"Bert Craig" wrote in message
t...
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
W5NET wrote:

Blacks have almost the entire continent of Africa and
Hispanics have almost the entire continent of South America.
Perhaps you can explain why either group needs to expand
to this continent, or why it is so wrong to resist that expansion.

What a sorry-assed load of blatant racist crap! Carried a little
farther, yellow people have the entire continent of Asia, white people
have almost the entire continent of Europe..... what Indian, Eskimo, or
Inuit tribe does Dwight Stewart belong to that gives him a right to be
in North America?

With kindest warm personal regards,

de Hans, K0HB

Firmly seconded! Well said Hans.

73 de Bert
WA2SI



Hard to believe, Bert and Hans have fallen for the liberal agenda.

Dan/W4NTI

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message link.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

(snip) If the Civil War wasn't about racism and slavery,
then (snip)


If the Civil War was about slavery, then why was there a war at all?

Because the states with the most slaves could see that eventually they
would either have to face the complete abolition of slavery *or* leave
the Union.

Prior
to the war, the slave states were the majority in both the House and
Senate,
insuring no legislation could be passed to end slavery.

When? Check a map of 1860. There were 19 slave states, of which 4
stayed in the Union. Delaware was a slave state but it did not secede.

Slavery was only
abolished after the war by not allowing the former Confederate States
(which
included several, but not all, of the slave states) to participate in
that
vote.

The Emancipation Proclamation was written in 1863. It legally freed
most (but not all) of the slaves.

The South has a lot to answer for, IMHO. (snip)

Why would they have any more to answer for than the Northern states
that
profited from the sale of slaves?

Which states were they? Slavery was abolished in the North by 1804. In
many northern states it was abolished before the Constitution was
written.

Or more to answer for than those who used
indentured or bound black workers in the North, even into the early
1900's?

Where was that done?

Indentured servitude is in no way comparable to slavery, btw.
Indentured servants *voluntarily* agree to work for a specified period
of time, usually as payment for training or a debt.

Or more to answer for than the many countries around the world which
practiced slavery in this last century (the 1900's), the previous
century,
or in the many centuries before that?

(snip) Modern-day Rebels with the Confederate flags on
their pickup trucks don't do much to heal the wounds of
the past. (snip)

Perhaps because they have absolutely no responsibility for what
happened
in a past long before they were born.

All depends on what that flag is meant to symbolize.

--

Here's what I learned about the War Between the States:

First off, it didn't start as a war to end slavery, but rather as a
war to keep the Union together. Lincoln's early (1861-1862) writings
make it clear his focus *at that time* was on preserving the Union at
almost any cost.

The Constitution, for all its wisdom, did not have any clear provision
for what should be done if one or more state(s) decided that they
simply wanted out of the Union at one point or another.

When the Constitution was written, there was a fairly even balance
between slave and free states. Compromises were reached in order to
get the new Union formed as a country rather than a confederation.
These were compromises with evil, and they could not last forever.

But over time the two parts of the US developed in such radically
different ways that the compromises and balance could no longer be
maintained. It was clear by 1855 or so that slavery's days were
numbered because eventually the abolitionists would reach enough of a
political majority to simply outlaw it everywhere. The trend was clear
- it was only a matter of time. Revolts like John Brown's and the
strengthening abolitionist movement made the moral issue unavoidable,
and the Supremes were starting to come around, too.

So, given the choice between leaving the Union or abolishing slavery,
15 states tried to leave. Some outside the 15 states said "Let them
go", but it was clear to Lincoln and others that if even one state was
allowed to secede, the Union would eventually fragment - and those
fragments would be ripe for takeover from other countries, many of
whom were patiently waiting for the "American experiment" to fail.

Once the war began, however, it slowly became clear to Lincoln and
many others that what had caused the split in the first place was the
idea that a country could proclaim itself "free" and yet allow
slavery. It became clear to him that the only way to preserve the
Union was to abolish slavery completely. Thus the Emancipation
Proclamation and the constitutional amendment.

Is any of the above incorrect?

What's interesting is that Great Britain, from whom the colonies split
on the issue of "all men [sic] are created equal", abolished slavery
years before the USA did.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim,

Much of what you seem to believe is based on the falsehood that the
Emancipation Proclamation
actually freed slaves. The proclamation ONLY APPLIED to those states in
rebellion against the Union.

That's why I wrote:

"It legally freed most (but not all) of the slaves."

It did not free any slaves in the states that didn't secede, but those
states didn't have many slaves anyway. And although it declared most
slaves to be free, in practice almost none of them were actually freed
because the union did not control the land where the slaves actually
were.

Unfortunately those same states were not a part of the union at the time the
proclamation was issued.

That can be argued both ways. Unionists would say they were in
rebellion, secessionists would say they had seceded and were defending
themselves against invasion from a foreign country.

Thus the proclamation applied to no one under the authority and/or control
of the then fragemented Union.

The slavery issue was indeed a major part of the root cause of the war
between the states. BUT a major other cause was that of states rights.

Besides the "right" to have slaves, what rights did the seceding
states want that the Union denied them?

And
whether we would be a republic or a federalist government. The struggle
continues to this day.

We are called a constitutional government, or a republic, or a democracy.
The reality is we are none of , and all of that.

We're not a democracy, because that oft-misused word means that issues
are directly decided by vote of the people. That's not the case for
most issues.

We are a constitutional republic, because the power rests primarily
with elected representatives but is limited by the Constitution.

The founding fathers NEVER
intended for the federal government to have so much authority and control
over the states.

How do you know what they intended?

Even if the folks who came to Philadelphia in 1787 did not intend for
the federal government to have as much power as it grew to have, one
thing is certain: They did not intend for the Constitution to remain a
static, unchangeable document.

Do you really think that a country which proclaims "all men are
created equal, with certain inalienable rights" could long endure if
certain men were allowed to *OWN* certain other men? Particularly when
those *OWNED*, or their ancestors, had been kidnapped?

Even back then, in the case of anything other than a human being, such
actions would be declared "dealing in stolen property" and the goal of
law enforcement would be to return the stolen property to its rightful
owner. Why were human beings treated differently? How can *anyone*
argue that an innocent human being not own his/her own life?

That was a major reason the Southern states left.

So it is claimed. But which rights were they concerned about? Did they
not want to pay federal taxes?

Lincoln
had NO RIGHT, or authorization to FORCE the South to rejoin the union. The
whole war was a major mistake, and to the victors go the spoils, and the
ones that write the history.

That's one interpretation of the Constitution. Another is that states
did not have the right to unilaterally secede from an agreement that
they had voluntarily entered into with the other states.

The US had already tried to operate under a looser system (the
Articles of Confederation) and had found them unworkable.

You may ask how, or why, do I say these things? Because I was raised in the
North, a world class Yankee state of Ohio. I was educated by the
Northerners on this subject. And before I came to Alabama I too believed it
hook line and sinker. No longer.

Then what should Lincoln have done? Simply let the seceding states
leave the Union?

Once that precedent was set, how long before the "United States" split
into more and more fragments? How long before the various fragments
were taken over by other world powers, such as England?

The South was right. We all lost that war, look at the mess we have in DC
now. Think about it.

It certainly would have been better if there could have been a
nonviolent resolution, but I don't see how that could have happened
other than to allow the Union to fragment - and the crime of slavery
to continue.

By compromising with the evil of slavery, the founders delayed the day
of reckoning - and made it that much worse.

And I'll ask again: What rights were the seceding states so adamant
about keeping that they were willing to fight a war in an attempt to
preserve them?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
And I'll ask again: What rights were the seceding states so adamant
about keeping that they were willing to fight a war in an attempt to
preserve them?


From the Southern point of view the North was interfering with the Southern
lifestyle. Folks take that real serious down here.

The North was applying taxes to Southern goods, the North was sending
abolitionists down South to stir up the blacks into insurection.

Basically the South saw the North as interfering in what they had no
business in.

And to this day. The southerners hated Lincoln. And that was the catalist
to kick it all off.

Jim, you need to come down here a bit, you would understand a bit more.


73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote:

When? Check a map of 1860. There were 19 slave states,
of which 4 stayed in the Union. Delaware was a slave state
but it did not secede.


Depends on the definition of a slave state, I guess. There were 18 Union
States and 11 Confederate States. The three border states did not side with
either and four of the slave states stayed in the Union. Even if you believe
the three border states, and all of the Union States (including the four
slave states), would have voted to end slavery, the Union did not have
enough numbers to abolish slavery in 1860 had the South not seceded-
remember, it takes 2/3rds of the Congress to pass an amendment. Since
slavery was not threatened had the South remained in the Union, slavery
obviously did not cause them to secede. In other words, the Civil War was
not about slavery until the Union (then and now) decided to make it so.
Whatever, it is certainly not what the South fought for.


The Emancipation Proclamation was written in 1863. It legally
freed most (but not all) of the slaves.


It freed only the slave in states "now in rebellion against the United
States" and listed the specific states. It did not apply to slaves in any
state that was not part of the Confederacy (it did not apply to slaves in
the Union States). The 13th amendment, passed after the war, ended slavery
throughout the United States. Read how the 13th amendment was passed by
Congress and later ratified.


Which states were they? Slavery was abolished in
the North by 1804. In many northern states it was
abolished before the Constitution was written.


So that makes their accountability less? In essence, you're arguing that
the Northern states are somehow better only because slavery ended there
before it ended in the South.


Here's what I learned about the War Between the States:


Fine. Since there are other messages to respond to, I'll ignore the
remaining nine paragraphs.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Hans K0HB" wrote:
W5NET wrote:

Blacks have almost the entire continent of Africa
and Hispanics have almost the entire continent of
South America. Perhaps you can explain why
either group needs to expand to this continent, or
why it is so wrong to resist that expansion.

What a sorry-assed load of blatant racist crap!


