Brent P wrote:
>
> The people of those countries are just trying to make some money and
> get some food on the table. IMO, if the environmentalists and labor
> unions really put their fundamental beliefs before politics there would
> be a huge outcry about the pollution and the total lack of worker
> protections in these countries. Instead there's a whimper now and then
> about jobs going overseas, protecting US jobs and which famous person
> has their signature line made in a sweat shop somewhere in the 3rd world.
> If there really was a desire to protect US jobs and the environment they
> would be pushing for laws that prevented the sale of products unless the
> production met set a standards. This way the workers would have a safe
> work environment, a clean environment, etc and so on.

There's the other side of that coin on which the local people are being
paid slave wages but resent idealistic U.S. college students protesting
the sweat shops, and the result being that the sweat shops close down
over the publicity and pressure, and instead of, say, a young girl
having a poor paying job in a sweat factory, she is now forced into
prostitution in order to live. I heard a program on NPR in which they
interviewed some of the angry foreigners about that while college
protests were going on in the U.S. (OK OK - I admit it - I sometimes
listen to NPR, or IPR or whatever they're calling themselves these
days).

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

Brent P wrote:
>
> The people of those countries are just trying to make some money and
> get some food on the table. IMO, if the environmentalists and labor
> unions really put their fundamental beliefs before politics there would
> be a huge outcry about the pollution and the total lack of worker
> protections in these countries. Instead there's a whimper now and then
> about jobs going overseas, protecting US jobs and which famous person
> has their signature line made in a sweat shop somewhere in the 3rd world.
> If there really was a desire to protect US jobs and the environment they
> would be pushing for laws that prevented the sale of products unless the
> production met set a standards. This way the workers would have a safe
> work environment, a clean environment, etc and so on.

There's the other side of that coin on which the local people are being
paid slave wages but resent idealistic U.S. college students protesting
the sweat shops, and the result being that the sweat shops close down
over the publicity and pressure, and instead of, say, a young girl
having a poor paying job in a sweat factory, she is now forced into
prostitution in order to live. I heard a program on NPR in which they
interviewed some of the angry foreigners about that while college
protests were going on in the U.S. (OK OK - I admit it - I sometimes
listen to NPR, or IPR or whatever they're calling themselves these
days).

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

Brent P wrote:
>
> The people of those countries are just trying to make some money and
> get some food on the table. IMO, if the environmentalists and labor
> unions really put their fundamental beliefs before politics there would
> be a huge outcry about the pollution and the total lack of worker
> protections in these countries. Instead there's a whimper now and then
> about jobs going overseas, protecting US jobs and which famous person
> has their signature line made in a sweat shop somewhere in the 3rd world.
> If there really was a desire to protect US jobs and the environment they
> would be pushing for laws that prevented the sale of products unless the
> production met set a standards. This way the workers would have a safe
> work environment, a clean environment, etc and so on.

There's the other side of that coin on which the local people are being
paid slave wages but resent idealistic U.S. college students protesting
the sweat shops, and the result being that the sweat shops close down
over the publicity and pressure, and instead of, say, a young girl
having a poor paying job in a sweat factory, she is now forced into
prostitution in order to live. I heard a program on NPR in which they
interviewed some of the angry foreigners about that while college
protests were going on in the U.S. (OK OK - I admit it - I sometimes
listen to NPR, or IPR or whatever they're calling themselves these
days).

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> >That tax increases hurt economies is an observed fact.<<
>
>> Then why is it so hotly debated? <
>
>It is only "hotly debated" beccause the Leftists must have massive &
>continual revenue stream increases to fund their plans for ever increasing
>government & its attendant patronage. They must therefore attempt to fool
>the public into thinking "the rich" need to be taxed more & more. Any review
>of tax codes shows "the rich" turn out to be anyone making more than $50k a
>year, with the threshold creeping lower year on year.

I'm paying a smaller percentage of my income to tax now than when I made
$20k less.

