[Info-vax] HP stopping VMS paper documentation ?

[AEF]

On Dec 1, 10:22 pm, c... at wvnet.edu (George Cook) wrote:
> In article <d40cb818-565d-4d52-8955-c816e0d71... at m7g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, AEF <spamsink2... at yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 6:24=A0pm, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam... at vaxination.ca> wrote:
> >> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>
> >> > Keep taxes where they are and just stop pissing the money away down the
> >> > ratholes of gov't spending.
>
> >> In a recent election in Canada, the right proposed corporate tax cuts.
>
> >> The left proposed tax incentives given to companies who create jobs local=
> > ly.
>
> >> So there are ways where government can provide incentives for private
> >> enterprise creating jobs that won't involve wasteful government operation=
> > s.
>
> > We've had tax cuts under Bush and I don't see any improvement! I don't
> > see any success from tax incentives either. Taxes were higher during
> > prosperous times.
>
> > Put yourself in the position of a business. Your workers are keeping
> > up with demand. OK. Now, implement tax cuts, tax incentives, whatever.
> > What possible benefit would it be to you to hire more workers? You'll
> > be spending more to pay more workers to produce the same amount. Sure,
> > the new workers will cost you less per worker, but so what? You're
> > still spending more to produce the same. Now, if demand goes up,
> > you'll need to hire regardless of tax changes.
>
> > There's lots of work that needs to be done: repair bridges, roads,
> > etc. Clean up the NYC subway. Hiring people to do these jobs will
> > increase demand.
>
> Too many fallacies to even address here.  Prosperity is what creates
> demand.  Government taxing and borrowing only decreases prosperity
> which leads to reduced demand.  It is impossible for a government to
> tax and spend an economy to prosperity as has been proved by every
> President who tried it including FDR.  FDR believed the complete
> morons back then who thought the same way as fools like Krugman do today.
> FDR raised taxes everytime a recovery started thereby causing the crisis
> to last many more years than it should have.  Any jobs created by

Bzzzt! Krugman said that FDR *erred* in raising taxes because he (FDR)
thought enough recovery had been achieved.

> excess government spending are artificial, temporary and very costly.
> Each job (very few of which were high paying or permanent) created or
> saved by the Obama stimulus cost $312,500, $278,000, $250,000 or
> $200,000 tax (well, actually borrowed) dollars depending on various
> assumptions.  NPR reports that the $278,000 figure came from Obama's
> own economists.  In other words $200,000+ of prosperity was flushed
> down the toilet for each job created.  The resulting reduction in
> demand and increase in unemployment speaks for itself.

You speak on of the stimulus that was done. Are there not other ways
to do it? Two Space Shuttles blew up. But changes were made and then
they worked. How many materials did Edison try to invent the light
bulb?

Some say the economy would have been even worse today had there been
no Obama stimulus.

>
> Proper tax incentives to business are not meant to allow more hiring,
> but instead are meant to allow upgrading of equipment, building new
> plants, opening new stores, lowering the cost of the finished product,
> etc.  This creates demand both up (the business spends more) and down

I read that corporations are sitting on piles of cash. How would tax
incentives change anything? Why don't they spend that cash on upgrades
to lower costs and what not. Instead they are lowering the cost of the
finished product via layoffs.

> (lower prices mean more people will buy the product resulting in a
> need to hire in order to expand production).  This is a self-reinforcing
> prosperity expanding cycle.  Increasing taxes, adding heathcare costs
> (Obamacare) and creating endless job killing regulations results in a
> self-reinforcing prosperity reducing cycle like we are currently in.

The increased taxes would be on rich people who don't spend all their
money anyway. I don't see how it would change their spending habits.

>
> Few actually paid (due to loopholes) those high rates in previous
> properous times, so they have no irrelevance to current rates.  Both

Evidently, these very high rates combined with the loopholes are
correlated with prosperity! So I guess we should try it again. (!)

> JFK (a liberal) and Reagan had good economic success thru lowering
> taxes.

Reagan raised some taxes, too.

>
> Bush created too much prosperity.  Well, actually, the fed created too
> much by keeping interest rates too low.  The result was a runaway

Agreed.

> housing boom which, with the help of Barnie Frank and his comrades,
> caused the mess we are in.  People forget that Bush kept unemployment

That was part of it, not all of it.

> near 5% (i.e., full employment) at least partly with tax cuts until
> the bubble burst.

The bubble burst on his watch, so he kept unemployment low only up to
that point. And the deficit shot up to the moon under his watch. So
the result of the Bush administration was fewer jobs and higher debt!

> George Cook

AEF