It is "racist crap" to state the obvious, Hans? Do you deny Blacks control
most of Africa and Hispanics most of South America? Why aren't you screaming
about the inherent racism of single ethnic cultures such as those? Why is
your outrage, your words of anger, always directed only at whites?


Carried a little farther, yellow people have the entire
continent of Asia, white people have almost the entire
continent of Europe.....


Yes. And your point is? My point is that many, perhaps even you, openly
and loudly advocate the movement of other races into Europe and North
America, but not whites into Asia, South America, or Africa. Indeed,
whenever whites do move elsewhere, it is immediately characterized as evil,
racist, power hunger, and greedy.


what Indian, Eskimo, or Inuit tribe does Dwight Stewart
belong to that gives him a right to be in North America?


See what I mean? Do you really think whites came to this country solely
to kill indians - that indians had no influence over those events? Why isn't
there even a hint of sorrow in your words for the many whites killed by
indians as they tried to peacefully settle across this country? Why is what
the settlers did somehow worse then what indians did to other indians in
their many wars?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
W5NET wrote:

Blacks have almost the entire continent of Africa and
Hispanics have almost the entire continent of South America.
Perhaps you can explain why either group needs to expand
to this continent, or why it is so wrong to resist that expansion.

What a sorry-assed load of blatant racist crap! Carried a little
farther, yellow people have the entire continent of Asia, white people
have almost the entire continent of Europe..... what Indian, Eskimo, or
Inuit tribe does Dwight Stewart belong to that gives him a right to be
in North America?

With kindest warm personal regards,

de Hans, K0HB


Thank you Hans.

Kim W5TIT

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

And, I believe the immigration laws are
appropriate, (snip)

We allow more immigrants into this country each year than any other
country on Earth, including those countries where most of our immigrants
come from. This mass influx is driving wages down and prices up. Our schools
are overcrowded. Education costs are going up. Medical costs are going up.
Home prices are going up. Land prices are going up. Food prices are going
up.

Salaries are going up.


Crime continues to go up.

I believe that crime rates have actually gone down, Dwight.

Our overall standard of living is going down.

Really? I have trouble accepting your claim.

At the same time, I don't see a single benefit for the average American. Can
you describe one benefit for me or my family, Kim?

I can think of one, Dwight. Those folks work and pay social security
taxes so that you can retire and draw SS benefits. They also pay State
and Federal taxes. Many of them are very bright individuals. Some are
doctors. Some do computer design work. Some do menial labor which most
American workers don't desire.

State and Federal welfare programs need to be
abolished. (snip)

Why would you want to cut off the parachute put in place to help
Americans? If you want to fix welfare, cut off the many thousands of illegal
immigrants who are taking benefits from others.

I don't believe that we owe illegal immigrants anything. Legal
immigrants are entitled to the same protections and benefits which we
enjoy.


Next, get rid of the obvious
bums abusing the welfare system. This two steps alone would cut the cost of
welfare programs dramatically, yet still provide help for those Americans
why really need it.

That has been implemented over the past decade.

There is no danger to US sovereignty. It may not
be a US you like; but it is no danger of losing its
sovereignty. (snip)

Kim, we've allowed millions of immigrants into this country from areas of
the world openly hostile to the United States,...

There are a number of places in this world where governments are hostile
to the United States. That does not indicate that citizens of those
countries are all hostile to the U.S.

...with no method to establish
their views of this country and its people.

On this one, you need to do your homework.


After 9-11, this is clearly not
safe for Americans.

I have trouble accepting your claim at face value. While it may be clear
to you, it isn't at all clear to me.

Can you be so sure it is not a threat to our
sovereignty? This reminds me of an old joke that is perhaps not that far
from the truth; an enemy doesn't have to invade today - they can just fill
out immigration papers for their entire army.

It wouldn't work. They'd all find jobs, start families, buy homes, cars
and TV sets. After they settled in, they could start complaining about
the newer immigrants fouling things up for them.

Blacks have almost the entire continent of Africa and Hispanics have
almost the entire continent of South America. Perhaps you can explain why
either group needs to expand to this continent, or why it is so wrong to
resist that expansion.

I hadn't realized the extent of your racist views, Dwight. Maybe you
have some insider knowledge of organized attempts by Africans or South
Americans to take over "our" country through immigration.

Unless we're prepared to spend lots of tourist
dollars, they're certainly not rushing to open their doors to us.

I lived in four African countries over a period of nearly ten years. In
all of those places, I found thousands of whites who live in harmony
with blacks. I don't know of many African countries who have government
policies aimed at restricting the flow of white residents into their
countries. That aside, I never found an African country where I'd
choose to spend the rest of my life. Many whites have.

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote:

(snip)

Salaries are going up.


Compared to the cost of living, salaries are going down. The minimum wage
is a good example. To keep up with the cost of living increase over the last
twenty-five years (to have the same spending power as 25 years ago), the
minimum wage should be over $19 per hour. By the same token, a person
earning $19 an hour twenty-five years ago should be earning well over $50 an
hour today. Check it out yourself. Look at the minimum wage 25 years ago (or
any typical wage 25 years ago) and increase it by the same percentage that
living costs (rent, house payments, utilities, food, and so on) have
increased over the years since.


I can think of one, Dwight. Those folks work and
pay social security taxes so that you can retire and
draw SS benefits. They also pay State and Federal
taxes. Many of them are very bright individuals.
Some are doctors. Some do computer design work.
Some do menial labor which most American workers
don't desire.


Americans working at those jobs would do the same things (pay taxes and so
on), Dave. Why do we need immigrants to do that? Some of those Americans are
even bright. As for the "menial" jobs, the only reason those jobs are menial
is because employers choose not to pay decent wages to do those jobs. And as
long as employers continue to find cheap labor to fill those jobs, there is
no incentitive whatsoever to increase those wages. If anything, a ready
supply of cheap labor only drives down wages for other jobs, increasing the
number of menial jobs and decreasing jobs that pay decent wages. The direct
result is less well paying jobs for all working class Americans.


I hadn't realized the extent of your racist views, Dwight.
Maybe you have some insider knowledge of organized
attempts by Africans or South Americans to take over
"our" country through immigration.


Obviously, if you twist what is said hard enough, you can call anyone a
racist. I talked about expansion to this country, not "organized attempts"
or "take over." Those were your words. For my reply to the charge of racism,
see the last paragraph below.


I lived in four African countries over a period of nearly ten
years. In all of those places, I found thousands of whites
who live in harmony with blacks. (snip)


A few exceptions don't change the rule, Dave. With the exception of South
Africa, there are few countries in Africa where large numbers of whites work
in government, the military, or in black owned businesses. In South Africa,
whites (the minority) were loudly criticized for taking jobs, money, and
power, away from blacks (the majority). The people leveling that criticism
were not called racist - only those in the majority here are called racist
for saying such things. After blacks gained control of the South African
government, white employees were routinely replaced with blacks throughout
the country. There was no criticism of this. After all, since South Africa
belonged to the blacks (the majority), they should obviously have the jobs,
money, and power. Of course, if a white (the majority) says that here, it is
immediately called racism. Clearly, there is an absurd double-standard when
it comes to the words "racism" and "racist."


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

After blacks gained control of the South African
government, white employees were routinely replaced
with blacks throughout the country. There was no
criticism of this. After all, since South Africa
belonged to the blacks (the majority), they should
obviously have the jobs, money, and power.

So let me make sure I understand your position......

Using your exact words, but interpolating your statement into US
terms, it would read like this: "Since the US government (President,
Vice President, Congress, the Judiciary) is clearly under white
control, then black employees throughout the country should routinely
be replaced by whites. After all, since the US belongs to the whites
(the majority), they should obviously have the jobs, money, and
power."

Does that fairly represent your position?

Good luck on this one now!

With warmest personal regards,

de Hans, K0HB

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net...
"N2EY" wrote:

When? Check a map of 1860. There were 19 slave states,
of which 4 stayed in the Union. Delaware was a slave state
but it did not secede.


Depends on the definition of a slave state, I guess. There were 18 Union
States and 11 Confederate States. The three border states did not side with
either and four of the slave states stayed in the Union.

You're forgetting at least two states. There were 34 in 1861, but
18+11+3 = 32

Let's look at the states/commonwealths as they were in 1861:

Confederate states (formally declared secession, all slave states): 11
(VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, TN, AL, MS, LA, AR, TX)

Union states that did not allow slavery: 19 (ME, VT, NH, MA, RI, CT,
NY, NJ, PA, OH, IN, IL, MI, WS, IA, MN, KS, OR, CA)

Slave states that did not secede: 4 (KY, MO, DE, MD)

West Virginia was admitted as a Union state in 1863 by breaking away
from the rest of Virginia. "Mountaineers Are Always Free!"

Even if you believe
the three border states, and all of the Union States (including the four
slave states), would have voted to end slavery, the Union did not have
enough numbers to abolish slavery in 1860 had the South not seceded-
remember, it takes 2/3rds of the Congress to pass an amendment.

Check your math, Dwight. 23/34 = 67.64..% - more than the 2/3 needed.
It would have taken 23 states to pass such an amendment. 19 nonslave
Union states plus only 4 others would have been enough - and that's
without West Virginia.

Since
slavery was not threatened had the South remained in the Union, slavery
obviously did not cause them to secede.

But slavery *was* threatened, because the trend was clear to see. As
the West and Midwest developed, more and more free states would be
added. Many of the border states, like Delaware, had a low and
decreasing percentage of slaves and
slaveholders, so soon they would become de facto free states. (1860
census shows Delaware having a total population of 112,216, of which
1,798 were slaves. That's 1.6%.)

In other words, the Civil War was
not about slavery until the Union (then and now) decided to make it so.
Whatever, it is certainly not what the South fought for.

Then what *was* the South fighting for? What rights did the 11 states
cherish so greatly that they would secede and fight a war to keep
them?

