

>No you haven't explained that - why don't you say why that wouldn't
>work. Why wouldn't people invest their money in the USA if the net rate
>of return was higher after taxes than if they invested in China?

Because it is higher in the USA -- read my lips -- we are now a net debtor
nation. Do you know what that means?

>Nope - sorry - not applicable. They have a totally different taListen
>dumbass - you can't be in business for yourself as a sole proprietor and
>then incorporate yourself for hte sole purpose of lessening your tax
>liability. Likewise, any attempt on our part to tax foreign profits
>would also have to include going after people who move out of the
>country for the sole purpose of lessening their tax bills.

Nonsense.

>Who determines what services are essential - you personally? Or do We,
>the People decide?

Objective standard, not mob rule.

>Who says you have to hav Russia after a revolution? ...

Because that what's always happened.

>Sorry - get your head out of the sand - when corporations control the
>means to cast and count votes as well as who is on the voter
>registration rolls, then we live in a corporatist state.

They don't, and we don't.

>> I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. You thereby lose the debate.

Sorry, Charlie.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>