Of course the assets of the poor is going to be, little or nothing, and not
get any better! They are not working. They do not want to work! Why should
they? They get free medical care (show up at an emergency room), free food
through food stamps, and almost free housing through Section 8 programs!
Paid for by the working class of course, and the rich who are paying the
most taxes! Why does it seems that most of the legal immigrants eventually
accrue lots of assets? Homes, cars, and even businesses! Look at a lot of
these small shops and Seven and Eleven stores! Owned and run by immigrants.
Asians and a lot of Indians or Pakistanis. Why is that? Are you listening?
Here it is! They are willing to work very hard, and very long hours, doing
things that a lot of the American poor are unwilling to do! Some even have
two or three jobs until the can accumulate enough to start a business. They
even pool their resouces to accomplish their goals. The liberal socialist
agendas of the Demo-rats, only serve to keep the poor under their thumbs. It
keeps them uneducated, with the impression that they, the Demo-rats, are
working hard to get them more of what they deserve. They deserve nothing,
if they are not willing to work hard to better themselves! Nothing, if they
are unwilling to take over their communities from the gangs and drug
pushers! Nothing, if they are unwilling to stop the killing of their young!
The Demo-rats liberal socialist do-gooder agendas and programs only keep the
poor dependent on them, and not on who it should be on, which should be on
the individual. Not on the government or on their programs.

Mike Lindo
KG6IOC
--
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle
behind each blade of grass." --Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto



"Leonard Martin" wrote in message
t...

Exactly!

An it's well known that over the last 30 years an ever-greater portion of
the total money earned in the US has gone to the wealthiest people, and an
ever-greater portion of our assets have come to be owned by them, while
the
reverse is happening to the poor and much of the middle class. Here's a
bit
of intriguing evidence of that trend: During the Christmas season just
past, luxury stores like Nieman-Marcus experienced strong sales increases
over the previous year, while stores like Sears and even Walmart,
patronized by the rest of us, experienced only modest growth.

Leonard


In article , "Brenda Ann"
wrote:

"Brian Oakley" wrote in message
...

If you havent noticed, not everyone in the country works for Wal-Mart.
Why
dont you do some research and see what the average wage in the US is
and
report back to us here. That is your school assignment.
73

But the average wage doesn't mean a lot to a great many people. The
average
income is skewed by a very few very high paid corporate execs (who make
many
times more a year than does the president), entertainers and sports
figures.
This has the effect of raising the median income significantly when
figured
as part of the whole. For every Enron exec making millions a year, there
are
thousands of folks making less than $20G, which isn't a living of any
kind
with our cost of living. There's a whole lot of grunt labor out there,
including a lot of the salespeople at your favorite radio store, that
make
much closer to minimum wage...

--
"Everything that rises must converge"
--Flannery O'Connor

When did you get made king, in order to speak for most?
"JJ" wrote in message
news
Frank wrote:

JJ ...

^ The why do you live here? Why don't you move to Europe?

You're suggesting that we should mold the people to fit the needs of the
nation instead of molding the nation to fit the needs of the people.

Frank


The nation fits mine and most others needs just fine. What's your problem?

"Mike Lindo" wrote:
So, if what you say is true, where does
the money come from to pay for all
of those benefits?


Several facters. First, they generally have smaller governments.
Government is huge today, involved in some way or another in almost every
aspect of our lives. One or two of our government departments (say Health &
Human Services and State) are almost as large as their entire civilian
government. Second, they hit corporations a little harder then we do here,
not a lot but somewhat harder. For example, business can't write off as
much. Finally, and here is a big one, they spend far less on defense. Our
defense costs are huge (annual military budget, debt, interest on debt,
research, retirement, medical benefits for injured vets, and so on). There
are certainly other facters, but these are the most obvious.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Your data is incomplete. The top 5%
of the people in this country pay about
50% of the total tax take. The top 50%
of the people pay 90% of the total
tax take. So the government is already
"taxing the rich". (snip)


Your data is equally incomplete. What percentage of the nation's wealth is
controlled by those top 5% and 50%, and how does that compare to the
percentage of taxes they pay? I read recently that the top 10-20% control
80% of the nation's wealth. I'm going on what I vaguely remember (which is
why I asked), so don't quote me on these figures. However, if that is true,
that 50% you say they pay is rather small.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article
t,
(Leonard Martin) wrote:

Hyperpatriot American morons never listen to or watch international news.

snip

You do realize that this is posted to rec.radio.shortwave right.