The Emancipation Proclamation was written in 1863. It legally
freed most (but not all) of the slaves.

It freed only the slave in states "now in rebellion against the United
States" and listed the specific states. It did not apply to slaves in any
state that was not part of the Confederacy (it did not apply to slaves in
the Union States).

No argument there - but where were most of the slaves? In the
Confederate states!

The 13th amendment, passed after the war, ended slavery
throughout the United States. Read how the 13th amendment was passed by
Congress and later ratified.

Do you have a problem with how it was done?

Consider this: According to the 1860 census, the *MAJORITY* of the
population in South Carolina and Mississippi were slaves. Do you think
the state governments of those states accurately represented their
population's views on the issue?

Which states were they? Slavery was abolished in
the North by 1804. In many northern states it was
abolished before the Constitution was written.

So that makes their accountability less?

YES! Because:

A) they recognized the inherent contradiction of proclaiming "all men
are created equal" and then allowing some men to own others.

B) they did not have to be forced to abolish it from outside - they
did it on their own.

C) they did it *generations* before 1861.

In essence, you're arguing that
the Northern states are somehow better only because slavery ended there
before it ended in the South.

Is that not correct? I'm not saying the northern states were without
any guilt or accountability, or that they never had any slaves. The
northern states, by compromising with evil, enabled the slave states
to flourish. If someone does business with a thief, they become an
accessory to the theft, and share the guilt.

It seems like you are arguing that all states are equally guilty,
regardless of when they abolished slavery or how the abolition
happened. Somehow I find that hard to accept.

Here's what I learned about the War Between the States:

Fine. Since there are other messages to respond to, I'll ignore the
remaining nine paragraphs.

Was anything in those nine paragraphs incorrect?

And I'll repeat the key question:

What rights did the 11 states cherish so greatly that they would
secede and fight a war to keep them?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net...
"Dave Heil" wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote:

(snip)

Salaries are going up.

Compared to the cost of living, salaries are going down. The minimum wage
is a good example. To keep up with the cost of living increase over the last
twenty-five years (to have the same spending power as 25 years ago), the
minimum wage should be over $19 per hour. By the same token, a person
earning $19 an hour twenty-five years ago should be earning well over $50 an
hour today. Check it out yourself. Look at the minimum wage 25 years ago (or
any typical wage 25 years ago) and increase it by the same percentage that
living costs (rent, house payments, utilities, food, and so on) have
increased over the years since.

There are all kinds of indicators that both support and contradict
your point, Dwight. But what I see is that the general trend is for
some necessities (housing, medical costs, college education,
insurance, *taxes*) to be increasing in price faster than wages, and
for other items, mostly "luxuries" but some necessities (computers,
electronics, energy, food) to be increasing slower than wages. So what
you get are people who can afford a really sweet ham rig but cannot
afford a house to put it in.

The trend is further muddled by the increasing number of
two-career-by-necessity families. People forget that 30-40 years ago a
family of four could live a very nice middle-class lifestyle on one
middle-class income - and you did not need a master's degree to get
such a job.

There's also the increasing number of things to spend money on. I can
remember a time when, for most people, things like a second car, cable
TV, a computer, and many other things were luxuries. Today they are
almost essentials.

I can think of one, Dwight. Those folks work and
pay social security taxes so that you can retire and
draw SS benefits. They also pay State and Federal
taxes. Many of them are very bright individuals.
Some are doctors. Some do computer design work.
Some do menial labor which most American workers
don't desire.

Americans working at those jobs would do the same things (pay taxes and so
on), Dave. Why do we need immigrants to do that? Some of those Americans are
even bright. As for the "menial" jobs, the only reason those jobs are menial
is because employers choose not to pay decent wages to do those jobs. And as
long as employers continue to find cheap labor to fill those jobs, there is
no incentitive whatsoever to increase those wages. If anything, a ready
supply of cheap labor only drives down wages for other jobs, increasing the
number of menial jobs and decreasing jobs that pay decent wages. The direct
result is less well paying jobs for all working class Americans.

Then what's the answer? Shall we eliminate all immigration, or just
the illegals? Who gets to decide who should be kept out and who should
be admitted, other than obvious threats to security?

There's also an important factor being left out: Many of the "good"
jobs of former eras are being exported. Try to buy a shirt or shoes or
computer that's "Made In USA". If you think immigrant labor is cheap,
look at what the wages are in the developing countries. Remember
NAFTA? Remember the demonstrators at the GATT meetings? What do you
think they're demonstrating against?

How about this example:

Almost 100 years ago, my grandparents came to the United States from
Italy. They left in part because of the 1906 earthquake, but mostly
because they wanted a better life than they could get in Italy at that
time.

They were admitted through Ellis Island, like millions of others. They
wound up in Philadelphia, where they found jobs, learned the language,
built businesses and lives, etc. I don't think any of them even had a
grade-school education. They were from southern Italy, not northern or
western Europe. They didn't speak English when they got here, and some
of them never learned to speak it without an accent. They were Roman
Catholics, a religion widely despised in the US for various reasons.
They had to deal with all of the usual stereotypes applied to their
ethnicity.

Today their grandchildren all have college degrees, good jobs,
successful lives, etc. Typical American dream stuff.

Should they have been admitted to the USA or not?

(I'm sure some folks here would be really happy if they had been kept
out ;-) )

73 de Jim, N2EY

Larry,

I'd gently remind you that there wouldn't be any citizens (well, very few -
only the decendents of the original folks after the revolutionary war) at
all under those rules. My great-grandfather and my grandfather (when he was
7) immigrated to the US in the late 1800s (my dads side). My mother's
grandfather (my great-grandfather) immigrated from Canada. If their
children couldn't become citizens, I wouldn't be one now. Heck, how could
they hold a draft back in WWII with no citizens? Only draft foreigners?

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"

"Hans K0HB" wrote:

So let me make sure I understand your position......

Using your exact words, but interpolating your statement
into US terms, it would read like this: "Since the US
government (President, Vice President, Congress, the
Judiciary) is clearly under white control, then black
employees throughout the country should routinely
be replaced by whites. After all, since the US belongs
to the whites (the majority), they should obviously have
the jobs, money, and power."

Does that fairly represent your position?


No, that's not what I said. That what racist liberals said about blacks
(the majority) in South Africa. Now, let's see if I understand your
position. As I see it, your position is that whites should NOT have the
jobs, money, or power exactly because they are the majority - much of it
should be transferred to minorities instead. Is that what you're trying to
say? If not, what exactly are you trying to say, Hans? Where do whites fit
into your grand vision of the perfect America? Where do the minorities fit
into this vision of the perfect America? Are you sure the others races are
going to agree and comply with your vision? Or do you think you just can
whip them into submission by calling them racist when things don't go your
way?

Your amateurish attempts at social engineering are damn scary to me.
You're assuming the minorities are just going to goose step to your views of
a perfect world - that none have an agenda of their own (an agenda that may
not be so rosy for whites in this country). Blindly following that belief,
and ignoring the inherent racism of the single race cultures these
immigrants often come from (they have no desire for multi-race cultures in
their home countries), you're inviting millions into this country each year.
Pardon me if this causes me concerns (concerns you call racism).

Getting back to South Africa, liberals didn't like the white MINORITY
having jobs, money, or power, in South Africa and they don't like the idea o
f the white MAJORITY having jobs, money, or power, in this country. The only
thing consistent about those contradictory views is a dislike of whites,
minority or majority.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote:

Then what's the answer? Shall we eliminate all immigration,
or just the illegals? Who gets to decide who should be kept
out and who should be admitted, other than obvious threats
to security? (snip)

(snip) Almost 100 years ago, my grandparents came to the
United States from Italy. They left in part because of the 1906
earthquake, but mostly because they wanted a better life than
they could get in Italy at that time.


Times change. Years ago, there were great open spaces throughout America
just waiting for new immigrates to settle. Those shopkeepers, craftsmen,
farmers, laborers, and so on, clearly benefited a new nation. The benefits
today are subtle and the problems (job shortages and so on) more pronounced.
Because of that, we have to cut back on immigration at some point. We can't
have the entire world's population, or even a significant portion of it,
living here. I think we've reached that point - the point where we cut back
on immigration except for the very most extreme cases. And when I say
extreme cases, I mean extreme cases. Economic considerations would not
qualify. Those facing persecution or death in their home country would only
be allowed to stay only as long as those threats exist, after which they
must leave. To fill labor shortages here, we should retrain those already
here.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote:

You're forgetting at least two states. There were 34
in 1861, but 18+11+3 = 32


The other states did not get involved. There were 18 Union States and 11
Confederate States. California and Oregon wanted nothing to do with the
issue or the conflict. The four border states did not secede.


But slavery *was* threatened, because the trend was
clear to see. As the West and Midwest developed, more
and more free states would be added. (snip)


The trend was not so clear. Certainly some of the Midwest states,
dependant on farming, would want slaves.


Then what *was* the South fighting for? What rights did
the 11 states cherish so greatly that they would secede and
fight a war to keep them?


You're looking for an easy answer to a very complex question. I suspect
there were as many reason for the conflict as their were people involved.
Some of the roots of the Civil War dates back to the Revolutionary War
nearly a century earlier, where many Southerners did not want to break with
England, sided with England during the conflict, and were persecuted for
that afterwards. Others objected to the taxes and tarrifs on farm goods
heading overseas, seeing that as similar to what the North objected to
leading up to the Revolutionary War and reducing profits from their primary
markets. Others saw the attempts for fix market prices on farm goods by
Northern firms as a threat to free markets (and were angry the government
did nothing to stop the practice). Others objected to what they saw as
efforts by Northern States to limit the political influence of the Southern
States. The list goes on and on (and I certainly don't have the time to go
on and on here).


No argument there - but where were most of the slaves?
In the Confederate states!


