[Info-vax] HP stopping VMS paper documentation ?

[George Cook]

In article <49436a33-0b2d-4974-93c4-cd6f86749057 at b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, AEF <spamsink2001 at yahoo.com> writes:
> On Dec 1, 10:22=A0pm, 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=3DA0pm, 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 lo=
> cal=3D
>> > ly.
>>
>> >> So there are ways where government can provide incentives for private
>> >> enterprise creating jobs that won't involve wasteful government operat=
> ion=3D
>> > 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. =A0Prosperity is what creates
>> demand. =A0Government taxing and borrowing only decreases prosperity
>> which leads to reduced demand. =A0It 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. =A0FDR 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. =A0Any jobs created by
> 
> Bzzzt! Krugman said that FDR *erred* in raising taxes because he (FDR)
> thought enough recovery had been achieved.

If true, FDR was a complete idiot.  The texts I've read gave him the
benefit of the doubt in that it was thought at that time that large
tax increases would not have a negative impact on a very weak economy.
Unemployment was 14-15% when he increased rates to 79% in 1936 at 
which point unemployment shot up to 19% (this was called the Recession
of 1937).  So, do you and Krugman truly believe enough recovery has
been achieved with 9% unemployment?  That unemployment is low enough
and growth is strong enough that raising taxes will not harm our
very weak recovery?
 
>> 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. =A0NPR reports that the $278,000 figure came from Obama's
>> own economists. =A0In other words $200,000+ of prosperity was flushed
>> down the toilet for each job created. =A0The 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?

Then why does Obama not try something different.  All he wants to do
is tax, spend and regulate.  "The definition of insanity is doing the
same thing over and over and expecting different results."
 
> Some say the economy would have been even worse today had there been
> no Obama stimulus.

Yes, same say and some don't say.  I believe we needed tarp and some
bailouts, but the stimulus is just as likely to have made things worse
instead of better.  The economy was starting to recover in the spring
of 2009 before the stimulus even had a chance to do anything one way or
the other, but Obama managed to kill that recovery just as he managed to
kill the 2010 summer of recovery, and has nearly killed the current
recovery.  He is our economy's greatest bane.

>>
>> 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. =A0This 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.

Yes, a lot of cash is being held because no one knows what the insane
man in the White House might do next.  What business group will he
demonize next?  What group will he regulate next.  What group will
he tax next.  What businesses will he throw billions at which then
go belly up?  How many power plants, oil wells, gas wells, coal mines,
etc. will he force to shut down?  How much will he tax investments,
small business, cash, the dead, etc?

>> (lower prices mean more people will buy the product resulting in a
>> need to hire in order to expand production). =A0This is a self-reinforcin=
> g
>> prosperity expanding cycle. =A0Increasing 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.

Most small and medium business owners are included in Obama's tax
increases.  Most small and many medium business owners put most of
their money back into their businesses.  Rich people don't just
sit on their huge stacks of unspent money; they invest it.  Often
that investment is in small and medium scale businesses.  They buy
the IPO stocks which allow the expansion of smaller businesses into
larger businesses.  It's a rich man who is rebuilding the twin towers
area.  It's rich men like Trump who build the huge casinos which employ
many thousands of people.  It's rich men like Gates and Jobs who have
created many tens of thousands of high paying jobs while getting very
rich.  Yes, it's okay to tax them heavily since the government has a
magical, make believe, super natural ability to create more jobs than
the private sector can with the same money.  NOT.

>>
>> Few actually paid (due to loopholes) those high rates in previous
>> properous times, so they have no irrelevance to current rates. =A0Both
> 
> Evidently, these very high rates combined with the loopholes are
> correlated with prosperity! So I guess we should try it again. (!)

You want to return to the days of loopholes where the rich often
paid no tax at all, and where the middle class paid lots of tax
due to not being able to afford the lawyers needed to use the
loopholes?
 
>> JFK (a liberal) and Reagan had good economic success thru lowering
>> taxes.
> 
> Reagan raised some taxes, too.

Yes, he reduced some of his tax cuts which pulled us out of the recession,
but he waited until the recovery was fully underway.  Taking his cuts
and increases together, the net result was a reduction in taxes.
 
>>
>> Bush created too much prosperity. =A0Well, actually, the fed created too
>> much by keeping interest rates too low. =A0The result was a runaway
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> housing boom which, with the help of Barnie Frank and his comrades,
>> caused the mess we are in. =A0People 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!

The deficit as a percent of GDP was not shooting up until 2008.  The
deficit in 2008 shot up due to tarp and bailouts, but most of that money
has been given back with the result that his actual last year deficit was
not historically high.


George Cook