Who is the moron now?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

mdd wrote:
When did you get made king, in order to speak for most?

Ask the next 100 Americans you meet if they want to move to Europe or
some other country and see what they say.

I agree that some of our government departments are huge. The
inefficiencies of our government are well known. Also well known are the
large amount of social welfare cheats. I guess we need a lot of people to
catch thes cheats though. We could decrease that numbe though if the
penalties for those cheats were much harder. Hard time maybe! As far as what
our country spends of defense, I believe it is necessary. I do believe that
we should not be in every police action though. The European countries and
also Japan do not spend a large percentage on defense because they are
depending on the U.S. to pull their, "chestnuts out of the fire", if
anything comes up. The United Nations is a joke and should go the way of
the League of Nations. A paper Tiger, especially with Kofi Anan at the
helm.

Mike Lindo
KG6IOC


--
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle
behind each blade of grass." --Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...

"Mike Lindo" wrote:
So, if what you say is true, where does
the money come from to pay for all
of those benefits?


Several facters. First, they generally have smaller governments.
Government is huge today, involved in some way or another in almost every
aspect of our lives. One or two of our government departments (say Health
&
Human Services and State) are almost as large as their entire civilian
government. Second, they hit corporations a little harder then we do here,
not a lot but somewhat harder. For example, business can't write off as
much. Finally, and here is a big one, they spend far less on defense. Our
defense costs are huge (annual military budget, debt, interest on debt,
research, retirement, medical benefits for injured vets, and so on). There
are certainly other facters, but these are the most obvious.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Mike Lindo" wrote:

(snip) The European countries and also
Japan do not spend a large percentage
on defense because they are depending
on the U.S. to pull their, "chestnuts out
of the fire", if anything comes up. (snip)


It angers me to see people in this country trashing Germany, Italy, and
Japan for not spending enough on defense. These countries have little choice
in the matter. The United States, with allies, set limits on the size and
character of their militaries following WWII. As such, it would take
significant changes to their laws to increase the size and capabilities of
their militaries (changes that would not likely be accepted by the USA, past
allies, or neighboring countries).

As for the other countries, both the UK and France have nuclear weapons
and can defend themselves, Switzerland and Sweden are long time neutrals,
Norway is a quasi-neutral, Spain is a quasi-neutral, Portugal is a
quasi-neutral, Austria is a quasi-neutral, and Russia still has one of the
largest militaries in the world. In the end, only the Netherlands, Denmark,
and Belgium are weak on defense, and that only because their populations are
too small to support a larger military.

So, if you want to see Germany, Italy, and Japan rearm, the people you
should be talking to are sitting in Washington. However, these are
independent countries with world views very different than our own. As such,
don't expect any more support for our global ambitions after these countries
rearm. Indeed, those renewed militaries may turn out to be a threat to those
ambitions.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

I don't think that that's the whole picture. Those countries use that as an
excuse not to participate in more peace keeping duties, in which the U.S.
has to fill the gaps, by these countries lack of full participation.
Changes in their laws probably will not happen due to their peoples lack of
willingness to participate in cleaning out the "rat nests" of the world. At
least until a few planes drop in an kill a few thousands of their citizens!


"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...

It angers me to see people in this country trashing Germany, Italy, and
Japan for not spending enough on defense. These countries have little
choice
in the matter. The United States, with allies, set limits on the size and
character of their militaries following WWII. As such, it would take
significant changes to their laws to increase the size and capabilities of
their militaries (changes that would not likely be accepted by the USA,
past
allies, or neighboring countries).

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

That would be great! Then they can feed the rest of the world and take the
burden off of the U.S. We wouldn't have to send so much of our tax dollars
out of the U.S.!

--

"Leonard Martin" wrote in message
t...

I'm putting my hope in Europe. It's developing quickly into a great
economic power, and as such it could counter the often-malign influence of
the US. I listen to all news about the European community that appears on
shortwave with the greatest interest.

Leonard