Path: ccsf.homeunix.org!ccsf.homeunix.org!news1.wakwak.com!nf1.xephion.ne.jp!onion.ish.org!news.daionet.gr.jp!news.yamada.gr.jp!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!shelby.stanford.edu!not-for-mail From: mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net Newsgroups: fj.life.in-japan Subject: Re: Reagan's funeral Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:41:41 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Subtlties R'nt Us Lines: 60 Sender: Mike Fester Message-ID: References: <2innd8Foqns8U1@uni-berlin.de> Reply-To: mtfester@netscape.net NNTP-Posting-Host: haven.stanford.edu X-Trace: news.Stanford.EDU 1087306901 18536 171.67.16.19 (15 Jun 2004 13:41:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@news.stanford.edu User-Agent: tin/1.5.12-20020311 ("Toxicity") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.26 (i686)) Xref: ccsf.homeunix.org fj.life.in-japan:14556 Ernest Schaal wrote: > in article calq3e$lp5$2@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at > mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/15/04 12:23 PM: >> Ernest Schaal wrote: >>> in article calmvr$js6$2@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at >>> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/15/04 11:30 AM: >> >>> And why is flattening it not a good thing? >> >> I actually don't recall placing a value judgement on it. >> >> Could you find that post for me, please? >> >> I DO recall saying that the very rich benefit disproportionately from >> government services, but that's not quite the same thing, is it, Mr >> Schaal? > Let me get this right. I made a simple declarative statement. Bozos identifying themselves with political parties (the good Mssrs Williams and Gerry) then each decided that a simple declarative sentence was an obviously misleading statement espousing the very opposite viewpoint they themselves held, which is opposite to each other's view, as it turns out. Thus, each is saying I am trumpetting the stance of the other. Whacky. > As to your statement that the very rich benefit disproportionately from > government services, that is true only if one views the benefit on a per > capita basis. > For instance, Bill Gates receives a lot more government services than a > person who is among the working poor, but the ratio of government services > received to taxes collected would be a lot smaller than for the working > poor. In order to protect his wealth, he requires roads, an education system (for him to acquire educated workers), large-scale and long-term stability (fiscal and political), interaction with other stable corporate and political entities, armed protection of a vast array of assets (police, armed forces, various government agencies looking into misuse of his funds by those trusted by him to invest them), building regulators to ensure that someone doesn't build a polyamine-extraction facility upwind from his very expensive abode, etc. The very poor require a check-cashing service to "protect" their wealth. The government services they recieve are more along the lines of survival based, and their existence benefits Mr Gates greatly by keeping them from getting too restive and desparate and doing to Mr Gates what people have historically done to those they perceive (rightly or wrongly) as taking advantage of an unfair system. In sum, Mr Gates benefits from almost ALL government services, whether a check is handed to him or not. Mike