[Info-vax] HP stopping VMS paper documentation ?

[George Cook]

Arguing against leftist dogma is futile, so I will respond no more after
this.  Kool-Aid has no antidote.

In article <ec6f9b09-758d-4120-9d38-f6b9fc5f2a8b at v5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, AEF <spamsink2001 at yahoo.com> writes:
> On Dec 3, 4:49=A0am, 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=3DA0am, c... at wvnet.edu (George Cook) wrote:
>> >> In article <49436a33-0b2d-4974-93c4-cd6f86749... at b32g2000yqn.googlegro=
> ups=3D
>> > .com>, AEF <spamsink2... at yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> >> > On Dec 1, 10:22=3D3DA0pm, c... at wvnet.edu (George Cook) wrote:
>> >> >> In article <d40cb818-565d-4d52-8955-c816e0d71... at m7g2000vbc.googleg=
> rou=3D
>> > ps.=3D3D
>> >> > com>, AEF <spamsink2... at yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> >> >> > On Dec 1, 6:24=3D3D3DA0pm, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam... at vaxination.c=
> a> wr=3D
>> > ote:
>> >> >> >> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> > Keep taxes where they are and just stop pissing the money away=
>  do=3D
>> > wn =3D3D
>> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > ratholes of gov't spending.
>>
>> >> >> >> In a recent election in Canada, the right proposed corporate tax=
>  cu=3D
>> > ts.
>>
>> >> >> >> The left proposed tax incentives given to companies who create j=
> obs=3D
>> > =A0lo=3D3D
>> >> > cal=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > ly.
>>
>> >> >> >> So there are ways where government can provide incentives for pr=
> iva=3D
>> > te
>> >> >> >> enterprise creating jobs that won't involve wasteful government =
> ope=3D
>> > rat=3D3D
>> >> > ion=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > s.
>>
>> >> >> > We've had tax cuts under Bush and I don't see any improvement! I =
> don=3D
>> > 't
>> >> >> > see any success from tax incentives either. Taxes were higher dur=
> ing
>> >> >> > prosperous times.
>>
>> >> >> > Put yourself in the position of a business. Your workers are keep=
> ing
>> >> >> > up with demand. OK. Now, implement tax cuts, tax incentives, what=
> eve=3D
>> > r.
>> >> >> > What possible benefit would it be to you to hire more workers? Yo=
> u'l=3D
>> > l
>> >> >> > be spending more to pay more workers to produce the same amount. =
> Sur=3D
>> > e,
>> >> >> > the new workers will cost you less per worker, but so what? You'r=
> e
>> >> >> > 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. =3D3DA0Prosperity is what =
> creat=3D
>> > es
>> >> >> demand. =3D3DA0Government taxing and borrowing only decreases prosp=
> erity
>> >> >> which leads to reduced demand. =3D3DA0It is impossible for a govern=
> ment =3D
>> > to
>> >> >> tax and spend an economy to prosperity as has been proved by every
>> >> >> President who tried it including FDR. =3D3DA0FDR believed the compl=
> ete
>> >> >> morons back then who thought the same way as fools like Krugman do =
> tod=3D
>> > ay.
>> >> >> FDR raised taxes everytime a recovery started thereby causing the c=
> ris=3D
>> > is
>> >> >> to last many more years than it should have. =3D3DA0Any jobs create=
> d by
>>
>> >> > Bzzzt! Krugman said that FDR *erred* in raising taxes because he (FD=
> R)
>> >> > thought enough recovery had been achieved.
>>
>> >> If true, FDR was a complete idiot. =3DA0The texts I've read gave him t=
> he
>> >> 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). =3DA0So, do you and Krugman truly believe enough recovery ha=
> s
>> >> been achieved with 9% unemployment? =3DA0That unemployment is low enou=
> gh
>> >> 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? =A0I find
>> that hard to believe.
>>
>> >> >> excess government spending are artificial, temporary and very costl=
> y.
>> >> >> 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. =3D3DA0NPR reports that the $278,000 figure came from =
> Obama=3D
>> > 's
>> >> >> own economists. =3D3DA0In other words $200,000+ of prosperity was f=
> lushe=3D
>> > d
>> >> >> down the toilet for each job created. =3D3DA0The resulting reductio=
> n 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. =3DA0All he wants to =
> do
>> >> is tax, spend and regulate. =3DA0"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???!!! =A0He had control of Congress. =A0He got everything the Congre=
> ss
>> 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). =A0It wasn't until
>> late in 2010 that the Republicans finally put an end to passing more of