Only if you ignore indentured, bound, or apprentice, workers in the North.
These were people purchased at slave auctions (blacks), or from poor
families (whites), and given contracts to work for years in Northern
factories to hopefully earn their eventual freedom. Ben Franklin and his
maternal grandmother were both once apprentice workers. She married the man
who held her contract. Ben Franklin escaped to Philadelphia (breaking his
contract and the laws). The only differences between this and outright
slavery were the legal papers and the idea of possible freedom some day. Of
course, because of the working conditions, few ever lived long enough to be
free. This practice continued long after slavery was abolished.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Jim Hampton" wrote in
:

Larry,

I'd gently remind you that there wouldn't be any citizens (well, very
few - only the decendents of the original folks after the revolutionary
war) at all under those rules. My great-grandfather and my grandfather
(when he was 7) immigrated to the US in the late 1800s (my dads side).
My mother's grandfather (my great-grandfather) immigrated from Canada.
If their children couldn't become citizens, I wouldn't be one now.
Heck, how could they hold a draft back in WWII with no citizens? Only
draft foreigners?

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"




They can draft foreigners, who can then refuse to actually go on the
ground of 'alienage'. This refusal is grounds to be refused a green card,
but it seems, as far as I can tell, that an alien who already had a green
card would not be affected in any way by refusing the draft. Also, an
alien on a visa could stay as long as they had a current visa, even though
refusing the draft would bar them from ever getting a green card. Bear in
mind, also, that aliens who come here after age 25, like me, can never be
drafted because we never get onto the selective service register. Of
course, there is no draft at present, but all these rules kick in if it is
ever reintroduced.

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

You're forgetting at least two states. There were 34
in 1861, but 18+11+3 = 32

The other states did not get involved. There were 18 Union States and 11
Confederate States. California and Oregon wanted nothing to do with the
issue or the conflict. The four border states did not secede.

They were involved to the extent that they supported the Union cause
financially and politically.

You previously claimed that "slavery was not threatened" because the free
states could not get the needed 2/3 majority. I showed that was simply not true
- it would have taken 23 states of the 34.

It's not a coincidence that 11 states (34-23=11) seceded.

But slavery *was* threatened, because the trend was
clear to see. As the West and Midwest developed, more
and more free states would be added. (snip)

The trend was not so clear. Certainly some of the Midwest states,
dependant on farming, would want slaves.

Not at all! Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois...all farming states
back then, all free.

The simple fact was that more free states than slave states were being
admitted, and that as time went on the days of slavery were numbered - unless
the Union were broken.

Then what *was* the South fighting for? What rights did
the 11 states cherish so greatly that they would secede and
fight a war to keep them?

You're looking for an easy answer to a very complex question.

I'm looking for the facts. Some of those facts may not be things anyone today
is proud of. I'm not proud that the founders could "proclaim liberty" and say
"all men are created equal" and then allow slavery to exist in their country.

I suspect
there were as many reason for the conflict as their were people involved.

I'm looking for the facts.

Some of the roots of the Civil War dates back to the Revolutionary War
nearly a century earlier, where many Southerners did not want to break with
England, sided with England during the conflict, and were persecuted for
that afterwards. Others objected to the taxes and tarrifs on farm goods
heading overseas, seeing that as similar to what the North objected to
leading up to the Revolutionary War and reducing profits from their primary
markets.

The Constitution forbid tariffs and taxes on exports. Only imports could be
taxed or tarriffed. This was obvious economic protectionism.

Others saw the attempts for fix market prices on farm goods by
Northern firms as a threat to free markets (and were angry the government
did nothing to stop the practice).

In very broad terms, the problem was that the North industrialized and the
South stayed agrarian. The North rejected slavery in favor of immigration,
while the South allowed slavery to grow to the extent that by 1860 in at least
two states the number of slaves exceeded the number of free people.

Others objected to what they saw as
efforts by Northern States to limit the political influence of the Southern
States.

That game was played both ways. The original Constitution counted 60% of the
slave population when allocating seats in the House of Representatives - but no
slaves were allowed to vote! So the slave states had a built-in political
advantage over the North, based on the illogical and immoral idea that a slave
was not a human being when it came to rights, but *was* a human being - or
rather 60% of a human being - when it came time to determine the political
population.

Was that fair in any way?

The list goes on and on (and I certainly don't have the time to go
on and on here).

The point is simple: Slavery was at the bottom of all those causes. It was the
root cause of the differences in economy, politics and culture that caused 11
states to secede.

No argument there - but where were most of the slaves?
In the Confederate states!

Only if you ignore indentured, bound, or apprentice, workers in the North.

Those were not slaves.

These were people purchased at slave auctions (blacks), or from poor
families (whites), and given contracts to work for years in Northern
factories to hopefully earn their eventual freedom.

They had *contracts* - BIG difference!

Which is completely different from being enslaved *forever*, together with all
of your children. Most indentured servants worked out their contracts and
became free. Most slaves never did.

Indentured and bound workers were (for the most part) working off debts. It was
common practice for poor European immigrants to indenture themselves for 7
years to pay for their transatlantic passage. After that 7 years, they were
free.

Apprentices traded their labor for education, working a set number of years in
order to learn a skilled trade.

In most cases those workers entered into the contract *voluntarily*. And the
contract had a definite time limit.

Those contracts were valid because both parties got something of value.

Slaves, on the other hand, were simply *stolen* from their homes by raiders and
shipped off. They received *nothing* for their work and had no choice in the
matter. There was no limit on their service.

Ben Franklin and his
maternal grandmother were both once apprentice workers.

Were they dragged from their homes in chains and sent thousands of miles away,
to work the rest of their lives in a strange place with little hope of freedom?
Or was it a voluntary, temporary agreement for economic and educational
reasons?

She married the man
who held her contract.

How many slaves did that?

Ben Franklin escaped to Philadelphia (breaking his
contract and the laws).

Yep - he stole a few years labor from the man who held the contract. I
understand that later on he paid off the contract.

The only differences between this and outright
slavery were the legal papers and the idea of possible freedom some day.

WRONG!

There's also the fact that the apprentices were not stolen from their homes and
dragged away against their will.

Of
course, because of the working conditions, few ever lived long enough to be
free. This practice continued long after slavery was abolished.

That's simply not true. Most indentured servants worked out their 7 years and
were freed.

In fact, indentured servants were used widely in the colonies before the
revolution, but in the South the practice became unpopular because the
plantation owners were always having to buy new contracts and the now freed
indentured servants were setting up their own plantations using skills and
knowledge learned while indentured.

We still have contract labor today. Actors, athletes and executives, to name a
few, sign contracts where they agree to work for a certain period of time and
receive certain benefits. Both sides are legally bound by the contract.

To equate the immoral horror of slavery with contract labor is simply not valid
in any way.

"N2EY" wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote:

(my comments here snipped)

I'm looking for the facts. Some of those facts may not be
things anyone today is proud of. I'm not proud that the
founders could "proclaim liberty" and say "all men are
created equal" and then allow slavery to exist in their
country.

In very broad terms, the problem was that the North
industrialized and the South stayed agrarian. The North
rejected slavery in favor of immigration, while the South
allowed slavery to grow to the extent that by 1860 in
at least two states the number of slaves exceeded the
number of free people.


Blacks were obviosuly held as slaves in the South (nobody has denied that)
and I've acknowledged that slavery played a role in the Civil War (the Emac.
Proc. shows that). I simply don't agree slavery was the cause and have given
some reasons why - which you've either ignored or tried to downplay. At the
same time, you've pointed your finger at everyone else (the South, the
founders, and just about anyone else you can think of) while ignoring or
downplaying your own State's involvement in the slave trade. Above, you said
the North rejected slavery. In another message, you said they did so before
they were forced to do so. Both are true. But what you didn't say is that
both are just barely true when it comes to your State. According to the
Central Pennsylvania African American History Web Site
(www.afrolumens.org/slavery/), quoting from the Pennsylvania State Archives
(Harrisburg), slaves were owned in Pennsylvania as late as 1842, only 18
years before the Civil War. Seems like your State got out of the slave trade
just in the nick of time - just in the nick of time for you to look down
your nose at others today.


Only if you ignore indentured, bound, or apprentice,
workers in the North.

Those were not slaves.


It was simply slavery by a different name. Most were sold into indentured
servitude (especially the very poor and blacks) and were held in that
situation by force of law. Most blacks were sold into lifelong servitude.
Indentured workers serving fixed terms were rarely paid, instead promised
money or land afterwards. Of those who were supposedly paid, the money was
often collected back to cover the costs of the employer. Their working and
living conditions were horrible. Many, if not most, were abused by their
employers and, because of working conditions or abuse, many died before
completing their indenture. Of those who did serve out their terms, evidence
suggests most remained poor afterwards, routinely deprived of the things
they were promised. [Source: America, A Narrative History, pgs 118-121,
Norton & Company Publishing, New York/London]


They had *contracts* - BIG difference!


See paragraph above.


Indentured and bound workers were (for the most part)
working off debts. It was common practice for poor
European immigrants to indenture themselves for 7
years to pay for their transatlantic passage. After that 7
years, they were free.


Yes, probably half the white settlers from England, Ireland, and Germany,
entered the country using this method. But we're talking about blacks, not
white settlers from Europe (the living and working conditions were rarely
the same).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote:

(snip)

Salaries are going up.

Compared to the cost of living, salaries are going down. The minimum wage
is a good example. To keep up with the cost of living increase over the last
twenty-five years (to have the same spending power as 25 years ago), the
minimum wage should be over $19 per hour. By the same token, a person
earning $19 an hour twenty-five years ago should be earning well over $50 an
hour today. Check it out yourself. Look at the minimum wage 25 years ago (or
any typical wage 25 years ago) and increase it by the same percentage that
living costs (rent, house payments, utilities, food, and so on) have
increased over the years since.

