[Info-vax] HP stopping VMS paper documentation ?

[AEF]

On Dec 4, 5:51 am, c... at wvnet.edu (George Cook) wrote:
> 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-f6b9fc5f2... at v5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, AEF <spamsink2... 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.

Uh, you missed the part when I said this is a war that should have
never been. It was your hero, Mr. Bush, who blundered so badly. Maybe
if he didn't do so the debt wouldn't be such a big problem.

>
> George Cook

You have understood some of what I say and/or your responses are
intentionally so and therefore not addressing my points.

AEF