in article catduj$o00$5@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/18/04 9:45 AM:

> Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
>> in article cas6mk$n4e$3@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
>> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/17/04 10:35 PM:
> 
>>>>> And he get a LOT of benefits.
> 
>>>> Yes, he gets a lot of benefits from the money he has earned, but no he does
>>>> not get a LOT of benefits from the US government. On the contrary, a large
> 
>>> Really?
> 
>>> So he gets no benefits from the funding of roads (which he and his
>>> companies will benefit from), school systems, defense, health, research,
>>> public safety, etc?
> 
>> He benefits, as everyone else does. He benefits a tad more than the poor,
> 
> He gets MANY benefits, including GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.

Your argument is a tad strange. A government contract is a sale of goods
and/or services, it is not a "benefit." If I sell you something, you are not
giving me a "benefit," you are getting something in return.

I think to use your words more carefully.

> 
>> but no where as much as the difference in tax levels. I explained this
>> before, but you failed miserabley.
> 
> What is it about (eg) government contracts that confuses you? He has
> various contracts with the municipal, state, and federal government
> branches directly, as well as contracts with various agencies REGULATED
> by the federal government, and his wealth is in and of itself DEPENDENT
> on a stable US government.
> 
> Sorry, do you need all 1-syllable words?

No, you need to use words correctly, with their accepted meanings instead of
trying to twist them into something else, like Humpty Dumpty did.

As pointed out above, a contract is not a "benefit." Do you thank your
employer (assuming you are employed) because of the "benefit" received my
getting wages?