[Info-vax] HP stopping VMS paper documentation ?

[AEF]

On Dec 3, 4:49 am, c... at wvnet.edu (George Cook) wrote:
> In article <d5dcbef6-748e-4f57-a443-be0f2255c... at p2g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>, AEF <spamsink2... at yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > On Dec 2, 3:31=A0am, 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=3DA0pm, c... at wvnet.edu (George Cook) wrote:
> >> >> In article <d40cb818-565d-4d52-8955-c816e0d71... at m7g2000vbc.googlegrou=
> > ps.=3D
> >> > com>, AEF <spamsink2... at yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> >> > On Dec 1, 6:24=3D3DA0pm, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam... at vaxination.ca> wr=
> > ote:
> >> >> >> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > Keep taxes where they are and just stop pissing the money away do=
> > wn =3D
> >> > the
> >> >> >> > ratholes of gov't spending.
>
> >> >> >> In a recent election in Canada, the right proposed corporate tax cu=
> > ts.
>
> >> >> >> The left proposed tax incentives given to companies who create jobs=
> >  lo=3D
> >> > cal=3D3D
> >> >> > ly.
>
> >> >> >> So there are ways where government can provide incentives for priva=
> > te
> >> >> >> enterprise creating jobs that won't involve wasteful government ope=
> > rat=3D
> >> > ion=3D3D
> >> >> > 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, whateve=
> > r.
> >> >> > What possible benefit would it be to you to hire more workers? You'l=
> > l
> >> >> > be spending more to pay more workers to produce the same amount. Sur=
> > e,
> >> >> > 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. =3DA0Prosperity is what creat=
> > es
> >> >> demand. =3DA0Government taxing and borrowing only decreases prosperity
> >> >> which leads to reduced demand. =3DA0It 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. =3DA0FDR believed the complete
> >> >> morons back then who thought the same way as fools like Krugman do tod=
> > ay.
> >> >> FDR raised taxes everytime a recovery started thereby causing the cris=
> > is
> >> >> to last many more years than it should have. =3DA0Any 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. =A0The 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). =A0So, do you and Krugman truly believe enough recovery has
> >> been achieved with 9% unemployment? =A0That 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.
>
> You mean he doesn't want to raise taxes to pre-Bush levels?  I find
> that hard to believe.
>

Yes, he does. I was talking about ratesgoing up to 79% as you said
above.

I would correct the spelling goof above but this ipad screws up when i
try. And no left-right up down arrow keys!

>
>
> >> >> 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. =3DA0NPR reports that the $278,000 figure came from Obama=
> > 's
> >> >> own economists. =3DA0In other words $200,000+ of prosperity was flushe=
> > d
> >> >> down the toilet for each job created. =3DA0The 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. =A0All he wants to do
> >> is tax, spend and regulate. =A0"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.
>
> What???!!!  He had control of Congress.  He got everything the Congress
> wanted (he left it completely up to Congress to create the stimulus bill).
> In fact, he got just about everything he wanted for two years (the one
> exception being the government option in Obamacare).  It wasn't until
> late in 2010 that the Republicans finally put an end to passing more of
> his disastrous policies.  They prevented the drastic tax increases he
> wanted at the end of 2010, and so far have prevented most of his attempts
> to further destroy our economy.  He, however, has been able to continue
> some destruction thru Presidential orders.

Drastic tax increase?

>
> >> > Some say the economy would have been even worse today had there been
> >> > no Obama stimulus.
>
> >> Yes, same say and some don't say. =A0I believe we needed tarp and some
> >> bailouts, but the stimulus is just as likely to have made things worse
> >> instead of better. =A0The 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. =A0He is our economy's greatest bane.
>
> > I'm not aware of any significant recovery. Maybe I missed it.
>
> Then you were not paying attention.  GDP grew at an average 4% for
> three quarters in a row starting with the last quarter of 2009 and
> continued growing at over 2% until 2011.  We just now barely missed
> a double dip recession.  If only Obama had a clue (and had stopped
> listening to fools like Krugman) we would be in a full recovery.
>
Krugman has complained about Obama.


>
>
> >> >> 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. =3DA0This creates demand both up (the business spends more) and d=
> > own
>
> >> > 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. =A0What business group will he
> >> demonize next? =A0What group will he regulate next. =A0What group will
>
> > What has he demonized that doesn't deserve it? Just asking.
>
> No business should be demonized by the President.

Why not?

>
> > Regulate? What's wrong with regulation?
>
> Regulation kills hundreds of thousands of jobs.  His regulations have
> shut down strip mines, drilling in the gulf, vast expanses of federal
> land for off-road recreation (concerns me as a biker even though I
> don't own a trail bike), forced many small businesses to stop offering
> employee health care and to stop hiring when they reach the Obamacare
> employee cut offs, prevented a pipe line from Canada being build (tens
> of thousands of jobs not created), etc.  The list is endless.  Then
> there is the hideous Dodd-Frank bill which has been an even more
> disastrous job destroying bill than the onerous Sarbanes-Oxley.
>


There's bad regulation and good regulation. You said regulation. You
would prefer snake oil from the drug companies rember celebrex, and
that was with regulation. Free for all airwaves? Monopolies left and
right? Child labor? Dangerous work conditions? No drivers licenses? No
vehicle registration.


Please dont give single isolates cases of where the above regulations
failed. Without them things would be hugely worse overall.

