[Info-vax] HP stopping VMS paper documentation ?

[Richard B. Gilbert]

On 12/4/2011 11:24 PM, AEF wrote:
> 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.
>
> Neither do blinders. Neither does putting words in my mouth, i.e.,
> making unwarranted, misleading, and outright false assumptions of what
> I'm saying.
>
> So arguing against conservative dogma is any better? Really? "What
> universe do you live in?"
>
> When something pointed out to me convinces me I'm wrong about
> something, I admit it quickly, say "OK", and move on (okay, maybe not
> every time, but most of the time). I have yet to see anyone else in
> this group do this even once. OK, if not, point it out and I'll
> quickly admit error on my part! I don't mind.
>
> Your claims about "the left playing God" don't hold water. Your ideas
> are somehow not? Actually, I'm beginning to think you know better and
> are just goading me. Just in case that's not the case, I continue:
>
> Just a few things to sum up:
>
> My brother-in-law's father is an accountant with many business
> customers. He said that no one, and he means no one, ever hired
> someone because of a tax break. EVER! (his emphasis) And his son, also
> an accountant and who can be fairly described as a "fiscal
> conservative", agrees.
>
> A change in tax rates for the rich makes a negligible difference to
> their livelihoods. If you didn't tell them they probably wouldn't even
> notice unless they do their own taxes. A similar change in tax rates
> to middle-class and the poor makes enormous differences to them. The
> rich make the most and they make huge amounts of money only because a
> huge number of others exist to buy their products; therefore, I think
> a progressive tax system is quite fair. Try redoing your stats with
> disposable income. Remember Mark Twain when he said: "There are lies,
> there are damned lies, and then there are statistics." OK, statistics
> are not always misleading. OK.
>
> The poor should pay *more* taxes? That's cruel and uncivilized. The
> middle class is already paying 25 - 50% of their income in taxes. (My
> guess.) That's not enough? (OK, married homeowners with children may
> pay less, with single, childless renters picking up the slack.)
>
> Demand. You can invest all you want, you can lower taxes on the rich,
> businesses, and what not, but no one is going to produce product that
> no one will buy. You have yet to explain what's wrong with this claim.
> (Well, maybe I missed it.)
>
> Yes, I know about the negative income tax. Boy, what a horror story!
> People are being payed to stay poor! You're saying that people prefer
> this to a well-paying job? I think not!
>
> Please, there are plenty of huge handouts for rich people and
> corporations: tax breaks and subsidies galore, corporate welfare, etc.
> I even heard, but can hardly believe, that in some cases there are tax
> breaks for companies that move (U.S.) jobs overseas! I don't see you
> railing against any of this.
>
>>>> 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
>
> Do you purposely misunderstand me? I didn't say there was anything
> wrong with becoming super rich; I'm simply saying that for the same
> amount of work and ingenuity, the payoff is proportional to how many
> people are around to buy their product. And this should be taken into
> consideration. You can say "without the rich there'd be no jobs." The
> other side of the coin is "without a lot of other people working those
> jobs and buying the product, there'd be no rich." And those with those
> jobs and those who buy shouldn't be cast aside as irrelevant, or
> forced to put up with crap. And rich sending lobbyists to Congress to
> make laws favorable to their particular industry? This is somehow
> fair? On what planet?
>
> You need to stop putting words in my mouth (or work on your reading
> skills), or stop goading me, whichever apply. If I haven't explained
> my views clearly, I apologize.
>
>>>> 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.
>
> That wouldn't happen. The only difference is that someone like Bill
> Gates would be worth $8 or $9 billion instead of $90 billion. The only
> way your scenario would play out is if they spent all that money! And
> they don't. And I don't care about their stockholders -- that's their
> problem. Sorry, your claim doesn't add up. Charities? Many are just
> sitting on piles of cash. The gov't "forces" them to spend 5% of it
> per year (or something like that) (for charities of the tax-deductible
> type). Many make charitable contributions that are semi-bogus,
> delayed, and what not, to get tax breaks today, or so I read recently.
> Yeah, maybe that's not totally right, but I wouldn't be surprised. One
> of the main problems today is too much cheating, and I mean cheating
> in the most generalized sense.
>
> Also, I don't advocate 90% taxes for anyone. I'm simply pointing out
> that their huge income would not be possible without huge numbers of
> people to buy their product. They would do almost the same work either
> way. The value is roughly proportional to the population, and this
> should be taken into consideration. Because of this and other reasons
> you can't say that the rich earned all this money entirely on their
> own. Put them on a desert island far from civilization and see how
> well they do.
>
> Another "evil" of gov't: Anti-trust legislation. Yes, your world would
> be one of unregulated monopolies, accountable to no one.
>
> No, this is not why socialism and communism fail. There are plenty of
> other reasons.
>
> And I repeat: George Will, a conservative by any measure, once said or
> wrote: Socialism saved capitalism.
>
> The problem (or one of the biggest) is that there is too much cheating
> going on, not too much of what you call "socialism".
>
> I simply cannot believe what you wrote below:
>
>>> Life must be pretty rough for those at the top.
>>
>> So?
>
> See above. Why should the bottom suffer more so that there can be tax
> cuts for those at the top, for which there will no noticeable change
> in their quality of life or the economy? Increasing taxes on the poor
> will reduce demand further, causing cutbacks in production, reduced
> profits, layoffs, etc.
>
>>> 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
>
> You are putting words in my mouth. I clearly meant that taxes should
> be based on disposable income, among other factors; not that everyone
> should have the same disposable income. I think you are simply goading
> me here.
>
>> 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
>
> By what right do you have the power to decide things, either? When you
> say how things should be, that's fine. When I say it, suddenly I am
> pretending to be God.
>
>> 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.
>
> Absolutely ridiculous.
>
>> Not saying I believe in God, but I believe I don't have the right to
>> play God over the lives of others.
> "
>
> And how are you not playing "God"?
>
> OK.
>
> [...]
>>
>> George Cook
>
> AEF

It would be nice if we could talk about VMS.  Or maybe all the 
digressions in this group are due to the fact posters are no longer 
using VMS.