Salaries are going up. Buying power for consumer items is up. TV's,
VCR's, DVD players, computers, microwave ovens and the like are dirt
cheap. Ham gear, in terms of hours worked to purchase it, is extremely
inexpensive. Houses cost more but are generally much larger than in the
past.

I can think of one, Dwight. Those folks work and
pay social security taxes so that you can retire and
draw SS benefits. They also pay State and Federal
taxes. Many of them are very bright individuals.
Some are doctors. Some do computer design work.
Some do menial labor which most American workers
don't desire.

Americans working at those jobs would do the same things (pay taxes and so
on), Dave.

Do some research on the number of retirees and the number of workers
paying taxes to support those retirees.


Why do we need immigrants to do that?

Because there aren't enough Americans born to do it.

Some of those Americans are
even bright.

....and some aren't. Having been back in the U.S. for about 3 1/2 years,
I've encountered quite a number who just aren't that bright.

As for the "menial" jobs, the only reason those jobs are menial
is because employers choose not to pay decent wages to do those jobs.

No, that isn't correct. Moving dirt is menial work. Lifting boxes is
menial. Clerking at a convenience store is menial. Employers choose
not to pay folks in those positions more than the jobs are worth.


And as
long as employers continue to find cheap labor to fill those jobs, there is
no incentitive whatsoever to increase those wages. If anything, a ready
supply of cheap labor only drives down wages for other jobs, increasing the
number of menial jobs and decreasing jobs that pay decent wages. The direct
result is less well paying jobs for all working class Americans.

So let's all make 30 bucks per hour and then wonder why the cost of
everything skyrockets, huh? Americans want good pay and they want the
price of everything to be dirt cheap. Tell us how to achieve both of
those. Then explain why everything wrong with our economy can be laid
at the feet of black, hispanic or Asian immigrants.

I hadn't realized the extent of your racist views, Dwight.
Maybe you have some insider knowledge of organized
attempts by Africans or South Americans to take over
"our" country through immigration.

Obviously, if you twist what is said hard enough, you can call anyone a
racist.

No twisting was necessary. You laid it all out before us.


I talked about expansion to this country, not "organized attempts"
or "take over." Those were your words. For my reply to the charge of racism,
see the last paragraph below.

We aren't discussing my words, we're discussing your words.

I lived in four African countries over a period of nearly ten
years. In all of those places, I found thousands of whites
who live in harmony with blacks. (snip)

A few exceptions don't change the rule, Dave.

What "few exceptions"? I wrote of thousands of whites in four African
countries.


With the exception of South
Africa, there are few countries in Africa where large numbers of whites work
in government, the military, or in black owned businesses.

I submit that you don't know what you're talking about. In many cases,
the whites build or operate a business employing hundreds of Africans in
all kinds of jobs.


In South Africa,
whites (the minority) were loudly criticized for taking jobs, money, and
power, away from blacks (the majority).

Poppycock! For taking which jobs were whites criticized? For taking
what money were whites criticized?


The people leveling that criticism
were not called racist - only those in the majority here are called racist
for saying such things.

You're making this stuff up.

After blacks gained control of the South African
government, white employees were routinely replaced with blacks throughout
the country.

That statement just isn't true.


There was no criticism of this. After all, since South Africa
belonged to the blacks (the majority), they should obviously have the jobs,
money, and power. Of course, if a white (the majority) says that here, it is
immediately called racism.


There are large numbers of white-owned businesses and farms in South
Africa. The white owners provide jobs for blacks. No one in South
Africa seems poised to change that and to do a full "Robert Mugabe" ala
Zimbabwe.

Clearly, there is an absurd double-standard when
it comes to the words "racism" and "racist."

....or there is a clear misunderstanding of what is taking place in
Africa (both inside and outside of your only example, South Africa) by
you.

Dave K8MN

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

As I see it, your position is that whites should NOT have the
jobs, money, or power exactly because they are the majority - much of it
should be transferred to minorities instead.

Dwight,

You have a vivid imagination, but it's damned distorted! Since I
haven't stated my position, whatever you "see" is something that
you're making up on the fly. (In short, you don't have a clue.)

To save you the effort of further imagining, here is my position in
three words.

"Race is irrelevant."

You seem to place great emphasis on race/ethnic background; ipso
facto, you're a racist.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

As I see it, your position is that whites should NOT have the
jobs, money, or power exactly because they are the majority - much of it
should be transferred to minorities instead.

Dwight,

You have a vivid imagination, but it's damned distorted! Since I
haven't stated my position, whatever you "see" is something that
you're making up on the fly. (In short, you don't have a clue.)

To save you the effort of further imagining, here is my position in
three words.

"Race is irrelevant."

You seem to place great emphasis on race/ethnic background; ipso
facto, you're a racist.

A review of any U.S. amateur radio periodical of the past half
century will show photographs that U.S. amateur radio
licensees are essentially white and male.

Ergo, U. S. amateur radio is racist? :-)

LHA

"Hans K0HB" wrote:

To save you the effort of further imagining, here is
my position in three words.

"Race is irrelevant."

You seem to place great emphasis on race/ethnic
background; ipso facto, you're a racist.


You only say that because I'm white. If that were not the case, you'd be
saying the same thing to Condoleezza Rice (Nat, Sec, Advisor), Colin Powell
(Sec, of State), Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Mary Berry (Chair, US Com. on
Civil Rights), and a very long list of other minorities who think race and
race issues are very relevant in this country. Why should it be any less so
for whites? In reality, your open criticism of whites who talk about race,
without criticism of other races who do the same, only demonstrates your own
racism towards other whites.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dave Heil" wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote:

Americans working at those jobs would do the
same things (pay taxes and so on), Dave.

Do some research on the number of retirees and the
number of workers paying taxes to support those retirees.

Why do we need immigrants to do that?

Because there aren't enough Americans born to do it.


What you fail to point out is how much those retirees paid into the system
over several decades of their lives to help support their own retirement,
only to have the government now say their isn't any money available because
it was spent on something else. The problem isn't the number of retirees -
it's the spending habits of this government. Now it's time for this
government to put that money back by cutting some of today's spending (a few
less military weapons should do it) instead of supposedly trying to gather
more people to collect taxes from.


No, that isn't correct. Moving dirt is menial work. Lifting
boxes is menial. Clerking at a convenience store is menial.
Employers choose not to pay folks in those positions more
than the jobs are worth.


And, by having a ready supply of cheap labor to fill those jobs, employers
ensure those jobs are not worth much. Employment and wages are simply
matters of supply and demand, Dave. By creating a glut in the workforce,
employers are able to pay less wages and still find employees to fill those
jobs. After all, people have to work to survive and employers know it.
Today, while business profits are astronomically high, working families are
struggling to pay bills and cover their massive debts (while those business
owners buy yachts and huge homes for their families). And now, to add insult
to injury, those employers financially support political candidates that
will pass legislation to enable millions of immigrants to enter the country,
creating an even larger glut in the workforce so business can pay even less
wages and make even higher profits. And if anyone objects to this massive
immigration, they're called racist. You can call me racist all you want - it
certainly isn't going to stop me from speaking out against this nonsense.


So let's all make 30 bucks per hour and then wonder why
the cost of everything skyrockets, huh? Americans want
good pay and they want the price of everything to be dirt
cheap. Tell us how to achieve both of those. (snip)


They've done it in other places around the world. Europeans make decent
wages, pay no more taxes than here (when you add in ALL our taxes - local,
state, federal, and so on), and consumer goods are not that much more
expensive then here (gas prices in Europe are high solely because of
government efforts to control pollution). They've done the same in the
wealthy countries of Asia. Why is it so impossible for this great country to
do what other countries have already done - provide decent wages for
workers, provide decent (not astronomical) profits for business, and keep
market prices reasonable?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Hans K0HB" wrote:

To save you the effort of further imagining, here is
my position in three words.

"Race is irrelevant."

You seem to place great emphasis on race/ethnic
background; ipso facto, you're a racist.


You only say that because I'm white.

Nope, I don't care what color you call yourself. I type slower so you
can read my lips -----

"R a c e i s i r r e l e v a n t."

With kindest personal regards,

de Hans, K0HB

Dwight Stewart wrote:



You only say that because I'm white. If that were not the case, you'd be
saying the same thing to Condoleezza Rice (Nat, Sec, Advisor), Colin Powell
(Sec, of State), Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Mary Berry (Chair, US Com. on
Civil Rights), and a very long list of other minorities who think race and
race issues are very relevant in this country. Why should it be any less so
for whites? In reality, your open criticism of whites who talk about race,
without criticism of other races who do the same, only demonstrates your own
racism towards other whites.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Lets see, we can have an all black mayors conference, but just listen to
the uproar from all the Jesse Jackson idiots if we tried to have an all
white mayors conference. We can have a Miss Black America contest but
what a howl there would be if we attempted to have a Miss White America
contest. Yea Hans, it is just the whites that are racist.

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote:

Americans working at those jobs would do the
same things (pay taxes and so on), Dave.

Do some research on the number of retirees and the
number of workers paying taxes to support those retirees.

Why do we need immigrants to do that?

Because there aren't enough Americans born to do it.

What you fail to point out is how much those retirees paid into the system
over several decades of their lives to help support their own retirement,
only to have the government now say their isn't any money available because
it was spent on something else.

Lucky I failed to point that out because it simply isn't true. When
Social Security began, where did the money to pay retirees of its early
years come from? It didn't come from those folks because they never
paid much in. It came in advance from the coffers of government. What
was paid in by early workers covered under Social Security went to pay
for the retirement of future workers. Social Security was never, by the
way, designed to be a full retirement package. It was designed to
supplement what a worker saved.


The problem isn't the number of retirees -
it's the spending habits of this government. Now it's time for this
government to put that money back by cutting some of today's spending (a few
less military weapons should do it) instead of supposedly trying to gather
more people to collect taxes from.