> >> he tax next. =A0What businesses will he throw billions at which then
> >> go belly up? =A0How many power plants, oil wells, gas wells, coal mines,
>
> > Assuming global warming is a real threat that humans can defeat or at
> > least reduce:
>
> Global warming is something the US will have nearly zero impact on
> regardless of what it does here.  China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc.
> are the only ones who can make a real difference in the long run.
> This of course assumes that a significant percentage of global warming
> is caused by CO2.
>
> > 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.
>
> I'd agree that throwing money at so-called green technologies is a huge
> waste.  If CO2 is the major problem scientists claim it is, then we
> should have spent the trillion dollar stimulus on building 400+ nuclear
> power plants and on foreign aid to help developing countries build nuclear
> plants.  If we did that, then at least 40% of US CO2 emissions would be
> eliminated within the next ten or so years, and other countries like
> China would be able to at least slow, if not stop, increases in their
> emissions.  Instead the Idiot in Chief flushed the trillion down the
> toilet.
>
So you are blamin obama for what the last several administrations have
also not done?
> >> etc. will he force to shut down? =A0How much will he tax investments,
> >> small business, cash, the dead, etc?
>
> > Lowering taxes won't change any of this.
>
> Non sequitur.
>
> > I thought he favored all forms of energy production, even nuclear.
>
> He is against coal and oil.  He tolerates natural gas.  I think he
> has only mentioned nuclear once (maybe twice), and then he only notes
> it as an option to be considered.


More than once
>
> >> >> (lower prices mean more people will buy the product resulting in a
> >> >> need to hire in order to expand production). =3DA0This is a self-reinf=
> > orcin=3D
> >> > g
> >> >> prosperity expanding cycle. =3DA0Increasing taxes, adding heathcare co=
> > sts
> >> >> (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. =A0Most small and many medium business owners put most of
> >> their money back into their businesses. =A0Rich people don't just
> >> sit on their huge stacks of unspent money; they invest it. =A0Often
>
> > And how will tax increases change their investments?
>
> ????  They will of course have less to invest.  They will invest
> it in non-productive areas like tax free bonds.  They will avoid
> investing in risky startup business, etc. because higher taxes make
> the return too small to take the risk.  Etc. Etc.  This is all Econ
> 101 stuff which even a simpleton like Krugman should be able to
> understand.
>


They invest it in stupid tax shelters.

> >> that investment is in small and medium scale businesses. =A0They buy
> >> the IPO stocks which allow the expansion of smaller businesses into
> >> larger businesses. =A0It'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.
>
> A circular argument which I'm not going to respond to a second
> time.
>

More later.


> > 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.
>
> "The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the
> income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay
> 68 percent of the" federal income tax.  The bottom 50% pay just 3%
> of federal income tax.  These numbers are from 2007; the "rich" pay
> even more now.  There is a problem here, but it is the opposite of
> what you believe.
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes, there is unfairness because the poor pay few taxes.  Most get
> more than what little they do pay (sales tax, etc.) back via their
> federal earned income tax refund.  Is it fair that a significant
> percentage pay less than no tax at all?  Shouldn't all but the poorest
> pay at least some tax?
>
> >> area. =A0It's rich men like Trump who build the huge casinos which employ
> >> many thousands of people. =A0It'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.
>
> They create many jobs which create a great deal of prosperity.  Nobody
> makes the poor buy plane tickets to Vegas or Atlantic city.
>
> >> created many tens of thousands of high paying jobs while getting very
> >> rich. =A0Yes, it's okay to tax them heavily since the government has a
>
> > Gates caused massive misery with his crappy operating system and other
> > software.
>
> I can't disagree, but nobody forces people to buy his crap.
>
> > 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?
>
> What's wrong with someone making something which causes them to become
> super rich?  You would prefer they created only 1/10 the jobs, built
> only 1/10 the factories, created only 1/10 the wealth for their stock
> holders, paid only 1/10 the taxes, spent only 1/10 as much, invested
> only 1/10 as much in startups, donated only 1/10 as much to charity,
> etc?  That logic is why socialism and communism are doomed to fail.
>
> >> magical, make believe, super natural ability to create more jobs than
> >> the private sector can with the same money. =A0NOT.
>
> > 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.
>
> Already answered this.  Government taxing, borrowing and spending
> reduces demand via the resulting reduction in prosperity.  To follow
> your logic, if government taxed 100%, borrowed even more and spent it
> all, we would have 'maximum' prosperity.  That is called communism where
> the population is uniformly poor except for the government overlords.
>
> >> >> Few actually paid (due to loopholes) those high rates in previous
> >> >> properous times, so they have no irrelevance to current rates. =3DA0Bo=
> > th
>
> >> > 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. =A0Taking his cuts
> >> and increases together, the net result was a reduction in taxes.
>
> >> >> Bush created too much prosperity. =3DA0Well, actually, the fed created=
> >  too
> >> >> much by keeping interest rates too low. =3DA0The result was a runaway
>
> >> > Agreed.
>
> >> >> housing boom which, with the help of Barnie Frank and his comrades,
> >> >> caused the mess we are in. =3DA0People forget that Bush kept unemploym=
> > ent
>
> >> > 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. =A0The
> >> 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.
>
> The Iraq war is another topic, but, yes, it created more than a few
> jobs.  The Afghan war was likely a significant reason why the 2001
> recession was so short.
>
> George Cook