So, the only thing that runs through my head at the people that whine about
the rich being over taxed is that they are lying or just plain stupid.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

 

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> >That tax increases hurt economies is an observed fact.<<
>
>> Then why is it so hotly debated? <
>
>It is only "hotly debated" beccause the Leftists must have massive &
>continual revenue stream increases to fund their plans for ever increasing
>government & its attendant patronage. They must therefore attempt to fool
>the public into thinking "the rich" need to be taxed more & more. Any review
>of tax codes shows "the rich" turn out to be anyone making more than $50k a
>year, with the threshold creeping lower year on year.

I'm paying a smaller percentage of my income to tax now than when I made
$20k less.

So, the only thing that runs through my head at the people that whine about
the rich being over taxed is that they are lying or just plain stupid.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

 

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> >That tax increases hurt economies is an observed fact.<<
>
>> Then why is it so hotly debated? <
>
>It is only "hotly debated" beccause the Leftists must have massive &
>continual revenue stream increases to fund their plans for ever increasing
>government & its attendant patronage. They must therefore attempt to fool
>the public into thinking "the rich" need to be taxed more & more. Any review
>of tax codes shows "the rich" turn out to be anyone making more than $50k a
>year, with the threshold creeping lower year on year.

I'm paying a smaller percentage of my income to tax now than when I made
$20k less.

So, the only thing that runs through my head at the people that whine about
the rich being over taxed is that they are lying or just plain stupid.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

 

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> And the majority of voting shares are controlled by the financial elite. <
>
>I suppose that's a problem, huh? The people who understand business and take
>the biggest risks shouldn't have a voice? BTW, I'm not of the "financial
>elite" but I get to vote on every holding I have. Every shareholder has that
>right.

I don't. I pay for a number of shared in Microsoft. About 100 shares or
so as a guess. But I don't have a vote. Why? Because, like many others,
I have mutual funds that are managed by others.

The amount of stock I do own directly is inconsequential, as it is for all
small investors. The majority of stock owned in large companies is owned
by large companies or people with more than $1,000,000 per year incomes.
Despite the claims to the contrary, the vast majority of voting stock is
controlled by the financial elite.

Yes, I vote what I own directly. But like all other non-elite, my votes
are inconsequential.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

 

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> And the majority of voting shares are controlled by the financial elite. <
>
>I suppose that's a problem, huh? The people who understand business and take
>the biggest risks shouldn't have a voice? BTW, I'm not of the "financial
>elite" but I get to vote on every holding I have. Every shareholder has that
>right.

I don't. I pay for a number of shared in Microsoft. About 100 shares or
so as a guess. But I don't have a vote. Why? Because, like many others,
I have mutual funds that are managed by others.

The amount of stock I do own directly is inconsequential, as it is for all
small investors. The majority of stock owned in large companies is owned
by large companies or people with more than $1,000,000 per year incomes.
Despite the claims to the contrary, the vast majority of voting stock is
controlled by the financial elite.

Yes, I vote what I own directly. But like all other non-elite, my votes
are inconsequential.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

 

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> And the majority of voting shares are controlled by the financial elite. <
>
>I suppose that's a problem, huh? The people who understand business and take
>the biggest risks shouldn't have a voice? BTW, I'm not of the "financial
>elite" but I get to vote on every holding I have. Every shareholder has that
>right.

I don't. I pay for a number of shared in Microsoft. About 100 shares or
so as a guess. But I don't have a vote. Why? Because, like many others,
I have mutual funds that are managed by others.

The amount of stock I do own directly is inconsequential, as it is for all
small investors. The majority of stock owned in large companies is owned
by large companies or people with more than $1,000,000 per year incomes.
Despite the claims to the contrary, the vast majority of voting stock is
controlled by the financial elite.

Yes, I vote what I own directly. But like all other non-elite, my votes
are inconsequential.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

 

Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>> "Steve Stone" <spfleck@zzcitlinkzz.net> wrote:
>> >What is a liberal these daze ?
>> >
>> A "liberal" is anyone that thinks that corporations should be held liable
>> for their illegal actions. A "liberal" is someone that thinks that what a
>> person does in their own home alone or with consenting adults is only the
>> business of those present.
>
>Ohhh - please! Don't get me started!

Please start. I've never heard so many lies as a conservative describing
the "typical" liberal. I'm due for a good laugh.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"