You've got a problem comprehending simple math. There are too few
workers contributing to the system and too many retirees drawing from
it.

No, that isn't correct. Moving dirt is menial work. Lifting
boxes is menial. Clerking at a convenience store is menial.
Employers choose not to pay folks in those positions more
than the jobs are worth.

And, by having a ready supply of cheap labor to fill those jobs, employers
ensure those jobs are not worth much.

Those jobs were never worth much and they'll never be worth much.


Employment and wages are simply
matters of supply and demand, Dave. By creating a glut in the workforce,
employers are able to pay less wages and still find employees to fill those
jobs.

Everybody wants high wages for any kind of work. High wages lead to
high prices for products and services. Yet no one wants to pay higher
prices for products and services because that would make their wages
worth less. Your stuck in an endless loop, Dwight.

After all, people have to work to survive and employers know it.

....and workers know it.

Today, while business profits are astronomically high, working families are
struggling to pay bills and cover their massive debts (while those business
owners buy yachts and huge homes for their families).

You're painting that picture from imagination, Dwight. I have a cousin
who owns a small town pharmacy which employs three people other than
himself. He has yet to buy his yacht and huge home but he has been in
business for almost twenty years. There is a fellow here in town who
owns a hardware store who will close it and retire next year because he
can find no one who will buy the business. He has no huge home and no
yacht. He has managed to make a living for some decades.


And now, to add insult
to injury, those employers financially support political candidates that
will pass legislation to enable millions of immigrants to enter the country,
creating an even larger glut in the workforce so business can pay even less
wages and make even higher profits.

Both the Democrats and Republicans support continued immigration because
they can read the writing on the wall.


And if anyone objects to this massive
immigration, they're called racist.

Only if in objecting they raise an alarm only over Hispanic, Asian and
African immigrants.

You can call me racist all you want - it
certainly isn't going to stop me from speaking out against this nonsense.

You can be a racist all you want. That isn't going to stop me from
calling you one.


So let's all make 30 bucks per hour and then wonder why
the cost of everything skyrockets, huh? Americans want
good pay and they want the price of everything to be dirt
cheap. Tell us how to achieve both of those. (snip)

They've done it in other places around the world. Europeans make decent
wages, pay no more taxes than here (when you add in ALL our taxes - local,
state, federal, and so on), and consumer goods are not that much more
expensive then here (gas prices in Europe are high solely because of
government efforts to control pollution).

Those holes in your knowledge base are gaping ones. My wife worked on
the local economy in Finland in the mid-1990's. She paid 42% of her
income in income tax. Her overtime was taxed at 50%. We paid 21% in
Value Added Tax on most items and 17% VAT on food items.

We just got back from a trip to Finland. The same dishwashing liquid we
buy here is double the price there. A 1.5 liter Pepsi sells for the
price we pay for 3 liters. A half liter bottle of Scotch sells for
$13.00 A tiny washing machine which would hold no more than half what
our American machine holds runs $500. A mixed drink in the average bar
runs ten bucks while a half liter beer will set you back about four
clams. The cheapest car on the market, a Russian Lada (a Fiat clone) is
$20,000. Gasoline prices are about $4.50 per gallon, not because of
intent to reduce pollution but because a) Finland imports 100% of its
petroleum and b) the Finnish government charges high additional taxes.
Now, I'll entertain additional lectures from you on how the Europeans do
things.


They've done the same in the
wealthy countries of Asia. Why is it so impossible for this great country to
do what other countries have already done - provide decent wages for
workers, provide decent (not astronomical) profits for business, and keep
market prices reasonable?

Why not just quit whining, Dwight?

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote:

Lucky I failed to point that out because it simply isn't
true. When Social Security began, where did the
money to pay retirees of its early years come from?
It didn't come from those folks because they never
paid much in. It came in advance from the coffers
of government. (snip)


You really need to study up on Social Security, Dave. You have to pay so
much into the system before you're eligible to collect a dime. When Social
Security first started, people were not able to collect for several years
(how many years depended on how much they were able to pay into the system
each year). With the additional interest from that money, the system was
supposed to pay for itself. Of course, there was no interest after the money
was spent elsewhere.


You've got a problem comprehending simple math.
There are too few workers contributing to the system
and too many retirees drawing from it.


Oh, I understand math very well. You just don't understand the Social
Security system, which is why your math is flawed.


Everybody wants high wages for any kind of work.
High wages lead to high prices for products and
services. (snip)


Nobody, other than you, is talking about "high" wages, Dave. What I'm
talking about is "decent" wages that have not been artificially reduced by a
created workforce glut. Today, even a two income family would have a hard
time getting by on the minimum wage. They certainly wouldn't be able to put
much money aside for their future so you can kill off that Social Security
system you dislike so much. While you're traveling around town, take a good
look at those minimum wage, or near minimum age, workers. A growing number
of them are middle age or older (not young kids). Many were pushed out of
decent paying jobs by industry moving overseas and a growing glut in the
workforce here. How are these people going to provide for their families and
still put away money for the future?


Both the Democrats and Republicans support continued
immigration because they can read the writing on the wall.


Both parties support immigration because it provides direct benefits to
them and/or their financial supporters. It provides no benefit to the
American worker or American families. Indeed, it harms both of those.


Only if in objecting they raise an alarm only over Hispanic,
Asian and African immigrants.


They're the primary immigrants today, Dave. When talking about
immigration, who would you rather I talk about - Aboriginal Australians?


Those holes in your knowledge base are gaping ones. My
wife worked on the local economy in Finland in the mid-
1990's. She paid 42% of her income in income tax. Her
overtime was taxed at 50%. We paid 21% in Value
Added Tax on most items and 17% VAT on food items.

We just got back from a trip to Finland. The same dish-
washing liquid we buy here is double the price there. A
1.5 liter Pepsi sells for the price we pay for 3 liters. A half
liter bottle of Scotch sells for $13.00 A tiny washing
machine which would hold no more than half what our
American machine holds runs $500.


And I've lived in Europe (Germany, Switzerland, Italy, and the UK) almost
half of my adult life and worked for European companies for much of that
time. While prices may be that high in Finland, what you say certainly is
not the case throughout Europe. Taxes were never even close to that high and
neither was the sales tax. As for your dishwashing liquid, I'm sure your
imported liquid was fairly expensive, as are all imported products in any
country. We paid more for our imported tea, but that doesn't mean there
wasn't cheaper local brands on the store shelves. And, finally, if you paid
that much for a washing machine, you got ripped off. We paid that much for
stackable washer/dryer sets in both Germany and the UK. Either Finland has
extraordinary prices or you need to learn how to shop better on the European
economy.


The cheapest car on the market, a Russian Lada (a Fiat clone)
is $20,000. (snip)


Nonsense. Throughout Continental Europe, you can buy a BMW 315 or 318 for
that price. The Fiat "duck" is only about $4,500 (my wife wanted one). While
we were in Germany, we purchased a darn fast, and darn comfortable,
French-made Citroen BX-19GT for less than $16,000 (loaded, with even air
conditioning for those trips to Southern Europe).


Why not just quit whining, Dwight?


Why not just quit listening, Dave?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"JJ" wrote in message
...
Dwight Stewart wrote:



You only say that because I'm white. If that were not the case, you'd
be
saying the same thing to Condoleezza Rice (Nat, Sec, Advisor), Colin
Powell
(Sec, of State), Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Mary Berry (Chair, US Com.
on
Civil Rights), and a very long list of other minorities who think race
and
race issues are very relevant in this country. Why should it be any less
so
for whites? In reality, your open criticism of whites who talk about
race,
without criticism of other races who do the same, only demonstrates your
own
racism towards other whites.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Lets see, we can have an all black mayors conference, but just listen to
the uproar from all the Jesse Jackson idiots if we tried to have an all
white mayors conference. We can have a Miss Black America contest but
what a howl there would be if we attempted to have a Miss White America
contest. Yea Hans, it is just the whites that are racist.


It behooves all of us to be just as indignant about racism in any venue,
regardless of ethnicity of the racist.

That having been said, I can understand some of the seclusion each race
enjoys from others, IF the purpose is cultural. What is specific to a black
mayors conference are those things specifically related to black issues in
the community(ies) they represent. I am certain that if there were issues
that needed addressing in a "whites only" venue, then you'd see a white
mayors conference and, honestly, I am not so sure there isn't one. What we
may find generally attractive in a representative for the United States in a
Miss America, is totally different from what the Black/Negro/Colored
(depending on the part of society and geographical/historical perspective
you come from) find in a representative specific to Black America.

I also don't see those things as racist and I am wondering if you really do.
I mean, the "race" card--as its so affectionately come to be known--can be
played anywhere. And, there are people just stammering to be offended, no
matter what. I disregard them. I don't see that a all male organization is
necessarily discriminatory, either. Do you? I would hope not and, if you
do not, then why is there a problem for you with a all _________ (whatever
race) organization? What about a sports organization that won't allow
women? What about.....???

Kim W5TIT

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Dave Heil" wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote:

Americans working at those jobs would do the
same things (pay taxes and so on), Dave.

Do some research on the number of retirees and the
number of workers paying taxes to support those retirees.

Why do we need immigrants to do that?

Because there aren't enough Americans born to do it.

What you fail to point out is how much those retirees paid into the system
over several decades of their lives to help support their own retirement,
only to have the government now say their isn't any money available because
it was spent on something else.

It's important to remember that the Social Security system doesn't just support
retirees. Also, there is no "means test" - folks over a certain age get their
SS retirement benefits no matter how much income they have, whether it be from
investment or employment.

Another factor is that as our life expectancies increase, more and more people
outlive their SS contributions. If you're in an mood to do a search or
calculations, figure out the following hypothetical retiree:

- Current Age: 71
- SS contributions: Maximum required by law at the time, from age 22 to age 65
- Interest rate: 2.5%/yr

Figure out how much that person paid in over his.her working lifetime, and how
much it would all add up to 6 years ago, when that person retired.