>> his disastrous policies. =A0They 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. =A0He, however, has been able to continue
>> some destruction thru Presidential orders.
>>
>> >> > Some say the economy would have been even worse today had there been
>> >> > no Obama stimulus.
>>
>> >> Yes, same say and some don't say. =3DA0I believe we needed tarp and so=
> me
>> >> bailouts, but the stimulus is just as likely to have made things worse
>> >> instead of better. =3DA0The economy was starting to recover in the spr=
> ing
>> >> of 2009 before the stimulus even had a chance to do anything one way o=
> r
>> >> 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. =3DA0He is our economy's greatest bane.
>>
>> > I'm not aware of any significant recovery. Maybe I missed it.
>>
>> Then you were not paying attention. =A0GDP 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. =A0We just now barely missed
>> a double dip recession. =A0If only Obama had a clue (and had stopped
>> listening to fools like Krugman) we would be in a full recovery.
>>
>> >> >> Proper tax incentives to business are not meant to allow more hirin=
> g,
>> >> >> but instead are meant to allow upgrading of equipment, building new
>> >> >> plants, opening new stores, lowering the cost of the finished produ=
> ct,
>> >> >> etc. =3D3DA0This creates demand both up (the business spends more) =
> and d=3D
>> > 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 upgrad=
> es
>> >> > to lower costs and what not. Instead they are lowering the cost of t=
> he
>> >> > 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. =3DA0What business group will he
>> >> demonize next? =3DA0What group will he regulate next. =3DA0What group =
> will
>>
>> > What has he demonized that doesn't deserve it? Just asking.
>>
>> No business should be demonized by the President.
>>
>> > Regulate? What's wrong with regulation?
>>
>> Regulation kills hundreds of thousands of jobs. =A0His 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. =A0The list is endless. =A0Then
>> there is the hideous Dodd-Frank bill which has been an even more
>> disastrous job destroying bill than the onerous Sarbanes-Oxley.
>>
>> >> he tax next. =3DA0What businesses will he throw billions at which then
>> >> go belly up? =3DA0How many power plants, oil wells, gas wells, coal mi=
> nes,
>>
>> > 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. =A0China, 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. =A0If 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 nuclea=
> r
>> plants. =A0If 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. =A0Instead the Idiot in Chief flushed the trillion down the
>> toilet.
>>
>> >> etc. will he force to shut down? =3DA0How 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. =A0He tolerates natural gas. =A0I think he
>> has only mentioned nuclear once (maybe twice), and then he only notes
>> it as an option to be considered.
>>
>> >> >> (lower prices mean more people will buy the product resulting in a
>> >> >> need to hire in order to expand production). =3D3DA0This is a self-=
> reinf=3D
>> > orcin=3D3D
>> >> > g
>> >> >> prosperity expanding cycle. =3D3DA0Increasing taxes, adding heathca=
> re co=3D
>> > 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 thei=
> r
>> >> > 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. =3DA0Most small and many medium business owners put most of
>> >> their money back into their businesses. =3DA0Rich people don't just
>> >> sit on their huge stacks of unspent money; they invest it. =3DA0Often
>>
>> > And how will tax increases change their investments?
>>
>> ???? =A0They will of course have less to invest. =A0They will invest
>> it in non-productive areas like tax free bonds. =A0They will avoid
>> investing in risky startup business, etc. because higher taxes make
>> the return too small to take the risk. =A0Etc. Etc. =A0This is all Econ
>> 101 stuff which even a simpleton like Krugman should be able to
>> understand.
>>
>> >> that investment is in small and medium scale businesses. =3DA0They buy
>> >> the IPO stocks which allow the expansion of smaller businesses into
>> >> larger businesses. =3DA0It's a rich man who is rebuilding the twin tow=
> ers
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> > 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. =A0The bottom 50% pay just 3%
>> of federal income tax. =A0These numbers are from 2007; the "rich" pay
>> even more now. =A0There is a problem here, but it is the opposite of
>> what you believe.
> 
> Life must be pretty rough for those at the top.

