Re: The 'working poor' scam

From: Johnny Marcos (johnny5_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 07/07/04 

Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 06:13:00 GMT

royls@telus.net wrote in news:40eb1e8e.17078074@news.telus.net:

> We need to tax them in proportion to the value of the land they hold.
> I don't think we need to tax the hell out of people who own modest
> amounts of land and are using it as productively as anyone else would.

Rich Kerry, Rich Bush, scylla or charybdis. One is in the catholic
church, one in the christian church, one has a vp lawyer, one has a vp
oil barron. Are you voting for Nader?

What about pharmaceutical companies that own genetic patents - that is
not land - monsanto - that is not land - as we move into a digital and
information age does agricultural based theories really apply?

Bill Gates was not a land owner, he was an IP owner. Have you read
nueromancer?

> Wrong. Landowners who contribute absolutely nothing also get rich,
> and once rich, rapidly get richer. Why are you unwilling to know that
> fact?

Bill Gates does not own land - he owns mindshare, how do your theories
work there?

How many times in the past has anyone tried the theory? Physiocrats had
a similar theory right - did they try it in France? If it is best why
doesn't the market know that - doesn't the market know what is best?

How many georgists do you have at major economic schools in any country?

> Attentive silence from founts of disinformation like you would be a
> start....

Censorship - ok.

> I know how they got into those positions: by offering to sacrifice the
> productive to the rich.

How does land tax affect the richest man in the world - Bill Gates? Your
theories were created for a time when land ownership was king - they
probably were good for rome or egypt or agrarian 1700's USA when they
were thought about.

> "Why get upset about slavery? You're not a slave."

I am not upset - I just don't see how your theories apply today - the
rich are not landowners - the rich own technology.

> IMO, on balance it is questionable whether he did. Mainly he was just
> in the right place at the right time, and saw how to profit from a
> changing IP environment and others' mistakes.

Just like the landowners of agrarian societies of the past. Not evil
people out to destroy us.

> The holders of IP monopolies don't....

He isn't a landowner.

> It's better than meekly acquiescing, or worse,

Your the one telling me to shut up.

> I have suggested no such thing. Why do you feel you have to lie about
> what I have said?

You keep calling me a liar, I am trying to understand, I am just a dumb
citizen.

> If that would actually _solve_the_problem_, I'd say fine, go ahead.
> But we both know it wouldn't.

Right, we have all the food the world needs, production is not the
problem, distribution is - the bumb at the bus stop wanted me to go get
the food for her, she didn't want to go get it herself - laziness.

  In fact, it could easily make it worse,
> like the idiots who go to Somalia to "liberate" slaves by _buying_
> them from their owners -- thus creating a more profitable market.

I thought human trafficking was outlawed - you can buy somalies?

> As you know, it is extremely unlikely that such efforts would actually
> improve the situation there.

I know http://www.savethechildren.org/index1.asp can take your money and
do good.

> Having more disinformation to sift through isn't living better.

Now you are being childish, you know we have it much better than just 20
years ago.

>>Me too - those poor dying SOMALIAS don't deserve it -
>>http://www.savethechildren.org/index1.asp
>
> Hacking at the branches won't save them from evil.

One human life saved is worth your time isn't it? Just one child.

> root by howling about the branches.

A hungry starving child is not a branch - it is a life you could
individually improve - can't you just sponsor ONE child at
savethechlidren?

> I have left the above despicable, infantile spew as is, to remind you
> and your readers of exactly what you are.

A guy asking you not to save all the branches, just 1 - do you even
sponsor 1 child?

>
>>> I knew it was only a matter of time before the accusations of envy
>>> would start.
>>
>>I live in a singlewide 1974 trailer in a beat down trailer park paying
>>250 a month - my friend lives in a van in walmart - we eat the
leftovers
>>at the food court at the mall during lunch and dinner - there is more
>>food than 50 people could eat so there is enough for you - we take the
>>bus or walk or ride a bicycle. When you are at this level or lower and
>>sending your excess cash to save the children I will believe you really
>>give a damn about the starving poor billions of the world - I don't
>>believe you are there yet. What kind of house do you live in? What
>>kind of car do you drive? Do you eat out of your own garden or not?
>>How much gas and energy do you use? You are a hypocrite
>
> You are a liar.

Come to florida, I am not, you just don't want to see reality. Just ONE
child Roy L - sponsor just ONE.

>>Here it is again - I think the Bible had a passage about fixing the
>>plank in your own eye before you worry about the splinter in bill gates
>>- he is donating 24 billion to his charity - helping the sick and poor
>>of Africa - I don't think you have sent a dollar have you Mother
>>Theresa?
>
> <yawn> If Gates had sent all his dough to Africa when he didn't have
> much, he would never have had $24G to send now, would he?
>
> Moron.

One child Roy L, just ONE, not 2 or 3 or 50, just ONE - can you afford
ONE human LIFE?

> You don't sound very converted to me....

I am converted - 1 human life ROY L www.savethechildren.org - the
children are our future - just ONE.

> That is an outrageous, despicable lie that trivializes the evil
> tyranny those people are subjected to on a daily basis. You have
> proved that you are vicious, evil, lying sub-human filth.

I sponsor ONE child, how many do you sponsor?

> The fields have had plenty of elbow grease applied already.

And some children LIVED, you can save ONE Roy L.

 That
> hasn't solved the problem.

The problem may never be solved, but you can save ONE human life.

 Why do you insist that unless I waste my
> time on a proved ineffective approach, I must be a hypocrite?

One human life is not ineffective.

> Sounds like you were more interested in their daughters than their
> donkeys...

I met this guy, he wanted to be my tourguide - wanted 40 dollars for his
wife and kid, he had on new nikes and tommy hilfiger - I had on salvation
army throw aways - I tried to find out if he ever went to the library to
read a book - he laughed at me - he said I can't feed my family going to
the library - I have been tour guide for 3 years - what is the point ROY
L - ultimately even if we do what you want, it only is going to affect
the middle class here, the poor there are still to dumb to get ahead.

savethechildren can save ONE child for your contribution though, it is
one human life less privaledged than you.

> 1991.

Go now - get a real feel for the poor today, I saw a lot of nikes and
cellphones but mindless fools - lack of education is thier enemy and they
dont want to go to the library because sucking rich whitey is more
profitable in thier minds.

>>China still has slavery - and I bet your shoes and computer parts were
>>made there - you damn communist supporter hypocrite.
>
> <yawn> If I tried to trace the origins of everything I bought, I

The joys of bill gates and the internet are that you can instantly find
information and save yourself tons of time in research

http://www.usstuff.com/index.htm

They have done the work for you - none of that stuff was made with child
slaves in china - and if you didn't have that resource you should have
took the time to make sure you didn't support child slave labor - that is
the problem - people not caring about where thier cheap goods come from
just buying the cheapest thing at walmart - it's evil to criticize
slavery thomas jefferson while you have slaves on your own farm - makes
you look hypocritical - people not sending money for 1 child at save the
children - but bloviating theories that think that is really helping
anyone. One child Roy L - just ONE.