Then see how many years it will take that retiree to use up all of the money
he/she paid in - with interest.

Then do the calcs agaib with an 81 year old.

The problem isn't the number of retirees -
it's the spending habits of this government.

Maybe. Some would say it't the taxing habits of the govt.

Now it's time for this
government to put that money back by cutting some of today's spending (a few
less military weapons should do it) instead of supposedly trying to gather
more people to collect taxes from.

You might want to look up where the military budget actually goes. A big
percentage of it is spent on pay and benefits to military personnel, retirees
and dependents.

And which weapons systems would you eliminate?

No, that isn't correct. Moving dirt is menial work. Lifting
boxes is menial. Clerking at a convenience store is menial.
Employers choose not to pay folks in those positions more
than the jobs are worth.

And, by having a ready supply of cheap labor to fill those jobs, employers
ensure those jobs are not worth much. Employment and wages are simply
matters of supply and demand, Dave. By creating a glut in the workforce,
employers are able to pay less wages and still find employees to fill those
jobs. After all, people have to work to survive and employers know it.

Yep. All true - but it's not the whole story. There are lots of other factors
besides immigrants, such as:

- The decline in the percentage of unionized workers has made it possible for
employers to ease off on wages and benefits. This effect goes way beyond union
employees, because many employers will pay decent wages and benefits in order
to avoid becoming unionized.

- The influx of women and minorities into the labor force increases competition
for jobs and education. But it's better than discrimination!

- Many jobs have been exported to countries where labor is cheaper. Some big
companies have moved their customer service centers to places like India, the
Phillippines and Singapore, to name a few. Look inside your computer and see
where most of the components were made - it ain't the USA!

- Technology has reduced the number of unskilled and semi-skilled jobs, and
revolutionized the way much work is done.

When I first started in engineering, everything was drawn by hand, usually by
draftspeople who made a decent wage. Then came CADD systems, which at first
were very expensive and only used by large companies. Today hand drafting is
almost completely gone, and CADD systems are within reach of almost anyone with
a desktop. The draftsperson has been replace by the CADD operator, whose
productivity is much greater - meaning fewer of them are needed. Many CADD
tasks are done by designers and engineers themselves, too.

Today, while business profits are astronomically high, working families are
struggling to pay bills and cover their massive debts (while those business
owners buy yachts and huge homes for their families).

SOME business profits are astronomically high. Others are struggling to
survive. And don't forget ROI...

And now, to add insult
to injury, those employers financially support political candidates that
will pass legislation to enable millions of immigrants to enter the country,
creating an even larger glut in the workforce so business can pay even less
wages and make even higher profits.

And people vote for those politicians because they're "pro-business".

And if anyone objects to this massive
immigration, they're called racist.

That depends on how the objection is raised.

If someone says that we need to limit immigration across the board, I don;t
think anyone will call them a racist.

But if someone targets particular groups and points out that they have all or
most of another continent....

You can call me racist all you want - it
certainly isn't going to stop me from speaking out against this nonsense.

So let's all make 30 bucks per hour and then wonder why
the cost of everything skyrockets, huh? Americans want
good pay and they want the price of everything to be dirt
cheap. Tell us how to achieve both of those. (snip)

They've done it in other places around the world. Europeans make decent
wages, pay no more taxes than here (when you add in ALL our taxes - local,
state, federal, and so on), and consumer goods are not that much more
expensive then here (gas prices in Europe are high solely because of
government efforts to control pollution). They've done the same in the
wealthy countries of Asia.

You might want to check into what the average person's standard of living is
like in many of those countries - particularly when it comes to how much a
house or car costs. Dave, K8MN has lived in many foreign countries...

Why is it so impossible for this great country to
do what other countries have already done - provide decent wages for
workers, provide decent (not astronomical) profits for business, and keep
market prices reasonable?

It's not impossible - the question is, what do you want to give up? Or should I
Say - what are *we* willing to give up?

For example, tonight on NBC there is a popular half hour TV comedy whose 6 main
characters are paid 1 million dollars each - per episode! Are we willing to
give up the free market that makes such salaries possible?

Are we willing to give up low prices on imported goods and pay a lot more for
American made things? Drive a smaller car, live in a smaller house, walk more,
fly less, own fewer things, make things last and last because we can't afford
new ones?

Are we willing to have protectionist trade and labor policies and all that goes
with them?

Lemme relate this to ham radio for ya.

I recall a time when imported amateur radio equipment was very rare here in the
USA. Often it was disguised - the "Tempo One", sold by Henry Radio, was really
a Yaesu FT-200. Many "Lafayette" items were imports. But most US hams used
US-made ham gear.

And that equipment was expensive! Dig up an old catalog and see what a middle
of the line station cost 25, 35, 45 years ago - and then adjust those costs to
the income of an average family. Yes, there were hams with Collins gear - and
just as many with much, much less.

In the early 1970s, imported ham gear began to take on the American market. The
imported stuff was simply less expensive than USA-made equipment with the same
features. Some old line US manufacturers got out of the amateur market, others
fought on for a while, etc. One new manufacturer (Ten-Tec) made a go of it, but
lags far behind Ikensu in total sales.

Now we have far fewer manufacturers of amateur equipment in the USA than 30+
years ago, even though the number of US hams is far greater. In the mid '60s,
if you wanted a 100W class HF SSB transceiver that was "Made In USA", you could
choose from Collins, Drake, Hallicrafters, National, SBE, and Heathkit, to name
just the popular ones. Today you can choose Ten Tec or Elecraft.

Some say that American companies could not handle the transition to solid
state, but the success of SBE (solid state in the early '60s) Ten Tec and rigs
like the Drake TR-7 disprove that. The problem was simply economic - the
Japanese could make ham gear of a given level of performance for less money.

Should the USA have enacted heavy import duties on electronics to protect the
American manufacturers? Should American hams have simply refused to buy the
imported stuff, no matter how good it was and how little it cost?

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

Why is it so impossible for this great country to
do what other countries have already done - provide decent wages for
workers, provide decent (not astronomical) profits for business, and keep
market prices reasonable?

Government does not and cannot provide prosperity.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
It behooves all of us to be just as indignant about
racism in any venue, regardless of ethnicity of the
racist.


But whites are often the sole receipient of that indignation, Kim. Show me
a message anywhere in any of these newsgroups at any time where you've
expressed any indignation whatsoever about the racism of any other racial
group. If you're typical, I seriously doubt you can do so. Instead, you
attempt to explain away the racism of others like you've done below.


That having been said, I can understand some of the
seclusion each race enjoys from others, IF the purpose
is cultural. What is specific to a black mayors
conference are those things specifically related to black
issues in the community(ies) they represent. (snip)


I thought a mayor is elected to represent the whole community, not solely
the "black issues in the community(ies) they represent." What about the
whites issues in the communities they represent? Why aren't those black
mayors getting together to discuss those? Since those black mayors won't,
who does address those issues? Absolutely nobody is the only answer. If a
white mayor, or any other politician (black or white, police chief to
president), expresses even a hint of concern for white issues, the word
"racist" is immediately thrown around. In the end, a concern for whites is
just about an ultimate sin in this government. And it is going to stay that
way until whites start demanding some representation for their issues in
this government.


I am certain that if there were issues that needed addressing
in a "whites only" venue, then you'd see a white mayors
conference and, honestly, I am not so sure there isn't one.


Be serious, Kim. First, I suspect a conference like that would be
considered illegal by the Justice Department - minorities can but whites
cannot. Second, if such a conference were held, groups throughout the
country would be out outraged, demonstrations would be held, lawsuits would
be filed, and people like you would be running around screaming your
indignation again.


What we may find generally attractive in a representative for
the United States in a Miss America, is totally different from
what the Black/Negro/Colored (depending on the part of
society and geographical/historical perspective you come from)
find in a representative specific to Black America.


And that justifies the intentional and specific exclusion of other races
in those pageants? Why would what you say not be true for whites, yet such
an event held by whites which specificially excludes other races is illegal.

And I'll add to JJ's examples. What about black colleges which exclude
other races? What about black owned businesses with not a single white
employee in the entire building (many in my town alone)? What about the
"Negro College Fund" which offers benefits only to blacks. What about "Black
Entertainment Television?" I could list more. The point is that it would all
be illegal (discrimination) if done by whites.


I don't see that a all male organization is necessarily
discriminatory, either. (snip)


If the goals of that male-only organization were to promote the political
and/or social advancement of males, would you still hold that same opinion?


What about a sports organization that won't allow women?


Based on physical strength, not racial, social, or ethnic, considerations,
Kim. There is a huge difference.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Dwight, I don't know how it is where you are, but
here there is no one willing to do the work a lot of
our immigrant population are willing to do--and do.


Nonsense, Kim. The reason most people aren't willing to do those jobs is
because the wages are so low. Offer decent wages and people will gladly do
those jobs. There are non-immigrant workers throughout this country busting
their butts in construction jobs, laborer jobs, crappy jobs, and dangerious
jobs. They do so because the wages are decent. My god, there are even people
willing to walk into a nuclear reactor if the pay is good enough. Offer
decent wages for almost ANY job and I'm fully convinced there will be plenty
of non-immigrant workers willing to do those jobs. I see nothing to even
suggest otherwise.


I remember many times asking my teen-aged son to go
get a job and, when he'd retort with, "there aren't any
jobs," I would mention some of the things I knew were
avaiable: farm work (building fences, etc.); any fast food
chain, stock clerk, etc. He was indignant, at best, when
he thought his mother would suggest such a thing to her
own son...that was not work he was about to go do.