So?
 
> What's more important is disposable income.

So, everyone should be forced to have the same amount of disposable
income?  Who made you (and your comrades) God?  You and your comrades
have by what right the power to decide who can keep how much of their
earned disposable income?  So, you claim the god like power to determine
who can have what?  That is what separates the right from the left.
The left believes it has the power of god, and the right doesn't.

Not saying I believe in God, but I believe I don't have the right to
play God over the lives of others.

>>
>> > 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 =A0(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. =A0Most get
>> more than what little they do pay (sales tax, etc.) back via their
>> federal earned income tax refund. =A0Is it fair that a significant
>> percentage pay less than no tax at all? =A0Shouldn't all but the poorest
>> pay at least some tax?
>>
> 
> Illogical. You lost me.

You say that it is illogical that many pay negative taxes?  I agree
completely.  You don't even know what the Federal earned income tax
refund is?  Our government actually pays people to keep their incomes
small.  You didn't know that?  What universe do you live in?
 
>> >> area. =3DA0It's rich men like Trump who build the huge casinos which e=
> mploy
>> >> many thousands of people. =3DA0It's rich men like Gates and Jobs who h=
> ave
>>
>> > 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. =A0Nobody
>> makes the poor buy plane tickets to Vegas or Atlantic city.
>>
> Nonsense. Only the owners benefit. Yeah, there a some jobs created,
> but it's an overall bad.

I thought the left was against making moral judgements?  So, you accuse
the right of imposing morality on people (abortion, religion, etc.),
but you want to impose your own morality when it comes to gambling
for no other reason than someone makes a profit? 
 
> So it's okay to abuse people because they are not bright enough? Why
> not let minors gamble. Hell, get rid of the government altogether and
> give everyone a gun. Let the those who draw the fastest shoot the
> others.

For once you actually said something intelligent; yes, anyone who
is mentally competent should have a gun.  You believe you have the
right to prevent someone from spending their money as they desire?
You (and your ilk) say the right is wrong to try to impose morality
on people, then you turn around and do the exact same thing?  Ever
heard the word 'hypocrite'?
 
>> >> created many tens of thousands of high paying jobs while getting very
>> >> rich. =3DA0Yes, 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.
> 
> Businesses for job applicants to submit resumes as Word docs. Make
> that force. Icant work editing inthis stupid ipad. The fact that
> Windows is so-dominant practically forces others to use it to be
> compatible,

So?

>> > 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? =A0You 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? =A0That logic is why socialism and communism are doomed to fail.
>> 
> You misunderstood me.

No, I am quite sure I understood you perfectly.  If the number of people
wanting it is small enough, then no limit should be placed on someone
profiting by offering a product (or service), but if the number of people
wanting the product is too large, then the producer should be penalized
because he created something too many people wanted.

>> >> magical, make believe, super natural ability to create more jobs than
>> >> the private sector can with the same money. =3DA0NOT.
>>
>> > 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. =A0Government taxing, borrowing and spending
>> reduces demand via the resulting reduction in prosperity. =A0To follow
> 
> Spending increases demand.

No.  Government taxing and borrowing directly reduces prosperity, while
government spending creates very little prosperity.  The best possible
outcome of government interference is a zero effect on prosperity while
the most likely outcome is a reduction in prosperity.  Demand is based on
the amount of prosperity.  The simple fact that government is usually a
major drag on the creation of prosperity is the main reason that
government should be no bigger than needed to provide for security and
basic infrastructure.
  
>> your logic, if government taxed 100%, borrowed even more and spent it
>> all, we would have 'maximum' prosperity. =A0That is called communism wher=
> e
>> the population is uniformly poor except for the government overlords.
> 
> You can overdo a good idea. You can put too much salt on your food.

No, you can over do a very bad idea.  That is the point.

>> >> >> Few actually paid (due to loopholes) those high rates in previous
>> >> >> properous times, so they have no irrelevance to current rates. =3D3=
> DA0Bo=3D
>> > 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 recess=
> ion=3D
>> > ,
>> >> but he waited until the recovery was fully underway. =3DA0Taking his c=
> uts
>> >> and increases together, the net result was a reduction in taxes.
>>
>> >> >> Bush created too much prosperity. =3D3DA0Well, actually, the fed cr=
> eated=3D
>> > =A0too
>> >> >> much by keeping interest rates too low. =3D3DA0The result was a run=
> away
>>
>> >> > Agreed.
>>
>> >> >> housing boom which, with the help of Barnie Frank and his comrades,
>> >> >> caused the mess we are in. =3D3DA0People forget that Bush kept unem=
> ploym=3D
>> > 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 t=
> o
>> >> > 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. =3DA0T=
> he
>> >> deficit in 2008 shot up due to tarp and bailouts, but most of that mon=
> ey
>> >> 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. =A0The Afghan war was likely a significant reason why the 2001
>> recession was so short.
> 
> 
> And it killed a lot of people. And thousands of Americans got horrible
> injuries for life. Aside from that, how much spending per job was
> this? And you say you are against gov't spending. This is the mother
> load of all recent government spending!

The constitution could not be more clear: the main responsibility of
the federal government is national security.  You believe otherwise?
Yes, the national government sometimes screws up in making war, but
that has nothing do with with anything other than the taxes and lives
required to support the wars.  When someone can't defend domestic
spending (like you right now), they always point to a completely
unrelated issue like national security spending.

> I, for one, don't want to send Americans to their deaths and receive
> horrible injuries in a war that never should have been just for a few
> jobs and lots of profits for the military industrial complex. And what
> about its contribution to the federal debt.

War (Irag or otherwise) has no relation to wasteful and economically
destructive domestic spending.  You believe that screwing up on security
spending is justification for screwing up on domestic spending?  That
is insanity.


George Cook