[Info-vax] HP stopping VMS paper documentation ?

[AEF]

On Dec 2, 3:31 am, c... at wvnet.edu (George Cook) wrote:
> In article <49436a33-0b2d-4974-93c4-cd6f86749... at b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, AEF <spamsink2... 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?

I'm not aware of Krugman favoring such drastic changes to taxes.

>
> >> 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."

Because the Republicans won't let him. It's amazing he got any
stimulus package through at all. Perhaps if it were larger and better
it would have worked. Krguman claims it was way too small. Republicans
won't let him do anything.

>
> > 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.


I'm not aware of any significant recovery. Maybe I missed it.
>
>
>
> >> 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

What has he demonized that doesn't deserve it? Just asking.

Regulate? What's wrong with regulation?

> 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,

Assuming global warming is a real threat that humans can defeat or at
least reduce:

Instead of throwing money at "green technologies", one should tax CO2.
Then let the market do its magic. Democrats would have no problem with
the tax, and Republicans should rejoice not having the government pick
winners.

> etc. will he force to shut down?  How much will he tax investments,
> small business, cash, the dead, etc?

Lowering taxes won't change any of this.

I thought he favored all forms of energy production, even nuclear.

> >> (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

And how will tax increases change their investments?

> 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

Well, all their current money doesn't seem to be doing any good.
Invest all you want, but if there's no demand it won't help.

Hell, why tax them at all? Why not eliminate all taxes for those who
make above $1 million? Only the little people should pay taxes.

As far as reducing or raising taxes: the real question is what should
those taxes be. There's fairness (subjective/controversial) and what
works best overall  (controversial/subjective). We need a good
compromise between the two. In fact, there may not even be a large
difference.

> 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

And these casinos abuse the poor. The casinos produce no useful
product. They just suck money out of people's pockets.

> 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

Gates caused massive misery with his crappy operating system and other
software.

People like this get super rich only because there are a large number
of people that buy their product. If there were only 1/10 as many
people, these people would be only 1/10 as rich for doing very nearly
the same amount of work. Why should they benefit so much simply
because there are a large number of people? I think this alone
justifies progressive tax rates. They should return a fair amount for
benefiting so much from the system. How much would they make if it
weren't for patents?

> magical, make believe, super natural ability to create more jobs than
> the private sector can with the same money.  NOT.

You need demand. No one is going to create more jobs when there's no
one to buy the extra product. If you had a housekeeper, and he or she
was doing fine job for what you considered fair pay or less, would you
hire another simply because taxes went down? You would if you
increased the size of your house, with or without tax cuts.

> >> 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?

You missed the (!) at the end of my sentence.

> >> 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.

And how has the hundreds of billions of dollars for the Iraq war
affected anything here? Perhaps a few jobs, but not worth the price.

>
> George Cook

AEF