Why should he work? He's living at home with mommy where everything is
free and he's spoiled rotten. When he is old enough, throw his butt out and
watch how fast his work ethic changes. In the meantime, sharply reduce the
money you give him (no car, no fancy school cloths, no expensive shoes, no
music CD's, no stereo, and so on) and tell him to get a job if he wants
those extras. After he throws a temper tantrum for a few months, wears out
of the stuff he has now, and realises you're serious, a job will look much
more appealing to him. He will have to do all this eventually anyway, so now
is a good time to start properly preparing him for his future. Later, once
he has to start paying for them, he'll miss the free food you gave him and
the free shelter you provided.


Now, I meet adults with the same attitude. I am very
thankful for that part of my community with people who
are willing to take on the immense task of the "physical
labor" jobs that many of us wouldn't be caught doing.
Very thankful indeed, for no one else would do them.


Like those other adults you mention, there are many jobs I will not do
today, Kim. I can't afford to do those low paying jobs if I want to feed my
family, live in a decent home, and make the car payments. And I'm certainly
not willing to live twenty to a hotel room or apartment like you see so many
poor illegal immigrants doing today. And, lets face it, I just can't
physically do some of those jobs anymore. But none of that suggests for a
moment that I'm not willing to work. Likewise, none of that suggests there
are no younger non-immigrants willing to do those jobs if the wages were
decent.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote:

OK fine. You wanna do migrant farm labor?


If I could still physically do it, I'd be thrilled to do so, Jim. My
grandmother owned a huge farm in North Carolina and I truly enjoyed going
there every summer during my teenage years to work. I worked side-by-side
with the hired laborers and did every single job they did. However, because
of the low wages for most of those jobs today, I certainly wouldn't do some
those jobs today (even if I could physically do so). However, a few farmers
in the area still pay well and they have no problems finding labor. If I
could do it, I wouldn't mind doing one of those jobs one summer just for the
fun of it.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"N2EY" wrote:

OK fine. You wanna do migrant farm labor?



If I could still physically do it, I'd be thrilled to do so, Jim. My
grandmother owned a huge farm in North Carolina and I truly enjoyed going
there every summer during my teenage years to work. I worked side-by-side
with the hired laborers and did every single job they did. However, because
of the low wages for most of those jobs today, I certainly wouldn't do some
those jobs today (even if I could physically do so). However, a few farmers
in the area still pay well and they have no problems finding labor. If I
could do it, I wouldn't mind doing one of those jobs one summer just for the
fun of it.


Here lies the rub, Dwight! Although I disagree with a lot of your views
on race, you are spot on on this thread sub-subject.

The reason that this is "undesirable" work is simply because the
producers are allowed to get away with paying such low wages. If they
don't even pay minimum, how is a citizen even supposed to legally hold
the job?

Heck, even Wal Mart is doing it now. They've been caught using illegal
immigrant labor on contract for cleaning. (I can just hear Paul Harvey
"You couldn't have a better neighbor, I suppose *they* can't afford to
pay decent wages?

People picked crops as citizens long before it became "undesireable"
work that could only be filled by illegal immigrants.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"charlesb" wrote in message
y.com...

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

Why is it so impossible for this great country to
do what other countries have already done - provide decent wages for
workers, provide decent (not astronomical) profits for business, and
keep
market prices reasonable?

Government does not and cannot provide prosperity.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL



That question came from the far left field. They can not comprehend the
capatalist system. And they deny being socialist. I guess they are just
confused.

Dan/W4NTI

"N2EY" wrote:

It's important to remember that the Social Security system
doesn't just support retirees. Also, there is no "means test"
- folks over a certain age get their SS retirement benefits
no matter how much income they have, whether it be from
investment or employment. (snip)


Many have wrestled with that for years. Some argue the wealthy don't need
the benefits. Others argue if everyone pays into the system, everyone should
collect later in life. In the end, if the goal is to provide a solid
parachute, the current system is not that bad.


Another factor is that as our life expectancies increase,
more and more people outlive their SS contributions.
(snip)


Another serious problem. It wouldn't have been so bad had the government
invested that money over the years so it could bring in a healthy return,
but they didn't. So what do we do now? First of all, money is available
without raising taxes. The government collects billions of dollars in taxes
each year. The question is where that money is spent. Do we buy new military
hardware and finance art shows, or do we provide for the elderly? If we want
to do all of that, we have to raise taxes. If we only want to do some of it,
and cut some, we don't need to raise taxes. Some say cut the benefits for
the elderly and keep the other stuff. I think we should cut some of the
other stuff and keep the benefits for the elderly.


You might want to look up where the military budget
actually goes. A big percentage of it is spent on pay
and benefits to military personnel, retirees and
dependents.


That is less so today. Even though the military budget has continued to
climb, the number of active duty personnel has decreased(less than half what
is was twenty-five years ago). Likewise, benefits for dependents have also
decreased. For example, dependents used to receive free medical care. Today,
they pay fees for any medical treatment, with that treatment additionally
subsidized by a medical plan paid for by the active duty spouse.

There is also a built-in inefficency in the military system today. For
whatever reason, many of the jobs once done by active duty personnel (cooks,
clerks, admin, maintenance, recreation, and medical) are now done by
civilian employees, many earning much higher wages, benefits, and
retirement. Likewise, many technical jobs are now handled by contract
companies, whose employees also often earn much higher wages, benefits, and
retirement. As a result, it is now much more expensive to staff those jobs.

Some of the less skill oriented civilian jobs were once open to
dependents. Sadly, even this is rarely the case anymore. In many places
overseas, for example, dependents can no longer find work simply because
most of the jobs (especially the ones that pay fairly well) are reserved for
civilians (often local nationals). As a result, dependents are usually left
with the part-time jobs at the BX/PX, snack bars, fast food joints, or they
can bag groceries at the commissary.


And people vote for those politicians because they're
"pro-business".


People vote for those "pro-business" candidates because they're mislead
about what "pro-business" really means. If any candidate actually told the
truth and said he supports immigration because that would drive down wages
for everybody and employers like low wages, that candidate probably wouldn't
get more than a handful of votes (and most of those from business owners).
Instead, candidates talk about supporting business to help stimulate the
economy and create jobs. What is never said is that the only "economy" being
stimulated is the profits of big business and the only jobs being created
are low paying ones. Of course, since both political parties support big
business, voters don't have an alternative choice anyway.


You might want to check into what the average person's
standard of living is like in many of those countries -
particularly when it comes to how much a house or car
costs. Dave, K8MN has lived in many foreign countries...


Homes are expensive because there are a lot of people living in a
relatively small area. This happens anytime there are large numbers of
people living in fairly crowded conditions (New York, for example).
Apartment prices are not any higher. We pay more for our apartment now than
we did in Germany (and this one is smaller). As for the cost of
automobiles, I have no idea what Dave is talking about. Where I lived, car
prices were nearly the same as here. If anything, there is a greater
selection of lower priced models (our car prices are getting pretty darn
high).


It's not impossible - the question is, what do you want to
give up? Or should I Say - what are *we* willing to give up?


I've already answer that - "immigration" and "decent (not astronomical)
profits for business."


For example, tonight on NBC there is a popular half hour
TV comedy whose 6 main characters are paid 1 million
dollars each - per episode! Are we willing to give up the
free market that makes such salaries possible?


If it takes that to insure decent wages for all Americans, I'm certainly
willing. But I don't think it is going to take that. Instead, we can cut
immigration and take steps to prevent factories from moving overseas (one
way might be to require American companies that move factories overseas to
pay import tariffs and duties just like any other foreign business). We
could also put caps on corporate profits without much damage to the overall
free market system (Bill Gates, as an extreme example, can survive on a
little less money). Increasing the minimum wage to more realistic levels
might help. And, if companies don't get the hint and try to pass that on to
consumers while keeping profits extraordinarily high instead, we can start
regulating major consumer goods (with the idea in the beginning of driving
prices down). All this has been done, to some degree, in Europe and Asia
with no ill effects. By the way, taxes in Europe have nothing to do with
this discussion. If we continue to insist on no national health care system
and few government aid programs like those seen in Europe, taxes won't have
to be raised.


Are we willing to give up low prices on imported goods
and pay a lot more for American made things? Drive a
smaller car, live in a smaller house, walk more, fly less,
own fewer things, make things last and last because we
can't afford new ones?


That is a gross exaggeration and you know it, Dave. Nothing that drastic
will be required. I've already outlined some of the far less intrusive steps
we can take in the previous paragraph.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"charlesb" wrote:

Government does not and cannot provide prosperity.


But government was created exactly to "...promote the general welfare and
secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity..." In my
opinion, those blessings include a decent living and a fair share in the
benefits of this country for all Americans (not just the wealthy).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Kim W5TIT wrote:

Dwight, I don't know how it is where you are, but here there is no one
willing to do the work a lot of our immigrant population are willing to
do--and do.

I remember many times asking my teen-aged son to go get a job and, when he'd
retort with, "there aren't any jobs," I would mention some of the things I
knew were available: farm work (building fences, etc.); any fast food chain,
stock clerk, etc. He was indignant, at best, when he thought his mother
would suggest such a thing to her own son...that was not work he was about
to go do.

You don't want him working in a Wal Mart, do you ;-)

One thing these low paying crap jobs teach to teenagers is that they should
go to college and graduate so that they can get good jobs that pay well.
Before I graduated college (BSEE) I was worthless on the job market.
Then when graduation was only months away, my value suddenly went
up. And except for the past year or so (I'm voting for the Democrat
candidate,
whoever that might be), my value has been pretty good.

Just be sure that your son majors in something employers want to hire
(not much market for "Ancient Greek Physiology") that makes the trip
to college worthwhile.


Now, I meet adults with the same attitude. I am very thankful for that part
of my community with people who are willing to take on the immense task of
the "physical labor" jobs that many of us wouldn't be caught doing. Very
thankful indeed, for no one else would do them.

Well, I do mow my own lawn.....